Humanities desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 11[edit]

Is Wikipedia the only non-commercial website in Top 100 most popular websites?[edit]

Looking at List of most popular websites, this seems to be the case. The only website whose status is disputed is The Pirate Bay. Everything else that I thought may not be commercial that I checked is commercial (IMDb, BBC, The Huffington Post). So, am I right to conclude that Wikipedia is the only non-commercial (non-profit) site in the Top 100 most popular Internet sites? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the BBC non-profit since it's publicly owned. Hot Stop 02:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, but see BBC#Commercial_activities. Also, the article uses infobox company, and all companies are for-profit by default. (if not, we should add commercial= parameter to Template:Infobox company). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is in understanding the word "commercial". The BBC is regarded in the UK as providing the opposite of "commercial" television/radio. It is a publicly-owned body, with no shareholders, that gains the lion's share of its income from the government via the license fee. As you can see from BBC#Revenue, of the BBC's 2011/12 income figures, c.£3.8bn came in from the license fee and other government sources and less than £0.5bn came in through means that could in any way be regarded as commercial. In the UK, many charities (most of the large ones) have commercial operations to support themselves, but having these kind of commercial activities does not make an organisation "commercial" ... regardless of what kind of infobox Wikipedia uses ;-) ! To most British people, the BBC would not be regarded as "commercial" for these reasons, but because the term can be understood in different ways, it is possible to perceive it as such, but it doesn't really hold water. --Dweller (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in answer to Piotrus, about companies - in UK law, most charities of any significant size are companies. Specifically, they are 'companies limited by guarantee and not having share capital', but they're still companies; they register both with Companies House and with the Charity Commission. The amounts to, to the best of my knowledge, several million UK-registered companies. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several million Alex? Seriously? Last I knew there were less than 180,000 registered charities in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different system). And they may be companies limited by guarantee, but they may also be Charitable Incorporated Organisations, or co-operatives, or unincorporated associations, or partnerships, or charitable trusts. I'll try and get a reference for the numbers. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC) According to this (which I believe to be the most authoritative site there is), there are approximately 160,000 charities in England and Wales. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly 'the best of my knowledge' wasn't very good! Thanks for the source. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Famous artist/writer who criticized his peers about their need to have an opinion of every question of our time, and to tell the world about it[edit]

It's probably a long shot, but I believe the person was either from France or Spain/Portugal (probably this) Basically, when asked about his - objectively worthless - opinion on a political affair, he responded that he was sorry that he didn't have any, as a way to mock his politically-engaged peers, that felt the need to involve themselves in subjects in which they had no relevant expertise. Eisenikov (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been Picasso? According to Wikiquote, he was reported in the New York Times to have said of the 1969 moon landing: "It means nothing to me. I have no opinion about it, and I don't care." - Ka renjc 08:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interception in national airspace for extradition[edit]

Can a country which has an extradition agreement with some other country, send fighter jets or whatever to intercept in its own airspace the aircraft flying to political asylum in another country? 93.174.25.12 (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The leaders of a sovereign country can order anything that is technically feasible within their own airspace. Whether they can do so legally depends on the laws and the rule of law within that country. Whether they would order an action sanctioned by law in their country is a political question that depends on political constraints within that country. Did you have a specific jurisdiction in mind? Marco polo (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just wonder whether the aircraft crew flying to poltical asylum should consider that and dodge the airspaces of such countries (fortunately didn't happen to me, so I'm not seeking a legal advice). 93.174.25.12 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition is a legal process that, in most jurisdictions, takes some time (at least weeks, sometimes years) before it can result in a person's forced transfer to the country that initiated the process. Again, jurisdictions differ, but normally a country seeking extradition sends a request for extradition to the country where the suspect is believed to be. Often, this request will have to go through an administrative procedure (lasting hours or days) in the country receiving the request to determine whether the request meets the receiving country's grounds for arrest. If it does, the suspect is arrested. Then, the suspect goes through a legal process similar to a trial to determine whether the person meets grounds in the receiving country for extradition. Presumably, arrest could happen by means of aircraft interception, but that could only happen if 1) the country issuing the extradition request could predict the suspect's flight path and send notice to the country whose air space the flight path crossed, and 2) the country receiving the request could process it and launch aircraft quickly enough to intercept the flight before it left that country's airspace. So, the answer is, yes, it is theoretically possible that such an interception could take place, but hard to imagine in practice in most cases. The only obvious exception would be if the country receiving the extradition request were an autocratic client state of the one issuing the request, such that authorities in the country issuing the request only had to phone up the office of the client state's dictator and ask him to launch aircraft on short notice, which he could do, since dictators typically don't quibble over the rule of law. For example, if China wished to intercept a flight crossing North Korea, it wouldn't be hard to imagine North Korea quickly intercepting the flight. The kind of action that you describe might also be possible if the interception were requested of an ally on military (rather than criminal) grounds. For example, if, say, Britain had just suffered a military attack and knew that the attackers were about to fly over the United States, Britain might be able to ask the United States to intercept the aircraft on short notice, but that would be a case of military assistance rather than extradition. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to imagine North Korea complying with such a request from China without extracting promises of say a dozen nuclear warheads or 10 years' supply of oil... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you intercept in your own airspace, it's not an extradition anymore. Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory and it may require any aircraft to make a landing. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert VII, Archduke of Austria and Isabella Clara Eugenia[edit]

Did Albert VII, Archduke of Austria and Isabella Clara Eugenia have three children: Philip, Albert, Anna Mauritia, who died young? Or are the names based on a faulty genealogical source?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the answer, but more info to help searchers. The German wikipedia gives some dates: Archduke Philip born 21 October 1605, Archduke Albert born 21 January 1607, Archduchess Anna Mauritia undated. It adds that according to contemporary reports (no citation given), the early death of the children led to Albert VII and Isabella Clara Eugenia stopping sleeping with each other. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many knighted/damed yearly in Britain?[edit]

About how many people on average are knighted/damed yearly in Britain at any level? Our article doesn't say and the internet ask a question fora are dreadful on this. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No general figures to hand, but some examples: in 2011, the last "normal" year (no dissolution or jubilee honours), there were 22 knights bachelor, eight KCB, five K/DCMG, 18 K/DBE, three GBE, and four KCVO - so sixty in all. About five or ten people who already had knighthoods of some form got "better" ones; I haven't included them in the above list. Conversely, though, in 1991 it was a total of almost a hundred not counting the "better" knighthoods. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just want a round figure. Do the numbers include the women as well? μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are they damed if they do? Or, then again, are they damed if they don't? --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Medeis, the numbers should include women, because Andrew mentioned DBE. One reason why the number may have dropped since 1991 is that there's been a small backlash against the seemingly automatic granting of honours for grey civil servants who've done nothing more than do their jobs and get paid well over a long time. In contrast, these days, a lot of honours come about as a result of nominations from the general public, although these truly worthy people usually receive lesser awards, below the level you're asking about. The other thing that's changed since 1991 is the Reform of the House of Lords, particularly since 1999, which means that "working peer"s have altered somewhat the balance of people receiving awards higher than those you're asking about. NB I can't find a decent article or section of an article on Wikipedia that explains how nominations work and our House of Lords reform article that I linked to is almost as impenetrable as the actual workings of that place. --Dweller (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, knights and dames alike (though fewer of the latter); "fifty to a hundred" should be a good estimate, tending towards the lower half of the range. As Dweller says, the dynamic has changed somewhat over time (which is why I drew out 1991 figures) and in particular I suspect the drawing-down of the armed forces may also have produced a few less generals and admirals getting knighthoods! I'm not sure about the Lords reform, though; my vague understanding is that the rate of new life peers hasn't changed drastically during the reform, but I could well be wrong... Andrew Gray (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you. My comment was more about the types of people who receive peerages these days, than the numbers of them. --Dweller (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire which lists appointments by year. We don't seem to have an equivalent chronological list for KBEs, although there is a category Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire. Note that the Order of the British Empire is an order of chivalry and is not part of the Peerage of the United Kingdom, which has a entirely separate and different structure. Some peers are also recipients of the OBE, but you can be a recipient of the OBE without being a peer, and vice versa. And, if you are a man, you can be made a Knight Bachelor, which is neither part of an order of chivalry nor part of the peerage. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the strange netherworld of the baronets. Their titles are hereditary but they're not peers; and they're called "Sir" but are not knights. They're ranked above knights but below peers. Existing ones will continue indefinitely as long as heirs keep getting born, but since 1964 only one new baronetcy has been created, the Thatcher baronets (1990). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14 & 18 party alliance in Bangladesh[edit]

Who are the 14 party alliance and who are 18 party alliance and who are the parties involved in each alliance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.198 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A start: Five of the 14 party alliance members are listed in Grand Alliance (Bangladesh). All of the 18 party alliance members are listed in 18 Party Alliance. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people buying books that are free?[edit]

Quoting the news report

"BIG brother is watching - sales of George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 have skyrocketed in the wake of revelations of US government surveillance.

The centennial edition of the novel surged 7005 per cent on Amazon, according to the online retailer's Mover and Shakers in Books page that monitors biggest gainers in sales rank compared to 24 hours ago."

But why are people paying money for a book that is out of Copyright in Australia? Look here http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

It seems to be counter intuitive. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They want to read an actual book, not the pale simulacrum that goes by the name "e-book". - Nunh-huh 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[AFTER EDIT CONFLICT] Can people everywhere in the world download that from Project Gutenberg? Anyway, there would be multiple parts to the answer to your question. Reading a .txt file such as the one you pointed us to is not as pleasant an experience as sitting back with a nicely bound book. And what does one do with the .txt file? Just read it off a screen? Print it, on masses of A4 or Letter size sheets. That costs money, and again, will not be as nice as a properly bound book to read in bed. Some will simply want a special edition. It's a fashion thing. And some won't know about the free Gutenberg version. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read a long novel series in PDF form on my PS3 and bigscreen TV, from bed. It was much more pleasant than books. With a thick paperback, I get shadows from one half across the other half, and they tend to flop over on themselves when I take my finger off the page (unless I bend it and ruin the spine). TV's illuminated, keeps your page and stays pristine. You can't zoom in or quickly autosearch a book. Not a fan of touching very dry things, and some paper feels irritating. A large library of books will cost a room, while the same digital library can fit on a flash drive. In my case, I saved a good chunk of money, but even for public domain books, I definitely recommend a TV and wireless controller. An iPhonish gadget or laptop would probably suck, though. Just my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above; also note that Orwell is not out of copyright in any country in the EU and US, and in the many other countries which apply copyright for the life of the author + 70 years (see List of countries' copyright lengths). Orwell will be in copyright in these countries until 31 December 2020. The Orwell estate does enforce the copyright in the UK. And I would have thought most people seeking a copy of a work by Orwell are unaware that he is out of copyright in some countries. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in Australia but I was able to view the whole book. I wonder how that works regarding copyright law. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look that site again, I wonder if Australia copyright laws are much more liberal than elsewhere. Gutenberg Australia has a trove of relatively recent works. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My perception as an Australian is that they're horrible. Your horror may vary. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Berne Convention, which most countries are signed up to, only requires copyright protection for the life of the author + 50 years. Those countries which perceive themselves as copyright generators (rather than copyright consumers) have adopted life + 70 as a higher standard. Australia, though not necessarily a big copyright generator on a global scale, has chosen for various reasons to adopt the life + 70 standard, but to make transition easier drew a "line in the sand" at 1955 - authors who died before then do not benefit from the newer longer standard. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many places you can buy the real book used for something like $1 - $1.5. Would you really want to read that in your electronic device of choice or to have a book that won't get stolen, doesn't run out of battery, doesn't break apart and can be carried everywhere? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent $170 to buy Australian Languages, Bowern & Koch, ed., even though Claire Bowern was kind enough to email a pdf of the text. Beats reading off you iPhone. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I once considered buying a linen-bound copy of Alice in Wonderland, printed in 1950 and long out of copyright, for 150 British pounds plus international postage - just because I really like the illustrations by John Tenniel. Unfortunately I didn't have the spare change at the time. You might find 84 Charing Cross Road an "educational" read. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story. Not sure how it's relevant...Shadowjams (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

84 Charing Cross Road is about the appeal of "real" books. And the story was too. Paul B (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real books are much nicer, even cheap ones. I wonder if paper books will ever actually go extinct. Horatio Snickers (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For books which are out of copyright, personally I'd prefer paying the low price demanded for the paper version than to download the unwieldy electronic version. Maybe I'll change my mind one day when Kindle figures out how to change thickness depending on where you are in the book. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Kindle doesn't smell right and the texture is all wrong too. To me a good book is a complete sensory experience. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]