Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:26, 14 September 2023

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

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.

September 7

Genre of novel

A certain novel[1] begins with three seemingly unrelated murders. The cops investigate and it turns out there is a non-obvious connection between the victims, and by maybe halfway through the book enough clues have been gathered to identify the one guy who logically could have done it, but they can't arrest him because there is no usable evidence to connect him to the crimes. In the rest of the book (spoiler) they gradually close in on him, and nab him just at the last moment before he commits some more murders.

Mystery story doesn't sound right, since the perp is identified fairly early, and the reader isn't expected to solve puzzles faster than the police. I wrote "suspense" but it's not all that suspenseful. Is there something else to call it? Crime novel? Dissipated romance (the two main characters get interested in each other but nothing happens)? The book isn't terrible but it's not very good either, in case you wondered. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:DFEE (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a genre label, but I often see works with that sort of plot feature described as "cat and mouse" or "battle of wits" thrillers/mysteries. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Police procedural?-gadfium 01:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks both. Idk if it's a battle of wits since the bad guy doesn't realize that the cops have scoped him out. He just keeps chugging along with his diabolical murder plans until he is busted at the last minute. Also there's not too much about the workings of the police department. Mostly there's one investigator putting the bits together. The main characters are the police investigator and a lady who helped supply some leads, and who turns out to be one of the killer's intended future victims. And he would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for that meddling cop :). 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:DFEE (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia classifies most of the books in the Robert Langdon book series (Angels & Demons, The Da Vinci Code, Inferno, Origin) as mystery-thriller novels. The mystery is hardly whodunnit, but rather how, or why, or what it all means. If the reader of The Beethoven Conspiracy only finds out what connects the victims at the same pace as the detectives investigating the case, it would also seem an apt classification here. --Lambiam 13:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds similar to the typical plot of Columbo, which Wikipedia describes as Crime drama and Detective fiction. Iapetus (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not. The typical (all?) Columbo plot identifies the culprit at the beginning, not somewhere in the middle. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Not all. A few episodes broke format: one at the end of season 5 and two in season 10, at least.) --142.112.221.184 (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar. As in "having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical". Similar, because a major part of the story is about proving the guilt of a know perpetrator. Not identical, because (unlike Columbo) the audience doesn't have more knowledge than the protagonists, and the perpetrator isn't known from the start. Iapetus (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book Details for Research purpose

Hi, I am doing research for my collage work and I need info about Jeremiah Curtin's book: Myths and Folk Tales of the Russians, Western Slavs, and Magyars. But there is no Wikipedia page for this book. Can you please help? James8900 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Jeremiah Curtin. Amazon has several different editions for sale and provides full publication details and numerous customer reviews. No doubt other booksellers also have information about it. You can buy a copy very cheaply. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:James8900, this book is so old even the reviews are public domain. Internet Archive has four separate scans available. According to google scholar, 28 other works cite it. Not sure what your access to academic publishers and journal hosts is like through your university account, but check those for works that cite, discuss, review, or mention the book or Jeremiah Curtin. Folly Mox (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When was this made?

A Persian miniature depicting Muhammad leading Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets in prayer
A Persian miniature depicting Muhammad leading Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets in prayer

I'd like a source for the c. age of this image. It's in this book [2] but no year is mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The manuscript is at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and can be seen here. The date is given as 1436, author of the text Ferid ed-Din ʿAttar (presumably Farid ad-Din Attar). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source, talking about the same manuscript, gives the author as Herou Melik Bakhshi. I can't read French, but the canonical metadata probably clears that up, although its doubtful the illustrator is credited. Folly Mox (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herou Melik Bakhshi was the scribe who prepared the manuscript in 1436 (including the illustrations?), Farid ad-Din Attar the author of the text (some 200 years earlier). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great and quick, thank you both! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to use the "depiction" thing to make it possible for Muslims to hide it if they want to, but it didn't seem to work??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind. We could use the boxing up feature until someone figures it out?70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it supposed to work outside article-space? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal (not State) Drinking Age in the United States

The act of 1984 made the drinking age in the United States 21 because it demanded that every state pass a law requiring the drinking age to be 21. However, the Federal age was still 18. If you went into any bar, you had to be 21 because of state law. But, there were rare cases where a bar was on federal land and could serve people as young as 18. I know that was the case in Del Mar, California in 1990, long after the act of 1984. Then, at some point, the actual Federal drinking age changed to 21. What law changed the Federal drinking age? 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Text at [3]. See National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The matter seems to be devolved to the states - there doesn't seem to be a "crossing state lines issue" and licensing is a local matter. 2A00:23D0:C32:2601:998F:A7BF:6379:214 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was this example in Del Mar a military base? For U.S. military bases, 10 U.S.C. § 2683 provides that a military base within a US state will have the drinking age required by that state, except that if the base is within 50 miles of Canada, Mexico, or a state with a lower minimum, it can have the lower drinking age provided there; the current language dates from 1985. The drinking age in Mexico is 18, and Del Mar is within 50 miles of Mexico. John M Baker (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation-lawsuit examples.

What are examples where company A never really cared to sue company Z, but, company B bought company A, so now B is suing company Z?

I think an example of that is Java programming language was developed by Sun Microsystems. Then, shortly after Sun Microsystems was bought by Oracle, Oracle sued Google for Google using Java in their Androids. If you look at Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.#Android_development 3rd last paragraph, Android 1st came out when Java was still owned by Sun Microsystems, in which the president said "We decided to grit our teeth and support it so anyone supporting it would see us as part of the value chain." Seems like Sun Microsystems is a "nicer" company than Oracle. Oracle ultimately lost after a decade-long battle to the U.S. Supreme Court. Can anyone think of any other examples? It doesn't have to be computers related, can be science, foods, etc., for corporations. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The SCO–Linux disputes was similar, although the chain of ownership was less clear. There were multiple steps, and it was sometimes difficult to be sure exactly what had been bought. --Amble (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the reason that SCO-Linux is important is because SCO existed to sue. It was not a profitable business model without the lawsuits. When the lawsuits failed, the company sold off the assets and went into bankruptcy. This is wholly different than a company like Oracle that sues a lot, but turns a healthy profit without the lawsuits. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to say that SCO existed to sue. SCO wasn't profitable overall, but it had some successful business lines, and the pivot towards litigation was a major and unexpected shift from its previous activities. Even as the leadership doubled down on suing, it appears that they believed the lawsuits would drive customers towards those real products. In reality, of course, the result was just the opposite: the company couldn't survive its hopeless lawsuits. But most of the people on the sinking ship went on developing and trying to sell those products. --Amble (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference in life expectancy between politically "red" and "blue" US states?

2600:4040:7EE6:2A00:F8CF:2733:DACC:E217 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently:

"Color-coded life expectancy: People in blue states are living longer than people in red". Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. 6 August 2020.
Woodard, Colin (1 September 2023). "America's Surprising Partisan Divide on Life Expectancy". POLITICO.

-- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Ceremonial maces in commonwealth parliaments

The following articles seem to indicate a ceremonial mace was gifted to Sri Lankan parliament in 1949 by James Milner on behalf of British House of Commons.

I do have following questions

1) Who (Particular persons) were instrumental in extending the gesture to Sri Lankan parliament? Whether proposed gesture was discussed in British House of Commons - if yes any web archive link to the discussions?

2) Whether this was a special gesture to Sri Lankan parliament only or Britishers extended similar gesture to other Commonwealth Parliaments too? If yes which parliaments, which year and on which occasions?

Bookku (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial_mace#Commonwealth has some limited information. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Slightly OT) It's not just commonwealth parliaments that use maces. See for example the gift from George II to South Carolina. For that matter, see the replacement sword of state also used in South Carolina, a gift from Lord Halifax to replace the 1704 one which was stolen. It was quite fun trying to get the enthusiastic student doing the tour of the South Carolina State Capitol to explain why a crowned orb was the symbol of authority in the state. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdote my father told me decades ago (he was working for what was then called Canada's Department of External Affairs): when the Gold Coast became independent under the name Ghana in 1957, the government of Canada, as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, deliberated on what proper state gift to offer the new country to mark the occasion. They settled on a ceremonial mace, so this seems to have been a common thing at the time. Of course, in Ghana's case, parliament was dissolved following a coup in 1966, and constitutional order was not re-established until years later, so for a long time, no one was quite sure what had happened to the Canadian gift. Xuxl (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was discussed in the UK House of Commons (more than once). You can access the various discussions through the Hansard search site - I see multiple results with the heading Ceylon (Gift Of Mace And Speaker's Chair). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Parliament also gifted a mace to the West Indies Federation in 1957 [4] - not sure what happened to it when the Federation was dissolved in 1962. Also the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in 1951, [5] and the National Assembly (Mauritius) in 1970. [6]. There may be many others if you look hard enough. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all, RL is delaying my response. Seems UK had a strategy to maintain goodwill with erstwhile colonies with these gestures. Interestingly enough, while searching Hansard after reading above discussion I came across this info listing gifts the 'new House of commons' received from commonwealth countries. Bookku (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bookku, the British House of Commons was burned to the ground by German incendiary bombs in May 1941 [7] and was completely rebuilt after the war with contributions from the Commonwealth and Empire.

Once it was decided that most colonies should be given independence, the British aim was to establish a Westminster-style parliamentary system in each one, prefereably retaining the British monarch as head of state. In some cases that never happened, in others it was dismantled soon after independence, but in many Commonwealth countries, it has remained a lasting legacy. Of course, you can't have a Westminster-style parliament without a mace. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Countries sorted by number of bilateral foreign relations

I am hoping to find a table that can help me to answer this question: What UN member state maintains diplomatic relations with the lowest number of other UN member states? For example, according to foreign relations of Bhutan, "Bhutan has diplomatic relations with 54 of 193 member states of the United Nations". Is there a country with fewer? A lot of "foreign relations of X" articles give a number I can directly compare, but not all of them do. (E.g., I couldn't find a number for Yemen.) It would be nice to have a consistent data source.

The closest I've been able to find is List of countries by number of diplomatic missions, based on work by the Lowy Institute. This is a really interesting table.

The Lowy Institute's index only includes data for 70 countries for some unclear reason. Furthermore, none of the columns it's measuring seem to be quite what I'm looking for anyway. Number of total posts counts duplicate consulates within the same country, so a lot of the numbers are significantly over 200. Number of embassies sounds like it would be what I want, but it turns out to be a different number (e.g., the US has relations with 188 countries but only 167 embassies/high commissions, and the difference is drastically starker for Bhutan with 54 vs. 5). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "has relations with". For A and B to have relations, does this mean that A sends formally accredited diplomatic representatives to B, and B does the same to A, or would an asymmetrical one-way relationship be acceptable? During much of the 19th and 20th centuries, many smaller countries had only honorary consuls (i.e. not formally accredited diplomats) stationed in many other countries... AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but Wikipedia seems to have a definition that it consistently applies across the "foreign relations of X" articles. The article must be applying some specific definition from IR studies but I just don't know exactly.

As for whether one-way relationships count, I don't know, but I'd again defer to whatever definition Wikipedia uses. Do one-way relationships exist in practice? I'm curious. I'm tempted to strike "bilateral" from the section title, because of my possibly false assumption of symmetry. It would be cool to see a full graph of diplomatic relations, which may have to be a directed graph if one-way relationships exist.

If there are slightly different definitions for "has relations with", I'm okay with that, I'm mostly interested in the rough ranking and not the exact numbers as long as they are using a consistent definition. And to be honest I'm just trying to find the most isolated few countries because that's what I find the most curious at the moment. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is Cook Islands at 52. Foreign relations of the Cook Islands lists 55 entities; minus the 3 non-UN member states and you have 52.

The last three places are: Cook Islands, Bhutan, and Tonga.

I can't give you an WP:RS unfortunately because I compiled this list myself. Helian James (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Cook Islands article and the count of 55 already excludes the non-UN entries (Niue, Kosovo, and the Holy See do not increment the counter). With those there are 58. So I guess Bhutan still has the fewest with 54, but it's very close.

Did you actually check the number for every country though? For some of them I couldn't find one. I only looked at a dozen articles or so. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I mis-read the table. Helian James (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I forgot to say this before, thanks very much for your research! I'm still curious how many countries you checked. (All that had the data readily available, or maybe just some select small countries that you suspected would have few?) The more you checked the more confident I can be in the bottom ranking. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Picture of Grace Beatrice Minor of the Senate of Liberia

Hello. I am trying to find a picture of Grace Beatrice Minor, first female president of the Senate of Liberia. Preferably with a commons license but any other copyright would be fine, just to use as an external link. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small image on this web page. Its provenance is not given, so its copyright status is unknown. Note that, by policy, material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. An external link to a website that displays copyrighted works is acceptable if the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. --Lambiam 08:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 July plot

For Heinz Buchholz, the second stenographer injured in the explosion, can you search info about his birth, civil career, family, and death? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.233.200 (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This guy? That de.wp article has a few references that might be good starting places if it's the same individual. Folly Mox (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't him. He was a civil stenographer for the Reich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.185.211 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any approximations as to his birth and/or death years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article from Der Spiegel, although focusing on his son, the judge Hans-Henning Buchholz (1936-2022), does include some extra biographical detail on the stenographer Heinz Buchholz. 123.243.14.68 (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And more detail here from a piece about his colleague, Gerhard Herrgesell. You want footnote 66, which commences "Heinz Buchholz (*14. März 1906 in Berlin, † 27. April 1983 in Bonn)" and then gives a brief career history. 123.243.14.68 (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More on the website of the German parliament [8]. There is a contact address. 2A02:C7B:301:3D00:D5A0:B3EB:C9B:9B97 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the infos, but can you find if there are some photos, during the Nazi period or also in the years before his death? And who was his wife? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.170.100 (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Tariffs on transshipment

I was thinking about how:

Fact 1. US has a huge inter-modal network[9] that does a good deal of transshipment, that is to say transports goods from country A to country B, or country A to country A (Canada, for example), without the goods entering the US economy.

Fact 2. US may have tariffs on goods from country A.

Question 1: Are transshipment goods subject to US tariffs? I'm 99% sure that the answer is no, but my google-fu is weak and I can't find a WP:RS that verifies it.

Also consider the fact that you can quickly transit though major airports such as HKG, SIN, ICN, because you don't have to pass through immigration, regardless of your citizenship status. But this is not possible in ANY major US airport, because some nationalities are legally required to pass though US immigration, even if they are just transiting though.

US is the world's biggest economy with arguably the most complex legal system. As a result sometimes in matter of immigration and taxation, the obvious answer, the one that applies to 99% of the countries, might not be correct when it comes to the US.

Question 2: (This is the more interesting question. I'm not from the US and simply used US as an easy example. Fact 1 and Fact 2 also applies to almost every major country in the world.) Supposed goods G, originating from country A, is transshipped through country B, onto country C. Are there any cases in the world where this shipment is subject to country B tariffs, for some value of GABC?

I highly suspect the answer is yes, simply due to the vast possible combinations of GABC, and the vast number of different legal systems in the world.

For example, gasoline is heavily subsidized in Venezuela, to the point that it is nearly free[10]. If country B borders such a dumping country, enacting a law that tariffs all fuel originating or has passed-through the dumping country would be a logical, albeit extreme move. Satoshit1 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transshipment is the movement of goods into, and out of, a customs area without those goods leaving a bonded area (typically, a bonded warehouse), other than to enter or exit the customs area. If the goods were to come out of the bonded area, into “the economy,” they would be subject to tax (tariff, duty). That would defeat the entire purpose of transshipment. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what you are saying is definitely correct, and I agree with you. But I am looking for a WP:RS to verify it, specifically for the case of US. Satoshit1 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-trade zones of the United States:

There are over 230 foreign-trade zone projects and nearly 400 subzones in the United States.

--Error (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ships to Kootenay River

Hi. The Kootenay River empties into the Pacific Ocean. There are a number of dams between the river and the ocean, List of dams in the Columbia River watershed, such that I don't think a ship can travel from the Pacific Ocean to the Kootenay River. (I don't know whether this is true or not. It's just a guess.)

How far can a ship travel upstream from the Columbia River towards the Kootenay River, before it is stopped by a dam?

List of dams in the Columbia River watershed has the list of dams, but unfortunately I don't have the technical knowledge to judge which one is "passable" or not. I know ships have to use canals in order to "pass" a dam. The word "canal" appears 9 times in the Grand Coulee Dam article, and by briefly scanning the article, I can't tell whether it's "passable" or not.

I am specifically interested in the Kootenay River, but a general answer world-wide would be even better. If there's some sort of map about "river travelability", that would be great.

So far, I only found this map[11], but I don't think that map includes rivers, because it's showing nothing for the mississippi river. Satoshit1 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page on the Voice of America web site says that large ocean-going ships can only travel upriver as far as Vancouver, Washington, while smaller ships can go about 300 km from the Pacific, and small boats about 220 km farther. None of these distances along the river would reach the Canadian border, let alone the Kootenay River. This page on the Port of Klickitat web site describes the "Mid-Columbia" section of the river as extending as far inland as Pasco, Washington, but doesn't say what is capable of navigating that section. --142.112.221.184 (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The locks on the lower Columbia dams Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary are about 86 by 650 feet for the barge traffic. The controlling depth is i think 14 feet. Priest Rapids Dam would be the first without a lock system, but Hanford Reach above the confluence of the Snake would not be navigable for a "ship". The largest ocean going vessel i could find reference to is American Empress. fiveby(zero) 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The river was navigated by some fair-sized paddle steamers in the late 19th century; see Steamboats of the upper Columbia and Kootenay Rivers. Alansplodge (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning that article, there seems to be a subtext of 'this is a closed system'. All the steamboats are locally built, not navigated in. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 13:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from the Geographic factors of that article:

The Big Bend, in its natural state before the construction of the Revelstoke and Mica dams, included a series of rapids which made it impassable to steam navigation proceeding upriver from the Arrow Lakes.

Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone! Satoshit1 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Ineligible candidates for presidency of the United States

What actually is the procedure to determine if a candidate is eligible to become president, and to stop an ineligible candidate running or being elected? Question prompted by current arguments about Trump's eligibility, but it could apply more generally. There are various reasons someone can be ineligible: insurrection and oath-breaking (as Trump is accused of), not being a natural-born citizen (as Trump accused Obama), being underage, having already been elected twice, etc. I see from United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation that several states introduced or attempted to introduce legislation specially due to the allegations against Obama (some of which could also be relevant for underage candidates). But I can't see any general rules or procedures to ensure eligibility or to disbar ineligible candidates. So what is supposed to happen if e.g. a previously-elected president tries to run for a third time, or someone who has been out of the country too long, or an 18yo, etc? Is it the job of the Supreme Court to disbar them? Or the individual states? Or the Electoral College? Or are the voters just expected to know that they are not eligible and so not vote for them? Iapetus (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or even both president and VP being from the same state. If someone who's clearly constitutionally ineligible were to somehow won the majority of electoral votes, it would present a constitutional crisis, and likely the Supreme Court would have to step in once all other legal remedies (such as lawsuits) have failed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a full answer, but you have to remember that there isn't one national presidential election in the U.S., but 50 + 1 discrete elections at the state level (+1 is the District of Columbia). States are responsible for their own presidential ballots and have different requirements for getting one's name on the ballot. As a result, the names of candidates on the ballot can differ from state to state, especially when it comes to minor third-party candidates who may not have the capacity to qualify on every state ballot. So any question about a candidate's eligibility would first need to be sorted out at the state level, which is where the first lawsuits questioning Donald Trump's eligibility have been filed. But that doesn't mean it ends here and Bugs is right to say the Supreme Court will likely need to make a final determination. Xuxl (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is "It hasn't happened yet, so we don't know what would happen". There's at least a partial discussion of this at Natural-born-citizen clause (United States), which states "The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen." --Jayron 32 14:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely, any challenge to eligibility would occur during the party nomination process. If not, it would be up to the voters to recognize the ineligibility and not vote for that person.

In the highly unlikely event that someone who was ineligible does manage to get both nominated AND elected… Congress can impeach him/her, at which point the person elected Vice President becomes the new President. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In past cases where there has been some genuine question as to eligibility, there has been a clear consensus to resolve it. For example, there was a 2008 senate resolution [12] affirming the eligibility of John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The resolution was submitted by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, among a few others. That's not binding in itself, but it has been enough to settle the issue. If there were a genuine question that couldn't be resolved by consensus, the result (as Bugs said) would be a constitutional crisis, and nobody can really know how it would end. --Amble (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 3 does not specify how it is to be invoked, but Section 5 says Congress has enforcement power. Accordingly, Congress enforced Section 3 by enacting the Enforcement Act of 1870, the pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from federal office.[194] Moreover, each house of Congress can expel or exclude members for insurrection or other reasons, although it is uncertain whether more votes may be required to expel than to exclude.[195][196][197] A further way that Congress can enforce Section 3 is via impeachment, and even prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment Congress impeached and disqualified federal judge West Humphreys for insurrection.[198]

In August 2023, two prominent conservative legal scholars who are active members of the Federalist Society wrote in a research paper that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from being president as a consequence of his actions involving attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.[210][211] Conservative legal scholar J. Michael Luttig and liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe soon concurred in an article they co-wrote, arguing Section 3 protections are automatic and "self-executing", independent of congressional action.[212] Luttig explained the reasoning during television appearances.[213] A court may be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under Section 3, according to some legal scholars.[192][213][214] Some secretaries of state, who oversee elections in states, soon began preparing for potential challenges relating to whether Trump might be excluded from November 2024 ballots.[215][216]

On August 24, 2023, Lawrence Caplan, a tax attorney in Palm Beach County, Florida, filed a challenge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to disqualify Trump from the 2024 General Election, citing the 14th Amendment.[217][218] One week later on September 1, United States District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg dismissed the case for lack of standing.[219]

In Roger Senserrich's comments (in Spanish) any secretary of state can block Trump. This will guarantee a lot of publicity and death threats for the secretary. Trump could sue against the block and reach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could entertain the arguments by Baude and Paulsen or they could interpret "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" in a way that saves Trump.

--Error (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether "insurrectionists" are or are not disqualified from holding office. The question is "is Donald Trump an insurrectionist", a matter which would need to be decided by the courts. What needs to happen is that courts have to decide what qualifies a person as an insurrectionist, and whether or not actual actions taken by an actual person themselves meet that definition. That has not happened yet. --Jayron 32 12:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the preliminary steps of indictments and bookings, nothing has happened to Trump yet. And any state that decides he's an insurrectionist will promptly be sued by Trump's team, and potentially go all the way to the Supreme Court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "The question", but one answer to the question being argued. Blackman and Tillman just posted a draft response paper to Baude and Paulsen here. fiveby(zero) 14:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note before this conversation gets out of hand… Wikipedia is NOT the place to debate whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not. This is a sanctioned topic. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who engaged in such a debate? --Jayron 32 17:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanctioned" is an auto-antonym. Are you barracking the tabling of the topic? --Error (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation lawsuits II questions.

This is a long shot, but does anyone know of any 2 companies suing each other, but they both ended up being bought by another company. So they would therefore dismiss the lawsuit. Heh. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Not really answering, but that reminds me of the ghetto benches in the universities of Poland during the 1930s. Jewish students were subject to a numerus clausus. Anti-Semites, Jews and other members of the universities disputed among themselves. It all ended when the German invasion suppressed higher education for non-Germans. --Error (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

White Rose

Under Joseph Goebbels' order, Roland Freisler was gone with an airplane in Munich along with other judges to preside that trial. Can you find the names of other judges and how long time he stayed in Munich before returning at Berlin? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.170.100 (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search didn't find any of those details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last person alive from Turkey earthquake

Is it reliably known when the last person was pulled out alive after the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake? My quick search suggests it's after 296 hours, a couple with a son in Antakya. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the destruction of infrastructure, difficulty of access, and more urgent priorities, it is unlikely that anyone on the ground is bothering to attempt to compile such trivia even if it could be determined. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Wording of United States Bill of Rights - "Congress shall make no law"

The United States Bill of Rights contains 10 amendments. The first amendment begins with the phrase "Congress shall make no law". None of the other 9 amendments contain this wording. It seems to me that if all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are on equal footing, they should contain the same wording. Is there any significance to the first amendment saying "Congress shall make no law" but the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights do not say "Congress shall make no law"? Pealarther (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No dog in this fight (being British), but "if all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are on equal footing, they should contain the same [initial] wording" does not make any logical sense to me. Each amendment deals with a different, distinct matter; they are not a set of minor variations on the same topic. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A textualism and originalism, a good starting point might be Hemel, Daniel J. (2013). "Executive Action and the First Amendment's First Word". Pepperdine Law Review. 40 (3). and the references therein. fiveby(zero) 14:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the other amendments contain the words "shall not", meaning that the things mentioned are absolutely forbidden. Several others use the word "shall", meaning that the things mentioned are absolutely required. The varied wording around the "shalls" and "shall nots" doesn't seem to indicate any difference of esteem between the various amendments, rather it simply serves to make reading the whole document less repetitive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, not all amendments bind the same aspects of the nation; the first amendment applies to laws Congress may or may not pass (and by incorporation via the 14th amendment, state legislatures as well), while (for example) the fourth amendment applies to police power, not normally an action Congress takes, while the fifth, sixth, and seventh apply to the courts. --Jayron 32 13:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some info on a picture

Per Commons, unknown date and unknown author. If possible, I'd like some when and from where. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries, Soucek, P. (1975). "An Illustrated Manuscript of al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations". The scholar and the saint. see p. 149. fiveby(zero) 16:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby, ok so if I read that right, he says it's from something called "Edinburgh manuscript", which per [13] was copied 1307 by Ibn al-Kutbi, and the original is The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries by al-Biruni. Have I got it right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chronology of Ancient Nations - Annunciation.jpg seems to agree... Sigh... Adding category to the first one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, the text is al-Biruni, the illustrations were not copied, the colophon has Ibn al-Kutubī and Anno Hegirae 707 (A.D. 1307-8) but not the artist, and she says. fiveby(zero) 17:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the image from University of Edinburgh if you'd like to link to an unaltered version. Or is that not just altered but from a wholly different manuscript? The first image you posted might be from a 17th century copy done in Cairo, but this link isn't working for me. fiveby(zero) 17:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the text was copied, but the images are 1307? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a bigger scan from Gallica and uploaded it over the previous image. It is the same manuscript since it has the same Bibliotheque Imperiale stamp and the same stain on the upper right corner. -- Error (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Error, Gråbergs Gråa Sång there are eleven surviving copies of the literary work which is c. A. D. 1000, the oldest 13th century[14]. Only two are illustrated the Edinburgh MS 161 with 14th century paintings, and BNF MS Arabe 1489 Error linked to, which is thought to be a 16th century Ottoman copy. fiveby(zero) 19:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bit messy, but thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

@@ Line 249: / Line 249: @@
 :A [[textualism]] and [[originalism]], a good starting point might be {{cite journal|author=Hemel, Daniel J.|year=2013|title=Executive Action and the First Amendment's First Word|work=Pepperdine Law Review|volume=40|issue=3|url=https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol40/iss3/2/}} and the references therein. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 14:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 :Many of the other amendments contain the words "shall not", meaning that the things mentioned are absolutely forbidden. Several others use the word "shall", meaning that the things mentioned are absolutely required. The varied wording around the "shalls" and "shall nots" doesn't seem to indicate any difference of esteem between the various amendments, rather it simply serves to make reading the whole document less repetitive. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 16:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
-*Just to be clear, not all amendments bind the same aspects of the nation; the first amendment applies to laws Congress may or may not pass (and by incorporation via the 14th amendments, state legislatures as well), while (for example) the fourth amendment applies to police power, not normally an action Congress takes, while the fifth, sixth, and seventh apply to the courts.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 13:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
+*Just to be clear, not all amendments bind the same aspects of the nation; the first amendment applies to laws Congress may or may not pass (and by incorporation via the 14th amendment, state legislatures as well), while (for example) the fourth amendment applies to police power, not normally an action Congress takes, while the fifth, sixth, and seventh apply to the courts.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 13:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 == Some info on a picture ==