Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 16

What's preventing passenger airships from coming back?

Helium prices? Inability to make H2 safe? Time to recoup vehicle cost? If they came back would bigger than Hindenberg (up to a point) offer economy of scale for some routes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

For passenger use, the fact that speeds would be significantly lower than that of jet planes is a problem. There have been a number of experiments with Hybrid airships for cargo use... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If tickets can be made cheaper than jets without making it too crowded then pensioners who don't need to be anywhere anytime soon might want a go. Whether there's enough travel value seekers with a lot of time on their hands I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless it was shown there is a niche in the market that passengers would fill at super premium prices, I don't see that the development costs could ever be paid back. And I don't think you ever get past the Hindenburg.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As per AnonMoos' comment, cargo airships seem more likely to make a resurgence than passenger ones - see [1] and [2] - though passenger airships as a tourist experience (rather than purely a means of getting from A to B) might become more common than currently - e.g. see [3]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Passenger planes are very effective, fast and reliable today. Airships are ideal for Safari and alike touristic or even scientific surveillance since they are able to very silently hover and move. All other person transport cases where practicality, time and cost become relevant, helicopters and planes are simply better. --Kharon (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Hindenburg-class airships competed against ocean liners, not really planes (there were no scheduled commercial trans-Atlantic flights until just before WW2), which wouldn't be the case for an airship today, of course. Airships could theoretically use less fuel than jets do... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

TRAVELLERS could soon be flying in luxury blimps with see-through bottoms and double bedrooms (July 2018) reference the British Airlander 10 hybrid airship. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Prince consort and Queen consort

Why is the term Prince consort often used for a husband of a reigning queen, but Queen consort usually used for a wife of a reigning king? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 16#Prince Consort. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

US government shutdown

How can it possibly be legal to require government employees to work without being paid? I heard there was a suit filed... But are the courts operating? The situation seems nuts. Thanks. 2601:648:8200:4741:14A5:BE86:C93C:C276 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The government employees will be paid in the future, whether they work or not.
Sleigh (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The government employees and contractors are under the aegis of the executive branch; in the U.S. the three branches of government operate more-or-less independently, with each responsible for a different aspect of governing. The legislative (congress) writes laws. They are running fine, and they and their staff are getting paid. The judicial (courts) interpret laws and try cases where the laws are violated, and as far as I know, they are still getting paid. The executive branch administers the laws set by congress, mostly by spending money to do things congress told them to do. If congress doesn't appropriate them any money, they don't get paid. When we use "government shutdown" what we mean is that the budget has expired to pay the executive branch employees and contractors, so they can't be paid. The government, being the government, can require whatever they want, and they can require certain "vital employees" to work even without pay, mostly security personnel. This is a partial shutdown, because there are some parts of the administration that have been funded by separate bills, but those parts funded by the Omnibus spending bill which expired recently are basically not being paid. The most recent such bill was the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 which would have expired on September 30, 2018, however it was extended via a series of Continuing resolutions until a month ago, when Trump announced his intention to veto any future appropriation bill that did not include funding for a border wall, and Senate leader Mitch McConnell agreed to support him in that endeavour. The reason those "vital employees" continue to work without pay is that if they don't, they get fired, and then the government would just hire someone else to do their job. There are lawsuits pending regarding the legality of this: [4]. --Jayron32 13:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There are, unfortunately, only so many problems that can be solved with pizza. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that like "it is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes"? --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if we tried hamberders next time it'll work better? --Jayron32 16:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, "essential" federal employees continue to work because they're dedicated to their job and their mission — although reliable reporting has noted that many are beginning to simply not show up/call in sick because they have to find other work to pay the bills. The government can't just "hire someone else to do their job" at this point — for one, who the hell is going to accept a job that doesn't include pay? Moreover, human resources functions are not "essential" and those staffs have all been entirely furloughed, so the physical process of hiring can't take place. Never mind that it generally takes six months for a federal agency to hire a new employee, let alone an employee requiring such deep training and experience as weather forecasting or air traffic control. At a certain point, these things are going to start breaking down. We've missed one paycheck at this point — that's hard enough. Miss two or three or four paychecks? Those "essential" employees are going to start walking en masse because their mortgage payments aren't shut down, and those of us who are furloughed are just going to find other permanent employment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Why say no when I already pre-agreed with you? Seems odd to take a contrary tone. I never said that anything you just stated was wrong, nor do I disagree with any of it. --Jayron32 20:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What I was saying "no" to was the idea that federal employees are showing up to work because they don't want to be fired and replaced. There's literally no way to replace anyone who quits until the shutdown's over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

They could still be fired for not showing up, though. Replacement would come later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Put yourself, say, in a TSA field manager's shoes. Firing someone for missing a day or two of work in the middle of a shutdown is only going to make your job (keeping a security checkpoint operating) *more* difficult, because that person is now not going to show up to work without pay *at all* as opposed to at least showing up three days a week. And as there is no way to replace that person until long after the shutdown is over, your choice is to ruthlessly enforce rules and rapidly attrite your available workforce, or operate in a manner which recognizes that your people have to be able to pay for gas to get to work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that they do want to be fired? That seems odd? I understand the dedication to work, and belief in one's mission, but people also need paychecks eventually, and fear of unemployment is a complicating factor in why people stay in unfriendly working conditions, including reporting to work even without the expectation of pay. Just "not working" is not an option for most people. --Jayron32 13:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm saying many people are willing to work with only the promise of future pay because they care about their missions and their work. The question is, how long can people afford to work without pay before they literally have to quit to find work that actually provides a paycheck *now*? Historically, federal workers like myself were willing to ride it out because these shutdowns were relatively short and things would work out. We're in completely uncharted waters at this point, going on a month. The number of people who can afford to spend their days working and *not* have a paycheck coming in for that work will start to drop precipitously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've never said that people were not willing to work with only the promise of future pay because they care about their missions and their work. At no point did I say that people did not have that as a reason for working. I also said that people who don't follow the orders of their superiors and report to work can be terminated with cause (aka fired), and that was a reason for working as well. There are close to a million people affected by this furlough, and it can be certain that at least some of them do show up to work because they need to keep their jobs once the furlough is over, and if they didn't report to work, they fear being fired. Those same people can also believe in the mission of their job. People are quite capable of both believing in their work, and be in fear of losing their jobs for not reporting to work. Also, insofar as there are lots of workers, there could be some who are motivated only by the fear, and not the love, and also some too who are only motivated by the love, and not the fear. People can have different motivations. They aren't all identical to you. --Jayron32 14:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Earlier this week, Jimmy Fallon's monologue included a comment that unpaid federal workers might be going to Mexico to look for jobs! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Federal jobs offer some very valuable benefits like very good health care and retirement plan (Federal Employees Retirement System), job security and many special bonuses from companies who use that to build up goodwill with the federal system or just value federal Employees as most reliable customers. So these jobs turn out to be very attractive no matter they can also bring some problems. Anyway, general companies sometimes also run into financial trouble and cant pay their workers for some time or suddenly close down with owning you 2-3 month payment. So government shutdowns are far from the worst things that can happen to Employees. --Kharon (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Usually that's because the business in question literally doesn't have the cash in the bank to pay its employees, and it is waiting on some future influx to make them solvent again. That's not what is going on here. The U.S. government has the cash on hand. There's plenty of fully liquid assets in the treasury, just sitting there, that could be payed out. They're just refusing to pay their employees as a bargaining chip in a petty fight over building a border wall. --Jayron32 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 17

Why is Lampedusa the goal of many migrants coming from Africa but not Pantelleria?

During the European migrant crisis but also before, people trying to migrate to Europe have been using ships from Lybia to reach Italian or Maltese islands, especially Lampedusa which is some 80 km from the African coast of Algeria Tunisia. Pantelleria, another Italian island, is just under 60 km away from Algeria Tunisia. So why do migrants risk trips from Lybia to Lampedusa instead of from Algeria Tunisia to Pantelleria? Is Algeria Tunisia that effective in preventing migrants from coming into the country? Our article on the migrant crisis does not mention either Algeria Tunisia or Pantelleria which I find odd (and potentially needs expansion). Regards SoWhy 10:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you might find this article and report by a UN-affiliated NGO useful: [5]. It says Tunisia is a destination for migrants rather than a waypoint and has some discussion of visa requirements and penalties that play into this. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The answer seems to be because Lampedusa has the infrastructure to deal with the immigrants, and Pantelleria does not. Lampedusa is home to the Lampedusa immigrant reception center, which is designed to house and process migrants who are coming to Europe. Pantelleria has no such facilities, as far as I can tell. --Jayron32 17:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That might be a point but wouldn't most refugees care more about arriving somewhere in Europe save rather than where there might be facilities? After all, they can expect to be transported to the facilities once on Italian soil. Regards SoWhy 17:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess that the Lampedusa facilities are a consequence of the immigration, not a cause. --Error (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

From my ignorance, some parts of the Libyan coast are unwatched or controlled by accomplices of the smugglers. On the other side, the Tunisian Coast Guard operates normally. --Error (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Where can I find detailed information about the seizing of the Zeiss optical works to Russia as war reparations?

It's briefly gone over in the articles on Carl Zeiss AG ("As part of the World War II reparations, the Soviet army took most of the existing Zeiss factories and tooling back to the Soviet Union as the Kiev camera works.") as well as Kiev (brand) ("After the war had ended, the Soviet Union demanded new sets of Contax tools from the original toolmaker in Dresden...") as well as referenced in this overview of Kiev rangefinder cameras and this page about Contax history but I'd like some better sources on this particular facet of postwar reparations. Does anyone know of better sources I could read over, or at least where to start looking? Thanks, Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

See John H. Noble for part of it... AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this account in International Law Reports is the most detailed I’ve found. Some other sources with brief mentions, in case that helps: The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (one paragraph), An Economic History of the U.S.S.R. (on the context of the reparations in general), The East German Economy, 1945-2010 (mention of Zeiss continuing in Dresden). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You best search under "VEB Carl Zeiss Jena" for the time after the war until Germany was reunited. The russians obviously started rethinking their Restitution plans when they noticed how successful the other allies put the german population in their sectors back to work. --Kharon (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

William Royle of Rusholme

I would be interested to learn more about William Royle of Rusholme, who was "a shippers merchant, the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Manchester Liberal Federation and ... wrote a history of Rusholme which was published in 1905. His Liberal connexions are what most interest me. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there’s a biography of him, not viewable online: [6]. But some fairly recent publications have cited it, so it must be accessible somewhere… I see a copy on Amazon, or maybe you could get it via a uni library with interlibrary loan or even WP:RX. Other sources:

• Political Change and the Labour Party 1900-1918 (Royle chose Manchester’s Liberal candidates in the 1890s)
• Churchill Warrior (Royle’s opinions on German foreign policy in 1911)
• The Progressive Alliance and the Rise of Labour, 1903-1922 (Royle’s opinions on the 1918 general election)

70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

DuncanHill, the book is not widely held. There are two WorldCat records (1 and 2), seemingly for the same title; Columbia University is the only one west of the Atlantic, while east of the Atlantic you can get it at Trinity College Dublin, the National Library of Scotland, the Bodleian, the British Library in London, or the British Library in Wetherby, West Yorkshire. I think you're going to have to buy it if you want a copy, unless you can visit one of those libraries. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend, the cis-Atlantic libraries are our copyright libraries. ×I might get a British Library reader's card at some point (I have a couple of lines of research for which it would be useful), but in the meantime I'll keep a look out for a cheap copy on the Web. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

January 18

Sexualities

Lgbtqhx,?? How many different sexulaities are present on earth and why?86.8.202.148 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You could start with Template:Gender and sexual identities... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

ALL of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The ever-growing initialism does so because it lumps together multiple distinct but inter-related topics: sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and so on. For the literal question being asked about the number of sexualities, human sexuality spectrum is the place to start. To better understand why the initialism encompasses so many things, see sex and gender distinction and LGBT. I've found this to be of use. The page goes on for some time into details, but the graphic at the top summarizes the topic about as well as possible, given the complexity. Matt Deres (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your question is difficult to answer because you are talking about things that shade into each other rather than existing as discrete categories. It's similar to asking how many races or ethnicities there are. It depends where you draw the lines between them. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

battleships

Japanese battleship Nagato's secondary guns, the 14 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval gun, was the primary gun of many cruisers.

HMS Nelson (28)'s secondary guns, the BL 6-inch Mk XXII naval gun, was the primary gun of many cruisers.

Italian battleship Roma (1940)'s secondary guns, the 152 mm /55 Italian naval gun Models 1934 and 1936, was the primary gun of many cruisers.

French battleship Richelieu's secondary guns, the Canon de 152 mm Modèle 1930, was the primary gun of many cruisers.

Basically, WWII-era battleships used "cruiser guns" as their secondary armament. This is true for every country with the notable exception of US. WWII-era US battleship were all armed with "destroyer guns" as their secondary armament (AFAIK).

1. What's the reason behind this idiosyncrasy? Were there some sort of US doctrine or a commissioned study that advocated for this arrangement? Are there any naval history books that cover this design choice in more detail?

2. Were there any major exceptions to this rule? I.e. were there other countries that also used "destroyer guns" as their battleship secondary armament? Or were there any US battleships that had "cruiser guns"? Mũeller (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The 5" guns used on US destroyers were somewhat heavier than than the guns used on British destroyers at the time, the 4.7-inch gun. However, more modern British battleships, the King George V-class battleship (1939), had moved away from a 6" low-angle secondary battery to the QF 5.25-inch naval gun which could also be used against aircraft and was much closer to the US secondary armament, although admittedly it was also used to arm Dido-class anti-aircraft cruisers. Alansplodge (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input!

Interesting that the British went with a slightly smaller caliber as the war progressed. Mũeller (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Queen Elizabeth-class and Revenge-class battleships had their 6" batteries stripped out and replaced by 4-inch dual-purpose guns to improve their anti-aircraft capability. The secondary batteries were originally intended to deal with destroyer attacks, which were too quick for the big guns, but aircraft turned out to be a bigger menace. Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The importance of aircraft to naval warfare of WWII should not be understated here, as Alansplodge points out. There's an aphorism in military history "Generals fight the last war", and at the start of WWII, it was expected that the naval supremacy would rest on giant battleships, as had happened in WWI, where battleship-centered naval warfare ruled the waves. So the admirals prepared for a battleship-centered war. The change to different guns came about because WWII wasn't ruled by battleships, it was ruled by the aircraft carrier and the submarine, with the major naval threats coming from a directions (above and below) that it had never come from before. Aircraft in particular were a threat that required major changes in tactics and weaponry, and that's why the major decisive battles of the war tended to involve carriers, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Battle of Midway, etc. Once the leadership came around to understanding the threat carrier groups presented, they started to arm their ships in a way to defend against them. --Jayron32 14:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, nobody has a crystal ball and things don't always turn out as intelligent people predict. In the pre-war Royal Navy, considerable efforts had been made to rearm capital ships with the best anti-aircraft technology available, so that big ships could put up very impressive barrages that were thought to be unsurvivable for enemy aircraft, and armour on the most modern ships was thought to give good protection from bombs and torpedoes. In the Norwegian Campaign in 1940, the Home Fleet survived weeks of bombardment from the air with fairly limited losses, which suggested that the air theorists were wrong and the naval theorists were right. Later experience was to prove otherwise. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Todays 155 mm Artillery (see Category:155_mm_artillery) has a reach of up to 30 Km. The 155 mm projectiles in the widely used M109 howitzer weight around 50 Kg (see M795), so they can still be handled fast enough manually by one loader Its just a size that works optimal in reality. Smaller is a loss of impact, bigger is to difficult to handle. Its also an logistic advantage when one type Ammunition can be used by multiple platforms and even allied forces, like the 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition. --Kharon (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the latest back pay has been?

Which would depend on when the missed paydays of the other other long shutdowns were and how many days after it ended before they got paid. Will the next payday be soon after the shutdown ends or will they have to wait for the first or second regularly scheduled once per 2 weeks day after it ends? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Still seems vague as to when exactly furloughed workers will receive their back pay, but the President has signed legislation that will guarantee that they receive it "as soon as possible when the shutdown ends." [7] Of course, the shutdown has to end first and that may still take a while the way things are going. --Xuxl (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the longest may be 21 years (as planned) or 12 years (as finally adjusted) per the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 and modified via the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act of 1936. Soldiers from WWI were granted extra combat pay in 1924 in the form of certificates that matured only after 21 years. They were OK with this until they all lost their jobs in the Great Depression, then a bunch of them came to Washington to demand their pay in 1932 (see Bonus Army). Congress moving at the pace Congress does, finally agreed to pay them their back pay in 1936. --Jayron32 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

But that could also be seen as them being paid 9 years ahead of time. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

“QSC” in acknowledgements of the book “Lethal White” by Robert Galbraith/ JK Rowling

In the acknowledgement of her book “Lethal White”, JKR writes:

“The QSC, on the other hand, just got in the way.”

I have no idea what she means and am very curious. Is she having a go at a British institution? —Lgriot (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone asked this question on a Rowling fan forum and got no replies [8]. I suspect it's some kind of private reference that the general public is not supposed to get. There is no British institution going by those initials. --Viennese Waltz 07:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In the Q code, QSC apparently means "Are you a cargo vessel?" if that helps (probably not ). -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, AnonMoos and Viennese Waltz! --Lgriot (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

January 19

Turkish reaction to OKC bombing

Per Oklahoma City bombing#Federal and state government aid, Bill Clinton was meeting with Turkish PM Tansu Çiller when he was notified of the bombing. Did Çiller or her government offer any official reactions? I'd like to put a Turkish reaction into the "International reaction" section (we mention international reactions from Iran and the PLO as well as NATO members like Turkey), and I'd expect a reaction since she was in the US at the moment, but I can't find anything — when I run a search for <"Tansu Çiller" "oklahoma city">, most of the results (examples 1 and 2) merely mention the fact that she was in the US at the time, and the exceptions are outright false positives. It's not a matter of diacritics, since most of the results, including both of the examples I gave, use "Ciller" rather than "Çiller". Searches for <turkey "oklahoma city" bombing> return nothing at all relevant, and if I remove <bombing>, I get results related to wild turkeys. I've gotten no useful results despite checking a range of databases: Gale War and Terrorism Collection, Ebsco Academic Search Ultimate, Ebsco International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center, Wiley Online Library, Gale US History Collection, Project Muse, JSTOR, and a 24-database history bundle from ProQuest. Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 20

Philosophy

Saw this humorous post about philosophy & social media on the internet, but didn't get most of them - could someone explain them?

A Brief History of Philosophy

1. Socrates deletes his account,
2. Plato posts screenshots of Socrates,
3. Aristotle unfollows Plato,
4. Aquinas retweets Jesus,
5. Descartes mutes Aquinas,
6. Locke mutes Descartes,
7. Kant unfollows Locke and Descartes,
8. Hegel subtweets Kant,
9. Schopenhauer blocks Hegel,
10. Marx likes Hegel,
11. Nietzsche gets hacked,
12. Heidegger DMs Arnedt,
13. Adorno reports Heidegger,
14. Derrida gets verified,
15. Heidegger gets banned,
16. Wittgenstein only does instagram

Ecolchester (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've converted your numbering to MediaWiki numbering, so each item's on its own line. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Socrates offed himself, Plato carried on his teachings, Aristotle took a different direction than Plato and had conflicting ideas.

Descartes didn't ascribe to the arguments for God's existance as laid out by Aquinas, and had his own, simpler argumuments.

Locke didn't believe that there is certain knowledge. He believed that all ideas come from sensation and reflection and that all knowledge is founded on experience.

The difference between Kant and Locke is summarized here. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/33269/how-does-lockes-realism-differ-from-kants-realism déhanchements (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

See Trial of Socrates for "offed himself". Also see Rabbit-duck illusion, an image made famous by Wittgenstein. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

More on Wittgenstein and the "Instagram" allusion: See Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, especially proposition 2.1 and following, called his Picture theory of language. Martin Heidegger's most famous student was probably Hannah Arendt, she had an affair with him at one point, and continued to expand on his philosophy. --Jayron32 16:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

See also Bruces' Philosophers Song. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

As for Derrida, his philosophy of deconstruction was basically that nothing was verifiable. --Viennese Waltz 08:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia might have driven him crazy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Strangling the courts by stripping them of funding

My question is about the good ol' USA, and the current government shutdown.

My understanding is that the shutdown has affected the courts too, forcing them to stall cases, or in some cases, to shut down.

Now, under the constitution, my understanding is that the courts (or at least the Supreme Courts) are a co-equal branch of government, and take a dim view of the other branches of government telling them how to run their affairs? But at the same time, they rely on the other branches to fund their operations.

So what happens when (due to a shutdown, like now), the U.S. Supreme court is stripped of funds, and is forced to (at least temporarily) shut down? What does constitutional law or precedent have to say about this state of affairs? Is the court's budget (implicitly or explicitly) guaranteed by the constitution? I mean the court as a whole, not just the salaries of the individual justices. (The court would almost certainly find it impossible to function without support staff and a building, and that all costs money).

As a "side" question, what if congress made a wilful decision to cut the Supreme court's budget, either as an act of spite against court decisions, or simply for budgetary reasons? Does anything in the constitution imply that the Supreme court must be "adequately funded"? (I know that in criminal cases, the constitution guarantees a "speedy trial". Is there anything similar implying that, in "constitutional litigation", courts must be adequately resourced?) Eliyohub (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerns over court funding are nothing new, see e.g. [9] [10] [11]. If you're interested in state courts, see also [12] [13]. As mentioned there, even if the courts continue operating, it doesn't mean they aren't affected. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Judge Dredd gets an origin story? --Error (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• To directly answer the question... the Constitution does discuss regular payment for the Justices themselves... but says nothing about the broader court system (clerks, stenographers, building staff, etc) that supports them. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  This has some discussion of the case law history surrounding the constitutional clause dealing with their compensation [14]. Our article Article Three of the United States Constitution mentions it, but no case law. Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, I will look into those links. (I have read some of them already). As to adding info about the case law to our article, somebody / anybody ought to take up the challenge and do so. Eliyohub (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Infantry frontal attack - WW1 vs. WW2

In WW1 frontal infantry attacks proved useless. Even nearly hundred thousand soldiers (the 1st day of the battle of the Somme) were slaughtered before trenched machine guns.

But in WW2 in the Normandy invasion, a frontal infantry attack worked.

What made the difference? אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cf.: Enfilade —2606:A000:1126:28D:20D1:2886:5F71:22E5 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Normandy invasion is the most useful example for comparison, but in general the main reason why WW2 fighting didn't usually end up being like WW1 static trench warfare was probably the much greater military effectiveness of planes and tanks. Better radio communication may have also had something to do with it -- in WW1, communications between military HQs and front-line units in the trenches depended on telephones (whose wires were often cut by enemy artillery barrages) and couriers who physically delivered messages (Hitler was such a message-deliverer in WW1), so attack plans had to be worked out in detail in advance, and couldn't be quickly readjusted on the fly in response to unfolding events... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos above, but a couple of further points:

In the First World War, the Western Allies were in full contact with the main German force for four years continuously. In the Second, the brunt of the fighting was done by the Soviets, who incurred immense casualties. Allied campaigns in North Africa and even Italy only engaged a small proportion of German strength. Although casualties on D-Day itself may seem moderate, by 24 July there were 120,000 Allied casualties in the Normandy Campaign, a scale approaching the casualty rate in the previous war.

It's a misconception that frontal assaults in the First war were "useless", the German front line was often breached, even on the First day on the Somme, the problem was holding the breach against counter-attacks. Using the rail network, the Germans could rush huge reserves to snuff out any incursion, resulting in no overall gain for a particular action. The British death toll for 1 July 1916 on the Somme was 19,240.

Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Mechanised assault. For the Germans at first (and later copied), this meant an integrated assault by armoured mobile artillery, and infantry who were often brought very close to the assault by mechanised transport. In WWI, the difficulty in assault was primarily the heavy machine gun, in a dug-in position. The rest of WWI trench warfare was really just there to protect those MG firing positions and to delay an assault for long enough to be cut down by them. This was enormously costly to assault by infantry alone, but in WWII they could be dispatched by a handful of HE shells from assault artillery, giving direct fire in response to either orders from platoon level commanders, or even identifying their own nearby targets. The WWI artillery barrage in contrast could only address a large area, and so was incredibly wasteful of resources, never concentrated where it was most needed, and so was largely wasted.

Successful breaches of the front line in WWI were rare, although not unknown, but it was very rare for them to be either held or exploited by advances beyond. The troops who had breached the line were exhausted and without further orders. It was so slow to request or bring up replacements that the counter-attack often happened first. In WWII, motorised transport could be controlled by radio and arrive in little time. Some commanders also followed the front line closely themselves, having mobile, armoured command vehicles with good radios (Rommel being the best known, but not unusual, example).

The full Blitzkrieg concept was greater than this, and included the integration of tanks and aircraft, especially ground-attack aircraft, to deal with other threats, such as tank formations and heavy artillery. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Normandy invasion worked on the beachhead as a "frontal assault" because it was conducted by full-strength, well-trained, fully-equipped ("Category A" in former-Soviet parlance) Allied infantry divisions supported by combined arms, air and sea bombardment, aerial envelopment, etc. against second- or third-line, static German coastal-defence divisions of older, poorly-trained or questionably-motivated troops without sufficient reinforcement, mobility or equipment. This is the advantage of the attacker — they have the choice of time and place to initiate combat, and it is not possible to defend all points equally or adequately.

Of course, the Oberkommando knew that such static divisions could not resist a determined amphibious assault for long, and they were not intended to do so. Rather, they were meant to hold the line long enough for well-equipped, armoured mobile reserves to arrive at the point of attack. But equally, SHAEF knew this as well, and thus emphasized measures to interdict German supply lines, transport networks and reserve depots; also, deception measures were designed to convince the Germans to place those reserves in the wrong place.

A frontal assault of first-line Allied infantry divisions against first-line Wehrmacht infantry divisions would have been a far different battle. But that's not what happened in Normandy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Great question, btw. And terrific answers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

January 21

Mercy seat

Our article makes several attempts to explain how this frankly weird term has derived from kapporeth, which to my amateurish comprehension of Biblical Hebrew derives from the word for cover and/or atonement, but has no sense whatsoever in it of "seat" or "mercy" (other than I suppose a merciful deity accepts atonement, but that's rather a stretch).

Can anyone find a good explanation from RS? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Brown-Driver-Briggs, supported by Holladay's Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, the word does not originally mean "cover", but comes from another meaning of the triliteral root כפר, i.e. "to make amends, propitiate, effect reconciliation, atone for sins". The literal meaning of כפרת is basically "thing for the atonement of sins"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Hebrew word has to do with atonement, but that doesn't sufficiently explain the English term 'mercy seat'. This source agrees that the English derives from Luther's German translation Gnadenstuhl. The question then becomes: why did Luther choose this word? I don't think we can say for sure, but it is noteworthy that Luther used the same word in Hebrews 4:16, where English translations have throne of grace. Since the latter passage is also in the context of the sacrifices by the high priest, it seems Luther equated the two terms. (source) Hence 'seat of mercy' is probably not exactly based on כפרת, but rather on the theological meaning that Luther saw in it. - Lindert (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoting the OED second edition:

"Heb. kapporeth, LXX [Greek text], Vulg. propitiatorium, Wyclif 'propiciatorie'. Tindale's first rendering (1526) was 'the seate off grace' (Hebr. ix. 5); in both this and his later rendering he followed Luther's Gnadenstuhle. Cf. also mercy-stock, stool, table, in MERCY sb. 10."

Substantive meaning #10 for "mercy" is "administered or performed out of mercy or pity in order to terminate or relieve pain or distress", with examples including "mercy-angel", "mercy-gate", and "mercy-lacking". I can't read the Septuagint term, since the letters are really little, and my unfamiliarity with Greek means that I can't recognise the word. So the OED backs up the author cited by Lindert, but going farther will probably require you to consult the Duden. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. So it seems that it's based on Luther's idiosyncratic translation, which (given his views on Jews) he wouldn't be amused to find is very reminiscent of Gezeira Shava. Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

So that's at least one thing he and the Catholic Church agreed upon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Any EU directives on oncological care?

Hello. Is there any EU directive (or other form of EU legislation) that requires, or could conceivably require, merging the paediatric oncological departments of different hospitals if they separately do not reach a certain number of cases per year?--84.76.180.82 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. EU legislation/directives can be searched at eur-lex.europa.eu - I tried the set of +oncology +paediatric without an obvious result, but you could probably do a better search yourself as you will have a better idea of what terms to try. The browse option is at eur-lex.europa.eu/browse and may also help. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Directive 2011/24/EU on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare [15] could conceivably be a factor. It likely provided some increased incentive to become a more major centre to attract patients from elsewhere [16] [17]. I guess likewise the inclusion of Medical Oncology in Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualification [18] [19], since it's likely to be easier for a more major institution to be part of a training programme. These seem fairly disconnected though, as the other IP said, maybe you'll have more luck finding relevant directives. There are directives dealing with [20] paediatric medicines, and clinical trials, but these seem even more disconnected. Nil Einne (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

January 22

Early 18th Century Transylvanian currency

What was the currency in use in Transylvania in the early 18th century? It does not seem to be the Austro-Hungarian Gulden, as that currency seems to have been in use starting in 1754, so rather it must be a predecessor, which the article does not tell us. Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Prior to 1867, Transylvania was attached to the Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), which at that time was a separate realm of the Habsburg Empire from Austria; it would have been an independent kingdom in personal union with other Austrian Habsburg lands. It looks like the currency was the forint at the time. It should be noted that much of Europe for much of history used a gold coin known variously as the Guilder (meaning "gold") or Florin (meaning "of Florence"). Gold coins minted in Florence were technically "florins" and those minted in German speaking lands were technically "guilders", but AFAIK, they were similar size and material, and as such, the coins were basically interchangeable, and the names become confused during the time period. As a result, most countries used either one or the other or both, and simply used a name in the local language that corresponded to either "guilder" or "florin"; thus in Hungary they called the coins "forint", while in Austria they were called "gulden". I'm fairly certain that whatever exact gold coin the Kingdom of Hungary minted at the time would have been called the "forint", as that name has been used throughout history for Hungarian coinage. Not a guarantee, but absent any other evidence, that's probably what it was called. --Jayron32 15:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a bit more info at History of coins in Romania - but looks like that article needs the forint added to it! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not really, In the early 18th century, Transylvania wasn't part of the country of Romania. It was part of Hungary; it only became part of Romania after 1918. See Union of Transylvania with Romania. Romanian currency wouldn't be introduced to Transylvania until 200 years after the OP was interested in. --Jayron32 16:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I was confused by the Transylvania article which locates Transylvania in central (modern) Romania, but never assume! Lesson learned. Do you think the History of coins in Romania article needs some clarification? It seems to lump modern and old territories under the name Romania but tht might not be right. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, European borders changed alot before the middle 20th century; many places that were long parts of one country are today parts of others. Borderlands like Transylvania are particularly convoluted with their historical ownership; AFAIK, there have been Romanian speakers in Transylvania for much longer than it has been part of Romania (Romance-language speakers would have been there since Roman Dacia), but Romania itself, like MANY places, took a long time to be formed as a cohesive nation-state, where all Romanian-speaking-and-culture people are united into a single country; and arguably it was only so between the world wars, before Moldova was split off. That's how history works. You'd be surprised how few of places we think of today as unified nation-states have existed as such for longer back than about 1945, and definitely not before the middle 19th century. --Jayron32 12:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, no one has mentioned that for most of the 17th century, Transylvania was under the Ottomans. It came under Austria as a result of the long fighting after the failed 1683 Ottoman attack on Vienna (see Great Turkish War), and this was not formally ratified until the 1699 Treaty of Karlowitz... AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

One minor quibble; Transylvania was never formally an Austrian territory. It was ruled by the Habsburgs, but attached to the Kingdom of Hungary as the Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867), considered part of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen. --Jayron32 17:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

If there was circulating Ottoman currency still in the 18th century (it may have taken some time for it to leave circulation), there are several Ottoman coins that would have been used in the 17th century; Ottoman coinage changed alot over the time period in question, the Qirsh/Kuruş had been the standard (our articles imply they are different coins, but that's plainly wrong. Those are the same word transliterated in different spellings, the articles should probably be merged) introduced at around the time that Transylvania was being fought over. The prior currency was the Akçe, which would have been used in Transylvania prior to the territory being captured by the Habsburgs. --Jayron32 17:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

windows

I was watching the news[21] (at 11:24) and noticed that there are a row of six "windows" at the bottom of the order fence/wall. What are they called? What purpose do they serve?

Because of their clean construction I presume they are not illegal cut into the fence but designed and built from the beginning that way. Mũeller (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's probably to let floodwaters and debris out. Шурбур (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Western Hagakure

Most honored Ladies and Gentlemen

I have recently read the marvelous book "Hagakure" by Yamamoto Tsunetomo. I did so because I wanted to know more about the Samurai (am half Japanese). A friend mentioned that he had heard of Western books from the Medieval period which were very similar to the Hagakure. He however could not remember any titles. I would therefore like asking you know the Western equivalent of "Hagakure".

Thank you most kindly for your answers--2A02:1205:505D:1BB0:3D38:C991:DCA8:CD46 (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I added a couple of internal links to the OP's question. --Xuxl (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

All I know of Hagakure is what our article says, but perhaps Geoffroi de Charny's Book of Chivalry is somewhat analogous. There are a number of medieval and Renaissance treatises dealing with the training and ethics of knights. Deor (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Dionysius II of Syracuse

Good Day

I am looking for the historical sources of the life of Dionysius II of Syracuse. The article unfortunetly does not list them.

Thank you--2A02:1205:505D:1BB0:3D38:C991:DCA8:CD46 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

In the article Dionysius II of Syracuse, there are several sources of information listed in the "Notes" and "References" sections. If you check those sources out, it may lead you to yet more sources. --Jayron32 15:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Jayron’s advice will help you find scholarly sources, but I was wondering if by historical, do you mean the original ancient source? That is Plutarch’s Lives, which contain a biography of Dionysius’s uncle Dion of Syracuse, which mentions Dionysius. You can read it in translation at Wikisource. It’s not currently linked from the Dionysius page; I’ll see if I can fix that later. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Fet-Mats (Swedish Mummy)

Dear All

I am looking for more informations about the Swedish mummy Fet-Mats. The article doesn`t have much information on it, especially not the autopsy files which wouldf interest me the most.

Thank you--2A02:1205:505D:1BB0:3D38:C991:DCA8:CD46 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(Added wikilinks to the OP's post to aid answerers.70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC))

Specific Holy Bible Version

Hello

I am looking for a specific version of the Holy Bible, which is often featured in American movies. It is a black flexible leather-bound Bible with only the title "Holy Bible" written in silver letters on the cover. I am curious if this is a real version and where it could be bought.

Thank you for your answers

With kind regards--2A02:1205:505D:1BB0:3D38:C991:DCA8:CD46 (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Any idea which "American movies"? That's quite a large category! One clear example would help, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A Google image search for '"Holy Bible" written in silver letters on the cover' shows that there are numerous Bible editions which meet this description. It may also have been a movie prop from a commercial props house; a search for "Holy Bible movie prop" shows several possible examples. -- The Anome (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Bibles come in all shapes and sizes and there are several editions that would fit that description. If you go to a Christian bookshop I'm sure they'll have one.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gideon's Bible is quite common, is found in almost all motel and hotel rooms in the U.S., and usually resembles the description provided by the OP. The article does not have an illustration, but a google image search under that name will confirm this. --Xuxl (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of the bibles I see for personal use are pretty close to that description. Some have gold lettering instead of silver, some have vinyl covers instead of flexible leather, and some are red, green or blue instead of black, but all of them are equally plain and virtually indistinguishable. And if the movies mentioned were old enough to be in black and white, they would look even more alike. These things are virtually everywhere. I've found them in "everything's a dollar"-type stores.

Nubian pyramids measurements

What is the seqed of the Nubian pyramids? Did the people who built it use seqed as the slope measure? I'm having a hard time finding anything about this on the net. Tx 78.0.255.160 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Here’s an answer to your first question. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00009923, a paper from 1935, has an appendix listing 192 pyramids in Egypt and Sudan, and giving base, height and slope (same as seqet?) measurements for a fair chunk of them. (Here is how the author defines “slope”: The angle of slope of the pyramid-face is given in the manner of the Egyptian method of stating a slope, namely of a vertical rise of one cubit on a horizontal base of so many hands and fingers. For example, a slope of 5-2 signifies a rise of one cubit on a base of five hands and two fingers, or an angle as we express it today of 51~ 51.) The list includes many pyramids from Nuri, El-Kurru, Jebel Barkal and Begarawiyah and the slope measurements given for these vary from 60 to 68. If you will use the article to improve the Nubian pyramids article, you can request it at WP:RX. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Chantry equivalents in other countries and post-Reformation England

In mediaeval England people with money set up trusts called chantries to pay for masses to be said for their souls after death, for a set time or in perpetuity. These trusts were repurposed or appropriated at the time of the English Reformation and the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and that was mostly the end of that in England because of protestant views about praying for the dead.

My question is: were there similar phenomena in other countries, and what was the eventual fate of these? I assume some parallel shutting-down process took place across Reformation Europe if they existed there, but what about countries that stayed with Rome? Are there perpetual endowments anywhere still paying for masses to be said for people who died centuries ago? Did these continue to be set up after mediaeval times?

I initially asked about this at Talk:Chantry because answers could help improve that article or at least link it to other relevant ones, but it feels like more of a refdesk enquiry. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The French article (chapellenie) is quite scant, but its source[22] lists such masses prayed at Saint-Julien-de-Vouvantes and the most recent one listed was set up in 1784. So yes other countries and yes to the setting up after medieval times question.

The Spanish article (capellanía) adds the info that in Spain, Portugal and their colonies, they were more popular in the 16th to 18th centuries than in the medieval period (please confirm, my Spanish is rusty). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

January 23

Question about Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

I was pretty surprised to see the recent news that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh got in a car accident a few days ago. It raised several questions in my mind. (1) Don't people in his position (members of the British royal family) have chauffeurs, such that he would not have to actually drive himself around? (2) In England, does not the royal family have something similar to the US's "Secret Service" protection for the US president? (3) Can a US President (or a member of the British royal family) "decline" Secret Service protection and chauffeurs? Or is he (they) "required" to utilize these services? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This may help. He is known to be stubborn, enjoys driving, and enjoys his independence. And did I mention his stubbornness? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• You have Trump, we have Prince Philip.

He has recently 'retired' from public life and it's fairly recently that he gave up carriage driving for the simplicity (and heater) of a Rangie. Stubbornness would certainly be a factor. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not privy to the internal workings of the Palace, but my guess would be that Prince Philip does more or less what he wishes, and ignores the advice of those assigned to protect him. He is known to enjoy driving at speed. Dbfirs 17:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding question (1) Do you understand that "he would not have to actually drive himself around..." is not a synonym for "he would not want to drive himself around..." That is, just because he doesn't have to, doesn't actually mean he doesn't want to. People (and I presume Prince Philip is a person; I have not seen evidence otherwise) have their own wants and desires, and are capable of making their own choices based on their own proclivities. Simply put: even though he has a chauffeur who he can choose to drive him around doesn't mean he cannot also choose to drive his own ass anywhere he damned well pleases, thank you very much. The existence of a chauffeur doesn't mean he's not physically capable of driving himself. I hope that makes sense. If you want further information, free will is a good starting point for your research. Regarding the question (2), the Royal Family is protected by the surprisingly named Protection Command, a branch of the Metropolitan Police Service. Regarding question (3) I can only find sources for the US part of the question: This overview article explains that, per 18 U.S. Code § 3056, the Secret Service is to provide security for the President, but the President has no corresponding power to refuse that protection. Basically, the Secret Service will protect the office of the President and that means the also protecting the meat of the person who is occupying that office. Whether or not the owner of that meat wants it protected doesn't matter. It's going to be protected at all times. --Jayron32 17:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting, of course, that his "protection" did a pretty poor job at protecting him, let alone the citizens of the country who pay for that protection. Personally, I'm struggling to imagine a reason his licence hasn't been rescinded. A 94-year-old driving a range-rover off the road...? Anyone...? Anyone...? 18:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)——SerialNumber54129

He doesn't need a drivers license. His wife issues them anyways, which is why he doesn't need one. See here for example. There's no licence to rescind, because he doesn't need one. Regarding the protection, the Protection Command is only mandated to protect the Monarch and all immediate heirs to the throne. Spouses and other Royals are provided the protection at their discretion, but only the Queen and her immediate heirs (Presumably Charles, William, and George at this point) are required to have it. [23]. So, Philip is not required to have protection. Also, protection is only there to prevent other people from harming the protected. They can't, for example, knock a cigarette out of their ward's hand, or stop them from eating a bacon cheeseburger, or doing any of a number of other harmful acts to themselves. --Jayron32 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)