Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 September 24

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.

September 24

Brusilov Expedition casualties

In 1912, Georgy Brusilov took the Svyataya Anna into the Northern Sea Route. Two came back, but how many left? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

ru: says 24 [1, last paragraph]. 14 left to try to reach land on skis, sleds and canoes (leaving 10 behind on the ship), then of those, 3 returned back to the ship. The last crew thus was 13 people. Of the 13 on the ship, all perished, of the 11, all but two perished Asmrulz (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Another way to write that link: ru:Экспедиция Брусилова#Подготовка экспедиции —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Indian elections 1952

In the Indian elections of 1952, the Communist Party of India (CPI) got 3.29% of the vote, but the Socialist Party got 10% of the vote, so why was the CPI the 'second party' in the election? 210.246.35.96 (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Indian general election, 1951–52. The Results section of that article gives the percentages you quote, but CPI won 16 seats against the Socialist Party's 12, so CPI was the second party in terms of seats won (not counting "Independents", who won 37). The discrepancy could be because CPI stood in fewer constituencies (perhaps those where it was strongest), or just because its voters were more concentrated in particular constituencies. There was a similar effect in the United Kingdom general election, 2015, where the Scottish National Party (standing only in Scotland) won 56 seats with 4.7% of the national vote, while the Liberal Democrats (standing nationwide) won 8 seats on 7.9%. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for that, cleared it right up. 210.246.35.96 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ross Perot "stood" nationwide and won 0 of 538 "seats" on 19%. Woodrow Wilson won 435 of 531 on 41.8%. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but since Ross is only 5'5", nobody could tell that he was standing. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

He was short? Wawa wewa, an unintentional pun. The only major candidates under 5'6" were the 4th President (5'4") and a Lincoln opponent (5'4"). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For an overview, see first-past-the-post voting. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A thoroughly lamentable title. There is no post, and slovenly with-enough-hyphens-any-phrase-can-be-an-adjective language ought not to be encouraged. —Tamfang (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Does a contract have to be witnessed

In English law, is a contract valid even if the signatures are not witnessed by an independent third party? ie, only the signatories to the contract witness it being signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigSpike (talk • contribs) 12:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This explicitly says that witnesses are not required, but I'm not sure is it qualifies as a reliable source. This stops short of explicitly saying it is required, but implies it. The owner of that page is apparently a paralegal and they provide a link to ask questions. Consult a professional if you're asking in regards to an actual situation you're facing. Matt Deres (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

[ec] First, please note that we can't give legal advice here. If you have a question about the legal effects of a particular document, you should contact an appropriate professional. That being said, see Contract and Deed. In English law, a contract is valid if (a) both parties intend to create legal relations, and (b) there's an exchange of consideration. In general, contracts don't have to be in writing to be legally binding: for example, if you buy a Mars bar at the newsagents, you don't have to sign anything for the contract to come into existence - you have to pay the money and the newsagent has to give you the chocolate without any paperwork being created. However, certain contracts (particularly guarantees and transactions involving real property) have to be in writing (see Statute of Frauds), and certain legal documents (particularly wills) do have to be witnessed. Tevildo (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Standard English designations of the Ming and Qing emperors

Today's DYK brought me here: I've noticed English uses a peculiar turn of phrase to designate emperors from the Ming and Qing dynasty namely "The XYZ Emperor" (for example "The Shunzhi Emperor", with determinative "The" before the name and the word "Emperor" coming after the name) instead of the more common "Emperor XYZ". Where does that come from? At first I wondered if it wasn't because the era name was used to refer to emperors of those dynasties, but, first of all, that's probably not even true, as Emperor Meiji of Japan is never called "The Meiji Emperor", and besides, the question would still remain why that sort of designation is only used in English for Ming and Qing dynasty emperors and not for other dynasties? Also, is it peculiar to English, at least among European languages, or are there other European languages where that's also done? I know it's not done in French and I don't think it's done in German either. Basemetal 18:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Check Emperor of China#Styles, names and forms of address. For most pre-Ming emperor the posthumous name is used. The Qing and Ming emperors used only one era name for their entire reign (previous dynasties' emperor often used more than one era name). That seems to be the standard that explains Emperor Gaozu of Han vs Hongwu Emperor (who used Gao as one of his many posthumous names). I'm not sure why Japan is different. China has had so many emperors and dynasty where posthumous names are recycled and recycled and the Qing and Ming emperors have the distinction of bearing their own distinct era names which are not applied to other emperors. Japan has had only one dynasty and when they recycle posthumous names they just call the Emepeor Go-XYZ.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Meiji Emperor" is sometimes used - example: http://www.jref.com/articles/emperor-meiji.25/ Iapetus (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Shōwa Emperor" is also pretty common in English usage. "Heisei Emperor" is less common (given that his era name has not yet become his posthumous name), but is also seen. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Guard in black helmets

Who were those guys in black helmets? Here they are shown in red uniforms with gold epaulettes. Italian military of the time? Thanks.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

See Noble Guard (abolished in 1970). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)