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

December 19

Lord Tennyson's moniker

I asked this elsewhere back in May, but I've had no response.

The name by which we generally know the poet Tennyson, viz. "Alfred, Lord Tennyson", seems to involve a unique formula: <given name>, Lord <surname>. I'm not aware of any other cases. Are there any? Even so, they'd be pretty rare. Where and how did this arise, and how come the form hasn't been extended to other peers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It definitely used to be an accepted form in which to give a peer's title, not just Tennyson's. This is what the 1911 edition of Whitaker's Peerage says:

When the word "Lord," or any other title of honour, is added to a Christian name, as "Alfred, Lord Tennyson," the title "Lord T." implies an actual Peer, and the "Alfred " shows which one of the line is intended (the form " Lord Alfred" could only be the courtesy-title of some younger son as above); and so we have "Edward, Earl of Derby," "Maria, Duchess," &c. In the Roll of the Peers as officially printed each nobleman is designated by the prefixing to his title of the entire series of his Christian names. The leading name suffices for less formal use.

Clearly it isn't and wasn't the only received way for a peer to identify himself, but I imagine Tennyson chose that form rather than plain "Lord Tennyson" because by 1884, when he got the title, he was already famous as "Alfred Tennyson" and didn't want to lose the brand, if you'll forgive a disgusting expression. --Antiquary (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC) I now see my last point was made at the other end of your link. Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt. --Antiquary (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The Roll of the Peerage is available online, and still gives the titles in that form, e.g. "James Harry Lord Abinger". So it seems "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" is the pedantically correct form, give or take a comma. --Antiquary (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Another example of everyday use is Thomas Lord Audley School, which is named after Thomas Audley, 1st Baron Audley of Walden. Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

See also The Life of Horatio Lord Nelson. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And Speeches of Edward Lord Lytton, The Life of Edward Lord Hawke, The Sonnets of Edward, Lord Thurlow, Edward, Lord Carson, Edward, Lord Griffin, and The Autobiography of Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, without moving on to other Christian names. I suspect a list of examples in ordinary use could be continued almost indefinitely, especially from 19th-century sources. --Antiquary (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'll give another example: the owner of the race horse Arkle was often referred to as Anne,Duchess of Westminster. She acquired the title Duchess when she married the Duke. By the time Arkle was famous there was a new Duchess, the wife of her deceased husband's nephew so there were two Duchesses and the name Anne was used to distinguish the two. As for the title Lord, this title can be used from any peer. British peer's come in ranks with Duke at the top and Baron at the bottom. As you go down the ranks use of "Lord" becomes more common in referring to them. A Duke is rarely referred to as "Lord" Marquesses only sometimes, Earls and Viscounts more frequently, and Barons are only referred to as "Baron" in very formal circumstances. "Baroness" is used more frequently to show that a female peer is a peer in her own right rather than that she is a peer's wife.. Baronesses have only been commonly appointed comparitively recently co-inciding with the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the need for female members of the House of Lords being recognised. Hope this helps. Spinney Hill (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC) .

• I stand enlightened. Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Following on from the above question I see our article says he was the first person to be made a peer because of his writing. Does anybody know if any earlier peer was created for writing or any of the other arts or sciences or even entertainment? All earlier peers I can think of were enobled for being military leaders eg Wellington,Nelson etc or for being rich in terms of land or money eg Thomas Coke the Earl of Leicester, or being friends with royalty and being in politics eg Robert Dudley,Earl of Leicester. There have been plenty since Tennyson of course. Spinney Hill (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC) .

As far as I can make out Kelvin was the first peerage for a scientist, and that was in 1892, eight years after Tennyson. Humphry Davy in 1818 was the first baronetcy (not a peerage) for a scientist. Much earlier, Francis Bacon was of course both knighted and ennobled, but that was for his political work rather than his scientific and philosophical output. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli of course was a famous novelist, but his 1876 peerage, eight years before Tennyson's, was for political work. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ditto the historian and poet Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1857. --Antiquary (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Coming from Leicestershire I should have remembered Macaulay but I didnt realise he was an MP and a minister. Before anybody mentions the poet Byron, he wasnt of couse the first Baron Byron. Does anybody else have any ideas? Otherwise it looks as though Tennyson wins.

This is a related list of authors who have received Honours (not peerages, i.e. knighthoods etc.) An actual peerage would have been much rarer, of course, and I can't find anyone before Tennyson. Prior to the 19th century, peerages and knighthoods and the like were given out almost exclusively for political and military reasons. --Jayron32 12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nellie Bly and the American Seamen’s Association, 1921

Good morning. In Brooke Kroeger’s comprehensive tome “Nellie Bly,” she credits the journalist and crusader with establishing the American Seamen’s Association (p. 489-90.). Bly at the time was angered by American shippers’ use of foreign labor for their crews, and pressed for ‘buy American’ policies, as well as aiding them and advocating for social justice on their behalf. Bly reported a membership of 20,000 seamen within two months of founding the organization. However, no internet searches for that or similar terms yields any reference to her as a founder. Kroeger provides no citation for this, so I’m stuck. Do you have any tips? Thank you!

Leslie Brower — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.30.182 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The book you reference seems to cite a New York Evening Journal article from May 14, 1921 (see page 603). Unfortunately I haven't been able to find ready access to Journal articles from that period. There may be a database that provides it, but I don't have access. More general searching revealed an article in the August 26, 1922 Marine Journal describing Bly as the "late President" of the Association, and discussing efforts to transfer control of the Association from Bly's estate. From the character of the article (no named author, reads like a release) and the other material in the same area (including a legal notice) it's a bit more like a classified than an actual article. Given there's basically no reference to this association elsewhere, I half suspect it dissolved, changed names, or was absorbed after Bly's death. It's worth noting that searching for this organization is a bit difficult; false positives for the Norwegian-American Seamen's Association and Jewish American Seamen's Association are common. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Searching is also complicated by Nellie's real surname of Seaman (I have added her to Seaman (name)); otherwise I found nothing that User:69.174 above didn't. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Is it so dreadful a thing then to die?"

This is oft ascribed to Nero, shortly before his death, and said to be a quotation from Virgil's Aeneid. I have also seen it said to be a quotation from Homer's Iliad. So - is it Vergil or Homer? Or did Vergil nick it from the blind bard? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The Latin quote is "usque adeone mori miserum est?" which appears here: VIRGIL, Aeneid: Book XII, line 646..

Perhaps there's some confusion with the final penultimate words of Nero attributed by Seutonius: "Hark, now strikes on my ear the trampling of swift-footed coursers!" which comes from the Ilead 10.535 (in this translation rendered as "there is a sound in my ears as of the tramp of horses").

Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars: The Life of Nero actually gives the Aeneid quote to one of the guardsmen who refuse to run off with Nero when his end is nigh. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that Suetonius gives Nero's final words thus: "He was all but dead when a centurion rushed in, and as he placed a cloak to the wound, pretending that he had come to aid him, Nero merely gasped: 'Too late!' and 'This is fidelity!' With these words he was gone...". Presumably not quotes from anyone at all. --Antiquary (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bugger off!, Matt sealed my fate. Look at the blood, I'm dead ass. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Who the heckius is Matt? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we know who did the stab that sealed Nero's fate? Then replace Matt with his name. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Nero actually stabbed himself in the neck "aided by Epaphroditus, his private secretary". There was no Matt. Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That's right; I never touched him! Matt Deres (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

He was only playing possum. They secretly took him to the physician Gaius Mattius Lygdamus, but unfortunately for Nero, "Matt" wasn't a fan of the Hippocratic oath. Yeah, that's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made a correction. Not as amusing as King George V whose alleged last words were "Bugger Bognor". Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Whose actual last words were reportedly the less-amusing "God damn you!":[1]. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:48A6:5505:6856:37FD (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Emperor Hadrian, via Margaret Yourcenar's 'translation' was much more elucidating. "Little soul, gentle and drifting, guest and companion of my body, now you will dwell below in pallid places, stark and bare; there you will abandon your play of yore. But one moment still, let us gaze together on these familiar shores, on these objects which doubtless we shall not see again… Let us try, if we can, to enter into death with open eyes…" - Nunh-huh 16:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Or the last words of Julius Caesar, according to Carry On Cleo (1964); "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me" :-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

December 20

Incorrectly named namespaces

Hello, I hope you don't mind me asking questions here because there is no talk page for the following pages because they belong to the wiki project. I would like to ask if I may why are the following namespaces/pages are named incorrectly:

1.Namespace Name:Thomas FitzMaurice FitzGerald. Correct Name: Thomas Fitzmaurice, Lord OConnello, He was not called FitzGerald.

2.Namespace Name:John FitzGerald, 1st Baron DesmondCorrect Name:John FitzThomas,1st Baron Desmond. He was not called FitzGerald.

3.Namespace Name:James FitzMaurice FitzGerald Correct Name:James Fitzmaurice. He was not called FitzGerald.

Wikipedias own links verify what I am saying above. I can send reference if required.

I see this quite often (Fitzgerald being tagged on to other names) and I think maybe its because the Author wants to show a link to the Fitzgerald Dynasty (The Geraldines) but that is not necessary as the links do that quite well and in fairness his name is Thomas Fitzmaurice.

Thank you for your time and assistance,

Joseph Fitzmaurice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefitzer (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Joefitzer: All of those articles have talk pages. What do you mean that they don't? RudolfRed (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about the project banner. It is not to stop you from starting a discussion. For example, go to Talk:Thomas_FitzMaurice_FitzGerald and click "new section" at the top of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It did not say "FitzMaurice FitzGerald, Thomas" or "FitzGerald, Thomas FitzMaurice" on the passport or birth certificate of Thomas, because such documents had not been invented yet. In fact, there was no frozen notion of a surname in these days; surnames where basically things tagged on to a person's Christian name for the purpose of diambiguation. The prefix "Fitz-" simply meant "son of", so this Thomas was distinguished from other Thomases by identifying him as "Thomas, son of Maurice, son of Gerald". At some points family names were introduced, in which children "inherited" their father's name, and then often some such variable tag was chosen to become the frozen surname. Ella Fitzgerald was not the son of any Gerald, just like Amy Jo Johnson was not the son of some John – but one of her ancestors was and turned the tag into a surname.  --Lambiam 11:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• The answer is "How do the preponderance of modern reliable sources refer to these people". That's how to answer the question. --Jayron32 12:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Court rulings that requiring college credits for entry to police academy are unconstitutional

Have state courts in Nevada, or in the federal judicial district that includes Nevada, ever ruled that requiring college credits or a college degree as a prerequisite for applying to a police or sheriff's academy is unconstitutional because it discriminates against minorities or imposes an undue burden on the poor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8B60:8EE0:F52A:5E6A:C2F4:5E0A (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's exceptionally unlikely that there's case law that exactly fits your parameters. In any event, while your question is not asked in terms of requesting legal advice, it's specific enough and a niche enough area of legal practice that I would strongly advise you seek a licensed attorney's input. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That, and possibly also ask it on a legal forum and/or in a legal-related Reddit subreddit. Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason that we do not give legal advice here, it is not wise to seek legal advice from a forum where every Tom, Dick and Harry can spout their uninformed opinions without restraint while presenting themselves as legal eagles.  --Lambiam 11:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

But plenty of people go to such forums for legal advice; are they all idiots? This might not be an alternative to talking to an actual lawyer, but rather a nice and useful addition to this. Futurist110 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The largest ports in Austria-Hungary

What were the largest ports in Austria-Hungary? Obviously there was Trieste and Fiume and Zadar and Dubrovnik, but which other large ports did Austria-Hungary have, if any? Futurist110 (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

There's also Pula, apparently. Futurist110 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

BudapestBudapest and/or Vienna, apparently Vienna, if inland ports count and they have an agreement with the foreigners down the Danube. On the one hand it looks like they stole half of Romania at some point in history, on the other they might just be powerful enough to intimidate Romania into letting Austrohungarian barges or vessels pass through fare-free. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Romania was allied to Austria-Hungary from 1883 to 1914 in the Triple Alliance (perversely, it was the fourth member). It declared neutrality in 1914 and in 1916 sided with the Entente Allies in the hope of reuniting ethnic Romanians living in Habsburg territories, but only succeeded in getting itself invaded. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Transylvania was a late addition to Romania, and did not become so until the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The first Romanian state was the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, and while Romanian speakers lived in some of Transylvania, they were not included in this state, and neither was of Moldova/Bessarabia. Romania only included those two territories after World War I and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary (see Greater Romania, which was the Romanian state at its greatest extent, and the only time period when Romania included essentially all Romanian speakers). Austria-Hungary never "stole" anything from Romania (Hungary did during World War II when it took back Northern Transylvania, but that was not Austria-Hungary). --Jayron32 12:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That was an informative history lesson. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The tri-national construction of the Sip Canal, completed in 1898, allowed bigger ships to navigate the Danube through the Iron Gates. This led to the expansion of the Port of Vienna, "one of the largest ports on the Danube River". Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In the First World War, the Austro-Hungarian Navy was based at Trieste, Pola (now Pula), Sebenico (now Sibenik in Croatia) and Cattaro, (now Kotor in Montenegro). Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

When my family saw the "Sound of Music" movie in an early 1970s re-release, some of us were confused by Von Trapp formerly being in the Austrian Navy -- I guess I knew enough geography, but not enough history... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Also see Admiral Horthy of the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), who was once called "An Admiral without a Navy leading a Kingdom without a King"--Jayron32 12:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Funny that he that he presumably fought with Germany then 1.5 or 2 decades later was strongly against it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Not funny at all. There were many people who fought for Austro-Hungary or Germany in World War I, and later opposed or fought against Nazi Germany. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There were plenty of conservative officers in the German military who weren't too fond of Hitler either, they tried to blow him up in 1944; sadly too little too late. General Friedrich Paulus referred to him as "that Bohemian corporal". Alansplodge (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Why'd theyhe do that? Hitler doesn't seem particularly bohemian and Bohemia was only a small and Czech and/or Slovakian part of Austria-Hungary. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Presumably Paulus meant "Bohemian" in the cultural sense, given that Hitler spent a portion of his earlier life as an impoverished painter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the artist thing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the insult was the invention of President Paul von Hindenburg (another conservative officer), who "mistook Hitler’s home town of Braunau in Austria (Braunau am Inn) for another town of the same name, Broumov (Braunau in German) in Bohemia... [it was] a pejorative term as [Hindenburg] regarded Bohemians as 'essentially gypsies' unlike the more cultured Prussians". See Gefreiter#Bohemian corporal. Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

For the curious, this article describes Georg von Trapp's distinguished naval career. Alansplodge (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, more like the number one rapper is white (Eminem), number one golfer is black (Tiger Woods) and Germany doesn't want to go to war joke of '03, enough for a cheap joke but a lot had still changed in the meantime. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this entire conversation, you guys! It was a pleasure reading it! Futurist110 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Singing in Parliament

Having an enforced holiday over the festive season, I thought an article called List of songs sung in the United Kingdom Parliament might be a worthy project. I already have Britons, Strike Home! (1797), The Red Flag (several times since 1945), Calon Lân (2019) and Ode to Joy (also in 2019 and sung to the words "La, La, La" because they didn't know the lyrics in German or English). Are there any others? I was certain that I would find Rule Britannia! but no luck so far, only Jacob Rees-Mogg playing it from his mobile phone, which is the worst kind of cheating. Alansplodge (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't mention the National Anthem, sung in the House of Commons on 18 September 1914 and again in 1919. --Antiquary (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The Land was sung in the Division Lobby and by Members entering the House in July 1920. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

And a surprise entry for "Yellow Submarine", sung in Latin by Derek Enright in the Commons in 1993. --Antiquary (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Bread of Heaven and Jerusalem, on same occaision as Calon Lân in 2019. I suspect Jerusalem has been sung there before. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A Welsh hymn called "Adenydd colomen pe cawn" was sung in the House of Lords by Thomas Jones, Baron Maelor in 1980. --Antiquary (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The Red Flag was sung in the Commons as early as April 1923. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Scots Wha Hae and Flower of Scotland in 2019. DuncanHill (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks all. I may widen the net, since the Canadian Parliament has managed We Wish You a Merry Christmas by all members in 1985 and a solo parody of Jingle Bells in 2017. To their credit, the New Zealand Parliament performed Rule Britannia! in 1902. [3] Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian Parliament seems more amenable to singing than the UK one (this clip suggests it's rather discouraged in the UK House of Commons) - singing the Canadian national anthem seems to be a regular event ([4], [5]), and this clip shows a fairly enthusiastic rendition of Happy Birthday (to Queen Elizabeth II) followed by God Save the Queen. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A late UK entry: James Cleverly sang "The Star-Spangled Banner" in the Commons in 2016. I take it, by the way, that you're only interested in singing in the chambers of the Commons and the Lords. Singing in St Mary Undercroft seems to be not uncommon, as you might expect. --Antiquary (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. There's also a Parliament Choir, but I was thinking of limiting it to when the legislature was actually in session. Alansplodge (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're thinking of NZ, there is this [6] of Pōkarekare Ana but it looks to me like it was the gallery so not sure if that should count. Singing from the gallery isn't of course something that's generally allowed [7], it can happen with permission [8] but I wonder if that instances was actually with permission or simply ignored. I think there is also some tradition of singing a waiata during parliament opening sessions and speeches [9] [10] [11] and other occasions [12] [13] but it doesn't seem to be well documented what (as shown in the last example, I don't think they are all established songs) and I think many of those may have also been from the gallery with permission and with some MPs joining in. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Which (all) Wikipedia articles still retain Honorifics?

Are there any articles still retain Honorifics in title or content?

• I wish to use the answers @ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking no articles use honorifics. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I fought a losing battle against Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Does Alexandra have a surname? I think that would be the main thing. Temerarius (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes she does. Ogilvy since she married Angus Ogilvy and before that Windsor.Spinney Hill (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi, U Thant, Dame Edna... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Charlemagne... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who, Prince Caspian, Major Major Major Major, Sheik Yerbouti... --Jayron32 12:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Also Alfred, Lord Tennyson, noted above. Also, Lord Byron. --Jayron32 12:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Actually, probably hundreds do. Many articles use honorific titles in the names of their holders, especially where the holder was known by such title. Consider Cardinal Richelieu or Saint Peter for example. William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin is still, today, known almost exclusively as Lord Kelvin, and many many articles include honorifics in the way of Tennyson, after a comma following their name, such as Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester or Henry I, Duke of Guise. --Jayron32 12:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The section Titles of people of our manual of style, which includes a subsection Honorifics, instructs us not to use such titles as part of a subjects name, but lays out an exception to the general rule (based on the WP:COMMONNAME policy, which trumps guidelines). Almost all examples above are examples of this specified exception. I don't know why The Honourable Lady succeeded in avoiding the title axe, other than by the stubbornness of an editor choosing to ignore all rules.  --Lambiam 12:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be right on that last one, Wikipedia is a big place, and the existence of any single exemplar of anything is not useful as a means to understand any aspect of its operation other than "some one person decided it should be so". There are lots of articles that "violate" one rule or another, and only do so due to their obscurity and/or the fact that no one really cares. --Jayron32 13:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous articles titled like Prince Alexander of Liechtenstein (1929–2012), even disregarding redirects. —Tamfang (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a distinction between honorific styles and honorific titles. The former are things like "The Right Honourable" and "His Grace", which we don't use in running text or at the start of articles. The latter are things like "Sir" and "Dame", which we do use regularly. In normal usage (in countries where they are granted), the latter are treated as part of a person's name. Sir Keir Starmer, for instance, would generally be referred to as such on news programmes or in newspapers. He would generally not be referred to as "the Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer" except in the most formal of contexts. I suspect that a lot of the reluctance on Wikipedia to use honorific styles derives from the fact that they generally ascribe some kind of positive quality to the person being referred to - e.g. that they are extremely honourable, or majestic, or holy - and it is felt that it is not neutral for Wikipedia to be seen as endorsing that ascription. (In countries where they are commonplace, that is generally not the perception - very few people in the UK would consider politicians even slightly honourable - but I can see why it could be taken that way.) Peerages (like those held by Tennyson, Byron and Kelvin, referred to above) are not honorifics at all, but substantive titles: effectively offices held by the peers concerned. Referring to Tennyson as "His Lordship" would be using an honorific; referring to him as "Lord Tennyson" is simply stating who and what he was. Proteus (Talk) 10:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

is purpose/principle/value is enumerated anywhere?

As User:Proteus says in above comment those Wikipedians who wanted to introduced MOS:HONORIFIC to avoid in Wikipedia must have had some purpose/principle/value behind the same; but I do not see purpose/principle/value behind enumerated in MOS:HONORIFIC; Whether is purpose/principle/value behind enumerated any where else in Wikipedia in express manner? Bookku (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: As a "courtesy title of respect", an identifying appellation signifying status or function, adding this to a name (title) is not as of importance in the scheme of a world encyclopedia. The bottom line is that consensus, on an article and project level will usually suffice and sometimes a more broad consensus is involved. As mentioned above, this is a big place but courtesy titles should be limited to clear cases of disambiguation or every subject involving clergy, Reverend, Father, Rabbi, Bishop (The Right Reverend), Mother Superior, etc..., could be argued for inclusion. This can of worms could also include professors, doctors, lawyers, and a variable host of other courtesy titles of occupation or religious and scholarly recognition. There is also a case that editors will go overboard. I just deleted many added redundant "Rabbi" listings from an article. The neutrality would be that the name should be listed and the occupation covered in the article. The goal should be encyclopedic coverage and not the elevation of the status of a subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose in excluding "courtesy titles of respect" (particularly ones like Mr., Ms., Dr., Prof., Hon., Fr., Msgr., Rev., etc., including combinations thereof such as "Rt. Hon. Rev. Dr. Prof.") from both article titles and most article text is a matter of consistency with the modern style guides most readers and editors here prefer, of brevity in most cases (in an article about a doctor called John Smith, most in-text mentions of a "Smith" will be about him, so it's just wasted characters), and moreover that the intention where a lot of these end up used is for puffery (especially Dr. and Prof.; see MOS:CREDENTIAL), such as to inflate the importance of a reference or remarks about the article subject. And let's be clear, the answer to why we do this lies within the description: "courtesy titles of respect". While it is decidedly not Wikipedia's place to disparage people, it's also not Wikipedia's place to grant courtesies and pay respect to anybody, or to decide who merits courtesies or particular respects. Wikipedia's job is to communicate information, such as who somebody is. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine test placebo subjects

When do COVID vaccine test subjects learn if they got the placebo and are those who did fast-tracked for the approved vaccine? Hayttom (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You might want to ask at the science ref desk. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In many cases it will come down to individual choice. See The placebo paradox: Why a COVID-19 vaccine trial participant might drop out (Dawn Sinclair Shapiro; December 9, 2020; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). -- ToE 22:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The first part should be specified in the protocol of each vaccine trial, of which there are many. See also www.clinicaltrials.gov and The New York Times' coronavirus vaccine tracker. The answer to the second question may be different from country to country; many countries do not know yet when they will start receiving the first vaccine doses and in which quantities.  --Lambiam 12:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

December 21

Mass deportations that were proposed and/or planned but never actually carried out?

Which cases were there of mass deportations being proposed and/or planned but never actually being carried out? So far, I could think of Generalplan Ost, but which other cases of this were there throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that there might have been some Americans who contemplated forcibly deporting US blacks to Sub-Saharan Africa en masse after emancipation, but these might have always thankfully been viewed as impractical pipe dreams. Our article Back-to-Africa movement might have some additional information about this. Futurist110 (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and of course there was the Madagascar Plan and other, similar plans such as the Nisko Plan for deporting Europe's Jews en masse. Futurist110 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That article is a little strange, because the name "Back-to-Africa movement" is somewhat anachronistic for the United States during most of the 19th century, when it was known as the "Colonization" movement. Some Colonization supporters were convinced that a majority of American Blacks would come around to agree with the idea when they realized that it was unlikely that they would ever achieve full citizenship and rights in the United States until an indefinite future. Henry Clay, one of the most influential 19th-century U.S. politicians who never became president, was a strong supporter. Abraham Lincoln was open to the idea if it was practically feasible (but he kind of suspected that it was unlikely to be practically feasible). The Colonization movement didn't do much to reduce the number of Blacks in the U.S., but it led to the founding of Liberia... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, the American Colonization Society. Also, James A. Garfield was likewise a colonization fan in theory but likewise considered it to be extremely impractical and very unfeasible. As for Liberia, US blacks and their descendants never actually exceeded 5% or so of the total Liberian population, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Soviet Union created (and it was inherited by Russia) the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the 1940s as a homeland for Russia's Jewish people. It was a bit of an abject failure, as it never had a majority Jewish population, and indeed even today has significantly less than 1%. --Jayron32 11:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Birobidzhan was an exercise in extreme Stalinist cynicism, since it had the two main goals of countering Zionism (by creating an alternate Soviet Jewish homeland) and reducing what some Soviet leaders saw as an excess of Jews in Russian cities, so that some Bolsheviks more or less converged with the Tsars in Pale of Settlement type thinking (there was no attempt to re-create the Pale, but who knows what might have happened if Stalin had lived and the Doctors Plot had gone through)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A mass deportation of Soviet Jews to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? Futurist110 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

According to what it says at Doctors' plot#Planned deportation of Jews, the target might not have been as specific as Birobidzhan (many of them would have ended up in gulags), but the main shift would have been from the Russian cities to Siberia. AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The great irony, of course, is that if Stalin would have actually done this with the Jews from the western part of the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1941, then astronomically more of them could have had their lives saved due to the Nazis being incapable of getting their hands on them. Futurist110 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that didn't work out too well for the Poles at Katyn. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The most egalitarian -ism ever didn't end government antisemitism. History sad. Though the link sounds so cartoonishly Nazish that it might be exaggerated.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It probably never got as far as drawing up detailed plans, but on the other hand, some Soviet officials (including Stalin) seem to have been thinking about it, and the idea is unfortunately compatible with the fevered atmosphere of decadent late-Stalinism... AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

True Stalin was paranoid, boogeymen purges would fit into character. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Franklin Rutherford 's place of birth

Joseph Franklin Rutherford was the second president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. the 15 March 1955 Watchtower says he was born in Boonville, Missouri. the article Joseph Franklin Rutherford however, says that his death certificate indicates that he was born in Versailles, Missouri. why has this not been confirmed by the Watch Tower Society. could this have been an administrative error ? Gfigs (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The book Genealogical History of the Rutherford Family, Volume 2, states on p. 650 that he was born in Morgan County, Missouri – which is consistent only with Versailles. Another page on the same Watchtower Online Library website linked to above, a chapter from the book Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, also states: "Joseph Franklin Rutherford was born of Baptist parents on a farm in Morgan County, Missouri, U.S.A., on November 8, 1869." These book sources are probably more researched and appear more reliable to me than an issue of the Watchtower.  --Lambiam 10:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the info..can't understand why there is this conflict though ? why some books say he was born in Boonville ? some history seems to be missing..and there is huge gap from end of the Civil War (1865) to 1980..Gfigs (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Nast popularised the image of Santa Claus during the war. President Ulysses S. Grant made Christmas an official Federal holiday in 1870..the General Grant (tree) was named in 1867, and proclaimed the "Nation's Christmas Tree" in 1926. although it was under Joseph Rutherford's leadership that the Bible Students stopped celebrating Christmas after 25 Dec 1926.Gfigs (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Boonville and Versailles are in adjacent counties, and are about 30 miles apart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

that is not far...although, I believe it may have been Rutherford's wish not to publicize his birth, and passing. as a nearby caretaker said with regards to his burial site on Staten Island :"I couldn't tell you who is buried on it because it has absolutely no markers or headstones or anything." they were expecting a fulfillment of prophecy (see 1925). he actually wanted to be buried at his residence in San Diego, (Beth Sarim). however, the request was denied by neighbours. the house was sold, and is now privately owned. is designated a Historical Landmark.. Gfigs (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

the state of Missouri was only established in 1821. registration of births started in 1883, although due to non-compliance, the law was repealed in 1893..and registration only became mandatory in 1910..difficult to imagine that Rutherfords birth records from 1869 would exist.. Gfigs (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

have confirmation from census data that Joseph Franklin Rutherford was registered as an infant in Haw Creek Township, Morgan County, Missouri. not too clear just yet, what Township Versailles is in (appears to be Moreau Township)... Gfigs (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Ertuğrul the boat

CVN-73 insignia

I'm looking for a good WP:RS that states clearly who Ottoman frigate Ertuğrul was named after. I know what WP says. This [14] looked promising but it doesn't come up, something of an oversight I feel. If the source is older than 2014, it doesn't hurt.

Abdul Hamid II had another boat with the same name [15], less interesting but same request. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything useful. However, I wonder if we might be trying to find a citation for the obvious; there is no need for a reference for who the USS George Washington (CVN-73) is named after, the founder of the Ottoman Empire would be equally well known to a Turkish person. Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd still like the WP:RS, more people have carried the name [16]. I easily found a ref for the carrier [17], and the old guy's spirit sort of hovers, doesn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have posted a request for assistance from the kindly sages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Ottoman_frigate_Ertuğrul. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Great minds etc: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turkey#Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Ertuğrul_the_boat Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've got a source for you: page 198 of The Ottoman Steam Navy 1828–1923. You can crib the full citation from Ottoman frigate Feyzâ-i Bahrî. Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Also a book I linked a little higher up in this thread. Parsecboy, thank you very much, I'll use it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I had missed that link earlier - interesting that the full book is hosted on archive.org, as it's not old enough to be PD. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles and/or other works comparing the various territories of the United States with the various territories of any other country?

I previously found this 1998 article written jointly by several US academics together with several ex-USSR academics that compared the various territories of the United States with the various territories of the former Soviet Union:

https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=works

However, are there any other similar articles and/or other works that compare the various territories of the United States with the various territories of any other country? If so, which ones? Futurist110 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've only skimmed that work, but what a fascinating perspective. I've never seen such a thing before, so I can't be of much help, but it's an interesting product you've found. I suspect, given its structure and organization, that it was an overt attempt at building a post-Cold War mentality and is the sort of thing that only works in the one case of the USSR and Russia and only in the time it was created, given the social milieu that created it. Thanks for sharing though. I haven't had time to really dig into it, but it looks like an interesting read. --Jayron32 18:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe that this project started before both the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union since there's a 1992 Washington Post article about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/02/16/ivans-real-face/ab48e7f4-d614-44ab-ba5d-0f90e7cdca13/ That, and this 2008 article appears to imply that this book was created 18 years beforehand (so, 2008 - 18 = 1990): https://cartographia.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/america-and-russia-beyond-borders/ But Yes, this project certainly is quite fascinating. That said, though, I know of one other project that was used to compare the US and the USSR in the final years of the Cold War, and this was a joint project by the statistical agencies of those countries to compare statistics for both of these countries: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/1991/demo/ussr.pdf So, you can understand why I'd have enjoyed it if additional similar comparative articles, works, and/or books would have been found. :) Futurist110 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The end of the Cold War was a process, and not a moment in time; the process of detente with both Communist powers began under Richard Nixon in late 1960s-early 1970s ("only Nixon could go to China", the Brezhnev-Nixon summit); it took a few backwards steps during the late 1970s-early 1980s after the invasion of Afghanistan and the rather stodgy Andropov-Chernenko years (when Andrei Gromyko really ruled from behind the scenes), but by the regime of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Cold War was essentially over. Almost immediately after coming to power, a series of high level summits with Reagan from 1985 onwards really changed the zeitgeist of the time. Symbolically, the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is more of an important event in the end of the Cold War than the collapse of the Soviet Union. It makes sense that 1990 would have been a time when Soviet and American scientists were working so well together. --Jayron32 12:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, I think it is incorrect to dismiss Yuri Andropov that way. He was the longest serving KGB boss and was guilty of participation in many crimes, but by the time he became General Secretary of the CPSU and top Soviet leader, I believe he had become convinced that the USSR needed deep reform. He was responsible for promoting Gorbachev and many of his close associates to top leadership posts. He took on a job that might have lasted quite a few years and instead died 15 months later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Futurist110 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

There are not many countries that are comparable in size to either the USA or the USSR. The UK can fit into any one of 11 US states. [18] Alansplodge (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is China. And perhaps India. And Brazil. And Argentina. And Canada. And Australia. Futurist110 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Australia doesn't have many territories, but it does have maybe the biggest one in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It'll have to fight the Penguin Liberation Army over it! ;) Futurist110 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Most countries without Antarctic territorial claims don't recognize the claims of countries that do. The United States certainly doesn't recognize such claims. AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

December 22

Why did the Indus Valley and Ganges Delta convert to Islam but not the rest of India?

Why did the Indus Valley and Ganges Delta (and to a lesser extent, territories on the Ganges further north) convert to Islam but not the rest of India, which remained either Hindu or later became Sikh (or, rarely, some other religion such as Jain or Christian)? Futurist110 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Indus Valley is closest by land and has a Khyber Pass. Not surprising. What's counterintuitive is why did they have such a strange pattern east of that area and south of the mountain barrier. China not having a high Muslim percentage if north southeast Asia doesn't isn't surprising but Indonesia is densely populated and far and was just as reincarnationist as them and became Muslim but not Lanka but yes most Indian Ocean islands good ships but not Philippines but yes Mindanao but not all of it I think but yes Ganges Delta but not Southeast Asian deltas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- the short answer is that Sindh was conquered by the Arab caliphate rather early (711 A.D.), while the area of Bangladesh had a large number of "tribals" until later than many other areas. Traditionally, tribals were assimilated to Hindu civilization by entering the caste structure near the bottom, and converting to Islam may have seemed like an attractive alternative. There were other "tribal" areas, but they were usually far inland, while East Bengal was more conveniently accessible by sea... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. William H. McNeill expresses it this way: "Islam also won numerous converts in Bengal, where primitive peoples in the process of entering into the Hindu cultural world frequently preferred the religion of Mohammed to a Hindu system which placed them near the bottom of the caste hierarchy." -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

And there weren't very many tribal peoples in central India? Also, what about the Muslim minority around the Ganges in northern India? For instance, in the United Provinces? Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? -- "There were other 'tribal' areas, but they were usually far inland, while East Bengal was more conveniently accessible by sea." I could have added that many of the other areas were remote and hilly, while East Bengal was flat and threaded by numerous navigable river branches. Of course that's only an approximate impressionistic first-order explanation. I know very little about the other area you referred to, but it sounds like it would have been in the heart of the Mogul empire... AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Did India's high population (higher tech than Europe right?) have anything to do with getting to part of India so quick then historical maps that look like trying to bite off more than you can chew? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Your idiosyncratic use of idiom here makes it hard to parse what you are trying to ask about. Can you clarify? --Jayron32 11:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Mughal Empire at maximum extent

In 622 AD the caliphate had only just gained the territory of Makkah, Arabia and the boundary was close to it while only 89 years later the boundary was in what we moderns would call Pakistan. Then it took about a thousand years for the border to reach maximum extension in India even though ending strong conversation pressure couldn't have helped the side that's attempting a reconquest, stop or slowdown. I guess there might've also been goal-line stand-type effects at the end as Indians who didn't want to be under the Mughal Empire concentrated in the southern tip and had less miles of front to defend and fought harder. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Look, there's a LOT of misconceptions you have about India and its history, not to mention the fact that your insistence on "doubling down" on peculiar idioms and mixed metaphors leads me to believe that you're just fucking with me unnecessarily, especially since I asked you to ask your questions clearly. But whatever. If you want to learn more about the history of Islam in India, you'll read that article, follow links as they interest you, and become the autodidact we've all been rooting for you to become. If you're not, you'll keep doing what you always do. --Jayron32 17:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right I shouldn't have hypothesized from what little I remembered from my history book in high school and what's on this thread. I know so little about Indian history that I shouldn't be talking. I was not implying that the caliph had secular power in India after whatever year it was when other empire(s) or sultanate(s) or state(s) took over. I had thought that you as a person with some knowledge of American football would've known what a goal line stand was but okay I shouldn't have used that idiom. Presumably Indians who didn't care which state they were in would stay where they were and the little bit at the bottom had at least one soldier from the Mughal part during times of war but I have no idea if mentioning them was undue weight. I shall go read the article and find out what really happened. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• See Mughal Empire. The first areas the Mughals conquered were in the Indus and Ganges plains. The first few Emperors were fervent Muslims, and really tried to push their subjects into mass conversion to Islam (with some success). This explains why there are more Muslims in those areas. Later Emperors, however, were more open minded when it came to the religion of their subjects... so, as the empire expanded to the south, fewer people felt pressured to convert. Hence more Hindus and Buddhists in central and southern areas. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Naval tactics

HMS Victory (centre) breaks the French line at Trafalgar; Bucentaure is on the right with her stern against Victory's port broadside.

Are there historical examples when a warship, in order to avoid the enemy's broadside cannons or guns, aligned herself with that warship's stern or bow instead to shell in these directions? Did that tactics work? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossing the T has nothing to do with penmanship. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, "raking" an opponent, i.e. firing along the length of the enemy's ship, was deemed a highly desirable situation in the age of sail, not only because of being largely out of range of the enemies guns, but also because ships at that time were relatively open, and a lot of heavy metal flying down at high speed through the crews and guns of the gun deck was considered an efficient way to reduce the combat capabilities of the target. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Most famously, at the Battle of Trafalgar when HMS Victory raked the French ship Bucentaure through the vulnerable stern windows, killing nearly 200 of her crew. The most effective weapon for this was the short-range carronade; Victory's carronades were "double shotted" with a huge 68-lb round shot and a keg of 500 musket balls. See also Sailing ship tactics. Alansplodge (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the poundage of max effectiveness for round shot size muzzle-loaded by hand? Is it higher in a fort where cannon weight isn't a consideration? (if you still had to lift the cannonballs with human muscles without pulleys etc) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Carronades had a very short barrel and fired a shot at low velocity, designed for fighting at close quarters; major warships generally carried only two carronades, while they mounted 100 or more "long" guns. 68 lb was the largest shot in the British fleet in the age of sail. That equals 30 kg which even a skinny bloke like me can lift in the gym. The victory's long guns were 12, 24 and 36 lbs. With the introduction of rifled artillery in the 1850s, shells began to be too heavy to lift manually, so they were hoisted by a chains running through a block and tackle, which were then swung into position at the breech of the gun by means of an overhead rail like this. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well they might not have reached the limit of handloading yet (especially with how many other things had to be done to reload) but couldn't continue forever and it couldn't have been far off if rifling the barrels for long shells made the ammo too heavy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, but while Victory carried different armaments through its lifetime, I don't think she ever carried 36pounders, which were not widely used in the RN at that time. At least at Trafalgar, Victory was armed with 32pounders on the lower gun deck (42pounders had fallen out of favour, because the extra weight was bad for rate of fire). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So they had reached a limit for full-length cannons. Every little bit like longer swabbing time and pushing it back time added up apparently. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the smallest ship that's an even match for the best stern firepower ever made if the smaller ship was perpendicular to the stern the whole time and neither ship had any of the Age of Sail-ending revolutions like adding steam engines, metal armor, rifling and breeches? What about bows? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sailing warships rarely had more than two light guns positioned in the stern, called stern chasers, so it was a major faux pas to present your ship's stern to an enemy broadside. Not really sure if your question can be quantified, but for the smallest vessels employed with any success against major warships, see Gunboat War. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So something that can only shoot 2 light guns at the same direction (which would be a damn small warship) would have equal firepower (if they could stay behind) but is much easier to sink but might have an easier target to aim at and officers' stuff is in the back so who knows. Maybe if there's no wind and the current lets them sneak up at night they could get lucky? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes in theory, but a lot of luck required. I can't find an instance where this actually happened. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Quotation - "And broad-based under all is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, as rich in fortitude as e'er went worldward from the island wall"

At Bristol Basin in New York City is a plaque erected by the English Speaking Union of the United States commemorating the use of rubble from the Bristol Blitz in building the area. The plaque includes what looks like a quotation "And broad-based under all is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, as rich in fortitude as e'er went worldward from the island wall." I wuld be interested to know the source, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the comment after this blog post the poet was Stephen Vincent Benét. Fascinating story. Thincat (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but that particular segment was lifted from an interminably lengthy poem called National Ode by Bayard Taylor, the nation in question being the United States;

"She takes, but to give again, / As the sea returns the rivers in rain; / And gathers the chosen of her seed / From the hunted of every crown and creed. / Her Germany dwells by a gentler Rhine; / Her Ireland sees the old sunburst shine; / Her France pursues some dream divine; / Her Norway keeps his mountain pine; / Her Italy waits by the western brine; / And, broad-based under all, / Is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, / As rich in fortitude / As e'er went worldward from the island-wall! / Fused in her candid light, / To one strong race all races here unite..." (and so on and on and on).

It was recited by the poet at the Centennial International Exhibition of 1876, where it was allegedly "listened to with close attention". [19] See also Heart of Oak. Alansplodge (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Thincat: and @Alansplodge:. I think Benet must have written the "it was not their wall but their valour" bit before the text I quoted. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I now think Alan's is the correct answer. When I saw him quoting "close attention" I thought I detected a note of scepticism. However, it looks as if a vast crowd really were overcome by the magnificence of the occasion as Taylor orated his ode.[20] Thincat (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that link Thincat; I'm afraid I was being over censorious, perhaps the popular taste in poetry at that time differed more than I imagined. I had thought it rivalled the work of William McGonagall, but I'm not seeking employment as a literary critic. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps they'd had a rather good lunch. I find McGonagall easier to get through than Taylor. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

December 23

Is there any particular reason that Kharkiv became much more populous than nearby cities such as Kursk, Oryol, and Bryansk?

Is there any particular reason that Kharkiv became much more populous than nearby cities such as Kursk, Oryol, and Bryansk? Did Kharkiv's early status as the capital of the Ukrainian SSR (later moved to Kiev) have something to do with this? Or was there some other reason for this--and, if so, what exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"As the capital of interwar Soviet Ukraine, Kharkiv was developed more intensively than most other Soviet cities. Its area grew substantially, from 141 sq km in 1924 to 272 sq km in 1939... The reconstruction of industries destroyed during the Revolution of 1917 and subsequent Ukrainian-Soviet War, 1917–21, was followed by accelerated industrialization. In 1931 the huge Kharkiv Tractor Plant went into production; in 1933, the Kharkiv Machine-Tool Plant; and in 1934, the Kharkiv Turbine Plant. The prerevolutionary electromechanical (est 1887), cable (1890), motor (1882), and transport-machine-building (1885) plants increased their output. In 1930 the Kharkiv Regional Electric Station began supplying the city with electricity. By 1937 the output of Kharkiv's industries was 35 times greater than in 1913". [21] Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. So, my hypothesis here might have been correct! Futurist110 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, after the war-time destruction, also the law of the stimulative arrears in action.  --Lambiam 11:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe because it was easier to pronounce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Easier for whom? Russians? They would have said Харьков anyway.  --Lambiam 11:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that it was chosen as state capital because of it's proximity to Russia rather than having a central position in Ukraine. It stands at the junction of 3 major rivers and has been a rail hub since the 1860s, so has everything going for it. Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So that it would be easier for Russia to dominate Ukraine? Futurist110 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it was just the first city that fell under Bolshevik control - but probably because it was closest to Russia.

Kharkiv#The Red October and the Soviet period says: "In December 1917 Kharkiv became the first city in Ukraine occupied by the Soviet troops of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko... In February 1918 Kharkiv became the capital of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic; but this entity was disbanded six weeks later... Prior to the formation of the Soviet Union, Bolsheviks established Kharkiv as the capital of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (from 1919 to 1934) in opposition to the Ukrainian People's Republic with its capital of Kyiv". Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Indian mystics, hypnotists, ascetics portrayed in popular culture in 1940s, 50s

In the Tintin comics, Seven Crystal Balls there is a small plot about a Indian magician performing in Europe.

There was a very old Looney Tunes cartoon released in 1939 showing a Hindu mystic performing on stage in USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=5201&v=s1LS0gTxepU&feature=youtu.be

1950s horror comics written in USA or UK, has one story about Hindu sadhu wearing coat pant with Indian turban married to a white woman who has supernatural powers. In this story they also perform on stage in some western country, not specified USA or UK.

https://www.amazon.in/Haunted-Horror-Banned-Chilling-Archives/dp/1613777884

Even though these are work of fiction, not real.

But there must be some in real life who inspired these comics and cartoons.

I want to know that, as compared to today the number of Indian Hindus were very less during 1930s, 1940s, 1950s in USA, and these holy godmen are unlikely to speak English, so how did they manage to reach USA and perform there 80 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1133:12AC:54B1:2B11:9F5E:2974 (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

See Of Fakers and Fakirs: Faux Indian Mysticism in Professional Magic which says that many (if not all) Indian performers in the West were just blacked-up Europeans. One of them was a certain Harry Houdini according to this.

An actual Indian performer in the West was P. C. Sorcar, a student of Ganapati Chakraborty (who appears not to have got further abroad than Singapore). See also Indian magic.

On your linguistic point, note that India had been in British possession (or at least influence in the Princely States) since the 18th century, so the English language was not unknown there. See Indian English#History. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Tintin stories were originally written in French by a Belgian living in Belgium. Some are set in Belgium but there are books set in various different countries. I don't know the story you mention but there is at least one each set in Germany, USSR and the Congo. As noted above English is spoken by many in India-Im not sure what percentage. There would be fewer Indians able to speak French. In English literature set in Britain, because of the Imperial connection, there are quite a number of Indians although there would not be many living in Britain until the 1960s. For instance see the Moonstone by Wilkie Collins, The Sign of Four by Conan Doyle (a Sherlock Holmes story).and in Frank Richards Greyfriars stories there is an Indian Prince; Hurree Jamset Ram Singh who by his name must be a Sikh. These stories were printed in a boys story paper (not a comic) called the Magnet which was published between 1908 and 1940. He was a pupil at the Greyfriars School along with the other characters including Harry Wharton and Billy Bunter. Greyfriars was a public boarding school in the English sense : private school in the US sense. I don't know if any Indian characters went to the USA in British stories but like everybody else they would have gone by sea, probably via England. In real life Indians went all over the British Empire to work e.g to Kenya,Uganda, South Africa and the Carribean and Pacific islands.Spinney Hill (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC). .

How effective would banned bullets be compared to ones that don't break the laws of war?

Like poisoned, expanding, exploding, uranium, self-sharpening uranium, fragmenting, solid copper or something strategically weakened to partly or fully split into several sharp pieces if it enters meat... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "effective". These types of ammunition are banned because they are designed to cause grievous bodily injuries, making it more likely that any survivors will suffer lifelong debilitating ill-effects, when compared to regular bullets, making them unnecessarily cruel. I doubt they really increase the likelihood of actually winning a battle. Xuxl (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I know they're cruel, I was wondering if they're ever not just sadistic but would also have some military benefit if one were willing to use them (which probably would just get you back to square one as it likely wouldn't be long before the other side gives up diplomacy and starts attacking you with cruel things they hadn't used yet (which is a good reason to not use first in the first place, or better yet sign a ban before tensions)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Some could be more effective at causing death rather than merely wounding, but the value of that is questionable. In fact, some forces like the IDF are thought to try to cripple people rather than kill them as a constant visible warning to others who might protest and to drive the people into poverty through having to take care of the wounded. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:C4C7:93E4:4DC5:C15E (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if that isn't propaganda (I've heard they make bomb cases that turn to tungsten dust to reduce injury range by air resistance with the unavoidable physics of untreatable and worse damage close in) the other side did the same thing first by filling their bus bombs with ball bearings and/or sharp metal things dipped in rat poison. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"...the goal of modem warfare is not necessarily to annihilate an adversary, but more directly to reduce an enemy’s capability for further resistance. Whether through intimidation or physical damage, the military usefulness of weapons must ultimately be judged in terms of their contribution to this objective. Indeed, the proportion of non-lethal injury may have an even greater impact on operational success than the absolute number of deaths among an opponent’s force...

"...by creating greater numbers of casualties among opposing forces, many with multiple wounds, the enemy force will not only be weakened, but the logistic needs of their medical services will be increased. This may often evolve at the expense of the combat arms, since more enemy logistical resources and personnel will need to be withdrawn from offensive operations to care for the injured and facilitate their evacuation." Understanding weapons effects: A fundamental precept in the professional preparation of military physicians1 Alansplodge (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The article: Dum-dum. 95.149.135.151 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

December 24

How did Germany feel about Ukraine and Ukrainians in the Imperial and Weimar German eras?

How did Germany feel about Ukraine and Ukrainians in the Imperial and Weimar German eras? Seems like a relevant question considering that Germany occupied Ukraine during World War I, again during World War II, and is currently expanding its sphere of influence (specifically the European Union) into Ukraine yet a third time within a century! So, Yeah, I was wondering how exactly the typical Germans felt about Ukraine and Ukrainians under Bismarck, under Kaiser Wilhelm II, under the various Weimar German governments, and even in the early years of Nazi rule in Germany.

Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Many Germans might not have been clearly aware of a separate Ukrainian identity until various tumultuous events near the end of WW1, since Ukrainians had been commonly refered to as "Little Russians", inhabitants of "Little Russia" (Kleinrussland). AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Imperial German plans for Central Asia during World War I?

Did Imperial Germany ever make any plans for Central Asia during World War I? If so, what were these plans (as in, what exactly did these plans consist of) and when were these plans made? Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Central Asia is an awful long way away from the Russian imperial capital of St. Petersburg. I doubt that Germany ever had any plans to go that far and what purpose it could possibly have served. Xuxl (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose (well, one theoretical purpose) of this would have been to secure a German pivot point to China. Futurist110 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Germans already had holdings in China (Qingdao), so why would they need to go the long, long, long way through central Asia? On the other hand, they were silly enough to concoct Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be more to promote economic development in that part of the world. Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Germany only entered the First World War because it had agreed to defend the Austrians against the Russians, who were themselves acting in defence of Serbia. As far as I can tell, there was no plan for world domination analogous to the fantasies of the Nazis. Alansplodge (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not world domination, just a continuous German sphere of influence extending from the German border all of the way up to the Chinese border. Futurist110 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I have never seen anything that might support that theory. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason as to why these things are called alternate history. :) Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently Paul Rohrbach had some ideas. Also Central Asia played an important role in WWI Ottoman plans and propaganda. You can find some information in this downloadable file (for example at page 20 or searching "Turkestan" in the text): https://www.mediafire.com/file/skr85v0qh19m2v0/WWI.doc/file --79.31.10.126 (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Will check out! Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo of David Allison McKinley

Trying to find a photograph of David Allison McKinley, brother of William McKinley. I am only aware of the sketch from his obituary. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Google Image "David Allison McKinley" and a couple of photos turn up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No nothing shows up. Just images of William McKinley, their father and mother and other family members. I wouldn't ask a question I could google. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. The image labeled "David Allison McKinley" is actually William Sr. I went to Ancestry.com (pay site) and the only thing anyone seems to have is that same profile sketch. If he appears in family photos, it's possible none were ever scanned for public consumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

One obvious place to look is in printed biographies of William McKinley. Of course, to browse them you'd have to have access to a library that was open. No such thing around here just now. I poked around in Google Books but didn't find anything relevant. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity--when and where was his obituary published? Futurist110 (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

In The San Francisco Chronicle of September 19, 1892, page 10.^[22] Both a news item and an obituary.  --Lambiam 11:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several biographies of William McKinley at archive.org but although there are lots of pictures of his parents, there don't seem to be any of his brother. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about Ancient Chinese courtesy names

I'm working on Cai Lun's article and his courtesy name is Jingzhong. I'm wondering if in the Han Dynasty there was a specific time in someone's life when courtesy names would be given, or if it was completely circumstantial. The issue is that I'd like to include this info in the body of the article (to get the citation out of the lead!), but I'm not sure where to put it since it isn't known when Cai received his courtesy name. Best - Aza24 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The article on courtesy names says men received them at adulthood, or age 20, citing the Book of Rites. I can't say for sure whether that practice continued into the Han, or whether it necessarily applied in the same way to eunuchs like Cai Lun. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Was Tynemouth in Northumberland in 1957?

Was Tynemouth in Northumberland in 1957? “Asking for a friend.”

I do mean administratively as well as historically. The article talks of changes in 1974 but …

Thank you!

Ceremonially, yes. Administratively, no. It had its own county borough which was independent of Northumberland county council and included North Shields. Valenciano (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See also; A history of Northumberland, Volume VIII: The Parish of Tynemouth (1907). Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Valenciano and Alansplodge, both of you, very much. The Craster (1907) work is lovely but doesn't tell me what was going on 50 years later in 1957; and Valenciano can you please tell me if you are saying definitely that the County Borough of Tynemouth was still in existence in 1957, and do you have a ref for that, please? I would really like to read up on this and get it straight in my own head. Er I mean of course the "friend's" head ... on whose behalf I am asking ... ahem. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You'll see all of them as they existed at 1970 at this link. Valenciano (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

And to back that up in text; "Finally, on 1 April 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act, Tynemouth C.B. was abolished and became part of the newly-created Metropolitan District of North Tyneside" The National Archives - Tynemouth County Borough. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, on 24 March 1974, the “County Borough of Tynemouth Terminal Celebrations” took place, in which the Tynemouth Scouts took part in a March-Past at the Town Hall (they certainly knew how to throw a party). Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both – absolutely nailed it. My friend will be most appreciative and interested! Cheers DBaK (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"You can't board our drug-trafficking boat! We are flagged Panama!"

How do flags of convenience rules work in practice, when the boat or ship in question is on the "high seas" (i.e. international waters), and a Navy ship suspects them of being drug runners?

I'm imagining something like this story. How would the Navy ship crew be allowed to board the ship when faced with a boat/ship armed with... a Panamanian flag?! Assuming the Panama registration is genuine, of course?

If it were that simple, surely drug-runners would have zealously exploited flags of convenience? What gives? Do the major "flag of convenience" states regularly give warrants for operations such as the one described in the article I linked to? OR, is there some "loophole" which allows this sort of military operation?

I know pirates and slave traders are deemed "hostis humani generis", and thus may be apprehended by any nation, even one that has not been attacked... is some similar rule or law of the sea at play here with drug-runners? Or something else?

(Note, my question is limited to operations in full-fledged "international waters". I'm well aware that in a country's territorial waters, or even its exclusive economic zone, it would likely have authority to carry out or authorize such operations). Eliyohub (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm a US Coast Guard Auxiliarist; my understanding from the Active Duty folk is that drug smuggling is illegal under international law, so it doesn't matter what flag they're flying. This document seems to support that: https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/organized_crime/CNA%20Directory/English_ebook.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisa Koala (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Can the Coast Guard Seize a Vessel in International Waters? [Slate; 2001-05-15]:

"When a suspicious vessel is identified at sea, the Coast Guard notifies the State Department, which then gets permission from the vessel’s flag nation for the Coast Guard to board. (In the rare instances when permission is denied, the Coast Guard will generally monitor the vessel as it approaches U.S. territory.)"

See also Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act.

Hmm. "An Act implemented and routinely used by the United States Coast Guard allowing them to board foreign ships on the high seas under allegations of drug trafficking." from the infobox sounds more like a description than a "long title". Is that the proper use of that field?

See also Limits of Coast Guard Authority to Board Foreign Flag Vessels on the High Seas [USCG; 1997-04-29]. -- ToE 17:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Long titles can look like that, but I'm pretty sure that's not the right one. Also the "public law" citation in the infobox is wrong. As may be the year of passage. There were only 664 public laws passed by the 99th Congress, and none have a title of "Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act" or anything resembling the supposed long title. Wow that's a bad article. It primarily relies on a student note in Fordham Law Review (there are 11 footnotes pointing to it).

I am almost certain it's Title II, Subtitle C of Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207. Formerly codified at 46 U.S.C. §§ 1902 et seq. The actual short name of the law is "Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Prosecution Improvements Act of 1986", it does not appear to have a long name of its own, and it was part of the "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986". 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Do the treaties that banned cocaine, marijuana etc say anything about checking ships for them on high seas? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Article 17 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 covers this [23]. The relevant paragraph reads: "A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel exercising freedom of navigation in accordance with international law, and flying the flag or displaying marks of registry of another Party is engaged in illicit traffic may so notify the flag State, request confirmation of registry and, if confirmed, request authorization from the flag State to take appropriate measures in regard to that vessel." You can read the rest of the article to see how boarding proceeds. Xuxl (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Drug trafficking is not a violation of any jus cogens norm of which I'm aware, such that traffickers could be considered the kin of pirates and slavers. Hell, even whalers aren't considered that. I recommend reading about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is a multilateral treaty that might discuss rights to arrest and search ships on the high seas, if there is any such right. But, it's important to note that in the international arena, the laws are more for the protection of the nation state than the individuals. If the U.S. Coast Guard arrested and boarded a drug trafficking ship on the high seas (i.e., outside any EEZ/territorial claims) the ship owners and seamen would have no recourse in the courts to claim that the seizure was an internationally wrongful act. The flag nation could complain to the U.N., and if it seriously cared (as it might if this were a common issue or involved conduct like the harassment of fishing vessels or passenger liners) the flag nation might bring an action before the International Court of Justice (or, if it were almost any nation but the United States, before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Side comment: this thread reminds me of a moment in the movie Lord of War where a gun-running ship is approached by authorities and changes things to disguise its identity. One of the things that's changed is what flag they're flying: as I recall, not so that they would be immune from being stopped, but just to look like a different ship than the one that authorities were seeking. Anyway, it turns out that their box of flags doesn't include the one they want... so they fake it by flying another country's flag turned sideways. I haven't seen the movie since it was in first-run, but I think the two countries were probably France and the Netherlands. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It would need some very swift knife and needlework to convert a flag that way. Maybe you could make a small French flag from a big Netherlands one, but it just wouldn't work the other way around. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No, they just hung it sideways and hoped that this wouldn't be noticed. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

December 25

Norwood

From April 25, 1866 to August 11, 1866, a ship named Norwood sailed from London to Auckland. Any source on this ship and where it stopped over along this journey? This ship would have taken William Hoapili Kaʻauwai and Kiliwehi from Europe to New Zealand. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

THE SMART SHIP NORWOOD says: "The Norwood's third trip, still in command of Captain Bristow, was made in 1866. She left Gravesend on April 28, and reached Auckland on August 11. She brought out cargo and 65 passengers. In the Southern Ocean she struck a hurricane, which carried away the quarter galley and top-gallant bulwark besides doing other damage".

Also the passenger list which doesn't seem to include your Hawaiians (unless they were working their passage as part of the crew).

For the route taken, see clipper route (presumably it was non-stop). Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No they are there as Mr. and Mrs. Hospili [sic] as Saloon Passengers. Where would ships during this period stop off between destinations? Presumably South Africa and Australia (maybe also India)? I can't imagine they would be on the open ocean for 3.5 months KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind saw your second comment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"The sailing ships had also refined the skill of sailing non-stop between England and New Zealand or Australia by taking a course that made use of prevailing winds and followed an approximation of the shortest 'Great Circle' route". [24] Alansplodge (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

interesting that he was an aide to King Kamehameha IV, who declared Christmas an official holiday in Hawaii, in 1862. Gfigs (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

what makes a city monumental

Whenever I visit a monumental city, meaning that is a tourist attraction and has a beauty, I always ask my self what makes city monumental.
Usually old but planned city gets a lot of attraction. So what makes city look good, and what makes city look bad?
--Exx8 (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Define "good" and "bad". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Exx8 and Baseball Bugs, here is one source that came up with criteria and made a list: World's Most Beautiful Cities. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Prosecuting nazis

I watched a doc, The Devil Next Door, about one John Demjaniuk who was supposedly a Nazi war criminal called Ivan the Terrible. The USA claimed they didn't have jurisdiction over crimes in Ukraine, so they just sent him to Israel to be tried there. Then later he was tried in Germany. I have a feeling that the US could have tried him if they really wanted to. How is jurisdiction decided in cases like this? Crimes that happened elsewhere, long ago? Some crimes were committed in countries that don't even exist any more. Temerarius (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

In recent years there's an International Criminal Court which is supposed to try high-level genociders. And special UN things for specific geographic areas have tried genociders. If a major Nazi showed up hopefully they would do a better job trying than they do with stopping African wars and stuff.

Technically most United States laws do not have jurisdiction on non-Americans in other countries (besides embassies maybe) so who knows what's the best justification for trying him they could've come up with if they wanted the trial harder, I am not a lawyer. Maybe something similar to the any country can try pirates thing? In the biggest case of this type (at least after Nuremberg)Adolf Eichmann ended up being tried by Israel cause they were the first unsympathizing* country to know where he was and were worried the country he hid in might neither extradite him nor punish him sufficiently if they told them they knew. And there's no more powerful Jewish-majority country to send him to like how a British court is the top court of some independent Commonwealth countries. So for such a big fish they snuck him out of the country to Israel, changed the law to allow non-Israelis to defend people charged with capital crimes and tried him on 15 charges including crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people and membership in a criminal organisation. German defense lawyers and "I was just following orders" didn't beat the evidence and after appealing to the top he was hung. *technically true whether his hosts had no idea or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a beautifully complex issue, to which one could dedicate many books. But as a preliminary matter, I suggest reading about extraterritorial jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. The specific fact pattern you articulate: A person in the United States accused of being a Nazi war criminal would not likely be subject to the criminal law jurisdiction of the United States. Universal jurisdiction is not well accepted in the United States. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As our article on John Demjanjuk explains, Demjanjuk was almost definitely not Ivan the Terrible. He was innocent of that. He went home to the US, then later was accused of being a different guard at a different camp, and on the basis of that was denaturalized and deported to Germany, where he was convicted, but died before his appeal could be finalized, which according to German law makes him technically innocent.

I am not familiar with the details of the evidence on the second charge. But I do tend to find myself a bit more skeptical than I might have been if he hadn't been first prosecuted for being an entirely different guard. --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

He was not Ivan, a witness at the Israel trial said he was and they declined to prosecute for being a different camp's guard when the Ivanness was sorted out. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

December 26

Ho ho ho

Santa Claus in America is always laughing sounding "Ho ho ho". How did this start? From a movie or a book? Thank you. Hevesli (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably because that's what people in the 19th century thought that a jolly person would say. Not as close to laughing as "ha ha ha" or "heh heh heh", but sort of in the same ballpark. AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)