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

April 19

Who would be considered unlawful combatants according to international laws?

Does a belligerent faction has to wear distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, carries weapons openly, avoid targeting civilians, and conducts operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war in order to be considered a lawful combatant and thus eligible to be treated as a prisoner of war (POW)? If so, does this mean that almost all, if not all, non-governmental paramilitary organizations frequently labelled "terrorist" that have or had engaged in an armed conflict using guerrilla warfare tactics after the Third Geneva Convention such as Hamas and the Provisional Irish Republican Army could be legally considered unlawful combatants? StellarHalo (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The Third Geneva Convention requires that the status of detainees whose combatant status is in doubt be determined by a "competent tribunal", and international human rights law prohibits trying non-military personnel in military tribunals, yet the United States has instituted the Guantanamo military commissions to prosecute all prisoners taken in the War in Afghanistan while denying them any possibility of being considered a prisoner of war, regardless of their conduct. So there is no straightforward answer to the question. Also consider that one party's unlawful combatant is another party's lawful combatant, so the question can only be dealt with in a meaningful way if the party making the determination is identified.  --Lambiam 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The thing about the Geneva conventions is that they don't really handle modern (post-1990s) warfare all that well. It has certain unspoken presumptions about the nature of war which don't really play out in the 21st century. The wars it was written to regulate are those up to and including the two World Wars, in which recognized states would be sending organized groups of soldiers across each other's borders to kill each other. The kind of wars that we see today are mostly civil wars (factions internal to a country that are vying for control of part or all of the territory of that country) and/or involved non-state organizations which have their own private fighting forces. It becomes hard to fit into the definitions of the Geneva conventions which were written for a different time. Note that this is not passing judgement on the morality or ethics of any specific situation, rather the reality of international law as she is written. --Jayron32 14:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that for organisations like HRW etc, the biggest controversy over the US's treatment of "unlawful combatants" wasn't because they disagree with the manner or the decision of the US to decide they weren't lawful combatants. Rather as our article says the view of these organisations was generally that if the US had decided those people were not lawful combatants, they needed to treat them as civilians. Therefore although they were not entitled to prisoner or war status etc, and the mere fact they were engaged in hostilities could be treated as a crime, they still needed to be treated properly and given a fair and regular trial rather than arbitrarily detained and subject to torture. There's no grey area where people are not lawful combatants but also not civilians so can somehow be treated as non-human. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't disagree with a word of that. --Jayron32 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"Destroy Japan"

I remember reading a few years ago about a Japanese anti-nationalist, perhaps far-left group called "Destroy Japan" or something like that, essentially their goal was to eradicate Japanese culture and national identity entirely, feeling that this was the only way to counterbalance the harms Japan had done in East Asia. Unfortunately I can't seem to find them again and at this point I'm beginning to wonder if I just dreamed the whole thing. It might not have been Japan at all, but I'm fairly sure it was Japan.

Does anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 23:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I knew that there were "Anti-Germans" in Germany, so searching for "Anti-Japanese" brought me to Anti-Japaneseism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

April 20

Essex, Wessex, Sussex, and ?

Essex is where the East Saxons were from; similarly Wessex (west) and Sussex (south). Norsex redirects to "Saxons" but was it or anything like it ever used as the name of a place? Were there actually any North Saxons, for that matter? Tx. (Inspiration: [1]) 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say not that Essex is where the East Saxons were from, rather that Essex is the eastern part of where the Saxons settled. Also, don't forget Middlesex. —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As Tamfang says, the names relate to who settled where in what would become called Engla Londe, Angle-land or "England", which eventually settled into the (shifting) divisions of the Heptarchy.

The reason there was no "Norsex" is because the area immediately to the north of the East, Middle and West Saxons' territory was settled by the East Angles (in what is now known as "East Anglia") and South Saxons in what became become the Kingdom of Mercia: this latter absorbed the sub-kingdom of Hwicce whose several tribes were at least partly Saxon, so these might be thought of as "North Saxons" although they used more localised tribal names.

One could write an amusing counterfactual history in which the inter-kingdom rivalries had different outcomes, resulting in a Norsex and other transformed entities like a more prominent Hallamshire and greater prominence for the Jutes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.136 (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC).

Such a loss for the world of punning. "Are the people in Nossex getting any?" etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

According to this discussion, the Annals of Ulster mention that in 913 AD, "... Etulb King of the North Saxons died”, which is thought to refer to Eadwulf II of Northumbria. So, perhaps the North Saxons were in the Kingdom of Northumbria, although a considerable distance from the South Saxons. However, note that in all the Celtic languages, the word for an English person is derived from "Saxon", see Wikt:Sasanach. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Norsex please, we're British. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"No Saesnigs please, we're Welsh". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That's enough of your Sawson! Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Saxons were a prodigious and mobile group of settlers; besides the Essex, Wessex, Middlesex, and Sussex in England, a large swathe of the land of modern Germany is named after them, including three Bundesländer (see Saxony, Lower Saxony, and Saxony-Anhalt). By contrast, the Jutes only have Jutland (mainland Denmark and part of extreme northern German) named after them, while the Angles only a small part of Jutland (specifically Anglia) and East Anglia. Well, and of course all of England. --Jayron32 12:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not forgetting, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• That's a lot of knife-lands. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• New England --Khajidha (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Old England. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not as good as a box of swans. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Legal terms: "malice aforethought" and treacherous behavior

I'm currently trying to sort out a potential mixup at Wikidata but I need some factual help. The current entry for malice aforethought (Wikidata:Q567057) links to entries in other Wikipedias that don't really fit in my opinion. The other entries (e.g. de:Heimtücke, es:Alevosía, fr:Traîtrise etc.) seem to be about the concept of killing or harming another person in a treacherous way, i.e. by betraying their trust and committing the act while the victim is unsuspecting (e.g. Assassination of Julius Caesar). On the other hand, as I understand it, "malice aforethought" just means that the perpetrator's plan is to kill or hurt the victim but it does not require the victim to be unsuspecting. Is that correct?

In German law, I would classify this as de:Absicht (Recht) (Wikidata:Q332297), i.e. the perpetrator is acting to achieve the result (death of the victim), unlike "direkter Vorsatz" (result is known but not necessarily wanted) or "bedingter Vorsatz" (result is seen as possibility but accepted as a potential side effect).

Is there a special crime of killing an unsuspecting victim in Common Law jurisdictions? Regards SoWhy 07:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The other-language articles appear to be about the concept of treachery in the sense of betrayal of trust, which is not in itself a crime, but an aggravating circumstance of certain crimes. I think Absicht corresponds in a legal sense to criminal intent, in legal Latin mens rea. Malice aforethought goes a notch further; it also requires premeditation: a certain amount of maliciously intentful preparation. If Sir Abbott, in the heat of an argument, casts aspersions on the fidelity of the mother of Sir Costello, and the latter gets so furious he draws his sword and slays Sir Abbott, it was an intentional act, but not premeditated. If, however, he does not have his sword on him, but goes home, has a meal, and then, still brewing over the insult, girds his sword, knocks the door of Sir Abbott's abode, and, when the latter opens the door, slays him, a jury would likely interpret this as premeditated murder. The German term is, I think, (Verbrechen) mit Vorbedacht, which, however, has no entry on the German Wikipedia. I am not aware of a special crime or even term for killing an unsuspecting victim in any jurisdiction. I expect that prosecutors generally would not be eager to charge a suspect with a crime imposing the burden of proof that the victim was unsuspecting, which involves the mental state of the victim – whereas proving betrayal of trust is essentially material.  --Lambiam 10:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Sir Lou killed Sir Bud because Sir Bud didn’t know that the style 'Sir' is only ever used with the individual's first name. And that would make it justifiable homicide. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

These are all side issues. The central question is the legal doctrine of Quis est in primis? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Well, the German Penal Code defines "murder" (Mord) as killing a person while also meeting a special requirement ("Mordmerkmal"), which might be subjective (such as killing out of base motives, killing to prevent persecution for another crime etc.) or objective (killing an unsuspecting person, using a weapon which might potentially harm a lot of people (e.g. a bomb) etc.). There is no actual crime in German law for killing someone with a plan per se if it does not fit any of the Mordmerkmale. Which explains my dilemma here. Regards SoWhy 12:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

In general, it will be much easier to investigate the motives of a suspect taken in custody than the mental state of a deceased victim at or shortly preceding their death. In sentencing, judges will generally weigh the vileness of the crime and other aggravating circumstances when determining the severity of the sentence, but if there are Common Law jurisdictions that have a codified analogue of Heimtücke in their sentencing guidelines, I'm not aware of it. If I understand what you say about the Mordmerkmal criterion, if someone maliciously kills a victim, they cannot be convicted of murder in Germany if they succeed in hiding their motive, so that it cannot be established whether this was out of some base instinct or to obtain some unlawful advantage. Interesting.  --Lambiam 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

In Germany, killing someone intentionally is "Totschlag" and "Mord" (murder) is what is called a "Qualifikation". Aggravation probably is a good translation and is also the interwiki link for it. It's basically aggravating circumstances codified into law. So if you kill someone without meeting any of those criteria, it will only be Totschlag, which is often incorrectly translated as Manslaughter. Manslaughter, however, seems to consider malice aforethought again (or the lack thereof) to distinguish it from murder while in German law, you can have prior intent to kill and still not meet the definition of murder. Regards SoWhy 16:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

SoWhy Perhaps some answer in the following. The concept of treachery, french Guet-apens which you alluded to was in fact removed from the french text in 1992. Usage and jurispridence since a hundred years and more so it was said tended to conclusions it added nothing to mens rea (approx préméditation). It was nonetheless reintroduced in 2007; for the need it seems of covering a gap arising between the intents behind "simple" murder and those regarding assassination: https://www.cairn.info/revue-de-science-criminelle-et-de-droit-penal-compare-2010-3-page-545.htm (f). --Askedonty (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Askedonty: I don't speak French, so I had to run these through GTranslate but isn't fr:Préméditation en droit pénal français equivalent to malice aforethought then while the "guet-apens" is more like the German "Heimtücke" in that you are waiting for unsuspecting people to show up? Regards SoWhy 14:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's right. Also my impression is that the term "malice" may be carrying some expectations regarding the judge's evaluations of facts which already include aspects of treachery less explicitly suggested by usage possibly in the other languages. --Askedonty (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

According to our article, it comes from the French "malice prépensée", so you tell me. Regards SoWhy 16:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, looking at the redirection notes following our French law link Law French is a dialect of French used in English courts. Two other sample sentences in the article are "mallice prepensed" and "malice devant pourpense". Devant means before or afore and pourpense is from "pensare", think or thought. As for malice etymologicaly the first line of meaning is "evilness", the second is "trickery" indeed, both of which are not explicitly referred to in "préméditation", at least where French is concerned, although, implied its object is transgression. But an other aspect is interesting. "Malice devant pourpense" as well as the other forms literally could also be interpreted as "malice taking precedence over thought". Which is basically the same consideration as with de:Absicht (Recht) ( kognitiv -> thought; Willens -> evil ), and it may be interpreted so because abscons language may not be handled intelligently without considering how a related position could end by getting overturned. Askedonty (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

US - Allowing for Women to lead local congregations - Majority?

In the United States, do more people who belong to a church belong to a church that allows women to lead local congregations or more that don't? So pretty much *any* reform Jew would count as "do" regardless of whether their particular Synagogue is led by a man or a woman, but any Roman Catholic or Latter Day Saint don't. And does the "don't" category represent a majority of the US Population? (so "don't" as opposed to "do"+ non church members) Naraht (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty easy to put together from Religion in the United States. From that article, and its subsidiary articles (such as Christianity in the United States) we can put together some numbers; we can work most of this out. Of the five largest Christian denominations (Roman Catholic, SBC, UMC, LDS, and COGIC), only the United Methodist Church allows for women to lead a local congregation, the remaining 4 denominations account for a little less than 104,000,000 people, which is somewhat less than 1/3 of the U.S. population. However, the big issue in working this out is that the largest "grouping" of Christians in the U.S. is "Other"; which is to say that most American Christians belong to a local church that doesn't belong to one of the larger denominations, even when we take that list down to the top 20 or so denominations, the if you add up all of the denomination from 20-whatever, that group in total is still the largest single group of Christians; it's a daunting task to consider picking through that list individually. I suspect that when it all shakes out, given that 4 of the 5 largest denominations don't allow for Women pastors, it'll end up being somewhat more than 50% of American religious believers belong to congregations that don't allow women pastors, and that number will only be affected in a small amount by other religions, as they account for only a small percentage of the American populace as a whole. --Jayron32 14:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, whether the SBC likes it or not, there are Southern Baptist churches with female pastors. --Khajidha (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There are baptist churches in the south with female pastors. There are other Baptist denominations, many of which allow female pastors, most notably the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which has a large number of southern (small s) baptist congregations affiliated with it. Which is not to say that there are exactly zero congregations that both a) belong to the SBC and b) have a woman pastor, I would allow that being a complex diverse world, you can find exemplars of just about anything; however for the purpose of counting people, the number of people who belong to such a congregation is insignificant; the SBC still directly and unambiguously disallows women serving as pastors. --Jayron32 15:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

See Southern Baptist Convention#In the pastorate --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as that article notes, while the SBC can not force a congregation to not hire a woman pastor, it can, and does, throw out congregations that do so (using the euphemism "disfellowship"). They not only disallow women pastors, they frequently act to enforce that rule by throwing congregations out of the organization. Thanks for verifying my own point on this. --Jayron32 16:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Except that such disfellowship is not automatic, so that a local congregation having a female pastor does not disqualify it from being a member of the SBC. I will agree that such would be rare. --Khajidha (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Following due process does not invalidate a rule?!? Your argument that the SBC doesn't have a rule because they follow a process to remove a congregation that violates that rule seems strange. Merely because there is a process to enforce the rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist. The rule does exist, and it is enforced. It doesn't stop existing merely because there is some process in place to enforce it! --Jayron32 16:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The "rule" is part of the Baptist Faith & Message (BF& M) and the BF&M is not required. So, if it is not required to follow the rule to be a Southern Baptist church, how can the rule be used to deny that a church is a Southern Baptist church?--Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

If it isn't required, why do they throw out churches that don't adhere by it? Again, you're confusing "being a member of the Southern Baptist Convention" with "being Southern and also being Baptist". Churches which are members of the Southern Baptist Convention and violate the rules things-which-you-insist-aren't-rules-but-behave-in ways-that-are-entirely-indistinguishably-from-rules-so-can-we-just-call-them-rules get thrown out of the Convention. You can't have your cake and eat it to here. You can't say "You don't have to follow this if you don't want" and then make sure people who don't follow it are thrown out. That doesn't make any sense. Either its optional or its not, and if it isn't optional it's a rule. Again, you can be Baptist and you an be Southern and you can have a woman pastor. But if you belong to the Southern Baptist Convention and call a Woman Pastor to lead your congregation, they will throw your ass out. Sounds like they don't allow women pastors. --Jayron32 18:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Episcopal Church does allow. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, but the Episcopal Church accounts for less than 1% of the U.S. population as a whole, and a bit more than 1% of religious Americans. As I noted above, getting from the about 30% total accounted for by the 4 denominations noted that do NOT allow women up to the total population of the U.S. is a small numbers game; adding Episcopalians to the UMC (which is not the only branch of Methodism, some denominations don't allow for Women pastors) doesn't get us that close to the 50% threshold the OP asked about. It could be so, but as I noted I suspect the number is less than 50% given the head start the "no women pastors" group has in the denominations I noted above. --Jayron32 15:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the churches I went to when I was a kid were part of 'groupings' of churches, which might (rarely) disassociate from congregations if they don't like what they do, but aren't in fact an authority over them and the churches are not subservient to them. There are a lot of independent churches in America. They'll make their own rules. Some of them won't have rules against female preachers, but will be reluctant to hire them anyway. That makes this harder to answer. Temerarius (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I noted that above; the largest "grouping" of Christians in America is "Other", and you have to make the list of top denominations really long until it isn't. It's what makes gathering statistics on this so hard... --Jayron32 19:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Change in location

My question is about Cumberland County Tennessee and it being considered a county in East TN. All my years of attending school here, we were taught that our county was in Middle TN not East TN. So WHEN did it's designation change from Middle TN to East TN??? I haven't been able to find any information on when this happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.146.158 (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Courtesy links: Cumberland County, Tennessee, East Tennessee, Middle Tennessee. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• See also Grand Divisions of Tennessee. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Following a reference in the above I found this which says that Cumberland County was moved from Middle to East in 1932. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A county is a large object. How much did it cost to make that move? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Similarly I often want to remove the word "located" from the description of a place. When was Kamchatka, say, located in eastern Asia? Who decided to locate it there? Was it relocated from somewhere else? – On a related note, I was often tempted, when my boss told me to "locate" a file, to reply that it was on such-and-such a shelf. —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A one-word synonym for locate in the sense of finding out where something is located is localize, which, unfortunately, is equally horribly ambiguous.  --Lambiam 12:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• This sounds a LOT like the Counties of England, which have a wide variety of definitions depending on context. As a cultural division, the three regions of Tennessee are roughly divided by the U-shaped Tennessee River, which divides the state neatly into three roughly equal-sized areas. Under that definition, Cumberland County is in Central Tennessee (it lies in the middle of the U-shape). As an officially-designated geographic division, they are codified in law, and under the law in question, Cumberland County is defined (and has been since said law was passed) as part of East Tennessee. See here, which defines the Eastern Division as including Cumberland County. The last amendment to this provision was in 1948, so at LEAST since 1948 has Cumberland County been a legal part of East Tennessee, but it could have been one of the earlier amendments that put it there. --Jayron32 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

April 21

US scenic placenames

In the US, is it an old tradition to have scenic placenames, such as Sunset Beach, Bayview, Twin Oaks, etc. (or sort of a borrowing from other country's tradition)? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The naming of places has a rich and varied history. If you can get a copy of Names on the Land, you may find it anywhere from interesting to overwhelming. The first two items you mention sound descriptive of a particular place. The third sounds like an observation of an artifact at a particular place. Many places are named for elsewhere. This is especially so in the American northeast, where many cities and counties are named for their British counterparts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Did Cambridge, say, already have a British counterpart before it was so named? —Tamfang (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You'll find that many (if not most) place names were originally descriptive in the original language they came from; whatever the language is at the time it is named gets preserved as the placename is passed from language to language. The names can also be subtly modified by the conventions of the newer language, modifying or distorting the original pronunciation or meaning. Newer place names are more recognizably descriptive only because we tend to speak the language the placename is in, and it hasn't been distorted by linguistic change over the millenia. Many of the names in Britain are descriptors in other languages than English (such as the various Celtic languages of the island, or Norse languages, or Latin, or Norman French) or they are descriptors in older versions of English that are unfamiliar to us. Sticking with Britain, the article titled List of generic forms in place names in Ireland and the United Kingdom has a wealth of etymologies for place names in Britain (and Ireland) and you can see that MANY of the words used are geographic descriptors, like Bradford which just means "wide crossing", referring to a crossing place of the local river, or Dublin, which just means "black pool" (there is also a place in England named Blackpool, FWIW). --Jayron32 12:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It must be acknowledged, though, that some of these "scenic" names (especially of newer settlements) were given by real-estate salesmen or other boosters looking to attract settlers or investments. Deor (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Greenland being one of the first examples of this.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A millenium earlier, the Ancient Greeks originally called the Black Sea Ἄξεινος Πόντος (Áxeinos Póntos), "the Inhospitable Sea". After successful development along the coast, they renamed it Εὔξεινος Πόντος (Eúxeinos Póntos), changing the meaning to "the Hospitable Sea". For a recent example, until 1926 the tourist-trappy Turkish village Şirince, meaning "Charmingly", was named Çirkince, meaning "Uglily".  --Lambiam 17:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Also see Cape of Storms. --Jayron32 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Good old Bridgwater Forest in Winnipeg, which has no bridge, no water, and no forest. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

see Torpenhow Hill for an example of a geograptically descriptive place name appended to over time as the local language evolved 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:D964:507A:629:543C (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In the UK the Victorians were rather prone to naming or renaming places in order to sound nice, either for commercial reasons or simply out of societal decorum. So in Devon there is Westward Ho!, named after a novel that was popular at the time. In Dorset there is West Bay, previously (and logically) called Bridport Harbour. In Derbyshire there is Two Dales, previously called Toad Hole and changed at the insistence of a "squeamish rector"[2]. And not forgetting, back in Dorset, Puddletown, which while not exactly a scenic name, was considered by the Victorians to be preferable to its previous incarnation, Piddletown. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

One suspects that not all the Belvoirs have a beautiful view. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Jamaican Ministry of tourism

Hi all, trying to compile a list of ministers of tourism of Jamaica at User:Eddie891/ministry of tourism. It's not going super well, struggling to find a clear list. Can anyone help me fill it out, or find any more information on the department? Eric Anthony Abrahams was Director of Tourism from 1970 to 1975-- was that a different position? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The website at here is their official website, and has contact information. Perhaps there is a department historian or someone else at the extensive contacts list who could help you research the answers to your questions. --Jayron32 14:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This article refers to both "Tourism Minister Edmund Bartlett" and "Tourism Director John Lynch", so these are different positions. The latter is said to be "head of the Jamaica Hotels and Tourist Association", so it appears that he is not a civil servant.  --Lambiam 16:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A couple small additions, but still not a list, sorry. (1) “After the change of government in October 1980, the tourism portfolio was, for the first time in the nation’s history, invested in a separate Ministry” and “Following elections in 1980… The establishment of a separate Ministry with the sole focus on tourism ” (that source also traces earlier developments from the Tourist Board Act of 1955). (2) Patterson’s memories of being minister of Industry, Tourism and Foreign Trade [3]. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all so far (I had no luck with the contact info-- wouldn't let me send an email). Specifically now, can anyone confirm A) was Aloun Ndombet-Assamba tourism minister from 2003 to 2012 and B) Who was minister from 1992 to 1995? Otherwise, the list might be completish, though not seeing how Patterson fits into this all... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As to A), she is identified here as being the Minister on July 11, 2007, while Bartlett took office on September 15, 2007, so the end date 2012 is not correct.  --Lambiam 12:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, right-- meant to say 2003 to 2007 (we know Bartlett was around for the years after). Good catch! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

P.J. Patterson is mentioned as Minister of Industry and Tourism as of August 1972 here: --Soman (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

April 22

Wadai Empire Question

Hello,

I have a few questions regarding the Waddai Empire. On the page it says that under the reign of Muhammad Sabun he began to mint coins. However, the section does not site a sources and I cannot find any other references. My question is: were coins ever minted?

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Hecking Nerd (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging User:Aldux, who added this (unsourced) information to the History of Chad article in 2006 [4] (the text was later used to create the Wadai Empire article). --Viennese Waltz 07:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence (in fact the whole paragraph, perhaps even the whole section) was copied verbatim from the first chapter, "Historical Setting", by John L. Collier, page 10, of the book Chad: A Country Study, edited by Thomas Collelo; see ref [2] of History of Chad. In an academic thesis such copying would be considered plagiarism.  --Lambiam 08:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted. Per WP:CV, "copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation." --Viennese Waltz 09:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

So it just needs to be paraphrased and referenced. Any takers? Alansplodge (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I had a go for History of Chad, the Barguimi and Ouaddai section. Am out of time - can anyone else check if there is more plagiarism elsewhere in History of Chad? And/or tackle Wadai Empire? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to rephrase; as a work of the United States government, it is compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. Zoozaz1 talk 21:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to add a point of clarification, just because some bit of text is not banned from being used at Wikipedia does not mean that we can't also improve it, rewrite it, or choose to treat it as though it were in copyright, and write our own unique text entirely from scratch; I have no idea whether it is true in this case, but in many cases there are a LOT of a good reasons to avoid directly copying text, especially with regard to style, tone, narrative flow, integration with other text, etc, etc, etc. Not being a copyvio is but one reason to not copy text, but there are many other reasons why it may be a bad idea. --Jayron32 11:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, if not marked as a quotation, it remains plagiarism.  --Lambiam 11:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, plagiarism can be avoided merely by using a proper citation. Since all Wikipedia text should be cited; that's how plagiarism is avoided. --Jayron32 11:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not the general viewpoint in academia. In copying and pasting a significant chunk of text from someone else's work, it is not enough for the copiist to add a citation note. It should be clear, from the presentation in the running text, that the copied text is a quotation, whether by including it between quotation marks, or setting it off as a quoted block.  --Lambiam 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should attribute any text copied from open sources. See WP:COPYOPEN. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, there are references to the Collier book at the end of each paragraph where it is quoted in this article. --Viennese Waltz 06:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

But, as I wrote above, "it is not enough for the copiist to add a citation note". The reader must readily see, by the way the passage is presented, that these are not the words of the present writer, but that it is a verbatim copy lifted from elsewhere.  --Lambiam 09:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Murder of George Floyd

Derek Chauvin was convicted of second degree murder. The other three officers will be tried in August for aiding and abetting second-degree murder.

These two trials are separate from each other, but would they have been able to try the other three officers for aiding and abetting second-degree murder had Chavin not been convicted of second degree murder? --The Vital One (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

One can try anything. Whether or not a conviction is possible is based on the opinion of the court in light of the evidence. Certainly, the lack of a second-degree murder to aid-and-abet would be a hinderance to the prosecutions case, but they are allowed to proceed as far as they can. The defense is also allowed to seek summary dismissal of the changes, and the prosecution can also elect to abandon the case entirely; the really are no requirements. If you want to know more about aiding and abetting, this page seems to have a pretty good summary. --Jayron32 11:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a valid defence that no crime has been committed, so the prosecution has the burden of proof that a crime was committed. The person who actually committed the crime may be unknown, or on the lam, or deceased before they could be convicted, so the absence of a conviction is not per se an impediment to trying accessories. But even the acquittal of a known suspect principal may not put one off the hook, as shown by the curious case of Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980), unanimously decided by the United States Supreme Court.  --Lambiam 11:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

April 23

Has Saudi Arabia been committing a genocide in Yemen????

With the recent news that Greece is providing its new ally Saudi Arabia with Patriot Air Defence System in the latest act of military cooperation between the two countries, I came across someone claiming that Saudi Arabia has been committing a genocide with its armed intervention in the ongoing civil war in Yemen during the past few years. Is there any evidence supporting such a claim? If so, which specific ethnic/religious group are the Saudis trying to destroy? StellarHalo (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There are no clear estimates available for the enormous number of civilian casualties, but whatever the number, the Saudi government can always claim they were collateral damage, whereas, to be considered genocide, such killing requires intent.  --Lambiam 11:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Genocide is a crime against humanity, and as a crime, it generally takes courts and lawyers and judges and tribunals and stuff like that to decide if any particular action by any particular person, group, or country counts as a genocide. That's not for this reference desk to speculate. --Jayron32 11:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The Saudi government (and others) fight against the Houthis (and others). "The Houthi movement is a predominately Zaidi Shia force". Is it genocide? Can a genocide happen in the 21st century before the world's eyes? --Error (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The Darfur genocide has lead to indictments for genocide. The Rohingya genocide and Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL have been recognised as genocide by various parts of the UN. Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The Houthi movement is pretty wannabe-genocidal itself, if you look at the Slogan of the Houthi movement. I'm not sure how sympathetic I am towards those who want to commit genocide, but can't do so due to lack of military strength... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

To be scrupulously fair, the slogan may sound worse in translation than intended in the original Arabic. In English, we sometimes contrast "Down with X" not with "Up with X" but rather with "Long live X." In a similar vein, according to our relevant article, the Arabic term often translated literally by non-Arabic media (who may have an agenda) as "Death to X" has a colloquial meaning more akin to "Down with X."

I'm personally less sanguine about the "Curse on the Jews" part, having Jewish relatives (and possibly ancestry) myself, but the doctrinal and political history involved is nothing if not confused. We must also be cautious about conflating the political Houthi Movement with the ethnic Houthi Tribe. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.136 (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

April 24

Outcome of slave importation to Europe

Since I just had an argument over the question what has become of the majority of [African] slaves deported to Europe, I must be honest here when I say I don't have the time and nerve right now to read through all the relevant articles … Therefore, I beg your pardon when in this case "exploiting" this page as a shortcut by asking: What has become of most of the slaves brought to Europe (esp. UK, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Italy (?)) during the colonial period? Did they stay? Thanks in advance for your understanding and support.--Hildeoc (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

State-sanctioned slavery was not practiced in Western Europe on any large scale after the medieval period, so very few African slaves were permanently deported to Europe during the colonial period. Look for example at Slavery in Britain, you'll find that slavery was made illegal in the 12th century and was never legalized again. The same is true for most of western Europe. Slaves were mostly purchased in Africa and shipped to to the colonies in the Americas; these colonies were outside the jurisdiction of mainland Europe, so the prohibitions against slavery did not apply there. Look as an example as this map, which visualizes the number of African slaves trafficked by European nations. It seems that some slaves were brought to Portugal, and this may be part of the reason the Portugal has "the highest proportion of African ancestry in Europe" (4.2%, see Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula), though migration from North Africa to the Iberian Peninsula, which took place mostly in the Middle Ages, probably accounts for most of this number. - Lindert (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lindert: Thanks. But what about Spain, for instance? At Slavery in Spain, it says: "By the 16th century, 7.4 percent of the population in Seville, Spain were slaves. Many historians have concluded that Renaissance and early-modern Spain had the highest amount of African slaves in Europe."--Hildeoc (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

How Did Early-Modern Slaves in Spain Disappear? The Antecedents says that there are two schools of thought, the orthodox line maintaining that the black population integrated fully with the native Spanish through mixed marriages, but:

"For those maintaining that there was no integration the answer to the mystery of where this African population went lies in demographic trends. According to their calculations, many slaves and freed Africans may have immigrated back to Africa or ended up in the Americas. Furthermore, many Africans had no descendants or their descendants died at a young age. This may have happened because slaves were not encouraged to marry or reproduce, and many Africans were freed when they were too old to bear children."

Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Although as noted above, slavery was illegal in England, a considerable number of slaves were imported in the 18th century as servants, some paid and some not. A few were either given their freedom by their masters, or ran away and found sympathetic benefactors; BLACK PEOPLE IN LATE 18TH-CENTURY BRITAIN highlights the cases of Ignatius Sancho, Cesar Picton and George Africanus, who were able to attain a respectable place in society. Alansplodge (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

See also "There are no Slaves in France": A Re-Examination of Slave Laws in Eighteenth Century France. Alansplodge (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As to what happened to them, a recent BBC documentary managed to track down some descendants of John Blanke, King Henry VIII's black trumpeter (not a slave); they were all white. Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Libyan independence

The infobox in Libya says "Independence from Italy 10 February 1947", but the article says "From 1943 to 1951, Libya was under Allied occupation. " and that "On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya". Could someone bring consistency in that regard? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

February 1947 is when Italy formally ended its claim to Libyan territories as part of the Paris Peace Treaty. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Pregnant people

CNN reports[5] that the CDC now recommends that pregnant people get a covid vaccine. I was previously accustomed to the term "pregnant women", since male pregnancy (while common in certain fiction genres) was afaik at most an extreme biological rarity in real life. Is the new usage supposed to reflect the possibility of pre-surgery transmen getting pregnant, or for nonbinary (if nonbinary pregnancy was ever a thing), or what? The CNN article says "pregnant people" 4 or so times, and "pregnant women" once, so I have to think the change in usage is intentional. I guess I can deal with it, but it took me by surprise. Anyone know more? 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, so you're not alone... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I was not able to find anything published by the CDC or other sources explaining their usage of gender terms. In the absence of a definitive answer, I think it's reasonable to assume that the CDC is using the term pregnant people to be inclusive of people who are transgender or nonbinary. There's some discussion about pregnant people who don't identify as women at Transgender pregnancy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not terribly uncommon for transmasculine people to try to carry a child. Surgery wouldn't enter into it. The surgery is usually top surgery (mastectomy) and less commonly a procedure to increase the apparent size--that is, external protrusion--of the clitoris or penis (depending on what word the person prefers to use.) Those wouldn't stop pregnancy; what would is the hormones. Testosterone is pretty effective birth control. They'd have to stop taking it for a while. I'll note that there are next to no resources for transmasculine pregnancy in general, and the doctors aren't good with trans pregnancy healthcare, so it's nice to see these folks make a gesture toward inclusion. Temerarius (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also certainly possible for people to be pregnant who do not identify as female, but who are also not transgender. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the currently mandated way to think. Example: Not long ago, the news was flush with articles about the first "man" to give birth. That implies that a person who was born with a penis and testes somehow became pregnant and somehow carried a child to birth. That wasn't the case. It was a person born with a vagina and ovaries who gave birth while opting for the gender identity of a man. If you think that the pregnant person was a woman, you are thinking wrong and you need to be retrained. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you please remove your comment? Your last sentence is a personal attack. I am happy to discuss gender with you, perhaps on your or my talk page, but as it stands your comment will certainly be harmful to editors and readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. I used indefinite you in a sentence on that same page, but as I feel it could be read not like I expected after all I'm rephrasing it now. -- Askedonty (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't read the IP's last sentence as a personal attack - I read it as a comment about feeling attacked for not conforming to a particular viewpoint. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

April 25

Do most Greek Cypriots and most Turkish Cypriots currently support the reunification of Cyprus?

Are majority of people living on Cyprus in favor of reunifying the island? Have Greek Cypriots abandoned all hope of annexing the island to Greece? And vice versa for Turkish Cypriots and annexing Cyprus to Turkey? StellarHalo (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots say no to Cyprus reunification (March 2021). Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It was the Greek Cypriots who rejected the 2004 Cypriot Annan Plan referendums. Of course, many on the Greek side don't consider those who immigrated to northern Cyprus since 1974 to be Cypriots at all. In a way, both sides are kind of "status quo" at the moment -- Turkey controls a larger percentage of the land of Cyprus than the percentage of the island's population who are Turks, and is not eager to stir up international antagonism for a dubious benefit by seizing more land, while the Greek Cypriots have diplomatic recognition and membership in international organizations, and would not likely gain in any renewed military confrontation. AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that "the Turkish Cypriots" who say no to reunification is Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu, who identifies himself as a Turkish nationalist and also campaigned against the Annan Plan in 2004, which nevertheless was approved by 65% of Turkish Cypriots. The position of the Turkish-Cypriot government does not tell us anything about the current position of most Turkish Cypriots. It is more telling that in the 2020 presidential election the incumbent President, a proponent of reunification, lost by a small margin to a supporter of the two-state solution. But the total number of votes on candidates supporting reunification in the first round exceeded 50% of the votes, so the outcome of the election cannot be interpreted as a referendum on reunification.  --Lambiam 09:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian exonym for other groups

What were the ancient Egyptian names for other lands such as Babylon, Assyria, Canaan, etc? 69.209.14.47 (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some:

Amurru: Imur

Asia Minor: Setjet

Assyria: Isur

Babylon: Beber or Babaru

Babylonia: see Babylon; also Sangar

Canaan: Kanana; see also Retjenu

Crete: Keftyu

Djahy: Djaha

Hatti: Kheta

India: Henduay

Ionia (?): Yuni or Yuni-aa

Israel (?): Isriar

Kush: Kash or Kas, later Kesh

Libya: Tjehenu, later Libu

Macedon: Migaden

Punt: Punet

Retjenu: Retjenu

Rome: Herem

Scythia: Sek or Sag

Troy: Waiuriy

Placenames like Crete and Rome can also stand metonymically for a whole civilization or empire.  --Lambiam 11:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That list appears to combine names from widely separated periods of history. It's not clear why Egyptians would even need a name for Macedon before 333 B.C., or for Rome before 146 B.C, while a number of the other names date from the invasions of the Sea Peoples before 1000 B.C. The name Israel occurs on the Merneptah Stele, but Egyptians often indiscriminately referred to many groups in the general Canaan area with semi-derogatory terms which are translated as "nomads" or "Asiatics"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Did Egypt have no trading links, perhaps via intermediaries, with Rome before the Battle of Corinth?

The poster specifically asked about lands rather than peoples or groups, but the Habiru may also be of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Before Rome's victory in the Third Punic War (also 146 B.C.) it was a kind of regional power, and region did not include the southeast corner of the Mediterranean. Egypt's Mediterranean Sea trade during the Ptolemaic period was conducted from the most heavily Greek-inhabited region of Egypt (Alexandria) by people who used Greek as their trade lingua france, and were mostly not native Egyptians. Since Rome was a rather distant and not-vitally-important entity with respect to Egypt at that time, it's not clear to me why native Egyptians who did not usually engage in sea trade really needed a word for "Rome"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't suppose the average Egyptian on the Thebes public oxcart service (to adapt a phrase) did, but I would have expected Achaemenid and Ptolomaic government officials concerned with foreign relations to have been aware of Rome and to have talked to and corresponded with native Egyptians in Egyptian/Demotic about it. Hence, presumably, Herem being a borrowing from Greek Ῥώμη. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.135.95 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Circumnavigation and canals

Is there any reason why USS Triton (SSRN-586) didn't use Panama Canal and Suez Canal in its circumnavigation? As far as I can see, passing through the canals still gets you around the globe, even if through shortcuts. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• A submarine can not remain submerged in the canals. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Besides, if one of the reasons for the trip is to impress people, doing it without shortcuts is more impressive. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

April 26

Repatriation during (not after) World War II

I just rewatched The Captive Heart. A key plot element had the protagonist, supposedly a British POW, repatriated "back" to England just before he is unmasked as a Czech escapee from a concentration camp. Did such in-war repatriations actually take place? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's one account: [6]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Amazing. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The system was open to abuse however; see Captain Ion Ferguson, a British Army doctor who "coached two RAF prisoners to convincingly simulate schizophrenia, who were consequently repatriated, while waiting for his own repatriation to Britain in the same way".

Our List of attempts to escape Oflag IV-C article also lists Lt.Col. M.B. Reid, who "Feigned heart disease by smoking heavily and drinking concentrated black coffee prior to medical examination and was repatriated". Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Also happened in the First World War. C. W. Hill and E. H. Jones pulled the trick against the Turks. You should definitely read Jones's The Road to En-dor. DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I have found it here. Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)