Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:52, 22 January 2020

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

January 17

The US President's power to unilaterally abrogate treaties?

Does the US President actually have the power to unilaterally abrogate treaties that have already been ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate? Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Treaty Clause, that's an open question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the unresolved tension between the role of the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government. Congress passes bills, which the Executive branch is supposed to put into action. Insofar as the executive has discretion in the way it enacts Congress's laws, there will always be times when that discretion comes out in opposition to the intent of the original law. This is as true of treaties as any other Congressional action. --Jayron 32 15:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that treaties are originally negotiated by the executive branch. Or at least the class of international agreements specifically called "treaties" in US law. There are other classes of international agreement that are not considered treaties by US definition but are considered treaties in international law. See Treaty Clause, especially the section on types of international accords. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sworn Enemies

There is a picture in the article promiscuity showing Donald and Bill together. The picture appears to me to be informal, at a BBQ or the like. It looks like it was taken in a kitchen, while there are other sin the shot and people in the background, Donald is looking much younger, as is Melania. My question is, when was his taken and under what circumstances, I would have though that these chaps were sworn enemies. Q2. When did the amicable relationship erode between the two, or am I holistically misinformed? Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file page tells you when and where it was taken. --Viennese Waltz 09:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case Anton doesn't know how: to bring up the file page just right-click on the photo in the article and bring it up as a new tab. This will tell you that it was taken in September 2000 (i.e. nearly 20 years ago) at the US Open Golf Championship, at which time Bill was the POTUS and very many people would have wanted to have their photo taken with him. This one was apparently taken by a White House staffer and comes from the Clinton Presidential Library.

Since Donald hadn't at that time entered politics on any side (as far as I know), and since the occasion was a sporting event where all celebrities are expected to act friendly to everybody they meet regardless of their real feelings (if any), I don't think it's possible to read anything into solely a one-off photo like this, which is not in itself evidence of anything more than that they met once at this public event. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.126 (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is much discussion about the relationship between Donald and Bill e.g. [1] [2]. While I make no comment on the relationship between Donald and Bill at any stage of their lives, it's generally a mistake to assume relationships don't change. E.g. File:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg [3] [4]. BTW I removed the image from the article as there was no mention of any of those people in it, so the relevance was not established. Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)s[reply]

No, in fact it's basically a BLP violation by inference, and it's good that you removed it. There are also pictures of Bill and Hillary at Donald and Melania's wedding in 2005, likewise looking chummy. The OP needs to keep in mind that politicians often say stuff that isn't really true, just for the purpose of garnering votes. Trump knows that a sizable portion of his presumed base hates the Clintons, so it's to his political advantage to pretend he hates them too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're hardly "sworn enemies". During the Clinton administration, Trump was a Democrat. ApLundell (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has fallen for the old trick of believing the media. Why, they'd have us believe that Donald Trump was elected President of the USA. Preposterous, absurd! Not a chance in a billion that would ever happen. Americans may be weird, but they're no fools. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The truth has proven to be stranger than fiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald supposedly ran for president with Hillary's campaign's encouragement, the so-called "Pied Piper strategy".[5] 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Your source says Hillary's campaign 'Proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning' and that 'Clinton's camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously."' Donald Trump is specifically mention as one such candidate. While this is before Trump had officially announced his candidacy, no where does it her campaign actually encouraged him to run. In fact, it seems to tread him like he was already a candidate. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

Opium wars

Im writing a history essay on the opium wars, and the causes of it but im having trouble finding first hand sources for it. Does anyone know where to find any? 91.101.26.175 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best way would be to go in person to your school library and ask the librarian to show you how to get started. Another thing you can do is look at the books listed at the bottom of the Opium Wars article. Best luck to you, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a "first hand" accounts, see:

Also The Opium War: Drugs, Dreams and the Making of China

Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try Narrative of the Voyages and Services of the Nemesis from 1840 to 1843 at Project Gutenberg (an account of the role of the East India Company's ironclad Nemesis in the first opium war). Blakk and ekka 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

Guy Beringer(s)

Our article Brunch reports that this word and concept was coined in 1895 by British journalist Guy Beringer. During the 1905 revolution, a Reuters journalist named Guy Beringer reported from Russia, and stayed on duty there until the 1917 revolution, when he was jailed by the Bolsheviks. Was the brunch creator the same person as the reporter working in Russia? Not even Reuters seems to know. Any insights? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathmitch7 and Billinghurst: wikisource:Author:Guy_Oscar_Beringer wikidata:Q66816921
Merchant Taylors' School Jan. 1885 - 1890 b. 5 Jan. 1873[6] Petrograd address
c. 1902-4 Bohemian living in a bedroom at Reuter's, survived for weeks eating from a large barrel of "slightly damaged" anchovies.[7]
"died from his treatment at the hands of the Bolsheviks"[8] is suspicous
son of Prof. Oscar Beringer musician, entered service of Reuters 1892, prison 6 months in Moscow, undoubtedly adversely affected his health[9]
"son of Mr Oscar Beringer, the well-known dramatist, was married yesterday...Miss Edith Holland [Henry Holland & Mr.s James Wason]"[10] it's "Caroline Edith" on the probate from wikidata. probably meant Mrs. Oscar Beringer rather than "Mr."
"Reuter's correspondent, Guy Beringer, was a permanent stand-by; he was settled in Petersburg, and he and his wife served as a social centre for us; he was very expert in the amusing abbreviations which he invented to save space in his telegrams, such as 'the crowd ran rabbitly.'" Pares, Bernard (1931). My Russian Memoirs. p. 114.
"Guy Beringer, who had visited Roumania before me, described the country in a word as Ruritania. I have since asked Sir Anthony Hope whether this was his model for the Prisoner of Zenda, but to my surprise he told me that he did not know any of these countries; if so, his was a wonderful guess." Ibid. p. 408
He attended the journalism "school" of David Anderson Waller, Philip (2006). Writers, Readers, and Reputations: Literary Life in Britain, 1870-1918. p. 400. It would be fun to connect Guy and Miss Edith to "A long betrothal" "A School of Journalism". T.P.'s Weekly. October 9, 1903.[11] Waller clearly cites that article for Beringer attending the school, but he is not mentioned by name.
here claims Margaret B. WrightWright, Margaret B. (August 22, 1895). "Lunch at Oxford". The Independent., (probably serialized Hired Furnished) predates and has November 5, 1895 for "Brunch: a plea" Charles Henry Conrad Wright, B.A. from Oxford 1895 @Suslindisambiguator:
Hunter's Weekly seems difficult to find, but someone uploaded an undated clipping to Archive[12] (linked from wikisource) Listed in printed catalogues[13] for The British Museum but not showing up online[14]
Yesterday, the autobiography of Robert Hichens looks promising from the snipped view. Supposedly there are references to Anderson's school and the basement restaurant in Felix
Hunter's Weekly does not look like a sportsman's magazine as many are reporting[15] There's a David Hunter of University of Edinburgh listed[16] as publisher of Hunter's Weekly but the date given is 1898, not 1895-6 "From the Newsman, a page of personal paragraphs by half-a-dozen well-known social writers."

Looks like a DYK: "'I tell you that nothing is going to happen in this forsaken country. I can't see a particle of use in being miserable in Petrograd. It's a good time for me to go to the Crimea for a holiday' The door opened...It's begun...The Cossacks are charging the crowds in the streets...Revolution"[17]. Get your Reuters authors to go to the British Museum and see if "Brunch: a plea" is under "From the Newsman" so it can have a better hook.—eric 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty obvious that the Reuters Guy Beringer penned "Brunch: a plea". The character of the weekly as advertised, "an illustrated history of the hour": author W. W. Jacobs, illustrators Alfred Bryan, brothers Penrhyn Stanlaws and Sydney Adamson, and "Yorick"(Edwin Austin Abbey). Not a "sportsman's magazine", but humorous, dramatic and literary—see the Beringer family. No evidence of any other Guy Beringers in print, a section "From the Newsman": the only reason there is a question is because Reuters questioned it and now they are the only ones who can give an answer.

As to "coining the term", that's a an uncertain claim, despite being "very expert in the amusing abbreviations." It's probably Oxford schoolboy slang, and David Anderson says that there were Oxford and Cambridge at his London School of Journalism, 70% of London reporters from either with most from Oxford. First in print depends on the date in Hunter's Weekly, i can't find the November 5, 1895 (Tuesday[18] is correct) from wordhistories.net, and that blogger's goal is to debunk existing etymologies. Either way, there's lots for a nice and quirky article: "Russia is all right"[19][20], "inventor of posh 'brunch' dines daily on bad anchovies", and his journalism "education".—eric 13:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we here?

If we told you, we'd have to kill you.

What is the meaning of life? 68.129.97.180 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're here because our respective parents conceived us. As to the meaning of life, read Meaning of life for some possible insights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction. But I suspect they're asking "How can I find meaningful goals and personal happiness," which are different questions. Temerarius (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed that this is even a valid question. You are assuming that life has a meaning. --Khajidha (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a trolling question that pops up here from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

42!... nah. Wrong question Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, 42 and may I suggest that we 86 the question as a troll? Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of Life which Wikipedia calls "a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate." But Life may also refer to these other things. DroneB (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here... DuncanHill (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, as Doug Supernaw sang, "We're all here, 'cause we're not all there". --Khajidha (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles all the way down? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And "biology" means "the science of life".[21] Though I don't think the OP's question is about the definition of the word. It's about trying to generate debate, and hence this section should be boxed up and/or deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

M Phil and PHD

Which is better between M.Phil and PhD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbtss (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Define "better". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If by better, the Op means "enables one to make the greater contribution to humanity's self-knowledge": As a doctorate, a PhD is the advanced qualification; an MPhil is still a master's. Notwithstanding, the latter is often a precursor to the former in many institutions.

If by better the Op means "which will allow me to swank more": The PhD lets you call yourself Dr so-and-so, while at the end of an Mphil you're the same old Mr/Mrs/Ms you began as.

HTH. ——SN 54129 07:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe more to the point, "Which one will earn me more money?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably it. A shame the answer is, "both less and less" :) ——SN 54129 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has some information that may be useful to answering that question. --Jayron 32 13:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Do any legislatures ever vote roughly in order of increasing likelihood of aye or nay or whichever the opposition or government wants?

2. Is there any legislature where members typically abstain unless they're willing and able to possibly affect the outcome so when they want to abstain for fencesitting/preventing people from disliking your vote selfish reasons it doesn't look as bad? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a thing. Can you show us where you read or heard about this concept, so we can further help you find more information about it? --Jayron 32 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a little unclear as well. Do you mean something as described at active abstention? Or maybe something like what's described at Election boycott (though that seems more focused on general elections rather than voting within a legislative body). Matt Deres (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a UK MP who has refused to vote on the Brexit debacle and has abstained in every vote so far, specifically so that she will not lose votes by having chosen the "wrong" side. Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Irish Biography

Is here. Does anyone have access? ——SN 54129 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REX may be a better place to ask. --Jayron 32 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Been there/done that. No joy! Cheers, ——SN 54129 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like San Francisco Public Library has a print copy (for use on premises) and an online subscription (accessible by library card holders).[22] If they have it, other large libraries probably also have it. I'm surprise RX couldn't help. Is there a particular article you want? 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H'mmm think that's a different one I'm afraid: that's from the 80s whereas this was published c. 200X. ——SN 54129 00:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

200X? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

German Virgin Mary

I remember from a Youtube video I saw long ago that somewhere in German-occupied Poland, probably during WWI, there was a Marian apparition in which the Virgin Mary spoke in German but the witnesses could not understand her because they only spoke Polish. I'm trying to find if this is a real story but I'm not findind anything. --82.58.29.125 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 :I've never heard of such a thing.  Can you show us where you read or heard about this concept, so we can further help you find more information about it?  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 :Yeah, I'm a little unclear as well. Do you mean something as described at [[Abstention#Active_abstention|active abstention]]? Or maybe something like what's described at [[Election boycott]] (though that seems more focused on general elections rather than voting within a legislative body). [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 16:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
+::Yes, there is a UK MP who has refused to vote on the Brexit debacle and has abstained in every vote so far, specifically so that she will not lose votes by having chosen the "wrong" side.  Thanks.  Anton [[Special:Contributions/81.131.40.58|81.131.40.58]] ([[User talk:81.131.40.58|talk]]) 08:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 == ''[[Dictionary of Irish Biography]]'' ==