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 22

Anglo-Saxon and French relations

Was there any diplomatic relationship between France and Anglo Saxon England before 1066? KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you joking? William the Conqueror's claim on the throne was based on his kinship to Edward the Confessor, one of the sons of Emma of Normandy. Emma being the consort of both Æthelred the Unready and Cnut the Great.

The earlier Anglo-Saxon monarchs had close affiliations to the Merovingian monarchs even before the Gregorian mission (596):

• "In 595, when Pope Gregory I decided to send a mission to the Anglo-Saxons, the Kingdom of Kent was ruled by Æthelberht. He had married a Christian princess named Bertha before 588, and perhaps earlier than 560. Bertha was the daughter of Charibert I, one of the Merovingian kings of the Franks. As one of the conditions of her marriage she had brought a bishop named Liudhard with her to Kent as her chaplain. They restored a church in Canterbury that dated to Roman times, possibly the present-day St Martin's Church. Æthelberht was at that time a pagan but he allowed his wife freedom of worship. Liudhard does not appear to have made many converts among the Anglo-Saxons, and if not for the discovery of a gold coin, the Liudhard medalet, bearing the inscription Leudardus Eps (Eps is an abbreviation of Episcopus, the Latin word for bishop) his existence may have been doubted. One of Bertha's biographers states that, influenced by his wife, Æthelberht requested Pope Gregory to send missionaries. The historian Ian Wood feels that the initiative came from the Kentish court as well as the queen."
• "The choice of Kent and Æthelberht was almost certainly dictated by a number of factors, including that Æthelberht had allowed his Christian wife to worship freely. Trade between the Franks and Æthelberht's kingdom was well established,and the language barrier between the two regions was apparently only a minor obstacle as the interpreters for the mission came from the Franks. Another reason for the mission was the growing power of the Kentish kingdom. Since the eclipse of King Ceawlin of Wessex in 592, Æthelberht was the leading Anglo-Saxon ruler; Bede refers to Æthelberht as having imperium, or overlordship, south of the River Humber. Lastly, the proximity of Kent to the Franks allowed for support from a Christian area. There is some evidence, including Gregory's letters to Frankish kings in support of the mission, that some of the Franks felt they had a claim to overlordship over some of the southern British kingdoms at this time. The presence of a Frankish bishop could also have lent credence to claims of overlordship, if Liudhard was felt to be acting as a representative of the Frankish Church and not merely as a spiritual adviser to the queen. Archaeological remains support the notion that there were cultural influences from Francia in England at that time." Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Louis IV of France was raised in England - the French even called him "d'Outremer", "from across the sea". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

June 23

GJohn dating

Here's an easy one. When was the gospel of John written? (How much later than Mark?) It's kinda hard to google Biblical stuff and get academic sources. It seems like this is something that should be on our page for the book! You know, on the sidebar to the right. you know, | release _date = 1 Jan 90 or whatever. (Yes, I know we don't have a specific date, but I'm sure we know roughly.) Temerarius (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I had always heard it was around 90 AD, which Gospel of John also says (90-110 or so). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are two sources: Britannica gives c. 100 CE. The Catholic Encyclopedia says "the last decade of the first century, or to be still more precise, to 96 or one of the succeeding years" (based on a text from 200 CE that says it was written after John returned from Patmos, and other sources which say Domitian recalled the Patmos exiles in 96). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Only a thesis, but An Analysis of the Arguments for the Dating of the Fourth Gospel sets out the various debating points clearly and lists which scholars support which hypothesis. Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Lloyd George & Hirohito, and who else? And where are they?

Megan Lloyd George, David Lloyd George, Hirohito, Margaret Lloyd George, and others

In the attached picture we see in the front row, from left, Megan Lloyd George, David Lloyd George, Hirohito, and Margaret Lloyd George. I would be interested to know who the other people in the picture are, and to confirm that it was taken at Chequers. The file page gives a date of 15th May 1921. According to Rowland, Peter (1975). "The Man at the Top, 1918-1922". Lloyd George. London: Barrie & Jenkins. p. 536. ISBN 0214200493. on the 15th "he entertained Hirohito, the Crown Prince of Japan, at Chequers…" but that is all I know. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like picture was taken at same time as youtube video youtu.be/rBeElh81rBQ (seems I am not allowed to link it directly). Vid doesn't have a caption option so I can't tell you if the sound is useful or indeed if there is sound, but a person who can hear it could. The title card does confirm Chequers, at least. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If no one turns up a real caption. The Japanese wiki article on the visit lists a number of Hirohito's top aides on the tour; you might search through their articles for leads? (Prince Kan'in Kotohito, Chinda Sutemi, Takeji Nara, Isamu Takeshita, Setsuzō Sawada, Koshiro Oikawa, Yoshinori Futara, and some others without English articles). Another possible candidate is the Japanese Ambassador, Hayashi Gonsuke (diplomat). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the video link - there is no sound so you didn't miss anything there. I'll take a look through the other articles you linked. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess that is par for the period. At least we got the where answered, even if we're still looking for the who.70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The newsreel can also be seen at the British Pathé website here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly suspect the last two in the front row are Prince Kan'in Kotohito and Chinda Sutemi, but wouldn't swear to it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Croatian concentration camps During WWII

I noticed that none of the concentration camps in Croatia are on the List of Nazi concentration camps even though some where run by the Nazis directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.11.149 (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Nazi concentration camps seems like a good candidate. OP, please confirm, and please remember to provide relevant wikilinks in future so others don't have to make (possibly wrong) assumptions or lengthy searches, which just delays answering you – our 5.8-plus million articles provide too many multiple possibilities (on any topic) for guesswork.

If my guess was correct, the answer is stated in the lede (first paragraph) of that article: it is a selection of (only) 68 out of about 1,200 listed by a West German Government report in 1967, while another source estimates (perhaps on different criteria) a total of some 15,000. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also remember that the nazi concentration system had all sort of detention facilities, victims being moved from simple police custody to internment camp to final extermination camps. And those facilities would also serve other purpose, a person detained would not automatically end in extermination camp. So the cut off is not that easy, as usual in real world. Gem fr (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The complete list of concentration camps with Wikipedia articles would be at Category:Nazi concentration camps by country. Notably there is no section for Croatia, because it was not a country at the time, though there are several articles on concentration camps in Yugoslavia. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there was the Independent State of Croatia (not recognized by the Allies)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

June 24

Identical twins with significantly different lifespans

Which identical twins had significantly different lifespans? So far, I could think of William Frankland. He is still alive right now at age 107 while his identical twin brother died in 1995 at the age of 83. That's a 24+ year lifespan difference between them in spite of the fact that they are identical twins and thus share the same DNA. Futurist110 (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

List of twins lists about 17 who died shortly after birth, for example, Liberace (twin died as an infant), Elvis Presley (twin brother died at birth), Ed Sullivan (twin brother died as an infant), William Randolph Hearst (twin died as an infant). I don't know which, if any, of those were identical. Their articles might say. I don't think DNA has much to do with it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What about excluding those who died during infancy or childhood? Futurist110 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

same DNA won't prevent different exposure to accident, disease, etc.Gem fr (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't uncommon. This study analyzed twin pairs in the US military (who had both survived the war), with dates of birth between 1917 and 1927. Even though fraternal twins did have greater variation in lifespan, both types of twins had gaps between death dates. If I'm reading it right, for pairs where only one twin had died by age 63-74, the gap was already on average 15 years. Here's another example that found an average 10-year difference in life expectancy for identical twins. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

One famous example is Norris McWhirter and Ross McWhirter, founders of the Guinness Book of Records. The book used to note that they "are not only identical twins, they have almost identical biographies"—until Ross was murdered at age 50. Norris lived to 78. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The McWhirters crossed my mind, but is the OP including death by something other than natural causes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

2026 Winter Olympic host city

What hour will it be (Eastern Time) when I hear the host city is known?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get an answer in time. Links for completionists: 2026 Winter Olympics and Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A. H. Barrett

I have several original art works by A H Barrett and was wondering if anyone knows the value of these. A google search only finds others asking the same question. Any assistance would be deeply appreciated. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Best idea is to look for publicly listed auctions of his work, either in the news or in auctionhouse websites, and see if the sale price is given. If you can find auction houses or auction sites that have sold his work, but not the price, you can contact the curators to ask what his work sells for. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the "traditional" Anglo-French animosity?

A recent after-dinner conversation with some friends has divided us into two camps. Some maintain that the intermittent hostilities between English and French (which basically ended with the defeat of Napoleon) began with the Norman Conquest of 1066. The other side claims it is significantly older, starting soon after the Anglo-Saxons moved into the area and came into conflict with the Franks. Which side is closer to the truth? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Traditionally, the era when the two countries were enemies is considered as lasting from the Capetian–Plantagenet rivalry to the defeat of Napoleon. Before that, there were only sporadic clashes (and 1066 can be seen as an internal English affair, with a member of the extended family being brought into the conflict; France as a state was not involved). See Anglo-French Wars. Xuxl (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To some degree it could be just due to geographical proximity (which can lead to friction in many ways) -- sometimes a phenomenon can be observed where nations dislike other nearby nations, but like nations which are one degree more distant. For example, there was enmity between France and England, but a long-standing alliance between France and Scotland. Traditionally, Poles dislike both Germany and Russia, but like the French. Also, for a long time Bulgarians looked up to Russia as a kind of "big sister", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. Nations usually war with their neighbors, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It takes an even stronger common enemy to force neighbors to ally (Russia or Germany, in the Anglo-French case), and generations, that is, centuries, for old grudges to turn into joking material Gem fr (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Traditionally, Poles dislike both Germany and Russia" I would suspect that this is a consequence of the 18th-century Partitions of Poland, when the Habsburg Monarchy, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Russian Empire annexed the areas of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. There were also a number of wars between Polish and Russian states which took place between the 16th and the 20th centuries. The relationship with various states of the Holy Roman Empire was rather more complex. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You need a time traveling machine to explain Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War or Jagiellonian Poland fight against Muscovy this way Gem fr (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This article might provide some information, as well as an opportunity to improve it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The title of that article isn't really well-aligned with its contents, since the United Kingdom didn't exist until 1801 (not to mention that before 1603, Scottish relations with France were often very different from English relations with France). AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it should probably be split into pre-1801 and post-1801 articles. We also have Auld Alliance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Anglo=French" is the usual term, which gets around all that 1801 stuff. The difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom is insignificant in comparison to the various French kingdoms, republics, consulates and empires over the same period. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The 1066 Norman Conquest can be seen as a late manifestation of Viking expansion. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Dodger67, the animosity actually didn't end at the era of Waterloo. The French ironclad Gloire (the world's first real ironclad), built in 1859, directly prompted the construction of HMS Warrior, as the British knew that an ocean-going French ironclad was potentially a major threat. And this was after the cooperation of the Crimean War. War between the two powers was a possibility as late as 1899, when the Fashoda Incident led at least the British to mobilize for war. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See also Palmerston Forts. DuncanHill (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Friend or foe? The French are both mentions the habit of Lord Raglan of referring to his Russian enemies as "the damned French", even in the presence of his French allies. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

June 25

What was the point of this statement by Representative John Farnsworth?

I have previously read this 1966 article by Alfred Avins in regards to the views of the draftsmen of the 14th Amendment in regards to anti-miscegenation laws:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524cc5a7e4b09484086dc046/t/552d54b3e4b07a7dd6a08bf5/1429034163395/Avins_Miscegenation+and+14th+Amend+Original+Intent+1966.pdf

On page 1231 of this article, Avins quotes Republican US Representative John F. Farnsworth as saying this:

"[Rep. Rogers] . . . refers to another bugbear with which to scare ignorant people, that of amalgamation. He recites the statutes of various States against the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Well, sir, while I regard that as altogether a matter of taste, and neither myself nor my friends require any restraining laws to prevent us from committing any error in that direction, still, if my friend from New Jersey and his friends are fearful that they will be betrayed into forming any connection of that sort, I will very cheerfully join with him in voting the restraining influence of a penal statute. I will vote to punish it by confinement in the State prison, or, if he pleases, by hanging-anything rather than they should be betrayed into or induced to form any such unnatural relations.25"

My question here is this--what was the point of Farnsworth's comment here? I mean, wouldn't any hypothetical attempt to impose the death penalty for miscegenation in Washington DC (which is where US Congressmen lived while Congress was in session) be struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional due to it violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments? If so, what was the point of having Farnsworth say that he would vote for something that would be declared unconstitutional by the courts?

I get the general point of Farnsworth's statement here--I just want to know why exactly he alluded to the death penalty for miscegenation if such a punishment for such an offense would have been declared unconstitutional by the courts.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I would not be so sure that the Supreme Court would have ruled that way, or that anyone would expect it to. The various states used to execute for far lesser offenses than we are used to today. The Supreme Court did not even begin to narrow the acceptable uses of capital punishment until relatively recently when they prohibited its use as a punishment for rape, though by then most states had voluntarily narrowed its use. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This was clear irony. I modern parlance, he was trolling Rogers Gem fr (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

But what would Farnsworth have done had a bill to ban miscegenation in Washington DC and to impose the death penalty for this actually reached the House floor? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- it's wrapped up in 19th-century rhetorical style, but the clear implication is that he's sarcastically saying that if Rogers is worried about being unable to control his cross-racial lusts, then he'll support a bill with disincentives to reinforce Rogers' wavering will-power... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What would Farnsworth have done if such a bill would have actually reached the House floor, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

They would have joined in opposing it as an impingement on states' rights to decide what should be criminalized. There was a time when there were next to no federal criminal statutes, for example, McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz was tried and executed under state, not federal law.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This sort of rhetoric, saying that giving blacks civil rights did not mean giving them equal social rights, was common then. Lincoln made similar points in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, especially the ones held in Southern Illinois.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I was just wondering about the connection between the death penalty for miscegenation and the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That would have been a state law and the Supreme Court did not hold that the Eighth Amendment applied to the states until much later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Costs of production

Imagine you're producing and publishing a document on a physical medium, e.g. as a book or on a CD. Your marginal cost is probably rather low, since CDs and paper don't cost a ton of money, and of course you have to account for overhead (business). But where does the cost of creating of the underlying work come in? For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the publishing company created the document and owns the copyright, so we don't need to address royalties in particular. I'm just wanting to say "this book costs X, which is higher than marginal cost plus overhead, because of factor Y, which represents the company's cost of creating the document in the first place", but I don't know what to call factor Y. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You want to know how fixed cost are accounted for in the publishing business? I am afraid the specifics are out of our abilities (mine, for sure).Gem fr (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cost of goods sold might help? 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The author might be a staff member or someone who has submitted a manuscript. That's one such cost that might be either marginal or fixed depending. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

For example, open-source printed textbooks are becoming somewhat more popular now; partial or total copyright release makes them a good deal cheaper than traditional textbooks, since the charge for an open-source printed textbook is generally limited to the cost of running the company and producing and distributing the printed copy, while the traditional-textbook publisher needs to regain all those costs plus the cost of developing the textbook in the first place. I've basically wondered what we'd call the textbook-development cost. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

June 26

What's the difference? Questions about free speech after the Iancu v. Brunetti case

The case of Iancu v. Brunetti was recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a nutshell, it holds that immoral or scandalous trademarks cannot be denied, as that violates the First Amendment. So, how is it different when a state Department of Motor Vehicles denies someone a vanity license plate that contains objectionable words? I am pretty sure that I have read of cases in which plaintiffs objected (to license plates being denied); and the plaintiffs always lose such suits. The only distinction that I can see is that a vanity license plate is not "required"; rather, it is "optional". I assume a trademark is required – and not optional – when one wants to protect their intellectual property rights. Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I supposed provocative or inflammatory trademarks might be effective marketing, but license plates that get people riled up on the freeway might be a safety hazard. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Because a license plate is not your speech, it's the government's speech. Or maybe it's a non-public forum and therefore the first-amendment does not apply. Or maybe you don't have standing to sue, so go away. Or maybe, crap, you're right, it's free speech. The hell am I going on about? Well, circuit courts have been asked about this many times, and often come to contradictory conclusions. The Supreme Court weighed in for a 2015 case to say that the state can at least refuse to put the confederate flag on a plate. Read more here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

good ref. Because a license plate is not your speech, it's the government's speech seems a key here. Gem fr (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

For a "regular" license plate, yes, that makes sense: it's the government's speech. But, it's hard to make that claim with a straight face, when a vanity license plate is involved. That's pretty clearly the speech of the car owner. Calling it the speech of the government is a legal fiction. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Speech is not always a single person's. It can be both the government's, and the car owner's. So the gov MAY put its motto on it, and the car owner MAY hide the motto, as has been ruled. Also, "legal fiction" seem pretty pleonastic to me. Gem fr (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

My point was that a vanity license plate is really the speech of the car driver, not of the government. What (actual) interest does the governmental have in a license plate that says "Eye Doctor" or "Yankees Fan" or "Bob + Sue" or what have you? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, what's in it for the state is an additional fee for vanity plates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: consider this very website. Legally, what you write here is your speech. But this whole site is also, to an extent, the Wikimedia Foundation's speech. And the WMF has a legal right to stop speaking your words if it chooses. I see the difference between a trademark and a license plate in their purpose. A license plate is intended as a government designation of your car for identification purposes, but they are allowing you to have input on what that designation is. A trademark is a government-granted process to help you prevent confusion in the market place by registering the word/phrase/image you use to self-designate. The government has no part in creating the trademark, and is merely keeping a record of it. Now, that record is necessarily kept in a government database on government property, and will be retrievable by anyone searching a government website, but I think it makes more sense to consider that a service rather than speech. The purpose of a trademark is not getting the government to say something, but merely getting them to record how you advertise your self/company/product/services. The speech-like aspects the government must engage in are not the purpose of the trademark registration, but a necessary consequence of the right the government created. Going back to the license plate, no, it's not incidental that there is speech involved - the whole point is to have a big, obvious government-issued piece of metal on your car that reads your license plate number. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The ruling was specifically about trademarks. Whether a word is "immoral" is a matter of personal opinion. A license plate is not a trademark. And there's no constitutional right to drive a car on a public road. The rules about who can drive and what's on the license plates are established by the individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there is a constitutional right to drive a car on a public road; this right may be regulated (you need a driving license), but not in a way that make it disappear because, say, you are black, or you said something offensive to the governor of the state, or are foreigner to the community. Gem fr (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know where it says that in the Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of movement under United States lawGem fr (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. But it doesn't stop the individual states from setting their own rules of the road. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct. There is a right to movement, but not a right to a specific mode of transportation, and so the right to drive a car is, in fact, granted by the government, and is not fundamental. However, this does not mean the government can remove that right capriciously, and most importantly they may not remove that right based on membership of a protected class, or as punishment for exercising a civil right. It also may not be granted in a similarly discriminatory fashion. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And, I am pretty sure that the ruling was NOT specifically about trademarks: justices wording clearly make it applicable much more broadly than that, and basically forbid the government to engage in morality regulations (If I understand correctly).

But don't trust me on these, I am no lawyer Gem fr (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the degree of exposure is a factor, with license plates being akin to billboards. I wonder if FUCT (clothing) is allowed any degree of visual prominence that they please. Can they rent large billboard space? Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting question. Here's a related question. You cannot say "fucked" in a TV commercial or a radio commercial. Or even on a TV show or a radio show. (Right?) Now, can you say "FUCT" in a TV commercial or a radio commercial, if the FUCT Company decides to advertise its brand? Can you say "FUCT" on a TV show or a radio show, if you are doing a segment about the FUCT Company? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Compare the French Connection UK company founded in 1972 which from 1991 (a year after FUCT's founding) began using the branding fcuk or FCUK, not without controversy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You cannot say "fucked" in a TV commercial or a radio commercial, but not because government forbid it, only because some sort of Broadcast Standards and Practices self-imposed code. Some broadcasters might accept "FUCT" ad, while other wouldn't, just like some accept porn ad and others do not. Gem fr (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't all of that (not allowing obscene words on TV and radio) dictated by the FCC? And isn't the FCC a governmental body? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The FCC controls the public airwaves. But on pay cable, you can say pretty much anything, short of something that's illegal such as threatening to murder a public official. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Historically the FCC has declined to attempt regulating transmissions over non-public media on the understanding that broadcasters would self-regulate (note the FTC still has general regulatory authority over such things as false advertising). This was considered the best of both worlds, as naughty content would be minimized, and the government could avoid the appearance of a censor, or a supreme court ruling that it could not censor, which would have the effect of removing the proverbial ax the stations feared. This manifested as the Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters, which was later abandoned after charges of antitrust violations. See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation for the Supreme Court case that affirmed the FCC's power to regulate some "indecent" content on public airwaves. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So, why are they not allowed to say swear words ("fuck", "shit", etc.) on regular TV (for example, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.)? Is not that due to the FCC? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That is often due to the FCC, but it's a lot easier for them to act there, constitutionally, because anything in the form of a radio broadcast is special, being part of the commons. That is, if you print your own books, your existence does not interfere with anyone else's right to speak, and so the government's ability to regulate your behavior is quite limited. However, if you are broadcasting a signal through the air that is strong enough for receivers to pick up, you are actually blocking anyone else from broadcasting with the same and nearby frequencies to those same receivers. In the interest of preserving the right to free speech in the public forum known as "the air", it was actually necessary for the government to regulate its use, as a bad actor might otherwise silence other citizens either for his own benefit or merely out of malice or stupidity. Anyway, as a result the FCC is assumed to have broad powers to regulate broadcasts over frequencies the government has deemed "public airwaves", and this includes penalizing obscene broadcasts. The major networks typically simulcast the same programs to cable and broadcast television, so they will be following FCC rules. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, so the FCC is a governmental body and, thus, implicates the First Amendment. So, TV personalities are not allowed to say "fucked" on TV (or radio). After the Brunetti case, are they allowed or not allowed to say "FUCT" on TV and/or radio? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Unclear. As mentioned, FCC v. Pacifica (1973) upheld the FCC's broad authority to police obscenity and indecency transmitted by broadcast, stating that the government had a legitimate interest in both "Shielding children from potentially offensive material" and "ensuring that unwanted speech does not intrude on the privacy of one's home." The Supreme Court has declined to make subsequent rulings on the real foundation of this subject. More recently they ruled in FCC v. Fox (2009) that the FCC is within its authority to change its standards for indecency, and in FCC v. Fox (2012) that those standards may be unenforceable if vague. In both cases, the Supreme Court avoided the question of whether the regulations themselves are compatible with the first amendment, i.e. whether the court affirms or denies the standard set by Pacifica. Ginsburg has written that the Pacifica decision "was wrong when it issued", and has wanted to revisit the issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The station and/or network still have the upper hand, because they decide whose advertising dollars they will accept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so for TV or radio commercials. But, what about a TV show proper or a radio show proper? If a host is interviewing the President of the FUCT company, or a host is doing a segment about this Supreme Court case, he would have to say "FUCT" at some point. It would be silly to leave out the valid name of a valid company that holds a valid trademark of that valid name. The (silly) alternative is for the TV/radio host to say "He is the President of some company, but we can't say the name of that company." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We might have to wait until (or if) someone on radio or TV decides to interview this character. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, more likely, talk about this specific Supreme Court case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The average radio or TV station probably wouldn't touch it. In contrast, I'm sure Howard Stern would be all over it. But that's subscription radio, so the public airwaves rules don't much matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Legitimate and respectable TV shows and radio shows (not of the Howard Stern ilk) often talk about Supreme Court cases. High-profile ones, much more so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

CNN.com and FoxNews.com have covered it. At least one is saying it's supposed to be spelled out rather than pronounced like a word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• The license plate question is actually being litigated. On April 9, 2019, Pacific Legal Foundation filed suit on behalf of USC law professor Jon Kotler who was denied a California license plate "COYW" in reference to the Fulham F.C. slogan "Come On You Whites". The plate was denied on the grounds that "Come On You Whites" could have racial connotations. [1] The case is Kotler v. Webb and is before the Central District of California. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And if the state loses the case, they can get around it by abolishing the vanity-plate program. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yep, that's part of the point: If you permit people to express themselves using their license plates, any content-based restriction must meet strict scrutiny. But states aren't mandated to provide vanity plates.
      Interestingly, abolishing that program isn't as simple as it might sound. The State of California nets a lot of money a year from vanity plates and renewals of vanity plates. I can't find exact numbers, but it seems like a lot. In 2013 there was a controversy about undercharging for people with specialty and vanity license plates, where the state failed to collect up to $22 million from people with these types of plates. Sure it seems like it'd be a drop in the bucket to them, but a little bit of money here and there can make a huge problem with the budget. I remember playing city management sims when I was younger, and just how hard it was to get rid of toll booths once you'd had them for awhile, and closing them would instantly kill any budget surplus you had. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Taking away the state's right to regulate license plate content could lead to trouble. Like if someone counters that one with "KILWHITY". The solution to the problem of stopping vanity plates is to raise license tag fees to make up the difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Another problem with abolishing vanity plates: License plates are just a random collection of letters (and numbers). For example, BB1CL7, or whatever. If they randomly "cycle through" all letters (and numbers), they will eventually come upon a vanity-type plate. For example, let's say that my vanity plate is "RED SOX FAN". Eventually, as they "cycle through" all of the letters of the alphabet, they will hit upon the letter combination of "RED SOX FAN". So, it's not OK to have those 9 letters as a vanity plate, but it is perfectly fine to have those 9 random letters as a "regular" license plate? Seems like more trouble. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In my experience and observations, states typically use combinations of letters and numbers, such as 3 letters + 3 numbers, or possibly intermixing them. And typically 7 or 8 characters at most. So it's unlikely RED SOX FAN would show up. They also typically have algorithms to weed out letter combinations that suggest obscenities or other inappropriate content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"Red Sox Fan" was just an example off the top of my head. And that was not the point of my posted comment. Let's use "CAT LUVR" instead. You get the idea. When they cycle through all random letters/numbers, yes, they can weed out obscene words. But they would not weed out "CAT LUVR" (as obscene). So, again, it's not OK to have those 7 letters as a vanity plate, but it is perfectly fine to have those 7 random letters as a "regular" license plate? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's why they use random letters and numbers. Plate numbers of the type ABC 1234 are seldom going to result in recognizable full words. Plus, when you get your plate for your new car, you're not going to get a choice, they're just going to hand you the next one in the stack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You totally missed my point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

MY point is that those seven random letters aren't going to turn up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You randomly select every slot of the license plate character-slots ... every single letter/number combination will eventually come up. Every one. With 100% certainty. And that specific plate ("CAT LUVR") is not the point of my comment. It could be any vanity plate. Can you understand that concept? The vanity plate is "Joe 1234". Does that placate you? Sheesh, dude. Come on. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

JOE 1234 theoretically might turn up, but if the state doesn't do vanity plates, you don't get to choose it. And CAT LUVR will never turn up, unless you can figure out how to make 4 digits resemble LUVR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Item 1: Again, you miss my point. So, I will spell it all out, step-by-step, to, ummm, "accommodate" your misunderstandings. Step 1: I have a vanity license plate that says "JOE 1234". Step 2: The State discontinues the vanity plates and takes mine away from me. Because it's a vanity plate. Step 3: The State issues random-letter license plates to all drivers. Step 4: The next in line in the random order is "JOE 1234". Step 5: My next-door neighbor, who is next in line, gets the "random" plate of "JOE 1234". Step 6: The problem is that I cannot have that license plate, because it's a vanity plate. But, my next-door neighbor can have it because the computer randomly generated those 7 random characters. Step 7: The original point of discussion here was, (as I mentioned above) quote, "Another problem with abolishing vanity plates: License plates are just a random collection of letters (and numbers). For example, BB1CL7, or whatever. If they randomly "cycle through" all letters (and numbers), they will eventually come upon a vanity-type plate. For example, let's say that my vanity plate is "RED SOX FAN". Eventually, as they "cycle through" all of the letters of the alphabet, they will hit upon the letter combination of "RED SOX FAN". So, it's not OK to have those 9 letters as a vanity plate, but it is perfectly fine to have those 9 random letters as a "regular" license plate? Seems like more trouble." Do you now get my point or shall I explain more? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Item 2: "CAT LUVR" will eventually come up in a random character rotation. You -- for some reason -- are providing some license-plate restrictions that needn't be superimposed upon the problem/question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of your premise is incorrect. Look through United States license plate designs and serial formats and you will see that none of them use all-letters for plate numbers. So things like RED SOX FAN and CAT LUVR will never turn up. As to the JOE 1234, it's theoretically possible - but it's also possible the state's numbering algorithm weeds out recognizable words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

My premise is not incorrect. My state, for example, uses 6 (or maybe 7) characters -- any characters, letters or numbers. And I, myself, personally have all letters (no numbers) on my license plate. So, that Chart -- which I had already seen -- is incorrect for my state. And probably for several other states, also. And 95% of that Chart does not contain any sources. So, again, probably rife with erroneous information. So, whom should I believe? A Wikipedia Chart with no sources ... or my own lying eyes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If the article is incorrect, maybe you could do something about it. For starters, contact your secretary of state and pose your premise to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

And you, too -- as a Wikipedia editor -- can also fix the article, yes? You are the one who brought it up during discussion, presumably for its, ummmmm, accuracy ... no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I cited the article, and you've cited nothing. And it's fair to say you care a lot more about this than I do. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about and what do you want me to cite? I have my license plate, I have had it for decades, and I know what it says. As does anyone with vision. The local TV and local newspapers never did a story about my license plate, so I have no reliable sources to cite. What are you talking about and what do you want me to cite? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you care if anyone knows which state you reside in? If so, then this would necessarily be the end of this discussion. If not, then you could look for a website that would explain how plate numbers/letters are generated in your state, and link to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Tangentially, I think that Kramer on the Seinfeld TV show tried to get the license plate "Ass Man". No? I forget what happened in that episode. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's all very convoluted, and leads up to a joke. See The Fusilli Jerry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And if the state loses the case, they can get around it by just changing the vanity-plate program, so that the car owner do not ask/propose, instead, the state propose a collection of (acceptable) plate to choose from, some free (because, random meaningless), other for a fee (or even by auction), because, meaningful and maybe valuable. No way the justices will dictate that, to propose a FUCK-U (or whatever offensive) plate is a constitutional obligation of the state, just because some moron wants it (the said moron still can have it as a sticker, so his constitutional right to advertise his being a moron still stands). Gem fr (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Has any licensing authority ever attempted this degree of anonymisation? After all, most pronounceable combinations are recognisable words in some or other language. 92.31.143.72 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hullo VxFC!  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

June 27

Using trademarks as domain names.

If you make a website where the domain name matches a trademark, can that company shut down your website, if your website is not at all about that trademark character? (Example: lesser-known character from a video game or cartoon). 67.175.224.138 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

This is called cybersquatting. What the trademark owner can do depends on the country you are in. In the united states this is governed by Title 15 of the US Code §1125(d). In brief, maybe. Actually, it might be okay even if your website is about the character. The analysis is complicated, and depends largely on whether you are intending to profit off of confusion. There is also a whole other complicated section of law on whether you as the website registrant can sue the domain registrar for voluntarily handing your website over to the owner of the trademark. So the best answer to your question is, "maybe, maybe not, depends on the circumstances." This is the sort of question that gets argued in courts for years, so we certainly can't give a straight answer to it. I'm sure though, you could dig up court decisions on similar issues, as well as law review articles discussing the various factors involved. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to say, the trademark holder is not at all interested in buying the domain name, so there is no cyber-squatting. Example: there are over 800 pokemon, and their trademark holder is not interested in purchasing all the domains, and having them forward to a main domain name. Cybersquatting imo, is purchasing a domain before the trademark owner purchases it and then offering to sell it to them rather than giving it for free. But my question is now the trademark just simply wants to shut down the website without wanting the domain name itself. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

There is no requirement in law that the trademark-holder intends to use a specific website for the registrant to be considered an infringer. As for whether your intended website infringes on trademark or qualifies as cybersquatting in a particular scenario is a question that would be settled by a court, and you would need to get advice from actual lawyers, not random people on the internet. We very specifically do not give legal advice. You could also contact whoever owns the trademark and ask them directly. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that 1st sentence answers a question, if I understand it correctly, wants to shut down a trademark-website even if no intent of even having a website, yea? In that case, imo the law will almost always favor the trademark-holder. I suspect a lot of websites in a trademark name are up because the trademark-holder chooses to not shut it down. Obviously, if the trademark is a common word like apples and oranges, then they can't win in court. But as for trademarks that aren't common words, 1 example I can think of is there's a candle pokemon called Litwick. There's also a website of that name, which seems to be a legit candle-making company. I suspect the Nintendo company could shut it down, if it wanted to. And this would also be for cases if website name predates the trademark? Perhaps that candle-company had that website name before the trademark name even was patented, and they could still lose in court. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

A good general overview of IP law questions like these might be found in Roger Schechter and John Thomas, Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks (West Hornbook Series 2003). Sadly that appears to be the most recent Hornbook on the subject. More extensive treatises and practice guides would be Thomson Reuters' Trademark Practice and Forms (updated 2019), and McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (5th ed. updated 2019). You may be able to find these resources at a local law library, or get electronic excerpts from a law librarian. Respectfully, these questions are getting a little too close to a request for legal advice for my comfort, and I don't think we should answer anymore. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Short answer: It depends. In the U.S., see the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Bear in mind that this question comes close to a request for legal advice and so I am going to refrain from giving a thorough breakdown. I echo Someguy1221's recommendation that you check out some law review articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't this be a bunch of contradictions? Especially across different jurisdictions in the U.S.? For example, suppose someone made an atheism website in a trademark cartoon characters name. Some lawyer could cite 1 case law where it a court-case won and favored, in 1 jurisdiction, and then, in anothr jurisdiction, someone can cite another case law where the court didn't favor the trademark. Wouldn't case laws be full of this? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

And what about for cases where the courts knew the law favored the trademark, but chose to not enforce it, so the trademark party loses. And the party appeals, still loses in court. Now can that false-case law even be case law? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

You should take a look at this general overview of how cybsersquatting cases are decided. That page includes links to other resources, including relevant case summaries. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding 67.175.224.138's comment on Litwick: at least in the USA, it depends. See Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois) for an example. Someone founded a restaurant in Mattoon and called it Burger King and filed a state trademark, and some years later the nationally recognized chain with a national trademark came into Illinois. Lanham Act litigation between the two resulted in the national company being able to use the trademark in Illinois, but since the Mattoon people had used the trademark first, they were considered to have "prior use". The result of this decision was that the Mattoon people could continue operating under that name (they were still running a few years ago when I ate there), and the national chain may not operate in the Mattoon area without permission from the local restaurant. Now, how the law would be applied in this particular case would require a lot of work by a lawyer, but the general principles have researchable history, and there are some situations in which you would be allowed to use a term if your use predated the trademark. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Weird how the small company sued the big company 1st, and did it in state court rather than federal. But yea, the big Burger King originated in Florida, opened it's 1st Illinois location after the small 1, but that's pretty interesting how the federal court allowed the small 1 just to restrict them from that small area. But I agree with the federal court that Burger King was a nation-wide trademark and not a Florida-wide trademark, so it seemed pointless for the smaller Burger King to file suit in a state court. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

It's a lot more complicated than that. First off, state court is way, way cheaper than federal court. Second, they're an Illinois business, they're going to prefer to sue an out-of-state corporation in Illinois courts. Third, there may have been weird jurisdictional issues suing in federal court at that time. And fourth, their lawyer might not have been able to handle federal litigation. What's interesting though is why they didn't bring the Lanham Act challenge in state court. I'm reasonably sure that's possible. Though to be fair BK probably would have removed those claims to federal court immediately. In fact, that may explain the split; the Hootses might have been able to defeat diversity jurisdiction somehow, and bringing the Lanham Act claims in state court would have made the whole case removable under supplemental jurisdiction. That said, it feels like res judicata would have barred Lanham Act claims if Hootses lost its state trademark claims. So I don't know. Complicated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There is one more point that I don't think has been mentioned. A trademark generally only applies to a specific field of business: see Apple Corps v Apple Computer. So a domain not used for any topic relating to a company's trademark might be considered non-conflicting. However, big companies and organizations may take an expansive view of what fields their trademark relates to: see Olympic symbols#Intellectual property. So not only is this not legal advice, even if it was it might not be safe to follow. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Olympics are a very special case: They have an explicit statutory grant of use rights in federal law that probably supersedes all inconsistent state common law trademarks. See 36 U.S.C. § 220506. You could honestly call it a "supertrademark". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Although even there, prior use is protected. A person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or a trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia described in subsection (c)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services. And companies in western Washington engaging in business unrelated to the Games can be named "Olympic"; see Olympic Mountains, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, Washington, etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lancet's claim

The Lancet recently marked Taiwan as a province of People's Republic of China [Reference ] when it is not.

Although it wrote back to the readers soon with the provided explanation This paper follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organisation, which reference Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic of China. This makes the study consistent with other international health analyses. Unless and until such guidelines and protocols are changed, there are no plans to alter such references to Taiwan. The paper was written with the scientific rigor and thorough data analysis required by editors of The Lancet. A hierarchical analytical model was employed, utilising empirical data sources that include all available and relevant vital and civil registration, census information, scientific literature and other information. The Lancet stands behind this study and its robust estimates of health in China.

Do you think the Lancet's reason make sense? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Nanonic (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Up to now, Taiwan still do not claim being a separate country, but rather the true legitimate China. A Taiwan independence movement exists, but this is considered a danger, as PRC "stated, or implied" this move is a Casus Belli, and nobody wants war. Gem fr (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That suggests that the Taiwan viewpoint is that the PRC is a province of Taiwan rather than the other way around. So either way the Lancet's version doesn't sound like it would sit well with them. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

When you write "Taiwan viewpoint", you use a figure of speech (land=government) which make thing harder to understand. You should use ROC viewpoint. On both side of the strait, Taiwan is just a province of the whole China. In Taiwan the ROC rules, and still consider itself (not the PRC) the legitimate government of the whole China, which include Taiwan. And pretty much all other governments disagree with the ROC, starting when then recognized Mao's government and assigned the UN seat of China to PRC, turning Taiwan an official province of the PRC still under ROC control. It is not uncommon that 2 governments, each controlling part of the territory, claim to be legitimate on the whole. What is less common is for the situation to be 70 years old. Gem fr (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

One will find that the people of Taiwan believe themselves to be separate from the Chinese. I used to attend an ex-pat Chinese Community Club on a regular basis, and while there was a large Taiwanese community in town and were always invited they never attended, not one, and their explicitly stated reasoning was that they are a separate people from the mainland Chinese. They did attend the Club as access was granted to them but held their own meetings and functions and did not invite any of the local Chinese to any of these meetings. Further to this the South African Government had relations with Taiwan to run knitting factories in the 1990's. This indicates that there is a political divide in place allowing relations with one as being separate from the other although this may be very subtle. All of the people shipped in to run these factories were Taiwanese and not Chinese. There is an international divide as to whether or not Taiwan is separate from China. China claim they are one and Taiwan claim, though quietly, so as to ensure that they do not need to go to war with their much larger counterpart, that they are distinct. This is akin to the Myanmar / Burma question or the Kashmir question, and the Israel Palestine problem. Many different countries take different views on who the land belongs to etc. Ultimately, the people on the ground at grass roots level in Taiwan believe themselves to be a distinct people. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

see Taiwanese identity about this. Methink this would had been easier in 1949, bc UN rules of self-determination basically demands that, if a province wants to separate and turn into a new state, it must be so, and we would have had 2 states (pretty much as there were 2 Germany), and PRC would have had to recognize the independence. Much more complicated now. Gem fr (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Except that Taiwan/ROC didn't want to "separate and turn into a new state", it wanted the PRC government to go away and give them back the mainland territory. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If the lancet follows WHO protocols consistently, it makes sense. I means the paper can avoid getting caught making political decisions, and just use an other organisation's political decisions instead. As long as it is consistent, it works. Their job is not to decide where a border lies, but to report on health, and so they just need someone else's system, and use that someone else's border lines. --Lgriot (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are people talking like this is Lancet's decision? The above quote suggest it was probably primarily a decision made by the authors of the study. Sure The Lancet could have refused to publish the study in the form it's in, but I'm confused why people are treating this as a primarily something Lancet did. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume it's partly because The Lancet chose to publish the material in Facebook. It really should make little difference, but the perspective shifts a little bit. Someone reading The Lancet would see a paper where so-and-so claimed X (and attribute that choice to the author), whereas someone reading Facebook would see that The Lancet said X (and attribute that to the journal itself). Heck, I don't even see the author's names on the post, so how else would you attribute it? Matt Deres (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

US Congress and counties

I was surprised to learn from Quillehuyte County, Washington that Congress prohibited the Washington territorial legislature from abolishing one of the territory's counties in 1865. Quoting the source:

"Eleven years later by act approved January 14, 1865, Skamania county, which by that time had been greatly reduced in size, was divided between Clark and Klickitat counties with provision that the Skamania county officers cease their functions on April 1, 1865. This act was disapproved by Congress in an amendment to the Organic Act on June 29, 1866, and Skamania county reappeared on the scene."

This phrase has a citation to "U.S. Congress, 3-1, Session Laws, 1865-66, p. 82".

Were there any other instances of Congress prohibiting the creation or abolition of a local government by a territorial legislature? Until reading this, the only county-creation-or-abolition acts of Congress were a complete prohibition on Alaska Territory having counties at all (but as far as I know, that was a general thing based on low population density, not something that overruled the legislature's action on a specific county) plus assorted acts related to DC government (e.g. Washington County, D.C.). And what about other local governments, e.g. forming or abolishing specific municipalities? Again, no idea except for organizing the cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria, D.C.

In case someone wonders, I'd like to put this into the Skamania County article, but I'd like to be able to say that it was a unique incident or that it was one of ___ incidents in US history. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

June 28

Jesus and Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn's Pudding

What is Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn's pudding, as served at Jesus on St David's Day? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A suet pudding with either marmalade or apricot jam. See [2], [3], and page 247 of [4]. Nanonic (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Ballot Box

In today's "On This Day" section there is an article relating to the Honduran Coup d'etat. I understand that this was the result of the proposed referendum for have a 4th ballot box at upcoming elections. Please can some one explain to me what the purpose of a 4th box is and how and why this has any form of significance. I am baffled. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's all in Honduran fourth ballot box referendum, which is admittedly not in the best shape. To summarize, the first three ballot boxes were to vote for president, congress, and mayor. The proposed 4th box was to vote on a non-binding resolution to gauge public support for a constitutional assembly. The coup wasn't really over the existence of a fourth box, it was over the idea of the president holding a constitutional assembly. There were widespread rumors that the president planned to use the constitutional assembly to stay in office beyond his term limit that may have fueled the flames. Regardless, the fourth box ultimately led to a constitutional crisis. The constitution at the time did not place any authority to change the consitution with the president, and the Supreme Court issued a ruling consistent with that. Congress also passed laws prohibiting the scheduled referendum from happening. The president was seen as greatly overstepping his powers when, ignoring these rulings, he fired the head of the military for refusing to assist with the referendum, triggering mass resignations. When congress began discussing impeachment, the president implied he did not recognize congress's authority to remove a president. And then you get the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Fin. So that box was very very significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this very informative and helpful response. It is deeply appreciated. May I suggest that the featured article is amended to make this more clear? Also, as an aside, surely democracy states that a referendum can be called on almost any point and that it is the people who should decide. Anyway, Thanks again. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I suspect a lot of the concern was that the constitution of Honduras contained provisions for changing of the constitution (which had indeed been amended many times), and many people were frightened by the president's intention to hold a constitutional convention under his direct control outside of that process. Now, there were a lot of people who supported him through the whole thing, and I'm no expert on the topic, so I think I'll just stop there. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The New Naturalist - A Journal of British Natural History

I have in my library a bound volume of The New Naturalist - A Journal of British Natural History. It is dated 1948, and contains four issues, Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. From the editorial material these are the first four issues of what was intended to be an ongoing publication. The editor is James Fisher, the publisher Collins. It is very obviously related to the New Naturalist series of books, though not of that series. I would be interested to know if any further issues were published, and any other information about the journal, its demise, etc. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I find this copy at a British bookseller. DroneB (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mine doesn't have the dustjacket and I'd not seen it before. I found this page which says there were only 6 issues, the last two being Birth, Death and the Seasons, and East Anglia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Duncan, a perfect place to go for this kind of thing is WorldCat; your title information alone was enough to find it really quickly. There are five separate WorldCat entries (four libraries did original cataloguing for their copies without noticing that another entry already existed): undated, 1948, 1948, 1948-, and [1949-1950?]. Interestingly, three of the five treated it as a monograph, not a serial — this is more evidence that it was really short-lived, because the whole history could be bound in a single volume. However, the item dated [1949-1950?] is No.6: East Anglia, the same as you found; I wonder if it were an unsuccessful revival? Finally, your best source about the journal might be an article in another journal:

Tutin, T.G., et al. "The New Naturalist, a Journal of British Natural History". J of Ecology 37.1 (1949), 181.

That link goes to the WorldCat entry for the article, not the article itself. I suspect it's just a review, but since it was published in July 1949, it would probably give the whole history of the journal. Unless "my library" is your personal library at home, go back to the library and ask the librarian about an interlibrary loan for the Journal of Ecology article. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was able to find the Journal of Ecology review on JSTOR. It is of the volume I have - it says the first volume consists of four parts bound together, but that as soon as conditions permit it would be quarterly. That would fit with the link I gave above, one hardbound volume containing issues 1-4, and separate issues 5 & 6. The "conditions permitting" would be a reference to the shortage of paper at the time. I find the WorldCat results very hard to interpret - a few are obviously for the annual volume I have, I'm not seeing any described as a monograph, and there's at least one edition listed with a date of 1952, which must be one of the books (or could be one of the monographs), but is marked as a Journal, magazine : Series. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just noticed what you said about "my library" - it is indeed my personal library, over 3,000 books to date :) DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I found two other reviews on JSTOR from 1949, again for the volume I have. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

See, you should do like I do: create a catalogue of your personal library with OCLC numbers noted, and organize the bookshelves by Library of Congress call number. I'm a librarian professionally, and even my colleagues thought I was weird to be that librarianish :-) Here are the results I get from WorldCat, five relevant and four not:

• OCLC 483656286, undated, treats it as a serial. Held by two Danish libraries.
• OCLC 780527195, dated 1948, treats it as a monograph. Held by the Universities of Edinburgh and Southampton.
• OCLC 271599997, dated 1948, treats it as a monograph. Held by two Australian libraries.
• OCLC 181154516, dated 1948-, treats it as a serial. Held by the Universities of Cambridge and Manchester, the Natural History Museum, and two Canadian and one American universities.
• OCLC 1101206757, dated [1949-1950?], treats it as a monograph. Held by the University of East Anglia.
• OCLC 1101206757, the book review in the Journal of Ecology
• OCLC 5550280294, not sure why this even comes up
• OCLC 5154365967, not sure why this even comes up
• OCLC 4960297720, the book review in the Journal of Ecology (again)

My search string was <"new naturalist" "journal of British natural history"> with no limiters. WorldCat's "print book" classification equals a physical monograph, so we're looking at basically the same thing. By definition, a monograph is an isolated publication that isn't likely to be re-issued with different contents (if it were, it would be a serial), so it might not be unreasonable to catalogue a bound journal as a monograph if you knew (or had solid reason to believe) that no more volumes were forthcoming. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

this "not sure why this even comes up" is "A Central Journal of Natural History" a review of my volume (it's on JSTOR). It's really weird - the link you say "held by two Danish libraries" comes up for me with 6 libraries, none of them Danish. I can't see any Danish holdings on any of those links :/ I do need to sort my shelves better, but, for example, I have all my Lloyd George books together, sorted into biographies, studies, his own works, his family's works, etc. The problem comes when a book should be in two (or more) places at once. I have three studies of LlG and Churchill - they belong together, but one is by an LlG family member, so it belongs there too, and all three belong in my Churchill section. Or take Anthony Burgess - mainly fiction, so straightforward enough, but a work on philology, another on Joyce, a couple of volumes of autobiography, some poetry, and collected journalism. Do I keep him all together (yes, obviously), or does his poetry go with all my other poetry (obviously it should). I think the ideal solution is to construct an extension into l-space and find an orangutan. For now, I use LibraryThing. It does help me avoid duplicates! DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see monograph means a different thing to a librarian than it might to others. I was thinking of the sort of thing Sherlock Holmes used to write about tobacco ash. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Duncan, did you click the button saying "Show libraries holding just this edition"? It's on the right side at the top of the table of holding institutions. I reported the results that I get when I narrow it to the specific edition, since otherwise it will combine results from different editions. Most non-librarians don't care too much about the format, since they want the contents (and it doesn't normally matter much for librarians either), especially since separate records are supposed to be created for small differences (e.g. paper and cloth bindings need separate records), so it makes sense for the site to default toward showing holdings for multiple editions concurrently. I sympathized with you 100% until you got off onto 1-space; you've discovered the difference between classification (an object has to be put somewhere, and it can only go in one place, e.g. a computer file in a file structure, or a book on a shelf) and categorization (an object is assigned attributes, and you're free to assign more than one), which is always a problem with print books. If you've been around here long enough, you may remember it being an issue here; a major reason for the category system is that the previous subpage-based system had hierarchy problems, e.g. History of Algeria could reasonably be located at History/Algeria (the Algeria piece of general history) or Algeria/History (the history piece of all things Algeria), not to mention perhaps at History/Africa/Algeria and the like. That's why we employ LCSH in libraries as well as LCC. Have a good night :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)