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.

April 21

Preeminent universities

As is well known, Florida classifies its state universities into "preeminent" and "emerging preeminent universities" based on specified criteria which reflect quality. Are there other states that do that?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it classify any as "Just average"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - only Florida.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Board games

Are there museums of board games in the world?--95.233.83.162 (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was this one, but it closed in 2009. You can still view the contents of the museum online. --Viennese Waltz 10:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed an exhibition devoted to board games at the V&A Museum of Childhood in London; Game Plan: Board Games Rediscovered which was due to close this week but actually shut weeks ago due to the current emergency. They have a large board game collection, part of which is usually on display, and you can view it on-line here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Museum of Games Tobyc75 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, there's the de:Deutsches Spielemuseum in Chemnitz and de:Deutsches Spielearchiv in Nuremberg, with 35,000 and 30,000 board games, respectively. 2A01:598:9183:BDEB:1:1:3919:F4B4 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Human being

Are human beings are also a type of animals (in Islam) - ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist, I've not found any such thing in Islamic texts. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not likely to find that in the text of any major religion, at least not explicitly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In colloquial use, the word "animal" excludes human beings, as when someone says, "We are not animals", or when a mother reprimands her child, "You eat like an animal!". Of course she does; she is an animal. Most people who have not had a formal education may not be aware that the biological sciences place the human species (Homo sapiens) in the biological kingdom Animalia, in the same tribe as chimpanzees. While, as far as I'm aware, there is no direct similar placement in Islamic texts, the sura Al-‘Ankabūt says, "Every soul must taste of death, then to Us you will be returned" (Qur'an 29:57). Here "every soul" is generally interpreted as including animals. The word translated as "soul" is نَفْسٍ (nafs), of which the primary meaning is "living creature", related to an Arabic word that can mean both "soul" and "breath". (The English word "animal" comes from Latin animalis, which literally means, "possessing an anima", where Latin anima can likewise mean "soul" and "breath".) So I think any separation between humans and other animals is not an absolute one in Islamic thought; all are God's creatures who God at some time will call back. --Lambiam 18:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also our article Animals in Islam. --Lambiam 18:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam gave a good answer. One decent resource for questions like this is the Islam Stackexchange. Temerarius (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

17 Ming princes

Both questions regards the Manchu conquest of China

1. The Kingdom of Tungning was founded by the Zheng family under Koxinga. Did they intend to restore the Ming or start a new dynasty? Koxinga supported the Yongli Emperor until he was captured and killed in 1662. Was there an attempt to place a figure head Ming emperor from the remaining imperial princes by the Zheng regime until Zheng Jing “abandoned any pretense of restoring the Ming dynasty by the time he invaded Fujian in 1676” as it states in his article?

2. During the end of the Kingdom of Tungning, 17 Ming dynasty princes were sent back to the mainland from Taiwan. Zhu Shugui and Zhu Honghuan are the only princes whose name I could find. What were the names of the other princes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.14.47 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I am not an expert on the subject, but I think Koxinga's goals in the time period started out as helping the vestiges of the Ming, supporting refugees from the mainland, and generally being a bastion of Ming culture. That said, eventually with the Ming overthrow, Koxinga became much more independent and less connected with restoring the Ming dynasty, an impossible task as a governor of a small island, and focused more on piracy and developing a kingdom and dynasty on Taiwan still connected with Ming culture but less connected with the Ming empire. Zoozaz1 03:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoozaz1 (talk • contribs)

Luxette - cooking

I have a recipe for "Eggs and Luxette". It is a savoury, to be served at the end of a meal.

2 or 3 hard-boiled eggs
1 1/2 oz butter
1 tablespoonful luxette
seasoning

Divide the hard-boiled eggs in half, remove the yolks and mix smoothly with butter and luxette, rub through a sieve, then pipe into the egg, stand each cup on a slice of cooked beetroot or tomato, garnish with cress and serve.

What is luxette? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down to the comments section here DuncanHill is says that it is a fish paste. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more info including a pic of the jar label. Now I'm hungry :-P. MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That label sent me to the dictionary to look up triturate. Thanks for the new word! --76.71.6.31 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are both welcome :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there 76. This has some fun words. My particular favorite is Vellichor. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw "defenestrate" used on a game show the other day: they said someone defenestrated a piano and asked what it meant. I don't know which one; I'm watching a lot of them these days. It might've been the new celebrity version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, or if not, then it was another one. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Defenestrate" used (say, 50 years ago) to be widely understood in the UK, because many secondary school history courses would mention The Defenestration of Prague (specifically, the 1618 one). I'm not sure if that's still the case, though. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.214 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Millennial colleague, with a masters degree no less, recently asked what Napoleon was, she had no idea that it was even the name of a person. So probably the Defenestration of Prague does not impinge much on modern consciousness. I suspect that it was only included in British histories to reinforce the idea that the Reformation was a Good Thing, which is not an obsession of the 21st century. Alansplodge (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse schooling with education. I've never presumed a person's level of knowledge based on any certifications they may have. --Jayron 32 12:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 50. We learnt about all the Defenestrations of Prague in O Level History. That of Jan Masaryk was the one relevant to the course but our teacher, quite rightly, thought it would make it all a bit more interesting and memorable to mention the others. I've since been to Prague, and I can't say its windows lend themselves more to defenestration than those of other European capitals I've visited. Must be something in the water. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I was 10, I went to Stirling Castle and learned about the defenestration of William Douglas, 8th Earl of Douglas (I hadn't recalled his name but I can still picture the window). Modern history teaching seems to focus on historical domestic arrangements rather than badly behaved kings or bloody battles which is actually the interesting bit. Nobody cares how Saxons cooked porridge. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were told about such things. Again, never presume anyone learned what they were told in school. I imagine lots of your classmates would deny ever learning such matters. --Jayron 32 13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recall someone once saying that in primary school you have the "three R's", while in college you have the "six R's": Remedial Reading, Remedial 'Riting, and Remedial 'Rithmetic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered about that term, according to my latin (years ago now), it should be "exfenestrate", (out of window) instead of defenestrate (the removal of the window). Is the destruction of the window more important than the people thrown out? Or was their latin not so good? Rmvandijk (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a suggestion, but there are several versions of hard boiled eggs with anchovy paste, eg. http://www.yocucina.it/uova-ripiene-pasta-acciughe-ricetta . You can take butter instead of olive oil. 2003:F5:6F04:6400:6CD0:9822:C161:100F (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

The king of anchovy paste is Gentleman's Relish, which when combined with scrambled eggs makes Scotch woodcock. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Honolulu Catholic sisters in 1859

So on May 4, 1859, ten Flemish and French nuns [1] from the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary arrived in Honolulu and established a boarding school on July 9, 1859 and a day school later on (these were the precursor of Sacred Hearts Academy). What were the names of these nuns and their final fate (did they remain in Hawaii or return to Europe)? KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I've found is that the Mother Superior was named Judith Brassier (1834–1909).^{[2];[3] p. 21.} But she did apparently not have that position from the very start. Other snippets of info: the ten Sisters left Valpaiso, Chile, on the English ship Nelson, headed for San Francisco, bound for Hawaii.^[4] Another name mentioned, probably part of the ten, is Mother Henriette Aymer de la Chevalerie, a noblewoman whose family had lost property and suffered imprisonment during the Revolution; of the ten Sisters of the Sacred Hearts who arrived in 1859, six were choir sisters and four were lay; yet another Sister, also probably part of the 10 and superior to Judith Brassier who was her assistant, was the Sisters' Provincial Superior, Mother Maria Josepha George (d. 1877), Belgian by birth; Mother Judith Brassier, who succeeded her and remained the Superior for thirty-five years, until shortly before her death in 1909, was a Frenchwoman; ^{[5], pp. 131, 132 & 162.} I have only skimmed the last source. --Lambiam 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Aymer de La Chevalerie died in 1834 but helped found the order. So Judith Brassier and Maria Josepha George. Let me know if anybody else find the name of the remaining 8 sisters. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Apparently two came from Belgium and three from the Kingdom of Hanover (now Lower Saxony), the rest from France. --Lambiam 10:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So they are Maria-Josepha George, Judith Brassier, Adeida Hemeing, Theresa Roulois, Sinise Morand. Odilia Lovels, Landeline Farard, Laurentine Loyer, Marthe Fournier, and Waltrude Kapmeyer. I didn't take the time to put correct accent in names. But I found the fate of the first two sisters. They basically lived and died in Hawaii. What was the fate of the 8 other sisters? Did they stay in their missionary posts or return to Europe? KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Kosovo...

I am not quite sure myself if this question is going to make sense but, I will ask anyway. I apologize beforehand if the following comes across as confusing in any way. Around two and half years ago, I asked on here a logic question about double standard and hypocrisy and the main reason I asked was the argument that Kosovo is unique and thus does not establish a precedent that got often brought up by most Western governments as a response to whataboutism from Russia and proponents of other cases of separatist secessions. While there were useful answers, I was not exactly satisfied and so, I will ask it more directly this time around.

Does the argument that Kosovo is sui generis and thus is is not a double standard to treat it differently from other cases of unilateral secession such as Catalonia makes logical sense? If it does, could you use the fact that every situation is inherently unique to a certain extent in term of context and situation to prove that all accusations of hypocrisy or any fallacious whataboutisms are inherently opinions? Or is the aforementioned argument just mental gymnastics to just metaphorically say "hurr durr The West is always right. Kosovo is unique and different because we say so and we are always right, why won't you get it? smh" since there is a huge gap in logic between "Kosovo is unique" and "We should treat it differently from other cases of secession"? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as a "sui generis" case would obviously depend on one's own opinion; so, whether it involves hypocrisy would depend on what one's own personal views are. For instance, one could refer to the post-World War II expulsions of Germans as a "sui generis" case that was justified but otherwise refuse to support ethnic cleansing, but whether one would be viewed as a hypocrite for this position would depend on whether or not other people will think that you've made a sufficiently strong case in favor of these specific expulsions being "sui generis" and thus more justified than other expulsions are.

Another interesting point in regards to Kosovo is that it was something described as being "illegal but legitimate" (or, alternatively, "illegal but justified"). This means that the West believes that there are certain actions that are contrary to international law but that are nevertheless legitimate or justified. (Of course, this raises the question as to why exactly such actions should be illegal in the first place; after all, shouldn't legitimate and/or justified actions actually be legal--similar to how it's legal for a good Samaritan to accidentally break someone's rib while saving their life?) The thing is, of course, that this opens the door for other countries--such as Russia--to likewise violate international law in cases that they consider to be justified--and then the West won't be able to criticize these countries (such as Russia) for violating international law because these countries are simply going to say "Yes, we did violate international law, but our action was nevertheless legitimate and thus justified and appropriate!" Indeed, one can refer to the Crimea annexation as being legitimate due to the fact that the majority of the Crimean population does appear to have endorsed it after the fact. (It's less clear whether a majority of the Crimean population endorsed it before the fact.) So, in at least some way, the Crimean annexation was compatible with the principle of national self-determination--which one can certainly view as a legitimate principle even if it is one that isn't actually universally recognized by international law. (The situation and political climate in regards to national self-determination right now is, of course, much more favorable right now than it was a century or two ago, but it's still by no means a universally recognized right according to international law.) Futurist110 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some has argued that Sudeten Germans collectively committed high treason and thus revenge against them are legally justified but then again, a lot of targets of ethnic cleansing had tried to do something similar if not the same thing. What I am trying to say is that since all accusations of hypocrisy rely on the opinion that two or more situations are the same, are they opinions in an of themselves?

Did Russia ever admit that they do not subscribe to international laws or some something similar rather than just using whataboutism to justify their actions in the last 12 years?

Also, would you agree with the assertion that international laws are a combination of "The strong/winners make the rules" and "screw the rules, I make them"? I mean, whenever I see arguments surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict, the argument that Israel violated international law by occupying the West Bank or intending to annex some parts of the territories it had conquered got brought up like no tomorrow but this is far from the first time an act of unilateral annexation got later internationally recognized and widely accepted as fait accompli. Let's not even get to debate surrounding right of return (Sudetenland, Operation Storm anyone?), the fact that China could legally do whatever it want with Hong Kong and Taiwan according to international laws, and claimant of prisoners of war status by unlawful combatant in violent domestic conflicts (IRA). 70.95.44.93 (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any argument based on ascribing something "collectively" to a group of people only defined by a common ethnicity must be rejected. Consider that among the ethnic Germans expulsed some had actively resisted the Nazi occupation and had lost family members because of that, and that also German-speaking Jews had to face expulsion. --Lambiam 20:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a matter of logic but one of semantics, I think that the term "hypocrisy" should be reserved for a contradiction between someone's sanctimonious presentation and their actual selfish motives and behaviour. If one rejects the sui generis defence, the situation is that of a double standard, which one may regard as wrong, but which is not necessarily hypocritical. For the rest, in legal arguments precedents play an important role, so situations that are different but have some aspects in common are being compared all the time. It is not unheard of that one party argues that some precedent applies, while the other party rejects that argument as comparing apples with oranges. There is no foolproof method for deciding who is more right, but logic is not a victim here. But in claiming that every situation is sui generis because there is always some difference is an instance of the sorites fallacy. --Lambiam 20:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

70.95.44.93 -- For good or bad, "Operation Horseshoe" was the final straw in influencing many NATO and/or western nations to arrive at the conclusion that Serbia could not be trusted with control of Kosovo, and did not deserve to rule over Kosovo. There has been no Operation Horseshoe in Catalonia. A situation somewhat parallel to Kosovo could be Nagorno-Karabakh. The vast majority of ethnic Armenians have a strong aversion to being ruled over by an Azerbaijani-run government, and would not have the slightest degree of confidence or trust in an Azerbaijani-run government's good intentions toward themselves -- and vice-versa for the vast majority of ethnic Azerbaijanis with respect to an Armenian-run government, of course. The international community has not formally recognized any special status for Nagorno-Karabakh, but it has also not strongly pushed for restoring the situation as of the breakup of the Soviet Union, since under current circumstances that would mean a violent ethnic cleansing of Armenians from the territory... AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one special exacerbating factor with respect to the Sudeten Germans was that they were basically located in the mountains, looking down at the Czechs in the valleys (not to mention surrounding the Czechs on three sides). An entity of Czechoslovakia minus Sudetenland would be completely militarily indefensible. In the bitter aftermath of WWII, it's not surprising that the Czechoslovak government concluded that if the Sudetens remained, they would be a perpetual focus of irredentist mischief, and a source of weakness for the Czechoslovak state. AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Catalonia is, just like you said, not even remotely comparable to what happened in Kosovo especially when it comes to the former's privileges, I still see the comparison getting predictably brought up in debates regarding it along with the "sui generis" response from the Western governments that is likewise echoed by the government of Kosovo itself. In any case, the fact that many of the countries that recognize "Kosovo" fall back on the "sui generis" argument means that they are not definitely not going to extend the same treatment to other separatist causes and that goes for all Post-Soviet de-facto states including Nagorno-Karabakh. The main reason most of these conflicts occurred in the first place is because Soviet Union, bound by its ideals, not only embraced state-building along ethnic lines but also did it poorly by drawing bad borders and including one autonomous entity in another for no reason. I mean, come on, if these regional ethnic minorities do not accept their fate in unitary states like the Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia after Trianon or decide to voluntarily assimilate like the ones in France, then I cannot imagine how any of these conflicts would ever be resolved without at least Operation Storm 2.0 or Benes decrees 2.0 happening. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Fraud/Scams

I recently was frauded by a company in the UK. It is odd that it is a real company and is still opened. They have no phone number or way to contact them except by e-mail which they do not respond to. I am not sure who I would report this to in the UK police/coppers/etc. I am out 14.000 that was wired to the persons bank account. The other thing is the place is still opened and has the same name Proceed Shipping LTD in Maidstone Kent. Would you please tell me who I should get ahold of with a phone number and a # for the police if able. Thanks 68.8.19.164 (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contact numbers for Kent, UK police. DroneB (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the business is still open after the scam was over, and the scammer had you wire money to a personal bank account, the scammer might not have actually worked with or for the company but was spoofing their email address as a cover. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report fraud to ActionFraud Tel: 0300 123 2040. Searching for "Proceed Shipping Ltd" seems to show a number of solid business reports, and no mention of scams, so I suspect that Ian.thomson is right, and that your scammers have spoofed them. --ColinFine (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the AD calendar system

I have a question about the AD calendar system--the people who originally created it wanted the first year after Jesus's alleged birth to be year 1, the second year after Jesus's alleged birth to be year 2, and so forth, correct? However, wouldn't that be wrong from a purely mathematical notation perspective? Please let me elaborate on what I mean here:

If, purely hypothetically, Jesus was born on January 1, 1 AD, then the year 1 would have been the first year of his life, but he would have still had an age of between 0.00 and 0.99 years throughout the entirety of year 1. Ditto for the year 2 AD, where Jesus would have had an age of between 1.00 and 1.99 years throughout the entirety of year 2. And so forth. So, if we actually want a system that measured the amount of time since a hypothetical birth of Jesus on January 1, AD 1, shouldn't we transform the year AD 1 into the year 0 instead? That way, whereas Jesus would have previously turned 1 year old at the start of the year 2 AD in this hypothetical scenario, he would have now turned 1 year old at the start of the year 1 AD in this hypothetical scenario due to the years on this calendar being moved backwards by one year. This would seem much simpler to follow, no? So, using such a system, the year 1900 would become the year 1899 since at the start of the year 1900 in this scenario, there would have only passed 1899 years since Jesus's hypothetical birth. So, if we actually want to graph and plot the distance between Jesus's hypothetical birth in this scenario and a particular event, shouldn't we graph and plot Jesus's hypothetical birth date as 0.00 and then add whatever number of years we want to increase to it? In this case 0.00 + 1899.00 = 1899, thus changing the year 1900 into the year 1899? The same, of course, would also work in regards to moving time backwards--as in, subtracting years before Jesus's alleged birth date in this scenario.

Anyway, what do all of you think about this?

For the record, this question is kind of random but it originated because someone on a particular forum insisted that the 19th century should end in the year 1899 instead of 1900 and that astronomically has already made a correction in regards to this by creating a year zero. My rejoinder to this, of course, was that if the people who created our current calendar would have actually believed in the concept of a year zero, then they would have labelled year 1 AD year zero instead, labelled year 2 AD year 1 AD instead, and so forth ... up to the point of labeling year 1900 AD year 1899 AD instead.

So, year, what are your own thoughts on all of this? Futurist110 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysius Exiguus devised the "era of the incarnation". He was actually more concerned with Easter calculations, and did not use the concept of zero in the same way that we're familiar with today... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "first year" with "age 1". You are only one year old after completing an entire year of life. However, the entire time from birth to the anniversary of birth is your "first year". --Khajidha (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. I was simply talking about how we should devise our calendar naming in regards to year numbers if we will treat years as being comparable to ages--as in, having the first year after Jesus's alleged traditional birth year be year 1, the year after that be year 2, and so forth. Jesus's alleged traditional birth year would, of course, be year zero since Jesus would not have actually had any birthdays in this specific year other than of course his very literal birth day. Futurist110 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there no "year 0" in the BC/AD system, not only do we not know what day Jesus was actually born on, but also the calculation of when year 1 was, was likely off by several years. So it's kind of irrelevant. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 00:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a year zero is astronomy, though--as per my post above. Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine for astronomers. Does anyone else use it? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 01:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that? It is completely contrary to how we number things in general. For example, the first game of the World Series is Game 1. It is Game one from the opening to the ending. Just as the first year of the AD calendar system is year 1. From beginning to end. --Khajidha (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just use East Asian age reckoning then you don't have to worry about them being different. Nil Einne (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the way that Dionysius Exiguus proceeded, in various Easter calculations the 19-year Metonic cycle governing the phases of the moon was combined with the 28-year cycle of the Julian calendar (after 28 years, the same sequence of calendar dates, i.e. month, day, and day of the week, repeats). So such Easter calculations involved a repeating cycle of 19 x 28 years, or 532 years. He then noticed that the beginning of a 532-year Easter cycle (525 years before the year he was writing) was a pretty good approximation to the birth of Jesus (we now know it was probably a few years late). He did not start with the "year 1" as you're assuming he did; he started out with the beginning of a 532-year Easter calculation cycle. It's not even too clear what he may have thought the exact birthdate of Jesus was. Of course, A.D. dating itself was not really used until the life of the venerable Bede over a century later... AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is specific terminology to refer to the two different methods of counting years (i.e "numbering each year, starting at 1" as is used in the calendar, and "how many years have passed" (i.e. starting at zero), but I can't remember what it is. -- 09:08, 27 April 2020 Wardog

The first Easter was celebrated in about AD 30, so why would Dionysius want to calculate a hypothetical 532-year cycle from a non-existent Easter thirty years before? The exigency of the moment was that the current cycle was due to run out in seven years, and Dionysius needed to extend it fast. At the same time he felt it would be respectful if the years of his extended cycle were to date from the beginning of the cycle nearest the Incarnation. He wrote a book to explain this, noting in the preface:

Nonaginta quinque igitur annorum hunc cyclum, studio que valuimus expedire contendimus, ultimum eiusdem beati Cyrilli, id est quintum cyclum, quia sex adhuc ex eo anni superant, in nostro hoc opere praeferentes;

[Ninety five therefore of years this cycle; it is with zeal that we hastened to strive to put in order the last of these of blessed Cyril, that is the fifth cycle, because six now from this year show, in this our work presented;]

In his table the last year of Martyrs was 247, followed by year 532 of Christ; the cycle was unbroken allowing for the fact that the year of Martyrs began on 30 August of the preceding year. After the change, the discrepancy between lunar and solar years in the first year of the cycle continued to be zero - Dionysius entered this as nulla in his table alongside all the other numbers - the first use of zero in the west. His table continued to the year 626. The attraction of extending in 95-year increments is that usually (though not always) the date of Easter repeats every 95 years.

His reasoning then is as good as it is now:

sed magis eligimus ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi annorum tempora praenotare, quatenus exordium spei nostrae notius nobis existeret, et causa reparationis humanae, id est, passio Redemptoris nostri, evidentius eluceret. [but rather we elect to account the times of years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that the beginning of our knowable hope might exist for us, and the cause of human reparation, that is, the passion of our Redeemer, might clearly shine forth.] -- 13:11, 27 April 2020 89.243.10.133

Easter was not "celebrated"[sic] in 30 AD; rather, 30 AD is one of the plausible candidates for the year of Jesus' death. And the point of the 532-year cycle was not to calculate Easter dates far back in time; rather, when you're using a 19-year cycle and a separate 28-year cycle, then they'll both begin or end in the same year once every 532 years. That's why it's not a coincidence that the first A.D. date in the table was 532 A.D. (though A.D. reckoning was not used much beyond Easter calculations until the time of Bede, as I said). A 95-year cycle contains 5 of the 19-year lunar Metonic cycles. Under the Julian calendar, there's a 75% possibility that a 95-year interval will contain 24 leap years, in which case the number of days will be evenly divisible by 7 (i.e. 4957 weeks). However, there's a 25% probability that it will contain only 23 leap years, in which case the total number of days in 95 years will not be evenly divisible by 7. The only way to get guaranteed exact repeatability of Easter dates using the assumptions of 6th-century A.D. Easter calculators is to go to a full 532-year cycle. AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Track down an article?

Can anyone find this article? Davis, J. (1982). "Palmerston and the Sicilian Sulphur Crisis of 1840: An Episode in the Imperialism of Free Trade". Risorgimento 1 (2): 5–24.

It’s cited places, but I don’t even see it indexed in worldcat. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it anywhere. Your best bet is to email the author. --Lambiam 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this: [6] ? --Soman (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoos for minor children in Italy

Long story short: I was watching an Italian TV program. It is a realty show, titled something like Collegia. It is a reality show where a group of high school students live in a boarding-school dorm; and they have to live as if it were the year 1960 (no cell phones, etc.). Anyway ... there are 18 contestants on the show. They are all high school age (age 14 to 17 or such). Both boys and girls. I noticed something quite odd, though. A lot of these high school kids had tattoos. They seemed to be "real" tattoos, not the fake/temporary "rub-off" types. I'd say a good six or eight of the 18 kids had tattoos visible, at various points during the show. I was quite surprised, when I saw the first tattoo ... and, even more so, when I noticed more and more tattoos. So, my question: does anyone know how this could be? In Italy, is it legal to get a tattoo if you are under age 18? Does anyone have any idea how this works over there? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the show, on IMDb: [7]. It is called Il Collegio. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 2015 paper Implementation of European Council Resolution ResAP(2008)1 in Italy. National and Regional Regulation of Tattoo Practices: Diversity and Challenges, "Compared with the significant growth of the practice of tattooing in Italy, related legislation has not succeeded in keeping up with its development. This situation is common to many European countries and, in most cases, ‘strongly suggested directives’ or ‘Guidelines’ rather than specific regulations have been issued." Furthermore, "the percentage of teenagers (12–18 years of age) with at least one tattoo had increased from 6.6 to 7.5% in the years 2002–2011". (However, Legal status of tattooing in the European Union states that in Italy, the minimum age is 18, though that isn't sourced). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source states that below that age they require parental consent: "It is forbidden to perform tattoos on minors under eighteen without the informed consent of the parents or guardians." (Antonia Pirrera, Alberto Renzoni (17 October 2019). Tattuagi: "Quadro normativo". EpiCentro.) --Lambiam 08:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Note that according to Legal status of tattooing in the United States, even in the US maybe about 1/2 of states allow tattooing below the age of 18 if there is parental consent so I'm not totally sure why the original surprise arises. Maybe the apparent ease with which civil suits seem to occur means few tattoo artists/parlours are willing to tattoo someone below 18 just in case they are sued when the minor later regrets it and/or they didn't meet the consent requirements despite their best efforts? Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The "original surprise" arises because ... if I saw a random group of 18 kids of high school age (14 to 17), I would hardly expect to find one tattoo in the bunch ... much less, to find seven or eight. I guess the culture in Italy (today) is rather liberal/permissive, when kids ask their parents for a tattoo. Yes, that definitely surprises me. And even more surprising, it involved high school girls, not just boys. Yes, I was definitely surprised when I saw the first tattoo, much less the subsequent parade of them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, we are talking about 18 "random kids" in a college-prep dormitory boarding school. (Probably "elite"; probably expensive. Definitely homogeneous; no racial diversity. Etc.) Not a youth prison or a juvenile delinquency institution or some random bunch of homeless kids / drug addicts / etc. Yes, many stereotypes in my comment ... but, nonetheless, I was surprised when I saw the TV show. I mean, really ... what kind of parent gives their 14-year old daughter permission to get a tattoo? How ridiculous, in my opinion. I am sure that she (the daughter) "changed her mind" and regretted the tattoo ... about 11 minutes later ... or when her next boyfriend didn't like the design. Adolescent girls are fickle, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of your comments seem to be based on very outdated stereotypes.--Khajidha (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I acknowledged the presence of "stereotypes" in my post. Stereotypes, however, are often -- not always -- grounded in reality or experience or perceptions. They don't generally arise out of whole cloth, with no foundation whatsoever. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitely homogeneous; no racial diversity seems more of an issue with America being rather racially diverse and many Americans not realizing how homogeneous many countries are; than outdated stereotypes. The homeless / addict thing is definitely an outdated (and frankly ridiculous) stereotype (how the hell are homeless people supposed to afford tattoos?). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption was that the chronology of events was: (1) get a tattoo; and, later (2) become homeless. Not the reverse: (1) become homeless first, and then (2) get a tattoo subsequently. (I said "chronology", not "causation".) That is, getting the tattoo does not lead to a person being homeless. But -- generally speaking -- poor, impulsive decisions (e.g., a tattoo at age 14) ... probably later leads to poor life circumstances (e.g., being homeless). Basically, that was my point. I was also referring to homeless people in the general / adult population ... not young, homeless, high school kids. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitely homogeneous; no racial diversity seems more of an issue with America being rather racially diverse. Also more generally (I don't know if its relevant here), but I think there is often an issue with Americans assessing issues of diversity and racism in other countries in terms of the groups and prejudices that exist in America. Iapetus (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A side thought: what's the actual rule/law in the USA? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of tattooing in the United States says "However, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutory laws requiring a person receiving a tattoo be at least 18 years old" but that " Most states permit a person under the age of 18 to receive a tattoo with permission of a parent or guardian." Notes about minors appear in the "Notes & Exceptions" column. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how could a country like Italy or the USA justify an absolute prohibition of tattoos for underage children, I mean independent of parental permission? You had to forbid for parents to let their children tattooed if they (the parents) wish. I don't think a democracy can do this easily and without giving serious reasons for it (regardless how I personally feel about tattoos and tattooed people) 2003:F5:6F04:6400:69EA:E9B7:32C8:F18A (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

Well, the prohibition of children getting tattoos without permission is "based on the legal principle that a minor cannot enter into a legal contract or otherwise render informed consent for a procedure" (as stated in the article Ian thomson linked to. As for preventing parents from consenting to tattooing a child, that could be seen as allowing child abuse. --Khajidha (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the same way that any other thing has legal age restrictions put on it (i.e. that minors can't meaningfully consent). Iapetus (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, minors can't drink; can't vote; can't drive a car; can't get a working job; etc. Regardless of whether or not the parents want them to. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet arctic convoys in WW2

By random YouTube watching, I ran across Operation Wonderland. Our map in there piqued my interest. In particular, the blue "routes of Soviet convoys" did. Of course, in the high Arctic, many map projections are highly distorted. Looking at a globe (well, at Google Earth as the next best thing ;-), I can see that it is plausible for the lend-lease convoys to indeed go north of Svalbard to enter the Kara Sea and reach Murmansk and Archangelsk. But even then, I can see no obvious reason why they would sail via the Laptev Sea and the Vilkitsky Strait between Bolshevik Island and the continent, as shown on the map. So my question: Do the blue routes indeed refer to the lend-lease convoys? If so, are there unobvious reasons for this route? If not, were there other Soviet convoys running parts of the North East passage from further east? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to avoid the heavier ice pack further up north? --Lambiam 09:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Convoys to Russia 1941-45 shows the winter and summer routes for Lend-Lease convoys departing from Britain. The summer route in red went around the top of Iceland and approached from as far north as possible to try to avoid German air attack or reconnaissance for U-boats, which had 24-hour daylight at midsummer. In the winter, there was only a narrow gap between the north of Norway and the pack ice as Lambiam says, however the short daylight hours and foul weather gave the convoys a sporting chance. The objectives were either Murmansk or Archangel, the latter being preferred because of better transport links once the supplies had been unloaded. Once Murmansk had been reached there was relative safety because it was within the Soviet air umbrella. Arctic Convoys: 21 Aug 1941 - 30 May 1945 gives the itinerary for each convoy, some of which formed-up in Iceland, presumably if they were coming direct from North America. I can't see any which went further east than Archangel. Alansplodge (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The maps you linked are very schematic, but they are clear that the convoys definitely even run south of Svalbard. So our map is unlikely to show the Iceland/Scottland-based convoys. I found this source (from our Operation Wunderland article) that indeed describes significant convoys along the Northern Sea Route. And Northeast Passage describes the Soviets shipping materials along that route during the war. Our coverage seems to be relatively limited, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1940s there was more sea ice than nowadays (climate change, you know). It was generally impossible to pass north of Svalbard or Franz Jozefland even in summer with an icebreaker. See this map of sea ice in October 1946. October is when the ice begins to grow again. Navy ships tend to have strong hulls because of armour, so they can handle some ice, but their bow isn't designed for ice breaking. They won't sink easily in pack ice, but they can get stuck. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have to go slower too, which is not good if you're trying to outrun submarines. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ill-gotten consequent gains

Say someone robs a bank and escapes with $100,000 (this is not supposed to be a realistic story). He invests the $100K in the stock market and makes another $100K, but then he gets arrested and convicted for the bank robbery. Obviously he doesn't get to keep the first $100K. I have to figure he can't keep the second $100K either, but what is the legal theory that says this, and who gets it instead of him? Does it matter if the numbers are bigger and the timeframe stretches over years, so that when he's caught he has a complicated set of holdings?

Motivation for asking: not really specific, but there are some people in the news whose past (lucrative) malfeasances are possibly catching up with them. Also there is a cliché about what is behind every great fortune. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries have laws for asset forfeiture that explicitly allow the State to seize illegal gains. I think the $100K capital gains should qualify. --Lambiam 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a forfeiture law requires conviction of the offence that enabled the criminal's acquisition of assets, the statute of limitation of that jurisdiction will apply. This criminal-law limitation does not extend to civil litigation, which has its own limitations. But in a civil case, the amount awarded to plaintiff would not exceed their (material and immaterial) damages. --Lambiam 09:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the criminal statute of limitations runs out, then the guy never gets tried for the robbery so can't have been convicted. I guess I could imagine the civil statute being longer, so the bank discovers and proves the robbery after the criminal statute lapses. In that case the robber returns the initial loot but not the post-robbery gains.

In the criminal situation (the one I wondered about more), assset forfeiture sounds like the theory I wanted, but looking at the article, it just doesn't seem to happen except for terrorism or maybe drug dealer cases. Let's dilute the money further and say that the guy is already a seemingly legit business dude with millions in the stock market, when he takes it into his head one day to go rob a bank (this is science fiction and they do stuff like that there). The $100k in loot gets added to his portfolio, which on the whole does pretty well, and then he is arrested. Perhaps his whole account has 25% cap gains between the robbery and the arrest.

So what happens-- do they make him forfeit $25K of the gains and let him keep the rest? Does the judge pick some amount more or less arbitrarily? I don't understand why these people are allowed to keep even their underwear. The bank robbery is of course a simplifying abstraction, but more complicated versions of this story seem to happen in real life all the time. Thanks again.

(Added: I wasn't specifically thinking of Jeffrey Epstein but it occurs to me he is an example. He was a "money manager" whose real business was blackmail and/or victim procurement. He took millions in criminal proceeds off rich people and invested them, and the investments happened to do quite well (he wasn't super skillful, but he wasn't an idiot and the market as a whole was booming at the time, so it worked out, unlike Madoff who lost his own shirt and everyone else's). There are a lot of civil suits against Epstein's estate, but I don't know of any efforts of the criminal courts to go after it.) 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments, it sounds like you're especially thinking of the situation in the US. If so, I think you're reading too much into an article which maybe a bit flawed. (But even in NZ, it's not like it's restricted to drug dealing e.g. the infamous Kim Dotcom case.) Although I will note Civil forfeiture in the United States does actually say

In many areas civil forfeiture adversely affects persons from minorities and low-income communities, in which the typical seizure is less than $500, and Democrats have also been critical of civil forfeiture programs.[14]

and

Forfeiture rules were used to confiscate cars of intoxicated motorists.[7] In such instances, there are two types of cases: a criminal case against the drunk driver as a person, and a civil case against the property used to facilitate the drunk driving, specifically their car.[7] Critics contend that the punishment can be "deemed out of proportion with the offense"; for example, after a drunk driver is arrested and convicted and possibly imprisoned, is it proper to punish him or her additionally by civil forfeiture means by confiscating a $50,000 car?[7] Civil forfeiture has been used to discourage illegal activities such as cockfighting, drag racing, gambling in basements, poaching of endangered fish, securities fraud, and other illegal activity.[9]

But anyway, even in terms of "drug dealing", as our article indicates there tends to be assumption that if you have a lot of cash or deal in a lot of cash, you probably are up something illegal, no matter if you're buying stuff from eBay, as made semi famous from this video. [8]

While your scenario doesn't deal large amounts of cash, the fact remains that these example demonstrate that there are various US governments and their agencies, often police, who are quite willing to seize assets they "suspect" are derived from illegal activities whatever those activities are, and sometimes with questionable motiviations. And remember most states do not even require a conviction, and there is generally nothing like ""assumption of innocence". If your assets are seized and you don't provide evidence they were obtained legally in the case against your assets or don't challenge it, you lose them.

In something as clear cut as a bank robbery, especially with a conviction, I would be surprised if most US governments or their agencies don't try some sort of forfeiture assuming they can find the assets. I imagine one reason why you don't find this mentioned much is because there aren't many bank robbers who it applies to and no one is particularly surprised about it.

As for investments, see e.g. [9] which while yes dealing with drug dealing this likely reflects the fact that this is when it arises. Note I make no comment on Epstein comparisons.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USA specifically has a de facto presumption of guilt in cases of civil forfeiture, and a perverse incentive in terms of law enforcement agencies directly profiting from successful prosecutions, a successful defendant still incurs court costs etc., in contrast to most of the West. Asking this question in the EU would be more interesting. 93.136.55.42 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the plot of "Not the Running Type", a 1960 episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents where the person serves his prison sentence and on release promptly returns the original amount stolen and retires to live off the interest. Rmhermen (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of entrenched clause?

Apparently, some of the currently used constitutions contain an entrenched clause that makes certain articles legally impossible for the legislature to amend. But, if the legislators want to amend those so called "permanent" articles in question, wouldn't they just vote to repeal the entrench clause first before doing what they want anyway? That is, if they did not simply decide to write a new constitution and put it into effect. So, is there any logic to having an entrenched clause to begin with? StellarHalo (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked before, though searching the archives is a royal pain. As I recall, trying to pass an amendment to repeal such things would be a tall order. For example, the requirement that every state have exactly 2 senators. It would be impossible for such an amendment to get passed, because who in their right mind would give up their equal membership in the Senate? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 19:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 June 28#Constitutions; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 13#Amending the U.S. Constitution; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 September 25#Anti-tampering device for laws; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 October 6#Entrenched provisions. --Lambiam 09:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some constitutions have entrenched the articles that say that the form of government has to be a republic and not a monarchy (ex. France, Germany, Greece, Italy) or that the state has to be either unitary (Indonesia) or a federation (Brazil). I am just wondering if the politicians who wrote these entrenched clauses into their constitution actually believed that they cannot just be repealed if there is enough pressure from the majority of the populace. For the US constitution, in the hypothetical extreme situation that vast majority of states agree to punish a state for reasons such as unilateral secession, I could totally see that requirement being amended to suspend their equal representation. StellarHalo (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being booted from the Union would be a different situation. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, any law only exists and has force because people agree that it does. Society is really just a big LARP.--Khajidha (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm curious about the Indonesian clause mentioned. What does it say and what effect can it have? --Tamfang (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo -- you may be interested in the game of Nomic. Currently, the only entrenched clause in the U.S. constitution is that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". There's some discussion of whether this theoretically could be gotten around at Article Five of the United States Constitution#Constitutional clauses shielded from amendment. Any attempt to do so would probably cause an instant constitutional crisis, and in any case, any amendment requires the approval of three-fourths of state legislatures. AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article in question regarding the equal Senate representation in question would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to amend under normal circumstances anyway as Baseball Bugs said, then doesn't that make the clause that entrenches the article come off as extremely redundant in practice? StellarHalo (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe now, but maybe less so when it was first ratified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing sounds like it may be more difficult or at least likely to happen a lot rarer than normal constitutional amendments given the controversy. So I'm unsure why your initial question about the logic of such provisions even arises. I mean you might as well just ask why some countries even have written constitutions with specific amendment provisions (often requiring a super majority) in the first place.

As for your followup about what the "politicians" believed, while I don't know for sure what happened in any particular historic situation, I'd note that in NZ in modern times when entrenchment comes up, a number of commentators who either support or oppose entrenchment often of the Māori Seats are aware that you could just amend section 268 with a majority to do away with the supermajority requirement but still feel it has a purpose to discourage such actions [10]. In fact I'm fairly sure I've heard some arguing that such provisions should only be introduced with a supermajority to try and ensure the supermajority requirement is seen as having a sufficient backing for protection.

I'd also note many constitutions weren't written just by people generally considered politicians. Speaking generally, I personally would be surprised if there were that would think whatever they were writing could never change with enough pressure, although it's possible they hoped that level of pressure would never exist for whatever they entrenched.

Since you brought up France, I mean we're already on the French Fifth Republic, so it would seem fairly surprising if there were really that many who thought "there is zero chance this constitution will ever be replaced".

Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the point of entrenched clauses is to highlight them as being extremely important things that shouldn't be changed lightly. --Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another more basic point is getting the constitution ratified in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead people with politics titles/offices

Are there any other people apart from the leaders of North Korea who are dead but still have official political titles, i.e. Eternal Leader? —77.98.70.212 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think North Korea is the only nation that gives their leaders titles that are UNIQUE to only that one person.

That said, MANY nations give their leaders titles that continue after death. For example, Queen Elizabeth II will still be known as “Queen Elizabeth II” after she dies. President Obama will still be referred to as “President Obama” after he dies. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous title. For example general Guan Yu was made a marquis, duke, prince, emperor and a god after his death. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements to become an university president/chancellor

What are the requirements to become an university or public university president/chancellor? Do they require years of experience in working in higher eduation? WJetChao (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no fixed requirements. It will depend on the specific University, and it's specific needs. One University might need someone with financial/fundraising expertise... another might need someone with an administrative background. Most are not academics. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware than in some systems, the chancellor can be a ceremonial position and the actual running of the university is done by the vice-chancellor (See Chancellor_(education)). In that case, quite often the only requirement is just name recognition, though not always (see List of chancellors and vice-chancellors of British universities). For instance, Birmingham City University has comedian Lenny Henry. As a counter example, Cardiff University had sir Martin Evans as chancellor for years, who definitely had relevant achievements and strong links to the university. Fgf10 (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that as mentioned in that article, in places where the vice-chancellor is the one who runs the university, it's common that they are the president, not the chancellor. So the requirements to become a "university president" would be quite different from becoming a "university chancellor". Therefore the / makes little sense. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case in the UK (as my second link shows), but I can't speak for other countries. Fgf10 (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I assumed from the lead of the first link that this applied to England at a minimum but it seems it's only the case in Northern Ireland and a small number of cases in England. Still, it seems to apply to most of Canada, I think most of Ireland, some of NZ (and for that reason even where the vice-chancellor is not formally the president, if you ask about the president people will probably assume you mean vice chancellor e.g. List of New Zealand university leaders), some of Malaysia, some? of Australia (List of Australian university leaders), some of Hong Kong (List of Hong Kong university vice-chancellors and presidents). Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit more, I think it's a bit more common that the chancellor article may lead us to believe. (AFAICT, the List of chancellors and vice-chancellors of British universities is worse, it doesn't seem to reflect if the person has for formal title of president at all, except for Alice Gast as she is not vice-chancellor.)

Besides the examples of Warwick and Manchester given in our article, a quick search also finds University of Sussex [11], University of Bath [12], University of Bristol [13], University of Nottingham [14], University of York [15], Loughborough University [16]. And well I stopped on the first page of search results.

I also see [17] has Brunel University London, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff University, Newcastle University, The University of Sheffield, University of Bolton, University of East London, University of Kent, University of Leicester, University of Southampton, University of Surrey, University of the West of England, Bristol, University of Westminster. But I don't think that page is complete, since for example while Warwick, Manchester, Bath and Nottingham do mention the president part; Sussex, Bristol, York and Loughborough do not mention the president part. Also while Queen's University Belfast did mention the president part, Ulster University did not maybe because the person is only interim but [18] does confirm our article is not misleading and vice-chancellor is also president. Note I also excluded those who were president but not vice-chancellor.

Still even being generous, it seems likely it could be under 25% of the 137 members. Any volunteers for coming up with a complete list or at least reliable statistics?

(I appreciate some including Fgf10 may have person experience but we have to be careful here because as the Warwick example shows, just because you never heard the person referred to as president doesn't mean they aren't. I mean when even the list provided to Universities UK doesn't always include the 'president' even if that appears to be one of their formal roles/titles, it's perhaps not particularly surprising that people aren't always aware the person is actually also president. I also wonder if this is a somewhat more recent development, as sort of suggested by the Manchester and Warwick examples given in our article. Perhaps in part for greater clarity when communicating with people less familiar with the role of vice-chancellors in UK universities and those Commonwealth countries who've mostly followed or kept them. And for related reasons, followed by those where it may matter more i.e. those institutions with less prestige or recognised history.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of formal title, I can assure you that at least at Cardiff (where I work), he is universally referred to as the VC (or any number of swear words at the moment, but that's a different matter). Indeed, this is reflected in the infobox of our article. This is the case for every single one of the institutions you list. Fgf10 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never really touched on that as it's irrelevant to my point. Namely that it doesn't make sense to treat the role or university president as the same role as university chancellor and that their requirements at least match within a university as implied by the OPs question wording; since in a number of cases, apparently including at least ~15% of UK universities, the university president is not the chancellor. The university president is the vice-chancellor regardless of whether the person is ever called that. (Since the usage of these terms and their roles vary so widely, the question is problematic anyway as several answers including yours attest. But still I felt it important to emphasise that university president may not be the same thing as university chancellor, as the question seem to assume.)

However since you made such a strong claim implying in none of the cases listed does the term president ever predominate, can I ask what evidence you have to dispute our article's claim that Alan Gilbert used the term 'president' as his primary title? True it's unsourced in the the chancellor article but I'd note that University of Manchester also uses president in the infobox. And these UK articles also refer to him as president Alan Gilbert [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. This probably isn't a complete list although the number is not very high compared to "vice-chancellor Alan Gilbert". however purely counting numbers is difficult to assess since most of my results for vice-chancellor seem to be for when he was at the University of Melbourne.

What he was referred to informally e.g. among colleagues or in discussions among staff of various universities may have been different, but that doesn't preclude him commonly being referred to as president or president and vice-chancellor in most formal address. See also [24] which refers to him as president in the headline, president and vice chancellor in the beginning of the article, and says "unusually for a UK vice-chancellor". And while I know headline writers can be careless, IMO this more likely seems to reflect the recognition that the term vice-chancellor is the common one for the role (which I don't dispute, it's the case in NZ too, actually I think most places where the person is also president), but the fact that for this particularly case the person probably preferred to be either called president or president and vice-chancellor.

Edit: Rereading your response, I think I misunderstood and you weren't meaning to say the person is generally referred to as vice-chancellor in all the institutions I listed. Rather you only meant it's the case that the infobox uses vice-chancellor for all the institutions that I listed. So I've struck out the part of my response that was based on my earlier misreading, apologies for the confusion. Note however that although I didn't link to University of Manchester before now as it was already linked from within the chancellor article, I did list it, along with Warwick. And the infobox for University of Manchester (but not Warwick, which isn't surprising given what our article says) does indeed use president not vice-chancellor.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The meaning of these terms also varies considerably among countries, and within countries between universities, ranging from a primarily executive function to a purely ceremonial role. Check out our article Chancellor (education). The chancellor of UCLA, Gene D. Block, has excellent academic credentials, and so does the chancellor of UCSD, Pradeep Khosla. Both have earned their reputation also by serving with distinction in leading administrative positions as officers of academic organizations. The current President of the University of California, Janet Napolitano, has no specific academic or educational background in her career since graduating, but she has a strong background in positions combining governance with a need for political astuteness. --Lambiam 08:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain one traditionally needs to be a member of the great and the good. DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian May of the band Queen was appointed chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University when his astrophysics PhD was approved.

-- AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academics fight the rise of celebrity chancellor (The Times; London, 2014). Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel winner managed to beat out the comedian but was eventually ousted by a politican... 93.136.46.218 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

Adultery, Polygamy and Bigamy

What is the difference between adultery and polygamy? What is the difference between adultery and bigamy?

Tepint (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Adultery, Polygamy and Bigamy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the simple answer is, "marriage". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bigamy is the state of having one spouse too many. Monogamy is the same." Often misattributed to Oscar Wilde but apparently it's an old saw that was in circulation before he was born. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adultery is generally thought of as sexual relations between a person who is married and someone that person is not married to (e.g., “the other woman”). Polygamy is a marriage among more than two people, such as a husband and two wives. Parts of the Muslim world recognize polygamy, as did the Mormon Church at one point. Bigamy is the same as polygamy, except that it is illegal.DOR (HK) (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more to the point, in English, "adultery" universally denotes a romantic relationship that is somehow illicit, such as "cheating" while in a monogamous marriage. "Polygamy" often connotes a relationship with more than two partners in a culture where that is accepted, though sometimes it's applied to circumstances where a subculture practices it even though it's illegal or disfavored by the broader society, such as with various Fundamentalist Mormon groups. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of an old, carved symbol

Hello. I've been puzzling over the origins of this carving in an old sandstone wall (in the UK, if it matters). Does anybody know what the significance of such a mark would be? It's been there ever since I can remember, so I'd estimate it to be at least 50 years old, but possibly quite a bit older. It's a fairly regular, deliberate shape - it must've meant something once. Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 17:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparklism: it's an Ordnance Survey benchmark. DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: so it is! Many thanks for the swift response :) — sparklism ^hey! 18:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy

The following is supported by facts, correct?

"Monarchy is a form of government in which the head of state is a monarch. A monarch is the physical symbol and embodiment, a personification, of a state/nation. The monarchy, sometimes referred to as the Crown, is also a cultural (at times political) institution with the purpose of serving that function. The family of the monarch is the royal family and the members are known as royalty. Nobility is a social class of people whose families have received any form of special recognition and privileges from the monarchy though some republics today still legally recognize noble titles. Almost all cultures worldwide currently have or had their own indigenous monarchies in one form or another across human history since the dawn of civilization. Any state that does not have a monarch as the head of state is, by definition, a republic. Monarchy cannot be a dictatorship and dictatorship can only exist in a republic. Monarchy is a social construct just like other socio-cultural institutions and just like those, it along with the associated statuses of royalty and nobility only exist because people accept and agree that they exist."

There are two main reasons I am asking this:

First, here on Wikipedia, we have the wonderful Royalty & Nobility work group of the WikiProject Biography where a group of users actively improve and create articles of concepts relating to and individuals past and present belonging to the specific group of humans (for now anyway) known as royals and nobles. Though my account is only a day old, I have actually been using Wikipedia for more than a decade and this particular topic is one of those topics that I am quite heavily invested in personally. So, I myself have become part of the task force and will henceforth work towards the goal. The entire concepts of royalty and nobility rely on the concept and institution of monarchy and this begs the questions of "what exactly is a monarchy?" and "who is a monarch?". The information on the monarchy article itself is either unsourced or original research galore. In the talk page, there have been several discussions on the definition as expected. Before I could improve it and thus put the debate to rest for eternity both on and off Wikipedia, I want to make sure that the definition I have come up with above is not only supported by facts but also backed by by a reliable source so that it is not considered original research. Doing so will go a long way in strengthening not only the foundation of the WikiProject but also its current consensus on how to arbitrate who is royal/noble and who is not.

Second, I want to debunk the following misconceptions once and for all. Whenever a discussion about North Korea comes up such as the ongoing one regarding current events, someone is going to parrot the common argument that NOrTh kOReA iS a HeRediTary AbSoLute mOnArcHy and even though it is actually a totalitarian dictatorship in a communist republic that has never based its legitimacy on any family. Apparently, some people also think that monarchs are just dictators in fancy costumes or that if a monarchy is ceremonial, it is just a bizarre freak show with actors for life even though that kind of logic could be applied to other social conventions and procedures. Napoleon was a dictator only up until the moment he declared himself emperor. Julius Caesar was a dictator since Rome was still a republic while Augustus and all other Roman emperors during the Principate were instead royal monarchs because they were the princeps of Rome. Also, If anyone has the impudence to tag the talk pages of the articles of Kim Jong Un or any of his family members with "royalty-work-group", then I guarantee it would get reverted in an hour at most. On the other hand, Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece will always be part of the work group because she is widely recognized as a royal in sources. StellarHalo (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I quite understand your question about royalty, but your description of North Korea is incorrect. First off, Juche supplanted Communism decades ago (the current version of North Korea's constitution doesn't even mention Communism), and nowadays Songun seems to be rivaling Juche. Second, North Korea most definitely has based its legitimacy on the Kim family, beginning with the Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System and lying about the birthplace of Kim Jong-Il, and proceeding with ever more baroque hyper-elaborations. If you want an example of a hereditary succession in a republic, the Assads of Syria might be an example. North Korea isn't a good example at all... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking if you agree that my definition of monarchy as written above is based on facts or if there are any reliable source (preferably academic) that agrees with it since I wrote it specifically to exclude the possibility of including North Korea and other republics in the same club as Saudi Arabia or Russian Empire's Tsarist autocracy. StellarHalo (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A king by any other name is still a king. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Monarchy cannot be a dictatorship" DO WHAT? How do you come to that conclusion? Being a dictator is about behavior. Being a monarch is about status. Someone with the status of a monarch can easily act in a dictatorial manner. --Khajidha (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been here for all of one day, and has managed to get himself on some sort of Royalty project. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One day with an account, after editing as an IP for four years, as linked on his User page. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.161.127 (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And acquiring membership of such projects generally just requires the editor to add their name to a list on the project page. --Khajidha (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, no knowledge of the subject is required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only join the project merely to reinforce an existing consensus the editors there have had for more than a decade and expand it to cover all articles since some editors outside the project seem to not be aware or deny that a consensus already exist. It is fortunate that reliable sources do not refer to any dictators as monarchs. Some monarchs in the past might have been mass murdering tyrants but they sure as hell are not dictators. StellarHalo (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who says monarchs can't be dictators? Where are you getting that from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deductive reasoning based on my observations that the term "dictator" has very rarely been used to refer to or characterize monarchs, past and present, who wielded any significant political power (meaning almost all of them) and that after the Roman Republic, the term "dictator" only started to appear again when monarchies started to get abolished and replaced with republics. Then there is also the fact that monarchs always base his/her position and prerogative on his right to rule and ownership of the state while dictators lack such legitimacy by being part of republics. My statement regarding this was purely semantics based on how the term is used (as opposed to autocrats) since that has implications on the controversial topic of historical memory. StellarHalo (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kim family is a dynasty ruling North Korea. Deductive reason tells me that's a monarchy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in the business of debunking misconceptions. Wikipedia reports an aggregate of what experts in whatever field report. Even when the received wisdom in some field is obviously one huge misconception, we faithfully report it – but if there are enough counter voices, we report these as well. If you want to improve our definition, start by examining how political research scientists have defined the concept. --Lambiam 05:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those misconceptions are not from experts but from ordinary people talking about foreign countries and equating "political dynasty" with "monarchy". Hence why I said above that I want to make sure my definition of the concept is supported by reliable sources. StellarHalo (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those claims are accurate, at least not in more than a general sense. The term monarchy originally meant a state with a single absolute ruler (as distinct from aristocracy/oligarchy: a state ruled by a small elite, and democracy/republic: a state ruled by the the people in general). The term has evolved since then, but in doing so has just become broader and less specific, so I don't think you can be as absolute as you are trying to be. Ditto for "dictator". Julius Caesar was a dictator because "dictator" was then a specific title and job in the Roman Republic which he held, but now has come to mean any ruler with excessive and abusive power. A more interesting subject would probably be to look at how perception of all these terms have changed over time, and how this has affected their use. E.g. after they overthrew their kings, the Romans came to despise the concept of monarchy in general, and the title Rex (king) in particular - so after Rome became a de-facto monarchy again under Augustus, the new monarchy used titles such as Imperator ("Commander") to imply they were just a soldier taking command in the public good under the rules of the Republic and definitely not setting themselves up as king of a new monarchy. The interesting thing (personal opinion) is that "king" (and equivalents) generally seem to be seen more positively (in stories, "kings" can be good or evil, but "dictators" are always evil), but actual dictators presumably think otherwise, and continue the Roman policy of not calling themselves kings or officially establishing a monarchy, but instead either using titles that suggest a continuation of the republican constitution ("President", etc), or in the case of fascists, an entirely new regime ("Führer", "Duce", "Caudillo", etc). Iapetus (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction; Il Duce was actually the prime minister within a constitutional monarchy and was finally removed from office by King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy (better late than never I suppose).

On the OP's original point, please read What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a battleground; "Wikipedia is not a place to... carry on ideological battles". Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of those rules. However, a lot of veteran users here seem to not really care either as some politics-related articles such as Identity politics and Austerity are obviously biased against their respective subjects and then there is also the fact that most obviously ideological non-mainstream news sources are still acceptable as citations. In any case, we already have a consensus regarding who is considered royals using reliable news sources and I intend to enforce it as a universal standard. One or more administrator, most likely from India, might be triggered by what I am about to do and even run to Jimbo to whine but surely they cannot stop me once I show them that a consensus already exists. StellarHalo (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikiproject considers within its scope is largely up to the Wikiproject. If an active members feels a subject is within scope and is planning to work on it and adds it to the Wikiproject, this is generally allowed to stand. If there really is dispute, this can be resolved via discussion among active members of the Wikiproject but often these disputes tend to be a bit lame. If an active participant feels that the article is within scope and plans to work on it partly for that reason, WTF does it concern other members, especially a single other member who only joined a day ago (however long they've been IP editing)? Likewise, in any discussion about scope, any editor who just screams about existing consensus or definitions but doesn't discuss whether the article is sufficiently relevant to the Wikiproject isn't likely to get very far. An article may be sufficiently relevant to be within scope, even if it isn't generally considered a whatever.

Our articles like Kim dynasty (North Korea) already discuss the view that the Kim dynasty is a monarchy apparently supported by reliable secondary sources. (Rather than just "ordinary people".) As this view does not seem to be the predominant view, it isn't mention in monarchy to give an example. I see no evidence that anyone is really trying to change the status quo, unless you are.

Any attempts to point to an existing consensus would likely entail pointing to a discussion on a talk page or noticeboard. Pointing to the RD to establish consensus doesn't generally work well.

BTW, if you're going to start singling out editors based on where they come from, you're likely to be blocked.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not singling out editors. I am just guessing where the most amount of resistance to my efforts would come from based on past events relating to multiple articles on non-reigning royals and pretenders of the Indian/Pakistani princely states. I will make sure that any editors and/or admins opposed to our works become aware of the consensus regardless of where they may come from. StellarHalo (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, socialism doesn't hold kings in a high regard. If Kim decided to call himself king, how would that square with the liberation of the proletariat? As for right-wing, Hitler & co. either also saw themselves as socialists, or wished to preserve at least the thinnest veneer of representative democracy like the Duvaliers. I'd also challenge how much of that royalty positivity is just grass being greener on the other side. Sure we all find the Queen of England nice and quaint, but imagining one of my country's political figures proclaiming himself our monarch (or worse, some lispy foreigner with probable far-right leanings) makes my stomach turn. 93.136.46.218 (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem with this is that the terminology is not applied consistently. A monarchy is usually taken to mean "A country where someone who becomes the head of state via inheritance laws from a family member" and a republic is usually taken to mean "A country where someone who becomes the head of state through some other means, like an election system of some sort". But then you get things like monarchies that are elective, like the Vatican City or the historic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or republics that are clearly hereditary, such as North Korea or the historic Dutch Republic, where the stadtholder was basically the heritable office of the House of Orange; the Congress of Vienna just renamed the office to King of the Netherlands which is what it really was for most of its history. So yes, there are examples where Kings are elected and republican heads-of-state inherit their office. Language and politics are both messy, and sometimes defy all attempts to easily categorize them. --Jayron 32 16:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Is there a reliable source for the list of past fellows of Society of Antiquaries of London?

On the website of Society of Antiquaries of London, I can find a list of its current fellows. However, I was not able to find a source with a list of past fellows. This makes it difficult to verify claims in The Complete Peerage, e.g. the claim that George Lee, 3rd Earl of Lichfield was elected an FSA in 1767. Wonder if anyone could provide some pointers to this. ネイ (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ネイ: - A List of the Members of the Society of Antiquaries of London, from their revival in 1717, to June 19, 1796: Volume 5. London, 1798 (p. 21) says; "1767... George Henry Earl of Lichfield, Nov. 26" ('George Henry' being his lordship's Christian names). Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of Garnett in Leser v. Garnett, 258 US 130

The court opinion for Leser v. Garnett does not mention the identity of Garnett, and I'm having some trouble finding out who or what Garnett is. Does anyone know where I can find this information? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC) + minor edit --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"J. Mercer Garnett and others, constituting the Board of Registry of the Seventh Precinct of the Eleventh Ward of Baltimore City" from here. DuncanHill (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there any particular reason why the Court of Appeals of Maryland used a different name for the case? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good more general question: how and by whom are case names in appellate cases in the US determined? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the moving party (the one who filed the court papers) comes first. In an appellate case, the one who appeals would usually be the one who lost the lower court case, but not always. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the case, but who determined that the case was "Lesser v Garnett" as opposed to "Lesser v Board of Registry..."? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

Self Determination, United Nations, & International Laws

The layout and wording of official UN documents along with the details of its implications are a bit confusing at times and so, I need your help in confirming a bunch of stuffs for me. I apologize if you find the following format repetitive but I find this easier to understand than writing a paragraph:

Does the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 637 (VII) explicitly or implicitly limit the right to self-determination of people and nations to those of non-self-governing territories?
If the answer to (1) is yes, due to the fact that UN list of non-governing-territories has ever only contained European oversea territories (Western Sahara has been on the list since Spanish rule and is only still on it because Morocco's claim is not recognized), does this mean that the United Nations officially endorses the blue water thesis which asserts that colonialism only applies to ruling lands separated by oceans crossable only by large ships (hence not applicable to Indonesia and Japan)?
If the answers to (1) and (2) are yes, does this represent an official written UN endorsement of the Uti possidetis juris?
If all the above are yes, does this represent the official view of the entire United Nations and does it constitute a valid international law? I ask this because UN independent experts Alfred de Zayas and David Kaye do not seem to agree with it when they publicly commented on Catalonia.

I will be taking your input into consideration when I eventually rewrite the article Colonialism and edit others related to it since other people who find it problematic in the talk page can't be bothered to fix it themselves. StellarHalo (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down a bit, will you? It is best not to be on a grand mission here. This resolution only contains recommendations and is non-binding on the member states. Part A.1 of the resolution clearly states: The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations. [emphasis by underlining added, --L.] So it does explicitly not limit the right to non-self-governing territories. Note that "peoples" in this text is the plural of the count noun "people". You wrote "people", which is synonymous with "persons" and alters the meaning. For some of the issues surrounding the resolution, see Blue water thesis. --Lambiam 07:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. This article is not on my priority list to fix. Studying political science and history means I have a lot of questions. I am just making sure my interpretation of Resolution 637 is correct so I can add it to my arsenal in the Catalonia debate against the likes of Alfred de Zayas but it is not really that important since actions speak louder than words. StellarHalo (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo -- I don't know anything about official United Nations definitions (and I'm not sure that I care too much), but it's been observed many, many times by historians and others that Russian expansion into Asia had many common characteristics with the colonial expansions of the northwestern European nations (except, of course, that no ocean was involved), and that the Soviet Union was often quite hypocritical when it proclaimed its "anti-colonialist principles" to undermine other powers, while managing to deflect attention away from its own internal colonialist legacy (most obvious in the case of Central Asia). AnonMoos (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliable source that discusses Russian imperial expansion as colonialism? Because the articles Colonialism and Colony do not seem to treat it as such. In the former, vast majority of the contents especially the definition, history, impact, and academic viewpoints do not discuss Russia or other land empires. If you do, I will be sure to use it when I get around to clean up the article. StellarHalo (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our Russian conquest of Central Asia article refers to a book titled "Russian Central Asia, 1867-1917: a study in colonial rule". During much of the 20th century the Soviets were somewhat successful in helping to define the word "colonialism" in a way that attracted attention to the possessions of other nations (while deflecting attention from their own possessions). The Basmachi rebellion was similar in many ways to revolts against capitalist powers which the Soviets cheered on, but since the Basmachis were fighting against the Soviets themselves, of course they were dirty rotten feudalists. There's some discussion of this issue here: [25]. -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Karl Marx wrote some highly acerbic passages on Russian imperialism, which were forbidden from being printed in the Soviet Union during the Stalin period. I'm having difficulty finding the texts in English translation, but see here: [26] -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Rouchouze's fatal mission in 1843

Taking this from Étienne Jérôme Rouchouze: On 8 December 1842 the ship Marie-Joseph was blessed in Saint Malo in Brittany. Shortly thereafter, Msgr. Rouchouze, accompanied by thirteen brothers and ten sisters, left Saint Malo for Oceania on the Marie-Joseph. A nun died at sea. Unwilling to bury her at sea, they put into Island of Saint Catherine and buried her there. On 19 February 1843. Rouchouze and his twenty-two missionaries left the island on the Marie-Joseph. The party stopped off in Florianópolis in Brazil to bury the body of Sister Caliste Le Gris, who had died on board. Evaristo, a Mangarevan youth, fell ill and also died while they were in Brazil. The ship was last sited off the Falkland Islands on 13 March 1843. Rouchouze and his companions were never seen again and were presumed to have perished at sea....What were the names of the 23 passengers on board including those who died on the way? KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to ref 11, the last reference in the Rouchouze article, the list of names can be found in the four main sources mentioned there. One source gives no names, but slightly different numbers: Rouchouze + 7 priests + 7 catechists (i.e. lay brothers) + 9 religious (i.e. sisters).^[27] I assume these numbers include Le Gris and Evaristo. But, as ref 11 states, contradictions in the sources abound. As far as I can see, the Annals of the Propagation of the Faith for 1843 are not online. --Lambiam 07:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disparition du Marie-Joseph from the website of Notre Dame Cathedral, Papeete says: 6 prêtres, un sous-diacre, 7 Frères convers, 10 Sœurs pour composer le groupe ("The group comprised 6 priests, one sub-deacon, 7 lay brothers, 10 Sisters"). It adds that the group was very young, "all under the age of thirty". The article goes on to name the ship's captain as Captain O'Sullivan; the youth who died of tuberculosis, Evariste, probably a native of Mangareva in the Gambier Islands (but there are many contradictory theories) and the hospital register states that he was admitted on 16 February 1843 and died on 21 February 1843. There are conflicting sources about the unnamed sister, who may have died at sea or after the ship arrived off Brazil. At the bottom of the article, it lists the names of the priests and religious brothers and sisters under the heading Les disparus ("the disappeared"). Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Biden only gets friendly interviews?

Debate-bait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why does nobody ask him difficult questions or anything about his mental health? Does he control all the interviews? When will unfriendly networks be allowed to ask him questions? Ericdec85 (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Biden campaign controls who gets to interview him. For understandable reasons, they do wise in avoiding any potentially less friendly interviewers. Even with friendly interviewers and easy questions there have been enough disasters already. See also Manufacturing Consent. --Lambiam 07:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has also been doing an amazing slow motion political suicide on TV every day, talking about injecting disinfectants and stuff like that. Biden has been laying low letting Trump's self-destruction continue. I have doubts about Biden being nominated in the end, whether for health reasons, the Tara Reade story, or whatever else. They have apparently just cancelled the New York Primary, where Sanders was ahead in the polls and which could have been conducted by mail, while they forced through in-person voting in Wisconsin (causing apparently dozens of known Covid-19 cases, though I don't know how severe) where Biden was ahead. The NY cancellation seems to be to make sure that the party bigwigs control as many convention delegates as possible, so they can nominate whoever they want. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is a name I keep hearing as the hot spare. (Sanders can't win the nomination himself at this point, but by keeping him from getting any more delegates they decrease his influence on the convention). 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does nobody ask Trump difficult questions or anything about his mental health? Seems the more pertinent question. Fgf10 (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for both the answer is that outside the radical fringes, there is a certain politeness in society - at least the pretence that one is interested in the dialogue and the answers, not just in attacking the interviewee. It's one of the sad testaments of Trump that he is so caught in his own universe that he takes questions about reality as personal attacks... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has been asked about his mental health and responded that he is a very stable genius.[28] Who are we to question that /s? See also: Stable Genius Act. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's mental health has been questioned, but I don't think that any reporter has asked Trump about his mental health in a face-to-face interview - or at least not before his tweets on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, my question was mostly rhetorical. I meant that if we're not asking the person who has obvious issues, why would we be asking a more sane person? Fgf10 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my careful reading of the daily media, no one outside of the Moscow / GOP camp seems to think there is a connection between a person's tendency to stutter and mental health.DOR (HK) (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given Trump's frequent malapropisms, no one in that camp is in any position to question someone else's speech patterns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STOP... the reference desk is not the place to share our personal opinions on current events. If you can not provide sources, please don’t reply. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Religion

Is science, technically speaking, a religion? Ples refrain from debates and opinions and uses definitions please.68.129.97.180 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Next! --Golbez (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the remote possibility that this question was asked in good faith, here is a reference: De Cruz, Helen (January 17, 2017). "Religion and Science". plato.stanford.edu. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. Retrieved April 28, 2020.. The author, Helen De Cruz, is "a Belgian philosopher and Danforth Chair of Philosophy at Saint Louis University who specialises in philosophy of religion, experimental philosophy, and philosophy of cognitive science". Alansplodge (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Our article on Religion says it "is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements."

Our article on Science says it "is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

These both might fit under the broader category "worldview systems," but in largely unrelated parts of that category. Science doesn't tell people how they should act, nor give life meaning, nor can it really get into the subjective parts of life (it can make objects from it but doing so renders it non-subjective). Religions can make scientifically testable claims but that usually proves to be crassly overstepping bounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're a little late for April Fool's Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did Fascist and Imperial troops directly collaborate?

Here it says that `for the most part, Japan and Germany fought separate wars', but doesn't specify the exceptions. Was there a single battle that involved both Fascist and Imperial forces simultaneously? --(((Romanophile))) N (contributions) 16:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think high-level coordination or cooperation would count--there wouldn't have to be a battle with both forces. Also, Fascist forces would be Italian rather than German. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:A096:24F4:F986:C62A (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's splitting hairs. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 16:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Details about Japanese / German strategic co-operation, or mostly the lack thereof, is in our article Kantokuen about a Japanese plan to invade the USSR which came to nothing, but could have materially assisted the German invasion, especially the Battle of Moscow, where a Soviet counter-offensive was made possible by the transfer by Stalin of "over 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia and the Far East".

The Japanese success against French and Netherlands possessions in the Far East were dependant on those nations having been occupied by the Germans; also the British Empire's preoccupation with the war in Europe and the Middle East largely explains their poor performance in Malaya and Burma in 1941, so in that regard the two powers were working in concert, although maybe not intentionally. The Italian Navy and Japan: Strategy and Hopes, 1937-1942 details attempts by Germany and Italy to obtain Japanese support for submarine operations in the Indian Ocean, which the Japanese only consented to when it was too late.

In terms of technology, with the exception of aircraft carriers which the Germans were not really interested in, the Japanese were rather behind. Germany sold one Panther tank and one Tiger tank to Japan with the intention that they could be reproduced by the Japanese, but there was no way of getting them there.

Perhaps the most important connection was that the success of the Battle of Taranto (November 1940) in attacking the Italian fleet in port with carrier aircraft, was investigated by a Japanese commission who visited Italy in May 1941; see Battle of Taranto#Influence on Pearl Harbor

Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From 1942-1945, the only semi-reliable way to travel between Nazi-ruled Europe and Japanese possessions was by a long slow submarine voyage; see Japanese submarine I-29, German submarine U-234, Japanese submarine I-8, Yanagi missions etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before that, you could catch a train on the Trans-Siberian Railway, but not after 22 June 1941 for obvious reasons. Our article on that railway says that thousands of tons of natural rubber were sent to Germany from Japan by this route. After that, blockade runner ships were used, but Operation Stonewall had put a stop to that by 1944. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black immigrants in the US having a much lower crime rate than native-born US blacks at all education levels: Can anyone here find the relevant data for this?

Several years ago, I saw a chart somewhere--it might have been on the Center of Immigration Studies website, it might have been somewhere else--about how black immigrants in the US have a much lower crime rate than native-born US blacks have at all education levels. So, this chart shows that well-educated black immigrants in the US commit much less crime on average than well-educated native-born US blacks, that poorly educated black immigrants in the US commit much less crime on average than poorly educated native-born US blacks, et cetera. Anyway, can anyone here please find this chart? Because I've looked for it and tried to find it again in recent months and unfortunately couldn't find it. Futurist110 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know specifically about black immigrants but here is a study showing that immigrants are over 3 times less likely to commit a crime than "native" Americans. Even illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natives. 93.136.9.236 (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This from the Cato Institute has a table for Incarceration rates by race, ethnicity, and immigration status, ages 18–54. [29] Although for all "races" or ethnicity, legal immigrants is the lowest followed by "illegal" and then native, the difference between native and others was most stark for black, with a 4.5 lower rate for "illegal" and a over 6.8 lower rate for legal. In fact compared to native, the incarceration rate for "illegal" (and legal) black was only higher than Asian i.e. it was lower than even native white. The article describes how they defined legal and "illegal" and the problems therein. There is some education level analysis, but it does not look into that by race and even the analysis of incarceration rates based on education level seems limited. Note also that for the general population, a big reason why the "illegal" rate is higher than the legal rate appears to be due to incarceration arising from (I assume often alleged) immigration offences. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Identify medal please

Can someone identify the medal being worn in this picture please? SpinningSpark 00:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely the Legion of Honour. The image is not detailed enough for me to find out the exact version but it is most likely either the July Monarchy version or Second Empire version. StellarHalo (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be that of a chevalier du Légion d'honneur from the Second Empire. According to the page from which the picture was taken Jacob Brett was invested as such in November 1855. DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a British crown in the medal? I tried this search and saw some candidates. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Legion_of_Honour#Gallery that would be an imperial or royal crown. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Second French Empire, it would be a representation of this crown; British crowns have only two arches. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

denouement

Ok, HPMOR is one of those insufferably long but has-many-good-parts novels that I've been skipping around in, The good guys have been battling the bad guy for 1000s of pages, and finally near the end, the bad guy (Voldemort) captures the main good guy (Potter). And there is an interminable dialogue where Vold explains what he was really doing in all the mysterious plot twists going up to that part. This is apparently such a common trope that rule #6 of the Ansprach Evil Overlord List[30] cautions against it:

6. When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No."

What are some other well known novels where something like this happens (longwinded explanation by the villain)? I read most of the James Bond books way back, but scenes like that don't really stick in my mind from them. Also is it known to happen in real life? For us to know about it, of course, the hero would have to survive to tell the tale, so maybe it happens but is unknown. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilGloating 93.136.9.236 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, that's exactly it. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That situation is lampooned in this HISHE clip.[31] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or forever hold your peace

In the traditional Christian wedding ceremony, the priest says "If anyone here present knows why this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, let him speak now or forever hold his peace". If someone present did know of a valid objection (e.g. one of the parties is already married) but chose to remain silent, is that person prevented from ever raising this issue later? And if they did, and it can be shown they knew of it at the time of the wedding, could they be charged with an offence? Accessory to bigamy, say? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article, Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece, which disappointingly is about an American television programme (perhaps the spelling should have given it away). A hatnote is required. Alansplodge (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the legal system. What If Someone Objects at Your Wedding? says that the phrase is obsolete in the US because a civil wedding license [sic] is required before the church ceremony and therefore any legal objections must be raised before the license is issued.

The phrase comes from the Book of Common Prayer and in the UK, clergy in the Church of England and the Church of Wales can act as registrar for weddings. Weddings in other denominations' churches either have to be attended by a civil registrar, or a member of the church may be appointed to act as one, or you can go from the church to a Register office and have a second civil ceremony. In the case of Anglican churches, Banns of marriage have to be publicly read in church in the preceding weeks with the phrase "If any of you know any reason in law why they may not marry each other you are to declare it". These reasons might be that one of them is already married, or perhaps they breach the Kindred and Affinity rules, which is church law and not necessarily the law of the land. If these issues are only raised after the wedding, then there has to be an annulment procedure in court. I couldn't find anything about a penalty for not declaring an impediment, it seems a bit unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It always struck me as an outsider that it's quite an interesting inclusion in a wedding ceremony. What are the origins of asking people if they have any objections to a wedding? Do an array of Christian traditions (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Coptic etc) include this, or just Anglican? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was married in a Baptist church (specifically one that was affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) and we as a couple, in collaboration with the minister that married us, designed our own ceremony. My impression at the time was that we basically had the freedom to organize the ceremony however we wanted within the general framework of how Christian weddings usually go, and there was no specific set of words or formulations we had to use. In fact, both the minister and us each researched various Christian wedding traditions and formulations and prayers and such from a wide range of Christian traditions (Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, whatever) and brought them together and came up with a ceremony we all liked. However, there was no use of any form of the "if anyone objects..." bit. We didn't use it, we just went into the "by the power vested in my by the State of Virginia, I now pronounce you husband and wife" bit without asking if anyone wanted to object. --Jayron 32 14:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of the Catholic rite ([32]), and not in the Orthodox one either, as far as I'm aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, where did it come from? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was Alansplodge's explanation in the first sentence of his second paragraph that startes with "The phrase comes from..." insufficient for answering your question? --Jayron 32 17:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original 1662 text is here:

"Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace". Note that "man" in Prayer Book English means "human" and women were allowed to speak up too. This was the only form permissible until the 1970s. It's still an option to use this wording in the Church of England, although I suspect few do. The current form is:

"First, I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now".

Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides bigamy, incest might be another reason to object. Imagine Luke Skywalker actually getting Princess Leia, before they find out they are related. Darth Vader might feel obligated to show up at the wedding and spill the beans. 173.228.123.39 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]