Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< May 7 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 9 >
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.


May 8[edit]

Weddings of the century[edit]

not a request for references, but an invitation to prediction or debate. --Jayron32 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many "weddings of the century" can there be in any given century, before the term becomes risible?

Already Harry and Meghan's nuptials (still 11 days away) are being so described, despite the fact that his brother William and Kate already had "the WOTC" in 2011 (not to mention their parents Charles and Diana, although that was admittedly in a different century, which is why I didn't mention it). Then there's Lionel Messi (2017), Salim Mehajer (2015), Kanye West (2014), James Packer (2003), and the list goes on.

I mean, if the media got their story straight and described a particular wedding as "a wedding of the century" rather than "the wedding of the century", this would at least settle us pedants down for a while. As always, I seek meaning in the meaningless. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See tabloid journalism. SSS (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that makes America press look reasonable. Trump-Shillary really might've been the election of the generation (but [[WP:CRYSTAL) and the baseball player of the century really might've started last month. Time will tell. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That assessment can only be made in the final days of December, 2099. .Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
November 2099, unless the season's extended. And really century divisions are artificial so being the best of 1980 to 2080 should be enough (unless a way to stop a 1994 guy from reaching 2030 levels of aging in 2030 is discovered by 2030). Really being better than anyone from June 3, 1935 to June 3, 2035 should be good enough for provisional revocable close enough (even the 2020s if he ends up being better than Babe Ruth) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pedant alert: technically, this century won't end until December 31st 2020, due to there not being a year 0. WP:WHAAOE. See Century#Start_and_end_in_the_Gregorian_calendar. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know WTF we are talking about baseball but I don't understand the season point either. Even assuming the baseball season in the US doesn't change (which I assume is what SMW is referring to), the US and some others are trying to promote baseball in China and other places. Who knows if they will succeed but already a variety of factors have meant baseball is popular in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. For a variety of reasons baseball in these countries is significantly less competitive and lucrative than in the US. But 80+ years is a long time away and these countries have populations together about half of the US. I don't know what the seasons are like in these countries, but it seems easily possible the changes which may improve competition in them could potential change the time frames. And it's always possible that efforts to promote inter-country baseball competition will take off and contributions to such matches will end up being just as important if note more important than performances in local leagues. In other words, there's no reason to assume the baseball player of the century would somehow have to follow US seasons. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you either mean 1999 or 2007 for James Packer. Our article doesn't mention any 2003 wedding, nor does an internet search find anything. I gather there was talk of another wedding of the century for James Packer [1] probably in 2016 or 2017, but that didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reasonable answer, of course, is "n", where "n = the total number of weddings performed in the century". We can't answer this question with reliable references, because it isn't really a request for further reading. It's just a complaint about culture which happens to end in a question mark. We shouldn't entertain such discussion prompts, which are antithetical to our mission here at this reference desk. There's nothing inherently wrong with such discussions, which is why there is a place called "the rest of the internet" to have them. As far as here goes, well, this is not what we do here. --Jayron32 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What was the official currency of Nazi Germany backed by?[edit]

Was it backed by the gold standard,or by something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.26.207.253 (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Reichsmark: "The Reichsmark was put on the gold standard at the rate previously used by the Goldmark, with the U.S. dollar worth 4.2 ℛℳ." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All depends what period you're talking about. Those things changed rapidly and frequently. I would suggest finding a biography of Hjalmar Schacht, a fascinating and little known figure today, the banker who held the whole lot together. An important stage was the Rentenmark, the first stable currency post-Weimar, and how that was backed by the idea of mortgaging land, there being nothing else in the coffers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A financial instrument that is tied to the value of mortgages? What could go wrong? --Jayron32 12:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it didn't go wrong. It actually supported the financial rebuilding of Germany, despite the deprivations of Versaille, thus avoiding a second war in Europe. However the 1929 US crash then undid this success, and it was that which led to Germany's final economic collapse and the slide into Nazism.
It would be instructive to compare financial practice in Germany and the US, in both 1929 and 2007, and why these gave rise to such different results. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional follow-up question:Was the official currency of Nazi Germany made interest - free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous and original poster (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is debatable and debated ([2]). You can find similar financing patterns during many revolutionary eras, but they do not make promise of a relative political stability which would suggest that the pattern is viable in fine (and allow us to compare with the current era or anything we could genuinely durably call a system). Hitler's remark (for every mark issued we require ..) was backed by him benefiting a docile and collaborative population and finance, but whith this a communist ideology to be eradicated and a Jewish population to be persecuted and pressured. If you take Napoleon by contrast was only able to badly finance part of his campaigns, by borrowing money to Italian bankers. See also, Monetary reform. --Askedonty (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada East[edit]

What was the population of Canada East in 1851? 890,000 or 107,225? 208.95.51.38 (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user who added that contradictory and unsourced factoid in February was Hgk1867 (talk · contribs). You could try asking him, though he hasn't edited since April 1. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither figure has any reference, so should be treated as meaningless until such time as someone adds a proper citation to a reliable source. In general, you can ignore (as though it didn't exist and was never written in the first place) any statement, fact, or figure in Wikipedia that does not have an obvious citation to a reliable source, and can feel free in removing any such statement, fact, or figure that doesn't have one (though that is suboptimal. The more useful thing to do is to provide such a reliable source; but if you have made a good-faith effort to find one, and cannot after trying, then you can remove it.) --Jayron32 14:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In 2005, likewise unsourced, someone added some stuff which included a statement that Montreal's population was 107,225.[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The figure of 890,000 in 1851 corresponds with this page [4] from Statistics Canada for the population of Quebec (which was pretty much equivalent to Canada East at the time). So that's one acceptable reference. The figure seems to be derived from the 1851 Census [5] --Xuxl (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine detail: the cited page is from Quebec's provincial statistics department, but it cites data from Statistics Canada. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It must be the pop. estimate in the infobox which wrongly attributes the Montreal city population to the province. For Montreal an approximate one hundred thousand population in the 1870's is probable. See in fact Demographics of Montreal. --Askedonty (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That would be in line with the trends at Lower Canada (the former name of Canada East), which shows a rather steady population growth rate, and a (referenced) estmated population of 650,000 in 1841. The 107,225 figure seems obviously in error, as I can't think of any catstrophic event which would have lead to the evacuation or extermination of 550,000 people within a decade. Someone would have noticed. --Jayron32 18:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for the record, I have amended the article to include Xuxl's reference. --Jayron32 18:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action snapback of UN sanctions[edit]

As I understand it, per our article and these sources [6] [7], the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iran nuclear deal) effectively allows any party with veto power in the Security Council to force reimposition of UN sanctions by alleging Iranian non-compliance and notifying the Security Council that they aren't satisfied with the response of the JCPOA committee to this non-compliance and then vetoing any SC resolution about it. (This compares to the normal introduction of sanctions which could be vetoed themselves and also need a majority vote.)

From what I can tell, although the US has alleged Iranian non-compliance and is pulling themselves out of the deal and re-imposing their own sanctions, they haven't yet said anything about the UN ones or started the steps to re-impose them. Can someone provide sources confirming this?

Also are there any sources commenting on what the US withdrawal means for the UN snap-back provisions assuming they don't take the steps to force their reimposition? I would suspect the US can still unilaterally enforce the snap-back provisions at any time despite not being part of the deal anymore, and there is also no way other countries could remove the snap-back provisions without the US consent, but this is just a barely educated guess.

I'm aware there are also lots of what ifs here. Beyond what the US may do, also what Iran may do e.g. try and secure a deal with other parties especially China and Russia and to a lesser extent the EU. or simply abandon it; and the possible responses from all the parties that may result. And perhaps the US could be hoping these would happen to bolster their support for their stance given that as the 2nd source said, sanctions also require the support particularly of the major powers to be most effective. But I'm not interested in such discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do runaway children find work nowadays? Who will hire them?[edit]

A long time ago, runaway prepubescent and pubescent children will just run away from home or the orphanage. These stories are romanticized in literature and films. Nowadays, there are child labor laws prohibiting the hiring of children under a specific age, with 14 being the lowest age that an employer can hire an employee. So, employers can't hire any kid who is 8 years old. Will such children find employment opportunities in the countryside, working as farm workers? SSS (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See child prostitution. Remember that agriculture is a declining portion of the economy in most developed countries, that labor needs have been decreasing for a long time due to mechanization, and that documentation about individuals is far more comprehensive than 100-200 years ago; a farmer generally won't have reason to hire a strange kid in suspicious circumstances when he already doesn't need skilled help and when he knows that he'll get in a good deal of legal trouble if discovered. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's say a kid runs away from the orphanage or foster home. This kid is merely 10 years old and is somewhat literate. The kid searches for food in garbage bins, but no such luck. So, the kid attempts to steal food from a supermarket. If the kid is arrested, then wouldn't the kid be put back into the same orphanage or foster home? SSS (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It will vary in different jurisdictions. From my experience working in the sector in England, children who persistently run away are often moved to new children's homes, and may be placed in secure units, especially if they engage in offending or risky behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The days when a Horatio Alger hero could run away, and by pluck and luck be making large sums of money before being distracted by puberty have vanished. I suppose a sufficiently mature-looking teenager could join those seeking day labor--in my area, it's often outside the Home Depot. It would help of course if the person had a marketable skill, like carpentry.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the social services aspect described above, I used to work cases involving children being placed at facilities, and if they are at capacity, and these often were, they won't hold the bed of a runaway longer than a couple days. Not when there's a waiting list. The kid, when found, might have to wait in a temporary shelter or a short-term foster home while they figure out where the next placement should be.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S., babysitting, delivering newspapers, acting and making evergreen wreathes in a home seem the only choices.[8] That last one is just odd. Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Judge in the Llanfrothen Burial Case?[edit]

One of Lloyd George's most famous cases as a solicitor was the Llanfrothen Burial Case, where the Rector of St Brothen's Church, Llanfrothen had refused to allow a Non-conformist to be buried in the parish burial ground, despite the provisions of the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880. A burial then took place without the Rector's permission, and he took those involved to the County Court. The jury found for the defendants, but the judge reserved judgement, and then found for the Rector. When LlG urged that the shorthand notes of the court reporter would show that he was in error, the judge retorted that he did not care if there were fifty thousand shorthand notes. On appeal, the Divisional court ruled "The jury were perfectly right... there is an end to the plaintiffs’ claim". Lord Chief Justice Coleridge commented "As for this paper and these shorthand notes, I shall simply send them to the Lord Chancellor without comment, and if he does not take some steps I shall be surprised". The county court judge appears to have been called Bishop. So - did the Lord Chancellor take steps? Did Judge Bishop remain a County Court judge? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the relevant passage from Hansard:
MR MATTHEWS: After careful consideration the Lord Chancellor cannot find anything in the case calling for his interference, which, as the hon. Member is aware, is only applicable where a Judge has been guilty of misconduct. Tevildo (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies of Lloyd George call him John Bishop, so I take it this 1913 obituary (you have to click on the top of column 5) of a late-19th century Welsh Judge John Bishop refers to the same man. It appears he transferred to a South Welsh circuit in 1891, three years after the Llanfrothen case, and remained a County Court judge until his retirement in 1909. So Lloyd George didn't get his scalp, but doubtless never got his vote either. --Antiquary (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is very interesting - it says, amongst other things, that "Whenever Lord Halsbury-who as Sir Hardinge Giffard was chairman of the Carmarthenshire Quarter Sessions a quarter of a century ago- visited Wales, he was invariably the guest of Judge Bishop, whose father was one of lord Halsbury's closest friends. As a matter of fact, it was Mr Charles Bishop, when in practice as a solicitor at Llandilo and Llandovery, who gave Sir Hardinge his first brief". The Lord Chancellor who couldn't find anything in the Llanfrothen Burial Case calling for his interference was Lord Halsbury! DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You'd like to think things have changed, wouldn't you. --Antiquary (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Halsbury does not exactly have a great reputation, due to his role in the Cleveland Street scandal (1889), widely considered a cover-up.:

"Somerset returned to Britain in late September to attend horse sales at Newmarket but suddenly left for Dieppe on 26 September, probably after being told by Newton that he was in danger of being arrested.[1] He returned again on 30 September. A few days later, his grandmother, Emily Somerset, Dowager Duchess of Beaufort, died and he attended her funeral.[2] The Hon. Hamilton Cuffe, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, and James Monro, Commissioner of Police, pressed for action to be taken against Somerset, but the Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, blocked any prosecution.[3] Rumours of Somerset's involvement were circulating, and on 19 October Somerset fled back to France. Lord Salisbury was later accused of warning Somerset through Sir Dighton Probyn, who had met Lord Salisbury the evening before, that a warrant for his arrest was imminent.[4] This was denied by Lord Salisbury[5] and the Attorney General, Sir Richard Webster.[6] Probyn's informant may have been the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Richard Pearson.[7] The Prince of Wales wrote to Lord Salisbury, expressing satisfaction that Somerset had been allowed to leave the country and asking that if Somerset should "ever dare to show his face in England again", he would remain unmolested by the authorities,[8] but Lord Salisbury was also being pressured by the police to prosecute Somerset. On 12 November, a warrant for Somerset's arrest was finally issued.[9] By this time, Somerset was already safely abroad, and the warrant caught little public attention.[10]"

In another article examining the scandal (not on Wikipedia) Halsbury is again accused of his role in the cover-up. See: https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-teascandal.html?printer=true

  • "Lord Halsbury, the Lord Chancellor, excused the authorities’ inaction in the Cleveland Street Scandal stating that the offence alleged to have been committed was an offence created by a recent statute and only a misdemeanour. Years later, H Montgomery Hyde used almost the same words and expressed the same sentiment in saying that the offence of which Wilde was accused had been declared criminal by Parliament only ten years before and, according to most if not all continental codes of law, was not a crime at all.". Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps better suited to User talk pages. DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • As an aside, Dimadick, you don't have to actually copy entire paragraphs of text from an article at Wikipedia. A few words for the purpose of highlighting something in an article may be fine, but copying huge blocks of text in toto is unnecessary, because anyone can click the link and read the text. Just say "Read the last paragraph of the section titled "Notable clients" or some such. --Jayron32 16:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years. Whenever I tried to give instructions like "read that paragraph" or "notice the phrasing in that source", I was summary ignored by other editors. I firmly believe that the only way for some Wikipedians to read a text is for you to reproduce it fot them. So I am going to ignore your advice. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If they don't read it there, they aren't going to read it here. But hey, if it justifies your indignance, I suppose it makes at least one person satisfied. --Jayron32 17:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p. 61
  2. ^ Aronson, p. 140 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp. 80–81
  3. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp. 82–86
  4. ^ Aronson, p. 142
  5. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p. 93
  6. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p. 94
  7. ^ Ridley, Jane (2013). The Heir Apparent. Random House. p. 657 n. 84
  8. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p. 97
  9. ^ Aronson, p. 144 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp. 98–99
  10. ^ Aronson, p. 150
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2018_May_8&oldid=841464740"