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

July 2

Lang Leav poem

Does anyone out there know if the poem 'All Love' by Lang Leav appears in any of her books? The first line is, 'It's time to do what you've always wanted.' I've tried looking at previews of her books on Google Books and Amazon but can't see the contents pages. If anyone has access to her books and can find it, can you tell me the book title and page number please?

Many thanks Turner Street (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try this on the Entertainment desk, as it's probably more Popular Culture than Literature. Turner Street (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

► Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1126:28D:E0AD:3D46:6E7:D6E6 (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

U.S. politicians "working across the aisle"

Please refer to the diagram of 435 "seats" at the article: United States House of Representatives. The diagram separates the blue seats from the red seats, by party designation. My question: Is there actually a physical "aisle" that separates the parties? Or is that simply metaphorical? I cannot imagine that they change the physical structure of the room every two years, since the number in each party is in constant flux. At the same time, it seems odd/awkward to have the "extra" Democrats sit on the Republican side, or vice versa. I had always thought that the phrase "working across the aisle" was simply figurative, not literal. But, while reading a few recent articles (for example, New Hampshire House of Representatives, third paragraph down), I started to question this concept. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"working across the aisle" is figurative, and has nothing to do with where the rep/senator sits. It just mean (well, as far I correctly understand it) some R+D working together on a specific bipartisan proposition. You will find some result if you search working across the aisle in WP search tool. For instance Problem Solvers Caucus. Gem fr (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joseph A. Spadaro. To answer the part about the physical structure of the room: The Procedure section of that article says : Members' seats are arranged in the chamber in a semicircular pattern facing the rostrum and are divided by a wide central aisle.[37] By tradition, Democrats sit on the left of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the right, facing the presiding officer's chair.[38]. Pictures here - there are actually several aisles. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. OK. So, it's figurative. Which makes sense and is what I had always thought. So, that being the case ... they always "make" the "extra" or "surplus" Democrats sit with the Republicans? That seems awkward and odd. And who gets those seats? The lowest seniority Democrats? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bear in mind that they have many more than 435 seats in there. For example, joint sessions of Congress are held in there, so they have to have room for 100 senators to sit. Assorted delegates also occupy a few seats, but as they're members of the House, their seats wouldn't be free for easy allocation as would the seats used by senators. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Per this, the seats are no longer assigned, and it would seem to me rare these days that enough Reps are in the chamber to crowd the benches. I suppose only for ceremonial occasions, like the swearing in and State of the Union.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That article says -- toward the very end -- that there are only 446 seats. Does that seem correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If there are "only" 446 seats, how do they seat the "extra" 100 Senators (and numerous other dignitaries) for special meetings such as the State of the Union, etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Congress, generally speaking, has 535 members (435 Representatives + 100 Senators). At various functions, we can add in a bunch of other dignitaries. If the room has only 446 seats (if that other link is correct), that only leaves 11 "extra" chairs to accomodate 100 senators and the others, assuming that the 435 Representatives show up. So, 446 seems like an awful low number to "accommodate" a joint session of minimally 535 people. So, what gives? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Asked and answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

For joint sessions, there are sections for members of the Senate and the Supreme Court. The rest of the seating is for the Representatives. Each section's seat is first-come-first-served, so if the chamber is full when a latecomer gets there, they would either have to stand or go watch it on TV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is more info.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• The UK House of Commons doesn't even have enough seats for all of its own members, let alone hypothetical visitors from the Lords. (The Chamber is relatively small, and can accommodate only 427 of the 650 Members of Parliament—during Prime Minister's Questions and in major debates MPs stand at either end of the House.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is that also a first-come-first-served situation like the US House? Or are there seating assignments? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

They don't even have seats, just benches. Even for the government. So, seating assignments... Gem fr (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

MPs can reserve a seat for the day by attending prayers. See here under prayers. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Given the current state of things, a good prayer would be the test pilots' prayer as noted in The Right Stuff: "Dear God, please don't let me f*ck up!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, when the chamber of the Commons was hit during WWII, Churchill insisted it be rebuilt without expanding the number of seats, feeling the importance to debate of having a full chamber.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Are illegitimate sons included in the Bavarian line of succession if they've subsequently been legitimized?

Are illegitimate sons included in the Bavarian line of succession if they've subsequently been legitimized? This question has relevance due to the fact that Prince Manuel of Bavaria was born an illegitimate child. Futurist110 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The official rules, per the linked article and the sources linked in its Notes section, refer to legitimate at birth ("eine rechtmäßige Geburt"). The full wording is "Zur Successions-Fähigkeit wird eine rechtmäßige Geburt aus einer ebenbürtigen mit Bewilligung des Königs geschlossenen Ehe erfordert." (To succeed, you have to be legitimate, born from a marriage with an equal that the king had consented to.) There were three amendments, none of which affected the legitimacy requirement (1819: women excluded. 1948: Marriage to nobility instead of royalty counts. 1999: Any marriage with permission counts). You might wish to read the entire constitution to check there isn't another section about legitimizing, though I'm not sure that was even a concept in 1818; my German isn't good enough to skim but Language desk might help. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't read German. Thus, we need a German-speaker to tell us what exactly it says. Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Legitimization was a concept in English law long before that -- the children of John of Gaunt by his third wife Katherine Swynford before he married her (his second wife then being inconveniently still alive) were retroactively legitimized, but with a disputed provision that excluded them from the royal succession. Also, the Princes in the Tower were retroactively declared illegitimate by Titulus Regius, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, illegitimate children could be legitimized, but as far as I know generally without acquiring any rights to the royal succession as a result of this legitimization (as your own example here clearly shows). For instance, I know that in France princes du sang had to be born, not made. Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The royal bastard article discusses various illegitimate children that various royalty had. These illegitimate children often did not have succession rights even if they were subsequently legitimized--or were quickly stripped of their succession rights if they did ever acquire them, such as with Louis XIV's illegitimate sons. Futurist110 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The question is how reliable is the line of succession article. Are there any sources that he is in the line of succession. We are assuming that the list on wiki is correct here and reflects the views of the Wittelsbachs. It could be that Prince Manuel doesn’t have succession right and the article is just making an unreliable claim solely based on genealogy. Which is the same problem with the Jacobite claim which is propted up by genealogists rather than the actual thoughts and actions of these former royals. Also looking at other examples from other historical monarchy won’t answer the question specifically in relation to Prince Manuel. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Tried googling for the German terms ("Manuel Prinz von Bayern" +Thronfolge) and got only one hit, which does not look like a reliable source to me. No hits in books. Why not stop at 14 and avoid the whole issue?

I don't think that it would be very fair to the juniormost branches of the former Bavarian royal family to remove them from this Wikipedia article. Plus, there are only a few of them--so it's not like their inclusion in that article is using up a lot of space. Thus, I think that my solution here works the best--specifically remove Manuel but keep his younger brother and cousin in the article since they were both born legitimate. Of course, it would certainly be interesting to see how the former Bavarian royal family would handle this issue if Manuel's male line will eventually become the senior-most male line of the former Bavarian royal family (and, of course, if there will remain at least one male line/branch of the former Bavarian royal family who is even more junior than Manuel's male line is). Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(Here's that one hit [2]. It claims "Manuel war unehelich geboren wurden fast fünf Jahre, bevor seine Eltern verheiratet. Auch nach seiner Eltern Hochzeit im Jahr 1977, wurden Manuel und seine Geschwister aus der Leitung im Bayerischen Erbfolge ausgeschlossen, Gewerkschaft seiner Eltern wurde als morgana. Dies änderte sich jedoch am 3. März 1999, als Franz von Bayern erkannte die Ehe bedingt als dynastische in Übereinstimmung mit den bayerischen Hausgesetze. Da er dynastisch geheiratet hat, wird er in der Thronfolge gehalten." (Manuel was born illegitimate almost five years before his parents married. After his parents' marriage in 1977, Manuel and his siblings were excluded from the Bavarian line of succession because the marriage was morganatic. This changed as of March 3 1999 when Franz Prince of Bavaria conditionally recognized the marriage as dynastic according to house rules. Because Manuel married dynastically himself, he has remained in the line of succession.) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that single hit looks like it's merely a German translation of Manuel's Wikipedia article. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Notoriously, Wikipedia is not a reliable source; but I think that the assertion I read in it that "The Kingdom of Bavaria was abolished in 1918" is correct. If so, then I cannot imagine what significance the "line of succession" since then could have had. Am I missing something? -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It's often not of any particular significance to governments, but there's a whole subculture of royal house fans (existing long before the Internet) which sometimes argues such issues passionately. Carlism was a significant force in Spanish politics for many decades. See also Alternative successions of the English and British crown, Legitimists (disambiguation), etc... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Futurist110 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, outside Bavaria, non-trivial numbers of people have become excited about analogous matters, but is there any suggestion that this might happen in/for Bavaria? Above: "it would certainly be interesting to see how the former Bavarian royal family would handle this issue if Manuel's male line will eventually become the senior-most male line of the former Bavarian royal family": interesting for very roughly how many people? -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

For royalists and for those people who are into royal genealogy (regardless of whether or not they're royalists). Futurist110 (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It has historical value and could also be relevant if the question of restoring the Bavarian monarchy will ever become a serious possibility (which isn't very likely, but still). Futurist110 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

July 4

How do French people nowadays feel about France's colonial history in Algeria?

How do French people nowadays feel about France's colonial history in Algeria? Futurist110 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You do know that it extended directly into France, with the return of the pieds-noirs, the Paris massacre of 1961, etc? It was not one of those wars which takes place in remote geographical locations without much direct impact on the imperial power. AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely a good point. Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(consider the following as anecdotal)

Few of them ever cared, being concerned only that their conscripted sons won't be killed/injured in action during the Algerian war (very few were, so, then again, this concern just disappeared at the end of the war). Those who care are still few, and, depending on personal history and political views, may have the following feeling

• betrayal (descendants of pieds-noirs & harki; nationalists with belief that tens of millions of arab muslims could have been turned into ordinary French the way Sephardi Jews were -- Crémieux Decree)
• relief of having dumped this [insert derogatory] (this will include people with belief that tens of millions of arab muslims could NOT have been turned into ordinary French)
• pride for the good work (the good work could be different, and even opposite: pieds-noirs will insist they actually build Algeria out of small retarded slavers pirate holes; communists will be very proud that they have -- if they were actually born, that is-- helped independence)
• shame or anger (usually in the form "I am so ashamed of what you did --yes, you, despite not even being born at the time, but I know you would--, you deserve that I punch you in the face, you torturer, you terrorist, you racist"). Again, opposing political side will have opposing ideas about what/who deserve shame or anger.
• concern about current terrorism (some perp are indeed connected to Algeria)
• resignation, that things of the past must still be coped with
• oh come on, leave me alone with this shit I have no part in
• any number of these mixed

In any case, this part of French history, just like any history, is more of an ideological tool to push current political views (it is rich enough of good and bad deeds, to select whatever will confirm an activist's bias), that an issue in itself.

Basically, you'll have the same "this is awesome we have some many people from Algeria, it bring so much cultural enrichment nb: somehow "Cultural enrichment" redirect to Enrichment culture, this redirect is just nonsense" and "Are you kidding me? those retards/terrorist "chances pour la France" {nb: just search this, I think you'll find the results quite graphic. The expression meant "people France is lucky to have" was coined to support "aliens" {those "aliens" are actually legally French, but you'll get it}, and as been turned upside down by systematic sarcastic usage for each and every misdeed involving them --and there are no lack of such} do not belong here" debate as anywhere else (well, hard to call it a debate, just like anywhere).

Gem fr (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent summary, explanation, and analysis, Gem fr! Thank you very much for this! Futurist110 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110, AnonMoos, and Gem fr, please participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 4#Cultural enrichment if you have an opinion on the question. Nyttend (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

My experience is that the vast majority of those under fourty years old and who's ancestors were not involved are not aware that France has a colonial history in Algeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:19C1:25F5:DC95:6F8 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"Whose ancestors were not involved"? That would seem to limit your pool of acquaintance to those who (or whose parents) immigrated to France after 1962. Henry^Flower 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

the vast majority of French, including political leaders, are not aware that France has a history. There, fixed for you. I mean, France just failed to invite Russia to 75th Anniversary of D-Day, and invited Germany instead, because, you know, Germany was "involved"... Ye, sure it was. I really understand what Orwell meant: I am living it. Gem fr (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That postwar switcheroo was exactly what Orwell was making fun of, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Gem fr (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:19C1:25F5:DC95:6F8 -- the Algerian war almost led to a military coup in France, and did lead to the rewriting of France's constitution and the change from the French Fourth Republic to the French Fifth Republic. It's as important in French history as the Vietnam war is in United States history (though admittedly a decade earlier). AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's quite interesting that French emotions were so high about Algeria. Futurist110 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110, you might want to look at: The Algerian War in the French education system: a case study in the transmission of memory. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Iranian tanker went through Gibraltar territorial waters, why?

Today’s news: Looking at maps on google for Gibraltar territorial waters, it looks like the Iranian tanker could easily have avoided Gibraltar and piloted through only Spanish waters. In fact, it looks like they had to go out of their way to go through the Gibraltar waters. Any pundits have made a guess at why they would go into British waters? I assume they had no idea they were going to be stopped, but still, it is quite an interesting path choice, especially after such another very interesting path (by the cape!) —Lgriot (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I could not find out the details, but there is a traffic separation scheme by the International Maritime Organisation in force in the strait of Gibraltar (see [3] - I'm to lazy and uninformed to understand the navigational legalese), which separates east-bound and west-bound traffic into different traffic lanes. I don't know if the east-bound traffic necessarily goes through British territorial waters, but it might. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This source and a few others, I think, say something like this: "... as it paused to take on supplies off Gibraltar overnight." I imagine that supplies may be easier to get from Gibraltar than from other nearby ports. So it might want to sail closer to Gibraltar to facilitate this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a traffic separation scheme in the Straight of Gibraltar. Eastbound traffic usually keeps to the Moroccan side, westbound traffic to the Spanish side. They could have steered through only Moroccan waters. For ships resupplying there are anchorages near Algeciras and Gibraltar. There's nothing strange about going around Cape of Good Hope. According to the above source, this ship was too big/heavily loaded for the Suez Canal. Going around the Cape also allowed them to avoid tolls and with cheap and non-perishable cargo like crude oil you aren't in a hurry anyway (unless it's desperately needed). I don't know how diplomatic relations between Iran/Syria and Egypt/Yemen/Eritrea/Djibouti are right now, but it could be a factor too. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As this was enforcement of EU sanctions, [4] the Spanish could equally well have done the deed instead. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

PiusImpavidus, you say "They could have steered through only Moroccan waters." So this would be to get to the anchorage near Gibraltar? I don't think anyone is disputing that the vessel was boarded in Girbraltarian waters? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If they had not gone to the anchorage, they could have avoided Spanish and Gibraltarian waters. One can go to the anchorage near Algeciras without passing through Gibraltarian waters too, but one cannot reach any of the Gibraltarian anchorages without passing through Spanish waters (as far as Spain is concerned (officially), there are no Gibraltarian waters). With sufficient planning and no unexpected events the ship could have passed through the straight without stopping for resupply, so it seems that they really didn't expect to be boarded (unless they actually wanted to provoke an incident). PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. I wonder would there have been any contact between the tanker and the Gibraltar Port Authority? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry User:PiusImpavidus you can’t avoid Spanish waters if you are entering the Mediterranean via the straight. That is because of Ceuta. Look at maps of the territorial waters in that area. —Lgriot (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed (although Morocco objects) [5]. I didn't know that. Funny. Gem fr (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It's fuzzy. The UK claims 3NM territorial waters around Gibraltar (not recognised by Spain), Spain and Morocco each claim 12NM (more or less, or to the midpoint in case of overlapping 12-mile-zones), but the claims around the Spanish possessions on the south side of the strait are not recognised by Morocco. The map depends on who made it.

UNCLOS defines the concept of transit passage through international straits so narrow that ships cannot stay in international waters. Status of the Strait of Gibraltar as such an international strait may or may not be fully recognised by the states surrounding it. Reading up on this I get the impression that as long as the ship claimed its right of transit passage, it could have passed through unimpeded, but stopping for resupply meant it was no longer in transit. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

That last sentence is really interesting, I didn't know about this rule in international straights, thanks! --Lgriot (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably much the same reason the British went out of their way to send a flotilla through the Corfu Channel in 1946: Innocent passage and as an act of brinksmanship. See Corfu Channel incident and Corfu Channel case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

From the above it sounds more like carelessness on the part of the tanker's captain? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. So they were resupplying and were unaware of it all. —Lgriot (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It may be wrong of me to accuse the caption of "carelessness". He was probably sailing the vessel perfectly normally and safely. It's not clear to me if he was culpable in the attempt to subvert EU sanctions. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

July 6

Bizarrely high prices for books

Think of a recently published book from a non-vanity publisher: a book that's still in print, maybe a textbook for advanced undergrads from a university press, one whose RRP is €30 to €50. Now see the prices quoted for it by a variety of bookstores via Abebooks or similar.

Chances are, you'll find a number of offers of new copies, from somewhat below the RRP to multiples of the RRP, perhaps five times the RRP, possibly even higher than that. (And no, I'm not talking about signed copies, "éditions de luxe", or any other fillip of "collectibility"; just what are, according to their listings, new copies of the bog standard item.)

The first time I noticed this, I put it down to inexperienced assistants, manic optimism by the borderline insane, or some other aberration. (I mean, who would expect that someone's going to pay $150 for a new copy of a book when she can just as easily buy the same thing for $25?) However, this phenomenon is commonplace. It must surely be the result of conscious decisions by sane people in the bookselling biz. So what's the logic? (Money laundering, maybe?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this on Amazon to an extent, and mostly with books. Some of the high volume sellers use automated pricing to adjust their own asking price, usually by besting the lowest price by one cent. The autoscripts can do this multiple times an hour. Meanwhile some very expensive offers would also be there for the very same item. I have two ideas why: they’re hoping all the cheap offers will quickly sell out leaving only their item available; or their hoping for someone to assume their item and/or service is presumed to be worth the expense - you get what you pay for. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking. Even if they sell only a fraction of the inflated items they will come out well ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There is also a business model whereby a U.S. bookseller who also ships internationally will take an order for a mint condition book for anywhere in the world that they can ship to. They then buy the copy they need from one of the low-priced but reputable sellers and have them ship it to their export facilities on the border or coast. After inspection they repackage and ship. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was often the practical way of getting a book published in the UK to someone living in the US, pre-internet. Possibly AbeBooks is counting on the desire to have a book right now in this era of instant gratification.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if these outfits don't actually have any stock, and have automated the entire process -- spidering the website to get prices, multiplying these prices by five or whatever, posting the resulting ads, spidering to make sure that the cheap offers are still there, and removing their own ads once those cheap offers have gone -- then it starts to make sense. However, somebody has to buy some of this stuff, at least now and again. I really wonder who these people might be, and why they do it. (Certainly very high-priced, very stupid books have been used for money laundering.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have also noticed this lately. I found it quite bizarre and unbelievable. It was quite curious and inexplicable. I could have posted the same exact question as the original poster did. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Need help with reliable sources for Harry Hay - NAMBLA content

Hi! I’ve run into a bit of a problem accessing thus assessing reliable sources demonstrating how and why Harry Hay is connected to the pedophile advocacy group NAMBLA.
At an open, now very lengthy request to review what I see as WP:Undue/WP:POV concerns at the NPOV noticeboard, two sources have newly been offered as solutions:

Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert (2013). Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations. Left Coast Press. ISBN 9781611323399.

Hay, Harry (1997). Will Roscoe (ed.). Radically Gay. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807070819.

Unfortunately I’m using Google Books so can only view some of the pages. I want ensure I’m only using content in context, and that I’m not omitting key points. This board has been very helpful in the past so I’m hopeful someone might have a solution or suggestion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether you're only interested in ensuring that the Wikipedia article reflects the text or whether you're also interested in an evaluation of the sources themselves for reliability. I don't have access to the sources, but I'll give you my evaluation in case you'd find it useful. Beacon Press is a department of the Unitarian Universalist Association, somewhat of an advocacy publisher, but still potentially useful. Left Coast Press is an imprint of Routledge/Taylor & Francis, a globally prominent academic publisher. I'd be hesitant to use the Beacon book, as both the publisher and the editor you linked have long histories of being activists rather than dispassionate scholars, but it could be useful for simple factual statements, e.g. "Hay did X in year YYYY". Conversely, anything coming from T&F is highly likely to be reliable both for simple statements of fact and for theoretical analysis, and I'd need to be given a solid reason to doubt a specific book from them before I advised someone to be careful using it. I don't know much about Hubbard (he doesn't appear to have an article here), but a quick search found him cited in a number of other LGBT-related articles, e.g. Homosexuality in ancient Rome. That article cites a book that he edited, OCLC 1041215627, from John Wiley & Sons, another globally important academic publisher. There's basically a 0% chance that anyone who's edited or written books published by T&F and Wiley will have written anything except solid scholarly work. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! That’s very helpful actually. The current text in the Hay article on this subject is dreadfully sourced or unsourced. Additionally it takes up a fourth of the lead where I doubt anything belongs. So I started a survey of anything that might be useful and was underwhelmed. These two sources above can likely replace all the poor ones currently being used.
As luck would have I started with the Left Coast Press one, but I still can’t tell, because of the missing pages, the full context of the comments. I may have to search out a library copy or heaven forbid buy the book! Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're okay with mentioning this on-wiki — where do you live? I may be able to help you see what interlibrary loan options you have, especially (as is true for some) if your local library is a member of LVIS. Of course, if you don't feel comfortable revealing your location, just say so and I won't bug you :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I’d rather hold back personal information for now, but I do appreciate the offer. I just confirmed a copy is on the way, not that I’m looking forward to spending even more time on this! But I’d rather we get it right even if it’s a slog to get there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hope you're able to find the book useful. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Tyrers

Bellott v Mountjoy was a minor English lawsuit in 1612 that's known today because a witness was a guy named "William Shakespeare". According to our article on it:

Stephen Bellott, a Huguenot, sued his father-in-law Christopher Mountjoy, a tyrer (a manufacturer of ladies' ornamental headpieces and wigs) for...

Is there an alternate name for Mountjoy's occupation? I've linked "tyrer" to tyrer (occupation), since an established occupation should have an article; it was established enough that Tyrer is a disambiguation page for people with this name. I wonder if an article might exist under some other name, but I've never heard of "tyrer" before and don't have a clue what other names might exist. It sounds more precise than "wigmaker", like the relationship between "cabinetmaker" and "carpenter". Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A History of British Surnames by Richard Mckinley (p. 178) suggests that the surname Tyrer is "probably from the craft of making iron tyres for wheels".

However, solid support for the headdress theory (with Biblical references) comes from Our English Surnames: Their Sources and Significations by Charles Wareing Endell Bardsley, London 1875 (p. 335). From that it would seem to be more closely allied to a milliner than to a wig maker. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

- Tyrer might be an abbreviation of attirer - as in tiring houses, the dressing rooms (for attiring) or green rooms of theaters in Shakespeare's day - "this hawthorn-brake our tiring-house" - Peter Quince in A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 3 Scene 1 - Epinoia (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Queen Marau‘s travel in 1884

Are there any good secondary sources summarizing Tahitian Queen Marau‘s travel in 1884 to France? That are preferably in English.KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The Graphic newspaper of 21 June 1884 has a number of illustrations related to Tahiti and includes the comment "Queen Marau, whose recent visit to Paris created much interest in French circles, is about five-and-twenty years of age, and is an excellent musician. She travelled practically incognito, as plain Madame Salmon, and was accompanied by her little son." MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A couple more tidbits in [6], which mentions "she acquired a wardrobe of gowns by the Paris designer Charles Frederick Worth and visited with heads of state".

French sources are far more abundant, are you willing to look at those? [7] gives her itinerary on the outward voyage: left Tahiti in 1883 and travelled via San Francisco, then train to New York, then steamer to Europe. [8] (spelling her name Marahu) is a three-page account; in between all the rude and racist remarks about Tahiti :( there are a few facts: she arrived by boat at Havre, she was in Paris to request an increase in her allowance, she smoked cigarettes, she was appalled by Montmartre. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Bell cast from silver coins

"...in its tower a silver bell, cast from metal of 200 silver-dollars donated by wealthy residents." Looking for info on silver dollars in circulation between 1855 and the turn of the century. I am trying to back my way in to the value of said bell, as far as the amount of silver contained within. It's historical value would be priceless, as the bell was lost or stolen sometime around 1920. Ditch ∝ 15:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Silver dollars struck between 1840 and 1935 contained .77344 troy oz of silver and were .900 pure. There were also Trade dollars, struck mostly in the 1870s, that contained .7874 troy oz (and also .900 pure) but those never circulated much in the US. See Seated Liberty dollar and Morgan dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The OP's quote is from Fannin, Mississippi. Google was unable to find me any information about, or even a mention of, the lost bell (Wikipedia excepted), which is a bit odd - I was hoping to discover a date. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The bell is mentioned in the source cited (kind of in the middle) from a historical essay found online. I have seen at least one other mention in the archives of our public library, but one or the other is probably derived from the original, as the info is pretty much the same, just worded differently. I am working with someone with family Masonic ties to see if their records can better pinpoint the date...but for now, the best I have to go on is somewhere between 1855 and 1925. 19:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't have made any difference in terms of the weight of the silver coins. The silver dollar remained the same weight through the period. I wonder if there were political implications to the bell? The Free Silver movement was important to the politics of the last years of the 19th century and Mississippi, like the rest of the agricultural South, was strongly for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The silver dollar was definitely more commonly seen after the Bland-Allison Act of 1878 required the striking of massive quantities. I would think such a bell would not easily survive the Civil War and Reconstruction unmelted. I"d focus on after 1878.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a long tradition of throwing coins into the metal for a new bell–there are trace amounts of gold and silver in the Liberty Bell that probably stem from that–but I haven't heard of a bell made from coin silver. I wonder how the sound was?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it was a very unique and specific pitch, as, years later, someone reported hearing it ring at a large (unidentified) plantation in the Delta. Ditch ∝ 20:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I know I said it might be postwar but there's mention of a silver bell in Mississippi here in 1861.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Weird, I just ate lunch there like 2 hours ago. (The Manship House is now a higher-ish end restaurant and events venue connected to a medical center...I did not see a bell). Anyway, thanks to y'all's help, I rough-mathed a value of about $3,000 in today's silver exchange. I am on the trail of this bell, so if anyone has access to Masonic or behind-a-paywall genealogical records, and can do a search for "Rankin Masonic Institute" and let me know if there is any info of value to be found, I would much appreciate it. Ditch ∝ 21:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Small world. This calculator gives a value of $2,506.06. Let us know what you find out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading the source for the article, [9] it says that the institute was "in full operation" by 1855. Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The differences between males and females in sports performance

Obviously, there are many differences between males and females, when it comes to performance in sports. As a basic premise, males have more muscles (muscle mass) and strength than females. Hence, when you compare the statistics of males and females, the males will generally be bigger, faster, higher, longer, stronger, etc. (depending on the particular sport and what is being measured). My question: Look at the data comparing male performance versus female performance at this chart: Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest#Results. The best female performance is less than half of the best male performance (31 versus 71, in the year 2019). What exactly would account for such a huge disparity between males and females in an eating contest? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I found:

• Of Meat and Men: Sex Differences in Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Meat.
• Eating Heavily: Men Eat More in the Company of Women

Alansplodge (talk)

Those are related to psychology. I am assuming there must be some anatomical or physiological distinction. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Could it be as simple as the fact that males (on average) are larger than females (on average)? Larger overall size would equal larger individual organs, i.e. stomachs. --Khajidha (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I dunno. But, I don't think that stomach size is all that relevant. This particular contest is ten minutes long. If a female stomach were to be "filled" (over capacity) in less than ten minutes, then your theory would make sense. But, I suspect, both the male and the female stomach do not fill to capacity within ten minutes. There must be some other factors at play. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's some info about how large the stomach can be stretched to.[10] It doesn't explicitly answer the male vs. female question, but one comment says, "The volume of the human stomach varies depending on the person." Children would have smaller stomachs than adults. And it's reasonable to suppose that a larger adult might have a larger stomach than a smaller adult. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Stomach#Structure mention a size up to 4 liters. But the limiting factor may be not the stomach, but rather the pharynx or the oesophagus, and the munching. Gem fr (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Technique? Takeru Kobayashi took the record from 25 ⅛ to 50 by changing his technique. --Error (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

But technique would be independent of gender, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

July 7

Gruesome imprisonment

I am trying to remember the name of a European possibly English noblewoman who was imprisoned and starved with her son and at the last moment of her life she chewed on her dead son’s fingers due to her hunger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:10D:2B1E:4477:7CF2:2B5B:CE92 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Báthory bricked up but not starved and not with son.
Sleigh (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Immurement#Notable_incidents mention of Maud de Braose looks like what you are looking for. Gem fr (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Other gruesome stories about the same lady at A head for my lady love – a most unusual gift. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This source, quoting the medieval Annals of Margam, says that it was her son's cheeks, rather than fingers. There is some uncertainty over whether Windsor Castle or Corfe Castle was the venue. Alansplodge (talk)

July 8

Illegitimate royal children who were the designated heirs to a throne

Which illegitimate royal children (or people who were descended from an illegitimate royal line) were there who were the designated heirs to a throne? For the record, I am not talking about an illegitimate royal child conquering a country and installing himself as the king or queen based on the sheer power and force of his or her troops (like what William the Conqueror did in England). Rather, I am talking about illegitimate royal children (or people who were descended from an illegitimate royal line) being the designated heirs to a throne--as in, the existing monarch would designate them as his heirs. Which cases of this have there been throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The House of Trastámara "were an illegitimate cadet line of the House of Ivrea".

Did they come to power with the support of the previous monarchs or did they seize power by force, though? Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

And Joanna la Beltraneja was considered heir by part of the realm. --Error (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

That's actually a good example--though ultimately she never actually became Queen of Castile. Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at her Wikipedia article again, I'm now less sure about her. After all, she doesn't actually appear to have been illegitimate if one places value on legal paternity. She might or might not have been illegitimate in the biological sense, but not in the legal sense since legally speaking, she was the daughter of a married royal couple and her married father claimed her as his daughter. Futurist110 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Louis II of Monaco adopted his bastard daughter Charlotte so that Monaco would have an heir and remain under the Grimaldis. She abdicated her right in favor of her son Ranier, who eventually ruled - Nunh-huh 02:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

That's very interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Mary I of England and Elizabeth I of England were born legitimate, Mary became illegitimate when the marriage between her parents was invalid and Elizabeth became heir persumptive. Elizabeth became illegitimate when the marriage of her parents was annulled. Mary and Elizabeth were made legitimate by Third Succession Act. During Elizabeth's reign, the Pope made Elizabeth illegitimate.
Sleigh (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning that, at least by Catholic canon law, the children of a marriage later annulled are legitimate. The succession after Henry VIII's death was more a matter of power than right or principle (improvisational law, as it were). - Nunh-huh 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that, by any Christian canon law, you just cannot annul a marriage when there are children (unless --not even sure -- they are proven bastards and the wife a cheater. In which case, when powerful enough, you probably just sentence her to death instead, and that's it). So such an annulment would be improvisational law. On the other hand, without children, no problem (I am thinking of a case where the marriage was dissolved because the husband manhood was found useless upon examination by witnesses...) Gem fr (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be pretty sure, but you're still wrong. The Catholic Church grants annulments to people with children all the time. As for legitimacy, see this explanation. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The simple answer is none: you just cannot be the designated heir to a throne if you are illegitimate. You'll need to be legitimised before. This is one of the reason Louis XIV of France did that. Gem fr (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Louis XIV's action was swiftly reversed by the parlement of Paris after his death, though. Thus, Louis couldn't actually make his decision in regards to this stick. Futurist110 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

P. de los Iudeos in Baja California Sur

In California, an island? Meet cartography's most persistent mistake, I find this map (at the collection as well), Granata Nova et California, by Corneille Wytfliet, [Louvain, 1597]. I noticed around the 255, 35 coordinates the text P. de los Iudeos. I am not sure if P is puerto or punta, but by the shape I guess it is puerto ("port"). Iudeos could be a copy error for judíos ("Jews") or indios ("Indians"). So my questions are: Was there a "port of the Jews" in Baja California Sur? Where did it get its name from?

Baja California Sur

I realize that the map is not very realistic, I couldn't match the bay with an actual feature. So it all may be error upon error. --Error (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it was a "port of the Indians" instead? Futurist110 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is not very exciting. --Error (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's significant, but I read that label as P. de los Iudeas (not Iudeos). Deor (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

First, the approximate latitude is 25, not 35 degrees.

Second, the letters I and J were used interchangeably until relatively recent times (discussed rather briefly at J#History), so Iudeos is the same as Judeos. I don't know what the word for "Jews" was in 16th century Spanish, though. (Side comment: I hate it that I see Wikipedia and most other web sites in sans serif fonts. Until I started composing this reply, I thought the original poster had misread the word on the map as ludeos!)

I'm guessing that the actual feature corresponding to the place is the little bay at 25.685 N 112.09 W. Google Maps doesn't know a name for it (it's not nearly as good on names of small bodies of water as it is on street names), but if you zoom in all the way, the name "Las Animas" appears on the water. That bay. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

76.69.117.113 -- If you set up a Wikipedia account and logged into it, then you could customize Wikipedia's appearance with a CSS command such as
"body { font-family: serif; }"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not interested in doing that. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Fraternal Brotherhood

Fraternal Brotherhood members, Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition, Seattle, 1909

Does anyone know anything about an organization called simply the "Fraternal Brotherhood" that existed in the U.S. in 1909? We have the photo shown here; https://www.historylink.org/File/8461 indicates that they gathered at the A-Y-P Exposition on July 23 of that year (though https://www.ebay.com/itm/FRATERNAL-BROTHERHOOD-DAY-Ribbon-1909-Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Expo-Seattle-AYP-AYPE-/113694168818 suggests strongly that it was one day later), so that is presumably when the picture was taken. Articles like [11] and [12] seem to make it certain that the organization was simply called "Fraternal Brotherhood" which of course if very hard to search on and not get 100 other "fraternal brotherhoods". - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an organisation confused about the meaning of "fraternal". Brotherly brotherhood? HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

According to this reliable government source, J. A. Batchelor was the "Supreme President", and H. V. Davis the "Supreme Secretary" (snicker) in 1915. The same source states it (unclear if this refers to the organization as a whole or the "Supreme Lodge" in Los Angeles) was incorporated in 1896 and had a hefty year-end balance of over $1.35 million. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone find anything about a founding date, or what became of the organization? Where a headquarters was? - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a substantial 1908 Los Angeles Herald article about a Fraternal Brotherhood, its purpose, membership and other interesting details. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I found this newspaper article about them. It seems it was primarily an insurance company operating under the guise of a fraternal order. Not uncommon during the Golden age of fraternalism. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I've done a stub article, using the sources mentioned here: The Fraternal Brotherhood. If anyone's interested, I also worked out what became of the organization. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

H. F. Verwoerd

Did H. F. Verwoerd write any books? If so, please direct me to a list of these. Thank you Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

He wrote this, and this, and maybe others. Dbfirs 12:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Six books listed here: "Books : Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd". www.amazon.com. 2606:A000:1126:28D:48F3:EC22:BDAE:8519 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Did the people of New Mexico and Alta California prefer Mexican rule or US rule in 1848?

Did the people of New Mexico and Alta California (as in, the Mexican Cession) prefer Mexican rule or US rule in 1848? Futurist110 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you know they preferred either? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

They preferred independence? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also why would you think that the "people" would all think the same way about either. MarnetteD|Talk 00:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant the majority of them. Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What's the likelihood of there being any public opinion polls? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

About zero, but has anyone attempted any guesses in regards to this? Perhaps by informally trying to detect the public mood in these territories during this time? Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe in Tejanos, Neomexicanos, Californios. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You mean to look at all of these articles? Futurist110 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- as has been discussed here before several times, the territories that later became California, Arizona, and New Mexico were rather sparsely inhabited by non-Indian Mexicans in 1848, except in the northern New Mexico area. Most of the Indians probably favored whoever would leave them alone... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

July 9

Legal Compliance

Hello! Can someone tell me more about legal compliance (context: law)? I know all the basics but I'd like more information on just legal compliance and not legal governance/risk management, etc. I've looked at every link and even went past the 9th page on Google but I couldn't find anything of substance (just businesses explaining how they follow all the rules and stay legally compliant). Also, if there are any associations/organizations related to legal compliance, please list them. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.163.57.173 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Legal compliance" just means following the law. It isn't really a topic in its own right. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

However, we have Category:Regulatory compliance including a number of articles with "compliance" in their names... AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The police department, traffic department and municipalities are examples of "associations/organizations" that can charge/fine/arrest you if you are not legally complying with the law. This will happen through the courts and if you don't comply with the court order you could go to jail. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Did the leader of the US have to be a natural-born US citizen before the adoption of the US Constitution?

Did the leader of the US have to be a natural-born US citizen before the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787? Futurist110 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't any real "leader of the U.S." before 1787. Under the Articles of Confederation there was a semi-loose confederation of 13 autonomous states, each of which had one vote in the Congress of the Confederation, or Continental Congress. Sometimes people try to invoke the Presidents of the Continental Congress to try to claim that "George Washington wasn't the first president" etc. ad nauseam, which is very stupid, since it was a completely different office with much much less power than the Presidency of the U.S. under the 1787 constitution... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)