Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

January 28

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Many of the Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) patients have been placed under quarantine in hospitals. Is the cost of this hospital stay borne by the patients themselves, or by the relevant government authority? (Or some other party?)

I'm specifically interested in cases in EU nations, US, and Canada, but inputs on other nations are welcome as well. Thank you for your assistance. Mũeller (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the situation is going to vary depending on the individual, Health care in the United States and how it is funded is complex and messy; some people have private insurance, some have some form of public insurance such as Medicare or Medicaid, and others have to fund the cost out-of-pocket. Canada has a publicly funded, single-payer healthcare system called Medicare (Canada) and it will pay the bills. For each country in question, you'd want to research the country by searching for the Wikipedia article titled "Healthcare in XXXX" where "XXXX" is the name of the country in question. --Jayron 32 13:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. If a tourist breaks their leg in Canada, it sounds like they won't be covered by Medicare (Canada) and so would (understandably) have to cover their own bill. When one's leg is broken, there's really no choice but to treat it.

However, if a tourist experiences coronavirus-like symptoms, they have two choices:

1. Present themselves to the healthcare authorities to be quarantined for an unknown cost, which they may or may not be able to afford.

2. Hide their symptoms and attempt to travel home.

Obviously choice #2 is sub-optimal from a public health perspective, so ideally the government would want to avoid that outcome. One way to avoid people choosing choice #2 is to make the quarantine free to the patient, since this is a public health emergency. When I heard about mandatory quarantines outside of China, I assumed that the various governments would cover the cost of quarantines, but I Googled around and couldn't confirm anything, hence the question here.

~~I used Canada as an example above, but it would equally apply to any other country, since AFAIK no country covers the healthcare costs of tourists under normal circumstances.~~ Corrected by Viennese Waltz's response below.

Corrected version: I used Canada as an example above, but it would equally apply to any other country, since AFAIK no country covers the healthcare costs of tourists under normal circumstances (unless there is some sort of reciprocal healthcare treaty in place like the EU one).

Mũeller (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a national of an EU country and need medical care while you are a tourist in another EU country, you are entitled to it. See European Health Insurance Card. --Viennese Waltz 16:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's very cool. Didn't know that.

In this particular case though, the tourist likely originates from China and thus is unlikely to have EU citizenship or permanent residency. Mũeller (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you apply for a Schengen area tourist visum (yes, I know some think it should be "visa", but I'm sure Caesar and Cicero would disagree) as a Chinese citizen, one of the required documents is proof of health insurance valid for all Schengen countries and the entire duration of the trip. See here. I suspect there are similar requirements for non-Schengen EU countries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See etymological fallacy. Caesar and Cicero don't get a say in how modern people speak. "A visa" is the proper term. --Jayron 32 14:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about the US, in the case of medical emergencies, hospitals are required to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. See Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act The cost of indigent care is born by the higher fees that the healthcare system charges people who can pay is a problem in the US that does not occur in single-payer systems like is present in much of Europe. The US (ideally, I'm sure there is some assholery going on) will not deny treatment, but if they cannot recover payment for the treatment, the cost gets passed on to other patients, etc. --Jayron 32 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Hospitals will often try to recover costs from uninsured. And as you note, the legal mandate applies only to emergency care, and it's up to the hospital to evaluate what qualifies as an emergency. On another tangent, not all European countries have single-payer health care. "Single-payer" and "universal health care" are not synonyms. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pool of potential health care recipients will ultimately bear the cost, regardless of how the government and/or the insurance companies try to cloak it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite true, the question is that as a system, how to equitably distribute those costs in a way that does not ultimately harm the personal economy of those who are least likely to be able to bear it. The advantage of government funded health care is that the costs are paid out of a progressive taxation system, so the higher costs are more equitably distributed. Widespread medical bankruptcy is a greater problem for more people than higher taxation on the top earners and corporations. In a private insurance or pay-your-own-way system, the funding for the system is born more heavily by people who have less resources to pay for it. --Jayron 32 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a semi-relevant article. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Torby?

Where is the Torby of which Sophie of Merenberg was made countess by her uncle Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg in 1891? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some guesses here. [[]].eric 04:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also Torby Russia, Tver’ Oblast.—eric 04:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the title was created by the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, one would assume some relation to Luxembourg. Or could the Druk Gyalpo issue a patent of nobility making Sacha Baron Cohen Count of Coke? --Lambiam 11:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De-wiki's article ~~claims~~ claimed the title was given by Alexander III of Russia when he sent her husband into exile. As far as I can tell from checking GBooks, sources are unclear but many repeat the en-wiki version. I also found this newspaper article from 1897 with some details but nothing to suggest that "Torby" is any place at all. In fact, many sources seem to refer to her simply as "Countess Torby". Regards So Why 11:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just to add confusion: Sophie, comtesse de Toberg (Torby)....—eric 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Russian wikipedia, the English-sounding title was invented by Sophie's husband. It was meant to recall Tori (Georgia) where his father had owned large tracts of land (see Likani Villa). Ghirla^-трёп- 18:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

Differences definition civic nationalism liberal socialism social liberalism left-wing nationalism

Is there a website that shows the definition and examples of the following terms: civic nationalism, liberal nationalism, liberal socialism, social liberalism, left-wing nationalism, socialist nationalism, nationalist socialism? I am trying to figure out the differences between these terms. Donmust90 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Civic nationalism, Liberal nationalism, Liberal socialism, Social liberalism, Left-wing nationalism, Socialist nationalism, Nationalist socialism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Nationalist liberalism. --Lambiam 10:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the origins of Celts. It really shouldn't be so difficult, and it probably isn't.

I find the historical information about Celts confusing and vague... Their origins are at times disputed, I know.

Anyway, I've always thought that Celts originated from the British Isles and migrated to mainland Europe (and I still do), but that's the confusing part, because articles and whatnot often suggest that the first signs of Celts were on mainland Europe, If the Celts originated from mainland, then who originates from the British isles ?? It's not like the island was originally empty...

Also, the Celts are tied to the Gauls, right? The Gaulish language, as far as I can tell, is actually a Celtic sub-language, branching out of it. So, I reckon the Celts migrated first to mainland, from Britain and mingled with the germanic tribes, although many obviously stayed behind. Then, eventually, the Roman Empire came to Britain and basked in the sun for a bit, before it fell. In the ashes of the fallen empire came the Angles and the Saxons (and Goths? Gutes? Jeats? Geats?), giving rise to the so-called Anglo-saxons. Again, what about the Celts?? Why are these new people now in Britain called Anglo-saxons and not Anglo-saxon-Celts? because the Celts were already there, and will inevitably have mingled and mated with the Saxon/Anglian immigrants. Their blood must be in the mix every bit as much.

Of course, go far enough back in time (we all stem from Africa), before there even were Saxons and Celts and Gauls, and someone will inevitably have migrated to the British isles in the first place, which then gave rise to the Celts, yes ??

84.208.131.242 (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you read the article on Celts? The available information is indeed vague and sometimes contradictory, but largely because there is very little to go on in terms of writing from most of those ancient cultures. The only Celtic languages continuously spoken until today are some of the insular varieties, so the available knowledge is very biased toward those. It is generally agreed that Celtic language developed in Central Europe before spreading across the continent and to the isles. Linguistic study of the Celtic languages lead to the conclusion that Celtic and Germanic languages descended from a common ancestral language (some form of Indo-European), but that neither descended from the other. (Though, of course, migration of language doesn't have to track migration of people.) It is also generally agreed that the insular Celtic languages were brought to the isles by Continental Celts, after which the insular and continental languages developed on their separate ways. But again, Gaulic and Welsh, for example, would thus be a descendants of a more ancient Celtic language, rather than either being derived from the other.

It is disputed whether all of the insular languages radiated from a single language brought over from the continent, or whether different waves of continental migrants brought different varieties of Celtic with them. As for why the British are referred to as Anglo-Saxon and not something else, well, that term was popularized before a modern understanding of... anything, and indeed seems quite arbitrary. Concept of culture often follows concepts of language - where Celtic languages ceased to be spoken, it may have been treated as if the Celtic culture was simply gone (in fact, possibly the reason they're even "Anglo"-Saxons and not just Saxons was just to distinguish them from other Saxons). Furthermore, there was then as now a possibility of stigma on speaking the indigenous "peasant language" and associating with that culture, as opposed to the invaders' "noble language".

Finally, your point about how far back we can go with this is well made. When we talk about appearance and migration of ancient cultures we are usually following either the development of distinct languages or the development of cultures that are distinct in the artifacts they leave behind. Thus, a culture can be "created" by the appearance of something unique and distinguishing, while of course we all know there is a continuous line of people and culture going back to Africa. On top of this, as you also allude to, migrations into settled areas typically mix with rather than replace local peoples. Even the Celts were not the first people to inhabit the British Isles, but arrived and mixed with cultures that had already been there for thousands of years. Even the "original" proto-Celtic culture of Central Europe was probably a mixture of Indo-European migrants and Old European inhabitants that were already there. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also the articles Prehistoric Britain and Insular Celts, in particular the section on the Celtic settlement of Britain and Ireland. Rather in general, when people from area A invade area B, replacing its language and culture, what happens to the original population of B? Do they disappear (genocide), or do they mix with the invading minority, only adopting their language and culture? In many cases (e.g. the Turkic tribes invading Anatolia) the evidence of genetic studies favours adoption over genocide. It is not unlikely the same was the case for successive waves of migration to Britain (which was not an island but connected to mainland Europe until about 11,000 BCE). --Lambiam 09:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I never knew that prehistoric people may have got to Britain on foot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, for your time. It's funny how a single question just branches out and becomes 3 more, then another 10, and so forth, and you end up spending the next hours devouring articles in search of answers. Eventually, you're reading about something entirely different than what you started with. 84.208.131.242 (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as the Wikipedia rabbit hole. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known... Wikipedia rabbit hole. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Celts 2: Electric Boogaloo

(Prompted by the above question). As mentioned by Someguy1221 above, I've always understood that the Celts originated somewhere in central Europe (associated with the Hallstat and La Tène cultures), with some alternative theories placing the origins further west (Gaul/Spain). A few years ago, I was browsing a pop-history book on world history (unfortunately I can't remember the name of the book), and saw a claim that I have never seen before or since: namely that the Celts may have originated somewhere around the Caspian Sea. Does anyone have any idea what this could be referring to? Is this some new (or fringe) theory I haven't heard before? Maybe taking the Irish and Scottish legend of Scythian ancestry literally? A major misunderstanding of the Kurgan Hypothesis? Something else? Iapetus (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Herm and others have published theories that early Celtic society mingled significantly with ancient Scythians migrating west from Asia. This is sometimes used as the basis for claiming the Celts have two simultaneous origins. I haven't read deeply into this, so I have no idea how many experts take this seriously, only that some non-experts talk about it and point to some loanwords and broad cultural similarities. Also possible you read something written by someone who catastrophically confused proto-celts and prot-indo-europeans. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with questions of this nature is that there is a presumption that cultural concepts (be it race, ethnicity, culture, or whatever grouping you wish to deal with) is somehow a fixed and unchanging thing, that once a culture is determined to have been defined, it becomes a permanent, fixed, and unchanging thing for all time. Culture is the sort of thing that is shifting, changing, mixing, continuously. The longer the time frame we are talking about, the less meaningful our discussions of "where did this culture come from" become. All non-African cultures are descendants of the first group of people to move out of Africa, but at what point does meaningful discussions of cultural evolution devolve into reductio ad absurdum-levels of meaninglessness when we try to say that the Scottish are Scythians (even if we presume the theory to have a basis in fact). That's only marginally less silly than saying the Scottish are Africans, which is literally 100% true, and yet literally 100% useless in understanding modern Scottish culture or Scottish history or Scottish culture at almost any point in history when Scottish people were a meaningful thing. --Jayron 32 16:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that defining such groups is tricky, and so determining their origins is even more so, and especially so in the case of the "Celts" (became there are a lot of conflicting ideas about what a "Celt" actually is). But it seems that there is enough overlap between the mainstream definitions and theories that they can reasonably point to "somewhere around central Europe (or maybe a bit further west) round abouts the Iron Age (or possibly a bit earlier)". Whereas the "Caspian Sea" origin is so removed from that that it is presumably either based on a radically different definition of "Celt", or based on radically different evidence (or interpretation), or is comes from doing something weird or careless (taking legends at face value, confusing proto-celts and prot-indo-europeans, etc). I was just wondering if anyone had heard this theory anywhere else, and so had an idea of how it was derived. Iapetus (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was also my point. --Jayron 32 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Experts writing about the subject for expert audiences will often provide some very operational definitions for what they're talking about, or simply talk about specific aspects of cultures themselves. For example referring to something like, "the people who bury their dead with boat-shaped axes". Talking about where that culture "arose" then becomes talking about where that tradition appeared. And as the tradition was adopted or abandoned in different regions, asking whether the people who practiced it died, moved, or just stopped doing that. Proposing that the Celts partially originated near the Caspian sea is thus asking whether certain distinguishing features found in proto-Celtic archaeological sites were first developed by Scythians on the steppe and then brought to Central Europe, and/or whether the genetic makeup of the inhabitants of those ancient settlements contained significant recent contribution from Sycthia. So, absolutely, asking "where did the Celts originate?" is not something that could ever have a single clear answer. But, it is still possible to ask very specific and answerable questions. And then misspeak with broad language, and then have popular impressions go somewhere crazy with it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bible, Deuteronomy 5:9 "unto the third and fourth generation".

What does "for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" King James version mean? Sometimes the 1st to 3rd generations, sometimes the 1st to 4th, always up to the 4th, or something else? -- Jeandré, 2020-01-29t08:01z

To me it seems clear that he means unto the (third and the) fourth, i.e. always up to the fourth (the redundant "third" just being there for added emphasis to the threat: not just the third but even the fourth).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Tyndale actually put the word "even" in there, and this survived to some contemporary versions. Young translated the Hebrew as, "...fathers on children, and on a third, and on a fourth," Young puts the word "generation" in there himself as clarification. So basically same answer as Shantavira - it's for emphasis, listing every generation. "You, your children, your children's children, and their children too!" Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...for three months!" Adam Bishop (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"We will raise your planet's temperature by one million degrees a day…for five days". --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Funny, that 75% of the items on that disambiguation page for Lrrr have to do with what's going on in outer space! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, this jealous God might have decided to spare the third generation from their wrath, strafing only the children and the fourth generation. The Hebrew text (על בנים ועל-שלשים ועל-רבעים לשנאי‎) translates literally to "upon the sons and upon the thirds and upon the fourths of the haters"; no "unto". --Lambiam 09:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That word "upon" is a bit clearer than "unto", which might be misinterpreted as "up to but not including". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeandré du Toit, sorry for late reply. Variations of this verse occur four times in the Bible, notably in both instances of the Ten Commandments. Classic Jewish sources go to town on this verse for many reasons, but particularly because on face value it appears to contradict the basic Jewish approach to reward and punishment. Lots of different wording to pick from but I think that of Chizkuni states it clearest:

G-d explains that He must demonstrate that He cannot simply “forget” the sins of the fathers, even if He delayed punishment for good reasons. This statement does not mean that the children will be taken to task for their father’s sins, seeing that the principle of each person is executed on account of his own sins not because of the sins of his fathers. (Kings II 14,6) This attribute of G-d must be understood as follows: when a person sins, G-d is apt to delay punishment to give the sinner an opportunity to become a penitent and to therefore rehabilitate himself. G-d’s patience may extend beyond the lifetime of the sinner and even the sinner’s son and grandson. If during these years the descendants of the original sinner have not mended their ways but continue to sin, G-d has to punish the great grandson for his own sins immediately, so that He will not be viewed as “forgetting” the original sin. He does so by removing that fourth generation of sinners from the world. He does so only when these generations successively have all been unrepentant sinners. He relates to such “sinners” in this fashion only if they do not sin inadvertently but “hate” Him and His laws.

...so innocent descendants are not punished, only if those that continue the lineage of "hate" of Him. In case the last bit of it isn't obvious, the verse is contrasting this with boundless patience for endlessly rewarding those who love Him. Hope that helps, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

Why El Salvador

Why is El Salvador a separate entity? It's so tiny, after all; I don't see why a separate jurisdiction was created there in the first place. Essentially, I'm unclear whether its self-identity were the result of a separate jurisdiction there, or whether a separate jurisdiction were created because the area was considered distinct already. El Salvador#History, History of El Salvador, and History of Central America discuss factors such as the split-up of the 1820s regional federation, which explains why El Salvador is independent, but as far as I can tell from those articles, it was a distinct jurisdiction at independence and within the federation. I'm unsure whether it were separate from Guatemala and Honduras during the later colonial period (apparently at least part of it was included in Guatemala during the earlier colonial period) or whether it became separate at independence, and why it became separate whenever it did. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the late 1830s the Federal Republic of Central America dissolved itself. El Salvador was a constituent state within the Federation, and it took some time (until 1841) for that state to constitute an effective government. It was a bit silly, by 1838 every state in that country had effectively declared itself independent from it, so essentially the Federal Republic of Central America, from 1838-1841, was El Salvador and nothing else. Essentially, El Salvador exists because every other state that was part of its Federation left it, and it was functionally the rump state that was left over. The reason why it exists is because every other state that was part of the country it was also a part of split off and left it behind. --Jayron 32 12:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, El Salvador may be small but is very densely populated, with its capital San Salvador being one of the oldest cities in central America. So it's not surprising that when organizing the territory, it would have been the center of a region, that although geographically small, was quite important for central America as a whole. It's a bit like the state of Victoria in Australia: it may look small compared to some to some of the others on the Australian continent, but revolving around a major city like Melbourne as it does, it is by no means marginal. Xuxl (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is that, like many Central American states, it was a single-crop economy, and foreign business interests tended to be well involved in acting to support the state to keep business costs low in exporting that crop. For Honduras, for example, it was the banana and the Standard Fruit Company and United Fruit Company, in El Salvador it became the coffee industry, etc. There was a lot of pressure to keep these single-crop economies stable and propped up by the companies involved, and to work against unification and industry diversification. It may have not been a big factor in making El Salvador independent, but the involvement of US food companies in Central American politics was a major theme of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and it likely played a big part in keeping the status quo of those small states. --Jayron 32 13:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Because in the late 1830s the Federal Republic of Central America dissolved itself. El Salvador was a constituent state within the Federation". Understood, but why was there a separate constituent state there in the first place? (If 49 US states declared independence in alphabetical order, "it's the rump state left over when all the others left" would explain why Wyoming was independent, but it wouldn't explain why there's a rectangular region in North America called "Wyoming" in the first place.) I get the impression that there were a bunch of separate jurisdictions in Central America before independence, since the federal republic sounds like a union of pre-existing jurisdictions. If that's so, why was one created in the vicinity of San Salvador, or if I'm wrong, when that republic was first divided into states, why was one created around San Salvador? I'm not interested in the "keeping" aspect but in the "starting" aspect. Victoria was created because the population in the region was growing and it was rather far from the rest of New South Wales; if you can find sources saying that El Salvador was created because even 200+ years ago it was densely populated and far from the centres of pre-existing jurisdictions, that's good enough for me. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may look small in some map projections, but El Salvador, at 21000 square kilometres, is about 7 times larger than Rhode Island, bigger than Delaware and Connecticut, and only slightly smaller than Vermont, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also bigger than Israel (20,770), Slovenia (20,273) and Kuwait (17,818); see List of countries and dependencies by area. Alansplodge (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question "why was there a separate constituent state there in the first place?", according to El Salvador#History and Captaincy General of Guatemala, "The Salvadoran territory was administered by the Mayor of Sonsonate, with San Salvador being established as an intendancia in 1786." and "As part of the Bourbon Reforms in 1786 the crown established a series of intendancies in the area, which replaced most of the older corregimientos. The intendants were granted broad fiscal powers and charged with promoting the local economy. The new intendancies were San Salvador (El Salvador), Ciudad Real (Chiapas), Comayagua (Honduras), and León (Nicaragua)." So, in 1786, the Captaincy General of Guatamala was subdivided into administrative units called intendancia, El Salvador was one of those, whose Intendant was based at San Salvadore. It looks like essentially all of the small central American countries (save Belize and Panama which have a different origin story) originated as one of these intendancies. Does that help?--Jayron 32 14:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, if I'd thought to look in the CG-of-G article, I would have understood. So the Crown basically divided the region into zones for better administration, and after independence those zones continued functioning, first as states within the federal republic, and then as independent countries. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

Israel-Palestinian Conflict

I know I should just read the articles relating to these topics but I do want to know the gist of how the current situation and power dynamics came to be and I find it quite difficult to pinpoint the causal relationship between events and decisions taken by the belligerents involved considering how complicated everything about this is.

Are Israel's current policies towards Palestinians only for the sake of its own security due to the latter's insistence on refusal to recognize Israel's existence and support of violent terrorist organizations namely Hamas and PLO? Or is it the other way around, that the Palestinians only want to live in peace and only support terrorists or embrace those organizations' genocidal ideologies only because of Israel's policies of collective punishment towards them? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Clusterfuck for a comprehensive answer. Also, False dichotomy. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which one started first though? Israel's policies of punishing Palestinians that many have referred to as "apartheid" or Palestinians' use and support of genocidal terrorism? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of Palestinians and millions of Israelis each with a wide diversity of viewpoints, and speaking in broad generalizations about either group is likely to lead you to oversimplified and incorrect conclusions. --Jayron 32 14:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but, all types of policies of a government or an organization and changes made to them have to have a starting point or date somewhere. That is all I am asking in addition to whether or not the general Palestinian population hate Jews or support/tolerate the terrorist organizations that claim to represent them from the start before Israel did anything to them. Many people who oppose Israel's occupation and policies have argued that it was Israel's harsh policies that turn Palestinians into terrorism to begin with and I want to find out how valid this argument is. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's called the "look what you made me do" argument. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 15:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the loaded term "terrorist organization" to describe Hamas and the PLO shows where you're coming from on this issue. Your "question" is really an invitation to debate masquerading as a question, and we don't do debate here. See International positions on the nature of Hamas. --Viennese Waltz 15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the OP should maybe note that a terrorist organisation for person A can be a resistance movement for person B. For example they should always remember that the French resistance during WWII occupation of France, was as far as the Germans were concerned, a terrorist organisation. Which word was right, the Allies' "resistant" or the Germans' word "terrorist"? Just because your government calls some organisation "terrorist" doesn't mean anything more than: "My government doesn't like it when they kill someone". --Lgriot (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La resistance killed Nazi troops, Palestinian terrorist organizations (PTOs?) explode the biggest, nailiest bomb they can wear in the biggest crowd of Jewish civilians they can find and don't even care if they kill or reduce the limb count of little kids and pregnant women and a Brazilian who was probably just in Jerusalem for the Christian stuff. Blowing up even 1 Israeli civilian is a war crime no matter how much you feel the natural reaction to Israel occupying your land a generation before you were born and turning it 1st world is to explode a pizzeria of mostly women and children by killing yourself in the middle of the most fun years of life. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way, and now they inflate baloons and send it over into Israel indiscriminately targeting civilians. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why list the horrible actions of only one side? Why not bring up massacres of civilians by Israeli forces too? Also, I do believe Palestinians have asked for precision guidance weapons so they can target the IDF rather than firing off their poor quality weapons. I mean if all we knew was what you wrote than one would think most civilian causalities were Israeli when of course they are mostly Palestinian. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:A8DC:9126:7594:6195 (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not going to play your games. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using such a controversial term although I have seen some who condemn Israel literally say "Israel's policies encourage Palestinians to become terrorists". Anyway, please use the fact that many Palestinians still openly use/support/tolerate violence and targeting of civilians as well as refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence instead of the label "terrorist". 70.95.44.93 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Former Israeli PM Ehud barak did state that were he born a Palestinian he too would have likely joined a Palestinian "terrorist" group. Also the idea that Palestine doesn't recognize Israel isn't true; they have been reiterating recognition since the Oslo I accords despite Israel not recognizing them in return. What they do not recognize is that Israel is a state for only Jewish people. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:19F6:B2FC:9B95:D469 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:19F6:B2FC:9B95:D469, the Hebron Massacre was in 1929, long before Israel became a state. The PLO was founded before the Six-Day war. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, until at least 1973 (or in some respects even as late as 1982) it was the "Arab-Israeli conflict", not the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" -- Israel and the Arab states fought a number of wars, in which Palestinian Arabs were then mainly bystanders. Second, it's possible to simultaneously recognize both that the Palestinian Arabs found themselves in a difficult historical situation, and also that many of their responses to this situation were unfortunately unhelpful to themselves overall, and in the end ultimately self-destructive. For example, they have a continual tendency to scornfully spurn and reject the peace plan of the day, until the situation shifts and what they had previously rejected now starts to look good in the rear-view mirror. For example, they rejected the UN partition plan in 1947-1948, but this suddenly started to look good in retrospect when the 1949-1950 armistice lines were finalized. Then during 1949-1967 they scornfully rejected the armistice lines as any basis for a peace settlement, until those started to look good after the 6-day War of 1967. Etc. etc. ad nauseam basically down to the present. Another unendearing Palestinian Arab characteristic is they don't apply morality to themselves in their "struggle", so there's no tactic they would consider ethically off-limits, no depths to which they wouldn't sink, in order to strike a blow against Israelis/Jews -- see Hindawi affair, Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing, the lasting cult of Dalal Mughrabi, etc. etc. ad nauseam. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can there be this many "answers" to "how did it start" and nobody mentions Zionism? 135.84.167.41 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which, in turn, was a logical and natural response to antisemitism. We can play this game all day, going back to the Big Bang. --Jayron 32 17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can't. The Palestinians were not travelling to Germany, Poland, and Russia to fight with Jewish people. The current conflict between Palestine and Israel began when Jewish people quickly moved back en masse. It didn't begin with the big bang. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave out the Arab states for a second especially when they have not been at war with Israel for decades while Egypt and Jordan already gave up. I am more concerned with the actions of the Palestinians themselves and how they relate to Israel's policies, whether or not the latter have caused the former to "sink" so low or vice versa. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we are just looking at the last few decades then it boils down to Israel demanding Palestinian land including East Jerusalem, most settlements, and the Jordan valley and that Palestine then also have limited sovereignty and on the other side Palestine believing the Right of conquest to have lost before Israel even existed, so why should they give more land. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:19F6:B2FC:9B95:D469 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the Bizarro World version of Gandhi or Martin Luther King Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern painting of a woman with a shopping cart in royal residence

I'm making an example in a slide and I can't find the painting I remember seeing. I was doing a tour of royal homes in England. In one is a large painting of a woman standing next to a shopping cart. I've been searching for an image of the painting (or at least the name of the painting or artist). But, I can't find anything. I assume it is popular if it is hanging in the main hall of a royal residence. I could be wrong. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was it This one? --Jayron 32 17:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no. It was an example of hyperrealism, so it is rather modern. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Duane Hanson's Supermarket Shopper? --Jayron 32 17:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thanks for searching. I will outdent with as much description as I can remember, but at 70, my memory is not dependable. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is handing in one of the royal residences. The wall is covered in old paintings of old dead people. So, it is striking. It is a young woman in a t-shirt that I remember being a royal jack print. She has a cigarette in one hand I think. Her foot is propped on a shopping cart. Inside the cart is some junk. I remember there being a television in it. Mainly, I remember it being very out of place. The tour guide said who painted it (a name I would never remember) and said it was hyperrealism. I remember Googling that term afterward. I don't see the difference between photorealism and hyperrealism. So, I can just say that it looks like a photograph, but it is a large painting. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I assume your memory is off, it could be "Brittania" by Mitch Griffiths. It is at the Althorp house in Northamptonshire. It is a woman. Her foot is on a stroller, not a shopping cart. She is carrying a CCTV camera, not a television. Further, it is not a "royal" residence, but it was Lady Diana's home. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the picture in question, from the artist's website: [1]. Xuxl (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's gotta be it. Excellent intuition and knowledge, 97.82! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

Insurance contract question

Inappropriate question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What would happen if someone signed an insurance contract with an insurance company and this insurance company subsequently refused to pay up and so this person would have went to court but the relevant court would have declared this insurance contract unenforceable due to it being contrary to public policy? In such a scenario, what is the relevant court actually going to do? Order the insurance company to pay this person a refund? Anything else? If so, what exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any insurance question is going to depend on where it is, and hence the laws involved. But can you think of an example of "contrary to public policy"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is either a disguised request for legal advice, or a request for speculation. We don't do either of those. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

President Trump impeachment

Assume that Trump gets convicted. Pence becomes President. Who becomes Vice President? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The answer is "no one". The office becomes vacant. Under the Constitution as originally written, there was no way of even filling the office other than through election, which meant it stayed vacant, a rather glaring oversight. Harry Truman consequently served his first Presidential term without a VP. This was finally fixed with the 25th Amendment; now, the President may nominate someone to fill the office, contingent upon approval by a majority of both Houses of Congress. This notably was done not many years after the adoption of the Amendment by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned; he nominated Gerald Ford, who became VP and then succeeded Nixon after Nixon's own resignation, thereby becoming the only person to become President while never having been elected either President or VP. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new president Pence would then appoint a new vice president, who would need to be confirmed by the Congress. This happened in the early 1970s. Vice president Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace and was replaced that way by Gerald Ford. When Richard Nixon resigned, Ford became president and he appointed Nelson Rockefeller as vice president. Both Ford and Rockefeller were confirmed by Congress. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During the Ford administration, the U.S. had a president and a vice president, neither of whom were elected by the American people, but only by the voters of Michigan and New York. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a joke after the 2016 election that Trump had taken out a cheap insurance policy against impeachment: the premium was just one Pence. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the joke you mention is that I see no evidence that GOP senators would be unhappy with a hypothetical President Pence in the abstract. However, such a presidency would probably be fatally wounded from the beginning. In my opinion, almost all of these senators have now purchased tickets on the Trump train and are well aware of the venom he directs at anyone who opposes him in any way. Bravery is in short supply and "going along to get along" is the dominant philosophy today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the joke was that the Democrats would be even less happy with President Pence than they are with President Trump, and therefore they would avoid impeaching Trump--or at least avoid removing him. It seems to be working for now: Trump's first impeachment looks headed for acquittal. They might have been able to bring a stronger case against him, but taking him out might also have taken out Biden.

That brings the question: suppose Biden is elected President in November, but the GOP takes over the House of Representatives. Since the new Congress starts in the first week of January but the presidential inauguration isn't til January 20, it might be possible to impeach Biden before he even takes office, or at least have the articles ready to go. And if Biden is tried and convicted before the inauguration, to they have to swear him in before they can remove him? I bet the Framers never thought about that one! Maybe they weren't so smart after all! ;-) 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that aspect of the joke and concede it may have had some elements of truth in the very early days of the Trump administration. At this point, though, I do not think that many Democrats would prefer Trump over accepting Pence as an 8 month fill-in for an impeached and removed president. But we are all sure that we are discussing a hypothetical scenario. It is almost certain now that Trump will be acquitted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the dynamics of the electoral college, I see no plausible scenario where Biden wins the presidency while the GOP regains the House of Representatives. That would require the Democrats to win the swing states in the presidential race and the Republicans to win dozens of House seats in blue states. Anything is possible but that seems very unlikely to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can't be President before they take office as President, which happens on January 20, per the 20th Amendment. Biden or anyone else elected would not be President until January 20th. "President-elect" isn't a federal office. With that said, there's never been anything keeping the House from impeaching the President one second after they take office, apart from voluntary observance of norms. Of course, an impeachment simply is an accusation, which is then tried by the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required for conviction. For that matter, remember that if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House elects the President. I read something recently arguing the Framers envisioned such a thing would happen more often than it has. Remember, the rabble were never intended to vote for President in the first place. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be possible to impeach someone from the presidency even when they are not in office at the time of impeachment. Something like that happened to Secretary of War William W. Belknap, who resigned during a scandal in 1876, but was impeached anyway subsequent to his resignation. The Watergate burglars were arrested in July 1972 and convicted in January 1973, not long after Nixon's 2nd inauguration. One can imagine an alternate version where 1) Nixon isn't the incumbent, but still bugs his opponents' offices etc.; and 2) his complicity is uncovered before the inauguration. I'd like to hope in this scenario, he could be impeached or otherwise disqualified before taking office. Or another possibility, if Donald Trump literally shot someone on 5th Avenue after the 2016 election but before his inauguration, some kind of intervention would likely take place. OTOH it would be interesting if they inaugurated him inside a jail cell, like LBJ's inauguration on board a plane in 1963. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Festubert 1918

This source [2] says "A Military Medal is awarded to Rifleman G. Beckley, 9-11-19: Action for gallantry and great courage in action under heavy fire." It refers to George Healii Beckley Kahea. My questions are:

What battle/skirmish would the 55th Lancashire have been in at Festubert in 1918?
What is the "Military Medal" being referred to?
I read in a 1932 thesis that the medal was personally awarded by George V in person; would this have been possible?
Is the source referring to November 9 or September 11, 1919 for the date of the award? It is quoting a British source but also found in an American newspaper, so I don't know without guessing.

KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be this Military Medal. I don't know about the specific awarding. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, "9-11-19" is misquoted; the reproduction quality isn't great, but the date is clearly enough "9-11-18".

Second, that would be this Festubert. That article only mentions a battle in 1915, but there was fighting around there again in April 1918. I have online access via ProQuest and my local library to old Globe and Mail articles, and I found one dated April 13, 1918, pages 1 and 4 of the paper, under the headline "OVER 110 GERMAN DIVISIONS IN ATTACKS ON WEST FRONT". As well as Festubert, another place mentioned is Loisne, which you can find in Google Maps and it is indeed near the same Festubert where the 1915 battle was. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

55th Lancashire (King's Own) regiment from the article isn't right. The 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division in 1918 had battalions from the King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster) and the King's Regiment (Liverpool).
There's a medal card at the National Archives for Beckley, George of the Liverpool Regiment and Royal Fusiliers, don't see one for a Beckley in the King's Own.
"Chapter V. Givenchy—Festubert" of The Story of the 55th, West Lancashire Division. p. 85

There is also something in the chapter "55th (West Lancaster) Division" of the book The Territorial Divisions, 1914–1918: "After two months' training, when much-needed drafts were absorbed, the Division entered the line in the Givenchy—Festubert area on 15th February, 1918."[3] Here, "the line" means "the battle line". The subsequent battle in April was the Battle of the Lys (1918); you can see Festubert on the map in that article where the dashed and solid blue lines meet near the bottom. --Lambiam 06:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your third question; yes, it was quite possible that it was presented personally by the king. I found this article which says; "The medal [the Military Medal] was confirmed in the London Gazette on 8th May 1918 and was awarded by King George V in a public investiture in Leeds in May 1918". Many other investitures were held at Buckingham Palace, Holyrood Palace in Scotland or Cardiff Castle in Wales. The king and other members of the royal family made frequent visits to the front, when presenting medals was one of the main duties. This photo shows King George V presenting a Distinguished Conduct Medal in France to an American signaller in July 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"They said it would be over by Christmas" in 1917 (film)

In 1917 (2019 film), one of the young British soldiers says something like "They said it would be over by Christmas" to his commanding officer, in complaint at the dangerousness of their orders. I always thought this idea dated to 1914, the first year of the war, when people still hoped it would be over quickly. By 1917 - the war's fourth year - were people really still telling each other it would be "over by Christmas"? Or was this an ironic joke by the soldier, mocking the public's naivety in the early days of the conflict? Lfh (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that it was meant as an ironic joke by that character. HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; Celluloid Wars: A Guide to Film and the American Experience of War (p. 99) has a British soldiers' joke from 1917; "They say the first seven years will be the worst". Alansplodge (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]