Humanities desk
< January 11	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 13 >

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.

January 12[edit]

History about Italy[edit]

The article says" " fertility and birth rates persisted until the 1970s, after which they started to dramatically decline, leading to rapid population aging." Fertility and birth rates do not lead to rapid population aging, if they mean that the country from these got to have a major population of older people, that may go more with the facts. I hope you can change this. Thanks for your good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:858A:5C00:1962:E98C:44AF:AC4E (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite following what you're saying. If fewer people are born (and, we can assume, people carry on living the same length or longer) the population will age. What are you asking us to change? It could be that English isn't your first language - are you struggling with the term "population aging". It doesn't mean that individuals suddenly get older. Maybe we could include a wikilink to help but it's not really a technical term. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I have added a wikilink to Population ageing into the OP's quoted text which is at Italy#Demographics. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly amended the sentence, as well. hopefully, between Alan’s link and my change the issue is resolved. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Unusual_articles Places_and_infrastructure[edit]

Hi, I noticed the link here is no longer working: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unusual_articles/Places_and_infrastructure

Where did it go?.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FB9B:ED00:C90D:E2F9:7114:93D (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Here's the wikilink: Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Places and infrastructure Rojomoke (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They both work for me too. What error message are you seeing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the "sex viri"? -[edit]

In the ODNB article about J. B. S. Haldane we read "In 1925 he was dismissed from his readership [at the University of Cambridge] at the instigation of the ‘Sex Viri’ because he had been quoted as co-respondent in a divorce case. Unlike others in the same situation, Haldane appealed against his dismissal, and was reinstated in 1926. Following these events the ‘Sex Viri’ changed both in name (perhaps to avoid Haldane's proposed translation of 'sex weary') and in content. As a result, university officers were no longer harassed on account of their private lives." Now, who or what were the "sex viri"? DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is latin for "six men". "Sex" is latin for "6" amd "Viri" is latin for "men" (c.f. "virile" meaning "manly"). I don't know what the context the term is used in regard to this legal case, but it sounds like the "sex viri" were some sort of leadership group at the University, either formally or some sort of informal "cabal" of influential men; and he made a bad joke on their latin name, (sex weary), which insulted them and led to his dismissal. That's how I read it. --Jayron 32 15:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found a firm reference. see here. "A court, called the Vice Chancellor and the Sex Viri, the members of which shall consist of the Vice Chancellor and six persons elected singly by Grace for two years, shall have jurisdiction over University Officers (&c)...". It is clear that Haldane made a pun on the name "Sex Viri" which insulted said body in connection to his dismissal, and the group was renamed and reconstituted in a different way due to a change in the University constitution. --Jayron 32 15:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be made explicit that in classical Latin pronunciation viri sounds like English "weary", hence the "bad joke". --70.29.13.251 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron just beat me to it, but see also here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have done pretty well for himself. Do any of those "sex viri" snobs have Wikipedia articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to derive from a group of magistrates in Ancient Rome, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I had got the "six men" bit, and the pun, I thought it so obvious as to be not worth mentioning in my initial question). So - what does "elected by Grace" mean? And, after the Haldane case, what changes were made to their name and content? DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That source above seems to say it is a motion proposed by the Council and agreed by the Senate, where it is passed unless someone objects, in which case there would be a vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which source? I'm not seeing that in either of them. And what do you mean by "it"? DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. "It" is a grace. here, p.27. Also some discussion here, p. 140.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to sum it up: A "grace" was a resolution proposed by the Council of the University Senate and passed by the Senate. Such a "grace" could be to elect someone, to regulate examinations, or for other purposes, it seemed to be a pretty broad term, so I summed it up as "resolution". Thus, the sex viri were six Cambridge dons who served on a court, with the Vice Chancellor, that heard certain cases, and also appeals from other bodies. Their names would have been individually proposed by the Council of the University Senate, and after proper time and notice, would either have been elected individually by consent at a meeting of the Senate, or after a vote, for a term of two years. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian domestic violence bill with an overbroad provision[edit]

Russian National Strategy of Actions in the Interest of Women provides for "improvement of domestic violence prevention legislation until 2022. Yesterday the State Duma's official paper reported that a domestic violence law could be worked on this spring. It will be based on an earlier bill by Senator Anton Belyakov, Article 20 of which allows government and NGO officials to hold preventive conversations with people who even have no domestic violence record at all, the only limit being that a single conversation cannot last for more than an hour.

I don't mean to seek legal aid here, but does any other country's domestic violence law have (did it formerly have) a similar overbroad provision permitting lawful harassment of citizens? If yes, what were efforts to curtail/abolish it like (and if it was curtailed/repealed, what were the details) ? --185.79.102.186 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the law use the word harassment? I don't see that there. --Jayron 32 16:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say the bill used this word? I said it permits it, i. e. Russian police will be able to harass anyone they wanted with "preventive conversations", the number of which per week or month is not restricted. --185.79.102.186 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of OP's opinion

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

The bill doesn't say it permits harassment either. It says governments or NGOs can talk to people. You have not presented a reliable source to say that talking to people is harassment. I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it isn't. I hold no opinion on the matter one way or another. I am just saying that your source text does not say that it is. --Jayron 32 16:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BITE. New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. The IP described it as "lawful harassment"; the bill did not. Asking for a reliable source for an opinion posted by an IP on the refdesk is a bit weird. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked questions to elucidate the information the OP is seeking. It is difficult to find sources for questions where one cannot understand what the OP wants. It appeared to me that the OP had made an error, since the source text did not mention harassment. I was asking probing questions to come to the source of the error; since the source text the OP provided did not have such information. One cannot answer questions meaningfully based on any premisis which has not been established as true (see plurium interrogationum for why not, i.e. "When did he stop beating he wife") If we could find evidence that it is established that the Russian government was engaged in harassment, then we could similarly then answer the question (i.e. if it is not yet established that the interlocuter beat his wife, it is impossible to meaningfully answer when he stopped. We must first establish that he did, indeed, beat his wife). Similarly, we must first establish that intent of the law is to allow the Russian government to harass its citizens. I never said that it didn't do that. I merely said that we haven't established that it does, so the follow on question (what other countries also do so) can't really be answered, because the premise on which it is based is an open question. That's simple, basic logic, and the courteous thing to do where there is a misunderstanding or a reason why the question cannot be answered is to a) ask probing questions and b) explain the problem with the question. The OP is perfectly free to provide the additional information needed to help us volunteers help them answer the question. When you try to stop us other volunteers from helping the OP, that isn't useful. If you have additional information that will help either correct the apparent faults in the question, please provide them. Otherwise, the OP is perfectly capable of doing so. --Jayron 32 18:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: TL;DR. WP:BITE is a guideline, WP:ADMIN is policy. Hatting offtopic rants on the refdesk makes sense. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the OP a series of probing questions to better understand their initial post, and you dove in and interrupted them before they could respond. Please stop. You aren't being helpful. --Jayron 32 18:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See mirror. If you would've read the OP more carefully then you wouldn't have asked those questions. Not sure how one can interrupt someone before that person could respond, but whatever. Please read WP:BITE and WP:ADMIN. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Police interactions with non-convicted citizens are justified by national standards of Probable cause for arrest or search. In the USA that is codified in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However criminal arrest procedures have little deterrent impact on Domestic violence that often arises from cycles of abuse driven by cultural or psychological factors that have become embedded. National stategies to combat domestic violence vary (see article) but their natural focus is on family intervention to assure rights of women and children. Both have dire exposure to Domestic violence in Russia where "each day, 36,000 women [are] beaten by their husbands or partners" (Amnesty International), alcoholism is among the highest in the world and "Every fourth family in the country has experienced violence of different forms" (police statistic). Supporters in good faith of poorly funded social services need not view enabling legislations as licenses to harass from a malicious government. A positive view of the forthcoming Russian law is that it explicitly permits investigatory fact-finding where a problem is suspected, which hopefully implies available funding and prioritizing for this work, and it sets a reasonable one-hour limit on initial interventions, that demonstrates awareness of the need to protect citizens from harassment under this particular law. SdrawkcaB99 (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there's no way this could backfire, given the widely recognized benevolence and probity of the Russian legal system. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]