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

November 10

self-injected medicines

Not seeking medical or legal advice: this is intended to be about health policy. I'm wondering what the general rules are about letting people inject themselves with drugs (such as vaccines), since going to the doctor to get a shot seems like a needless Covid-19 hazard these days if you can give yourself the shot instead. I know diabetics inject themselves with insulin, and I have the impression that you can't buy injectables without a prescription because they don't want junkies to have easy access to needles, but I'm wondering if there are other issues around self-injection if you have a prescription (perhaps through tele-medicine) for the drug. Do diabetics have to get in-person instruction to make sure they don't stick themselves in the eye or anything like that? I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of giving myself a shot if the doctor says I can do it, but obviously am not requesting individualized advice about that here on refdesk. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wild guess: legal jurisdiction makes all the difference in the (known) world. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's what I meant about it being general. I'm in California and there was a guy from (I don't remember which country) who was surprised that we can't just go into a store and buy syringes here. He uses them for non-medical purposes like dispensing tiny amounts of lubricants into machinery. Oh well, I'll ask my doctor about doing it myself when the time comes. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you even know that you can't? Where I live (Ontario, Canada), some products in drugstores are not stocked on open shelves but that may just mean you have to speak to the pharmacist, not that you need a prescription. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Unlikely. Several vaccine candidates require cryogenic storage to stay effective. Moderna’s vaccine requires −4 degrees Fahrenheit and Pfizer’s −94 degrees Fahrenheit.[1] And that is during transport as well as storage. Rmhermen (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Corrected your minus signs for clarity.) --174.95.161.129 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think some drugs are easier than others for relatively ignorant people to self-inject. It took about 2 minutes for them to teach me how to inject myself with Heparin subcutaneously, but it's fairly hard to get that wrong. Not a doctor, but I'm fairly confident it wouldn't be so easy if they'd have wanted it done intravenously or some of the other types of injection. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Type 1 diabetic here. Likewise, it was very easy to learn how to inject insulin when I was first diagnosed, but insulin is injected subcutaneously using a short, fine needle. It's very easy to do. Turner Street (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The Menin Gate, and what others?

Our article on the Menin Gate says that Reginald Blomfield said that this work of his was one of three that he wanted to be remembered by. What were the other two? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Stronger than just being one of three, apparently this was the one work Blomfield wanted most to be remembered by, since he later wrote, "With me the Menin Gate is perhaps the only building I have ever designed in which I do not want anything altered, and if I am ever remembered I hope it may be by the Menin Gate."^[2] There is a citation that GBS's snippet view does not afford me to see, but which is probably from his Memoirs of an Architect. It is likely that these memoirs will also reveal the other two works, but I did not spot an online version.  --Lambiam 10:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"[I]f I am ever remembered, I hope it may be by the Menin Gate, my design for the completion of the Quadrant and Lambeth Bridge." From Blomfield's Memoirs of an Architect. --Antiquary (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam: and @Antiquary: Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bush v. Gore

A question about Bush v. Gore. In looking at it, I am somewhat surprised that the plaintiff and the defendant are actually Bush and Gore. I would have thought it would be something like "the DNC v. Florida Secretary of State" ... or "Gore v. Board of Electors" ... or "Gore Campaign v. Bush Campaign" ... or something like that. I can't imagine that the individual named Al Gore sued the individual named George Bush. (If so, what did Gore allege that Bush did, illegally?) I mean ... Bush himself does not count the votes ... or certify the winner ... or any such thing. How does Bush find himself being a defendant? Or is the Bush v. Gore title some simplified sort of short-hand / parlance for a lengthier and fuller title? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: I see in the article that the full title is George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph Lieberman, et al. But, my question above still stands. Wasn't the thrust of the lawsuit that the State of Florida should / should not count certain ballots ... or should / should not certify their results ... or should / should not hold a recount .. or something like that? Bush himself and Gore himself, technically, have nothing to do with the election process / procedure ... no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Joseph's logic makes sense for the defendant but not for the plaintiff, as Bush is the one who was claiming he was damaged by events. By this reasoning I would have expected Bush v. Florida. But it wasn't that either. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

After looking at the case a bit, I think that what Gore did to get his name in the case title was to request the manual recounts that were not mandatory under state law. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This came up here last week and I remember mentioning Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close To Call, which was apparently a detailed write-up about the lawsuits. I never got around to reading it, but it was supposed to have been good. You might look for it if you are trying to research this topic. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The naming is pretty straightforward. The case below was Gore v. Harris (Harris being the Florida Secretary of State at the time), but the petitioner for certiorari was Bush and respondent was Gore, therefore the case at SCOTUS was Bush v. Gore. There were likely many, many more parties and intervenors below; the information on this is not readily available. But at the end of the day, the two parties that were most impacted by the Supreme Court's decision were the parties to the petition for certiorari. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, and as an aside, it’s worth noting that SCOTUS case names are partly decided by the petitioner (insofar as the petitioner writes the case caption). The Supreme Court rules do specify issues like who the parties to a petition are. Current Supreme Court Rule 12.6 as well as 12.4 are relevant (and in the 1999 Rules as well). There may be additional mechanics I’m not aware of. Another matter is that cases appealed from a state court system, particularly where they involve some unusual procedural history, can seem very strange. A classic example is Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee. As an additional aside, now and again there is controversy over who the lead parties are in a case. Zubik v. Burwell annoyed some conservative commentators because another party to the case was a Catholic charity called Little Sisters of the Poor, and it struck them as a missed PR opportunity to make the Obama administration look like it bullied nuns and the impoverished. A more recent case indicates people picked up on that. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A High Court case involving a dispute between an Arab king and his wife was listed under fictitious names. For reasons of commercial sensitivity/privacy cases may proceed under initials or case numbers. For example, when I brought a winding-up petition against a rather useless bank, which was handled by the renowned Mr Justice Harman, in the Chancery Division it was listed simply as "In re a Company No 00**** of 1991." 95.145.0.52 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In yesterday's Evening Standard under the byline Listing error gives Bugs Bunny his day in court we read:

Officials have blamed a testing error after a string of cartoon characters were listed as defendants at a crown court.

Initial lists issued for Stoke-on-Trent crown court showed Bugs Bunny, Captain Hook, Road Runner and Buzz Lightyear as due for hearing today. Mickey and Minnie Mouse were also listed as being due before a judge from 10am. The courts system has been beset by problems because of the Covid crisis. There was online speculation the list was a staff prank.

Something similar happened when I worked in the pools industry. Coupons were inserted into national newspapers and agency staff were recruited to type name and address details into the mailing list when they came back. The same characters appeared. When I worked in Fleet Street the casuals were supposed to declare their earnings to the Inland Revenue for tax. Similar names were entered on the timesheets. 95.145.0.52 (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

NAIDOC Week

There's an annual event in Australia called NAIDOC Week. It celebrates all indigenous Australian peoples, cultures and traditions. It's usually held in early July but this year it was put back to November (this is NAIDOC Week now).

NAIDOC stands for National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee.

While I'm aware the celebrations are not about the Committee as such, except maybe in passing, I can't think of any other national-level cultural event in any other country that was named after a committee. Is there such a beast? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Is a party the same as a committee for your purposes? July 1 in China is observed as Chinese Communist Party Founding Day. --Jayron32 13:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think they're different. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump vs Biden

I don't understand US law fully. I would like to know if the lawsuits etc. that Trump is bringing in relation to the recent election are merely protests or is there a realistic chance that the result will be reversed? Is there any precedence for this? Thanks. -- 86.157.89.50

There is nothing wrong with contesting election results. It has happened often and has even led to reversing a few results. However, the fact that we are talking about a handful of states, each with 10s or 100s of thousands of vote margins in favor of Biden, means that there would need to be conclusive evidence of MASSIVE fraud and corruption for that to happen here. What we are watching here is what a friend of mine has called a "Trumper tantrum". A bully who has always been able to get his way by bluster is having to face up to the fact that people are tired of his act. --Khajidha (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

While no one can know the internal workings of another person's mind, on the face of it the justification for the lawsuits is that the Trump campaign believes that large numbers of illegally cast ballots were counted in states where Trump lost by narrow margins, and that these illegally cast ballots were the difference in his losing those states. It is unclear exactly what about the votes that the Trump campaign is alleging makes them illegal, and several already-decided court cases have said as much, see Here where a Michigan judge threw out the lawsuit over the matter, as has one in Pennsylvania, as has one in Georgia. The central issue seems to be a lack of evidence of the levels of illegal voting or fraud that the Trump campaign alleges, the Trump campaign lawyers seem to be making the allegations, but provide no basis for the allegations, or any specificity on even the kind of fraud they allege happened. --Jayron32 14:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

In America, anyone can sue anyone about anything. That doesn't mean it will go anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A progressive commentator Cenk Uygur claimed that Trump is collecting donations for the lawsuits but the fine print notes that half the donations are being redirected to campaign expenses. So the lawsuits may provide cover to raise more money to pay off the expenses of pre-vote rallies. Rmhermen (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

As of a day or so ago, prediction markets were giving Trump an implied odds in the area of 10-1 of being able to stay in office. I.e. a long shot but not impossible. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the sole purpose of the lawsuits is to protest the election outcome, as that would be an inappropriate use of the courts and subject the lawyers signing the papers to sanction. See FRCP Rule 11 (particularly Rule 11(b)) and comparable state laws/rules dealing with representations to the courts. There is precedent for protesting election results in the courts, but the scale necessary to change the outcome appears to be unprecedented. The issue I would want to know about is whether a lawsuit would fail for mootness if it couldn't change the national outcome. I could make arguments in either direction. And Rule 11(b)(2) is a low enough bar in practice that I believe it could be met. Election issues, after all, if subject to strict mootness would arguably be capable of repetition, yet evading review. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

January 20, 2021 . . . what if . . .

No surprise that Trump is doing everything possible to thwart to election results in his favor. What if . . . Trump manages to delay things and no one is able to be sworn in on Jan 20/21? Would someone be sworn in as "interim President?" 216.223.104.13 (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, section 3, to wit:

If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. (bold mine)

.

That law in question is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which in this case would be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That will be the incoming HofR, since they are seated on January 3, and elect their officers shortly thereafter. --Jayron32 16:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So, potentially, Kamala Harris or Nancy Pelosi could become interim President if the situation is not rectified? If the latter (especially), wouldn't THAT get Trump going! 216.223.104.13 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, though because of the way that the VP and President come as a "package deal", Harris is as unlikely as Biden (the same with Trump/Pence) if the results were still in dispute January 20. The likely acting president would be Nancy Pelosi, given that it is quite likely that a) the Democratic Party will win the House and b) She would be selected the Speaker. It is worth noting that she would only be an acting President and her role would only extend until the dispute was resolved; the law is clear that she would not become a regular President, and that the regular President would become President as soon as we know who that is. She would, however, have all of the powers of the President, just on a temporary basis until the dispute were resolved. I should stipulate that we do know who won the election, and there is no significant dispute over these results, excepting from the person who lost the election and some of his supporters. --Jayron32 16:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So, on 14 December, the Electors in the Electoral College cast their votes-in theory-for the presidential candidate that their state voted for. I say "in theory" because as I understand it, the US constitution does not require that the Electors must follow the popular vote of their states (except those that have legislated that they must do so). But assuming that on that date they vote as their states popular vote, then is not the die cast that Biden/Harris are POUS and VPOUS? --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much. All that's left then is for the joint session of Congress to receive and count the electors' votes. Electors' votes can be rejected, but only by a majority of both Houses of Congress. See Electoral College (United States). --47.152.93.24 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Besides the point. Matt Deres (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Side comment: Julius Caesar's remark is usually translated as "the die is cast", but we don't usually use "cast" with that meaning today. We'd more likely say "the dice have been rolled" (and the implication is that now we'll have to see how they come up). He wasn't talking about casting, which creates something in its pretty much its finished form (with Bill's intended implication that things are settled). --174.95.161.129 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC) The meaning of "cast" in "the die is cast" doesn't seem all that rare, at least not in my ENGVAR. --Khajidha (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Seconded: I would expect any literate Brit to be familiar with the term and its origin, and recognise Billreid's variation on it, although amusingly, "die cast" also has a metallurgical meaning which might also be applicable to the situation – once cast, a metal object's shape is hard to alter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.136.194 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC) I'm perplexed. Billreid's usage of "cast" is the utterly normal and everyday usage for submitting a ballot or vote. Caesar's usage of "cast" is a little antiquated now but well understood through fixed terms like "the die is cast" and "casting pearly before swine". Hatting this as it's both wrong and beside the point. Matt Deres (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Another question about recounting in Florida in 2000

Is it true that each county in Florida in 2000 only had one canvassing board for the entire county--composed of just three people--with this canvassing board being responsible for conducting manual recounts in the Florida county that it was operating in?

At the very least, this is what another Wikipedia user's comments right here suggest, no? Futurist110 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You should ask that user directly what they meant. We are not mind readers. RudolfRed (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I already did. I am simply asking here just to make sure that this person's information is indeed correct. Futurist110 (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that is right. I don't know if the 3 person board had to personally examine every ballot. I think the ballots were counted by ordinary election clerks in front of observers representing the candidates. The idea was that if a ballot obviously properly marked Bush or Gore, the observers would nod and the ballot would get counted that way. If there was some problem with the ballot like a stray pencil mark, either or both of the observers could object to it being counted, and then the ballot would go to the 3-person canvassing board which could do a majority vote, and maybe after that, the board's decision was potentially contestable in court. There were a lot of spurious objections early on, but then after some court decisions the process went efficiently. Did you ever look at Toobin's book about the recount? You probably should, given your continued interest in the topic. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

How many ordinary election clerks were there doing this? Also, to clarify--in manual recounts, ordinary election clerks manually re-examined all of the ballots in their counties, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You're probably best off looking at news reports from the time, like in the Palm Beach Post which may have online archives. Also, Toobin's book. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

November 11

What would have happened to a white/black person who would have openly expressed support for miscegenation in the Jim Crow South but without actually personally engaging in this practice?

What would have happened to a white person who would have openly expressed support for miscegenation (interracial sex) in the Jim Crow South but without actually personally engaging in this practice? What about to a black person in an equivalent position? Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole book "The Freedom-of-Thought-Struggle in the Old South" by Clement Eaton (final revised edition 1964) which describes the narrowing of tolerated opinions as time went on during the pre-Civil-War period. The "Jim Crow South" can cover a lot of time (as early as 1876 and as late as 1965) and space, during which there were various oscillations between slight relaxation and increased severity... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. You might be interested in Richard Mentor Johnson -- he managed to just barely be elected vice president in 1836, despite having a Black common-law wife, because she was dead by 1836, and their union had taken place in a kind of frontier context. Tolerance of this would have been less in following years and/or in more settled areas. AnonMoos (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

TBF, though, he lived in the antebellum South as opposed to in the Jim Crow South. In the antebellum South, race mixing might have covertly been more socially tolerated--and of course lynching was much less tolerated in the antebellum South (in comparison to the Jim Crow South) because black slaves (90% of the Southern US's black population until the American Civil War) were perceived as being valuable property in the antebellum South. Futurist110 (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting your statistics from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

From here--though it's worth noting that this figure was actually slightly below 90%. I was rounding up here. Futurist110 (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

November 12

Balance of power in US Senate for 2021

There is much talk of the "balance of power" in the US Senate (for 2021) resting on the results of two Georgia senatorial elections (or run-offs). Why does Georgia have two senators facing election in the same year? I thought that the Senate was divided into 3 classes (Class A, B, C ... or Class 1, 2, 3) ... such that both senators from any given state are in a different class and, therefore, in a different election cycle. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That is normally the case, but one of the races is a special election to replace a senator who resigned. See 2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia. --Khajidha (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I looked at that. So, they are having both a regular election and a special election at the same time. For the winner of the special election ... do they get a 6-year term? Or do they just "finish up" the balance of the retiring guy's term? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Finish up the balance of the term. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The same will apply to whoever is appointed to fill Kamala Harris's senate seat. That person will only serve out of the balance of the term and not a full six years. RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

For full details see Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Circassians: Italian and Russian language sources help request

Greetings,

1) While working on Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları (Ottoman women slave markets) I came across Circassians related following 1592 AD quote of Lorenzo Bernardo, Venetian Ambassador in a self published source. But I guess that would be available in Italian or Russian language alternate sources, can some one help out making it available

"...Turkey is bordering with Adyghas and Mingrelians, who represent something like slave mine, whom they take to Constantinople like cattle and sell them in auctions..." By Lorenzo Bernardo, Venetian Ambassador 1592 AD

2) There are three Scholarly research in Russian language by scholars of Circasain descent. I am looking for help in some gist from following which may be used in Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları or Circassians

• • Emilia Sheudzhen’s “The Adygs (Circassians) in Historical Memory” (Moscow and Maikop, 2010),
  • Fatima Ozova’s “Studies on the Political History of Circassia” (Pyatigorsk and Cherkessk, 2013),
  • and Marina Khakuasheva’s “In Search of Lost Meaning” (Nalchik, 2013).

3) While Circassians women slavery in Ottoman empire is lot eulogised, Own Circassians women voices seem to be scant. I am looking for Circassians women's folklore or folk songs which might be covering slavery issues.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

As to item 1, I suspect the original report from the Venetian ambassador is contained in: E. Alberi, Relazione degli Ambasciatori veneti al Senato, Series III,^[3] a multi-volume work that only major or specialized libraries would have. Your best chance may be to ask the author for his source. I think the Circassian Benevolent Association should be able to assist in establishing a contact, if the author is still alive – he should be 93 now and the Russian Wikipedia only gives a birth year for him, and last year he was awarded the 2019 CRO Lifetime Achievement Award,^[4] but as a literary prize in his name has recently been established,^[5] I am not so sure.  --Lambiam 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings @ User:Lambiam, I came across similarly matching Italian wording snippet "...Nella relazione sull ' Impero ottomano dell ' ambasciatore veneziano Lorenzo Bernardo , del 1592 , si dice che la Turchia confina con i Circassi e i Mingreli che « si offrono come miniera per l ' estrazione degli schiavi , poiché si preoccupano..." @ Lorenzo Bernardo "Miscellanea di studi storici, 2. (Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, 38.) Genoa: Istituto di Medievistica, Università di Genova, 1983. This seems to be journal. I am not sure if this can be used as reliable source, any ways I will try to confirm original source too if possible. Thanks and very nice support of you. Warm regards Bookku (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That passage with a quote of ambassador Bernardo is indeed sourced to Alberi, as I suspected, and specifically to p. 388 (no indication of the volume, but perhaps they are numbered consecutively). This is from an article in a serious scholarly publication, published under the auspices of an institute of history at a university, so I think it can be used as a reliable source. The full reference to the article is: E. S. Zevakin and A. Penčko, "Ricerche sulla storia delle colonie genovesi nel Caucaso occidentale nei secoli XIII-XV", translated from the Russian by Maria Teresa Dellacasa, in Miscellanea di studi storici, vol. 1, (Genoa: Fratelli Bozzi, 1969), pp. 7–98. It is not clear whether this should be considered a journal; it is more like a series of books, since volume 2 only appeared in 1983. The full text of the relevant passage, which occurs on p. 41, is: "Nella relazione sull'Impero ottomano dell'ambasciatore veneziano Lorenzo Bernardo, del 1592, si dice che la Turchia confina con i Circassi e i Mingreli che « si offrono come miniera per l ' estrazione degli schiavi, poiché si preoccupano di guadagnarsi la vita trasportando gli schiavi a Costantinopoli a guisa di bestiame e vendendoli sulla pubblica piazza »." Translation (credit to Google Translate): "In the 1592 report on the Ottoman Empire by the Venetian ambassador Lorenzo Bernardo, it is said that Turkey borders on the Circassians and the Mingrelis who 'offer themselves as a mine for the extraction of slaves, since they are concerned about earning a living by transporting slaves in Constantinople in the guise of cattle and selling them on the public square'." I have not investigated whether the Russian text of the article has been published as such.  --Lambiam 12:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Lambiam Many thanks for your valuable proactive and informative support. Thanks again and regards Bookku (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What publisher does 'Typis Caroli Georgi Univ. Typogr.' refer to?

I'm currently looking at this book, a doctoral thesis published in Latin in 1876 at the University of Bonn. A quick Google search reveals many other works whose publishing is attributed to Typis Caroli Georgi Univ. Typogr. What publisher does this Latin name refer to? ~★ nmaia ^d 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a "Carl Georgi Universitäts-Buchdruckerei" in Bonn [6], serving as the local academic publisher for Bonn University. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

For the meaning of the Latin term typis, see here, sense 5.2. Caroli Georgi, Universitatis typographi means "of Carl Georgi, printer of the University"; "Carolus" is the Latinization of the German name "Carl", and "the University" is the University of Bonn (see the word "Bonnae" one line up). So together it means "From the printery of Carl Georgi, printer of the University of Bonn".  --Lambiam 19:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was printed by Charles George of Bonn, but published by a... Frederica Wilhelma University of the Rhein? Temerarius (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the University of Bonn's official name, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (our article has a bit more info about the background of that name.) But the university isn't technically the publisher here, it's just where it was submitted as a PhD thesis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Fredericius Guilelmius is a Latinized adjective corresponding to the name "Friedrich Wilhelm". It has feminine endings here because it is governed by Universitas, which is feminine in Latin (like all words ending in -itas).  --Lambiam 20:32, 12 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Who was "Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse"?

Our article George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston mentions a Sir Charles Waterhouse as involved in the shenanigans over the succession to Bonar Law. The source given, Mosley, Leonard (1961). Curzon: The End of an Epoch. pp. 264–275. calls him Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse, and says he was Personal Private Secretary to Law. The only google hit I get for "Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse" is the Mosley work. Now, there was a Captain the Rt Hon Charles Waterhouse, but he was neither a colonel nor a knight. Was he the person Mosley meant? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bonar's PPS in the early 1920s was Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Ronald Dockray Waterhouse (1878-1942). MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Many thanks - he's in Who Was Who, Waterhouse (2008). "Waterhouse, Lt-Col Sir Ronald". Who's Who. A & C Black. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U233166. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |othernames= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) which confirms that. He ought to have an article here IMO. Now, what to do about our use of Mosley? Our reliable source is obviously unreliable on this point! DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I would correct the name in the article but add a footnote describing the difference from the original text. Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This source gets the first name of Law's private secretary right but explicitly absolves Stamfordham from having conveyed Davidson's memorandum to the King. The full passage is:

"Davidson appraised Curzon and Baldwin in a long memorandum, stating chiefly that in this democratic age it would seem advisable for a prime minister to be in the House of Commons. Did Davidson deliver this to Stamfordham or to the King? He did not. The memorandum, of which Law knew nothing, together with Law's letter of resignation, were conveyed to the King by Colonel Ronald Waterhouse, Law's principal private secretary."

The discrepancy with Mosley thus extends quite a bit beyond Waterhouse's first name. A more complicated story, in which Waterhouse delivers Law's resignation letter to the King but leaves the anti-Curzon memorandum he allegedly co-wrote with Davidson with Stamfordham, is found here in a richly sourced source; the source given for that particular statement is "Dawson diary, June 17 1923 in Wrench, p. 219",^[7] where "Wrench" refers to: John Evelyn Wrench (1955), Geoffrey Dawson and Our Times. Other sources have yet other versions; there is Davidson's Memoirs of a Conservative (too involved to be necessarily reliable), and secondary sources may be preferable, but they too can get it wrong. This source even makes Waterhouse Baldwin's "own Private Secretary".  --Lambiam 08:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web they weave! Waterhouse was Baldwin's PPS when Baldwin was PM, according to Who's Who. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral College in the 2020 elections

In a nutshell, why Biden was declared the winner of the elections and president-elect before the Electoral College vote on December 14? Especially since there were elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was Trump declared the winner in early November 2016?[8] Why was Obama declared the victor in early November 2012[9] and 2008?[10] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "declared". He hasn't been declared the winner in any legally binding sense. Not all the states have even "certified" their results yet, and challenges post-certification are possible (as happened in 2000). But barring very unlikely scenarios, it's clear that Biden will get more than 270 electoral votes on December 14, and various news organizations have taken notice of that fact, which is all it means to say that they have "declared" him the winner. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite simply because the most likely result based on the unofficial vote totals is that a majority of EC electors will be pledged to vote for Biden, which all but guarantees he will be elected President. The practice of calling someone President-Elect before the EC meets, and even granting that person special resources to establish a transition team, more or less makes it clear that the person who appears to have the most pledged electoral votes within a few days of the election will win the presidency. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, passed in the aftermath of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the head of the General Services Administration has the authority to ascertain the likely winner based on projections from decision desks of reliable media sources. This is a legal finding that grants the incoming president-elect with significant government resources and guaranteed access to the top leadership of every federal agency. In every presidential election since then, with the exception of the long contested 2000 Bush/Gore election, the authorization has been issued promptly when all major media decision desks have projected a winner. Only the Trump administration has failed to ascertain a winner, and has blocked the president-elect from accessing the resources guaranteed by law. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, if the Biden campaign’s entitlement to these resources is so clear it’s surprising he hasn’t sought mandamus relief from the courts yet, if only to protect the peacefulness and effectiveness of the transition of power. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It may be to Biden's political advantage to take no legal action and instead let Trump make a fool of himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be outrageous. If Biden is entitled to those resources then his willful refusal to seek them through legal process is to hamstring his own transition. Letting Trump “make a fool of himself” to the detriment of the Republic is frightening. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fighting outrage with outrage doesn't necessarily work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If Trump and his administration are already ignoring the legal requirements, what makes you think they would respect any legal process Biden were to pursue? --Khajidha (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Klain, Biden's chief of staff, will be the point man on any litigation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly for America, it isn't a matter for the courts (yet). The law provides certain funds and access for the presidential transition, but the definition -- when the successor is acknowledged as President-elect -- only kicks in when the Electoral College (or, if necessary House of Representatives) votes. If the incumbent wishes, as have all normal presidents in recent history, he may gracefully facilitate the transition by playing nice. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no entitlement to those transition resources. It's a discretionary matter. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the date is NOT the electoral college vote. The date defined by the law is "the day following the date of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2," and states "The terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2." This is straight from the text of PL 88-277, the law in question (bold mine). The Administrator of the General Services Administration, in this case Emily W. Murphy, is supposed to begin the process. She has, as yet, refused to acknowledge Biden as the winner, so technically she's the one holding things up. But the date for the transition is determined by law to be the day following the completion of the general election to determine the electors, i.e. November 4. --Jayron32 17:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Technically, Biden should be referred to as “President Presumptive” (or some similar term) until he is officially elected by the electoral college (which will occur on December 14th). Yes, this is pedantic, but doing would help people understand the process. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  That would be a neologism created for this election. They are always referred to as the President-elect as soon as the election is mathematically known. --Jayron32 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I will concede that I was suggesting a neologism, but not that I created it for this election (I made the same argument in 2016, and in 2008). The point is that, every 4 years, there is a period of about a month (between the general election in November and the meeting of the Electoral College in December) when we presume who WILL be elected the next President even though his or her election has not yet taken place. We need a more accurate way to describe this. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It's standard usage. What confuses you about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

On 9 November 2008 Blueboar referred to Barack Obama as "President Elect."[11][12].95.145.0.52 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There's discussion at Talk:Joe Biden. The example given is "The Olympics is scheduled to begin in August 2020" v "The Olympics will begin in August 2020". I don't think editors are obliged to take account of black swan events which are most unlikely to happen. 95.145.0.52 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking back through Newspapers.com, the term "president-elect" has been used in this way since at least the Polk election of 1844. Random other instances: Lincoln in 1860, McKinley in 1896, FDR in 1932, Eisenhower in 1952 and JFK in 1960. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump's lawyer doesn't like it but it's actually quite dangerous to not stick to the advice of the 9/11 commission and postpone the transition. Count Iblis (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And do you think that, if the boot were on the other foot, his lawyer would be having even the tiniest doubts about the result? Americans love winners, and they respect gracious losers. Petulant losers with nothing to offer but their petulancy and narcissism and vacuous threats of legal action, well, they're another story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Some Americans seem to like people, though, who keep fighting against all odds.  --Lambiam 12:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Weirdly, Sly Stallone was born on the same day as George W. Bush. Anyone who can't see a conspiracy there just doesn't have their eyes open. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious they were switched at birth. (Who you gonna believe: an anonymous Internet guy or your lying, lying eyes?) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You can't hide them. Maybe you should try disguising them, thinly, with a smile. --Trovatore (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

November 13

Significant demographic changes in Russia between 1897 and the start of World War I?

Other than seeing significant growing in its total population, did any significant demographic changes occur in Russia between the 1897 Imperial Russian Census and the start of World War I in August 1914? Imperial Russia planned to hold another census in December 1915, but this plan got cancelled due to World War I breaking out 1.5 years earlier--specifically in July 1914. However, do we have any other data and/or information that would allow us to see if anything in Russia's demographics was significantly different in 1913-1914 than it was back in 1897? Futurist110 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No change in Russian Poland. Poland was partitioned before 1897 and was reconstituted after World War I. No change in Finland. Finland was annexed before 1897 and declared independence during World War I.
Sleigh (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The southern half of Sakhalin island was ceded to Japan (with a population of 406,557 in 1941 including immigrants from Korea).
Sleigh (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Anyway, though, I was thinking more in terms of migration here. Futurist110 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Russia's population growth rate from 1850 to 1910 was the fastest of all the major powers except for the United States". [13]. Alansplodge (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Russia's Growing Population which says that Russians married young and bred like proverbial rabbits.

Thanks for that article! Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Migration seems to have been going in the opposite direction due to the pogroms in the Russian Empire.

Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For Jews specifically. Not necessarily for non-Jewish Russian ethnic groups. Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

See Pogroms in the Russian Empire. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Why Chips?

Our article says that Henry Channon acquired the nickname "Chips" at Oxford. Why Chips? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

According to this, it's because he once shared a house with someone nicknamed "Fish". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's a better source. (Read it quick, before the subscription screen appears.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: Thank you. Now... who was Fish? DuncanHill (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Compelling visually evidence it's this guy. A couple more theories, pun on "ships", brought potato chips to a cocktail party[14]. fiveby(zero) 02:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Potato chips??? In Oxford? Chips are made from potato, certainly; but they're something you serve at table, not something you bring to a cocktail party. (Yes, I do know). --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The Great Migration and an increase in crime in Northern US cities?

Did the Great Migration of African-Americans to the Northern US (and, to a lesser extent, the Western US) cause an increase (especially a large increase) in crime in Northern US cities? I know that in the present-day US there is a large correlation between an area's black percentage and its crime rate:

https://www.unz.com/runz/race-and-crime-in-america/

Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sure there was an increase in reports of crime and crime statistics and arrests as southern blacks began to run into white sheriffs up north. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that crime statistics weren't recorded in the Southern US, or what? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you suppose there are any stats about the crimes committed by white immigrants against native Americans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Against native Americans or against Native Americans? Futurist110 (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Native Americans ARE native Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You mean to say that in the American Indian Wars the U.S. Army fought against its own people?  --Lambiam 11:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

But very far from the only ones! Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact: "native Americans" are twice as likely to commit crimes as "illegal aliens"[15], while "Native Americans" appear to be even more likely, but nobody can tell for sure.[16] 93.136.22.169 (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This just shows the problem of naming people or things and also being correct or polite."Native American" is correct but imprecise. "Red Indian" was incorrect on two accounts. "Indian" is wrong. "Amerindian" may be better. I have only seen this in South American contexts. "Aboriginal" is probably insulting and implies Australia in British minds. "First nation(al)" may be better. I have only seen it used in Canadian contexts (it includes Inuit as well I think.) There may be other terms. What else could one use.Spinney Hill (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How about "the people who were already here". That covers most any immigration scenario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How about "the people"? (Does imprecise labelling of people ever achieve anything positive?) HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Motion to collapse the above disruptive/off-topic tangent. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Aw, how sweet. Making a racist argument, perhaps ignorantly, citing Ron Unz, and his white supremacist, racist, holocaust denial, antisemitic website. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the Unz Review has also sometimes argued against the conventional alt-right narrative, such as here: https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/ -- and here: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-holocaust-in-the-ussr/ But, in any case, if Ron Unz's race and crime data in that article is wrong, it would certainly be nice to see where exactly it is wrong. Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec)There is no lack of literature that would inform on this topic as simple searches show. If you are serious you might follow references in this Harvard working paper. My "thoughts" are that there are more appropriate and informative places to look than Unz Review. fiveby(zero) 16:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll check it out! Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Large-scale migration tends to cause reports of increases in crime for several reasons. First, larger populations have more crime. Second, people without established homes, jobs, or other connections to a community may be more likely to commit crimes. Third, many people seek to blame society's ills on those who are not local, i.e., migrants. It's a well-established form of bigotry. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC) .

November 14

Is the existence of Santa Claus disputed?

I thought it was an undisputed fact that Santa Claus does not exist. Is this not true? Félix An (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It might depend on how you define "Santa Claus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Virginia; see Saint Nicholas, for example. --107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

November 15

In what sense was the Second Mexican Empire an empire?

Didn't the Second Mexican Empire just supplant an earlier unitary republic in its own territory? It seems to me that would make it more like a kingdom than an empire. --Trovatore (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As Empire notes, the narrow definition is a state ruled by an emperor. Maximilian I of Mexico styled himself an emperor. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Declaring Mexico to be a mere kingdom would have been interpreted as a tacit admission that Mexico was not at the same level as Brazil (an empire since 1822)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A state can name itself whatever it wants (more accurately, people who are in charge of running a state can call it whatever they want). What made it an empire is that the people in charge called it that, and called the ruler of said state an Emperor. --Jayron32 12:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The Second Mexican Empire was a creation of the French and their Emperor of the time Napoleon III. Maximilian modelled himself on Napoleon III and no doubt wished to call himself as Emperor as a result. The French had invaded and the resulting state was the creation of conquest-like the Roman Empire of the past and the Turkish and Russian Empires of the time even thougfh unlike them it covered only one country. France of course had an overseas empire (in Africa and the West Indies) and was expanding it in Africa and into South East Asia. This empire existed when France was a Kingdom and when it became a republic in 1848. When I saw this question I assumed the "First" Mexican Empire meant the pre-Cortes Empire that was defeated by Cortes and the Spanish in the sixteenth century but I checked the Wikipedia articles and discovered Mexico had briefly had an emperor in the 1820s and this may have been another reason why Maximilian called himself Emperor and not King. In the 1820s Mexico did cover a larger area than in 1862 including California, New Mexico and Texas but that wasn't because of Mexican conquest but was land inherited from Spain and the Mexicans were there before the USA.There are and have been other single countries whose heads of state are or were styled or referred to as Emperor- Japan and formerly Iran and Ethiopia immediately come to mind. As recently as 1976 the President of the Central African Republic declared himself Emperor and lasted a such for nearly three years. That Republic had been part of the French Empire and French history may have influenced those events. Napoleon III had been President of France.Spinney Hill (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Help deciphering an artwork on a shirt.

I have been looking for more info on this design. I keep seeing it online and am not sure what it is. Can someone explain this? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/gu3yylbt6rcag7h/a2dec.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.181.100 (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It is, reportedly, "A reticle used on the Trijicon RMR sight in Rainbow Six: Siege."^[17] I guess the "Trijicon RMR" is a weapon that can be used in Rainbow Six: Siege.

Sadurmelickh , Who is this Tartar woman?

Sadurmelickh, a Tartar woman, appears in a travel account (available online @ gutenberg.org/files) of a German Johann Schiltberger who escaped from Ottomans. Johann Schiltberger's account claims to have eyewitnessed a successful revenge with 4000 women soldiers against some Tartar king's brother.

Even if we consider 4000 number may be exaggerated and if we consider if any moderate number of 100 to 400 still conducting a successful militaristic adventure would be notable enough.

Whether historians have any success in identifying Tatar king and the woman in question. If any one gets any encyclopedic information with ref at any point of time please do share / update in @ Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We may safely assume that Schiltberger's claims are not always trustworthy; see the discussion here, pages 346–348, in which the Travels are called "the Bavarian child's Robinson Crusoe", and it is said of Schiltberger himself that "he knows no myths", describing all kinds of imaginative curiosities as events he personally witnessed. Even if the Sadurmelik account is not manufactured out of whole cloth, it is likely based on a local myth, and attempts to identify the king involved or his cousin will surely prove futile.  --Lambiam 12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@ User talk:Lambiam, Yes, It seems to be unfortunate likely case of myth making and fiction in supposed to be non fiction book. May be case mishandled collation of manuscript probably we will never know. When I browsed translation of Schiltberger account with search on keyword slave I felt his account is not giving enough info on topic, and info on culture of female slavery seems largely missing. Bookku (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Connotations of "Orient" and "oriental"

Hey,

From what I can tell, the word oriental/Oriental is considered by some Asians to be offensive. Is the same true of "the Orient"? Ovinus (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The term Oriental is only considered offensive when used to describe a person. I don't think any offensive will be caused by calling Turkish tobacco "Oriental tobacco". So no, "the Orient" is just fine (unless one somehow manages to give it a racial connotation by using the term metonymically for the collective of people of Asian descent). What may be problematic is that the term has a strongly context-dependent meaning; the Orient of the Orient Express is a very different Orient from that of Orient Group Incorporation.

It would take a brave man to say that any term was inoffensive in all circumstances. Joe Biden got into trouble in 2014 for talking about "the Orient", and in some academic circles it's been treated as potentially offensive for the past twenty years. --Antiquary (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Who decided it was offensive, and why? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 16:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Edward Said deliberately and intentionally contrived to create an asymmetrical situation in which Middle-Easterners have every right to criticize Western societies, but Westerners are perceived as having no right to criticize Middle-Eastern societies, and he had a certain degree of success in achieving this cynical Machiavellian goal -- a striking degree of success in certain corners of academia. Part of Said's malicious manipulative plan was to use the word "orientalism" as a weapon, applying it to everything he personally disliked, and to silence opposing voices. AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

He did not create the asymmetrical situation whereby Western societies colonized and mistreated middle-easterners. That already happened, and he had nothing to do with it. --Jayron32 12:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

When I was on law review in law school I raised this as an issue with the editor in chief when an author referred to some clothing fashion popular in Europe something like a century ago as Oriental. The consensus of the editorial staff was that it wasn't a problem. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It was decided that "Asiatic" was offensive and it was replaced by "Asian". I can't for the life of me see why, any more than I can see why the term "near east" has been replaced by "middle east". 2A00:23C5:D10F:E000:EDD0:893B:E7E3:B62 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. The Asiatic Barred Zone? Calling people Asiatic instead of Asian sounds like "racialists" who say negroid, caucasoid, mediterraneanid, baltid, dalmatic race etc. a lot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In my mother language the cognate of "Asiatic" is used to mean someone of an Asian ethnicity/Asian phenotype (eye skin folds etc.), while the cognate of "Asian" means someone who is literally living in Asia or was born in Asia (in the same sense as "American", "British" etc.). You could say that calling by phenotype/ethnicity is racist and remove that word, but then again people want to identify as Asian American or African American etc., and you'd have no words for that. 93.136.52.233 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

They mean slightly different things, as described in here and in the lead to that article. Because of my background in archaeology, I always had a slightly different view on it anyway (detailed here). Matt Deres (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

To someone based in London, the Dutch province of Zeeland should be the Near East.  --Lambiam 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

And Zealand is far, far, far south, east, west, north, southeast, southwest, northeast, northwest and underneath; at that distance it hardly matters which way you go. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Orient comes from the Latin "oriens" which simply meant "the east." The opposite was "occidens" which meant "the west" "Oriental " is a much more common word in English than "Occidental" although the latter does exist. Both words are perhaps more poetic both in English and French. The Orient Express was a train running from Paris to Istanbul (Turkey but still in Europe.) The British I think referred to India as well as China and Japan as "Oriental" and it maybe that the word is thought offensive because it lumps all three together as one and also because it got coupled in public minds with " wily" "devious" or even "devillish." I feel a little sympathy with the above contributor (timed at 1756) and Bugs. Even "Asian" is sometimes used with intent to cause offence. Wikipedians outside Britain may not have heard of a profesional football (i.e.soccer) club called Leyton Orient. They were originally called Orient FC later Clapton Orient later Leyton Orient, then Orient again and now with the "Leyton" restored. According to Wikipedia "Orient" may be named after the Peninsular and Orient steamship line (P&O) but Clapton and Leyton are both districts of East London. I am sure their supporters treat being called the Orient as a matter of pride and not offence. From USA of course it is quicker to go west to reach China than to go east so Americans may have lost the "eastern" aspect of the word.Spinney Hill (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The question would be what term, if not "oriental", is acceptable to refer to the natives of countries including China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and so on. "Asian" is being used that way, but it's not very accurate. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 20:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should one need such a term? What do people in Japan and Laos have in common? There is no term for the Western Hemispherians, or the Tropicians, or for the Zeans (the natives of Zambia and Zimbabwe).  --Lambiam 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

East Asia is a very useful term. If "Orient" has a vague indeterminate meaning larger than East Asia but smaller than Asia as a whole, then it might not be so useful... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, East Asian is much clearer, as it pretty well covers the area I described. As to what they have in common, it would be cultural. And as to why anyone would "need" such a term, keep in mind that language evolves from what people want, not from what some almighty power decides. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

East Asian is much clearer, but very rarely used outside quite formal discussions. And let's be honest, when most people in the US or my country, Australia, describe someone as Asian or East Asian, they mean someone with slanty eyes. It's a politically correct word that came into use after the Vietnam War to replace the many pejorative terms that had been used up to that time and which had proliferated during that war. I can remember Gooks, Slopes, Charlie, and Slants. Users of the term East Asian typically have no precise idea of the ancestral background of people they describe that way. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess the police have a legitimate interest in describing wanted persons as clearly as they can. "A person of Asian appearance" covers a lot of ground, but equally it eliminates a great deal of other ground. If that's all they have to go on, I don't know what other term they might use. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You'd think so, but it turns out that police departments that use broad racial categorizations (as opposed to individualized descriptions of suspects) are far more likely to use racial profiling in inappropriate ways (i.e. to unequally harass people who belong to those broad racial categories) and to unequally arrest, charge, and incarcerate people from those racial groups for minor offenses (they get arrested for things that people of other ethnic groups don't, when arrested, they get charged with crimes that arrested people from other ethnic groups don't, and they get incarcerated for the same crimes that people of other ethnic groups are charged with). See Here for example. Basically, using broad racial categorizations in policing does not result in better identification of suspected, but it does result in unequal enforcement of laws, and disparities in imprisonment of racial minorities compared to people in the majority ethnic group. --Jayron32 16:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is, if they are told the person they're after "looked Chinese", that is something they can use to narrow down the range of suspects. They know that "looked Chinese" could mean the person is Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese or Lao or various other nationalities, so it'd be best not to limit it to Chinese. Maybe they'd say "East Asian" in appearance, to distinguish them from South Asian. There's nothing racist about using such a characteristic to help locate a potentially dangerous person. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Joe at Quiberon?

This is a bit of a long shot! I have in my head a phrase half-remembered from a book read in childhood. The phrase is "Nancy Joe at Quiberon" and the book would have been read in the 70's of the last century. "Nancy Joe" was, as best I can recall, a sailor's mangling of the name of a ship, or perhaps a captain (much like Billy Ruffian for HMS Bellerophon), and Quiberon would presumably be the Battle of Quiberon Bay. I've got a feeling it was used as an example of courage or good seamanship or suchlike. So - can anyone identify the ship or the book? I don't think it was a Hornblower. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This the one? It would only cost you £1.50 + p&p to find out for sure. --Antiquary (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) If so, the ship in question would be HMS Vincejo (1799), known as Vincey Joe, captured by the French at Quiberon Bay in 1804. --Antiquary (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Antiquary: You're good! Definitely right about the ship, and Showell Styles rang a bell. Looking at that page I'm certain I read some of the Midshipman Quinn books, and Vincey Joe at Quiberon looks like I would have read that if I'd had the chance. I'll get a copy. Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Education

Hi guys, I'm not sure whether this is the right desk to ask this, but... if someone had a degree in English Education and they wanted to become a lawyer in the United States, what should they do? I assume law school is the next step, but how long would the whole process take? Are there any special degrees they have to get? Pardon my poor English. Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: In all (or mostly all?) states in the U.S., you need a Juris Doctor degree from an accredited law school. This normally takes three years, but can also be done in two or four depending on the school. After that, you need to take the Bar Exam to be admitted to the state's Bar Association and then you can practice law. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Law school in the United States. 2A00:23C5:D10F:E000:EDD0:893B:E7E3:B62 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As the Law school in the United States article states, law school for JD, then pass the bar exam is most common but being America, 50 states means more than 50 systems. One state does not require the exam if you attend one of their state law schools (and a few others have temporarily suspended the requirement during CoVID). Several do not require law school or a JD but do require the bar exam. One state requires two different bar exams for some students. Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Miss Bono. The first step is for the aspiring lawyer to get a high score on the Law School Admission Test, commonly called the LSAT. There are commercial test preparation services. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Also remember that lawyers don't practice in the United States, they practice in a particular state. Passing the bar in Maine may not have any bearing on practicing law in Louisiana. One would have to determine which states (if any) have reciprocity agreements with the state in which you initially pass the bar. --Khajidha (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are still looking for a new username, perhaps Cui Bono?  --Lambiam 13:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a friend who made his living as the lead singer in a U2 tribute band. He was a pro Bono. --Jayron32 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers! They were really helpful. Miss Bono

On the off chance it wasn't clearly and plainly answered: If you have a bachelor's degree you just have to take the LSAT and apply to a JD program at any ABA-accredited law school. There are a few that don't require the LSAT but almost all the ones worth attending do. And yes, there are a few special cases where you don't have to go to an ABA-accredited law school, but I recommend against that. If you must work full-time, there are many law schools with evening programs. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

November 16

Corrida

wp:deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ramblings by banned user shortened. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC) What building has the greatest length of corridors and what is the distance? 2A00:23C5:3180:8301:55B7:F88A:13A6:F11E (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC) The Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice in Farnham, Surrey has 31 miles of corridors. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology houses an Infinite Corridor which has led to it being dubbed "MIThenge" [18]. 2A00:23C7:FB89:9700:B8E1:AABD:A631:8638 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure that's accurate. This: [19] says that the staff cleans 31.3 miles of corridors in a year, but that may be the total length of the corridors times the number of times they are cleaned. There's no way that 31.3 miles of corridors could fit in a building of the size that one can see for that facility. It's got a much smaller footprint than the Pentagon, noted below. There's absolutely no way there are 31.3 miles of corridor in that building. --Jayron32 14:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC) The Pentagon is also famous for the length of its corridors, but at 17.5 miles it is a mere mite compared to the hospice cited above. Xuxl (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Define building. Many complexes consist of numerous buildings connected by covered corridors. Does that mean they constitute one building?--Shantavira|feed me 19:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

November 17

5 year trial delay for train attack

The suspects in the 2015 Thalys train attack have just gone on trial 5 years later.[20] I did a double take when I saw the news article because that incident was far enough in the past that I thought the legal aspects would have been long since wound down by now. Why such a long delay? Was there anything terribly complicated about it? Do the suspects have platoons of white shoe lawyers filing motions all day long to delay things like Exxon might have after a big oil spill? It didn't really seem like that kind of operation. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:25EB:282F:5576:C543 (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending the response of someone with real knowledge of the trial and surrounding legal matters, I would observe that the train journey in question traversed three separate countries, and the perpetrator, victims and other active participants in the event (let alone any passive witnesses who might be called, and the train's owners) span at least half-a-dozen different nationalities, all of whose legal authorities (plus those of the EU itself) might have interests and demands relating to the case, with some of them making their own preliminary investigations. The co-ordination of all these individuals, authorities and organisations is likely not a trivial undertaking. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.26.5 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)