Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • 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.

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.
Select a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

February 22Edit

Hinduism questionEdit

Before European colonization, were the people of India aware that most of them shared a single religion–specifically Hinduism? Or is the idea of Hinduism as a single religion itself a Western creation? Futurist110 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

IMHO,the answer is complex as much Hinduism is complex to for non Hindu understanding. Partially question in it self is western construct. Any introduction to lesser known culture can generate feeling of 'not like us' and it's natural corollary bound to be identity uniqueness of own culture and identity.
The question probably assumes Indians were totally unaware of concepts of non Indic religions and cultures before western colonization in modern times. But that was not the first time west was visiting India. Greeks came with Alexander, even ruled part of south Asia, they had their different polytheism. If not entire art of sculpture making some important related skills Indians learned from Greeks, meaning there by cultural interaction took place but Indians did not adopt Greek polytheistic religion.
And even before Alexander's invasion Indians had fairly good trade relations across and traders would have been aware of differences between religion and cultures and those must have been shared with Indians.
If not far away Persians were following a different religion than that of Indians. Persians and Indians both were aware of differences in their own respective religions but did not adopt.
Indians interacted with far east till Vietnam Japan and China Indians exported their culture and religion but did not do much cultural or religious import despite long cultural interactions.
If not in big numbers Jews came and settled in India in very early times. Even Christianity and Islam too reached Indian shores in their respective very early times. So to say Indians did not come across concepts of foreign religion would be too presumptuous. But why such impression gets created ? Because the scale of 'religion' Jews/ Christianity / Islam use is different than that of scale of Darsana (traditional schools of Indian philosophies) used by Indians.
In simple terms 'Darsana' means 'views', this scale is different than Jews/ Christianity / Islam scale of religions in the sense that 1) In principle 'Darsana' accepted existence of multiple philosophical and Soteriology views and deliberated and debated at scholarly level 2) Other than scholarly discourse Indic traditions and preachers had strong tradition of not to speak or discuss about other views/'Darsana'/ or religions or philosophical competition other than their own. Because concept of Arishadvargas did not allow speak bad of opponent. But same time did not accept 'others' easily. So even while Indics came across different religions and philosophies they did not discuss of the 'other' much in their day to day discourse and literature rather what one finds overcoming completion by ignoring competitor and stoic silence about 'the other' as much as possible. 3) One more important difference in approach of 'Darsana' philosophies vis a vis Jews/ Christianity / Islam method of spread of doctrines was too indirect. Philosophical deliberations used to happen at top scholarly level and most times did not reach end commoners directly, but through family Gurus (family religious teacher) and through religious story telling. So one does not find much direct doctrinal conversions at ordinary level in India no doubt Jain and Buddhist did that to some extent but Vaidics largely overcame them over a period of time with their own persistent methodology of incorporating good part of Jains and Buddhists and same time not speaking about them to the masses and offering more pragmatic solutions and indirect preaching.
Since Hindu philosophical reach out was indirect and allowed family religious teachers and disciples to adopt individual styles and way of philosophy and individual way of life, So Hinduism is a collectively evolved thing with involvement of multiple philosophies and interaction over the centuries.
Unlike Zoroastrianism Jew / Christianity / Islam which superimpose singular identity, Hinduism did not superimpose singular identity but it is an evolved identity with huge scope for pluralism. Since the scale of Religion is different than that of 'Darshana' some tend to make claims that Hinduism was not a singular identity and attempt to stretch argument to level that Hinduism does not exist.
Despite difficulties in nomenclature and defining, the fact is an ever evolving Hinduism and Hindu identity existed and exists encompasses all that which is ready to evolve with them and same time remains 'the other' to those who do not evolve with them. Even if one treats Hindusim as religion or not, challenge of understanding their philosophies and way of life and identity remains ever open.
That is what is my perception of 'them' the Hinduism of south Asia as student of South Asian studies. And one will find as many perceptions as many people experience or come across Hinduism and Hindus.
Bookku (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Futurist110 -- some philosophers and Brahmins definitely contrasted the traditional pieties of the Vedas etc. with Buddhism and Jainism even before the Islamic invasions of India, and the Islamic invasions contributed to distinctiveness of other religions. Whether ordinary people in villages would have been aware of belonging to the Vedic etc. tradition is a complicated question. Many villages had localistic religious rituals which were slowly assimilated to Hinduism under the influence of local Brahmins. "Hindu" itself is a Persian-language word (the "h" consonant is a dead giveaway), and likely would have been known to very few in India before roughly a thousand years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Pre-colonial times, most people living in what we call India would not have thought of it as India. Many parts of the modern country, especially the Tamils and Dravidian peoples of southern India are only part of India because of European colonization; for most of history India (Bharat, see Names for India#Bhārata) only included people and land north of the Deccan. --Jayron32 16:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

List of moments of death of British monarchsEdit

In British law, the maxim "The Crown never dies" means that there is an instantaneous transition between one monarch and the next. The precise moment of death (or the moment when an abdication comes into legal effect) is also, by definition, the precise moment of accession of the new monarch.

Given this, I'd have thought that the details of those precise moments of death/accession would be of interest to legal types, and others. I suppose some details would be available in the individual biographies of the monarchs, but a handy list would be very nice. I've searched for such a list, without success. Can anyone help? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The precise moment is probably more relevant to physicians filling out death certificates than to the practical work of government... AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, but royal watchers usually delight in such stuff. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The tradition dates to 1272 in England when Edward I of England succeeded the throne following the death of Henry III of England. The details of which are covered in The king is dead, long live the king!. It likely took weeks or more for Edward to even learn that he had been king, given that he was away in the Levant fighting the crusades at the time. Counting the time it would have taken him to return (or even to communicate bilaterally with the administration while he was gone) the actual day-to-day running of England was managed by the curia regis until Edward returned. It was like this for centuries; even though in a legal sense the new King became king upon the moment of the expiration of the prior king, this was due not to the need to have a continuity of management (i.e. a lack of meaningful administration between kings) but rather to avoid a succession crisis. Since succession was assured before the prior king died, there was no drama as there could have been when there was some doubt as to who the next king would be (even primogeniture was a fairly new concept in the 13th century, confusion over rightful succession was actually the norm rather than the exception, and led to such issues as the Norman Conquest and The Anarchy. Even afterwards, there were still times when the rightful succession was contested (Henry IV of England seizing the throne, the whole Wars of the Roses thing, Jane Grey, etc.) Even accurately knowing the exact moment of death of a monarch is likely not a thing prior to the 20th century, when accurate world-wide timekeeping became a thing. There's likely only a small handful of monarchs for which the moment in question is actually known. --Jayron32 13:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
We don't know even the day when the present Queen acceded - 6 February was chosen because it was felt at the time that it was more likely that her father (George VI) died before midnight than after. (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a case in point. I know I've read that Elizabeth was the first monarch at least of the past few centuries whose precise moment of accession is not known, due to the king's death at some unknown time during the night. That must mean that all the previous monarchs' details are known. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Also see Legal death. The precise definition of death is awkward, and while exceptions exist (e.g. Charles I), unless they were hooked up to good monitoring machines, it would be really hard to tell when most monarchs reached specific points, and you'd still have to define the point at which "death" occurs. And since the possibility of precise legal definitions didn't exist before today's medical technology, you'd have to rely on old definitions, which potentially could have changed from century to century. (I assume there's a common law definition, but it might well be rather vague.) So even aside from issues of timekeeping, it would be extremely tricky to define the moment of death for many or most British monarchs, even aside from timekeeping, and aside from the mysterious deaths of kings like Edward II and V. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You're all making this far more difficult than it needs to be. Here, I've created the start of a list by consulting the relevant articles:
  • George III: 8:38 pm, 29 January 1820
  • George IV: 3:15 am, 26 June 1830
  • William IV: "early hours", 20 June 1837
  • Victoria: 6:30 pm, 22 January 1901
  • Edward VII: 11:45 pm, 6 May 1910
  • George V: 11:55 pm, 20 January 1936
  • Edward VIII: abdicated 1:52 pm, 11 December 1936.
  • Is there such a list going back as far as records may exist? That's all I want. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Edward VIII's death occurred decades later. Also, I interpreted "precise moment of death" as, and I expect most others would likewise interpret it as, being on the order of seconds; aside from George III, all of them died at five-minute intervals, so potentially these aren't correct to the minute, either. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Re Edward VIII's death occurred decades later - in my original question I talked about the transition between one monarchy and the next, and I explicitly said "The precise moment of death (or the moment when an abdication comes into legal effect)". It was I myself who researched the moment when he signed his own Act of Abdication, bringing his reign to an immediate end, and added the information to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, they are not all known, when you think of the battle death(s) and the secret prison deaths that will never be known. But of those that could be, Wiki articles actually give quite a few. I’ve only gone back to the death of Edward I since Jayron32 covered the death before that, when the tradition started. Couldn't find you an existing list either. (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Exact time given:
Approximate time given:
  • William IV, “died in the early hours of the morning of 20 June 1837”.
  • George II, not long after 6 am, after leaving time for drinking a cup of hot chocolate, going to the bathroom, collapsing, lifted into bed, daughter sent for. 25 October 1760.
  • George I “in the early hours before dawn on 11 June 1727” (Julian calendar date).
  • Anne “around 7:30 a.m.” 1 August 1714.
  • Mary II “shortly after midnight on the morning of” 28 December 1694.
  • Charles I “At about 2:00 p.m” 30 January 1649.
  • Elizabeth I “between two and three in the morning” 24 March 1603.
  • (Lady Jane Grey “morning” 12 February 1554.)
  • Henry VI “the night of” 21 May 1471.
  • Edward I “morning” (when woken for breakfast) 7 July 1307.
Wiki articles are silent on: William II 8 March 1702. James II/VII 16 September 1701. James VI and I 27 March 1625. Mary I 17 November 1558. Henry VIII 28 January 1547. Henry VII 21 April 1509. Edward IV 9 April 1483. Henry V 31 August 1422. Henry IV 20 March 1413. Edward III 21 June 1377.
Plus the ones you will never get precise times for:
  • Richard III in thick of battle 22 August 1485.
  • Edward V in prison but even the day is unknown.
  • Richard II in prison at an uncertain date around 14 February 1400.
  • Edward II in prison and people are dubious about the official declaration of “the night of” 21 September 1327. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
This would all be a lot easier in any cases of them having their heads chopped off at dawn. Hayttom (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort you've put in, although I really would have preferred an existing list, preferably from some official source or at least from a reputable publisher. But maybe it doesn't exist. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Nat King Cole classificationEdit

Hi! I'm Dswitz10734, an editor here. I'm researching Nat King Cole, and could not find his musical designation (tenor, alto, soprano, etc.). Can anyone help? Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

His voice type is baritone. You can see it in the categories at the bottom of the article, and see also here. It should be noted that voice types are generally used in European Classical tradition, where voice types are used to write parts for choir or for opera. See, for example, SATB. Singers in other traditions, such as pop or jazz (either category could be used to describe Nat King Cole's music) are sometimes so classified, but it is not always a helpful distinction. Some pop, jazz, or rock singers may have voice types that lie between traditional definitions, cross several of them, or may defy categorization in those terms (since the classifications were developed to fit into a different musical tradition). But that's probably too much of an aside, Cole is clearly a baritone, if you listen to him he fits squarely in that voice type, and most sources (see above for one I found, also see [1], [2], etc.) describe him as such. --Jayron32 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
See also voice classification in non-classical music.--Shantavira|feed me 15:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The King is listed in List of baritones in non-classical music, with references.  --Lambiam 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jayron32, Shantavira, Lambiam: Thank you for your assistance. Have a great day! Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thai provincial nationality, religion, language, and/or ethnicity data for other years?Edit

I recently created this Wikipedia article: Nationality, religion, and language data for the provinces of Thailand. I was wondering, however, whether there is any similar data–as in nationality, religion, language, and/or ethnicity data–available for Thai provinces for other years–as in, for years other than the ones that are mentioned in this article? Futurist110 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Woolworth retro activismEdit

Did a group of retro activists create an online store with the F.W. Woolworth Company name? If yes, why isn't it mentioned in the article about the company?2603:7000:8100:BD38:34D9:4635:394F:8EBC (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What does your own research indicate? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It indicates this [3].2603:7000:8100:BD38:B8AB:9532:FC94:14E1 (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
In general, for something to be recorded in our encyclopedia requires two things. First, it has to be something that is notable (of encyclopedic interest) and can be referenced to reliable (independent) sources – what we call "original research" is not allowed. Second, some volunteer must undertake the effort to add the information in an appropriate way. This does not appear to have been picked up by news media, and we are not in the news business ourselves.  --Lambiam 08:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
There was a hoax on Twitter in the UK last year, that Woolworths was coming back. This was reported in the press and later rebuffed by the owners of the Woolworths brand [4]. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

February 23Edit


What are some examples of extremely beautiful written novels that make readers move emotionally a lot ? For eg, in the Netflix TV drama House of Cards, there's a writer Tom Yates whose writing has such a reputation and some excerpts which are read in the show are simply exhilarating. Is there a real life example of an author whose writing is so beautiful that it smites everyone who reads it ? 2405:205:148C:D372:B01E:7670:E476:FC17 (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As noted at the top, "We don't answer requests for opinions..." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there a joke that is so funny that everyone who hears it almost dies from laughing? If there was one, you would have heard of it.  --Lambiam 08:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
That would be the Killer Joke.--Shantavira|feed me 08:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Almost. —Tamfang (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Different people are going to find different things moving. It seems unlikely that any writer could potentially affect everyone. Some people don't care for Shakespeare. I'd bet that the closest we could get to universality would involve emotions usually excluded when we speak of being emotionally moved: disgust and horror. Matt Deres (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"Some people may read War and Peace and think of it as a simple adventure story. Others may read the contents of a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe." - Lex Luthor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ancestry of Mustaqeem de GamaEdit

I find in the news about some Mustaqeem de Gama, "Counsellor at the South African Permanent Mission in Geneva". I am curious about his name. From his looks and "Mustaqeem", I guess he has ancestors among the Indian Muslims in South Africa, but "De Gama" throws me out. It is the (at least) Spanish version of Portuguese "da Gama" as in Vasco da Gama, a Portuguese figure in South African history. My question is: is this "De Gama" an adopted name referencing South African history? Does he have Portuguese (or Goan or Portuguese African) ancestors? Thanks for your ideas. --Error (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This is Dr Muhammad Mustaqeem de Gama, who is married to Rafia. She is Pakistani-African, born in Pakistan, from where she moved to Mauritius, Europe and South Africa. On Twitter she describes how our article Calibri was targeted by editors attempting to cover up alleged corruption by the president of Pakistan. We also learn that the closure of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in April 2020 due to coronavirus was the first since bubonic plague in 1349. (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The Arabic term مستقيم "mustaqīm" means "straight, honest, righteous". I have the impression it is a given name, as suggested by an author's expression of indebtedness being formulated as his being "extremely grateful to Professor Mustaqeem de Gama, Professor Gary Sampson, Lina Westin and Christopher Smith",[5] or even stronger when the names of the Ethics Committee at Stellenbosch University are listed as "Johan Hattingh, Mustaqeem de Gama, Callie Theron, Ian van der Waag, Elmarie Terblanche, Clint le Bruyns"[6] [underlining added. --L.]. The given name "Muhammad" suggests that he was born into a Muslim family. The version "de Gama" is also found in Portuguese names; for example, Branca de Gama was a 17th-century captain of the donatarie of Santa Maria Island, mentioned in Captaincies of the Azores § Donatary-Captaincy of Santa Maria.  --Lambiam 10:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, his wife is from a Muslim family and it is a Muslim marriage with three children. (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There is also a person named "Rafia de Gama" who worked at the University of Stellenbosch,[7] currently at the University of Geneva.[8] The Arabic term رفيعة "rafīʿa", the feminine form of an adjective meaning "sublime", is also used as a given name.  --Lambiam 11:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Rafia, née Akram, is his wife, as I said before. (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I suspected that Mustaqeem is an Arabic name, and I guess that most people with Arabic names in South Africa are Cape Malays or South African Indians (Pakistanis?). But how does a South African man with Malay or Indian (subcontinental) ancestry end with a famous Portuguese surname? --Error (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There are quite a few Portuguese South Africans, and the surname "de Gama" occurs more often in South Africa. All that is needed is for one patrilineal ancestor, in a Portuguese ancestry that goes back perhaps more than ten generations on African soil, to have converted to Islam and married into a family of Asian descent. That would by itself not have been particularly remarkable.  --Lambiam 14:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Names are funny things, and while we can see trends, we aren't always able to assume that every human on the planet obeys those trends. Even ignoring a bias towards Western European Naming Conventions, we still get oddities. My mother's maiden name, which is very French, comes from her paternal grandfather who was of Blackfoot First Nations ethnicity; we don't know much about his deep ancestry, but none of his relatives were NOT of Blackfoot extraction themselves. Whether he had an unknown ancestor who was French, OR whether an ancestor had adopted the last name for whatever reason, we don't know. All we do know is that here's an indigenous Canadian with a French last name who moved to Massachusetts. Similar to the Mr. de Gama noted above, all that we know is that the Portuguese been in both India and southern Africa; there are a many plausible explanations for how a South African person would end up with an Indian first name and a Portuguese last name. Is it a bit unexpected? Sure. Is it entirely implausible? Not at all. It's a big world and there's been enough history of people moving around the world for hundreds of years that one would expect things like this to happen from time to time. --Jayron32 15:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That would be a white (in South African terms) or (less likely) black patrilineal ancestor converting from Christianity to Islam in a Christian-ruled country while keeping his Portuguese surname and marrying into a Coloured (South Africa) family in a country famous for its former anti-miscegenation customs and laws. It would seem extraordinary to me, but I am not an expert about South Africa.
I was also thinking about some law forcing European (or placename) surnames on people.
Portuguese South African links to Vasco da Gama (council speaker), who is categorized at Category:South African people of Mozambican descent and was born in 1959 in Transvaal.
It seems that I'll have to content with guesses here. Thanks.
--Error (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Christianity was the dominant religion among the ruling classes in European colonies, but it was not like it was a state-imposed religion on the population; Mozambique in particular had a significant Muslim minority. Many of the Portuguese South Africans (or an ancestor of theirs) came from Mozambique; an ancestral conversion could have taken place there generations ago. But note that the earliest Muslim community in South Africa, the Cape Malays, dates back to the 17th century; the occasion of the conversion could conceivably have been a marriage into this community. The South African ban on mixed marriages came into force only in 1949.  --Lambiam 12:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

February 24Edit

History of Zunyi -- sources?Edit

Hey, I've been trying to work on the Zunyi article and been trying to find an in-depth history of the city. Unfortunately, information seems to be rather sparse? Britannica has a bit of information, but I'm having trouble finding some deeper, concrete information. I've tried looking on Baidu, but I just really see Baidu Baike and Zhihu answers, and a lack of reliable sources. Could anyone help point me in the right direction? Maybe I'm missing something? The sources can be in English or Chinese. Thank you! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried investigating the sources/information on the Chinese Wikipedia? They aren't necessarily the best either, but I think it might provide a helpful starting point as you research. bibliomaniac15 02:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a great idea! Thanks for suggesting that. I looked at the Chinese article and it has some good material as a whole, and the history section looks similar to what I saw on sites like Zhihu, so I think it's proabably accurate (wish they cited their sources though, haha). At the very least this'll provide a good starting point, like you said. Thanks! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The Poet Zheng Zhen (1806-1864) and the Rise of Chinese Modernity is an English language source which has some historical background about Zunyi (from p. 45). Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Also The Legend of Zunyi, a 2013 article in China Today. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bronx Supreme Court/Supreme Court of USAEdit

Does the State Supreme Court in the Bronx have the same symbol/logo of the SCOTUS? If so can this logo be used in a court-case article on Wikipedia? SenatorLEVI 03:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't use the same symbol. Bronx uses the NYS seal, when needed. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. SenatorLEVI 03:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
No, and bear in mind that in the state of New York, "Supreme Court" means trial-level court. It is very unlikely that a NY State Supreme Court case should have an article about the case itself (as opposed to the incident that gave rise to the case). (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with that, I was browsing through Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law, and found People v. Tabitha Walrond with the same court I asked about. It has several sources and can easily be used to make an article. I dropped it because I'm unsure on how to make a court-case based article due to my inexperience. SenatorLEVI 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
If an article should be made about that case, it should probably be entitled Death of Tyler Walrond. See WP:CRIME. Unless there's some particularly important aspect of case law here, it shouldn't have a standalone article about the litigation—and it being a relatively recent (i.e., last 100 or so years) state trial court decision, it's not precedent-setting and unlikely to be cited for anything really, and therefore isn't going to be important case law. Also, I should note that the case cited at the requested articles list is the appellate division case... which was essentially a summary affirmation. It's not a notable case on its own, whoever put the case and that blurb at the requested articles page is flat out wrong. There are not any sources listed there of the type necessary to justify an article about the case itself rather than about the crime. (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, however it is an important case of that time IMO. Its been mentioned in multiple news websites/papers and also gained a lot of attention. It also highlights the failure of doctors at that time to inform the mother properly, it could also be linked to racism against black people at that time IMO. Multiple sources state negligence of Medicare as well as doctors. I've found enough material to make it a good article. However its not something I'd write any time soon due to the difference in format. SenatorLEVI 07:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
All that has to do with the crime and not the case. An article on caselaw exists because the caselaw is significant. The event leading to the case may not be notable (and often is not). All the coverage you mention deals with the underlying crime, public policy that led to the crime, and racial inequities that may have led to the crime. There's nothing different here regarding "format" than any other crime article. Seriously. Look at articles about crimes and look at articles about case law. Try and figure out which of those two pigeonholes this subject belongs in. I guarantee you, the answer is crime. (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Compared to other caselaw articles this one has significant coverage, both in the number of reliable sources as well as information online. The event to the case is notable, there is enough buildup before the actual case (for a lack of a better description). Other parts like Court background is also present as well as media coverage. When I said format I meant compared to the articles that I have written. Due to my inexperience and the fact that I have only written 4 articles something like a caselaw article with the info-box, specified lawyers and judges, laws applied, citations, court membership, etc would be hard for me. Regardless I am not going to be writing this article until I think I am ready to do so, or if someone else has. SenatorLEVI 10:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
All of the coverage is of the events. Not the law. I don't know how I can be clearer about this. (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The event is what the article would be about. There's nothing else to be clear on. SenatorLEVI 02:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Viewers of the Law & Order TV franchise would be familiar with the way "Supreme Court" is used in New York City. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally, it's not just New York that's like that. Here in Ontario, Canada, for about 100 years starting in 1881, the "Supreme Court of Ontario" included both a trial-level court for important cases and the Ontario Court of Appeal.
P.S. Could you lose the bright colors in the signature? They're kind of distracting.
-- (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like ketchup, mustard and bleu cheese. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Changed it, probably long overdue. SenatorLEVI 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

See New York Supreme Court for background and Bronx County Courthouse for the court. Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, while the Judiciary of New York (state) has a court structure similar to the Federal Judiciary, the terminology doesn't match. This table should help clarify:
Court structures of NY vs. US
State of New York United States
New York Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the United States
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division United States courts of appeals (commonly called "circuit courts")
New York Supreme Court United States district court
There are other courts outside this structure, since they don't operate in perfect parallel. For example, New York also has county- and city-level courts for hearing minor civil and criminal cases; no equivalent exists at the federal level. Similarly, the U.S. has subject-matter specific trial (district-level) and appeals (circuit-level) courts that have no New York equivalence. --Jayron32 13:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The Canadian system looks to be modelled on the English one. In 1873 the various courts (e.g. Court of Queen's Bench) which dispensed law and the Court of Chancery (which dispensed equity) were merged into three divisions of the High Court (Queen's Bench, Chancery, and Probate, Divorce and Admiralty). All branches dispensed both law and equity. The High Court and Court of Appeal together formed the Supreme Court of Judicature, and the final appeal court was the House of Lords. The system lasted till 1999 when the appellate function of the House of Lords was transferred to a new Supreme Court. (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

English royal non-assent under the StuartsEdit

Under the Stuarts, when the monarch did not grant royal assent, what was the process: did the monarch outright reject the bill in some way (comparable to the US President's veto today), or did the monarch simply ignore it, or were both processes used? Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

See Disappearance of the veto in England. Yes, the Stuart monarchs could and did refuse their assent, but they could also give their assent and then invoke their power of dispensation which suspended the legislation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood, but it doesn't address my question at all. Let me rephrase it: during this era, if the monarch chose not to grant royal assent, would he (1) outright reject the bill, (2) merely ignore it, or (3) sometimes reject it and sometimes ignore it? Nyttend (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
That appears to me as a very different question; the House of Stuart ruled only until 1714, which precedes "this era" by a considerable gap. The rephrased question is too hypothetical to be answerable. At the very least, one should consider the cause of the monarch's reluctance to grant assent. Is it displeasure because the bill, as presented, grossly and wantonly impinges on generally accepted human rights? Or does it severely curtail whatever rights the monarch still possesses? Surely, the extent to which the bill was supported in parliament and is supported by the general populace will be a factor. One can only speculate what might happen, and then one person's opinion or prediction will be as baseless as the next one's.  --Lambiam 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you men, speculation? If records exist, anyone familiar with them could answer the question. During part of this era, the monarch ruled absolutely, and during the rest of the period, as Alansplodge's link demonstrates, vetoes were still an accepted power of the monarch; that's a good deal of power. The concept of "generally accepted human rights" didn't develop until centuries after this era, and an appeal to the general populace is ridiculous generations before the Reform Act 1832. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It is clear that the two of you are using "this era" to mean different things. Lambiam is taking it to mean "the era we're currently sitting in" and Nyttend is taking it to mean "the era under discussion". You should probably first come to an agreement on which definition you want to use before continuing your argument. --Jayron32 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The actual procedure of assent used before the 19th century (which is perhaps what you are asking) is described here:
"When there is no business that requires immediate dispatch, the king usually waits till the end of the session, or at least till a certain number of bills are ready for him, before he declares his royal pleasure. When the time is come, the king in the same state with which he opened it; and while he is seated on the throne, a clerk, who has a list of the bills, gives, or refuses, as he reads, the royal assent. When the royal assent is given to a public bill, the clerk says, le roy le veut. If the bill be a private bill, he says, soit fait comme il est desiré. If the bill has subsidies for its object, he says, le roy remercie ses loyaux sujets, accepte leur bénévolence, et aussi le veut. If the king does not think proper to assent to the bill , the clerk says, Le roy s'avisera, which is a mild way of giving a refusal". (Le roy s'avisera might be translated as "The king will advise upon it".)
The Constitutional History of England by Henry Hallam. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

One phrase in the ConstitutionEdit

Courtesy link - Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Qualifications of Members DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, para 2 says at the start and the end of this paragraph "No Person shall be a Representative ... and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen"

I don't understand it. What does it mean? AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If you don't live in State X, you cannot be elected as a representative for State X. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
It's written like a double negative. It means you must reside in the state you are representing. RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The first negative does not cover the statement, second does, however, altogether it sounds like you cannot live in the state where you want to be elected. Strange. AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The archaic uses of "shall" make this harder to understand, Rephrasing this in two steps: (1) No one can be a Representative if they are not, when elected, an Inhabitant of that State in which they were chosen. (2) If someone is not a resident of the State in which they were chosen at the time of their election, they cannot be a Representative. Note that the double negative is maintained.  --Lambiam 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There are times when I wish they had stopped after “No person shall be a Representative” (same with: “Congress shall pass no law”). 😉 Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
What is it with the US Constitution and weird use of commas? The Second Amendment is probably the most notorious use, but as you note, in this case it seems to reverse the intended meaning of one of the second requirement. The actual text of the clause is "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.", which parsed logically looks as though it means:
You cannot be a Representative if any of the following apply:
  • You are under 25 years of age
  • You have been a citizen for seven years
  • You do not reside in the state for which you have been chosen.
I think they really need to drop the first comma, or put another "not" before "been a citizen". (Or stop using the weird construction with double negatives and just say "a Representative must be at least 25 years of age, have been a citizen for at least seven years, and reside in the State for which he shall be chosen"). Iapetus (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
That analysis would apply if the text had been, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and who shall have been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." The participle "been" is governed by the same finite-verb combination "shall not have" as the prior "attained", and so the the first "and" conjoins two subclauses both governed by "have" and has the force of logical conjunction. Also without consideration of the verb forms, the absence of "who shall" after the first "and", combined with its presence after the second "and", should make it clear that the intention is as indicated by the bracketing in "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have (attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States), and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." In the days the constitution was drawn up, there were no manuals of style or punctuation guides around. As a rule of thumb, a writer would insert a comma wherever they were inclined to briefly pause when reading a sentence aloud.  --Lambiam 12:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
18th century legalese. It probably made sense at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I look at that sort of stuff and wonder, what on earth were they thinking? It's as if it is deliberately written so that only lawyers could understand it. These days that sort of phrasing may as well say, "I went to a third rate law school." (At work I often find, after spending maybe an hour and a half trying to make an email or similar as clear and concise and jargon-free as possible, the end result is only four or five sentences. I think, "Huh? Is this how really how I was taught to write?... Well, yes, as a matter of fact it is.") Pete AU --Shirt58 (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This means Donald Trump can be elected a Representative in at least two states: Confusion and Denial. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
And knowing The Donald, he would probably try for both at the same time. 🙃 Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes fair use of Australians' web content, under their new law?Edit

What kind of content is Google and Facebook paying for? I've never used Facebook and Google's search engine only gives snippets of content, plus we often share webpage addresses, but is this status quo here being jeopardized? Obviously Google and Facebook can afford to pay A$ to Australian publishers, yet it seems these guys would seem to be rather happy with draconian pay-to-play arrangements in place to keep other search engines and platforms at bay. So what is the impact of Australia's new law, if any, on the continuance of fair use practices in general, such as the sharing of links to Australian websites on Twitter, on Wikipedia, or in articles published in the USA? --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What does fair use have to do with Australian law? Copyright law of Australia has never had fair use. It's only had fair dealing, like quite a few Commonwealth countries. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
So I want to know how the new law affects their specific fair dealing exceptions to copyrights. Precisely why the law affects Google's and Facebook's wallets, but apparently not Wikipedia's? --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This is interesting. Fair use and fair dealing fall under "fair practices" and Europeans favored the news generators over news aggregators, but American law favored the news aggregators. [9]. --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
OK. I've found a partial answer here. "Improper use of materials outside of legislation is deemed 'unauthorized edition', not copyright infringement." --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It's still unclear to me how it can affect internet platforms such as Wikipedia that have a global reach. --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has a legal team whose job it is to deal with that. Ordinary editors such as you and I have no responsibility in that regard. --Jayron32 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
So is Wikimedia Foundation's legal team dealing with that and are they going to share their conclusions with us? 2003:F5:6F0B:9F00:C489:F4F6:2036:991B (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Marco PB

February 25Edit

Vietnamese and Thai military power questionEdit

In the late 1970s and 1980s, which military was stronger: the Vietnamese military or the Thai military? Futurist110 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Referring to the Cambodian–Vietnamese War era: "Thailand's capacity to repel an invasion was woeful. Thai military planners likely would not have been confident of their capacity to repel a full-scale military attack without significant external assistance. A Thai-Vietnamese conflict along the Cambodian border would have been mainly a land conflict. Total Vietnamese forces in Cambodia numbered 160,000, divided into two commands and twelve divisions. The number of Vietnamese troops in Cambodia alone exceeded that of the entire Thai army. In addition to numerical strength, Vietnamese forces had good equipment and considerable combat experience".
Strategic Culture and Thailand's Response to Vietnam's Occupation of Cambodia, 1979–1989: A Cold War Epilogue. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Thai-Vietnamese confrontations during this period - the issue of military capacities here isn't limited to 2 sides. There were communist guerrillas inside Thailand (People's Liberation Army of Thailand), there were Vietnamese-aligned Cambodian forces but there were also the anti-Vietnamese Cambodian factions based along the border. --Soman (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


If a recall election for Gavin Newsom is placed on the ballot, would Newsom's campaign be allowed to take funds raised for his 2022 reelection campaign and re-allocate them towards defeating the recall election? (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is at least the third time you've raised this question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Correct, and I have yet to receive a definitive answer. (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
You won't get one here. You need to talk to a lawyer that deals with election law. And the answer will probably be "it depends". (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Did the website Rudolf posted below not help? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
try this website: [10]. There is also a phone number there you can call with questions. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
If the petition is successful, there will be a massive outpouring of financial support to assist Newsom to keep his job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I would further note that per [11] [12], as the recall part is treated as a ballot measure, a committee controlled by an officerholder to oppose the recall is not generally subject to limits. This includes opposing any candidates. (Committees formed by the candidates themselves to support their candidacy are subject to limits, although they can control a committee to support the recall which isn't.) And being able to receive funds from a restricted use account of a general purpose (actually I think any) committee [13]. So it doesn't even make much sense to reallocate funds from one which is subject to such limits unless you're really unable to attract new funding. And in some ways, isn't even really all new funding e.g. if the Democratic Party or some union or whatever has a committee which raises funds for candidates, they could if I understand it correctly, send funds they already raised from their restricted use account which they can't use for candidates to the governor's committee opposing the recall. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

February 26Edit

Taxation in SwedenEdit

In addition to having no wealth tax or inheritance tax, is it true that Sweden also has no property tax? StellarHalo (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A property tax is levied by the municipalities (see se:Fastighetsavgift), but it is capped at a relatively low ceiling; for 2020 reportedly 8049 SEK (about € 800 or US$ 975).  --Lambiam 09:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

February 27Edit

Is there any site that instead of showing how much the value of bitcoin at day X+N is compared to the dollar at the same day X+N, show how much the price of bitcoin is at the day X+N compared to dollar at the specific day X?Edit

Is there any site that instead of showing how much the value of bitcoin at day X+N is compared to the dollar at the same day X+N, so, how much the price of bitcoin is at the day X+N compared to dollar at the specific day X?

At all sites I could find, if you look at the price of bitcoin at january first 2020, it will how much of january first 2020 dollars, this january first 2020 bitcoin is worth. So it will show as some example 1 BTC = 1000 Dollars, but its implied that it is saying 1 BTC (january first 2020 value of the currency) = 1000 dollar (january first 2020 value of the currency).

Lets call bitcoin B and dollar D, the site will sort of show this formula: 1 B = 1000 D.

The problem is that the value of coins, like btc, dollars, euro, or anything else.... changes over time. At another date, lets say december 1 2020 the site will show 1 BTC = 1200 D, being implied that its saying 1 BTC (december 1 2020 value of the currency) = 1200 D (december 1 2020 value of the currency). The thing is, if the january first 2020 formula was 1 * B = 1000 * D, the formula for an another date will be ((1 * Y) * B) /Y = (( 1000 * Z) * D) /Y where Y is how much the value of BTC increased or decreased and Z how much the value of the dollar increased or decreased. If at december 1 2020, it shows 1 B = 1200 D, we can't solve the equation ((1 * Y) * B) /Y = (( 1000 * Z) * D) /Y to find the value of Y, first because at 1 B = ((1 * Y) * B) /Y , the value of Y can be anything that is not 0, and at 1200 * B = (( 1000 * Z) * D) /Y is also not solvable, only being able to know that Y is not 0 and Z is 1200 * Y.

So, is there any site that allow me to compare the value of bitcoin over time, with the value of dollar at some very specific day X? At the previous formulas it would be finding the value of Y.2804:7F2:68C:C9BA:BD84:116:CB13:FB88 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The notion of "the value of a dollar" increasing or decreasing requires a reference scale that is presumed to be stable. Perhaps the Big Mac Index? Unfortunately, it is not updated daily, but I suppose this index varies slowly, so I guess it could be integrated with the U.S. Dollar Index to take account of daily fluctuations.  --Lambiam 10:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The value of a bitcoin is exactly what someone (i.e., the market) will pay you for it. In that regard, it is an example of the “greater fool” theory: there is a fool out there, greater than I, who will pay me more than I paid for this financial instrument. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delaware and Puerto Rico as tax havens?Edit

Puerto Rico and especially Delaware have a reputation as corporate tax havens. What exactly makes people consider them as such? Is Puerto Rico a tax haven for individual income in addition to corporations as well? StellarHalo (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You linked to Delaware, where you will find the answer for that state at Delaware#Incorporation in Delaware and the linked article Delaware General Corporation Law.
The Puerto Rico article, however, does not contain the word "haven". -- (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The Investopedia article on Delaware corporations and taxes really says it all much better than I could relate here. (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's an article about Puerto Rican tax policy [14]. It is indeed looking to attract companies through lower corporate taxes, as well as wealthy individuals willing to cut ties with the mainland for tax avoidance purposes (article on that particular policy here [15]). In both cases, it appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon. Xuxl (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

March 1Edit


Who was the closest living male relative of Emperor Nero at the time of his death? (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)