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 14

America, Republic and Empire

The user's other "work" is being reverted, and the user indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
America is an empire. America is an empire? America is not an empire. America is a republic. America has always been a republic. America is a republic, not an empire. Kaypein (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Alright, feel better now? 86.172.130.137 (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Are you stating an opinion, Kaypein, or do you have an actual question. If so, what is it, and does it depend on how words like "empire" and "republic" are defined, and whether or not they are considered mutually exclusive? Also, by "America", can we presume that you mean the United States of America? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC) See also: American imperialism. Xuxl (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Market ward" in Cambridge?

So I'm expanding the article for Ellis Gibbons and John Harley says that "He was listed in the Cambridge subsidy roles from 1598 to 1600, first as resident in the High ward, and then in the Market ward". A footnote at the bottom of the page explains that the "High ward" is mainly modern day Trinity Street but fails to explain what/where the Market ward is or where it would be today. I could be over thinking it and perhaps the "Market ward" is simply the modern day Market ward but I am hesitant about assuming so. Any ideas? Aza24 (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A districting system from over 400 years ago that's evidently seen the abolition of at least one district (High Ward) and the creation of many more (in the 1400s and 1500s there were only four wards of Cambridge, now there are many) suggests that the modern Market Ward is probably not exactly the same as the one of 400 years ago. Charles Henry Cooper's 1843 Annals of Cambridge may provide useful information. You can find it on HathiTrust: [1] (or alternatively find the modern Cambridge University Press rerelease at a library). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"The 18th-century descriptions say that Bridgeward extended from Jesus Lane to Castle End; Preachers' Ward from Jesus Lane to St. Andrew's Street; Highward from St. John's College to Trumpington Road; and that Market Ward covered the Market and the adjoining area". The city of Cambridge: Wards, Victoria County History, London, 1959 (pp. 111-113).

We have an article on Market Hill, Cambridge which is to the east of the Church of St Mary the Great, Cambridge. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Same link as above notes that the 19th century wards "were simply electoral districts and were constituted from entirely artificial groups of scattered parishes." This almost certainly extends to the modern wards, particularly given Market was one of those first electoral wards (comprising the Parishes of St. Mary the Great, St. Giles, and St. Edward). Cooper, Annals, vol. 4, p. 597. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@199.66.69.67 and Alansplodge: Thank you both for your terrific assistance! Aza24 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Accession of King Baudouin

I've been tinkering with the Baudouin of Belgium article and the best source I can find in English, Wilsford, David, ed. (1995). Political Leaders of Contemporary Western Europe: A Biographical Dictionary. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0313286230., says that Leopold III of Belgium abdicated on 7 September 1951 but that Baudouin was sworn-in on 15 August 1951 (p. 27). Can anybody explain how this works? Were there two kings for a few weeks? Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Does Royal Question#Accession of Baudouin, 1951 answer that at all? It says Leopold abdicated on 16 July 1951, and not in September (cited to Witte, Els; Craeybeckx, Jan; Meynen, Alain (2009). Political History of Belgium from 1830 Onwards (New ed.). Brussels: ASP. ISBN 978-90-5487-517-8, p. 242). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The book is wrong. It even gets Baudouin's name wrong; he was never called "the First". His wife was not a Spanish princess either. Leopold abdicated on 16 July and Baudouin was sworn in the following day. This is a very good source if you speak any French. Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. In Britain, if one monarch leaves the throne, the next one becomes king or queen immediately. (Their coronation ceremony is purely commemorative.) Belgium has different rules, then? --174.89.49.204 (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Instantaneous and automatic accession seems to be confined to the UK and Commonwealth realms, as far as I can tell. I might be wrong. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if it's truly instantaneous (perhaps as a quantum entanglement effect), or if it's more classically limited by the speed of light? I believe Doctor Sir Terence Pratchett has speculated on the subject and postulated the existence of kingon (and queon) particles, which would presumably be some form of vector boson. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.19} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that there is never any moment when there is not a UK monarch. The gap between the death of the old and the accession of the new is literally zero. Of course, humans with their limited technology can never say precisely when that moment was in any particular case. It's usually timed to the minute, a rather crude approximation when it comes to such abstruse matters. (But interestingly, the present Queen was the first monarch for many centuries whose moment of accession was not known to any better than a couple of hours, because George VI died during the night and was not discovered till the next morning). But none of this alters the instantaneousness of the transition, whenever it happens to occur. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And Terry Pratchett speculated somewhere that, since monarchy travels through the universe instantaneously, you could build a faster than light communication system if you had a monarch close to death, and modulated the signal by nearly killing them and then reviving them. The way you would detect the signal at the other end, of course, would be by seeing if the heir could cure scrofula with a touch or not. --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

According to our Monarchy of Belgium article, automatic accession of the heir is the norm in Europe and Belgium is the sole exception. The information is unsourced, however. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

July 15

Literary endeavours

Irrelevant ramblings by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

When I was a student at St Andrews in the 1970s, a story circulated that a new library building at Edinburgh University could not be used as intended because the architect had designed one or more floors to take the weight of the required shelves, but had forgotten to factor in the weight of the books they were meant to carry. It's so good a story that I've never had the heart to actually check its veracity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think every college/university has a similar urban legend. Certainly I heard it about one of the libraries at University of Waterloo in the 1990s. In that case, the fact it was an engineering school made the "fact" that much more salacious. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Also the fact that at Waterloo this was told of the university's arts library (which had its own building), not the engineering library (which didn't). And that when the arts library building first opened, it was only 7 floors high instead of the planned 10. Of course this was actually just because they didn't need all the space yet, and the other 3 floors were added later. More detail and photos here. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. Snopes to the rescue! Matt Deres (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So the ubiquitous bookless library legend is debunked. I note however from that Snopes piece the following: "Some tales involve . . . others deal with a residence hall which is sinking because its builder forgot to allow for the weight of the inhabitants and their possessions."

One of the newest halls of residence at St. Andrews (in the 1970s) was Andrew Melville Hall. From the exterior, amongst rather rolling landscaping, it looked (and looks) a little like two ships colliding (originally several radiating wings were planned, but only the first two were built), and the rather spartan interior design used to remind me strongly of the internal corridors of a large car ferry. Whether or not it was sinking I hesitate to affirm, but certainly in wet weather the lowest, semi-basement level used to accumulate an inch or more of water on the floor, which was rather inconvenient for residents and visitors (of whom I was frequently one). One hopes that by now, 40-odd years later, the problem has been solved! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Youtube clip

I'm looking into a topic which doesn't really have textual references, but rather has a citation in the form of a video from a news source. Are there any pages on wikipedia which use a Youtube clip as a source? If so, could you list a few please? 79.67.85.171 (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not finding it, but I'm fairly certain that YouTube, in general, is not considered a reliable source. The exception might be if a given YouTube channel is some entity's "official" YouTube. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Does WP:YOUTUBE help? Matt Deres (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Or WP:RSPYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I used a few when creating London to Brighton in Four Minutes (and I'm taking a risk in admitting it!). Thincat (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Anschluss

What was the international reaction to the Anschluss (Nazi Germany annexing Austria in 1938)? How did other countries respond? Thank you, Heyoostorm (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a Reactions section in the Anschluss article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't see that before Heyoostorm (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Also Heyoostorm, see The American Reaction to Germany's Annexation of Austria. Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A problem with the Google News Archive

I was able to access this old article on the Google News Archive because I had previously saved a link to it:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wCpUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IjoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=587,1878528&dq=111th-birthday&hl=en

This article is about the 111th birthday of Robert Alexander Early as well as about his death the following day. (If you're curious, he's certainly a real/true supercentenarian case. I have found his 1850, 1860, and 1870 US Census entries and numerous other records and documents for him and they--especially his earliest documents--confirm that he was the age that he claimed to be. One day, hopefully his case will be verified by the Gerontology Research Group instead of merely being a pending case on their lists.) Anyway, the problem is that even though I can access this Google News Archive article by clicking on its link, I am incapable of finding it by doing a search of the Google News Archive. Can anyone here please explain to me why exactly I cannot find this article by doing a search of the Google News Archive? I've tried and various searches of this archive always fail to return this article and really any article about Mr. Early even though I clearly remember when I was researching his case back in 2013 that the Google News Archive contained numerous articles about him from when he was ages 101 to 111 (so, for the last decade of his life). So, what's up with this? Any thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

July 16

Southern Europe is politically clientelist?

I have seen people characterizing the domestic politics of Southern European countries most notably Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain as clientelist, as when compared to Northern Europe. How true is this? Are there good articles or academic papers on this specifically? StellarHalo (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

StellarHalo the articles PIGS (economics) and European debt crisis are probably good places to start searching. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Murder at the Palace

Say Prince Charles got a bit stressed out and murdered the Queen. An open and shut case, 'e done it all right, and he confessed.

• Would this be a case of treason? I presume yes.
• Would conviction of treason disqualify him from holding the Crown?
• If not, would imprisonment for the rest of his life, for whatever reason, disqualify him from holding the Crown?
• In the UK Constitution, the new monarch accedes instantaneously on the death of the old one. In this case, would he in fact accede, until such time as his guilt was established by a court, and then be dethroned?
• If he acceded but was incarcerated pending trial, and thus unable to reign, would a regent be appointed pending justice taking its course?
• Or, since he confessed and there was plenty of evidence against him anyway, would there even be a trial? I presume there'd still have to be a court hearing, for a judge to sentence him. But then he'd be in prison anyway, so same scenario.
• But what if he was charged but there wasn't much evidence and he strenuously protested his innocence? This process would take a lot longer to resolve, so how would his status change, if at all, in the meantime? As he'd be presumed innocent, and he'd hardly be considered a flight risk, I guess he'd accede and take up his monarchical duties pending the resolution of the matter.
• Is there any such thing as a "conditional accession" for cases like this?

I hope such a thing never happens, but in case anyone thinks it's an absurd and impossible scenario, have a look at Dipendra of Nepal. He was the heir; in 2001 he shot both his parents and seven other family members. He then shot himself, but survived for 4 days, during which time he was legally King of Nepal, succeeding his father (whom he had murdered). Then he was succeeded in turn by his brother. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking about the legal position or the likely position in practice? Legally, he would become King upon the death of the Queen, and would henceforth be immune from prosecution, regardless of how he got there. The only conditions on succeeding are those in the Act of Settlement 1701. (Yes, this in one sense a loophole in the law of succession to the British Crown - a member of the Royal Family could in theory do a Kind Hearts and Coronets on everyone ahead of them in the line of succession, and then be immune from prosecution because they are now the Sovereign. But I suspect no one has ever considered this an even remotely likely scenario!) In practice, I suspect that it would be made clear to him by the Prime Minister and other senior officials that he had two choices: (i) give Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament abdicating the Throne (and then be prosecuted for his crime), or (ii) refuse to do so, in which case Parliament would ignore him and either (a) hold him to have abdicated (as in the Glorious Revolution) or abolish the monarchy (in either case he would again be prosecuted for his crime). Proteus (Talk) 11:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Proteus, that sums it up nicely. I guess the more interesting scenario is the one where there's just enough evidence to charge Charles (except for the fact that he's now the King and immune from prosecution) but he denies it. One can only wonder how this might play out. Good idea for my next best-seller. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously completely unprecedented, so all any of us can do is guess, but I suspect that he would be put under pressure to assent to an Act of Parliament establishing some kind of ad hoc tribunal (probably composed of a number of extremely senior judges, rather than a conventional jury) which could issue a binding determination as to whether his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, with a finding that his guilt was proved removing him from the Throne and enabling him to be punished as if he had been convicted in a standard criminal trial. If he refused to agree to that (in essence, saying "I assert my innocence, but I refuse to allow that assertion to be put to the test"), then I suspect they'd revert to my option (ii). Proteus (Talk) 15:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Proteus: But on reflection, doesn't that then make a nonsense of the doctrine of "The crown is immune from prosecution"? Maybe that applies to most cases, but it seems that in this scenario a way would definitely be found. I guess that's because the crown itself (or the human embodiment thereof) is the victim. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

When Baudouin of Belgium felt unable to give assent to new abortion laws because of his religious beliefs, the Belgian parliament declared him unable to reign, got the act signed under the emergency constitutional arrangements and then declared him fit again on the following day.

Another scenario is that since we have Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom, Parliament could enact a law overriding crown immunity and perhaps creating a regency until a trial could be arranged and conducted. See High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I for the last time a British monarch was put on trial, although constitutionality was not it's strong point.

Note that in 1553 Parliament simply rescinded Lady Jane Grey's proclamation as queen. She was subsequently tried, convicted and executed for high treason. Murdering the Queen certainly amounts to treason, although the death penalty for that offence was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

To nitpick, it also depends on the parliament's will / will of the public. If the Queen had just been publicly exposed as a monstrous reptile from outer space, maybe no one would bat an eyebrow... 93.136.3.127 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This will be the Treason Act 1817, repealed in Schedule 10. Note particularly (in the light of the demonstrations in London over the weekend against the regulation coming into effect on Friday) that s. 25 is headed "Powers to require removal of masks etc." 150.143.96.88 (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

True or rumor?

I saw this video [2] on YouTube regarding the Hi-Fi Murders. Towards the end of the video, it's said Byron Hunter Naisbitt, passed away in 2012. I can't seem to find his obituary on the Internet. One comment claimed he's still alive. Is it true he passed away?2604:2000:1281:4B3:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the article: He suffered chronic pain for the rest of his life and died on June 4, 2002, aged 44.

References

→[oops] —107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The victim was Byron Cortney Naisbitt, who died in 2002. Byron Hunter Naisbitt, who the OP asked about, was the victim's father. And I haven't found anything about Byron Hunter Naisbitt. The Findagrave for the son[3] shows only the mother, who of course was one of the murder victims. The absence of an entry for the father doesn't mean he's definitely alive, but he could be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Here ([4]) is a photo of his grave site. (The photo was added to the website in 2009 -- a full eleven years ago.) He was born in 1922 ... so, if alive, he is nearing 100 years old. Not all that uncommon in modern times. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I did some snooping around on the Internet. His second wife (not the Hi-Fi murder victim, who was his first wife) died in 2013 (see here: [5]). The obituary -- written in 2013 -- states that "Sue is survived by her husband, Dr. Byron Naisbitt". So, no, he did not die in 2012. Further snooping on the Internet seems to indicate that he is still alive, at age 97, in Utah. He was/is a doctor (ob/gyn). Looks like he still practices medicine: [6]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I finally was able to watch the video. Yes, it incorrectly states that Byron Hunter Naisbitt passed away, shortly after the 2012 TV interview. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up question

When I click that link up above in the original question ([7]) ... I get linked to You Tube ... but there is a message that says "video unavailable". I would like to take a look at that video, if possible. Does anyone know how I would be able to view it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

[8].  --Lambiam 13:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Thanks. May I ask, how you did that? All I got was a link at You Tube that said "video unavailable". What were you able to do, to find it? I still get the same "unavailable" message when I click the link in the original question. But, it works when I click the link in your reply. And those two different links seem to me to be the same exact thing ... no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseph has now corrected the link provided by the OP. If you get a "video unavailable" message always make sure that the youtube ID is eleven characters long. If it is, make sure that you have correctly differentiated capital "O", zero (0), lower case "L" (l), capital "I", numeral "1", hyphen "-", and underscore "_". If that checks out, you can type a query into the search box. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:6900:274:458:F067 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know about the "eleven characters long" rule on You Tube. I would have typed in some search terms ... but I assumed that "Hi Fi murders" would produce a lot of results ... and I would have no idea of which specific video the OP was referring to. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Big thing with a chain

Shah Nematollah Vali Shrine 01

I found this image in the article Shah Nematollah Vali Shrine. What is it? I'm thinking perhaps an Islamic Golden Age submarine, or evidence of Ancient astronauts. Or a lamp. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

According to this page it is a gold-inlaid steel Dervish begging bowl or kashkul. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And according to this "There is a large Kashkul at the entrance of the shrine, which is a mixture of metals such as copper and brass and Poems in the definition of Ahl al-Bayt and There are “Yahu” and “Ya Ali” on it. People make their vows in the Kashkul". DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Bit flashy for a begging bowl, isn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess some beggars are more successful than others. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wild-assed guess. Perhaps it was always intended for the entrance to this or another fairly prestigious shrine or mosque (similar to an offertory box) rather than to be carried by an itinerant mendicant. The symbolism of the shape would be appropriate to the purpose of collecting donations, while the size and the richness of the materials and decoration would be in accord with the establishment it serves. {The poster formerly known as 87.91.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

We have an article, Kashkul, which links to an equally flashy one at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

That one looks more portable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the "wild-assed guess" by 90.200.41.197 above must be the correct answer. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I wonder if "People make their vows in the Kashkul" above should be more "place their donations in". But it looks big, perhaps 1 or 2 people could fit in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

July 17

"The Right looks for converts, the Left looks for traitors"

Who first said, and when, "the Right looks for converts, the Left looks for traitors". It's bandied about as "an old saying" but I can't find any usage before 2006, when it's remarked upon as "It may be old, but it's new to me". Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's someone (sort of) admitting authorship [9] and here's confirmation:[10]. 31.124.153.207 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That's nine years after the earliest use I've found so far, and the "World Wit and Wisdom" site is not a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

And invented by a right-winger, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Inventing "attributions" for well-known and not-so-well-known sayings is a real growth industry these days. Between them, Mark Twain, Mahatma Gandhi, William Shakespeare and Winston Churchill account for 95% of them. Sometimes the attribution is actually correct but the wording of the quote is horribly mangled. It's a desparate situation, and the government should do something. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of funny comments have been attributed to Yogi Berra just because they sounded like something he might say. But unlike those other guys, it was happening while he was alive. He refuted such broad attribution by saying, "I never said half the things I said." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

In the version I've heard, the last word is heretics; try looking for that? —Tamfang (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Aha! Well done Tamfang. I found Wikiquote:Michael Kinsley which has as the first quotation: "Conservatives are always looking for converts, whereas liberals are always looking for heretics". Quoted in Two Steps Ahead of the Thought Police by John Leo (1998) p. 61. We also have an article, Michael Kinsley, but I haven't found a pointer to the time and place of the actual quote. Alansplodge (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

A little closer, JustOneMinute blog, June 05, 2003: My Final Answer In The Quest For Converts And Heretics posted by Tom Maguire says:

"John Leo, columnist for US News and World Report (and proud possessor of a link from Matt Drudge, no less), was kind enough to send me an e-mail assuring me that the original source is Michael Kinsley. Apparently, Mr. Leo included the line in a Nov. 26, 1990 column rounding up the best aphorisms of the year. He also is kind enough to tell me that the correct quotation is: "Conservatives are always looking for converts, whereas liberals are always looking for heretics."

So our "old saying" dates all the way back to 1990! Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Thank you, sterling work as always! DuncanHill (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Kinsley's version makes a lot more sense, and sounds like something he might say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

In what way does it make more sense? I'm struggling trying to understand. Does it mean that, "the best liberal recruits are basically, heretics"? - or does it mean: "liberals don't need to recruit therefore they do exclude"? Pretty ambiguous, I must be missing something. --Askedonty (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Heretics" makes a lot more sense than "traitors", which is an absurdity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Askedonty, my take on the meaning is that conservatives are better at organising themselves for the benefit of their cause, whereas liberals are more prone to infighting and internal machinations. The People's Front of Judea sketch is said to be a parody of 1970s British left-wing politics in this respect. The current US administration seems to be a counterexample. Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, how about Kinsley's version making more sense. "They are always looking for" is not feeling exactly the same era than "they are looking for". Or the quote was to be attributed to Kinsley's commenting the British satire you mentioned ? It can be discussed. My knowledge of ante-2001 US politics can be resumed into two soaps: Dallas (1978 TV series), Dynasty (1981 TV series). They are not the left. They are very well worth the Front of Judea. - In all confidentiality, it happens I do very well know at least one alternate meaning of "The Right looks for converts, the Left looks for traitors". What it translates into in the end in all simplicity is nothing else but "Life in the Fast Lane". Those Looks, suggested are to be given in the mirrors (check them, right, left). Kinsley's version, by contrast, cannot be converted. --Askedonty (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

July 18

Who was professor Fleide?

I read that an American professor Fleide was mining gold in Cornwall around 1900. But I can not find his full name. Can anyone tell who he was? Please see the OCR text. Horus1927 02:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

Makes me wonder if that "professor" was actually Charles Fisher, believed to be the ringleader of the Electrolytic Marine Salts Co. investment scam that was run in New England just a couple years before that, who ran off to Europe with some $200,000. Then again I'm sure there were plenty of other "gold from seawater" scams at the time all over the world. (To be fair, there is indeed gold in seawater, and I'm sure there was legitimate interest in inventing some economical means of extraction at the time, but if anything as efficient as this guy's claim was ever invented, we would be doing it full-force by now) 199.66.69.67 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it could be Charles Fisher. I think Fleide was an assumed name. I searched the patent databases and Google scholar. But nothing came up with the name. Horus1927 04:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

The article refers to an article in "an English periodical of recent date - the Pictorial Magazine". If we were able to track that article down we might know more. We don't appear to have an article on Pictorial Magazine or The Pictorial Magazine. Can't be the Sunday Pictorial as the dates are wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Penny Pictorial Magazine, first page of "Gold From Sea-Water: The Marvellous Triumph of a Clever Scientist" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveby (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, given Charles Fisher was presumably a relatively young gentleman in the 1890s (he was the person who would seed the apparatus with gold by diving underwater to place it), I'm guessing the older gentleman in this article was not him. Still stinks to high heaven of a scam. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Fiveby. So I see Fleide really existed. Fleide worked in Penzance. He may have worked with John Frederick Webb. Webb later became a consultant of 'Sea Gold Syndicate Limited', another gold-from-seawater company in Guernsey in 1908. Horus1927 22:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

According to this, Prescott Jernagan, who was associated with Charles Fisher in the EMS con, was later the victim of exactly the same con in Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes Prescott Jernagan invested in The Sauerwald Development and Promotion Syndicate in 1899. I am trying to find information on this syndicate too. Horus1927 22:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Blue-eyed actors and models

To be honest, as a "brownie" (as to eyes) I am a bit upset: Why do so many – especially male (?) – actors and models have blue eyes? Of course, I know blue eyes as such are generally considered rare and beautiful, but still, one cannot claim blue-eyed people altogether are more attractive in general, can one? So, wouldn't that, in fact, once again turn out to be another facet of [subliminal] racism conveyed by Western media?--Hildeoc (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

PS: On Google, I came across this pertinent thread, where somebody explains blue eyed people often have better self-pacing and non-reactivity, which I think helps in acting. However, I don't really know what exactly this person is referring to by speaking of "self-pacing and non-reactivity".--Hildeoc (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for actors and models having more blue eyes than the general population? Are you sure it's not just you noticing them more? DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I do not have actual scientific evidence for my thesis, but just, for instance, search for "[most] handsome actor" or "[most] handsome model" at Google Images, and see what you get … (Leaving out "most", you still get a fairly high ratio of blue-eyed persons regarding their relatively small percentage of the general [white] population.)--Hildeoc (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"The importance of looking youthful might explain the fact that some observers claim there is a preponderance of blue eyes in modern Hollywood films. One critic complained that apart from the lead, who was black, everyone in Beverly Hills Cop was blue-eyed. This may be an exaggeration but many top stars do seem to be blue-eyed (e.g. Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Steve McQueen) and according to the manufacturers of contact lenses blue is the colour most often requested. Blue eyes look young because they are associated with babies (in the same way that natural blond hair is more common in children than adults). On the other hand , blue may be preferred by film-makers simply because it is more colourful. Before 1940, dark-eyed heroes and heroines (such as Olivier) may have been preferred because they look more striking in black and white..."

Psychology for Performing Artists: Butterflies and Bouquets (p. 87) (sorry it's a snippet view, I had to crunch this out of the search results). Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would "non-reactivity" be a good quality for an actor? I thought that half of "acting" (i.e., the skill, or the craft) was "reacting" ... no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they were thinking about controlling their reactions? "Reacting" as a skill is to react in the way that the scene calls for rather than the way you naturally would. --Khajidha (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, reactivity means that your mood or emotions depend primarily from what appens around you, while non reactivity means that you keep some control on your mood and emotions, which is of course an advantage for actors, whose job is just to experience every emotions and to produce on command every mood that is requested by the script (e.g. [[11]]). The question is rather whether the quora source can really prove that "blue eyed people often have better self-pacing and non-reactivity". Than who? 2003:F5:6F0F:6500:38C7:928B:9AB4:495F (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Marco PB

Yes, makes sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Than non-blue eyed people, obviously.--Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

But then blue eyes can change to brown, but not the other way round. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:6900:274:458:F067 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

But see "Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue" 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

[12]. 150.143.96.88 (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not true. You can change your eye colour to blue with a laser, though the jury is still out on how safe it is. Matt Deres (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

July 19

What are the best books about German logistics in World War II?

What are the best books about German logistics in World War II? I'm asking for a friend. Futurist110 (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but Logistics in World War II: 1939–1945 by John Norris has been published this year, although not specific to Germany. You might consider posting this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history; they're a helpful bunch. Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; will do! Futurist110 (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sky people who turned into arrows

In Hynek's book the Edge of Reality he talks about Sioux believing in people who came from the sky and then left (presumably when white man came) - "The Sioux, for instance, state that when the sky people left they changed themselves into arrows and went off into the sky." Hynek attributes this story to a "historian of Indian cultures" in Bottineau, ND. Who are these sky people? I can't find anything about them on Wikipedia or on the web, excepting Ancient Aliens-era nonsense. 93.136.3.127 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, [13] here is a reference that discusses the Sioux concept of a tripartite division of the cosmos, and the sky people who lived in the upper part. Start on page 42. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Link says access denied 93.136.3.127 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nvm I think I found it elsewhere [14] :-) 93.136.3.127 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"including the Scandinavian"

The book "Your Inner Self" by Louis K Bisch, published in New York in 1922, says on page 6:

Copyright 1922 by Doubleday, Page & Company. All rights reserved, including that of translation into foreign languages, including the Scandinavian.

Why single out the Scandinavian languages? Marnanel (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This podcast [15] claims to explain it. (I haven't listened through it yet, so can't say if it makes any sense.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is a clip from A Way with Words saying it had to do with Scandinavian countries not being part of international copyright law agreements between European countries and the US and Canada until quite a bit later. Apparently "including the Scandinavian" was part of the standard boilerplate in books published during this time. It was something people noticed at the time too. The clip then talks about "what happens when jargon leaves the place where it's most at home" (a caller had mentioned the humorous appearance of 'including the Scandinavian' in the movie Lifeboat). I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia yet. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Held without bail pending trial

Person X is arrested and denied bail based on reasonable arguments that she is a flight risk, ok fine. So she is locked up pending trial but presumptively not an actual criminal unless eventually convicted. Incarcerated convicts are (to put it succinctly) treated as criminals (denied communications, etc.) because they are criminals, at least legally speaking. While when someone is jailed pending trial, it's supposedly purely to make sure they don't hop on a speedboat and set out for wherever. So is there a reason they're not allowed to take their own cell phones into jail with them, order meals sent in, etc.? "Person X" here was inspired by person G recently in the news, but also a buddy of mine got arrested some years back and was also in jail for a while and couldn't make phone calls from there, despite not having been convicted. This doesn't seem so great. Anyone know if there has been controversy over this? Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

So, while you’re innocent until proven guilty, that you’re even going to stand trial means that there’s probable cause to believe you broke the law. So there’s that. As to why pretrial detention is a thing, and why it’s strict as it is, has to do both with securing appearances (this is very controversial currently, with many arguing that the bail business disproportionately affects minorities) and ensuring protection of the community. This latter point ties back into the probable cause issue; while you’re innocent until proved guilty, there’s probable cause to believe you can be proved guilty and therefore can be detained. The conditions of detention are the result of many issues, including maintaining order, the safety of COs and other detainees, the impossibility of protecting detainees’ personal property in a custodial situation (what happens when you get your cell phone and jewelry stolen?). While there is arguably a punitive effect of pretrial detention, I don’t believe it’s supposed to be a driving force. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretrial detention is inevitable, but how often and how long it's applied depends on the country. In many countries in Europe pretrial detention is time-limited. The prosecution has to request and judge approve extensions if the trial drags out longer than expected. The accused is also not sent to prison until he/she has been convicted in the highest court or did not appeal a conviction. If he/she is kept detained it's still considered and handled as pretrial detention. If there is a pretrial detention or extension of it, it has to be specifically justified as in flight risk, risk of harm, influencing witnesses etc. You see stories on the Internet of people in the USA being arrested "for running a red light" or drinking and driving. The justice system has to come up with a definite cause to put someone in jail (let alone prison) here. The negative consequence is that it can drag out a process. I know of a person who was accused of a crime, sentenced to 3 years and fought it all the way up the court system, but the original sentence was upheld by the last court and the person had to go to prison after spending 5 years fighting it (so 8 years in total, tho only the last 3 were spent behind bars). 93.136.3.127 (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In the US all you need to do is make a speedy trial demand. But it's not typically in the accused's best interest to make his defense attorney hurry up. Most criminal continuances are by consent. But of course, when the accused is in custody, it's usually not desirable. Anyway, the prison/jail distinction is the same in the US as in Europe: You don't go to prison until convicted and sentenced, and can often be bailed during the pendency of appeals. The rest of what you say is just a reformulation of the arguments against the criminal bail system, which is very much under scrutiny right now in connection with current events. But we're getting somewhat afield. The OP's question was about the legal and public policy justifications for pretrial detention in spite of the Constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the question of how often pretrial detention should be applied is in the scope of OP's question. I.e. should a cooperative drunk driver facing most likely only a fine be held until a bail hearing, should a person convicted of a non-violent crime but appealing the conviction be detained, etc. Compared to Europe, US veers towards detention. While we don't disagree that there is just cause for pretrial detention in spite of the presumption of innocence (which is guaranteed in Europe too), there is still much political discourse to be had about whose approach should be applied. 93.136.3.127 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind I see we're not disagreeing here. 93.136.3.127 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that upon conviction the time already spent in custody is counted as part of the sentence, which results in many people walking free from the court after sentence is pronounced. 150.143.96.88 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Senator attacked

I remember a news story from around 2007-2010 about an American senator being injured in an assasination attempt/attack. I believe the senator was female (though I'm not sure, that shouldn't exclude male candidates) and I'm not sure if they survived. Does anyone have any information on who this senator might have been? Thanks for any information, Heyoostorm (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Giffords was a member of the House of Representatives. Her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, is currently running for a United States Senate seat in Arizona. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that Giffords was a Representative and not a Senator, she is probably the person the original poster was thinking of. The phrasing of the initial question makes me think that the OP is not an American and may not be completely clear on the distinction between the two houses of the US Congress. I mean, how many people in any one country really understand the governments of most other countries? --Khajidha (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I understand the United States governmental system well. I believed the person was a Senator, but didn't think to include that the person could have been from the other house. Heyoostorm (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It does appear Gabrielle Giffords was the person, thank you for the help! Heyoostorm (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

July 20

Who was George Tuld?

I read that George Tuld wrote articles on chromatography. So he may be a chemist. But I do not find any biography of him. Who was he? Horus1927 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

References

It looks like his name was actually George Field. (In any event, Mr. Field published Chromatography, or, A treatise on colours and pigments in 1835. The dictionary you linked to has "Chromatography; a Treatise on Colours and Pigments, Lon., 1841, 8vo."). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Who was Aupin?

I read that Aupin was a French chemist and a student of Prof Malaguti. But there is no biography to be found. Can anyone help with a biographical profile? Horus1927 01:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

References

Smoke in South Africa

Cigarettes are now illegal in South Africa.News reports state that 180 people were arrested over the weekend for the sale of illegal cigarettes. I have several questions...1. Is this just a COVID measure or is this expected to be a permanent stance? 2. Has any other government globally taken this stance during COVID? and 3. The most important question, are there any countries in the world where the sale, purchase and or consumption of tobacco is illegal? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.130.137 (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

For question 3, List of smoking bans tells me that Bhutan is the only country in the world to outright ban the existence and usage of tobacco products within the nation since 2005, with the heavily taxed exception of importing tobacco for personal use only. Even the imagery of tobacco products in advertisements and works of fiction are censored out with the exception of educational clips produced for the purpose of health promotion. A few other countries such as Turkey, South Korea, Netherlands, and I think recently the Philippines have come close but not quite to the level of Bhutan's strictness. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Here are a couple of articles on the ban in South Africa: [16], [17]. It was originally a measure related to COVID-19 and confinement, but since it is still current while other confinement measures have been lifted, there is speculation that some may wish to make the measure permanent (I couldn't find any article on the government's official position, but it must be out there). The first article mentions that India and Botswana decreed a similar ban when the crisis started, but have since lifted it. See also the article smoking ban which mentions that Bhutan and Turkmenistan have a total ban on tobacco, and other countries have stated that it is a longer-term policy goal. Tobacco sales and consumption are of course highly regulated in most countries nowadays, independent of the current coronavirus pandemic. Xuxl (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Gauging the "intent" of a governmental body, given it is by nature the product of many policymakers working towards various goals, is a notoriously difficult process. While official statements are relevant they often do not exactly represent reality. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The cigarettes may, or may also, have been illegal in the sense of being manufactured, or imported, or sold, or a permutation of the foregoing without the applicable taxes being paid and/or safety regulations being complied with. Many governments raise significant revenues from taxing recreational drugs like tobacco (and alcohol), and prosecute those evading the taxes.

In the UK crimes involving the sale of smuggled/illegal cigarettes are not uncommon, and in the US a recent police homicide, which contributed to the creation of the Black Lives Matter campaign, involved the arrest of a Black man allegedly selling individual cigarettes on the street illegally. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The interstate smuggling of cigarettes to avoid taxes (that is, so the retailer can pocket the difference) was pretty common in the US some years ago. Here's a story of one operation being broken up in New York. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

How did they do this movie scene?

I'm retired and watch a movie a day. Yesterday it was "The Hound of the Baskervilles." In one of the last episodes the villain, Singleton, tries to escape and steps into a bog and drowns with screams "Help me! Help me." That scene was actually shot cheaply, unconvincing. All the background is blackened out, the face is naturally visible, but I am sure they shot it in a bathtub. But how about that Arab boy, Daud, who disappeared in the quicksand in Laurence of Arabia? It was in broad daylight, desert sands were visible on miles around. How in the world did they do it? AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It will help if you'd please let us know which version of Hound that you saw. There are a baying pack of them out there and several different ways to fake someone sinking into the ground :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP is asking about the scene in Lawrence of Arabia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say, the Hound of the Baskervilles scene he's describing is the one at 1'38" of this video, but that's not relevant to answering the question. --Viennese Waltz 22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Having just watched the relevant clip on a popular video sharing website (search on 'Lawrence of Arabia quicksand'): the scene is cleverly shot and edited, but in all of the close-up views one can only see a patch of dry sand a few yards across, which I presume could easily have had a buried structure hidden under it to create the sinking sand effect. The medium and long-shot views (not necessarily shot in exactly the same place) merely show the actor in a shallow hole dug in the desert, and one never sees the victim actually disappear beneath the sand – there is a cut away to the onlookers just before that supposed point.

The episode is dubious anyway, since ordinary quicksand is formed by upwelling water, and Dry quicksand has been created in the laboratory, but has never been proven to occur naturally on Earth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all. @Viennese Waltz correctly posted the video I watched. I actually watched it as a part of so called "Brit Box," a subscription service. The episode of drowning is almost at the end. Now I will have to re-watch the Laurence of Arabia to see all the details I missed. AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, there is something fishy about this scene (the edges of the funnel-like hole are not round) but is is still very impressive, very dramatic. AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

July 21

Self Verification of the Third Estate during the early days of the French Revolution

When Louis XVI called the Estates General in 1789, it set off a litany of events that would culminate in the French Revolution. My question pertains to this early period, just as the Third Estate refashions itself into the National Constituent Assembly. What did "verification" mean as it pertained to the delegates of the Estates-General and what did it mean that members of the Third Estate began to "self-verify" their delegates? My hunch is that it has to do with some sort of legitimizing process but I honestly have no idea. Any discussion on the topic would be greatly appreciated. Thank you folks in advance for your help. 2601:583:8302:1900:94E7:EE58:933B:B6BD (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Example nations with civil law systems without constitution

Are there any examples of civil law systems with no constitution? Clover345 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Us code

What is the difference between acts of congress and US code? Clover345 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC) And also executive orders. Clover345 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)