Humanities desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 11 >

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.

March 10[edit]

Anglo-Saxon male lines[edit]

So according their articles and Burke's Peerage the Arden family, Berkeley family and the Swinton family are the only families in England that can trace its lineage in the male line back to Anglo-Saxon times; something the British Royal family cannot since they are female line descendants of the House of Wessex. Does this mean these are the only families ever in English history with that distinction or are their families that may have had that same distinction who survived for a couple of centuries after the Conquest and have died out in the male line since.--96.41.155.253 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems almost certain that many English men survived the conquest of 1066, went on to have male children, and then their male children had male children, and so on, for some time after 1066. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many of us here in England who think that our male ancestor line here goes back to Anglo-Saxon times, but because our ancestors were not famous, we are not able to prove this. Dbfirs 10:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's obvious and no one would doubt that given the genetic studies done on the English people, but not relevant to my question in regard to detailed family lineages. By that logic, all human on earth have male line ancestors who lived before 1066. But few if any have detailed records of that line of descent that far back, which is what I am asking for.--96.41.155.253 (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all to Anglo-Saxon ancestors though. My point was that, in general, records were kept only for famous people, so for most of us the records have been lost. Dbfirs 11:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the crux of the issue: genealogies were only kept for noble families and the Anglo-Saxon nobility were almost all deprived of their lands and holdings after the Conquest. "The old English aristocracy, mainly composed of the king's thegns, virtually disappeared with the conquest and was replaced by a new aristocracy". (from The Effects of the Norman Conquest on Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage eventually runs out, but the Earls of Dunbar are all male-line descendants from Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria, and looking at the child lists from the Wikipedia articles that do exist, they seem to have been a particularly fecund family, with plenty of possible male lines to follow. The Earls of Dunbar and March was forefeited in the 1400s, but the last Earl had male sons, and if you go back there are lots of potential branches to explore there. According to our article, Gospatric may have been Anglo-Saxon or Scottish in the male line, it is hard to say as his parentage is a bit sketchy. So there is one possible connection. Looking for more through Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 11:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Weld-Blundell family for a possible line of inquiry. --Jayron 32 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The centenary of the Russian Revolution[edit]

How does Russia commemorate the centenary of the 1917 revolutions that shook the world? Do they celebrate or mourn? --91.223.63.71 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read this and this for some perspectives. --Jayron 32 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

91.223.63.71 -- today's Russian government appropriates to itself both imperial Russian symbolism (see flag, coat of arms, close collaboration with Orthodox church which has declared Nicholas II and his family saints, etc.) and Soviet symbolism (the crimes and glaring military failings of Stalin are played down, while the final WW2 victory is played up, etc.). The most symbolically disgusting thing that Putin personally participates in is "Chekists' Day", whose post-1991 message is apparently that a bloody and brutal secret police is a good thing in itself, regardless of what cause it happens to serve (they might as well rename it Cheka-Okhrana Day). I would expect that many of the history-referring details of the Russian 2017 commemorations will end up being a little muddled, but an overall message of the personal gloriousness of Vladimir Putin will come through loud and clear. AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Newsweek article from a couple of weeks ago that sort of updates the one that Jayron linked to. A Google search for Putin revolution centennial turns up a bunch of recent stuff. Deor (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far the anniversary has been played down. The ultra-conservative government is not keen to celebrate an uprising of any sort. The centenary of the last tsar's abdication has not been noticed by the mainstream media at all. ‘Revolution? What Revolution?’ Russia Asks 100 Years Later. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art[edit]

http://i.imgur.com/9ognamU.jpg

What style of art is this?

Benjamin (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a photo of a conservatory in someone's house. I'm not seeing much art there. Do you mean the shelving unit on the right? Or do you mean that the photo itself is the art, and you're wondering what style of art the photo is? --Viennese Waltz 12:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm talking about the photo. I'm assuming it was taken / displayed with artistic intent. Benjamin (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In broad category, it would be a Still life. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more specific? Benjamin (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still life photography? We're at a disadvantage here; we don't know why you think there's some particular artistic intent. When you figure that part out (by yourself, not here), you may be able to come back with a more answerable question. FWIW, it looks like a random snap taken with little thought or care using a phone camera or similar device, but YMMV, of course. Matt Deres (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer[edit]

Are there any sources analysing the effect of Richard Spencer being punched? I've seen some saying it makes his ideas stronger, some weaker, but none reliable. Also, if there are no sources about this event, are there any about similar past events? Thanks. Benjamin (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Richard B. Spencer for those (like me) ignorant of his existence. Alansplodge (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search shows that the incident caused a brief flurry of discussion on social media, (as people debated questions like: "Is it OK to punch a Nazi?")... however, that flurry was short lived, and social media quickly moved on to discussion of other things. I can find nothing to show that the incident effected how people actually viewed Spencer or his ideas. It seems that the incident did nothing to change people's minds. Those who supported his ideas before he was punched still support, and those who opposed them still oppose. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's likely to be true in general. When Buzz Aldrin slugged a Moon Landing denier, it's unlikely there was any seismic shift in opinions on the Apollo program. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a more general sense, are there any sources that talk about the significance, or lack of significance, of that *kind* of event? Benjamin (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an older study (1987), but this seems relevant. --Jayron 32 13:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Benjamin (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Same with Bernard Levin [1] and John Prescott, although the politics were different of course. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZyQiwlAHlc Benjamin (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anaxagoras and the Earth/Sun model[edit]

Our article on Anaxagoras said he believed the Earth to be flat. I remember having read somewhere that he had already observed (before Eratosthenes) that sun rays came at different angles depending on the latitude, but explained it by a finite Earth-sun distance (i.e. the Earth is flat, but the Sun is close enough that moving on Earth's surface changes it position in the sky). Can someone confirm or infirm that story? (I wanted to post it at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Flat_Earth_Hypothesis_is_easily_proven_wrong but I found nothing online, so I grew suspicious.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just finite, but quite close. The Sun would need to be thousands of miles away, rather than millions. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering (see the article linked in the question) that he thought it was a mass of hot stone or metal "larger than the Peloponnese, or say maybe a couple of hundred miles wide, that distance would be reasonable enough. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the story I had read said he went on to calculate the Earth-Sun distance, and found something close to what is really the Earth's radius (not totally a coincidence). Yet this contribution to science was totally forgotten, just because he took the wrong hypothesis and Eratosthenes took the correct one. If true it would be a nice story about epistemology; se non è vero, è ben trovato, but I would still like to know if it is true. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visas eligibility to USA[edit]

I fully understand that questions for legal advice are not answered here. However...I've been advised that someone (in this case a child, my daughter) who 'has a claim to US citizenship' - in this case because I am in fact an American citizen - is therefore 'not eligible for visa to visit the US'. So I'm looking for some reference to what rules or law that might be? My daughter has a Russian passport, permanent Dutch residence, and we don't plan to apply for American citizenship for her - in fact we're in the process of obtaining Dutch citizenship for her, me and her mother. Can someone help me find a reference or rule or law that would explain why, if you could be an American citizen, but aren't one, you would be denied the possibility of a visa. Thanks if you can help with a concrete reference or link. I've been googling but its an unusual circumstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.104.125.11 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US generally require US nationals to enter the US on US passports regardless any other nationalities, so refusing to issue visas for them isn't that surprising [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The US generally require US nationals to enter the US on US passports regardless any other nationalities, so refusing to issue US visas for US nationals isn't that surprising [3] United States nationality law#Responsibilities of citizens. You should also take care with issues like "claim to .. citizenship". This isn't legal advice and I'm explicitly not referring to the US here, I don't know enough about it but in some cases you either are a citizen or not. Issue like registration etc in some cases only affect whether it's known about and how the person can get a passport, they may not affect whether the person is a citizen. See [4] and the earlier article and links for general info on whether or not a person may be a US citizen. Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across [5] which seems to come close to linking the issues I referred to above. Note again this is not legal advice, even if I did have a legal understanding of about US nationality law or entry requirements, I definitely do not know enough about your daughters situation that I could provide it anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nearest embassy or consulate is the best place to find out how to navigate border crossings. See List of diplomatic missions of the United States to find one near you. If you are a permanent Netherlands resident, it appears there is an Embassy in The Hague and a Consulate in Amsterdam. --Jayron 32 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) OP, how reliable was the source of your advice? It sounds like it might be an interpretation of the "immigrant intent" concept under US immigration law, i.e. that generally someone who is likely to want to settle in the US would be denied a visa that is meant to be for a non-immigrant purpose. By the fact that you are Googling and asking random people on the internet, it sounds like you don't trust the source of your advice. If so, you should probably check with a reliable source like a lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the OP. Thanks (Palace Guard) for your input. My advice was in fact the US Embassy. They received my daughter's visa application, and sent me the message I quoted from above. My daughter is not a US citizen, and there isn't a plan to be one. I'm trying to find good info with references to prepare for negotiating with the Embassy. I wouldn't think that they can impose US citizenship on her. Thanks anyone who can point me to hard information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.104.125.11 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the usual "I am not a lawyer" caveats, I notice your phrase "my daughter is not a US citizen", but I wonder if this is in fact not true. Due to the nature of birthright citizenship in the US, if you, her father, was a US citizen at the time of her birth, then there is a strong possibility that your daughter was born a US citizen and, absent specific and deliberate action to change that state of affairs, remains so. The linked Department of State site explicitly notes that automatically acquiring non-US nationality does not jeopardize one's US nationality, and that voluntarily acquiring non-US nationality only "may" jeopardize one's US nationality. To that end, the embassy saying that someone "has a claim to citizenship" may well not mean "could potentially acquire citizenship" but rather "may already be a citizen". Additionally, the linked DoS site notes that one can renounce US nationality at a US embassy or consulate (ensure that you do in fact have another valid nationality before doing so). — Lomn 20:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding someone automatically being a US citizen without wanting to take advantage of it (and indeed, regretting not having renounced it early on), see Boris Johnson, the British politician. Loraof (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lomn has said explicitly what I was saying above. I suggest you read carefully the links I've provided, they are not legal advice but you'd note they largely refer to whether a person is actually a US citizen from birth or not, rather than whether a person can become a US citizen and they mostly deal with US law rather than policies of embassy officials. Embassy officials would generally be expected to follow the law.

If you're able to read this it will probably be of interest [6] it seems to deal with people in similar situations of yours but the key point which is perhaps glossed over seems to be

A person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents will acquire U.S. citizenship at birth provided the statutory requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act for transmission of U.S. citizenship are met, and regardless of whether the person is ever documented as a U.S. citizen (by obtaining a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen, a U.S. passport, and/or a Certificate of Citizenship). Practically speaking, however, in general “it is the process of being documented as a U.S. citizen that would result in official government recognition of the child’s U.S. citizenship status,” according to Karen Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services, in the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the Department of State.
That said, U.S. citizens born abroad are technically liable for taxes even if their parents don’t register their birth with American authorities, according to Gregory Wald, principal at Squire Patton Boggs. But Uncle Sam is unlikely to chase these people down, he added. “The tax liabilities of such individuals are likely to be quite minimal. I would imagine that it is more expensive to monitor for these individuals than the potential income that the Treasury are likely to receive from them.”

As for renunciation, I'd note it's unlikely a parent can renounce their child's citizenship. They may be able to renounce their own citizenship which may affect the citizenship of children but probably only if they haven't already acquired citizenship through them (i.e. if someone did acquire citizenship from birth, there's a good chance a parent renouncing their citizenship isn't going to affect their children's citizenship which was acquired from birth). This blog from a law firm [7] explicitly comments on minors renouncing US citizenship and suggests the earliest it's possible is 16 but more likely 18.

But again, I'd strongly urge you to seek legal advice. This part may seem a bit rude but it's important. My comment was intentionally vague but it IMO provided sufficient info to draw the obvious conclusion that Lomn said more explicitly namely there is no particular reason to think your daughter has a claim to US citizenship rather than either being or not being a US citizen; with the likelihood of each easily resolved by checking out the appropriate links. The fact you weren't able to understand this strongly suggests this isn't something you should try dealing with youself.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd particular note the WSJ blog info is relevant but you should also take care against drawing too many conclusions from it. Notably there is an obvious difference between tax liabilities and visas. When someone applies for a visa, officials would generally be expected to consider the appropriateness of granting a visa based on US law and policies. If for example, a parent is applying for a visa for their child but not themselves because they are a US citizenship, officials may consider the obvious implications of that in their decision. If the parent renounced their citizenship, officials may consider when this happened. Nil Einne (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking at UK-Yankee Forum which is concerned mainly with Americans in the UK but they are very knowledgeable about visas, accidental Americans and cover other EU countries also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.140.12 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]