Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikimedes (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 19 May 2021 (→‎name this crime: menacing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:

May 12

A Masefield poem

Nevil Shute starts his 1948 novel No Highway with three stanzas by John Masefield:

Therefore, go forth, companion: when you find
No Highway more, no track, all being blind,
The way to go shall glimmer in the mind.
Though you have conquered Earth and charted Sea
And planned the courses of all Stars that be,
Adventure on, more wonders are in Thee,
Adventure on, for from the littlest clue
Has come whatever worth man ever knew;
The next to lighten all men may be you . . .

The acknowledgments say they are from The Wanderer. It's not The Wanderer, and it's not A Wanderer's Song, so what is it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't it odd? I've been looking for this poem for years, the last time took me down a byway in the course of which Antiquary identified the poem Masefield credited as being one of the first to move him. Before posting above I had another bash at Google, no luck. After posting I tried again and turned up this - from a few months after my last search, a presentation identifying the poem as being from the book more usually listed as The Wanderer of Liverpool. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The stanzas come from a longer piece entitled "The Ending", pages 78-87 of the book. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised I haven't come across this before. It's rather good. Alansplodge (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very Masefield and if anything even more so Shute (the underlying sentiment anyway). It's not in Masefield's Collected Poems which came out in, I think, 1923, seven years before. I don't think it was ever in a book of verse. There are other poems in The Wanderer of Liverpool too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litbel insignia?

Anyone has found online the coat of arms (or similar) of the Lithuanian–Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic? I've seen sources saying it was written in 5 languages, but can't find any image of it. --Soman (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman, I believe it could be at Emblem of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. I'm not 100% sure as this is my first time volunteering at the Refdesk. aeschyIus (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ping @Лобачев Владимир? --Soman (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have only seen this coat of arms with one language. In 1927-1937, the coat of arms of Belarus was with ribbons in four languages: Belarusian, Russian, Polish, Yiddish. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article (in Russian), the Litbel constitution was never approved, so that the status of the coat of arms as designed remained that of a draft. Nevertheless, the article states, the official coat of arms of the BSSR was – according to "the scientific literature" – the spitting image of its unofficial predecessor, the only difference being that the slogan ("Workers of all countries, unite!"), originally only in Belarusian, was additionally presented in Lithuanian, Polish, Hebrew (sic) and Russian. The author further writes that he has an imprint of the seal of Litbel's Extraordinary Commission for Combatting Counter-Revolution and Profiteering, showing the "lost seal", but with a grammatically incorrect slogan. (The article does not further identify the error, but I think the image shown here is that imprint, with a slogan I cannot make out, but apparently three words instead of the four of Пралетарыі ўсіх краін яднайцеся.)  --Lambiam 11:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this context I think еврейский язык refers to Yiddish rather than the Hebrew language. --Amble (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. --Soman (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Monarch or consort of a monarch?

Queen Sisowath Kossamak of Cambodia was a queen consort by marriage to a King of Cambodia, but was she also a monarch? Her article is a bit confusing, because it is contradictive: on one hand, it explicitly say she was not a ruling monarch since her son refused her succeeding to the throne, and she is only a queen consort in the majority of the formatting; but one the other hand, she is called a monarch in some of the formatting of the article. What is correct?--Aciram (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question that is almost impossible to answer, at least in a few sentences. It would literally need a book. The backdrop is the Indochina crisis and war, and the centerpiece of the happenings is her son Norodom Sihanouk or Prince Sihanouk or King Sihanouk (pick your choice). For seven decades, in his different roles as king, abdicated king, prince, prime minister, unspecified head of state, even as abdicated and retired, it was around him everything circled, even when he was not in any position. As long as his mother was alive, she had a formal position (and possibly even some influence), but to pin it down to an exact answer to your question, is more or less impossible. Was she a ruling monarch? Yes and no! Was she just a queen consort? Yes and no. Hence the ambiguity of the article. --T*U (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, though, a monarch is reserved for someone with the constitutional right to rule as such; there have been powerful queen consorts and queen mothers who ruled their country but were not considered monarchs because the were in countries that did not legally recognize them as such. I'm thinking of people like Eleanor of Aquitaine and Empress Matilda and Catherine De Medici and the like, all of whom at various times held the power of a monarch, but could not be named a monarch for various complex reasons. --Jayron32 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how this can be a difficult question to such a degree. Of course, she was a royal person regardless if she was a queen consort or a queen regnant, and she had the title queen. But that is not the issue. I do know the difference between a ruling monarch and other royal people. Why should this be a complicated definition? All monarchies have lists of their monarchs: France has it, England has it, Sweden has it, and the lists are of course separate for people like Elizabeth I of England and Catherine of Aragon: both of them were royals, but one of them was a monarch, and the other was just married to a monarch. Unless there is a complete different definition of monarchs in Cambodia, I cannot see how this can be different. My question is very simple: was she a ruling monarch like Elizabeth I of England, or was she just married to a monarch and the mother of a monarch, like Catherine of Aragon? This is not really a question of power, de jure power or de facto power, only of a formal definition. As far as I understand it, Shihanouk was a monarch in 1960-1970 as well, he just didn't call himself by the title king in that period.--Aciram (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the article never calls her a monarch. It only says that she was "neither a monarch nor politically influential" and later "There were suggestions of changing the constitution to allow for Kossamak to succeed as queen regnant and monarch in her own name, but the royal council was unwilling to allow it." Nowhere else does it suggest she was a monarch herself. --Jayron32 17:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, she is named as monarch in the infoboxes on the articles for her husband (as successor) and her son (as monarch 1960-70). Norodom Sihanouk, on the other hand, was not a monarch from 1960 to 1970, but he was still (and officially) "head of state", titulated as "Prince" (but I am not sure if that was official). In the List of heads of state of Cambodia article, they have put in both, just to be on the safe side. This is simply a case where our usual categories do not fit very well, if at all. --T*U (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why Infoboxes can be the suck when it comes to things like this, I honestly rarely look at them myself and am constantly surprised by how bad a tool they can be when they are pressed into articles where they fail to capture the nuance of a situation. It's impossible to create a field in an infobox that adequately deals with every possible sui generis situation, and so you get stuff like this. I'm not sure how to resolve this. --Jayron32 18:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True! Infoboxes are made for presenting things in black and white, but the real world contains lots and lots of different colours and any number of shades of grey (I did not link that...). --T*U (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You (Aciram) appear to assume that there is an unambiguous and universally agreed definition of the term monarch. However, that is a misconception. Webster's 1828 dictionary already starts with two definitions:
  1. The prince or ruler of a nation, who exercises all the powers of government without control, or who is vested with absolute sovereign power; an emperor, king or prince invested with an unlimited power. This is the strict sense of the word.
  2. A king or prince, the supreme magistrate of a nation, whose powers are in some respects limited by the constitution of the government. Thus we call the king of Great Britain a monarch although he can make no law without the consent of parliament.
By this definition, the consort of a monarch is not also a monarch. Merriam—Webster simplifies this to:
  a: a sovereign ruler
  b: a constitutional king or queen
So then the consort of monarch can after all be a monarch, depending on their title. However, the Emperor of Japan is neither a sovereign ruler nor a king or queen; are they not a monarch? Oxford Dictionaries has: "A sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor." Since they define sovereign as: "Possessing supreme or ultimate power", none of the European kings or queens is a monarch, according to this definition. But Collins reinstates them: "The monarch of a country is the king, queen, emperor, or empress."  --Lambiam 18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most constitutional monarchs theoretically have ultimate power, but that power has been devolved in practical usage. In the UK, the Queen theoretically appoints prime ministers, ministers, military and police officers, judges, diplomats and even bishops; but in practice, all those appointments are now decided by others on her behalf, but are still made in her name. Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and chips in Mexico?

Fish and chips?

This image is on WikiMedia Commons in the category "Fish and chips in Mexico". Is this really fish and chips? I see fish, and I see chips, in the picture, but fish and chips is the name of a specific dish in British cuisine, not just anything containing fish and containing chips. JIP | Talk 13:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say. It looks to me like someone read about fish and chips but had never had it or seen it, and then recreated it just from a vague description of what it was. Which is not to say that, at this restaurant in this locality, this dish wasn't called fish and chips. This sort of thing happens a lot, where two very different dishes use the same word, through accidents of history, or where a hyper-local dish is something totally different than what you expect, based on the name. As far as I know, fish and chips in the British sense is not part of Mexican cuisine (though, in the more cosmopolitan areas of Mexico, you'd probably find the real thing, in the same way that you can get tacos in London), though the style of fish shown in the image likely is. --Jayron32 13:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be portions of some kind of chips on the plate in the background? --T*U (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The chips are in cups behind the salsa. But, there is no such thing as "fish and chips" in Mexico. Obviously, those are English words, not adopted in Mexico. Second, "chips" are called "papas fritas" regardless if you are using the American or British definition of a "chip." So, that is "pescado y papas fritas." If you ask me, it is a picture of an average "cenas para compartir." 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The file was uploaded to wikitravel and added to the page Patzcuaro 14 years ago by a user who ceased to be active even before the English-language wikitravel content was forked over to wikivoyage. The image was added to a section starting "Typical of the region are:"; assuming that "fish and chips" is not typical of the surroundings of Lake Pátzcuaro – something I am inclined to believe without further examination – the image caption ("Patzcuaro Fish and Chips") and description ("Fish and Chips, Patzcuaro, Mex.") are not optimal. In the fourteen years since, there has been no content change; the image is now on the page Patzcuaro on wikivoyage with the same caption as in 2007. The text in that section lists as one of the foods that are typical of the region: "Pescado blanco: white fish from Lake Patzcuaro, prepared to order". Assuming this is correct (and I see no reason to doubt this), a better caption and description is: "Pescado blanco from Lake Pátzcuaro". It should also be reassigned on Commons to Category:Cuisine of Michoacán and perhaps also Category:French fries in Mexico.  --Lambiam 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The picture unambiguously contains "fish and chips"; it's just not "Fish and chips". It's a kind of Ich bin ein Berliner problem. Matt Deres (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, I was surprised to read the claim that "there is no such thing as fish and chips in Mexico". I feel sure, even having never visited the place, that Mexicans eat fish and chips. They certainly eat fish, they certainly eat chips, so it seems more than reasonable to assume that sometimes they eat both together. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly fish, and it's certainly chips, it's just not "fish and chips". That's exactly what I was thinking as well. So the only thing wrong with the picture is that it's misnamed and miscategorised, it should not be under the category "Fish and chips in Mexico". JIP | Talk 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The real fish-and-chips, or a close equivalent, is fairly common in America - battered fish filets and what we might call "steak fries". That rather gross-looking Mexican dish ain't it. But I wonder what the Spanish for lutefisk would be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No-Spanish fish without chips
Without a good sprinkling of vinegar, it is not the "real" fish-and-chips.  --Lambiam 08:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever did lutefisk enter the picture? --T*U (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
La traducción directa es pescado a la sosa, debido al hecho de que está hecho con sosa o potasa.es:Lutefisk  --Lambiam 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You misspelled "delicious-looking". De gustibus non est disputandum. --Jayron32 22:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the file to the correct categories on Commons. As I do not have filemover privileges on Commons, I have requested a rename. JIP | Talk 18:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

Are lists on Wikipedia complete/ kept up to date? Have the criteria for notability in academics changed over time?

Hi!

I am working on an article about an Austrian professor of theology and I am trying to figure out how to best proof that his work has been notable enough. As a point of comparison I would like to use lists of theologians ( Category:German_Christian_theologians, List_of_Christian_theologians#21st_century) to see how notability has been established for other people in his field.

That's where my question comes in: Are lists like the ones mentioned above kept up to date? Can I be sure that they include all articles that fall under their category?

Furthermore, I would like to know if the criteria for notability in academics (Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)) have changed over time and whether or not I can use articles that have been posted a few years ago as a reference or not.

Thanks in advance A WP-noob Marianowitsch (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With only a relatively few exceptions (please don't ask me to specify them), you can safely assume that any list or category on Wikipedia is inherently incomplete. That's the nature of a project where stuff gets added to articles by random people as they become aware of it, or become interested enough to bother putting in the work. Compared to the mass of people who ever read or search for stuff on WP, there are not that many actual builders of the encyclopedia. We always need new editors. Come on down. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most complete lists are those with a clearly defined scope — all items are clearly article-worthy ("notable"), if you know the field, it's easy to ascertain whether something's missing or not, and either there's essentially never a new entry (the last new entry on List of counties in Rhode Island was created in 1750), or new entries are qualified in a very public and clear manner (List of prime ministers of Australia clearly won't get any new entries until the incumbent leaves office). Lists such as the ones you linked should always be deemed incomplete. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the helpful answers - I'll try my best to contribute to WP, if my time allows it. But I have already tasted blood by making small corrections in an article about a rather unknown french philosopher - it feels really good to contribute sth. Btw.: On the subject of my original question: If I stumble upon an article about a theologian that fits into one of the lists, I can just add them to it, right? Marianowitsch (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity from 1927

I recently saw Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis. A fascinating dip into the past. At the 30:14 to the 30:25 mark there is a line of people walking through the streets dressed in costumes that are eight or nine feet tall interspersed with a couple people wearing what looks like a some kind of box. Can any of you tell me what this is about? Is it an advertisement or something else? I will be interested to learn what your research comes up with. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're advertising something called Bullrich Magensalz, which was some kind of remedy for an upset stomach. The scene is referred to on page 49 of this academic article [1] (pdf). --Viennese Waltz 19:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's bicarbonate of soda. See w:de:August Wilhelm Bullrich and w:de:Bullrich-Salz. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Thanks for your research skills Viennese Waltz and DuncanHill. The article mentions that it goes back to the 1820's and that it is still for sale in Germany today - or at least in 2019 - just amazing. I don't know if there is any wiki-article where the "Bull-rich Giants" could be mentioned but I do appreciate your helping me learn about this. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is for sale in Germany as of today. "As there is always a fire to extinguish."  --Lambiam 11:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to be of assistance. You could probably add it to the article on the film if you wanted to, using the article I linked to as a source. --Viennese Waltz 21:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That could work Viennese Waltz. Might go well with some other specific places or items from the film. That would give me an excuse to watch it again :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When Looking at the table of contents of Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis, I couldn't help but be reminded that another meaning of the German word "Akt" is "artistic nude"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where does that word come from anyway? I know the meaning but not the etymology. JIP | Talk 17:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:Akt says "The artistic sense derives from the 19th century practice of sketching models carrying out actions, for which the models would usually be nude", JIP. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

Spanish aristocratic numbering

I happened to notice that the infobox at John of Castile, Lord of Valencia de Campos says that María II Díaz de Haro was one of his wives and that María Díaz II de Haro was his daughter. It struck me as a trifle unlikely that they would have the same name and number, until I noticed that the "II" in the two names is in a different place, and in fact the two women have different articles: María II Díaz de Haro is a redirect to María Díaz I de Haro. But I see nothing on either of the two pages, or on the María Díaz de Haro disamibguation page, to indicate why it might make sense for a woman named with a number "I" in one place might also have the same name with a number "II" in a different place.

If it makes sense to someone else, they might like to provide some clarification in whatever article seems appropriate. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the confusion, María I Díaz de Haro also redirects to María Díaz I de Haro. Here are the fruits of an historical examination. Earlier, the page María II Díaz de Haro had been moved to María I Díaz de Haro, leaving a redirect, with the edit summary: Wrong regnal numeration. (I have not examined if there are are authoritative sources on the "correct regnal numeration".) Then María I Díaz de Haro was moved to María Díaz I de Haro, again leaving a redirect, with the edit summary all of the other Haro pages go <name> <patronym> <number> de Haro, including that of María Díaz II de Haro. (I have not examined whether this way of fixing an apparent inconsistency was actually justified.) Then a little bot came and fixed the now double redirect. María II Díaz was added as spouse to the infobox way back in 2012, long before these page moves, and has apparently been overlooked as needing adjustment. (Several other articles link to María II Díaz de Haro and may also need adjustments.) María Díaz II was added as issue shortly after. I think we should go by the designations most commonly used in reliable sources.  --Lambiam 10:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who drew first hyper realistic artpiece ?

In this section, listed out couple of artists, but what's the origin of it? Rizosome (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is also important to note that "hyperrealism" and "photorealism" are not just vague terms describing "art that looks a LOT like real life"; they refer to specific art movements that are tied to a specific time, place, and cultural context. Art has different purposes based on context, and "looking exactly like real life" is not a goal of all art; it is for some. Fashions and trends in the visual arts come and go; the Romans (espcially c. 1st century) worked really hard to produce realistic sculpture, but by, say, the 4th or 5th century styles had changed, and the sculptures look much more stylized. In the 16th century, Hans Holbein the Younger produced some fantastically realistic paintings; his well-known painting of Sir Thomas More from 1527 shows the individual whiskers in his 3-day old beard and the iridescence of the velvet in his clothing is similarly true to life. (go to File:Hans Holbein, the Younger - Sir Thomas More - Google Art Project.jpg, select the highest resolution, and see for yourself the level of detail). But Holbein is not a hyperrealist or anything like that. He's just comes from a time, and developed a style, that had as a goal, the faithful reproduction of real life. Hyperrealism is that too but done during the mid-to-late 20th century. --Jayron32 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, yet do note that "realism" can apply to other aspects of visual art besides verisimilitude in terms of visual reproduction. Another aspect, important to the 19th century movement of realism, focuses more on what is being depicted, e.g. real-life situations as opposed to constructed, staged, and emotionally obvious scenes of the past. This too, was always important to photo- and hyperrealism. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

name this crime

Let's imagine (unrealistically I hope) that you do a round of Russian Roulette in reverse: you load one bullet into a revolver, spin the cylinder, point the gun at another person, and pull the trigger. As expected (i.e. it happens with 83.333...% probability), the hammer falls on an empty chamber. You refrain from repeating the stunt, i.e. you only pull the trigger once, but of course you get arrested anyway.

Question: what do they charge you with? Attempted murder doesn't seem right, since if you wanted the person dead, you would have loaded 6 bullets or kept shooting or whatever: instead, what you did had only 16.666...% chance of firing the gun. Reckless endangerment on the other hand doesn't seem to go far enough, since the danger created wasn't a side effect of something you did for an unrelated reason (e.g. drunk driving). Endangering the other person was the whole point of the action. Also, is it different depending on the probability of the gun going off? Like if it's 40%, 60%, or maybe 5% or even 1%.

This is partly a legal and partly philosophical question, but I'm obviously not seeking legal advice since I have no wish to do anything like this. It's abstracted from stories I've been seeing in the news, about people doing stuff that is imho ethically comparable but with different details. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As part of your research, you might be interested in Commonwealth v. Malone from 1946. Two boys were playing the variant you describe and one was killed. They were convicted of second degree murder and the conviction was upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Our summary of the court's reasoning:

The court used common law analysis to determine that a game of Russian roulette evinced malice and recklessness towards a very serious risk, thus fulfilling the mens rea required for depraved heart murder despite the fact that the killing of the specific victim was unintentional.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, that is the case where the gun actually goes off though. I'd expect a different charge if the defendant had pulled the trigger and nothing happened. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who's going to file charges? And what is the law in that specific state? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aggravated assault?--Khajidha (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In many jurisdictions, reckless endangerment (sometimes called by a different name) is a crime. The precise definition, criminal class, and punishments, will differ per jurisdiction, but playing reverse Russian roulette without the outcome of actual physical harm will very likely fit any of these definitions.  --Lambiam 10:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, my guess is that the offence would be Possession (of a firearm) with intent to endanger life under Section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but the recommended range is from 4 to 22 years. There is a lesser charge under the same act of Possession with intent to cause fear of violence, but I suppose that pointing a loaded gun at someone's head and pulling the trigger would rule that out. Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada, my non-expert opinion is that this comes under aggravated assault. From section 268 of the Criminal Code: "Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant". (Section 244 also provides that "Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person"; it doesn't give this crime a short name, but the section is titled "Discharging firearm with intent". But I doubt that pulling the trigger on an empty chamber would count as "discharging".) --184.147.181.129 (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think intent to fire the gun exists in that picture. The gun had only 1/6 chance of shooting and 5/6 chance of just going click. So not shooting is the far likelier and expected outcome. On the other hand the person did something ridiculously dangerous and malicious. It goes beyond reckless endangerment, which after all implies recklessness, i.e. not caring about the consequence: see Recklessness (law). That article mentions "intentional wickedness" which is what this is (I found the article just now). I guess "intentionally wicked endangerment" is what I'm looking for, though I'm not sure such a concept exists. Anwyway, thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what does "fire" mean? Pulling the trigger when there is a possibility that a bullet may be discharged may qualify. I suspect this would have to go up the appeals ladder. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Menacing appears to fit the circumstances.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements on money?

Years ago, I came up with the idea of printing advertisements on money. The money would still be issued by the state, not by private institutions, but private institutions would be able to pay to get their advertisements printed on money, which would still be fully legal tender. This idea never got past this simple "would be nice" stage.

Now would this work, and would it be a good idea? Would there be legal reasons preventing it? Or, has it already been done somewhere? JIP | Talk 15:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The front page of English Wikipedia quite often features articles about American legal tender commemorative coins, sometimes promoting a regional exhibition. However the goal is not promotion by circulation but financing the promoted thing (or the promoter) by the markup on the coin sale price.
JP Koning seems to have never dealt with the issue. He may find it interesting though. --Error (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, "Use and reproduction of U.S. currency for advertising purposes [is] prohibited under federal law" (section 475 of the U.S. Criminal Code)[2] (Gotta love the website for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing: moneyfactory.gov.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from the legalese ("...writes, prints, or otherwise impresses upon or attaches to any such instrument, obligation, or security, or any coin of the United States, any business or professional card, notice, or advertisement, or any notice or advertisement whatever, shall be fined under this title"), that includes writing on it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, "It is illegal to deface [UK] banknotes by printing, writing or adding words, letters or figures."[3] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I was thinking was if the laws were changed so that advertising in money was legal so that the state would sell advertisement space on the money it issues, not so that private institutions themselves just stuck advertisements on money. If such a scheme were to exist, would it work in practice? JIP | Talk 00:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me consult my crystal ball. I see ... a sign. It says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's asking "Would it work?" There's no way to know until someone tries it. A fairer question is "Could it work?" And the answer is... there's no way to know until someone tries it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish banknotes (though they aren't legal tender) are essentially adverts for the issuing banks. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, someone is already doing this: https://www.massivemediainc.com/ads-on-money I have no idea how effective it is (and judging by earlier replies, might not even be legal). Iapetus (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of commemorative coins, and several countries issue commemorative banknotes. (Hmm, anyone want to create a disambiguation page?) I think that's the closest you'll get to advertising on "money". Anyway who uses cash these days?--Shantavira|feed me 08:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bad idea, and should remain in the "would be nasty" category. If the advertized service or product is commercial, this would inevitably create the impression – regardless of how emphatic any disclaimers are – that the state endorsing the banknotes also endorses the product. This then creates unfair competition, unless the product is a total monopoly and has no competition, but then, undoubtedly, many will feel that the corporation behind the product is evil, creating ill will for the state. If, however, the ad is non-commercial but concerns a laudible goal, the public will feel the state should not be so stingy as to ask money for the advertisement.  --Lambiam 13:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good reply, the kind of reply I was looking for. As I had only had the idea, I hadn't known how it would work. I had just been imagining it would help the economy by allowing the state to get more money. Apparently the idea would do more harm than good. JIP | Talk 15:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such things have been done in the past with stuff like Private currency, though in the modern world in most countries private currency is illegal, though there are sanctioned local currencies that have some of the same features as private currency. Insofar as these local currencies serve as a means to increase commercial activity at specific businesses, they are at least "advertising adjacent" even if they aren't strictly speak advertisements themselves. There are also trade tokens which are a sort of currency I guess as well, though these skirt currency laws by clearly stating that they are not legal tender, and are only intended to be used in the business in question, cannot be traded for cash, etc. etc. --Jayron32 13:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A peripherally relevant circumstance is that by some definitions, postage stamps are – or are treated as – legal tender, and commercial firms who purchased postage stamps in quantity for correspondence purposes would sometimes "brand" them with a perforated pattern, often the firm's initials, called by philatelists a "perfin." However, this was primarily to discourage their employees from using a company-bought stamp for their own private correspondence, or to thwart larger scale thefts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King Robert of Naples executing his daughter and son-in-law

According to our article about King Robert of Naples, he had his illegitimate daughter executed for eloping with an Albanian nobleman, Andrea I Thopia. See here for details. I am struggling to find anything about this in academic sources. Royal filicide seems rather unlikely, to say the least, for 14th-century Catholic Europe. It also goes against what is known of Robert's character and his reputation. I would appreciate if someone else could weigh in and look this up, in Italian and French as well if possible, for we may have a giant hoax here. Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our page Andrea I Thopia gives a reference ([1]), to which someone has added "[failed verification]". However, the cited book states:
The family had two branches: the northern one, named Thopia, and the southern – probably older – united with the family Arianiti Komnenos. The northern branch acquired prominence from a marital connection with the Angevin house of Naples when Andrea Thopia abducted and married an illegitimate daughter of Robert of Anjou, king of Naples, but both he and his wife were executed on her father's orders in 1342 after being invited to return [to] the Neapolitan court.
This supports the claims made, so if this is a hoax, the renowned author of the book, Guy Stair Sainty, and perhaps even its publisher, the esteemed Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado, a state agency that also publishes the official gazette of the Kingdom of Spain, are in on the hoax.  --Lambiam 14:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The anecdote also appears in a second source ([4]): “As for Karl Thopia, his parents were Andre Thopia and an illegitimate daughter of the Neapolitan king Roberto, who had both of them executed: Hopf, Chroniques, table 11.6 (532), and Schwennicke, Stammtafeln 3.3 (1985), no. 410” Hopf as far as I know wrote in the 19th century in Germany while Schwennicke is a modern author.70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Royal filicide seems rather unlikely, to say the least, for 14th-century Catholic Europe"? Reflect that Robert's son Charles d'Artois who became grand chamberlain for Robert's successor, his granddaughter Queen Joanna I, was executed for murdering her cousin Andrew of Hungary to whom she was betrothed. Such murders were par for the course – the somewhat bloody series A Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones), is inspired by events in (Catholic) Britain and France in just this period.
As for Robert's execution of Hélène and Andrea, their unsanctioned union likely upset Robert's plans for marrying her to someone else for diplomatic gain, and may have given Albania unwanted claims and/or influence on his own Kindom of Naples. Royal marriages were always about international politics, which always had to override personal sentiments for the security of the realm(s) involved, and Robert might justifiably have viewed it as a matter of treason. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sentencing your half-uncle to death for killing your husband is hardly comparable to executing your daughter for marrying without permission. Yes, I can see how an elopement could have irked him, but I do not see Robert murdering his child over it. He does not exactly share the reputation of Ivan the Terrible.
Lambiam, I have noticed the reference to Guy Stair Sainty. I can tell that you consider him credible enough but he is not a historian; Wikipedia itself does not define or categorize him as such. "The esteemed Boletín Oficial del Estado" is not an academic press, and the Angevins are not the subject of the book. When writing the article about Robert's illegitimate son, I cited this book, which does not list the daughter Robert supposedly executed among his children. It lists only two illegitimate children, a son and a daughter who were executed after Robert's death for their part in the conspiracy against Andrew. Surtsicna (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

English language encyclopedia

I seem to remember coming across a late 19th century English language (Scottish?) encyclopedia adapted from one of the German ones – perhaps Meyers –, with the intention of providing a more accessible alternative to the "scholarly" Britannica. Am I misremembering? Cheers ⌘ 09:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have on my bookshelf an 1889 eight-volume set of Blackie's Modern Cyclopedia of Universal Information from Blackie & Son of Glasgow, edited by Charles Annandale:
"Little need to be said in preface to this Cyclopedia, the aim in preparing which has been to provide a convenient work of reference for readers of all classes - comprehensive in scope, handy in size, moderate in price, and generally adapted to the needs of the day".
No mention of a German influence though. Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But a better fit would be Chambers's Encyclopaedia: A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge for the People published in Edinburgh in 1859, which our article says was: "partly based on a translation into English of the 10th edition of the German-language Konversations-Lexikon, which would become the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie". Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

Waiting periods for remarriage after divorce

Dmitri Mendeleyev was technically a bigamist, because he married his second wife less than 7 years after his divorce from his first wife. He was only a month or two early, but the law was the law. The priest whom he bribed to officiate was even defrocked for his involvement.

Have any other countries (or their official religious institutions) imposed such a long waiting period between a divorce and remarriage? Also, if the divorced couple reconciled and wanted to have another go, would they have been subject to the same waiting period? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Lemlich speech

Is the full Yiddish-language text of Clara Lemlich's 1909 speech at Cooper Union extant? If so, could I please be pointed to it?

I remember reading a book in secondary school that quoted her as saying "ondzer oynziger oysveg iz eyn zheneral-strayk", but I am unable to find this sentence, or any variation thereof, anywhere online. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=1023937275"