Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 18

Street Map with Baldwin NY School District Boundaries

I've searched the web but cannot find a Google map or any other app's map of the Baldwin NY School District. I've phoned the School District office and they confirm that no such map exists online. The only available possibility is found on schooldigger.com, but the street names are not visible and the page is cluttered with other overlaid information. Thank you.WhoIsSylvia? (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Presumably you're talking about this map (click on Boundaries, then District)? It seems fine to me, you can zoom in to see the individual street names. --Viennese Waltz 08:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this Baldwin Senior High School (New York)? We've got a zoomable map linked from our article that might be what you want. The software won't let me link it directly from here, but click on the article, scroll down to External Links and click the City Data entry. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ownership of Home Depot

How much of Home Depot does Bernard Marcus own, if any? "Asking for a friend." -- Beland (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In theory easy to find out, in practice impossible. You can look up the results of public filings at sits like [1], where you can find who owns how much stock, but since most stocks are owned indirectly, you just see a list of banks. Insiders cannot hide this way if they have bought or sold stocks that year. Marcus also, I don't know if he's still considered an insider. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In the UK we have a site https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/ where all UK registered companies are listed. It is as easy as typing in the name of the company or one of the directors and pulling up the information. You will be able to see all information including past year filings, directors, past and present and charges. I would expect the USA has something similar but will leave that with another expert to comment on. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know that the registers at Companies House do not include information on who owns how many shares. This information is contained in the Shareholders' Register, which is maintained by the company's designated Registrar, an independent specialist public limited company. If you look at G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc you will see that the Foundation (the owner of this website) is described as "A Company organised under the laws of the state of Florida". Each state has its own laws relating to the control of limited companies. See List of company registers#United States for company registration information. In the case of Georgia (where The Home Depot is headquartered) the relevant authority is the "Georgia Corporations Division". A search can be made by Business Name on their website [2]. As in Britain, information on who owns how many shares is held elsewhere. A search for "The Home Depot, Inc" brings up three names and the "jurisdiction" is stated to be "Delaware". There is a search facility on the website of the Delaware Division of Corporations [3]. The Home Depot, Inc was incorporated on 29 June 1978. Information about officers is available for a fee. In England the "Register of Shareholders" is a public document. The U S equivalent is the "shareholder list". Investopedia [4] says:

... companies may provide access to the shareholder register per state laws or a company's by-laws and charter.

The Securities and Exchange Commission website [5] has a search bar. Typing in "The Home Depot, Inc" brings up a number of "EDGAR Search Results". These link to a wealth of reports such as "Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities" and there are some names but these are not linked to shares held. There's a step-by-step guide at [6]. Particularly useful is [7]. Form 13F filings are very useful. This website [8] states:

Publicly listed companies are required to disclose the identity of their directors, officers and shareholders holding at least 5% of such company.

I'm interested in this too. For onlookers, what this is about is a movement among Trump opponents to boycott Home Depot due to founder Marcus's sizeable contributions to the GOP. Marcus retired in 2002, and so far I've been unable to find out if there's any connection remaining at all. My totally unsubstantiated guess is "not much if any", for a few reasons. We don't need to hear anything here about the wisdom or political propriety of such boycotts in general, but I'd really like to know if Marcus holds enough HD stock that a boycott (and I guess the decrease in stock price as a result) would affect him noticeably. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

At his age, a lot of whatever he owns would have been put in trusts and other tax-avoidance methods. He likely controls a good deal more than he owns on the books. This should be an interesting boycott, due to fact that in many areas, Home Depot is the go-to option. Literally. Certainly for small contractors, which is one of Home Depot's strengths, and which probably will not be persuaded to boycott.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Likely controls more than he owns" -- how does that work? What is his voting power? Or are people promoting the boycott simply assuming with no other information than "he founded the company"? I'm trying to resist speculation, not promote it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If he puts stock into a trust for estate planning pruposes, he might for example reserve the right to vote the stock. Estate planning for the superrich is not my field, but my recollection is that as long as he's not the beneficiary of the trust, he could even be the trustee, or it might be a lawyer he trusts. But it wouldn't be "in his name".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So, yes, purely speculation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

U.S. securities laws require disclosure of the beneficial owner of large blocs of shares of publicly traded companies. (See the articles I linked below.) Even if they're held in trusts or whatnot, you have to report the person or persons who ultimately controls the shares. This is to prevent the very thing you're talking about, where unknown people control large amounts of public companies. I'm no lawyer, though, so I can't guarantee there aren't potential ways around this requirement, like use of shell companies in tax havens. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

For the U.S., the relevant SEC filings are Schedule 13D/Schedule 13G and Form 3/Form 4/Form 5. You will have to dig through those for Home Depot to figure out how much of the company he owns, if any. This is the kind of thing paralegals get paid to do. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

He's not a 5% owner; that would be easy enough to determine, and we wouldn't be asking these questions. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you know something I don't? I was under the impression that you would have to go through Home Depot's original IPO filings and all its 13D/Gs and Forms 3/4/5 to see if he was ever a substantial owner, and if so, if he ever sold his shares. And this is quite a pain because Home Depot went public in the '80s, meaning all of its SEC filings pre-EDGAR are paper filings, meaning you either have to request copies from the SEC or retain a securities research service that has access to copies. I checked, but unfortunately Home Depot hasn't digitized its pre-EDGAR filings. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course he was a substantial owner. That's not in question. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition

In general, recognising a breakaway state means breaching if not ruining your relations with the claimant state. Yet, the single state in the list with no recognition at all (Somaliland) is also the one that is claimed by the single weakest and least influential among the claimant states (Somalia). Why doesn't anyone want to annoy Somalia when many countries have no problems with annoying countries such as China, Israel and Serbia? --Qnowledge (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What benefit does recognizing Somaliland provide for other states to do so? --Jayron32 19:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Two considerations of country X declaring that it recognises Somaliland are that

(i) it might provoke factions in Somalia to commit aggressive actions against Somaliland in 'reply', and

(ii) it might weaken any diplomatic influences that country X is currently able to exert on Somalia.

In international diplomacy, issues of 'face' can seem silly but are nevertheless real and have to be taken into consideration. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's not so much that recognising Somaliland (a functioning democratic state which controls its own territory) would annoy Somalia (a non-functioning, non-democratic state which controls hardly any territory), but rather that if you start recognising breakaway states, you put the willies up countries with breakaway states of their own - it makes it harder for them to justify not recognising them. So you don't recognise Somaliland not because it would annoy Somalia - nobody gives a damn about that - but because it would annoy China etc. DuncanHill (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure China cares at all. If it can profit from both (and it can!), it will [9] Gem fr (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

China doesn't care at all about either Somalia or Somaliland, except as centres of profit and influence, but it cares if other states start legitimising breakaway states because large parts of the Chinese Empire would rather be independent. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's more likely that the entity on whose wrong side one does not want to fall is the African Union and its member states, not China. Most (if not all) states are willing to let the AU determine a solution, and will fall in line with it. Here are a couple of articles on the issue: [10] [11]. Xuxl (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, pissing off the claimant state is just the point of recognising a breakaway state. Kosovo, for instance, was recognized to piss off Serbia and Russia.

Plus, there is just no need to recognize Somaliland to trade with it; Somaliland is in no position to blackmail others states "you recognize us or... (whatever: your merchants are forbidden, we won't help you solve you migrant problem, we will deny you access to some military ressource..." Gem fr (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 19

Hypothetical question about a US state constitutional amendment process

Let's say that, purely hypothetically, some US state has an extremely high bar in regards to amending its constitution--for instance, by requiring a 90% vote in favor of a constitutional amendment for it to actually be adopted. Also, let's say that SCOTUS will use the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to declare this US state constitutional amendment process to be unconstitutional. However, what would happen if this US state will refuse to specify a new constitutional amendment process in its constitution? Would SCOTUS then be entitled to declare what kind of constitutional amendment process this US state should have? Futurist110 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Your question is too speculative for the general version to get meaningful answers here, but Hollingsworth v. Perry was a case of a federal appelate court throwing out a state constitutional amendment. Nobody knew how it was going to go until it happened. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

SCOTUS doesn't seem to have that power. But we know what happens when some states absolutely refuse to behave reasonably in the US: The federal government stop investing in that state (see Conditional Grants). If that is not convincing pressure enough, it seems to me that, just like Congress did declare territories to become a states when it felt like that territory had met certain criteria, it could declare the opposite and make a state a territory again, based on not meeting a criteria of Congress's definition. Constitutional problem solved. If the people in the state in question take arms against that decision I guess you have a civil war. --Lgriot (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Congress cannot do that without the consent of the state. Congress cannot create new states out of the land of existing states, nor can it abolish a state, merge two states, etc. without consent of the state itself. Article 4, section 3. SCOTUS does have the power, by the way, to invalidate state constitutions (in whole or in part), though it often chooses not to involve itself. The decision of SCOTUS to not hear a case is not the same thing as them not being able to hear a case. See Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the U.S. constitution (including both explicit and implied rights etc.) is supreme, and that when in conflict, the U.S. constitution takes precedence over the State constitutions. There is often some confusion between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but consistently it has been interpreted that the Supremacy clause takes precedence, the Tenth Amendment only applies when there is no conflict between the states and the feds over some issue; that is where Federal law is silent on some matter, the States are free to legislate it how they please. The key phrase is "not delegated", so if some power or part of the Constitution is delegated as a federal issue, the States cannot override it. This concept became very powerful in the years after the Civil War onward, where the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allowed the incorporation doctrine to prohibit states from denying rights which the Federal laws have determined are there. Again, SCOTUS has the full power to review, and declare unconstitutional, every law or regulation passed by any body with legislative function in the U.S., from a local municipal ordinance, a state law, or a federal statute. Whether or not they do choose to speak on a case or remain silent on it is not necessarily a statement on their ability to do so. --Jayron32 14:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I second Lgriot's comment here. If SCOTUS strikes down a US state's constitutional amendment procedure and that's literally the only constitutional amendment procedure in this US state's constitution, who exactly determines what this US state's new constitutional amendment procedure should look like? Also, what margin would be necessary for this? For instance, is a mere majority vote in that US state good enough even if that US state's constitution (the part that was just struck down by SCOTUS in this hypothetical scenario) requires an extremely massive super-majority vote for this? What if this US state can't ever reach this required super-majority vote? Then what? Futurist110 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, that is a really well informed response, but the question was not whether SCOTUS can invalidate a constitution (that is pretty clear to everyone in this thread), but whether it can decide what should replace the part that it has just invalidated. I quote the OP "Would SCOTUS then be entitled to declare what kind of constitutional amendment process this US state should have?" --Lgriot (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)!

I question whether anybody would ever have federal standing to sue to overturn a state constitutional amendment process. That said, in Reynolds v. Sims the Supreme Court struck down an entire structural provision of a state constitution as violating equal protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This has more or less already happened in Rhode Island in the 1840s, where the majority of the population were not allowed to vote, and the Royal Charter of 1663(!) had no procedure for amendment. Suffragists could not get the legislature to agree to a new constitution, so they called their own convention, leading to an armed conflict called the Dorr rebellion. The Supreme Court ruled in Luther v. Borden that the enforcement of the right to a republican form of government under the federal constitution's Guarantee Clause was a political question up to Congress and the executive. Rhode Island declared martial law and requested federal troops, which President Tyler decided were unnecessary. The state quashed the rebellion by force, but the episode motivated the ratification of a new constitution by the old electorate. This was before the 14th Amendment, so a modern court might overturn Luther in a similar situation. -- Beland (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea Pleasure Gardens

Resolved

In 1866, what would "Chelsea Pleasure Gardens" refer to? Obviously "a" pleasure garden in Chelsea, but which one would have been considered "the" Chelsea Pleasure Gardens in 1866 when referring to it as a performance venue? 2606:A000:1126:28D:90E5:ABEC:4279:A682 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What does your source say about the performance that it was a venue for? Perhaps this event can be looked up somewhere else. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Its from here:[12] § The Great Farini And His Adopted Son Become The Flying Farinis — Good luck! —2606:A000:1126:28D:90E5:ABEC:4279:A682 (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There's Cremorne Gardens, London, which was open in Chelsea at the time and featured circus performers [13]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And here's a direct reference for Cremorne Gardens (scroll to next page). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What a great answer. BTW, you can also spot them on the 1868 map of London. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Great find, Wrongfilter -- thanks! —2606:A000:1126:28D:90E5:ABEC:4279:A682 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is his dead body inside a pyramid?

Hello there. I have read that Andrew Rutherfurd, Lord Rutherfurd his grave looks interesting. It remembers me the grave of the freemason Charles Taze Russel. Is there any explanation why Rutherfurd is inside a pyramid, was he in any step of his life a freemason? --46.167.62.33 (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

According to this, the grave was actually designed for his wife Sophia, by William Henry Playfair. Mikenorton (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Pyramids are not used in the symbolism of UK or US Freemasonry (although they are used in some of the French rites). So having a pyramid shaped tomb or grave marker would not be an indication that someone had a tie to the fraternity. It would be meaningless to a British Freemason. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, and by the way... there is no reliable evidence that Charles Taze Russel was a Freemason either. If anything he was mildly Anti-Masonic. Again, pyramids don’t mean Freemason. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this book also confirms it was for his wife Sophia. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone's been reading too much Dan Brown, methinks  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 16:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

For a simple answer, see Egyptian Revival architecture in the British Isles. "...after 1830 the Egyptian Revival style was often used for cemetery buildings and monuments in cemeteries." Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

For why anyone since primordial times might want to be dead in a pyramid, see Benben. Some things never change. Though some others clearly do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

If Russel was no freemason why is watchtower linked with freemasons and why is his pyramid on a cemetery which belongs to the local freemason temple? What is the evidence that he was not a freemason, a temple in Canada, over 8000 miles away which confirms 80 years after his death that he was no freemason? Why couldn't they open their mouth like 1 year after his death? Or earlier? -46.167.62.33 (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Was Charles Taze Russell a Freemason?. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Note how the introduction introduces him as a possible reptile, but neglects to conclude he probably wasn't in the end. I'm not part of the online mob that suggests this old Kingdom is inherently creepy, deadly, dishonest or otherwise a threat to humanity, to be clear, and have no reason to believe Russell was a member of any temperament. But if a rational cold-blooder creature were to slumber under stone, a pyramid's walls would catch more direct solar radiation than a birdbox or mammalian dome's, and contain less air to warm more efficiently. No literal regenerative purpose for dead baskers, but maybe symbolic of something sunny and serpentine. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, July 24, 2019 (UTC)

July 20

Does the US Supreme Court actually have the power to declare a part of the US Constitution to be unconstitutional?

Does the US Supreme Court actually have the power to declare a part of the US Constitution to be unconstitutional? For instance, if, purely hypothetically, a new US constitutional amendment would have passed that would have permanently excluded all Chinese-Americans (even those who are natural-born US citizens) from the US Presidency and US Vice Presidency, could SCOTUS actually declare this new constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional due to it being contrary to SCOTUS's interpretation of the 5th Amendment? Futurist110 (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reasonable reading of Article V that would allow SCOTUS such a power. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It's more that it's incoherent for part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional. The whole thing is constitutional. could SCOTUS actually declare this new constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional due to it being contrary to SCOTUS's interpretation of the 5th Amendment? Absolutely not. Rulings on the Constitution can and have been superseded by a subsequent amendment. See, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford. Where parts of the Constitution conflict with one another, typically the Amendment that is later in time will control (so the 21st Amendment's repeal of the 18th Amendment isn't itself unconstitutional). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

What if SCOTUS doesn't actually feel like following the later-in-time rule in this case, though? Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

... I don’t really understand. Their “feelings” don’t really enter into it. The Constitution is the law of the land. To simply ignore a properly adopted constitutional amendment would be scandalous, to say the least. I expect that nobody would follow such a lawless decision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, though, that such a move--while being unusual in the US context--actually has been practiced by the courts of various countries. In fact, there's a whole literature about the idea of an unconstitutional constitutional amendment. Futurist110 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over how other countries manage their constitutions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Some might disagree with you there! The concept of universal jurisdiction in international law, for example, suggests that one nation might prosecute human rights crimes committed under the color of national law in another nation. But we're getting a bit off-topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, what about if a later amendment will conflict with an earlier part of the constitution? For instance, SCOTUS ruling that the 5th Amendment implicitly repealed the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency and/or SCOTUS ruling that the 26th Amendment implicitly lowered the age requirements for all US federal political offices--including the US Presidency--to 18 years? Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, if the later-in-time amendment conflicts with the earlier amendment or provision, then the later-in-time amendment controls to the extent absolutely necessary. And that’s key: One doctrine of statutory interpretation that I’m certain is carried up to constitutional interpretation is that portions will be read in harmony as much as is possible. In other words, if it is possible to avoid one amendment superseding another, the Court generally must take that interpretation, and not read an atextual “implicit” supersession into the later-in-time amendment. All that said, there are periods where atextual requirements are read into the Constitution: The Fifth Amendment says nothing about a right to remain silent during interrogations, but Miranda v. Arizona held that such a right existed. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about privacy, but Katz v. United States held that a warrant was required where someone had a reasonable expectation of privacy. But in neither of those cases was another provision of the Constitution contravened. In neither case was a provision that expressly required something held to be ineffectual. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is reading atextual rights into the US Constitution acceptable but not atextual repeals of part of the US Constitution? Futurist110 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What you're calling "atextual rights" (or otherwise) are interpretations of the Constitution. Maybe you've forgotten that the Court upheld the government's right to conscript citizens despite the 13th Amendment. Their argument was that the Congress has the constitutional right to raise armies. In that particular case, the later-in-time principle was ignored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There are some really odd decisions when it comes to the military and how it fits in with the Constitution. The relatively recent case of Ortiz v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018), comes to mind. I really enjoyed Justice Alito's dissent, even if I'm not sure I agree with him on the outcome of the case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Just for some additional examples: the 12th Amendment set up a new procedure for the vote of the electoral college, contradicting Article II; the 16th Amendment legalized a federal income tax that was not apportioned to the states, which had been tried before but found unconstitutional under Article I. In each case the later provision takes precedence. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Good examples. I’d also point out that the later-in-time provisions don’t make the prior-in-time provisions unconstitutional. Conceptually it’s better to think of the later-in-time provisions as making the earlier ones powerless; they are still part of the Constitution, and in theory could be harmonized with the later provisions (except the 21st Amendment, which expressly repeals the 18th). Laws passed pursuant to superseded or ineffectual portions of the Constitution, however, very well might be rendered unconstitutional. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

which body could prevent SCOTUS to do that, if it so choose? none. Every time a Justice write a dissenting opinion, he argues that some part of the constitution has been disregarded and in effect (wrongly, in his opinion) kicked out of the constitution as if it were not part of it, that is, turned unconstitutional. This is not as strong as "let's explicitly declare a part of the US Constitution to be unconstitutional", but in effect is just the same. Gem fr (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

which body could prevent SCOTUS to do that The executive, by not enforcing an overreaching decision, and the legislature, by impeaching justices that attempted to exceed their constitutional powers. Fortunately, the Court and the other branches of government prefer to avoid precipitating a constitutional crisis, and as such have been very careful to avoid trenching on each other’s powers in retaliation. Honestly, aside from the chaos the Marshall Court was subjected to during the Jefferson administration, the closest we’ve come to this is FDR’s court packing plan to force New Deal legislation to be upheld. And even that didn’t happen (and contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t a transactional concession on the part of the court; the justices themselves began to warm up to the constitutionality of New Deal legislation). Even during the Jefferson administration, the decisions of the Court were respected. But were the Court to outright refuse to enforce a particular provision of the Federal Constitution as written (i.e., it’s not a matter of different readings, but an outright rebellion against the words of the document), I see no reason why the whole Court wouldn’t be replaced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Lots of people would argue that SCOTUS outright refused to enforce a particular provision of the Federal Constitution as written when it, at first, upheld Jim Crow laws, by having the convoluted separate but equal doctrine (which wasn't written in the constitution at all) prevail on the quite explicit 14th amendment, both the way it was written and the intent of those who wrote it (ie: to allow blacks to be regular, vanilla, citizens). Then again, the SCOTUS did not scrap the 14th, it just make it void for all intent of purpose as far as blacks were concerned. Later all the SCOTUS had to do was to scrap the doctrine. Notice that in both case, SCOTUS had all the legislative and executive support you want. Plessy's lawyers no doubt found the decision outrageous and unconstitutional, it didn't help them or their client...

I agree that it was wrong for SCOTUS to come up with the separate but equal doctrine. That said, though, some originalist scholars--such as Alfred Avins and Raoul Berger (in his 1977 book Government by Judiciary) actually argued that Plessy was correctly decided. In his book Government by Judiciary, Berger argues that the separate but equal doctrine originated in an 1849 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in the case Roberts v. City of Boston. Futurist110 (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if the legislative or executive branches opposed the SCOTUS, remember that if a matter reach the SCOTUS, it does it through a case with strong enough support on both side; usually some piece of legislation, or executive order, is at stake. And to avoid precipitating a constitutional crisis works both way; refusing to enforce a decision would itself be regarded as rebellious, and impeachment-worthy, for those executive trying that. And while Justices are for life, those opposing them would have to face elections and opponents who could build on the SCOTUS prestige. Ultimately the voters would decide the matter. Meanwhile, SCOTUS opponents would rather enact some slightly different law or executive order, designed to look like it respected the SCOTUS decision, instead of disregarding it outright. Gem fr (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an unsettled constitutional law issue. It's never come up because no two amendments have ever flatly contradicted each other, and I believe most scholars think the later amendment would implicitly overrule the earlier one (so eg. a hypothetical "nobody can say 'shit' anymore" amendment, if it passed, would implicitly amend and therefore overrule the First Amendment, at least within the scope of that one word.) It mostly comes up in the context of discussing what would have happened if the Corwin Amendment - an amendment explicitly banning future amendments to end slavery - had passed. Like the article says, many scholars feel the Corwin Amendment would never have actually had any effect, since any future amendment could simply repeal it (either implicitly or explicitly.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)i

The court can legitimately declare a constitutional amendment was not adopted by the procedures specified by Article Five of the United States Constitution, or violates a permanent protection like equal representation in the Senate except by consent. It is currently unlikely to, but theoretically could, make a ruling most people would find blatantly unconstitutional, as courts in some other countries have done at the behest of dictators. The court has a few police officers assigned to it, but no army of its own. So in such cases it comes down to how the executive and legislative branches, the military and police, and people on the street respond. For less extreme history in the US itself, see e.g. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. -- Beland (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You must keep in mind that constitutional matters are not, actually, matters of law. They are matter of facts and power. I mean, for instance, the declaration of independence was illegal, and so are all the subsequent acts, including the constitution. And war ensued; arms, not law, decided. Had the King won the war, lots of rebels could have been hanged for their rebellion. The same happened with civil war. The same would happen again if some divisive enough issue occurred. Ultimately, arms decide. Gem fr (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

To the victor belongs the spoils, and in the case of the USA, a new Constitution. And the Constitution is not illegal. American independence was won on the battlefield and then by treaty. Once the Revolution was settled, America was free to manage itself internally without British interference. And by the way, the Constitution IS law. It's the supreme law of the land. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course the constitution is not illegal; but it would be, if the independence war had been lost. It is "might makes right" kind of law: does this qualify as law to you? My constitutional law books are clear that it is not (which doesn't make it illegitimate: it will all depends on the legitimacy of the Might. That constitution is the supreme law of the land is a legal doctrine (aka: fiction); notice this doctrine is not shared in the UK, which has no explicit constitution. You may compare the constitution to the DNA in a cell: the supreme ruler is not the DNA, it is the apparatus that reads the DNA and turns into real molecules. In the case of the constitution (and laws), this would be the people with legal responsibilities, from the supreme justices down to people and their habit/custom to obey the laws... or not. Where this habit doesn't exists (or not enough), constitution is just paper, or tool that the powerful use and change as fits theirs will (why, the Constitution of the Soviet Union was really great; it provided for such great thing as the right to freely worship or speak, protection of minorities, full voting rights, etc. Somehow, those things didn't make it into reality). Gem fr (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The USA is not the USSR. Not yet, anyway. As to the legality of the US Constitution, if the Americans had lost the war, said Constitution would not even exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The Constitution itself didn't violate British law (though, its adoption probably did violate the Articles of Confederation). Even so, it might be better to think of the United States that came into existence in 1790 as being a successor state to the United States that existed before it. If you think of it that way, it all makes a lot more sense: It was a (relatively) bloodless revolution. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder who would have had the authority to declare the new Constitution unlawful? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You'd probably need some significant holdout refusing to ratify the new Constitution, like all the southern states... which might have triggered a civil war. Instead, they hammered it out in the constitutional conventions and came up with something everyone found satisfactory. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You should rather ask: who would have had the authority to declare the new Constitution lawful. Canada doesn't have this problem, as its constitution was approved by the previous authority. USA, on the other hand, bootstrapped its authority out of its victorious rebellion, that is, pretty much the worst unlawful act you can think of. Gem fr (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The individual states did, by ratifying it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Think further: out of what authority did they even qualify as states? The fact their leaders (successfully) betrayed the King. Back to my point: constitutional matters are only a matter of fact and actual power, of which legitimacy and lawfulness are only a part(if they even occur). Gem fr (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You're completely off-topic at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The states didn't appear out of thin air. Their colonial boundaries were already pretty well set by the British. They rebelled, they won, and the British conceded defeat and made a treaty, rendering the USA legitimate in the eyes of their former master. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I am just pointing out (I'll repeat myself) that constitutional matters are of Might makes right kind. Meaning, the answer to OP question doesn't lie in law technicality, but only in practical fight (armed or not). Seems pretty on topic to me Gem fr (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, some might argue that victorious rebellion is the only lawful form of rebellion. Some cultures even formalised this notion - see for example Mandate_of_Heaven. Iapetus (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Then again: Might makes right Gem fr (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Medieval German literature (done)

Opinions? (For reasons of clearness, please only post there. Thanks in advance!)--Hildeoc (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Um - is there a question here? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

He's asking us to comment on the debate at Talk:Medieval German literature. --Viennese Waltz 09:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Thanks for your interest. Medieval German literature is now a dab.--Hildeoc (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Home for Wayward Boys

While researching the early life of someone born in the mid-19th century, (who was commonly referred as an "orphan", sometimes in quotes in contemporary accounts), I found out that he was essentially dropped off at a "home for wayward boys" by his uncle, purportedly "temporarily". Sometime later, a circus performer (looking for a protégé to include in his act?) goes there and, in effect says "I'll take that one", and leaves with the boy, soon becoming a famous father and son acrobatic act.
Two questions:
1) Would a "home for wayward boys" necessarily have been an orphanage? Would such a place simply hand over a boy to somebody unrelated?
2) While researching I came across this list: "Children's Homes and Institutions in London (N/NW Postal Areas), England". www.childrenshomes.org.uk. –and noticed several having "Training Home" in their names. What exactly was/is a "Training home" for children?
Thanks in advance. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

At that time, abandoned children were cared for by basically private charitable institutions such as the Foundling Hospital, or (more probably) fell into the last-resort jurisdiction of the English Poor Laws. The private institutions were erratic by modern standards, while the poor law system was often marked by extreme penny-pinching (since the burden fell onto the taxpayers of each local civil parish) as well as sanctimonious attitudes about the "deserving" and "undeserving poor", about how the condition of a man on "relief" always had to be worse than that of the poorest working man in the area, or otherwise there would be a "pauperising" effect as workers resigned their jobs en masse to go into the poor house (this was not actually a very likely scenario, but poor-law supervisors seemed to be perpetually terrified of it, or claimed to be), and so on at nauseating length. In these circumstances, it's quite likely that some minor functionaries wouldn't ask too many questions when someone offered to take responsibility for a child (under the pretext of an apprenticeship etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Some more details on AnonMoos's pertinent comments above. In 1857, the Industrial Schools Act set up a framework for boarding schools for delinquent or vagrant boys, where they would be taught skills such as carpentry and metal working which would could be used in industry, and avoided them becoming inmates of prison or the work house. In theory, the boys' parents had to pay, but in practice, it was the parish board of guardians and from 1870, the local school board. These schools were based on pioneering work by private and church charities, whose work continued after the state provision was introduced. Some charities specialised in teaching boys specific skills such as domestic service or seamanship, The Waifs and Strays Society, Dr Barnado's Homes and TS Mercury are well known examples, although charities often tried to avoid children with criminal convictions. Alansplodge (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

As to boys being removed from a home, based on the details of Oliver Twist (1837), a prospective employer would have to enter into a formal apprenticeship agreement, an indenture, which would then have to be approved by a magistrate; however, since the magistrates were recruited from the local gentry, they were likely to be more sympathetic to the parish guardians than to the interests of the child, as was the case with young Oliver. But it would have been in everyone's interest for a boy to get started on a viable career path, which seems to have worked out well for the subject of your research. Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks to both! Interesting stuff from an interesting time; my mind too, harkened back to Dickens. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

... As an aside: further research suggests that the reason "orphan" was often in quotes in contemporary accounts is that it was implicitly suggested that his adoptive father was actually his real father. They do resemble each other. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this El Niño Farini, adopted son of William Leonard Hunt? Alansplodge (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep! I'm working on the draft -- was surprised that WP didn't already have an article; this is my 1st article (could surely use some help). —107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The way you asked your original question strongly implied that you had in mind a case in England ca. 1850, and I answered accordingly. The English poor laws obviously would not have applied in Massachusetts... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)}

@AnonMoos: I only just now added the Massachusetts bit to the draft. Why Farini went from London [not sure about this] to Boston and back [then to London] (bringing the boy) is still a mystery; as is how/why the boy (being born "somewhere in Maine" wound up in Boston. And I've found some info about his mother, which is another another mysterious story (she died when her son was 7 -- in Havana, Cuba). [forgot to sign: 107.15.157.44 (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)]

• Tait, Peta (2016). Fighting Nature: Travelling Menageries, Animal Acts and War Shows. Sydney University Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-1743324301.
• "Samuel Wasgate (Biographical details)". www.britishmuseum.org. The British Museum. Retrieved 21 July 2019.: mentions his marriage to Farini's sister, Edith May Hunt.
• A photograph of him in drag is at "Lulu or El Niño Farini (Samuel Wasgate)". www.npg.org.uk. National Portrait Gallery. Retrieved 21 July 2019. (could go in an "External links" section).

Finally, I suggest running your draft past somebody at the Wikipedia:Teahouse before you move it into the mainspace. Good luck.

Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And another finally, it's well worth creating an account! Alansplodge (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, Alansplodge —107.15.157.44 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely the last, Smith, Lindsay (2015). Lewis Carroll: Photography on the Move. Reaktion Books. p. 121. ISBN 978-1780235196.. He was a big fan apparently, but also an interesting newspaper quote suggesting that many people (but not Carroll apparently) realised that Lulu was really a cross-dressed boy.

You should add some categories to your article: I would go with Category:Trapeze artists and Category:American circus performers unless you think they might qualify as Category:British circus performers or perhaps both. We also have a Category:Male-to-female cross-dressers. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm unsure about 'circus performer' categories; although one could argue that he performed circus acts, thusfar I haven't found that he performed with an actual circus. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lulu - The Eighth Wonder of The World by HEATHER TWEED, Ripperologist magazine February / March 2018 (p. 17) Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely the last "Thanks again, @Buggerlugs" @Alansplodge: —107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

July 21

French National Assembly

Is that anything like the US House of Representatives, both abstractly in in its legislative function, and in practice in terms of what its members do all day (sit in meetings, call donors on the phone for hours, etc.)? Is it a full time job? I was surprised to learn that celebrity mathematician Cédric Villani became a member in 2017. Not sure what the heck he would want to do in such an institution. He wasn't anywhere near washed up in math research or anything like that. The academic economist Yanis Varoufakis was Greek minister of finance for a while but that situation was different. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It is (although french law is quite limiting in the donation side). Slight difference: National Assembly (France) is utterly useless and pointless, as, as a whole, it just supports the government, upon which it as zero effective power. Scraping it altogether wouldn't change a thing (except, of course, reducing the number of politicians).

Depends on what you call a "full time job". MP get full pay, for sure. Now, they are not banned to have other activities -- usually, these are to be the de facto executive ruler of some city or district within their constituency (they are banned to be both MP and Mayor of a significant city/head of a district, but they just need a puppet to do their bidding). And this -- not their MP job -- will be their main concern and the thing they will work the most on, as it commands their being elected again, while what they do in the parliament doesn't matter much (the standard MP job is just to be silly supporter/opponent of the government; only a few can boast some real influence).

Cédric Villani is 45, at this age he IS certainly washed up in math research; or in math altogether, since he obviously doesn't even try to get basic arithmetic applied to France public finance problem. As brilliant he may be (or has been) as far as abstract thinking goes, (or maybe just because of that), he is (still) just a useful idiot in politics; he just was trampled in a bid to run to be Paris's Mayor; he seems upset and sulky of this, still refusing to endorse his party candidate. So, few people really understand what the heck he is doing as a MP (does he himself? his current constituency is not even in Paris). Since Villani was elected MP just because he supported the President, with few local support (see above: not de facto ruler of a city), his chance to be elected again are low.

Gem fr (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The Prime Minister needs to have support from the National Assembly. If the majority of the National Assembly is from a different party than the President, then that very significantly reduces the President's powers, and the one actually running the country is the Prime Minister (with his majority in the National assembly). This is called a cohabitation and leaves only very few presidential powers (he is still head of the military and technically in charge of the foreign relations). And obviously the assembly votes the laws, keeps the executive branch in check etc, like the house in the US.

With regards to how much of Cedric's time this takes, in the case of the current assembly, there is a very large majority for the President (61%) so you don't need to be there for every vote. And as Gem said, donor money is not really a big deal in France, you can only receive and spend a limited amount on your campaign (this is to limit the power of the rich candidates over the poor candidates, if everyone spends the same, then it is the ideas or charisma that sway the voters, not the flashy stuff). --Lgriot (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Largest Pride parade in the world

Although NYC Pride is the largest LGBTQ parade in North America; Parada do Orgulho GLBT de São Paulo in Brazil is the world’s largest since 2006 as by Guinness World Records.

The referencing issues are:

1. For 2019’s NYC Pride, I’ve only found one source that Stonewall 50 - WorldPride NYC 2019 had four million at the parade. I suspect it’s higher but haven’t found anything.

2. I haven’t found anything to give a number for São Paulo‘s 2019 event.

3. I haven’t found any sourcing that compares the two, or others.

Any help appreciated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

2. Three million per Rio Times, quoting the organizers. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What nations other that the USA have had elections like clockwork for more than 100 years?

If you had asked a USAian in 1919, when they expected presidential (and house and senate) elections to be in the years from then until 2019, they're expectation would have been fulfilled. Is there any other nation that has had clockwork elections for more than a century? I know a lot of nations like the United Kingdom don't have any particular schedule (other than a maximum time for one parliament) so that reduces the pool? Some place like Uruguay?Naraht (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The US had elections like clockwork for over two centuries by now, no? Futurist110 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nitpick: yes, in the sense that elections were held, but during the brief Civil War unpleasantness, the seceded states of course did not hold elections for the U.S. Congress or President. And then, as the war progressed and the Union occupied Confederate territory, elections for the Confederate States Congress were concomitantly disrupted. (The President of the Confederate States of America happened to be elected to a six-year term, so there was no opportunity for a second election to the office before the Confederacy was dissolved.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, your question here only works for countries with regular elections since countries with parliamentary systems--such as Israel--often have irregular elections. Futurist110 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Not Uruguay; see the Civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay (1973-1985). Alansplodge (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously only old democracies, not disrupted by WWI, WWII or coup, and fixed calendar, would qualify. This disqualify all of Africa, Asia, South and Latin america (except may be mexico?), Westminster system (anything from the British Empire), and the whole Europe except, may be, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Finland and a few micro-states (Andora, Lichtenstein, San Marino...) Gem fr (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Fixed-term election comprehensive? The only examples it gives (not counting those like Canada/Australia which may have elections in other years) are USA, Sweden, Norway and Hong Kong. Sweden's only been on a fixed cycle since 1994, Norway since 1945 and Hong Kong since 2007. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

In Switzerland, elections to the House are held every four years on the penultimate Sunday in October, but Senators may be elected on a different election cycle, determined by their canton.. This seems to have been gone for long Gem fr (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The President of Mexico started to be elected by popular vote in 1917. But the duration of a presidential term has been legally changed several times, and this has affected the interval between elections.: "The presidential term was set at four years from 1821 until 1904, when President Porfirio Díaz extended it to six years for the first time in Mexico's history, and then again from 1917 to 1928 after a new constitution reversed the change made by Diaz in 1904. Finally, the presidential term was set at six years in 1928 and has remained unchanged since then. The president is elected by direct, popular, universal suffrage." Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Clockwork may be a whisker exaggerated, but the bishops of Rome have been elected regularly for almost two millennia. Unlike POTUSes, quite a few of them of them have been sanctified, which seems unlikely in the case of either of the incumbent holders of the office. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

But the dates would not be predictable long in advance, which is what Naraht was asking. AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. See List of papal conclaves. The system of Papal elections was established by the document In nomine Domini (1059) by Pope Nicholas II, and the fist election under the new system was the 1061 papal election. Many of the previous Popes were not elected at all. They were appointed by the Byzantine emperors, by the Holy Roman Emperors, by the Counts of Tusculum, or by whatever other secular authority happened to be controling Rome at that point. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a somewhat moot point if POTUSi are democratically elected or if they are appointed by the Electoral College. Article Two of the United States Constitution is a bit of a compromise. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

See Captains Regent and the links near the bottom of the article. The position appears to have been elected regularly since at least the fourteenth century. Andorra's right out; one of the princes is appointed by a foreign official and holds life tenure, while the other one is elected by foreigners under a process that didn't operate for several years in the 1940s. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Awesome find! San Marino *has* to be the winner - every six months for 776 years. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This official San Marino government site suggests that there might have been a disruption to the election schedule in 1945. --M@rēino 17:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Napoleon did call it "the model of a republic". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

July 22

Economy during the time of Jesus

What is a good way to describe the economic system that Jesus lived in? I would assume it's vaguely capitalistic, in that people would produce their own goods (farming, ranching, trades) and services, which they would sell to other people. But capitalism is a modern concept- is it inappropriate to describe that system as capitalistic? Or am I totally wrong about how things worked? Staecker (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Terms that come to mind are traditional economy and agrarian economy. The way our article on the history of capitalism is written, the progression was (something)→feudalism (9th century)→agrarian capitalism (14th century)→mercantilism (16th century)→industrialization (18th century)→modern capitalism (19th/20th century). I’m not sure what predates feudalism in the timeline our article presents, but it’s pretty clearly not capitalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jesus lived in the Roman Empire. See main article Roman economy:

• "Beginning in the early Roman Empire, the economy became monetized to a near-universal extent, in the sense of using money to express prices and debts, and a basic banking system was formed. Emperors issued coinage stamped with their portraits to disseminate propaganda, to create public goodwill, and to symbolise their wealth and power." Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ye, well, let's keep it simple.

Roman economy was agrarian, for sure.

It was also a slave labor economy for a huge part.

Was it capitalist? Our article begins with a definition: Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.

Which obviously apply (*) to Roman Economy; or, for that matter, any economy except the most primitive and the socialist (these both lacking private ownership, profit, price and wage system...). What is muddying the water (instead of helping) is the marxist idea of progression of the economy and the society (linked together) toward modern capitalism.

(*) While wage labor is certainly more in line with capitalism than slavery, a society doesn't stop being capitalist just because any amount of slavery (eg: ante-civil war USA)

Gem fr (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the empire was not close to uniform in its scale of development, whether economically or culturally, and at the time of Christ, Iudaea was a cultural backwater that hadn't been part of the empire long enough to be integrated economically as much as many other regions were. Granted, some Roman innovations had penetrated to the point that Jesus' audience could understand these concepts:

"'You wicked, lazy servant!' replied his master. 'You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed. Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received it back with interest." [Parable of the Talents; Christ used a similar phrase with the Parable of the Minas] 'Show me the coin used for the tax.' And they brought him a denarius. 'Whose likeness is this,' he asked, 'and whose inscription?' 'Caesar's,' they answered. So Jesus told them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." [paying taxes to Caesar]

However, I suspect Andreu is referring to the more-developed areas like Italy, Greece, and scattered Roman colonies elsewhere; unless he specifically addresses backwaters like Iudaea or northwestern Hispania Tarraconensis, I don't think we can use his statement as the basis for describing the economy in which Christ or his neighbors participated. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There were definitely slaves in Roman Judaea, but I doubt whether there were many large-scale slave-worked plantations (latifundia), as existed in some other regions. In any case, the core of the Jewish population of Judea lived on roughly the southern half of what would now be called the West Bank hill chain (from Ramallah to Hebron or slightly north of Hebron), on terrain that was not particularly suitable for large-scale plantations. There was a money economy, but it did not much resemble "capitalism" according to the classic definitions of Max Weber... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please also note that slavery in the Roman Empire was not the same as the modern concept of slavery. In the Roman Empire the "master" would work along side the slave in the fields or vineyard. The slave would become part of the family and was very rarely mistreated. Slaves earned wages and could amass a large fortune and could buy their freedom, becoming freedmen. Slaves were generally from conquered peoples and slavery was a way of assimilating new populations into the Empire. Take the populace into your home, educate them show them hat the Roman way is best and have their children grow up in your home without animosity toward the Empire. The children would also be your slaves but the children of freedmen (not freemen) would be Roman citizens and could own property, businesses and enter politics. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Slavery in the Roman Empire was complex. Slaves were treated well in some cases. Others were treated horribly. Being sent to work in the mines was effectively a death sentence. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Slaves had no guarantee of good treatment, and if they were held someplace where large numbers of slaves did hard physical labor (farms, mines, etc.) then they had little possibility of improvement in their situation. However, Roman slavery was still different from slavery in the American South (the form of slavery which many people now know most about) because there was no overall racial component in the way that modern people would understand it, and there were a number of recognized and customary paths to "freedman" status. AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You understand the point of the OP is about to describe the economic system that Jesus lived in, not about slavery, right? Gem fr (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You were the one who raised the issue of a "slave labor economy", which applied to the Roman Empire as a whole to some degree, but probably much less to the province of Judaea... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not certain if it relevant, but one of Jesus' alleged miracles involved the healing of a slave. See Healing the centurion's servant. The centurion calls the sick man "doulos", the Greek term for "slave". Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

References

July 23

Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal?

Hi! (I am currently working on Nepal) I am from Nepal and speak the native language but seasoned researchers seem to fare better than me, even without that ability. So, here I am. I remember and can find sources that say Nepal had become a federal democratic republic since such and such events. But I can't find an actual declaration that Nepal's official name would be Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, henceforth. As such, I thought I should probably remove that claim from the lead sentence. Then, I found out that at least some CIA and UN sources mention that that is the "official name" of Nepal. How do they get that kind of information? Is there any specific kinds of documents that Nepal government issues to, for example, UN, that makes it clear to them that that is in fact Nepal's official name? I only found a letter informing everyone that Nepal was now friends with Angola or something, but it didn't mention "Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal". Or, maybe, I've failed to recover an all too public evidence of such a declaration? Alternatively, how do the official names of other countries come about? Maybe, it happens regularly that everyone accepts that a given country's official name is such and such, without there ever being an official declaration that that would be the case? (This is a valid question to ask here, right?) Thanks! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

the constitution of Nepal should give it its official name. And of course officials write to each other, like, "now please refer to me as ...". This is the way they know the official name, when changed. Gem fr (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Constitution says something to the effect of "Nepal will be a secular federal democratic republic state". Doesn't say that will be the name, despite naming stuff like official language, animal, color, etc. I'm guessing you are guessing about the other point? I'd love to see like a letter that ends- "Regards, KP Oli, Prime minister, Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal" but can't find one. Letterheads seem to begin "Government of Nepal", which is no help at all. Sad! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

actually art 56 says that, "Structure of the State: (1) The Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal shall have three main levels of structure: federal, provincial and local. (etc.)". So Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal it is. (just had to search republic in the text) Gem fr (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Usedtobecool, and if you need a reference from a secondary source (because people sometimes delete stuff if the reference is to a primary source instead), here is one from Himalayan Times: "President Ram Baran Yadav officially declared the promulgation of the ‘Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal’ on September 20..." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup! Just as expected! Way better than my sorry attempt. Thank you both, a ton each! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Signorelli parapraxis

In the first section, it says: "Without Trafoi the substitute Boltraffio rhyming to it would be incomprehensible." – However, if I'm not mistaken, "Boltraffio" actually doesn't rhyme with "Trafoi". So does anybody have an idea what exactly is referred to here?--Hildeoc (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

why, this is freudian nonsense, so just let it go. Gem fr (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hildeoc, "rhyming" is the wrong word - he means "associating", since one syllable of Boltraffio sounds like one syllable of Trafoi. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@70.67.193.176: Hi there and thanks a lot for posting! Following your argumentation, I have know changed the wording accordingly. However, that passage still seems somewhat awkward to me, as it actually does not even mention the name Botticelli – except for the heading –, let alone explain its significance for the claimed chain of association …--Hildeoc (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Brigadier general

In this section, the article states: In the Australian Imperial Force during World War I, the rank of brigadier general was always temporary and held only while the officer was posted to a particular task, typically the command of a brigade. […] As in the United Kingdom, the rank was later replaced by brigadier. Hence, prior to 1922, a brigadier general was a general officer; subsequently, brigadiers were not generals […] — Now, the latter passage I don't really get. Why exactly "hence"? Was brigadier general synonymous with brigadier before 1922, or wasn't it? If yes, wouldn't it be much clearer to write Hence, prior to 1922, a brigadier was a general officer (brigadier general) instead?--Hildeoc (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but my reading of this is that before 1922 "Brigadier General" was a temporary rank (essentially a job title) granted to generals in charge of a brigade. That's why it says "Hence, prior to 1922, a brigadier general was a general officer". Changing it to "brigadier" would therefore be incorrect, because that wasn't the title/rank used. After 1922, a new permanent rank of "brigadier" was introduced to replace it, and these brigadiers were not classed as generals. Iapetus (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Iapetus: Okay, I see. But then the question remains whether the term brigadier was used already before 1922 in the Australian forces, and if so, what it had meant then, right …?--Hildeoc (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Roy J. Snell

Roy J. Snell is a real puzzle. The Goodreads bio is very detailed, but no one can find any information about him anywhere. Maile66 scoured the web, and the reference staff at my local library checked their bio databases and NovelList, both children's and general. He has an entry at sf-encyclopedia.com but it doesn't give anywhere near the level of info of the goodreads bio. I tried to figure out who wrote the goodreads bio, but I think I have to be a "librarian" on there to see that, and I'm not. One of the article's sources lists three sources of its own here but my library doesn't have them and they aren't available for interlibrary loan, either. I'm stumped. There has to be info out there, unless the goodreads bio was written by a family member or something. Can anyone help? --valereee (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC) ETA: Hmmm...this was a previously used source: a college paper; I'm thinking it's the source the goodreads bio used? --valereee (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

He seems to also have an entry in the Oxford Companion to Crime & Mystery Writing ; if you have an archive.org account you can get on the waitlist to borrow it; or your library may be quicker. Or could your librarian get hold of an older Who's Who for you, c. 1930s? (One other archive.org hit: a brief mention of him giving a geography lecture that refers to him as "well known" and "prolific".) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, 70.67! That's an excellent start! Back I go to my library! --valereee (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! Fingers crossed they can get those two books! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee:, You might ask at Wp:RX. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article: The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation - Bought by Capital One Financial Corporation or Not?

I was doing research on the HSBC credit card. I followed the link to Wikipedia. I had earlier followed these other links which indicated that The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) had been bought by Capital One Financial Corporation:

1) Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE: COF) announced today a definitive agreement under which Capital One will acquire HSBC's domestic credit card business, including its approximately $30 billion credit card portfolio, for an 8.75 percent premium to par value of all receivables. Capital One to Acquire HSBC Domestic Credit Card Business press.capitalone.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251626&p=irol-newsArticle&ID...

2) How Capital One buying HSBC credit card accounts affects ... https://www.creditcards.com/...card.../capital-one-hsbc-how-change-affect-customers-... Aug 1, 2011 - How the Capital One-HSBC credit card deal affects consumers ... “Often, a buyer will offer a better deal, more services and features,” Hammer ...

I see nothing in the Wikipedia article file regarding such a corporate deal. I also have not yet seen an article that definitively states that the transaction was completed and the sale finalized.

So far I am stuck and still wondering if the buyout happened or not. I am hoping there are some financial gurus available who can help me determine if the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was indeed bought by Capital One Financial Corporation or not.

Thank you for any input - I think it is a major event - whether the deal went through or not - and that it should be included in the Wikipedia article.

I apologize if my format is not exactly per the listed terms - will try to learn as I go.

Sincerely, LateEntryLateEntry (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• HSBC still exists. They may have sold their credit card division, but not the entire corporation. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And not even all the credit card divisions of HSBC, only the one in one single country (presumably the US) "Capital One will acquire HSBC's domestic credit card business". HSBC has credit card divisions in many countries. --Lgriot (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why doesn't Wikipedia rename Czech Republic into Czechia since it's its official name since 2016? Google did it on Google maps already. Thanks. Ericdec~enwiki (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Somehow, this common sense move has been postponed. No idea why, except the obvious: the vote to do that failed. Democracy doesn't always work. Anyway, the place to discuss the matter is Talk:Czech_Republic Gem fr (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

First, Czechia isn't the country's official name; it's its official short name. The long name is still official. Second, Wikipedia policy, roughly speaking, is to use the name that people are mostly familiar with. Most people in the vote that Gem mentioned said that currently "Czech Republic" is still more common in reference material than Czechia is, so it meets that requirement—unlike the case of France where the short name, and not the official name "French Republic", is almost always used. So if this is still correct—and I don't know that myself, either way—then Czech Republic is the appropriate name of the article. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think "the name that people are mostly familiar with" is not quite right. The aim per policy is more like "most commonly used in english-language sources". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is just because Wikipedia fucked up. France and Republique Francaise (Germany and German Federal Republic, China and People's Republic of China: any country, you name it) are 2 different things (the first thousands years of age, the second only a few decades), each deserving a separate article. Who in his same mind would merge President of the United States and Donald Trump? Well, it is just that currently done about countries... Gem fr (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

We have Greater China and China proper, but redirecting "France" or "Germany" to comparable articles would just encourage Wikipedia irredentism and disputes over history... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, this may well be perceived as a problem about entities like China, Germany, Italy or Greece, but this problem doesn't really affect Czechia – there never really was a cultural–geographical area called "Czechia" before the present state. The area was called Bohemia before that. (For France, it's not really a problem either, because the current instantiation of the French state is the direct legal continuation of earlier states that go back all the way to the Frankish kingdom of the early middle ages, just with different political systems of government, i.e. "France" as a state has existed for as long as "France" as a cultural-geographical concept has.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This article mention that Czechia (in latin) is 400 years old Gem fr (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

As we are not writing in Latin, that fact is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Distinct individuals holding a particular office are not analogous to different governmental forms ruling over the same territory and people. --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If you, or anyone, think it's worth the effort, nothing prevents you from starting a new Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at the talkpage. There was a moratorium, but it expired. And Czech Republic has its supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

And Czech Republic has its supporters. No. Just no. It is the Czech gov itself which is insisting we should colloquially use Czechia, the fact that a gov site use a gov name, as all gov do, is just irrelevant (uneless, again, you insist renaming France or Germany into their respective official political name?)Gem fr (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Would somebody please explain to me why anyone in the Czech Republic cares what we call them? I just can't wrap my head around this concept. I neither know nor care what most languages call my country or any other. If I am not speaking those languages it seems totally irrelevant to me and if I am speaking them it seems of no more importance than what words they use for "rock" or "dog" or "red" or "happy". As an article that User:Gem fr quoted elsewhere says "most Czechs probably don't care that much what English speakers call their country, as long as we don’t come up with an insulting name." --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The question is what the commonly used name is in English. Whichever that is, Wikipedia should use. Using Wikipedia to try to enforce someone's idea of the "right" name is not how Wikipedia does things. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Let say that the "right" Wikipedian way to do things is to follow sources. When sources contradict, we will de facto enforce the best sources idea of the right name. Too bad if available sources are fucked up. Anyway, as I already said, the place to discuss the matter is Talk:Czech_Republic Gem fr (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Khajidha -- I don't know how Czechs feel about this, but in general Exonyms can be a sensitive issue. At one point, the PRC government stopped accepting or delivering mail addressed to "Red China" or "Mainland China", and since 1930, the Turkish government has insisted on "Istanbul" for the name of its largest city... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

July 24

Warfare state

Since warfare state redirects to militarism, I get no factual definition of the warfare state. What is a warfare state? (There is a word of e. g. liberal warfare state.) Is warfare state the same as militarist state? Thank you. Cabana (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I honestly have never heard the term before. I ran a Google search for it. I guess there are a few publications with "warfare state" in the title, but at least one of them seems to be simply formed by analogy to "welfare state" (i.e., it's more of a play on words for a clever title). There are only 145 ghits doing a proper search engine test (i.e., searching for the term in quotes and going to the last page). I get the feeling it probably shouldn't be a redirect there at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have in mind the term warfare state, as it is in use in this article or in this article. Though there are also several other hits in Google search, e.g. this one.Cabana (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I saw those. As I said, there are a total of 145 ghits for that term and all of them appear to be clever turns of phrase derived by analogy to "welfare state". It probably shouldn't even be a redirect. It seems to be a term with no fixed meaning. Your first article defines it as synonymous to "national security state". The second article is less clear, whether it's a state constantly preparing for war, or a state that's simply "less free". And your third hit, a book review, pretty clearly points out the derivation by analogy from "welfare state". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking turns of phrase, it's an anagram for "seawater fart", "wet fart areas", "after star awe" and "a raft are west". Sounds like Southern California to me. Maybe a post-crisis coastal Nevada. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:13, July 24, 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking Long Beach we might be on to a "wharfage state" as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hollywood is still the world leader in whorefare. Maybe not per capita, but in reported earnings. I've heard San Francisco and San Diego know a thing or two about taking in boatloads of seamen en masse. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, July 24, 2019 (UTC)

Ho! So Thoth-ollywood is still a major deity? I am shocked! xD Gem fr (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Cabana -- you can consult Report from Iron Mountain and Chapter 3 ("War is Peace") of Goldstein's Book. There's also War is a Racket, written by a highly-decorated U.S. Marine Corps general. We also seem to have an article Perpetual war, which could be a better redirect... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Just listening to Sabaton's new album, which opens with "Future of Warfare", which begins with a reference to the Battle of Flers-Courcelette. Probably nothing, but beats anagrams. Go Canada! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:41, July 24, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your suggestions. What about warfare state vs. militarist state? Are these two terms similar enough to be interchangeable?

There'll always be a better word or phrase for each job, but yeah, these seem basically synonymous to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, July 25, 2019 (UTC)

Iran / North Korea

I was hoping some one would provide me with a short synopsis of the relations between North Korea and Iran and also answer some of the following questions. The basis for my query is that it would appear to me that Iran having had sanctions etc for some time now, has recently started to stand up to the international community in a more tangible way (agreed? see recent oil tanker debacle) than before indicating to me that they may now have produced weapon grade Uranium (Plutonium and the like)? However, as explained by Amin Tarzi in his lecture: Iranian Grand Strategy under the Ayatollahs, Iran may have nuclear weapons but they have no way to deliver these. Now, in the news today, there is an article, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/analysis-north-korea-just-revealed-one-of-its-most-potentially-dangerous-weapons-yet/ar-AAEN5za?ocid=spartandhp which relates to North Korea having developed a Nuclear Submarine. Yet, the world remains quietly confident that North Korea don't have nuclear capabilities, yet. (agreed?) So, what is their relationship to each other as they both have grand aspirations, one has nukes and the other has the delivery system. If they were to work together, could they not be a viable force to be reckoned with rather than a fly in the ointment, a modicum of annoyance, in international affairs? Is this hypothesis ridiculous, or does it carry some weight. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Iran–North Korea relations may have some of what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, so what is the international community doing to avert any potential collaboration? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The usual: Economic sanctions, and threats of obliteration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a citation 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Anton

For what? Trump's frequent comments on Iran and NK? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Iran-North Korea Relationship Reflects Failed US Policies (April 2019). Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The Story of the Three Bears

Is Southe's versio or Jacobs' version is the most famous version of The Story of the Three Bears?--5.168.39.44 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

How often have you heard a version with a fox instead of Goldilocks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Or in a castle. Castles have plenty of spare furniture and food, defeats the whole point. Even Bugs Bunny kept it in a realistically modest bear house. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, July 24, 2019 (UTC)

Levels of fame are really hard to determine. The article you linked to says the most famous version of the story is neither Southey's nor Jacobs' but Cundall's. However, this statement (it's in the first paragraph) is unsourced. One approach you could take to compare just Southey and Jacobs, since they used different titles, is to search for mentions of the titles. Those results show them about equal in numbers of mentions in other literature. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

by searching google three bears Jacobs, three Bears Cundall, three Bears Southey and three bears Briggs, three bears jacobs wins by number of results.--87.27.156.88 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you actually counting the results or trusting Google's purported estimate? The latter is notoriously arbitrary. Sometimes off by ten million or so, sometimes just a dozen. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, July 25, 2019 (UTC)

Except that the vast majority of usages won't have a name attribution at all. It's not like, at the end of Bugs Bunny and the Three Bears they had a little note saying that it was based largely on X version. Many people probably consider it "traditional" or "anonymous". I don't know of any good way to determine relative fame for something like this, but one option would be to decide what differentiates each one (i.e. what makes the Jacobs' version distinct) and then cull through some arbitrarily large number of books, songs, films, etc. to see which version they drew from and then reference in sales or something. Good luck with that. Matt Deres (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacobs' bears are insanely wealthy. Wikipedia mentions the fresh milk, but not the lovely cake and smoked salmon. And that wasn't even cooling for breakfast, just left behind when the ruling bears grew bored with that luxurious forest fortress. Southey's bears are the famous kind. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, July 25, 2019 (UTC)

Phantom books - purportedly published, but untraceable

A couple of books on my "Lloyd George wishlist" are proving peculiarly hard to track down. It's not that I can find copies but not afford them (as is so often the case), but that I simply cannot find any trace of them beyond "out of stock" pages on booksellers' websites. They are Hunter, Ian, ed. (2015). Collected Speeches of David Lloyd George. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0230005020. and Hunter, Ian, ed. (2011). Collected Correspondence of David Lloyd George and Winston S. Churchill 1904-1945. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0230005012.. I cannot find them in the catalogue of the British Library. Can anyone help me to find out if these books were ever actually published? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine that they have been, unless the titles and ISBNs were both changed. I clicked the ISBNs and followed the link to WorldCat, and neither ISBN found any results. I ran a title search for each one in WorldCat, and there were no results. I went to link.springer.com, the ebooks platform for Palgrave Macmillan's parent Springer Nature, and ran a title search (ISBN searching there is rarely productive), but found nothing, even though a book to which you don't have access will always appear in the results unless you specify to the contrary. I then ran a search for "david lloyd george", restricted to chapters (to exclude journal articles) published between 2010 and 2016, and then ran a Ctrl+F for "david" on all thirteen pages of results, but aside from one or two references to DLG in brief text quotations, all appearances of "david" were in author names, e.g. books by David S. Katz. I can't envision a situation in which a Palgrave Macmillan title published so recently would appear neither on Springer's ebooks platform nor in WorldCat. Nyttend (talk)

I would look for the Alma Mater of the author(s), and, in the likely case of it being Oxbridge, check in the relevant library. The Alma Mater of Lloyd George would also be in order, but in his case it won't work. Gem fr (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

How would that help? We know that no book with this name or title was ever published. Searching solely by author name (without authorization) may produce tons of results, and browsing their catalogues for "Lloyd George, David, 1863-1945" or something analogous will take a good deal of extraneous work when we already know that nothing by these names was published. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I found the Palgrave 2012 History catalogue. Page 23 has the "Collected Correspondence" with a publication date of February 2012 and ISBN 978-0-230-00501-3, 386pp, hardback, £50.00, 216x138mm and a product link of http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=275935. It says Ian Hunter is from De Montfort University. I cannot find it listed on his pages there. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mind you, his pages at De Montfort don't seem to list his "Winston and Archie: The collected correspondence of Winston Churchill and Sir Archibald Sinclair" which I know for certain does exist. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It happens that I know someone working with Cambridge University Library, and I understood the legal deposit could be done here, and that authors from (+ working at, even if educated elsewhere) the university tend to do that, instead of using British Library. Besides, Alma Mater tend to keep an eye on authors coming from it. Hence my (2 cents) suggestion. Gem fr (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The British Library by law gets a copy, the other five legal deposit libraries (including Cambridge) may request a copy within one year of publication. See Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003. DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh. I stand corrected. thanks. Gem fr (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that online booksellers, including Amazon, just scrape bibliographic references from all sorts of sources, including mistaken references to phantom items, mechanically create entries for them on their websites to increase web search visibility of their own sites, and then just mark those items as "out of stock" per default if they can't get hold of any actual vendor for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

July 25

Becoming the UK PM

This is a serious question: no partisanship please.

I see that Boris Johnson's previous positions were Foreign Secretary since 2016 and Lord Mayor of London, as well as being an MP for a place in Greater London since 2015 and a place farther west from 2001 to 2008. Presumably your average MP doesn't become prominent enough to join the government after just one year in Parliament, regardless of seven years' prior service. And I see that the Lord Mayor is a ceremonial position in the City, doing things like presiding at banquets for various honourable companies of guildsmen. How does presiding over City ceremonies after a few years in Parliament make one prominent enough to assume a Great Office of State one year after returning to Parliament? Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Not an answer but a correction, which might be helpful. He was the Mayor of London and not the Lord Mayor of London. The latter position is ceremonial, the former is a political executive position in which he was elected twice, 2008 and 2012. --Sodacan (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

He also has had a long career as a journalist in prominent Conservative-leaning newspapers and magazines (a correspondent and opinion-writer for The Times and The Daily Telegraph, and editor of The Spectator, and as well as appearing on and presenting Have I Got News for You. Plus he is very good at doing and saying things that get him noticed. All of which will have given him a lot of public exposure, and made him popular with conservatives and Conservatives (the latter being the only people who could vote for him to be PM). Iapetus (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Some (no, I can't source this, I might be wrong) MPs have joined the government (by which we usually mean, "joined the Cabinet") very rapidly. It's rare: such positions are sought after and there's a queue for them, but we do sometimes have elections (normally when the government changes in something of a landslide) where a great many established MPs are replaced by those of the other party, and thus implicitly new to the job. Ministers have to come from somewhere though, and factional alignment within a Party is a big part of this. The UK also has a fairly large Cabinet, where some of the positions are relatively junior, yet still within "the Cabinet". So a new MP, a favourite of the leader, and especially if they have an established or specialist career beforehand, could become a Minister more quickly than a backbench slogger.

In Boris' case, he's now Prime Minister for one reason only: he was elected to be the leader of the tory party, who were the incumbent party. No more than that. We don't have a president, we don't elect a prime minister. We elect MPs, and the majority of MPs then conveys the party in control and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister (subject to the formality of an invitation from Her Majesty). This is how Theresa May got the job too, although she was confirmed in the role by a general election a year later.

The fact of Boris' selection to a shortlist of two being done by the MPs was one aspect of this (only Rory Stewart was really much different from the rest of them), and the final selection between those two being only a vote of 90,000 party members has rankled with the public. However that's more to do with the weakness of any opposition at present. Boris (a lot like Trump) wasn't the person most likely to be elected, merely the only one who hadn't become impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay, the correction is very helpful. So he was more analogous to the mayor of New York City, a position prominent enough that one ran for US president in the 2000s, and definitely not like the caricature at right. Question: when junior MPs join the government under the situation described, are they frequently put into Great Offices of State, or is it more common that they'll be made the minister for things like "Digital, Culture, Media and Sport" or "Housing, Communities and Local Government"? Going straight to Foreign Secretary, without anything else first, seems exceptional unless you're really well known already. Also, clearly not the case here, but does it ever occur that the PM will try to get a "specialist" in a field to become a minister (somewhat like the US president picking a prominent economist for Secretary of the Treasury), and arrange for that person to win a by-election into Parliament? I vaguely remember reading about something of the sort happening in Canada (which didn't work out as the individual was defeated in the by-election) but have no idea if it happens in the UK. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite confused by the initial question, one is "made prominent enough to assume" the office of Prime Minister by being elected leader of the controlling party in Commons, by convention the controlling party is free to choose their own leader through their own free election. There was a vote, Boris Johnson won it. That's how he is prominent enough. There is not any further qualification beyond that, you don't need to have previously held any particular job; the controlling party is entirely free to select anyone they want for the job; who the Monarch will grant royal assent to in a purely pro forma way. Technically, one doesn't even need to have a seat in Commons at the time (see Alec Douglas-Home for one time when this happened). --Jayron32 14:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

John Major became prime minister after only two years in the Cabinet and just a few months holding senior ministerial positions. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In the initial question, I was asking about becoming Foreign Secretary, not becoming PM: going from Foreign Secretary to PM seems reasonable, but going from presiding at banquets (per my misunderstanding of the mayoralty) to heading the Foreign Office is a huge jump with nothing intervening but two years of backbenching. (If I'd been asking about PM, I would have said "assume a Great Office of State three years after returning to Parliament", not "...one year...") Presumably some random backbencher doesn't have a lot of chance at winning an election for party leader (you'd have to be well known to get votes in that election, I suppose, if nothing else because those participating wouldn't vote for someone they know nothing about), but of course they'd be quite familiar with the Foreign Secretary and would have opinions on whether he'd be a good party leader. How does one become a member of the government midway through its tenure, or how does one join a shadow government? Does the PM basically decide, and everyone else goes along with that choice? Nyttend backup (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jayron, "Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature". It has no place in the appointment of a prime minister. The monarch formally invites the person elected as leader of the governing party to form a government, that's it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Belgian Princes and Princesses

Belgian Royal Coat of Arms

Two weeks ago Philippe, King of the Belgians issued a royal decree outlining coats of arms for the Belgian royal family (12 JULI 2019. — Koninklijk besluit houdende vaststelling van het wapen van het Koninklijk Huis en van zijn leden). Article 1 is for his own arms, Article 2 for abdicated kings and queens regnant, Article 3 for the Dukes and Duchesses of Brabant, Article 4 for "Other Princes or Princesses of Belgium" and Article 5 for "the Princes or Princesses of Our Royal House". Who are these "Princes or Princesses of Our Royal House"? --Sodacan (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Monarchy_of_Belgium#Title has a little bit of this; they would be other descendants of the monarch of Belgium. Duke/Duchess of Brabant is a special title reserved for the heir apparent, currently Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant. Other children of Belgian monarchs are styled "Prince" or "Princess" and would include people like Philipe's other children (being Prince Gabriel of Belgium, Prince Emmanuel of Belgium, and Princess Eléonore of Belgium), as well as his siblings, their children, his father's siblings, their descendants, and so on. As noted at Monarchy_of_Belgium#Members_of_the_Belgian_royal_family by current law the title of "Prince" or "Princess" is limited to those "children and grandchildren of the monarch or of the monarch's heir", for example Philipe's nephew, Prince Amedeo of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este, grandson of Albert II of Belgium, bears the title. --Jayron32 14:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Philippe King of the Belgians has four children. His elder daughter, Princess Elisabeth, is first in the line of succession. The decree can indicate the coats of arms also for future descendents. DroneB (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32 and DroneB, is there anyone right now who is a Prince or Princess who is not also a child or grandchild of a monarch? The only person I can see who is not a child or grandchild of a monarch is Prince Amadeo's daughter and she's a archduchess, not a princess. Does that mean Article 5 currently doesn't have anyone who qualifies in it? Or if it does, who are they? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Amadeo's daughter would be 3 generations removed from the monarch (her great-grandfather) and this is ineligible for the princely title under current law. In the past, the law had different qualifications, and I don't know if the current law un-titled anyone or whether it had a clause to allow those who would have been ineligible to maintain their titles. --Jayron32 15:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I see, so the king was thinking ahead? Sodacan (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you mean? --Jayron32 16:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

As in currently no one currently qualifies as a Prince or Princess of the Royal House, but there will be individuals in this category one day? Sodacan (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I made it clear. There are MANY Prince and Princesses of the Royal House. Anyone who is the child or grandchild of one of the Monarchs of Belgium is a Prince or Princess of the Royal House. Including the Duchess of Brabant, there are 4 children of Philipe (I named them above). He also has numerous aunts/uncles, cousins, siblings, and niblings who ALSO Princes and Princess. See the article I linked to several times above, Monarchy_of_Belgium#Members_of_the_Belgian_royal_family has all of them listed, including a "Prince" or "Princess" by their name. If you prefer it in chart form, Family tree of Belgian monarchs is there too. --Jayron32 16:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... The royal decree makes a distinction between "Prince or Princess of Belgium" (Article 4) and "Prince or Princess of Our Royal House" (Article 5). Insofar as including a different coat of arms with appropriate cadency marks for either category (for male and females), creating 4 different coats of arms. I am still confused as to who falls into the latter category, or what exactly is the difference between them that requires them to have differing arms. --Sodacan (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I didn't catch the distinction. Perhaps the coat is for people who were disinherited of the title by the more restrictive recent law? I'm afraid I misunderstood the question, and have gone off on a wrong tangent. Sorry, I don't know the specific answer. The "Royal House" in this case is House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; maybe the arms were created for members of that house which were otherwise ineligible for the title Prince/Princess of Belgium. That'd be my best guess. --Jayron32 16:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I am stumped too. What I thought was that maybe this category of princes/princess is new and as such no one is therefore entitled to the coats of arms yet (I have uploaded my version of them nonetheless). The decree itself gives no clue on this distinction. The king was definitely thinking ahead, for example in Article 2 he created arms for a retired/abdicated kings/queens regnant. His father Albert II is currently entitled to this arms, and maybe one day himself and his daughter too. Sodacan (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

British parliament procedure

Does the Parliament of the United Kingdom ever invite foreign ministers to address the parliament. For example, would the parliament ever invite the American ambassador to speak during a session? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It does. This even is quite rare, however [14] Gem fr (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)