Humanities desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 12[edit]

Rodearmel v. Clinton[edit]

Hello! I'm interested in getting some information about the case Rodearmel v. Clinton. The article Saxbe fix mentions the case in its "21st century" section, and the lawsuit basically claims that Hillary Clinton can't legally serve as the Secretary of State.

This Fox News video clip on Youtube talks about the lawsuit, and the reporter said about 1:55 into the video that Clinton had 60 days to respond to the lawsuit. However, 60 days have passed, and according to this website, the only filing that could resemble a response was a "Notice of Appearance by Jeffrey Michael Smith on behalf of all defendants".

Therefore, was this "Notice of Appearance" supposed to be Clinton's actual response to the lawsuit? If so, it seems like the reporter on Fox kept the viewers in a 60-day suspense for nothing. I hope I'm not misinterpreting any of the information I'm looking at...

In addition, I am thinking about starting a new article about this case, but I'm worried that it might not meet the Wikipedia:Notability policy. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge3 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the Saxbe Fix is well-accepted as fullfilling the Framers' intent in writing the ineligibility clause, and the folks opposing H. Clinton's appointment on ineligibility clause grounds are about as likely to succeed as the birthers claiming Obama is ineligible to be president on citizenship grounds. The Clinton case is appropriately mentioned in the Saxbe Fix article, but isn't worth writing a separate article about. 66.127.52.118 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but Clinton is still required to respond within 60 days of the legel filing, right? Therefore, has she decided not to respond to the lawsuit at all, or is the "Notice of Appearance" essentially her response?--Edge3 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it, could the 60 days have referred to 60 business days?--Edge3 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living long as possible[edit]

What is with the current obsession to live as long as possible? Lust for life, or fear of death? Desire to be fit, or obsession over looks?

My personal motto is that if my body isn't completely destroyed by the time I die, I'd consider it a waste of resources. I'd rather live 70 years and die in a painful two week span then live til I'm 90 and spend the last 20 years in debilitating chronic pain and dementia. Not to mention 70 years of enjoyment > 90 years of boredom.

--Pieppiep (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you suppose that the obsession is "current"? The desire for long life (and by extension immortality) is by no means a recent fad. I think most people would claim to agree with you about preferring a shorter, more active life to a longer, more decrepit one, but how many people actually put this attitude into practice? For many people (perhaps for most), 'fitness' is relatively unimportant. What is important is a relative absence of pain and inconvenience.

Also, I don't see how obsession over looks would contribute to a desire for a longer life. If anything, it would dispose you to the opposite: live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse. LANTZY ^TALK 11:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's of note that the young often have different views towards what they'd like when they are old than when they are actually themselves old. Similarly lots of able-bodied people have extreme views about whether they'd want to continue living if they were suddenly rendered disabled, but in practice most who end up so disabled suddenly discover that they'd like to keep on living anyway. Anyway, the problem with your scheme is that you probably aren't as good an estimate of what kinds of activities will make you live until age 70 anyway. If you consciously try to "destroy" your body by age 70, e.g. adopt a pattern of habits you think will incrementally lead to a total expenditure of bodily health by age 70, you might only make it to 55 and find yourself feeling a little gypped. (I know—any age decades in the future sounds "old", but they arrive a lot quicker than you think.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, many people would rather you didn't destroy your body (through whatever means) before you die. Organ donation is a rather important thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieppiep: your 70/90 assumption is wrong. That's not the choice you face. The anon is quite right about this. Life extension advocates call this idea the 'Tithonus error'; see 'The Tithonus option is not an option' and 'Combating the Tithonus Error: What Works?'

shemale[edit]

What does Islam say about Shemale? Is there a punishment for a woman having a penis?

That's an interesting way to phrase it. You might take a look at mukhannathun and khanith, both concepts within Islam relating to transsexuality. LANTZY ^TALK 13:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to avoid referring to transgendered or transsexual people as 'shemale'; it is a term coined by the pornography industry, and is regarded as highly offensive and demeaning. The Wikipedia article 'Shemale' includes a fair range of well-sourced criticisms of the term from commentators including transpeople themselves, and others. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to qualify what you're talking about, first. Are you discussing individuals undergoing gender reassignment, or are you talking about people born intersexed? Further, there's more than one branch of Islam, just like there's not a single Christianity that could answer this question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Isn't shemale an Arabic word for 'north'? —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

How much Christians were killed during the Holocaust?[edit]

I read the Holocaust article. But there is nothing about killed Christians. Is it true, that only Non-Christian-people were killed by the Nazis? --Manuel-aa5 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis targetted and killed several categories of people. The Jews were the most numerous and their genocide is the most well remembered. Groups that were not Jewish would have had some secular members, some nominal Christians, and some committed Christians. For example, the Nazis did not like gay people, degenerate artists, the Roma (Gypsies), trades unionists, and so on. Nazi concentration camp badges offers a handy shortcut to categories of hate. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not an expert on the holocaust, I'm pretty sure the Nazis used a very loose definition of Jewish people and Judaism was only one of their considerations. So it's likely some of the people who were killed as 'Jews' were Christians as well. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi party was ruthless in its persecution of any dissentors, regardless of religion. Leaders and members of the Protestant Confessing Church were persecuted and sometimes killed by the Nazis - see Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller, for example. Catholics also died in the concentration camps - see Edith Stein and Élise Rivet. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the many Christian and other non-Jewish victims of the Germans are not mentioned in the Holocaust article is that the Holocaust is a term that is most usefully and specifically descriptive of the Germans' anti-Jewish genocide. As the article states, in the strictest definition of "the Holocaust" the term is applied solely to Jewish victims, though not everyone uses the term so specifically. - Nunh-huh 02:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some more info at Holocaust victims #Religious targets. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two million Catholic Polish were killed in the Shoah. It wasn't relevant to the Nazi orchestrators that they were Catholic Christians, only that they were Polish/in the way. If you want a good story of a Christian who died in a concentration camp check out St. Maximilian Kolbe. --Joe^Talk_Work 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "Holocaust" is (too) often used loosely, "Shoah" usually isn't. If someone was not Jewish, he wasn't "killed in the Shoah". Being killed in a concentration camp is not equivalent to being killed "in the Shoah". - Nunh-huh 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legal - Not a legal advice, just a question.[edit]

When I go to work, I drive on a dark road, my question is, if a police car wants to stop me, is it legal to signal to the cop you notice him but that for my own safety I want to drive to the closest place where there are people around? or... can he force me to stop there (on the dark road). --190.49.107.126 (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking whether or not it is legal to do something is asking for legal advice. If you want to know what specific law may be in place with respect to the time or distance you are permitted to travel having been requested to stop by a police officer, then someone here might be able to help you if you tell us what jurisdiction you are in. As for forcing you to stop, that is hard to do without a road block as O.J. Simpson proved to the world. (I am interested that you live somewhere where it is being in a dark place with police officers that alarms you.) What you will likely be dealing with as soon as you finally pull over is the level of irritation in the police officers that has risen with every passing minute of "chase" and what effect that might have on their attitude towards you or their ticketing response. There will also be a difference in their immediate response if you are a 150-cm, 40-kg, 17-year-old female or a 2-metre, 90-kg, 30-year-old male. // BL \\ (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am 19 year old female in Argentina, some girls have been raped by police officers and one murdered years ago. --190.49.107.126 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in that situation, I'd put my hazards on and proceed cautiously to a well-lit gas station or something of that sort. I would also consider phoning the police on my cell phone to explain what I was doing, if that was something safe and possible to do. Crypticfirefly (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonably good advice right up to the part about using a cellphone. Chances are that the ~~cop~~ hardworking police officer is going to be upset as a result of the delay; providing him an opportunity to also cite you under DWD ("Driving While Distracted") laws isn't such a great idea. Also, fiddling with anything out of sight will increase the stress on the officer (who might assume it is a gun), escalating a traffic stop to a full arrest. Nothing in your explanation is time-sensitive; find a place to pull over *then* carefully and clearly make the call if you feel it is important (such as if the policeman is in an unmarked car). – 74 04:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any laws that prohibit using cell phones while driving do not apply if you are calling a police station or any other emergency services agency.--Edge3 (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to reference that statement? Here is a counter-reference: NHTSA legislative survey. Besides, attempting to argue law with a police officer is a futile undertaking; at best (but not at all guaranteed) you will be able to have the charges dismissed in court. – 74 04:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Illinois law, cell phone usage while driving is allowed while calling an emergency services agency.--Edge3 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is markedly different from "any", appears to be part of a "graduated licensing" program, still leaves open the question of whether or not a traffic stop is an "emergency", and is certainly no proof against a police officer who wants to write you another ticket. – 74 05:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for calling the police station is irrelevant; it would not make sense for a jurisdiction to prohibit people from calling the police. However, you're right that this law clearly doesn't apply in Argentina. I'm going to ask around in Spanish Wikipedia.--Edge3 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work for a company (in the UK) that had "vulnerable loads" - they had a special sign for drivers to hold up to the window if they were signalled to pull over by the police that read something like.

This vehicle is carrying a vulnerable load. The driver is instructed not to unlock doors or open windows. If required he/she will follow you to the nearest police station.

and on the reverse were instructions like

Vulnerable load instructions. When signalled to stop by the police you MUST obey, however beware of bogus police. Stop vehicle, keep engine running, do not open windows or doors. Display the other side of this notice through CLOSED window. If required display driving license, work record or tachograph disc through CLOSED window. If required to follow the police officer to a police station make certain it is a police station before stopping engine and/or unlocking doors

So in the UK it would appear you have to stop when instructed to but common sense allows the police to escort you to a police station for assessment rather than forcing you to exit your vehicle if you are not certain of the bona fides of the police officer. Exxolon (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the company believed they could get away with it doesn't mean there were no repercussions for the driver—the company's driver's license wasn't at stake, for instance, and they probably had a legal team to deal with any resulting charges. (As an aside, if a "vulnerable load" was so very valuable, stopping the vehicle to display a little sign advertising that fact is an open invitation for the would-be thief to draw his gun and threaten/shoot you through the "closed" window. (This, of course, does not apply to bulletproof glass windows.)) – 74 04:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was an "official" police approved notice. A modified version of this procedure is still used - see [1] - as this is in the UK firearms are very rarely used in criminal activity. Exxolon (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a link to an example of such a card - [2]. Exxolon (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that you are allowed to continue driving until you arrive at a spot you think is safe.--Edge3 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's for Jonesboro, though, and does not necessarily cover Argentina. // BL \\ (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak a little bit of Spanish; should I ask in the Spanish Wikipedia?--Edge3 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is honestly, from memory, but I do recall when a number of incidents occurred in my area involving police impersonators, the police advised to signal to the officer that you see him/her but you are going to keep driving until you find a well-lit area. I would basically stick my hand out the window and just "wave ahead" to let him/her know to follow me until I find a gas station or whatever. Supposedly, the police are supposed to be understanding of this, however, I tend to believe I would end up with a highly irritated cop at my window. That said, I am happy to know that we do not have the same problem the OP does with this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.220.154 (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Delhi Page[edit]

I cannot find any other page, so I am posting here.

The article on Delhi has a very high rating, but it completely fails to define exactly what Delhi is, a serious defect in the article. I have made a number of posts on the discussion page (Talk:Delhi) and on the Delhi workgroup page (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Delhi), but have received pretty much no help.

The problem with the name "Delhi" is that it's unclear whether it's the name of a city, a territory or something else. My best guess at this point is that "Delhi" is a nickname for the National Capital Territory and is often used to mean "New Delhi." I have proposed adding the below sentence, but have received no replies, so I am reluctant to add it:

Properly speaking, Delhi is known as the National Capital Territory. There is no official administrative unit of India that is called Delhi.

Can anyone help clear this up? Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence says Delhi is a "metropolis". What's wrong with that as a description? A city need not coincide with an administrative unit. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean "a metropolis"? Is it a city? Is a metropolis a government unit? Is "Delhi" just a nickname with no official status? BTW, I have never heard of a city not coinciding with an administrative unit. Whatever Delhi is, the Wikipedia article should explain it. Wakablogger2 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked metropolis in the lede of the Delhi article. Does that help? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that assumes (1) that the claim that Delhi is a metropolis is correct, and (2) still does not provide the actual status of Delhi as the definition of metropolis is vague. If Delhi is a metropolis, is it a large city within the NCT or is it a group of cities in and around the NCT? Some sort of proof is required. Wakablogger2 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself said that what Delhi is is variable and uncertain, so what's wrong with defining it as a "metropolis"?

Clearly the usage of the term varies depending on context and usage, and I doubt you can ever define it as "within a 21 km radius from the Presidential Palace" or anything like that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that. I said I'm guessing. The point is that the article pretends like it is giving facts, when it is not. If Delhi is a vague term, the article should make note of that fact. If "approximately a 21-km radius from the Presidential Palace" (to use your example) matches actual usage, then that is the description that should be given. Wakablogger2 (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, you've made a number of posts on the talk page without luck, I would suggest you be bold and make the changes you think the article needs. If someone else has a better idea, they can come along and discuss it, but you will have done your part. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead as Richardrj suggests and made the following addition/change: The exact status of the name Delhi within India requires clarification, but it appears to be an abbreviation of the "National Capital Territory of Delhi," a federally-administered union territory. Delhi also refers to the general urban area in and around the National Capital Territory (NCT) and is often used to refer to the capital of India, known more properly as New Delhi (also located within the NCT). Wakablogger2 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Dehli can mean different things at different times, depending on how it is used and when it is used; maybe it should be thus noted on the article. Your change seems appropriate.96.53.149.117 (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Crookshank - Died 1865[edit]

I have a document that is a burial certificate for the above person. It originates in Salford Manchester, England. Can anyone tell me more about it and William Crookshank please ? Is he famous ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvrilH (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have William Cruikshank, but not really Crookshank... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By googling ' William Crookshank 1865 Salford ' you can ascertain that he is not famous.--Wetman (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century German Metaphysics[edit]

Lines from George Soros's "The Alchemy of Finance":

"Once you leave the confines of scientific method you are in constant danger of getting lost in a world of your own creation and leaving reality far behind. It has happened before, in medieval theology and in nineteenth-century German metaphysics."

What happened to take nineteenth century German metaphysics off course? What articles could I read to get an idea of what he's talking about? I know he's well versed in philosophy, and I'm sure it's a clever reference.NByz (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The WP articles on Christian Thomasius and Christian Wolff may be a starting point.~~ Oops, not quite the 19th century... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I suggest Schelling and Hegel. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a general raspberry being blown at german idealism meltBanana 03:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could apply to Hegel and that tradition. It could also be a reference to Karl Marx and his materialist metaphysics which descended from Hegel; I'm not sure how much Soros agrees with Marx. Equally, it might refer to anti-rational philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer. The whole of 19th century German philosophy was one long succession of strange ideas. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to write down Hindi script[edit]

I've made a transliteration of a Roman letter word into Devanagari script on a few websites and I've managed to get a result, but when I try to copy-paste it into MS Word 03 (it pastes as-is everywhere else!!) it appears as lots of boxes. Now I've tried to do this before and I've been able to use Insert>Symbol with the font Mangal to replicate what the result was manually, but with this word I cannot do that. Um, can someone tell me how I can paste it properly, or what order and number of symbols I need to input to get it? The transliteration is आर्चोएस्त्ररेल. It should be coming out as 'Arcoestrela' or similar. Thanks!! Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a Computing and/or Language problem. However, the characters display with the Arial MS Unicode font, but I don't think they're entirely correct. For example, the first "r" is not transcribed, the next consonant comes out as a "ch", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I didn't see the Language section...poo, should I move the question then? Um, I unfortunately cannot understand the Devanagari script much. I used a couple of the online translators on the external links of Devanagari Transliteration and they both came out with the same result, so I have no idea how right or wrong it is. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say, I've posted this into the Language section. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The /r/ is there: it's the rightward hook after the feather of 'o'. (Yes, they really do write it that way.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Arcoestrela is a Spanish word (or at least pronounced like one), spelling it with k would get a more accurate transliteration. Also I now notice that the second r is transliterated twice, as part of the cluster str and then independently, resulting in ārčoestr(a)rel(a). —Tamfang (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]