Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions
Line 298: | Line 298: | ||
::Now that's just beautiful, thank you. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
::Now that's just beautiful, thank you. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
||
::Since I was also summoned, I will offer light feedback: while I would not commit LGBT erasure, because it is not factual, I find fault with "so wishes a lover", as the English sounds to me unambiguously homoerotic, while the Latin is not so, so one risks perhaps heterosexual erasure(?). Perhaps something like "so wishes one who admires", or that which you would call only ambiguously homoerotic rather than unambiguously homoerotic. "Vterque opere" would in principle mean "by his work both (Italian and English)", since you translated as if from "utroque opere", which is not what was written. "Sculpsit" I propose to translate as "engraved", since it will simply be better understood. I think also "eager by his virtue" is hard to conceptualize. I would honestly say the Latin is also not entirely easy to conceptualize, but the phrases are not matching in my head, as "eager by his virtue" seems to say in other words that he is just "naturally eager". Perhaps "brimming with virtue", or something of the sort; |
::Since I was also summoned, I will offer light feedback: while I would not commit LGBT erasure, because it is not factual, I find fault with "so wishes a lover", as the English sounds to me unambiguously homoerotic, while the Latin is not so, so one risks perhaps heterosexual erasure(?). Perhaps something like "so wishes one who admires", or that which you would call only ambiguously homoerotic rather than unambiguously homoerotic. "Vterque opere" would in principle mean "by his work both (Italian and English)", since you translated as if from "utroque opere", which is not what was written. "Sculpsit" I propose to translate as "engraved", since it will simply be better understood. I think also "eager by his virtue" is hard to conceptualize. I would honestly say the Latin is also not entirely easy to conceptualize, but the phrases are not matching in my head, as "eager by his virtue" seems to say in other words that he is just "naturally eager". Perhaps "brimming with virtue", or something of the sort; or indeed "content with his virtue". It is hard for me to conceptualize. "Behold, brimming with his virtue, renowned of skill (or indeed the less translated "noble of art", or "of noble art") / Italian of language (or "Italian when he speaks", as Florio did not grow up in England and could only properly learn English after he came to England at the age of 19, so I imagine he certainly spoke English with an Italian accent and mannerisms), English of heart (or "but his heart is English", "with an English heart", "English on the inside", "essentially English"), [and] both of his work (this sounds perhaps weak, but the English for this expression is not taking shape in my mind) / he flourishes still, and will yet flourish; flourish for ever / FLORIO, blooming as he is here, wishes he who admires." "Engraved by William Hole | Who wishes he was so blessed". I wish to avoid "florid" at the cost of wordplay, since for some reason in English this refers to complexion. Sadly I am also not a native speaker of Latin, and not truly proficient. [[User:Draco argenteus|Draco argenteus]] ([[User talk:Draco argenteus|talk]]) 06:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Would The US Government extradite someone only to deport them? == |
== Would The US Government extradite someone only to deport them? == |
Revision as of 06:55, 16 July 2021
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
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.
July 9
Large differences in religiosity rates of neighbouring countries
I was surprised to read on irreligion the large differences in percentage of population who are nonreligious, e.g. Czech Republic, 75% vs Slovakia, 23% or Uruguay, 47% vs Paraguay, 2%. I can understand when one country has a communist history and not the other e.g. Vietnam, 63% vs Cambodia, < 1%, but what about the other examples? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you think Cambodia didn't have a communist government, you might want to read about a particularly nasty fellow named Pol Pot. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- There are likely to be many confounding variables such as urbanization and GDP per capita. --Amble (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- The list at Irreligion uses quite disparate sources, which in similar cases is rarely a good idea. List of countries by irreligion uses a better approach. Paraguay isn't present, Uruguay has a smaller figure. The differences between Czech Republic and Slovakia are less marked, but still noticeable. Personuser (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Good point – I forgot about Pol Pot. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 06:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Check out Irreligion in Canada or Irreligion in the United States to see how far the populace swings even within countries. As others pointed out you can correlate the cross-province/state levels of irreligion with urbanization, gdp, education, historical local religion, political affiliation, and country of origin of local population. Of 19 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Cmglee -- One big historical difference between the Czech Republic and Poland (I don't know much about Slovakia), is that in Poland the Catholic Church served as a kind of refuge for Polish nationalism, while the Czechs chose a religion other than Roman Catholicism on three separate historical occasions (Eastern Orthodoxy under Great Moravia in the 9th century, heterodox Catholicism under the Hussites in the 15th century, and Protestantism under the "Winter King" in the 17th century), and on each occasion, Roman Catholicism was basically (re)imposed by German military might. I don't know how often modern Czechs think about any of those incidents, but they've taken their toll in different attitudes toward the Catholic Church in the Czech Republic vs. Poland... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Some explanation at Catholic Church in the Czech Republic#History... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Also how do you define religiosity? For instance, in the last UK census (2011), 59% of people ticked Christian (this is expected to be significantly lower for this years census). However, if you actually look at regular church attendance, that is way lower (this survey puts it at 5% in 2015). Of course, church attendance is also a flexible term, but by any measure it'll be lower than the census figure. There would be a number of reasons for this, there is the concept of a "cultural Christian", and the phenomenon of people having their children baptised and nominally be part of a church to get into better schools for instance. This is all a long-winded way of saying that it depends on what you classify as religious, and different countries will likely be using different measures, leading to perhaps unexpected results. Fgf10 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
As already touched on earlier, such measures are inevitably inaccurate. Different countries use different ways of determining how many people follow religion there. I truly wish Wikipedia was more discerning in reporting on such matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- The table in the Irreligion article, ranking countries by 'Percentage of population who are nonreligious' is WP:OR. It collects together disparate data from multiple sources to arrive at a conclusion (the ranking) not given in any single source. Such WP:OR is extremely common in lists and tables on Wikipedia, though getting people to admit there is a problem, let alone do anything about it, is probably a lost cause. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is not necessarily OR, see WP:CALC which states that "Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies," implying that comparing statistics from sources that use the same methodology is not OR. Zoozaz1 talk 03:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- So, what methodology was used to collect the data used in that table? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I replaced the table at irreligion with an excerpt from List of countries by irreligion. The matter was mentioned on the talk page on the ground of content forking, the best place to discuss details is probably Talk:List of countries by irreligion. Personuser (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's still completely unreliable data. And wanting people to discuss it at what must be a rarely looked at article seems to be sweeping the broader problem under the rug. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- The other table at least makes an attempt and gives some cautionary advices, and would make a better starting point for answering this question. My intention was mainly to avoid confusion and scattered discussion about details of this particular table, not to dismiss general discussion about the reliability of data on religion or the poor quality of many wikipedia lists, though I see how my comment could be seen this way and thank you for pointing that out. The older list was just so awful I couldn't stand it. Personuser (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, actually on the other list Zuckerman seems to be the only one interested more in sociology than marketing. Personuser (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's still completely unreliable data. And wanting people to discuss it at what must be a rarely looked at article seems to be sweeping the broader problem under the rug. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I replaced the table at irreligion with an excerpt from List of countries by irreligion. The matter was mentioned on the talk page on the ground of content forking, the best place to discuss details is probably Talk:List of countries by irreligion. Personuser (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- So, what methodology was used to collect the data used in that table? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is not necessarily OR, see WP:CALC which states that "Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies," implying that comparing statistics from sources that use the same methodology is not OR. Zoozaz1 talk 03:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. My take from it is that the data is from disparate sources which use different measures and thus cannot be directly compared, I suppose like populations of largest cities. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 07:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
July 10
Lloyd George, Thomas, Reading, and who else?
Can anyone identify the two officers seen here with Albert Thomas, David Lloyd George, and Lord Reading please? The tall chap in the middle looks awfully familiar, but I can't place him. The photographer is Ernest Brooks. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- The tall one might be Archibald Murray? File:Murray wills.jpg He was Chief of the General Staff in late 1915, so would have had to deal with politicians, but went off to Egypt in January 1916. The smaller one might be Julian Byng? The scruffy cap certainly fits. Moustaches were compulsory until 1917, so they're all a bit similar-looking. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- There's a higher definition version of the picture here. Zooming in I don't think it's Murray, our chap has more of a toothbrush. I don't think the other fellow is Byng (tho' I see what you mean). He's got one row of scrambled egg on his cap, so not a general, either a brigadier or a colonel, I think the shoulder-boards look like a colonel's, but it's hard to say. DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, meant to add the picture is dated 1916 in the book I saw it in. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Here we have Thomas, Reading, and Lloyd George "at 14th Army Headquarters at Meaulte on the Somme" on 12 September 1916. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not wishing to contradict the sages of the National Army Museum, but we don't appear to have had a Fourteenth Army (United Kingdom) until 1943. Perhaps a typo for Fourth Army (United Kingdom), which was formed in 1916 for service on the Somme? Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- If so, the local great panjandrum would have been Henry Rawlinson. Looks similar perhaps? Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly, it also struck me it might be a slip for XIV Corps, under Cavan, who in some pictures looks a bit like scruffy-cap man. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe, here he is in 1929 after his moustache had gone grey and he'd bought a new cap. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- This says XIV Army Corps. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Which seems to have been part of Fourth Army. Alansplodge (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- This says XIV Army Corps. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe, here he is in 1929 after his moustache had gone grey and he'd bought a new cap. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not wishing to contradict the sages of the National Army Museum, but we don't appear to have had a Fourteenth Army (United Kingdom) until 1943. Perhaps a typo for Fourth Army (United Kingdom), which was formed in 1916 for service on the Somme? Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Here we have Thomas, Reading, and Lloyd George "at 14th Army Headquarters at Meaulte on the Somme" on 12 September 1916. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Birthplace of Edwina Mountbatten, née Ashley
I need a reliable source for the birthplace of Edwina Mountbatten. I believe it to be 32 Bruton Street, her parent's London house, but neither Janet Morgan nor Richard Hough say this explicitly. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- According to this, the family also had a house at 13 Cadogan Square, but her actual birthplace eludes me. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I kept on coming across "Broadlands", and a search for
Edwina Cynthia Ashley Broadlands
in Google Books returns the snippet "Edwina - Cynthia - Annette Ashley des barons Mount Temple, née à Broadlands, Hampshire, 28 nov. 1901. "And dark the Almanach de Gotha p. 372, and dark the sun and moon..." MinorProphet (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)- Richard Hough has her mother going into labour in their London house on the 27th, attended by two gynaecologists from Harley Street, and giving birth the next day. The thing is there were other London houses apart from Bruton Street available to them. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just goes to show you can't believe a thing you read, eh? MinorProphet (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Duncan seems unaware that the birthplace was amended to "32 Bruton Street" yesterday morning, citing the Mountbatten family website as a reference. 92.8.221.69 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- DH asked for something WP:reliable.[self-published source?] Have you visited WP:Helpdesk recently?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorProphet (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am aware it was changed, and I am aware the website cited which is NOT a family site is not a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wow!! Richard Hough was Bruce Carter, who wrote Speed Six! "Once more unto the gates of hell, old friend, eh?" Best book about Bentleys and Le Mans ever. I shall sleep well tonight. MinorProphet (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am aware it was changed, and I am aware the website cited which is NOT a family site is not a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- DH asked for something WP:reliable.[self-published source?] Have you visited WP:Helpdesk recently?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorProphet (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Duncan seems unaware that the birthplace was amended to "32 Bruton Street" yesterday morning, citing the Mountbatten family website as a reference. 92.8.221.69 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just goes to show you can't believe a thing you read, eh? MinorProphet (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Richard Hough has her mother going into labour in their London house on the 27th, attended by two gynaecologists from Harley Street, and giving birth the next day. The thing is there were other London houses apart from Bruton Street available to them. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I kept on coming across "Broadlands", and a search for
- I've found it! There was a notice in the Births column of the 7th December 1901 issue of The Queen, "ASHLEY - On the 28th ult., at 31, Bruton-street, Mrs Wilfrid Ashley, of a daughter." DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, 31, no 32 - but they definitely lived at 32, there are numerous reports of that. Unlike The Queen to get something like that wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
July 11
SSR into ASSR
Were there any plans or proposals after 1956 for the dissolution of some of the Soviet Socialist Republics (SSR), annexing them to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, maybe in the form of Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics (ASSR)? I'm thinking especially about the Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR. Thanks! --80.180.161.98 (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- That would have been embarrasing, since that would have meant that the UN memberships of the two would have had to be withdrawn... The Karelo-Finnish SSR was demoted to an ASSR in 1956. AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the separate SSR's of the USSR's had their own UN memberships? I never knew that and it surprises me. I guess it's not quite like separate US states having their own memberships but I had thought that the USSR was one country. Was/is there a similar situation with the countries of the UK (England, Scotland, etc.)? 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, just the Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs had this special status. There is brief mention made in the article Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as to why - apparently a clause or two in the SSR's constitution: "It is, however, important to note that in 1944 the Ukrainian SSR was permitted to establish bilateral relations with countries and maintain its own standing army. This clause was used to permit the republic's membership in the United Nations. Accordingly, representatives from the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" and 50 other nations founded the UN on 24 October 1945. In effect, this provided the Soviet Union (a permanent Security Council member with veto powers) with another vote in the General Assembly." Presumably the same arrangement occurred for the Byelorussian SSR but not the other SSRs of the Soviet Union. 220.244.176.56 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
July 12
Billy Ruffian and Bellamy's cottage at Plymstock
According to our article HMS Bellerophon some of her timbers were incorporated into a cottage at Plymstock by George Bellamy, who was her surgeon at the Battle of the Nile. This page says it was "a charming cottage in the Victorian Gothic style ... near the waterfront". Do we know anything more about his cottage, does it survive, are there any pictures of it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- This page says it's called Burrow Lodge [1]. --Amble (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Amble: Brilliant, thank you. It's a Grade II listed building according to Historic England. A picture here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Landscape painter
I'm looking for sufficient information on landscape painter Johann Friederich Hennings (1838 Bremen – 1899 München) to be confident the Australian Dictionary of Biography isn't confusing two people when it gives the Australian scenic painter John Hennings, also of Danish/German origin exactly the same birthname. Doug butler (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to be a popular name. The ADB entry for the German painter (1838–1899) notes that a painter of a similar name died in 1895.[2] Hack (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- A remarkably similar name and a close contemporary. Thanks, that's interesting. Also that our two reference works are known as ADB! Doug butler (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
July 13
restaurant and marina near airplane crash site
I'm trying to figure out the name of a restaurant and connecting marina. It's located on Long Island, New York, near the TWA Flight 800 crash site. Could anyone help me figure out what I'm referring to please? Thank you.2603:7000:8106:C149:78D4:457E:B241:48B0 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- In Google Maps, I went to the crash coordinates given in the Wikipedia article and searched on "marina". One of the closest hits was the Atlantic Cove Marina, about 11 miles from the crash position, and I found the Coral Restaurant (or Coral Tapas and Wine Bar) adjacent. --174.94.31.124 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Amount of French speaker in France at the times of the Revolution and 1870s?
At the time of the French Revolution, what estimated percentage of the French population spoke French as their native language and what estimated percentage could at least understand it? What about during the late 19th century around 1870s just prior to the educational reform campaign of Jules Ferry? StellarHalo (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Define "French." Are you contrasting it with languages like Basque and Breton, or are you contrasting it with Provencal and Corsican too? 74.98.192.38 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- @StellarHalo: If you read French: fr:Français#Enseignement du français en France:
- Jusqu'à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, les élèves de France apprennent toujours à lire en latin, qui a toujours le statut de langue de transmission du savoir. Le français est enseigné de manière rudimentaire : simples notions d'orthographe et de grammaire. De plus, les classes se déroulent toujours en dialecte local afin de se faire comprendre des élèves, car ces dialectes sont toujours utilisés comme langue courante en France.
- Dans son rapport112 de juin 1794, l'abbé Grégoire révéla que le français était uniquement et « exclusivement » parlé dans « environ 15 départements » (sur 83). Il lui paraissait paradoxal, et pour le moins insupportable, de constater que moins de 3 millions de Français sur 28 parlaient la langue nationale, alors que sur le territoire de la Nouvelle-France, celle-ci était utilisée et unifiée depuis plus de 100 ans de Bâton-Rouge à Montréal113
- En 1863, d'après une enquête lancée par Victor Duruy, 8 381 communes sur 37 510, environ le quart de la population rurale ne parlait pas français118.
- Pourtant en 1863, sur 38 millions de Français, 7,5 millions ne connaissaient pas la « langue nationale ». D'après les témoignages de l'époque, les enfants des villages ne retenaient presque rien du français appris à l'école, celui-ci « ne laisse pas plus de trace que le latin n'en laisse à la plupart des élèves sortis des collèges ». Les élèves reparlent leur patois à la maison.
- The numbers intruding in my copied text are references in fr.WP.
- --Error (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Quick translation without assistance:
- Up to the end of the 18th century, students/pupils in France always learned to read Latin, which always had the status of the language used to transmit knowledge. French was taught in a rudimentary manner: simple ideas of spelling and grammar. Also, classes were always conducted in the local dialect so that the students would understand them, as these dialects were always used for everyday language in France.
- In his report of June 1794, Abbot Gregory revealed that French was uniquely and "exclusively" spoken in "about 15 departments" (out of 83). It seemed paradoxical and unsupportable to him to state that less than 3 million out of 28 million French people spoke the national language, even though in New France, it had been in unified use for over 100 years from Baton Rouge to Montreal.
- In 1863, according to an inquiry started by Victor Duruy, 8,381 out of 37,510 communes, or about a quarter of the rural population, did not speak French.
- Also in 1863, out of 38 million French people, 7.5 million did not know the "national language". According to testimony of the period, children from villages remembered almost nothing of the French they learned in school, which "left no more trace on them than Latin left on the majority of students leaving college." At home the students spoke their patois (dialect).
- --174.94.31.124 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Quick translation without assistance:
U.K. BUNKER HUNTER (looking for ROC observation posts)
I’m looking for a comprehensive list of ROC (Royal Observeor Corps) bunkers/observation posts because I can’t seem to find a comprehensive list.
I know one can drive on a motorway and expect to see them on the side of the road but one may not have Time for this.
I know multiple sites show nuke bunkers in London and would be appreciative if someone could get that too me!
- Assuming you're interested in Cold War facilities, Nuclear Monitoring Posts from www.subbrit.org.uk seems to be the best fit. Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A way to access German army records
I have a great grandpa who fought in WW2, I know everything but his operating number, how would I go about getting all of the search done without this?
I don’t want to use third party sites that you pay for I would appreciate if someone could tell me a way to do this on the bundeswher website!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:1090:3178:ec46:8bda:e5e9:81eb (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure any of this is online, but the institution in charge of those archival materials is the Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv of the German Federal Archives in Freiburg (http://www.bundesarchiv.de). You'd have to contact them, but I wouldn't expect individual soldiers' records could easily be researched online. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Finding German World War II Service Records has more details about obtaining records from the Bundesarchiv and other sources. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
July 14
Why was the Tulsa Ports placed at Catoosa?
I was looking at various maps of Oklahoma, and the question came to me of why does the Tulsa Port of Catoosa even exist. Tulsa lies on the Arkansas River, which is considerably larger than the Verdigris River on which the Tulsa Port of Catoosa lies. Also Tulsa was a vastly larger city than Catoosa (by about 2 orders of magnitude before Catoosa began growing after the port was placed there). Wouldn't it be more efficient to transport goods directly from/to Tulsa via the Arkansas River than to move goods from Tulsa to Catoosa to then be transported via the Verdigris River, which in fact is a tributary of the Arkansas and flows into the Arkansas anyway? This seems like a pointless diversion of goods that makes the entire transportation process longer and more inefficient. Why was the decision made in the 1960s to develop a port in Catoosa on the Verdigris River instead of developing the banks of Tulsa that lie directly on the Arkansas River? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 04:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- It is not only a transportation centre, but also a large industrial park, mostly built in the 1970s and later, also served by served by both the BNSF Railroad and the South Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad. Much of the goods transported has the park as origin or destination. I assume the location was selected as being the most suitable, given an array of criteria (such as: not occupying prime real estate like downtown Tulsa, accessibility by railroad), along the waterways of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. --Lambiam 07:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer my question, though. As you said, the industrial park was built in the 1970s or later, and it was only built around the port placed at Catoosa -- my point is, why place that port at Catoosa in the first place, an inconvenient distance away from Tulsa, when Tulsa is already lying on the Arkansas? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 12:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- If the first commercial shipment arrived in the port in 1971, there cannot have been much of a port before. My understanding is that even though the port was built first, port and park were conceived from the start as a unified project. --Lambiam 19:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wild guess: People don’t like to live really close to ports and industrial parks. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Another wild guess: is the Arkansas River prone to flooding or droughts? If so it would make sens to use a nearby smaller but more predictable or controllable river as the port. Xuxl (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- We're guessing now? I think the motto of the Ref Desks should be "Whereof one cannot speak with references, thereof one must remain silent" (apologies to Wittgenstein). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Shame upon us - the history stack exchange beat us to the right answer. Something about gradients and locks, supported by this reference. Alansplodge (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- We're guessing now? I think the motto of the Ref Desks should be "Whereof one cannot speak with references, thereof one must remain silent" (apologies to Wittgenstein). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Another wild guess: is the Arkansas River prone to flooding or droughts? If so it would make sens to use a nearby smaller but more predictable or controllable river as the port. Xuxl (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wild guess: People don’t like to live really close to ports and industrial parks. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- If the first commercial shipment arrived in the port in 1971, there cannot have been much of a port before. My understanding is that even though the port was built first, port and park were conceived from the start as a unified project. --Lambiam 19:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer my question, though. As you said, the industrial park was built in the 1970s or later, and it was only built around the port placed at Catoosa -- my point is, why place that port at Catoosa in the first place, an inconvenient distance away from Tulsa, when Tulsa is already lying on the Arkansas? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 12:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Full siblings preferred to half-siblings in fief inheritance
I have come across some vague references to full siblings being preferred to half-siblings in succession to fiefs under the principle of proximity of blood. The Coutumes de Beauvaisis do not mention this. Can someone shed some light on this, please? Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's implied by the rules of primogeniture collating with monogamy. The "Coutumes" are not excluding explicitly any arrangement if I'm reading them right :
The standard interpretation (https://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/ainesse) is not suggesting I'm right, or maybe it's suggestive of some ambiguity. Askedonty (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)466. Se vilenages vient a enfans en descendant ou en eschoite, il n'i a point d'ainsneece, ains en porte autant li mainsnés comme li ainsnés
Family of Nabonidus and Belshazzar in ancient Babylon
It says in our page for Lucifer in the section Christian Folklore, background that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar II. I'm not sure this is right, as I thought Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus. Indeed our page for Belshazzar has him as the son of Nabonidus. Does this need correcting or am I missing something?95.150.44.185 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the edit that introduced this text: [3]. I can't see the text of Laney's book to check whether it actually says this. It's possible that either Laney or the 2016 IP editor is following the book of Daniel, which does appear to make Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar. In either case, the Laney book seems most relevant to Christian beliefs about the Isaiah passage, rather than to the historical relationships of the Babylonian rulers. --Amble (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps inserting "according to the Book of Daniel" in the text would put things to right? Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- We really need to find out what the Laney book actually says. The 2016 edit I linked inserts new text in between the citation and the shorter text that went with it. That might be further information based on the book, or it might be the IP editor's explanation of the earlier text based on their own understanding. (It's also not universally accepted that the book of Daniel really does mean to make Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar.) --Amble (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps inserting "according to the Book of Daniel" in the text would put things to right? Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
can employers legally ban employees from having certain apps installed on their personal phones while in the workplace
suppose this employer abhors tik tok because it is complicit with ethnic cleansing of millions of Uyghurs and also concerned about its national security and eavesdropping risk. could an employer or medical provider legally ban employees from having tiktok installed on their phone while within the building where it theoretically could eavesdrop on private patient conversations (they could always reinstall it once clocked out), or terminate employees who refuse to do so Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- That could depend on the laws of a given region. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:RD "Note: Legal or medical advice is prohibited." Consult a local lawyer if you want to know what is or is not legally allowed. RudolfRed (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not only may this be different in different jurisdictions, but this is also unlikely to have been codified in such detail in existing legislation. So a typical scenario may unfold as follows (simplified): (1) Employer forbids the employees to do something. (2) Employee ignores the ban. (3) Employer fires employee. (4) Employee sues employer. The lawyers on both sides (and ultimately the judges) will examine existing case law for similar cases to see if there are generally applicable principles. One rather general principle that is applied in many jurisdictions is that the employer needs to have a legitimate interest in maintaining the ban, an interest that has more weight than the interest of the employer of not having their private choices intruded upon. So it is likely that the employer needs an argument that is strong and work-related. If they claim the ban is to protect the privacy of customers (work-related) while their actual motivation is political (not work-related), the party fighting the ban in court will probably try to prove that the stated argument is fake. --Lambiam 19:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- The trump card might be, what has any particular cellphone app got to do with the work the employee is being paid to do? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well...sort of? There are some roughly accurate observations in there, but assuming you are referring to the current state of American common law, as several details in your post seem to establish), you have misconstrued the breadth of grounds under which such suits can be brought and the burden-shifting under which they operate, especially if we are applying the manner in which these laws and principles operate to the OP's hypothetical. In truth, throughout the U.S., employers enjoy substantial latitude for dismissing at-will employees for completely arbitrary reasons. Unless terms of an employment contract dictate otherwise, most privately employers have no obligation to establish just cause before a termination.
- As you correctly note, there are some not-insubstantial variations between jurisdictions: there are federal statutes and a substantial body of case law which prohibit termination where it is based on certain forms of recognized discrimination of what are known as protected classes (sex, age, national origin, religion, disability, ect.) and some other more marginal protections under labour and civil rights law. These protections are often described as the "floor" of U.S. labour protections, because they are jurisdictionally broad (applying to causes of action arising in any U.S. state), but extremely narrow in the protections they afford in terms of restricting at-will terminations, beyond protecting individuals from being sacked for no other cause than belonging to an afore-mentioned protected classes. However, on top of this, states are largely at liberty to raise the "ceiling" on these protections by statutorily (or by judicial expansion of said state-level statutes) establishing additional protections, with a fair deal of variance in how aggressively the state legislatures have pursued this prerogative in the interest of worker's rights.
- However the most critical distinction to be made here (and the crux of why I think your response perhaps paints a more open-ended interpretation of the worker's legal recourse in the OP's scenario than is realistic) is that the employee here is going to bear the burden of establishing a cause of action under either federal or state law in order to survive summary dismissal of the suit. In other words, this plaintiff will need to articulate that the employer violated the letter of a specific law offering them a more particularized protection--or in extremely rare occasions, some fundamental constitutional right--before they can even proceed to attempting to make their case. It is only after that threshold has been passed that a court will take such a suit to the trial phase and ultimately weigh the relative importance of the rights, interests, and reasonable expectations of the private parties--and there's a strong tradition in the American judiciary of regarding both parties in an at-will arrangement as being free to terminate the relationship on completely arbitrary grounds, unless the statutory protection is very express.
- Now, of course I don't know the entirety of the labour rights carve-outs of the civil code of every state in the U.S., but I've never heard of a statute for any state which carves out the kind of protection for possessing an app at work, nor even any common law carve-out close enough to be leveraged as particularly useful persuasive authority in such a case. And the options under federal law are even more dubious: suits charging illegal dismissal under federal law are typically brought under the provenience of civil rights violations or violations of the National Labor Relations Act, and in both cases I think you would struggle to find a cause of action under the circumstances presented by the OP, since the former are concerned largely with protected classes and the latter with rights regarding labour organization. For example, the National Labor Relations Board has already ruled that employers can ban cell phones in work spaces in their entirety (let alone specific apps which they might suspect could be used for surveillance), provided that their reason in doing so is not an attempt to interfere with labor organization and bargaining rights protected under Section 7 of the NLRA. In fact, that same case recognized rather substantial interests for employers in restricting employee conduct, in what is now known as the Boeing Standard. (see here).
- So, at the end of the day, when it comes to termination of employment in the U.S., it's not really a simple head-to-head analysis of the relative rights of the parties, because under U.S. law (in most jurisdictions and circumstances), there is a general presumption that both employer and employee have a right to go their own way, at-will, without penalty or regulation, unless they have contracted for another arrangement, with only a relatively small handful of established scenarios where federal, state, and local governments are recognized as having standing to interfere with those rights, meaning the courts are typically not empowered to intercede on either party's behalf, and thus generally would never even get to the stage of weighing more particularized interests. Of course this analysis is strictly directed at the American context: very different principles apply throughout much of the rest of the world.
- Note that I went back and forth on whether to provide this analysis at all, given our prohibition on providing legal advice, but the OP's inquiry seems abstract and since others had already responded in terms which I felt had confused the factual issues (forgive my saying so Lambiam--I generally find you to be a fine contributor, but I think you presented an at best incomplete answer here), I thought this information appropriate. If the OP is in fact inquiring because of a situation directly relevant to them, they should now that I am not an expert qualified to provide advice on labour law, U.S. or otherwise, that I am only pointing to some general principles here, and that they should absolutely not be relying (even as a first step) on information garnered from random persons online and should instead consult with with an attorney or other legal expert experienced in labour law as it applies to their locality. Furthermore, if any contributor here believes that the OP's question may be fairly interpreted to be likely to be a request for legal advice, I empower you to delete this post in its entirety, knowing that you will get no gripe or push-back for me. I have been very eager to encourage adherence to our WP:RD rules and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Snow let's rap 07:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I could and should have been clearer, but note that the issue in the putative litigation was not the legality of the firing, but of the ban, which can be claimed to be a privacy intrusion. When hiring, a US employer may have more leeway to impose arbitrary obligations on hopeful employees under the legal fiction that they are free not to accept the terms of employment as offered but can chose to starve instead. But can employers arbitrarily change these terms and unilaterally impose new obligations on employees during their employment? --Lambiam 22:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note that I went back and forth on whether to provide this analysis at all, given our prohibition on providing legal advice, but the OP's inquiry seems abstract and since others had already responded in terms which I felt had confused the factual issues (forgive my saying so Lambiam--I generally find you to be a fine contributor, but I think you presented an at best incomplete answer here), I thought this information appropriate. If the OP is in fact inquiring because of a situation directly relevant to them, they should now that I am not an expert qualified to provide advice on labour law, U.S. or otherwise, that I am only pointing to some general principles here, and that they should absolutely not be relying (even as a first step) on information garnered from random persons online and should instead consult with with an attorney or other legal expert experienced in labour law as it applies to their locality. Furthermore, if any contributor here believes that the OP's question may be fairly interpreted to be likely to be a request for legal advice, I empower you to delete this post in its entirety, knowing that you will get no gripe or push-back for me. I have been very eager to encourage adherence to our WP:RD rules and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Snow let's rap 07:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Supposing the employer did have such a rule, how would they know that an employee had that app on their cellphone? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Spotchecking à la the 45th president, sort of like drug testing and having to prove the app is not installed. It was just a hypothetical. If employers are permitted to ban personal cell phone use, do they have leave to permit personal cell use while preventing certain apps from being installed on a personal cell phone while in use at the workplace. There is no directly relevant situation currently, the question is a conceptual one of technology, employment law in the US and personal privacy. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's good know--it reduces the concern I had about my initial response. To answer your follow up question, if I presume your meaning to be "Can an employer terminate an at-will employee for refusal to abide by a rule banning a certain app being brought into the workspace, even if they do not have a rule banning smart phones entirely?" then the answer is very likely yes. Unless the state where the employment relationship rests has a specific protection in place to prevent this (I know of no such statute anywhere in the U.S., but would not go as far as to say it's outside the realm of possibility for some states with a more robust worker's rights framework--California, for example), then the employee is unlikely to be able to make out a cause of action to get into court, since (as discussed above), federal restrictions on the right of an employer to terminate an at-will employee are quite narrow.
- A little ironically, though, (given the focus of your question) if the app in question was a program allowing the employee to make recordings for their own personal use, there's a good chance the employer could not interfere with that app, since the NLRB has previously ruled that employees are entitled to record certain interactions in a work environment. But the employer could still substantially restrict when the phone and the recording app can be used or even when they can be in the employee's possession. Or to again use the more precise phrasing, an employer can terminate an employee for failure to abide by such rules.
- The other situation in which an employer could very possibly be restricted in their rights to terminate is if such was a provision of the employment contract. One of the stated jurisprudential underpinnings of the whole laissez-faire approach courts take to at-will employment is that the parties were free to set the terms of employment via contract if they wanted to, so the letter of these contracts tends to be treated very respectfully--as indeed are the provisions of most contracts under American law.
- There's also some grey area with regard to independent contractors: often when a business employs independent contractors, as opposed to at-will employees, it has some practical reasons for wanting to do so (the major reasons being decreased benefits requirements, decreased liability in tort under vicarious liability principles, and sometimes tax benefits). However, under the tort and agency laws of most states, one of the tests that helps determine whether an independent contractor relationship is valid is the question of how much direct control the employer has over how the contractor goes about performing their job. So even though am employer technically tends to have even fewer statutory restrictions on how they can terminate an independent contractor (absent a contract) than even they do with regard to at-will employees, they might find themselves unable to enforce the app rule on the subcontractor for indirect reasons (for example, they don't want to be seen treating their independent contractor like an at-will employee, because if that employee does something foolish that leads to a law suit, they might have increased vulnerability under vicarious liability--that is to say, the employer can potentially be made a party to suits resulting from the employee's bad acts).
- However, even that situation is very context sensitive. For example, if you are, say, Boeing, you probably have every right as an employer to demand that your independent contractors do not bring their phones into a worksite, that would contain trade secrets--and insisting upon as much probably would not abrogate your independent contractor relationship with the worker, because you can point to an independent, cognizable, and legitimate reason for the rule (protection of your intellectual property) other than micromanaging the worker. On the other hand, if you are a flower delivery service that uses independent contractors for your local deliveries, and you dictate what apps your contractors are using while they are working (say, to borrow your hypothetical above where they have a moral objection to tik tok), then in that scenario you are potentially eroding their argument that the delivery is an independent contractor. But it's not like the independent contractor has better protections from arbitrary termination under the black letter law than does the at-will employee--actually, it tends to be the opposite. Rather it is other (rather more indirect) legal considerations forcing the employer to take a slightly more hands-off approach to the contractor, and generally avoid any extraneous rules not absolutely necessary for a compelling, practical purpose. Snow let's rap 17:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Is it common for 1's to look like 7's??
Look at this image:
It's supposed to say 2010, but it looks like it says 2070. Does this happen a lot?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- AFAIK it has long been a problem. I remember science classes where I was required to put a line through the seven. Oddly I can't remember any math classes that used this though that could be due to dust on the memory banks. MarnetteD|Talk 16:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- MarnetteD, my high school math teacher, back in the 70s, crossed his sevens, and also the zeros. He didn't require the students to do so, but some of us copied him anyway. Cannot recall if the science teachers, who were much younger, did so. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting Tribe of Tiger. Thanks for sharing your experience. MarnetteD|Talk 22:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- MarnetteD, my high school math teacher, back in the 70s, crossed his sevens, and also the zeros. He didn't require the students to do so, but some of us copied him anyway. Cannot recall if the science teachers, who were much younger, did so. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- In some parts of the world, including Europe and the Far East (in both of which I've lived), 'ones' are often written with even longer serifs than this, generally angled down to make an acute angle, so resembling a mirrored Laguz. For this reason I (a Brit) spontaneously adopted the 'crossed seven' in my handwriting around age 10. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.31 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note that in the UK, "Europe" is often a synonym for "Continental Europe" (where crossed sevens are almost universal). The number seven is generally uncrossed in British handwriting, but is used here by a sizeable minority.
- In my first job before desktop computers, data input was handwritten on forms and then sent off to be typed by people who had no idea what they were typing. Crossed sevens were mandatory, but always seemed a bit foreign to me and I reverted to the uncrossed form later. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Almanach de Gotha (French edition)
I always imagined that the famed compendium was made up of self-generated information, rather like Who's Who (ie "You tell us what you want the world to believe, and we'll print it.") Said tomes had more resonance for me as a passing mention in "East Coker" than as an actual reference work I might ever need to consult. Nevertheless, my first tussle with it left me bemused as to why it might have been at odds with more recent accounts of Edwina Mountbatten's birthplace (see above). Our article says that its archives were destroyed in 1945, but would anyone know how the content of any entry was arrived at in the 'old days', other than personal contributions ? MinorProphet (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know I got the Eliot quotation back to front... MinorProphet (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it was more akin to (the mid-20th century) Burke's Peerage, in that although people could and did submit material, it was checked by one or more competent editors.
- Since "From 1763–1944 it was the ultimate authority on the reigning and formerly reigning houses of Europe. It was meticulous in charting genealogical detail . . . ." (John Kennedy, Editor and Publisher of, and writer of the Introduction to, the 1999 Edition which, from elsewhere in the Introduction, utilised a Research Committee), its contents would have been scrutinised by a great many readers who, between them, had personal knowledge of most of the facts presented, and who would surely have been quick to point out any bogus claims. ("I am the King of Prussia and I certainly did not enoble any "Graf von Chanzer" in 1843.") {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.31 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree completely. I imagine every entry would have been subject to considerable "tut, tut"-type scrutiny, rather like the behaviour of the England football team <seeks approval from the gallery>: but whence the disconnect as noticed above? Would not the discrepancy have been noticed by 1937? MinorProphet (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- That does seem odd, though if it's actually an error, it might only have been introduced in that 1937(?) edition. Broadlands was of course her family's country seat, so her being born there is perfectly plausible, and it may be that the Encyclopedia.com entry currently used as a reference is, for one reason or another, in error. Perhaps we should give both alternatives until one or the other can be corroborated by further sources.
- If the place was accessible I'd pop over and ask (I live close enough to hear their firework displays when the wind's in the right direction), but I gather it's rarely open to the public and generally rather unwelcoming. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.31 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- re Graf von Chanzer: "Who do you think you are, Stirling Moss?" MinorProphet (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree completely. I imagine every entry would have been subject to considerable "tut, tut"-type scrutiny, rather like the behaviour of the England football team <seeks approval from the gallery>: but whence the disconnect as noticed above? Would not the discrepancy have been noticed by 1937? MinorProphet (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Where can I read declassified primary sources about defectors that used unusual methods?
Like those who came in their bloc's best plane or survived a Berlin Wall or DMZ crossing or the high capacity homemade balloon or the troop who long jumped the initial Berlin Roll Or Two Of Barbed Wire or the first land plane to land on an aircraft carrier. The bloc defected to must've made report(s) with lots of interesting info like Chuck Yeager's conversations if they came in a military plane, some are probably declassified by now? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Sagittarian Milky Way and Future Perfect at Sunrise: My take on this query is that what you asking here is, in essence, "May I be partial-blocked from the reference desks again, for typing in whatever random thought pops into my head as if the previous block never happened?" It won't be me, as I'm generally busy either looking at speedy deletion requests or actually writing content. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well try Googling ones like Franciszek Jarecki or No Kum-sok/Kenneth Rowe who's MIGs are the oldest, it's not easy to find the text of the original military documents like you assume. No links on the articles either. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Erm... isn't the Reference Desk a place to ask for references? Answering the questions is optional. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
July 15
Nationality of Crown Dependency citizens (are they "English")?
According to Crown Dependencies: "Since the British Nationality Act 1981 came into effect, they have been treated as part of the United Kingdom for British nationality law purposes." So obviously citizens of those islands are British. Two questions:
- Is it accurate to call those citizens also English? If not, is there another term more specific than British, but less specific than naming the actual island?
- What was the situation before this act in 1981? Were they called "British"? If not, what else?
--KnightMove (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- They're not English - they don't live in/come from England. People from the Isle of Man are Manx. Those from the Channel Islands are (rather unimaginatively) channel islanders, or , more specifically, Guernésiais or Jersiais (I guess there are more specific names for the inhabitants of the smaller islands too). Chuntuk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Although I think Channel Islanders rather than channel islanders. Note that the islands don't have a single administration but are either part of the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- On your second question, I am certain the answer is "yes", but haven't found a reference for you. Alansplodge (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- They're not English - they don't live in/come from England. People from the Isle of Man are Manx. Those from the Channel Islands are (rather unimaginatively) channel islanders, or , more specifically, Guernésiais or Jersiais (I guess there are more specific names for the inhabitants of the smaller islands too). Chuntuk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody has the English nationality, not even those living in England. They are British, or a different nationality, but not English. See British nationality law, note English is only used in terms of the language, not as a nationality. Of course they might consider themselves English, but there is no legal concept of English nationality. Fgf10 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Does that mean any bio article here which says "English" has it wrong? Benny Hill, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Legally, yes. You are probable well aware that's a contentious issue on here. It should read British or UK (the difference gets particularly difficult for Northern Irish people, but that's a whole other issue again), but the regionalists somehow got their way. Fgf10 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Only a little bit aware. But I'm puzzled about Northern Ireland. Isn't the UK "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- The country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the citizenship is British. Before the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force the citizenship was Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Some people from Northern Ireland identify as British, some as Irish, some as Northern Irish, and some as a combination of these. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Specifically, loyalists will identify as British, nationalists as (Northern) Irish. (Generalising and less so these days, but mostly true). Legally they are all entitled to both British and Irish passports/nationality. Fgf10 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- The country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the citizenship is British. Before the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force the citizenship was Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Some people from Northern Ireland identify as British, some as Irish, some as Northern Irish, and some as a combination of these. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Only a little bit aware. But I'm puzzled about Northern Ireland. Isn't the UK "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Legally, yes. You are probable well aware that's a contentious issue on here. It should read British or UK (the difference gets particularly difficult for Northern Irish people, but that's a whole other issue again), but the regionalists somehow got their way. Fgf10 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fgf10 is talking in strictly legal terms according to British nationality law. Culturally, it is quite correct to say that a person is English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish (unless they come from the Channel Islands of course). Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Or Cornish. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed (I'm the son of a son of Cornwall). Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Or Cornish. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Does that mean any bio article here which says "English" has it wrong? Benny Hill, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just to summarize and clarify the disparate answers above; by the British Nationality Act 1981, there is only one legal nationality for all such people, they are considered British nationals. In terms of informal cultural/ethnic identification, the people who live in the crown dependencies generally identify ethnically with their local culture (Manx, Jersiais, etc.) though they could also identify as British generally. British ethnicity is an evolving concept, and people who have British nationality may identify primarily as British culturally, or as one of their home nations culturally, or may identify as both. It's complex and there are no hard rules. In terms of Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia is generally agnostic on whether to identify someone as "British" or "English/Scottish/Welsh/Manx/etc." though it tends to favor self-identification (i.e. if a person describes themselves as a certain ethnicity, we tend to defer to that) and also favors historical accuracy (i.e. William Wallace is better described as "Scottish" than "British" because at the time there was no concept of a unified British culture or nationality; whereas Gordon Brown is described as "British", despite both being from Scotland). --Jayron32 12:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, but hmmm... Guernsey-born Chris Foss is called English in several places. Do you think this is correct or rather not? --KnightMove (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't get to make those decisions. Chris Foss does. If he identifies as English, trust him over anyone else. --Jayron32 14:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Also, the Wikipedia article only uses the word British. Also also, when I said "It's complex and there are no hard rules", what I meant by that is "It's complex and there are no hard rules". --Jayron32 14:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- It has been observed that, in the UK, Andy Murray is 'British' when he wins and 'Scottish' when he loses. Hayttom (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's a widespread phenomenon. Mel Gibson, who was raised in Australia and had his first successes here (although never an Australian citizen), is claimed by us as an Australian when he does something praiseworthy, but becomes an American when he acts like an arsehole. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's certainly true that the "British when he wins and Scottish when he loses" point is made by Scottish nationalists, but I shall be astonished if you can find me an actual example. Alansplodge (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's a widespread phenomenon. Mel Gibson, who was raised in Australia and had his first successes here (although never an Australian citizen), is claimed by us as an Australian when he does something praiseworthy, but becomes an American when he acts like an arsehole. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- It has been observed that, in the UK, Andy Murray is 'British' when he wins and 'Scottish' when he loses. Hayttom (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Also, the Wikipedia article only uses the word British. Also also, when I said "It's complex and there are no hard rules", what I meant by that is "It's complex and there are no hard rules". --Jayron32 14:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't get to make those decisions. Chris Foss does. If he identifies as English, trust him over anyone else. --Jayron32 14:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, but hmmm... Guernsey-born Chris Foss is called English in several places. Do you think this is correct or rather not? --KnightMove (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- The first reference I'm seeing to the Murray joke in Newspapers.com (pay site, not comprehensive) is in the Independent, London, July 2, 2010, page 9. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Spanish Inquisition
What was so distinctive about the Spanish Inquisition that it is still referenced in literature, jokes, memes, etc? Why don't we remember other inquisitions? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fear and surprise Chuntuk (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Chuntuk, that's why I'm asking. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- See also Spanish Inquisition. They were peculiarly enthusiastic about forcing conversions by torture and execution of the non-compliant. and Spain before the inquisition had a large population of Jewish and Muslim people. England, by comparison, had expelled all their Jews in the 14th century and only had a few reformers to worry about. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Spanish Inquisition was an obvious target for writers with an anti-Catholic or anti-clerical agenda. One writer in the 1970s calculated a figure of 31,912 executions, while some Evangelical Protestants have speculated figures in the millions. [4] Recently, other historians have revised the figures downwards, saying that many of the atrocities were carried out by local organisations rather than the Inquisition itself (probably not much comfort to the victims). Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Alansplodge, Thanks, so the Spanish were markedly more sadistic and bloodthirsty than other inquisitions, though perhaps only because Spain was a particularly "target rich environment" compared to most of the rest of Catholic Europe. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I believe so. There were only three Inquisitions; the Spanish one, the Portuguese Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition. An earlier Medieval Inquisition focused on heresies such Catharism. Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Alansplodge, Thanks, so the Spanish were markedly more sadistic and bloodthirsty than other inquisitions, though perhaps only because Spain was a particularly "target rich environment" compared to most of the rest of Catholic Europe. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- See also Spanish Inquisition. They were peculiarly enthusiastic about forcing conversions by torture and execution of the non-compliant. and Spain before the inquisition had a large population of Jewish and Muslim people. England, by comparison, had expelled all their Jews in the 14th century and only had a few reformers to worry about. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Spanish Inquisition was an obvious target for writers with an anti-Catholic or anti-clerical agenda. One writer in the 1970s calculated a figure of 31,912 executions, while some Evangelical Protestants have speculated figures in the millions. [4] Recently, other historians have revised the figures downwards, saying that many of the atrocities were carried out by local organisations rather than the Inquisition itself (probably not much comfort to the victims). Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Spanish nationalist answer is the Black Legend, which would introduce bias in English, Dutch, French or German sources. The SI was an instrument of the Spanish Crown overruling the different kingdoms (see Antonio Pérez, who fled to Aragon in vain). It was thus opposed by autonomists. It was opposed by the colonialist rivals of Spain, many of them non-Catholics (see for a curious instance the Russian allegations about Peter the Aleut). It was opposed by later freethinkers. It was opposed by Conversos.
- In their defense, the last witchcraft trials are the Basque witch trials which ended in 1614 when the inquisitor realized that moral panic and superstition are no good basis for a trial (that did not alleviate fear of witchcraft among the Spanish populace). In contrast, the Salem witch trials are from 1693, and other un-bloodthirsty parts of Europe kept burning witches for longer. The SI had enough work with Conversos, Protestants, blasphemers, alumbrados and Rationalists.
- About the toleration of different beliefs, Servetus fled Spain to burn in Geneva, and the persecution of Catholics in the United Kingdom has a long reach, even today when HM's Government is proposing a statute of limitations for the Troubles.
- I don't have references, but another apology is that, while the brutality of the SI horrorizes modern white Westerners, its prisons were better than the civilian ones, and criminals would confess inquisitionable offenses to get transferred to Inquisition prisons.
- Another cause of its ill fame was its longevity. When the rest of Europe thought of itself as the Enlightenment, the SI was still active until the Napoleonic invasion. Ferdinand VII of Spain restored it later and its restoration was part of the Carlist program. By that time, it was quite tame. Juan Antonio Llorente was its 1808 general secretary, but also an afrancesado and used its privileged access to the archives to write a critical history of the SI.
- The victim counts from Spanish sources are lower than those from rival-nation sources.
- About Alan's point, there are articles about at least the Mexican Inquisition, Peruvian Inquisition. I don't find one about the Philippine Inquisition.
- --Error (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Quite right, I should have said European inquisitions (you forgot the Goa Inquisition BTW). Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition is more specialized. --Error (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Latin
This gentleman is John Florio. He has been accused of being Shakespeare, but we can't blame him for that. Kind people have helped me translate the words surrounding him, but I also want a competent translation of the words under him. Or a source that bothered to translate it, of course. Bottom left corner refers to William Hole, we've figured that out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Here is a transcript:
- En virtute suâ contentus, nobilis arte,
Italus ore, Anglus pectore, uterque opere
Floret adhuc, et adhuc florebit; floreat ultra
FLORIUS, hâc specie floridus, optat amans. - Gul: Hole sculp: Tam fœlix utinam.
- En virtute suâ contentus, nobilis arte,
- and here is my attempt at a literal translation:
- Behold, [he is] eager by his virtue, noble by [his] art,
Italian by [his] mouth, English by [his] character, and [he]
Flourishes yet by either skill, and will flourish yet; may FLORIO
flourish further, florid by this likeness, [so] wishes a lover. - William Hole sculpted [this]. Would that [I was?] so happy.
- Behold, [he is] eager by his virtue, noble by [his] art,
- I have translated the whole litany of ablatives uniformly by prepositional phrases using the same preposition by. Full disclosure: I am not a native Latin speaker. --Lambiam 21:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Now that's just beautiful, thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Since I was also summoned, I will offer light feedback: while I would not commit LGBT erasure, because it is not factual, I find fault with "so wishes a lover", as the English sounds to me unambiguously homoerotic, while the Latin is not so, so one risks perhaps heterosexual erasure(?). Perhaps something like "so wishes one who admires", or that which you would call only ambiguously homoerotic rather than unambiguously homoerotic. "Vterque opere" would in principle mean "by his work both (Italian and English)", since you translated as if from "utroque opere", which is not what was written. "Sculpsit" I propose to translate as "engraved", since it will simply be better understood. I think also "eager by his virtue" is hard to conceptualize. I would honestly say the Latin is also not entirely easy to conceptualize, but the phrases are not matching in my head, as "eager by his virtue" seems to say in other words that he is just "naturally eager". Perhaps "brimming with virtue", or something of the sort; or indeed "content with his virtue". It is hard for me to conceptualize. "Behold, brimming with his virtue, renowned of skill (or indeed the less translated "noble of art", or "of noble art") / Italian of language (or "Italian when he speaks", as Florio did not grow up in England and could only properly learn English after he came to England at the age of 19, so I imagine he certainly spoke English with an Italian accent and mannerisms), English of heart (or "but his heart is English", "with an English heart", "English on the inside", "essentially English"), [and] both of his work (this sounds perhaps weak, but the English for this expression is not taking shape in my mind) / he flourishes still, and will yet flourish; flourish for ever / FLORIO, blooming as he is here, wishes he who admires." "Engraved by William Hole | Who wishes he was so blessed". I wish to avoid "florid" at the cost of wordplay, since for some reason in English this refers to complexion. Sadly I am also not a native speaker of Latin, and not truly proficient. Draco argenteus (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Would The US Government extradite someone only to deport them?
Hello, Wikipedians I was watching an episode of Law and Order:SVU about a man from Africa who was being deported from the US because he had committed war crimes in Africa, while watching the episode this question that I would like answered came to mind, if that guy fled to Canada would the US Government extradite him back to deport him back to Africa? -- 23:42, 15 July 2021 98.113.197.52
- The normal situation is that the country in Africa where he committed his crimes, or an international criminal court, would request extradition from the country where he's located. If he's not currently in the United States, and did not commit any crimes in the United States, then I'm not too sure why the U.S. would even be legally involved. AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)