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

June 1

Are US state legislatures and US governors legally required to be elected on the same date as the US Congress and the US President?

Are US state legislatures and US governors legally required to be elected on the same date as the US Congress and the US President? I don't necessarily mean the same year or the exact literal date, but rather something like all elections (both state and federal) being legally required to be held on, say, the first Tuesday in November (if not necessarily on the same year). Futurist110 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

No, but most state elections are held at the same time as federal elections for convenience and to reduce expenses. See Elections in the United States#State elections. --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If you review List of United States governors, you can check some of them and see which ones follow the "standard" format of when elections are held. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There's also a chart a little further down in the article I linked to earlier. --Khajidha (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You mean this chart?: Elections_in_the_United_States#Comparison_of_recent_and_upcoming_election_years Futurist110 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep. --Khajidha (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

See Election Day (United States). Federal law does not set the date of state elections. It is very likely that any federal statute attempting to do so would be struck down as unconstitutional, not being a power granted to Congress; only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be able to impose such a requirement upon states. (However, the federal government can incentivize states to do something with the "carrot" of federal money, as with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.) The date of state elections is up to state law. If a state's law says that state elections are to be held at the same time as those for national office, then it would be true to say such elections are "legally required to be on the same date", but the law is that of the state and within the power of the state to change. Virginia famously holds all its regular state elections in "off-years", that is, the years following those of national elections, and political media often look to these elections as a bellwether for the upcoming national elections. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Link: Off-year election, missed that while skimming. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Psst, someone mind redirecting Election Day in the United States to Election Day (United States)? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

To provide some figures, there is an almost 50% uplift in the cost of the 2019 European elections in the United Kingdom compared to 2014 [2]. This is basically because the last election was held on the same day as the local elections, which tend to happen on the first Thursday in May. One by-election was nearly scuppered by a mistake in issuing the writ. By law a minimum period must elapse until polling day, but bank holidays are excluded. There happened to be an upcoming bank holiday but someone noticed the mistake in time. 2A00:23C1:CD81:F01:65C4:8E95:C1A3:D61A (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of this information, you guys! Futurist110 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2

Older United States Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test

I'm looking for a chart of the standards of the United States Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test as it was back in the 1980s, prior to subsequent changes. So far online I can only find up-to-date charts of the current physical fitness standards, but not historical charts. Any help? Thanks, —Kevin Myers 12:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Archive.org has 1956, don't know if that's any use. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Not quite, but thank you for looking. —Kevin Myers 01:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean the run, situp, pullup test? It was a 3 mile run capping out at 18 minutes, 2 minutes of situps capping out at 80, and pullups, capping out at 20, all for a maximum of 300 points. If that is the one you are interested in, I can see if I still have my manual which included the PT point breakdown. 68.115.219.130 (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one! I'm particularly interested in the age brackets. Like, how many pullups and situps was an older Marine expected to perform, by age group, etc. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 19:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Voice of the Sacred Crane

As far as I can work out, this term seems to refer to those extremely rare occasions when the Japanese Emperor speaks or issues commands in formal contexts. Normally, he listens to his advisors and "consents in silence" to their proposals. When Hirohito addressed his nation after the bombing of Nagasaki, this was the first time his subjects had ever heard his voice (he'd been Emperor for almost 19 years by then).

I came across the reference in Paul Ham's Hiroshima Nagasaki (p. 384), but he didn't explain its origin. Google is of very little help. What is/was this Sacred Crane all about, and what do we know about the tradition of imperial silent consent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A few more snippets from Google Books: [3] suggests that it was an informal term; [4] has a little on the origins. One more with a different slant on the origin: [5] Henry^Flower 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

African Free Trade

Does Africa have any free trade agreements with any other nations not a part of Africa? If so, what nations are they? 162.246.18.149 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt whether Africa as a whole has trade agreements with anybody else. A number of individual countries in Africa benefit from Everything but Arms, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I think the articles you need are List of bilateral free-trade agreements and List of multilateral free-trade agreements. The European Free Trade Association includes South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho and eSwatini. Jordan and Algeria have an agreement. So do Morocco and Turkey, Tunisia and Switzerland, etc etc etc. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering what eSwatini was. I bet it's still known in parts of the English-language media as "Swaziland". The North Macedonia, Myanmar and Mumbai etc. renames were discussed extensively in U.S. journalism, and I remember coverage of the Burkina Faso rename in connection with the 1984 LA Olympics, but I completely missed eSwatini... AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Oldest exact date

What is the oldest exact date known to historians? A date for an historical event that is known down to the month and date. KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I googled "oldest specific date" and this is the first item that turned up:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Some more background and potential candidates are mentioned in Recorded history, which suggests dates in ancient Egyptian kings lists (compiled 2nd millennium BC) and dates in ancient Chinese annals (compiled 5th century BC). The article is not very specific beyond that, but links will take you on some fascinating reading, like Turin King List and Spring and Autumn Annals. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• For right down to the month and date, there's Julius Caesar being assassinated on the Ides of March (March 15) in 44 BCE. Loraof (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that this was the Julian calendar, which is not identical to the Gregorian calendar that most people use today. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR -- the best answer is probably events associated with solar eclipses (which can be calculated with considerable accuracy into the B.C. period), depending, of course, on whether you can narrow down the information in the historical source to indicate a single possible eclipse. See Eclipse of Thales, Assyrian eclipse, Mursili's eclipse... AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You are looking for some Chronological synchronism, which links to Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt, which says that,

A recorded date during the reign of Senusret III can be correlated to the Sothic cycle,

However, you'll have to read the primary source to know the said date (obviously during Senusret III reign, that is, 1878 – 1839 BC). Besides, it seems there are some doubt, meaning, it may be wrong (or not...). Gem fr (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

References

June 3

Knighthood

We all know of living people who have been knighted, such as Sir David Attenborough or Sir Paul McCartney. My query is; can only the monarch of the UK grant such a title. Why do we not hear of any other formal title being granted by the King of Spain or the King of Lesotho. Thanks Anton81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You may be able to find out more at Category:Orders of knighthood of Spain and at Spanish chivalry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

See also Category:Orders of knighthood by country for a more comprehensive coverage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Although there are apparently no knighthoods in Lesotho, there is an honours system, the Most Courteous Order of Lesotho being the highest. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

81.131.40.58 -- Every independent country has a separate system of honors, and can choose whether or not to include knighthood among those honors. Some would say that France has knighthoods (even though it hasn't had a monarch in about 150 years), since those inducted into the Legion of Honour are named "chevalier"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's 3 things. First off, most English-speakers just know a lot more about what's going on in Britain than about what's going on in non-English speaking countries. (That's true for people of pretty much any language.) So knighthoods in foreign nations are easy to miss. Second, most of the world's non-British celebrities come from a really small handful of nations that are Republics -- USA, Korea, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, China, Ireland -- or that honor the same Queen as Britain -- Canada, Australia, etc. Third, it just so happens that other really big monarchies either don't consider their honorees to be "knights" (Japan) or aren't in the habit of handing out knighthoods to entertainers (Spain). Add it all up, and while there are indeed non-British knighthoods getting passed out (hello, Kim Gevaert and Víctor García de la Concha!) they usually don't make a big splash in the English-language media. --M@rēino 19:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the insightful response. Your have truly answered my question as I had hoped. Thank you M@rēino Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The New Zealand honours system includes knighthoods, under the monarch of New Zealand, who happens at the moment to be the same person who is monarch of the United Kingdom. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Were there ever other Kansases besides Kansas things and Arkansas/Arkansaw things?

^{Maybe there's an Orkansas River somewhere? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)}

Yes, see List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States which contains information, and especially references you can follow, to allow you to research answers to the question yourself.--Jayron32 13:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I should've clarified that I wondering about prefixkansas rivers, settlements, lakes, mountains, townships or other geographic names. Like Urkansas, Nawkansas, Plotokansas.. I have not heard of any besides Arkansas. I've ruled out counties, Arkansas County is the only one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• If you click through to that etymologies article, you'll see that it's not even clear that the words Arkansas and Kansas are related to each other at all. Most likely, they are (mispronounced) transliterations of two distinct nations, the Quapaw/Arkansas and the Kaw/Kansas. --M@rēino 19:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and should their origins be related ... another toponym derived from the Kaw/Kansa is Kanaranzi Creek (and Kanaranzi Township, Rock County, Minnesota etc.). (The "k" in "Ozarks" has a possibly related etymology as well :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Miss Ironside's School

I've been finding and adding coords to numerous articles, but this one in South Kensington has me foxed. There are plenty of incoming and outgoing links and evidence for its existence, one even stating that the Queen Mother went there [7]. Maybe it has another name? It was evidently founded by Virginia Ironside's great aunt [8]. I can understand that a top private girls school might not want to overtly advertise its whereabouts, but to have no detectable web presence or street address is rather odd. It has an unofficial facebook page but that is completely blank. So where is it?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I rather suspect it is no longer extant. There used to be lots of little private schools in Britain. I did find that it was evacuated to Fonthill House in the Second World War, and the founder was a Miss Irene Ironside. DuncanHill (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, it was on Elvaston PLace, off Gloucester Road, the teachers were all trained at the Froebel Institute. DuncanHill (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps confusingly, Hampden Gurney School (a CofE Primary), had a Margaret Ironside as head in the 30s. DuncanHill (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well done and top marks! I like that "there were no punishments". I have changed the tense of the article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Another snippet Shantavira, is from this obituary of Georgina Howell by fellow journalist Virginia Ironside, who reveals that Miss Ironside was actually Virginia's great aunt. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

D'uh! You've already posted that! Chasing my own tail again.... Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A bit more Googling reveals that Eaton House Belgravia Preparatory School (the local council calls it Eton House The Vale School) occupied that address from 28/02/1962 to 31/08/2018. Reason for closure: "Result of Amalgamation/Merger". In January 2019, the building was purchased by the American Institute for Foreign Study (UK) Ltd. [9] Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Was miscegenation ever punished with death in what is now the US?

Was miscegenation (interracial sex and/or interracial reproduction) ever punished with death in any part of what is now the US? I know that some US states had prison terms for miscegenation back when it was a crime there, but what about the death penalty for miscegenation? Futurist110 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There were some lynchings triggered by racial-mixing, which of course would be extralegal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I meant a legal death penalty--not extrajudicial lynchings. Futurist110 (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States seems pretty thorough and well-referenced. It makes no mention of use of the death penalty in any way that I can see. Do you have some reason to suspect the death penalty was ever on the books? Matt Deres (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the sources referenced in that article, "The Invention of the Color Line: 1691" does write:

"Finally in 1691, the Virginia colony passed and enforced the first law on earth against voluntary marriage between free individuals of predominantly European and free individuals of predominantly African ancestry. At first, the law was weak. It punished interracial couples by banishing them from the colony. It did not punish the ministers who married them, nor did it punish their children. Within years, however, punishments became increasingly harsh for anyone complicit in a crime of intermarriage, up to and including death by torture."

Regarding that last part, the essay refers to The Shaping of Black America by Lerone Bennett Jr.. As for "banishing them from the colony" signifying a "weak law", a ThoughtCo article titled "Interracial Marriage Laws History & Timeline" writes: "In the 17th century, exile usually functioned as a death sentence" I guess it's debatable in both cases whether it amounts to an actual legal death penalty, but there it is. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

June 4

Financial aristocracy under socialist principles

China is apparently continuing its expansion of social credit incentives [10]. Usually these are noticed because they equate dissent with indebtedness, but at the moment the vice versa part starts to confuse me. It sounds like they intend to have a very class based society where those on the good list can do anything with minimal hindrance and those on the bad list are banned everything, and being poor gets you on the bad list. But how in the name of Karl Marx do they explain this system using socialist sources and iconography? What am I missing here? Wnt (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably the same way any other supposedly Marxism-based government did: By having enough power to not feel the need to explain it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Wnt -- In the Soviet Union there wasn't really a "financial" aristocracy, in that just having more money was not particularly the defining feature of the ruling elite. Rather, nomenklatura members had access to special stores carrying goods not available to ordinary Soviet citizens, special privileges such as dachas near Moscow, the ability to travel abroad, etc. North Korea has a very elaborate system of hereditary ranked quasi-caste groups, but of course Marxism gave way to Juche ideology long ago there, and now Songun seems to be rivaling Juche... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your surprise. Karl Marx and socialist sources are pretty clear that there are the good guys (communists) and the bad guys (counter-revolution supporters, if only by laziness). And, to be a good guy, you have to be a good slave, that is,

1: you produce as much as can be expected from you (lest being a "saboteur"), and

2: you behave morally, which includes (but not limitted to), you are happy with your earning and you spend it wisely (not drink it for instance)

"Obviously", since the socialist country thrive to perfection, it is on you, not on society ran by the Party, if you are poor. Meaning, you did something wrong (either on the working/earning side, or on the spending side). So you deserve a bad credit.

Gem fr (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That last part is exactly what capitalists say: If you're poor, it's your own fault. Funny how that works out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"If you're poor, it's your own fault" aka "you deserve what happens to you" or the cosmos is just is a universal maxim that predates, and has just nothing to do with, each and every -ism. So, well, no. Gem fr (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't, actually: the important sentences were "socialist country thrive to perfection"&"society ran by the Party". Gem fr (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Chinese Communist Party abandoned even the pretense of doctrinare Marxism–Leninism after Mao died and the reformists led by Deng Xiaopeng won the subsequent power struggle. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the replacement, and although not spelled out explicitly in this language, the basic bargain undergirding PRC politics since Deng has been that if the people obey the Party, the Party will make China rich and powerful. There's actually a specific article on the PRC Social Credit System. Confucian and Legalist ethics, which are deeply embedded in Chinese society, place great importance on social cohesion, and in part the System is just a 21st-century technocratic way to police this, by punishing people who don't obey social norms. Another factor, as the article discusses, is that fraud, counterfeiting, and the like are a huge problem in China's domestic market. The Party knows this hurts its legitimacy, so the System aspires to make a dent in it. I don't think the System—at least intentionally—is supposed to punish people for being poor. It's supposed to punish people for not paying debts, which is a big no-no: it harms social cohesion and trust. Again, this illustrates the abandonment of Marxism, which views debt as a means for the capital-owning class to enrich itself. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that the article social credit does not have the word “China” in it, is there some reason the OP assumes that dissent is equated with indebtedness? Yes, China has an authoritarian regime that utilized facial recognition and other methods to control society. Yes, China has something called social credit (社会信用, shèhuì xìnyòng). No, the two are not related except in the realm of very bad journalism.DOR (HK) (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the relevant article is Social Credit System. Gem fr (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Soviet–Afghan War, an engaging history book

Hi there. I know little beyond the most basic general knowledge of the Soviet–Afghan War. I've always been interested in first-world nations trying to wage conflicts in socially/culturally alien environments against guerrilla/scrappy insurgencies or opponents in the 20th century, the First Indochina War and Algerian War of Independence particularly. And I've always enjoyed reading about Soviet Russia military exploits though largely this is confined to the Eastern Front. I very much enjoyed A Savage War of Peace and Martin Windrow's The Last Valley I found a captivating book when I first discovered it years ago. I've since supplemented it with Bernard Fall.

I'm hoping that somewhere out there is an English language history of the Soviet-Afghan War, hopefully on part with Horne, Fall or Windrow, that might hit the right notes for me. I've looked through the references of the Wikipedia article for some options but have not been able to find many reviews online of the books listed there. The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan comes up a lot, but I couldn't tell if its a true gem or more of an airport-waiting-room kind of book. The NY Times review seems pretty favourable, but I was wondering if someone who has read it or knows the topic could suggest something before I waste money? Thanks --2A00:23C4:6C38:3500:2886:3597:54E4:F343 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope others have better-fitting suggestions, but if you appreciate oral history I can strongly recommend Svetlana Alexievich's Boys in Zinc. (Here are some excerpts published by Granta). As the author explains herself she "was trying to present a history of feelings, not the history of the war itself", so I realise it's not quite what you're asking. But it might complement a more analytical/summarizing book well (which, again, I hope others can suggest). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Afgantsy is an English-language history of the war from the former British ambassador to the Soviet Union. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I coincidentally found Alexievich's Chernobyl book in a shop today, but alas not the other one. Bought it on Amazon instead. Meanwhile for a second book it seems to be a choice between The Great Gamble, Afghantsy, and The Hidden War if any one has any recommendation 2A00:23C4:6C38:3500:8C90:7629:85DB:BEA9 (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Note the spelling: Afgantsy, no "h": might trip you up looking for it in a library or the like. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Do any militaries have surprise physical fitness tests?

To discourage yoyo fitness. If so are any of them fail once and you're discharged? Presumably the pass cutoff would be more forgiving than if you could "cram" for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

militaries have rather tests on a regular, week or month, basis. And they don't want some kind of "I just need to fail a test to be discharged". But they DO surprise wake you up at 2 o'clock for push-up or long run in the countryside, if that's you mean.Gem fr (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If you fail a physical fitness test in the US Marines, you are put on remedial physical training to ensure that you pass the next test. At least that is how it is right now. They are getting noticeably lax on physical requirements. 68.115.219.130 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If you don't do well in remedial training, do they give you Special High Intensity Training? Edison (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not possible to not do well in remedial training. It is a required two hours of intense physical workout every day. It is one-on-one, so you can't slip to the back and pretend to exercise. Note: That is how it USED to be. I don't know how it is now. They keep making physical requirements weaker so young recruits don't feel bad emotions. 68.115.219.130 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not "so young recruits don't feel bad emotions." It's because recruitment levels are abysmal, so they don't have the resources to just kick out those who perform poorly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What became of the Mahdi's head?

According to our article on the Mahdi, after the destruction of his tomb, Kitchener took his head, and it was later buried in Wadi Haifa. Do we have anything more on this? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So far, just sources that repeat those basics: Telegraph, New York Times. Also saw this contemporary report: Guardian. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

June 5

Prince Archie, dual citizenship and US taxes

I recently read an article about Prince Archie (Harry and Meghan's son) and how his dual (American and British) citizenship will impact him having to pay US taxes. In the article there was reference to how both of his parent's incomes as well as that of Prince Charles will be scrutinized to ensure he is paying the correct amount in taxes to the IRS. The article also stated that this is the first time such a thing has happened. My question is threefold: 1) What about Camilla? I thought she still had dual citizenship. How does the IRS respond to this and is Charles' income considered as well to determine how much she pays? 2) Given Archie's young age, I kinda understand why Harry and Meghan's income may be scrutinized, but why would Charles' income be brought into the equation; there was no reference to Camilla's income? 3) Can Britain refuse to disclose Harry's and Charles' income (if they did not want it disclosed)? 76.71.158.199 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

He is not Prince anything. Just plain Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"I thought she still had" probably doesn't do much for the IRS. I see nothing in Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall to suggest she ever had, let alone still has US citizenship. Not even any reason to think she ever had. She was born in London. Her father Bruce Shand evidently wanted to take up US citizenship, but there's no mention he ever did and he didn't live there that long. Rosalind Shand doesn't seem to have a US connection that I noticed. A search for 'Camilla dual citizenship' and 'Camilla us citizenship' finds lots of irrelevant results which may suggest the search term failed but frankly a number of the search results seem minor enough that it would likely mean it's very uncommon to talk about if true. Are you thinking of Wallis Simpson or something? Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not the first time a US citizen marry a british royal. Wallis Simpson was surely wealthy enough to be under the IRS scrutiny. No child with the royal, though. As for Harry+Meghan, I am pretty sure that some marriage contract was signed, probably including some "to each, his own" regarding revenue, so I see no reason why the IRS would scrutinize Harry's any more than it did for Edward's. Gem fr (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There is an international agreement between most countries to ensure that tax is not paid twice, therefore if anyone earns in one country and pays taxes there they will not need to pay in another. If Man A is a US citizen but works in Germany and pays tax there he can take his earnings back to the US and not have to pay tax twice. This is how tax havens work. Man B claims to be domiciled in the Cayman Islands and goes there for a certain amount of time each year he can claim to be a citizen and only pay tax there, where the rate of tax is much lower that his true home. Returning to man A, he can earn in Germany but be domiciled in the US and thereby pay tax to the US but not to Germany. When Archie comes of age he will need to pay tax where ever he chooses to be domiciled. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Besides, in case of too much trouble he surely can relinquish his US citizenship Gem fr (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

According to [11] all US citizens, whether in the USA or abroad, pay US taxees: "If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside."--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that, as per [12], "If you paid or accrued foreign taxes to a foreign country or U.S. possession and are subject to U.S. tax on the same income, you may be able to take either a credit or an itemized deduction for those taxes." Normally it is taken as a tax credit. So the income is not doubly taxed. Loraof (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR: a friend of mine who is a US citizen but has lived and worked in the UK for over 20 years has had to pay a substantial amount of US tax because she had some money in ISAs (a tax-free investment account, approved and indeed promoted by the UK government). See here for how this works. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

First, I don't know why I thought Camilla was American (I wasn't thinking of Wallis Simpson since there were no children there). My bad. Second, thanks for the feedback. 209.91.188.70 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know whether Prince Archie is either on or off the table for any future "phenomenal trade deal". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the US could get Archie, and we could send Jughead to the UK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you'd also have to take his NHS chaperone. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

War

Is there any historical evidence or writings referring to the overall advantages or disadvantages of past human warfare for human civilisation? Ie has war been good or bad for us overall? 80.2.20.209 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The winners write the history, and they of course will argue that their win was for the greater good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Arnold J. Toynbee's War and Civilization is a classic (and argues war creates decline, I believe), but there are loads of books on this topic. This one argues war helps civilization. This one thinks war is a hindrance to civilization. This one argues that war develops in tandem with civilization. You may also wish to start with the wiki article Polemology and see where it takes you... 70.67.193.176 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There's the infamous Report from Iron Mountain (originally intended as a parody), and the "War is Peace" chapter of Goldstein's Book is included in Orwell's 1984... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

war is part of problem of evil, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argues that we live in the best of all possible worlds; not every one agrees, to say the least. Kenneth Arrow proved that no question ever has a single collective answer, that is, good or bad to not apply to "us", just to "me" or to "you"; moreover each of us can have different perspective: looking backward, past war were good for each of us (You and I just wouldn't be born without past war), but looking forward, you and I have reasons to fear future wars (more chance that they hurt us that we benefit from them). Your question just can have any answer, so it has no answer. Gem fr (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Arrow's impossibility theorem" says something much more specific and limited than that. I don't find it all that impressive, since it's based on narrow special assumptions... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

then show us ANY counterexample, that is, ANY way to construct a collective answer satisfying everyone, that is, basically, a way to prevent any open conflict and war. Oh wait. You cannot. Because, you know, this "not all that impressive" theorem, based on "narrow special assumptions"... Gem fr (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Arrow's impossibility theorem" is not about preventing war -- it's a dry technicalistic result in the mathematics of voting systems, which has a much narrower applicability than many seem to understand. If voters are allowed to indicate not just that they prefer A to B and B to C (a relative ordinal ranking), but are allowed to assign three numbers to indicate how much they prefer each of A, B, and C (absolute numeric valuations), then the whole thing pretty much falls apart... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

your solution doesn't work: different a priori legit ways to crunch those numbers could give different results, whereas, if the collective preference existed, every legit ways to crunch the number would have it as a result. try again. Gem fr (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not "my solution", it's one fairly obvious method of indicating voter choices, which in integerized form has been fairly widely applied to elections below the nationwide level. The basic mathematical axioms with which Arrow starts his "impossibility theorem" proof exclude it, for no very good reason that I've ever been able to see... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

fair enough, "the solution you mentioned", then. The reasons to exclude cardinal voting are many, and, anyway, it obviously is just a two-stages usual voting (first stage : voter=circumscription throw its ballots; second stage: assemblage of those --very small--circumscription ballots in any usual way), so it doesn't solve problems of usual voting (even makes them worse, methink), and doesn't make it immune to Arrow's theorem. (which doesn't make it stupid or useless). I am afraid we digress, though. Gem fr (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The article which you just linked to says: "Arrow's impossibility theorem…states that no method can comply with all of a simple set of desirable criteria. However, since one of these criteria (called 'universality') implicitly requires that a method be ordinal, not cardinal, Arrow's theorem does not apply to cardinal methods."

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along...

But thanks for turning up the cardinal voting article -- I didn't know that that was the general name for it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, an equivalent wording would be "cardinal methods inherently violate a desirable criteria, and increase the sensibility of the final result to the method and to tactical voting". Cardinal ranking is not feature, it is an hassle and a bug, and a clever voter would get rid of it, both to save the hassle, and to maximize the chance of a favorable outcome, by voting the maximum he can in the order of his choice (let's say, 100, 99, 98 for his three top candidates, zero for each and every other). That is, he would turn the vote ordinal. Gem fr (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I find the answers above fascinating but that they don't go very far in answering the original question. May I pose the reason for this and the answer in an analogy. Jordan Peterson has stated that war is an extension of territorialism, thereby to ask if the act of warfare has had a benefit to the development of civilisation is akin to asking if territorial disputes in wolves have hindered or advanced their Darwinian evolution. However I will also ask that it is noted that many of our advances in technology have been the result of military research, make of this what you will. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have trouble linking territorialism and civil war or religious disputes.

Guns, Germs, and Steel thesis regarding the effect of perpetually competing/warring factions on technology is interesting:

The Asian areas [had] isolated empires which faced no external pressure to change which led to stagnation. Europe's many natural barriers allowed the development of competing nation-states. Such competition forced the European nations to encourage innovation and avoid technological stagnation.

It may be wrong, though. The losing side in a war is often brought very far back in technology, and even for the winning side, war require resources (including brains) that otherwise would had been invested in machinery, know-how, knowledge... technology. :Gem fr (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The millions of innocent people displaced, raped or slaughtered in humanities wars would disagree about the being any benefits. MarnetteD|Talk 13:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"innocent". hum... We just wouldn't be born if Gengis Khan hadn't slaughtered an estimated 1/3 of humanity of its time, and sired an estimated 1/4 of current humanity (someone else would be born instead; but unborn cannot complain they were deprived of life, can they? Only descendants of Gengis Khan&friends can do that). Just every single one of those complainers owed his very life to previous wars. So ye, sure, they complain when the thing it them back. Just like the (innocent) son of a thief, owing his fortune to thievery, could complain when stolen... but would he be right? Gem fr (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes innocent. I take it from your smug attitude that you don't understand the word. MarnetteD|Talk 17:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me make it simpler for you. Every currently living human benefits from past wars. Those acknowledging the fact can rightfully claim innocence (past crimes are not theirs!), but this imply admitting the benefits they owe to war. Those pretending otherwise may be "innocent" only in the pejorative sense (not aware). Deal with it. Gem fr (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me make it simpler for you. People who have nothing to do with a conflict are slaughtered so yes innocents get no benefit from a war. A shame that you are clueless about this. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh my... 2 false sentences, linked by a non sequitur, with a disgusting a contrario implication, in 20 words, that are not even to the point. Too much for me. And any way, too much of a digression. Be happy, man. Gem fr (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

How is that a false sentence, or a non-sequiter? You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of an "innocent victim". It means someone who had done nothing to provoke whatever happened to them, or was otherwise unconnected to whatever caused the act of aggression. If I launch an invasion of another country, and kill a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the conflict or the cause of conflict, then they are innocent victims of my war. Even if they are the great-great-great-grandchildren of some previous warlord. And to go back to the overarching argument, they are clearly not benefiting from the war, even if they technically benefited (assuming mere existence counts as a benefit) from a previous war. Iapetus (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

While agreeing that war is a BAD THING; see also Do wars drive technological advancement?. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

How is that a false sentence. Well, quite obviously, been slaughtered in a conflict ipso facto makes the victim having something to do with the conflict (whether they somehow are, or not, connected to whatever caused the war, is just irrelevant: you are not supposed to slaughter them anyway). So the first part is plainly false. Likewise, being hurt by a current war surely reduce the benefit of having been alive thanks to previous wars, but doesn't erase, and doesn't even outweigh the benefits from previous war. Besides, for instance, Argentine people who made a living (and sometime even fortune) selling meat to UK and France warring in WWI, both were innocent of this conflict and benefited, didn't they?

or a non-sequiter?; you cannot deduce innocents get no benefit from a war from People who have nothing to do with a conflict are slaughtered. No connection at all. non sequitur.

Furthermore, be aware that the concept of "innocent victim of war" may seem friendly, but is actually a disgusting tool of barbarism, because, its only practical effect would be awful treatment of "non innocent" warring faction. see just war theory. Gem fr (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. op here. A couple of good refs early on but then posts degenerated into mutual personal attacks with no references to the subject in question. Is this what the reference desks have degenerated into: a place to kick,verbally,the shit out of each other? SHAME on you all. I'm very disappointed at the aggressive responses on the desk of a worldwide encyclope[redacted] to which children have free access. 86.8.200.182 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

June 6

Referring to a peer who's an MP in the House of Commons

I'm aware that some MPs in the British Parliament were formerly lords, such as Viscount Thurso. Would they be referred to in the House as 'the honourable gentlemen for XXX' if they are not members or Privy Council, or would they be 'the right honourable gentleman' given members of the peerage are referred to as 'the right honourable' as a matter of course.

Indeed, would they be referred to as a 'gentleman' at all given that they are members of the peerage. Would 'the right honourable (or noble) lord' be the recommended form of reference? 118.160.101.6 (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hansard is your friend. Unsurprisingly, the point was raised at least once when Mr Sinclair was an MP: [13] If that doesn't work, the short answer is that some called him "noble and honourable", others simply "honourable". The speaker may have favoured the latter. (Incidentally, you seem unclear in your question whether you're interested in what what he would be called, or what someone would recommend he be called; if the latter, you'd need to indicate who that someone is.) Henry^Flower 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The correct mode is "The (Right) Honourable member" for (constituency). One of the advantages of this form is that it is gender neutral. Otherwise the form is "the honourable lady"/"the honourable gentleman" etc. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:493D:8AD5:E045:57A2 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

28th birthday riddle

Is it true that for everyone currently living on Earth, their 28th birthday fell or will fall on the same day of the week as when they were born? The next time this will be false will be for people born in 2072, because 2100 won't be a leap year. For those born on February 29, both leap and non-leap year birthdays (which may be assumed to be on March 1) are counted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The calendar tends to repeat itself after some years. Perpetual calendar gets into it a bit. And, for what it's worth, I checked your question against my own dates, and it works. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000 -- the Julian calendar repeats itself after 28 years (4 years in a leap-year cycle × 7 days in a week), and between March 1st 1900 and Feb 28th 2100 the Gregorian calendar has been and will be in a constant alignment with the Julian calendar (since 2000 was a leap year in both calendars)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

...The rule must therefore apply to one's 56th and 84th birthdays also.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I checked that also. It only gets tripped up by non-leap centuries, as noted above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The 400th anniversary of an event falls on the same day of the week as the event itself (no exceptions). That's the answer to the riddle:

Why does the thirteenth day of the month fall more often on a Friday than on any other day of the week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:493D:8AD5:E045:57A2 (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the one have to do with the other? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Per Friday the 13th the most times that the 13th can fall on a Friday in a year is 3 and that doesn't happen very often so something is being lost in the translation. That can happen with riddles :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking just at the 2019 calendar, we see the 13th falling on Sunday twice, Monday once, Tuesday once, Wednesday 3 times, Thursday once, Friday twice and Saturday twice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

well, the thirteenth day of the month just doesn't[only unnoticeably --see below, I stand corrected] fall more often on a Friday than on any other day of the week. Always check the does it? question before the why?. As for why it appears to fall more often, this an instance of confirmation bias: you just don't care about the 13th falling on other days, don't remember when this happen, while you remember when it fall on a Friday. Gem fr (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Except the turtle in Pogo (comic strip), who might fret that "Friday the 13th came on a Tuesday this month!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I know, I myself am quite worrying that next Thursday, which will be the 13th, might fall on a Friday. Gem fr (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A Gregorian leap-year cycle contains 400 years, which is 146,097 days ((400*365.25)-3), and by coincidence, this number 146,097 happens to be evenly divisible by 7. So where Julian calendar weekdates repeat in a 28-year cycle, Gregorian calendar weekdates repeat in a 400-year cycle... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see also Doomsday rule. The 400 year cycle contains 4800 months, each of which has a 13th. Since 4800 is not divisible by 7, the 13th can't occur an equal number of times on each day of the week. By my calculation it happens to fall on monday 685 times, tuesday 685 times, wednesday 687 times, thursday 684 times, friday 688 times, saturday 684 times, and sunday 687 times. So it really does fall on friday the most. The answer to "why friday?" is basically that it's a coincidence. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't need to reinvent the wheel, as this is already shown in Friday the 13th#Occurrence. I wouldn't call it coincidence, though. It's more a feature of the Pigeonhole principle. If the number of items to be pigeonholed is not an exact multiple of the number of pigeonholes, it's inescapable that there will be at least one pigeonhole that contains more items than any other. Which one that is (or ones those are) will depend on the particulars of the case. The Gregorian calendar started on 15 October 1582, a Friday. Had a different day of the week been chosen, I suspect that would change the day of the week on which the 13th most often falls. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The 13th coming on a Friday once more than on a Wednesday or a Sunday in a 400 year span is not likely to be noticed by the average human. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The punch line being, "...even if that person lives to be 400 years old." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

JackofOz, nice catch on #Occurence, I'll look there. The unequal frequencies of the days comes from the pigeonhole principle, but that the most frequent day happens to be Friday, rather than say Wednesday, is coincidence. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Still not quite with you. What is coinciding with what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"Friday" is coinciding with "weekday with more occurrence of the 13th of a month" Gem fr (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(???) Is Donald Trump "coinciding" with "President of the USA", and does that make his presidency a "coincidence"? Sorry to seem obtuse and argumentative, but I've never heard the word "coincidence" ever used in this way and I'd need some convincing to believe it's a valid usage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@User talk:JackofOz I believe the coincidence is that, if it were any other day than Friday, the incidence level would not be remarked upon. Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As to which specific days occur (slightly) more often, wouldn't that be connected to the various months having different numbers of days? That is, if all the months had 28 days, then all the 13ths would come on the same day of the week, whichever day it might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

coincidence is a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another. Donald Trump ran to be POTUS, a causal connection is obvious, so, his presidency is no "coincidence". Gem fr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

And the exact pattern of weekdays in a 400-year Gregorian cycle is defined, known, predictable and fixed. If that ain't a causal connection, nothing is. The creators of the calendar wouldn't have arranged matters specifically in order to give Friday a very slight edge over the other days, but they did in fact create that edge. It was causal even if it was unintended. There's no coincidence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason why the word apparent is in the definition of coincidence: if you look for a causal connection hard enough, you always find one, the world is determinist enough for that. I just checked chance randomness indeterminism etc. And found no mention of Antoine Augustin Cournot and his enlightening, classical and operational definition. How is that so? It would help you. Gem fr (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The original question is true if all living people were born after 28 February 1900. List of the oldest living people says the oldest verified person was born in 1903. There are many unverified claims of older people and 119 is not an implausible age. Jeanne Calment was 122. There are sceptics but her age is generally accepted. Number 2 at Oldest people#Ten oldest verified people ever was 119 years, 97 days. If she had been born 28 February 1900 and reached the same age then she would have died 5 June 2019, one day before the question was asked. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The "constant difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars" is 13 days. What a coincidence. In the International Fixed Calendar every month has Friday 13th. 2A00:23A8:830:A600:8DBB:FD9:5F5F:1135 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It's only 13 because that's the current difference between Julian and Gregorian. In 2100 the difference should become 14, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Right. Gem fr (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

June 7

Vatican restrictions on Catholic students at English universities

In our article Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk we read "In the 1890s Norfolk was instrumental in the campaign that convinced the Vatican authorities to relax its restrictions on Catholic students enrolling at the great English universities, culminating with the co-founding of St Edmunds College, Cambridge along with Baron Anatole von Hugel". What were the Vatican's restrictions on Catholic students? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It probably had to do with the fact that for a long time Oxford and Cambridge were intimately connected to the Church of England, and closed to even other types of Protestants (who went to Dissenting academies instead)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, the article on St. Edmunds says it wasn't Vatican restrictions but British ones, as embodied in the laws such as the Test Acts which forbade non-Anglicans from public office and from being granted university degrees. But there's an odd discrepancy, in that the St. Edmunds article says the Test Acts were repealed in 1873, which fits the timeline of the founding of the college, but the Test Acts article says they were repealed in 1828, which doesn't. Further confusing things, the St. Edmund's website says the repeal was in 1871. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The Corporation Act 1661, the Test Act 1673 and the Papists Act 1742 were repealed by the Sacramental Test Act 1828. The Test Act 1678 was repealed by the Catholic Relief Act 1829. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:493D:8AD5:E045:57A2 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec)The Universities Tests Act 1871 was what allowed Roman Catholics, non-conformists and non-Christians to take up professorships, fellowships, studentships and other lay offices at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham. It also forbade religious tests for any degree (other than a degree in divinity). The Oxford University Act 1854 abolished tests at Oxford for the degree of BA, but not for higher degrees, the Cambridge University Act 1856 abolished tests at Cambridge for all degrees in Arts, Law, Music and Medicine, but stated that the degree would not enable the holder to become a member of senate or hold "any Office … which has been heretofore always held by a Member of the United Church of England and Ireland" unless they made a declaration that they were "bona fide a Member of the Church of England", and the Dean and Chapter of Durham Cathedral (the governing body of Durham University at that time) changed the university's regulations in 1865 to remove religious tests on degrees (except in theology). So we have a selection of articles on the elimination of religious tests by the state and the Universities, what we do not have is any explanation of what the Vatican's restrictions were. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This [14] says that Catholics were restricted from Oxford and Cambridge by the Vatican between 1867 and 1895. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:493D:8AD5:E045:57A2 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead of St Edmund's says "Historically, St Edmund's was also the residential college of the university's first Catholic students in two hundred years - most of whom were studying for the Priesthood - after the lifting of the papal prohibition on attendance at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in 1895 at the urging of a delegation to Pope Leo XIII led by Baron von Hügel". The source for that says "attended the audience in academic dress, a brave thing to do since technically Catholics were at that time forbidden by the pope from being members of the University. With the eventual support of Cardinal Vaughan and other leading Catholics, the ban was lifted. The lifting of the ban did not give Catholics carte blanche to attend Oxford and Cambridge. There was still concern as to the moral and religious climate of the universities and Catholic attendance was therefore only permitted given certain conditions. One of these conditions was effectively the establishment of a Catholic chaplaincy." But still, when did the Pope (and which Pope) ban Catholics from the Universities, and what what were the penalties? DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems that it wasn't Anglicanism that was the perceived threat:

"However, the Catholic hierarchy, believing that it would be impossible for the students to attend Oxford and Cambridge without being corrupted by an increasing atmosphere of liberalism and scepticism, forbade Catholics to attend, and sought instead to found a Catholic university in London. This decision was met with public outcry from wealthy laity who wished for their sons to attend Oxbridge colleges. Following the death of Cardinal Manning, who had been implacably opposed to Catholics attending Oxford or Cambridge, a petition led by the Catholic Cambridge fellow Baron Anatole von Hügel was presented to the Bishops and the ban was lifted in 1896". About Fisher House.

We have an article, Catholic University College, Kensington, but it has no viewable references. Our article on Manning notes his close affinity with Pope Pius IX, but doesn't mention the ban or Manning's role in it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

'...a similar ban was laid on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That interdict of 1864 was carried through mainly by the influence of Cardinal Manning in opposition to Newman whom, one regrets to say, he so persistently opposed and uncharitably suspected - of the vice of being a Liberal. His impression, surely mistaken, was that no Catholic really was interested in University education for its own sake: his own words were that what arose was merely the snobbish desire of certain Catholic parents to “get their sons into society and have a latch-key to Grosvenor Square"' (one of the poshest addresses in London). The author goes on to say that 'Catholics continued to attend the banned universities in increasing numbers', so the penalties, if any, must not have been severe. From Selected Essays of Sean O'Faolain (p. 245) edited by Brad Kent. Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Note also that the Catholic ban on attending Trinity College Dublin was not lifted until 1970. Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Alan, splendid work. I'm sure nobody nowadays would suspect Newman of the vice of being a Liberal! DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Longest combined reigns of two monarchs?

What are the longest combined reign of two monarchs where one of them immediately followed the other one? I am asking this question because Louis XIV of France and his great-grandson and successor Louis XV of France reigned for a combined total of 131 years (from 1643 to 1774, with Louis XIV being King for 72 years and Louis XV succeeding him and being King for 59 years).

Have any pair of monarchs where one succeeded the other one have a combined reign longer than that of Louis XIV and Louis XV or at least came close to overtaking the length of their combined reigns (131 years)? If so, which monarchs, and when? Futurist110 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Math says that for any pair to beat that, the longer-reigning of the pair must have reigned for >66 years. If you check List of longest-reigning monarchs, there are only seven monarchs who have reigned that long. If you check each of those seven, no one else beats your example. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

nice!Gem fr (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There are some more listed further down at List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs#Monarchs_whose_exact_dates_of_rule_are_unknown, though not many and some are disputed or dubious in some way. Matt Deres (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The longest British combo appears to be George II of Great Britain and George III of the United Kingdom who went on for 93 years between them. Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

June 8

Political

Has there ever been a United states President charged with obstruction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edperk1964 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you're including impeachments. See Nixon and Clinton. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it true that a sitting president can't be charged with anything while he or she is still in office? Like if Trump robs a bank in broad daylight, they would have to impeach him, try him in the Senate, and install Pence as president before they could hand Trump over to the FBI? I've been hearing stuff like that in the news regarding the Russiagate stuff but it seems weird to me. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not prohibited by the Constitution, but the DOJ has a policy against it, so Trump cannot be indicted at the federal level while he's in office.[15] That's not to say a state couldn't give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs. That link was probably not the one you wanted, but I get the idea. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of Google hits on the subject, and I might have been conflating a couple of them. But consensus is that it's long-standing DOJ policy, and since the DOJ is the one investigating federal crimes, then it stands as is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Former US Vice President and then-sitting US Senator was indicted for treason by a US Federal Court and declared a traitor by the US Senate, but he was apparently never tried or convicted. His treason was joining the Confederate Army in 1861 after the civil war started. He later returned to the US under an amnesty for former Confederates extended in 1868. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Constitutionally speaking, anyone and everyone on the Confederate side could have been tried for treason, if the Union victors really wanted to push the issue. As for VP, Congressmen, etc., they have no DOJ protection. Spiro Agnew, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Throne of England

The article Throne of England says that it is the throne of the Monarch of England, but it doesn't say much of anything about the actual throne or have any pictures of it other than one from the 19th century in a building that it says was destroyed by fire. Similarly, Crown of England redirects to a list of English monarchs. Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom otoh has a nice picture of St. Edward's Crown near the top, and the Imperial State Crown further down.

So is there an actual "official" throne these days? Is anyone other than the monarch allowed to sit in it? Does the incumbent monarch ever actually use it, either for state functions or just sitting around the palace? Is there some reason Throne room#United_Kingdom doesn't have good pictures of the throne(s)? Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This may help answer.[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help. I still think the articles should have pictures. While posting the question I spun an imaginary theory that the lack of pictures might be for security reasons, because of the ancient law that says a pretender to the throne can become the actual monarch by sword-fighting their way to the throne room and sitting down on the true throne. (They also have to have already seized the Crown and Sceptre, which were stored in separate rooms guarded by separate sets of monsters). The final challenge is that the throne room turns out to contain dozens of thrones and they have to identify the right one. Most sit on the biggest and fanciest and most jeweled one, which triggers a trap door dropping the pretender into an oubliette. The real throne is a very crude and ugly wooden thing made before the Norman Conquest, like the Holy Grail that Indiana Jones drinks from in the Raiders of the Lost Ark sequel. So that is why there are no photos. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is no "throne" of England. It's simply not a significant concept to the Monarchy of England. Monarchs do need to sit down, and so they have a variety of thrones available. A new one has been made for each. One has a little extra significance, as it's in the House of Lords and is from where the Queen delivers her speech at the State Opening of Parliament. But it's still just a chair. There is no significance to sitting upon it. It's not Excalibur – you don't become the new king just by parking your arse on the royal velvet.

King Edward's Chair isn't a throne (nor is King Edward VII's chair!). The British monarchy is recognised as the monarch wherever they sit. However they are traditionally crowned in King Edward's Chair, which is of no inherent significance, other than it used to contain the Scottish Stone of Scone, which is essential for the coronation of a Scottish monarch. But once they're crowned, they can sit anywhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. Yes, I had gotten a bit confused and forgotten the traditional practice of having a watery tart lobbing scimitars to choose the monarch. That was interesting about the Stone of Scone. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The distribution of executive power as exemplified by an arbitrary distribution of cutlery by some moistened bint is the most sensible idea to hit British politics in the last few years. It is so much better than the Cheech-and-Chong stories that it has turned into this week. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If you liked the Scone of Stone, then don't miss Edward VII's chair. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

June 9

The Wool Road, New South Wales, and James Holman, the Blind Traveller

Our article The Wool Road (New South Wales) says "In 1831, Robert Futter of Bungonia and George Galbraith of Nerriga formed an expedition to find a path from Nerriga to Jervis Bay. The others making up the expedition were William Ryrie, James Holman, and two Aboriginal guides whose names are not known. Holman later recounted that the route they had taken from Yerock Flat (west of Sassafras Mountain) to the coast was taken against the advice of the Aboriginal guides, who had strongly suggested following the range further to the north. Holman later recognised that had they done so they could have found a far easier route for a road to Jervis Bay...". I would be interested to know if this James Holman was the James Holman known as "The Blind Traveller", who wrote Voyage Round the World, including Travels in Africa, Asia, Australasia, America, etc, from 1827 to 1832, 4 vols, 1834-1835. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Kinmei

In the article Emperor Kinmei, it state he “is the first Japanese Emperor for whom contemporary historiography is able to assign verifiable dates.” What is this contemporary historiography being spoken of? The Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, two of oldest extant Japanese text dates to the 8th-century. Even the lost Tennōki and Kokki written by his grandson Prince Shōtoku are not contemporaneous to Kinmei‘s reign. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Contemporary historiography" doesn't mean only Japanese texts. Without having read the article, it probably safe to assume it's referring to a contemporary Chinese source.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If so which Chinese source? KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Can the US Supreme Court force US states to have 3+ legislative houses?

Can the US Supreme Court force US states to have 3+ legislative houses (as in, force them to create at least one additional legislative house) if it will (hypothetically) hear a case in regards to this and will find something in the US Constitution (such as the guarantee clause--assuming that of course SCOTUS declares this clause to actually be justicable) that it claims requires US states to have 3+ legislative houses? Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to predict what a future hypothetical Supreme Court might or might not do, but considering that there's been no attempt to enforce bicamerality onto Nebraska, it's difficult to imagine tricamerality becoming a burning issue... AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

if there was a case with merit enough, if the SCOTUS found that the constitution actually mandated more houses... well, of course, the SCOTUS job would be to say so, and it could do it; you used a number of strong enough if for anything to happen. Looks like a really weird hypothetic world, though. Could be a funny(?) plot for a novel, I guess. Gem fr (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Executive by committee

In most democratic governments, legislative power is vested in a group of people, while the executive is a single individual. Is there, or has there ever been, a democratic government with a multi-person executive branch?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)