Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• 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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 6

Vietnam War

What were the causes of the Vietnam War? 2600:8803:2B00:1320:9DA9:4B36:869B:417 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• See: Vietnam war. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what's in the article but IMO a lot of what gets written in the US media about Vietnam is wrong, so here's my opinion: The ultimate cause was that the UK and French colonial empires were disintegrating after WWII. Both nations were in debt and their populations were sick of wars. But the business interests in the west still got a lot of value from colonialism and after the war the US was both the richest nation and had the most powerful army. So we took over many colonial "responsibilities" of the British and French, which of course includes Vietnam where the French were thrown out by the Vietnamese people after their defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. The supposed reason for the US getting involved was that we were helping the South Vietnamese preserve Democracy but 1) the South Vietnamese government was never democratic, they had some of the most corrupt tyrants ever and 2) the Geneva treaty that the French signed specified that Vietnam would be one united nation. It was the US who encouraged a separate movement in South Vietnam and then responded to "requests" from the puppets we put in power. A justification for us sending more troops was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Supposedly, North Vietnam attacked USN warships in International Waters. One of the revelations in the Pentagon Papers was that the USN was conducting operations off the coast of North Vietnam where they would attack the coast and then move into International Waters and that the goal was to entice the North Vietnamese to make such an attack which could be used to justify further US presence both to the international community and the American public. Also, the USN claimed that there were two attacks but there was only one. The second one was probably a mistake in the fog of war where ships thought they were being fired upon but weren't. I recommend Chapter 18 in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States for more detail and references that don't just reflect the standard "the US fights to preserve Democracy" point of view. MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you should probably read our Vietnam War article. See also Domino theory for what was motivating the US, Australia and Thailand.

I'm not sure which British "responsibilities" MadScientistX11 is thinking of, but we were a bit preoccupied with fighting Chinese-backed communists in the Malayan Emergency and the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. Alansplodge (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, the British Empire was "disintegrating" and the US taking over its "colonial responsibilities" in part because, behind the scenes, the USA insisted that it be dismantled as a further diplomatic price for US help in WW2. This was over and above the publicly acknowledged repayments of monetary, materiel and other loans, which the UK only completed paying off on December 31 2006. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.131.160 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The Vietnam war was an anti- French war of Independence; but later a war of communist infiltration of the South by North Vietnam, helped by Russia. This attack on the South was supported by many nationalists in the South. But thanks to the Tet- campaign, which basically wiped out the South Vietnamese guerilla, the northern communists after victory had no problem to dominate Nam Viet.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Civil Wars

How can we prevent future civil wars? 2600:8803:2B00:1320:9DA9:4B36:869B:417 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• We can't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Well.... we could. But not many people would be in favor of the voluntary extinction of the human species.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Are you sure? (user:radh)--2001:9E8:5678:B300:C5D1:34DB:788C:9D90 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Very few would be in favor of their own extermination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• True, but a deliberate implementation of the situation in Children of Men, for example, would in itself kill no-one living, but would ensure the end of humanity. I'm sure there are Nihilists who would favour such a course. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.43 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There's always VHEMT, but I'm not sure what it has to do with civil wars... AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Easy. We make it illegal. Then we make it illegal to break any laws, including that one. This has the advantage of projecting us straight into Utopia. I don't know why nobody has ever come up with this idea before. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Jack ofOz -- Some who opposed the North militarily mobilizing at the beginning of the US Civil War advocated for something like that. If a member of a southern military unit shot at a northerner, then supposedly the proper response was not to shoot back, but to bring a legal case for attempted murder in the courts of Virginia (most of the early fighting was in Virginia, which then included West Virginia). I'm not sure how seriously the idea was ever proposed, but the idea was out there... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Elect Kang or Kodos Emperor of Earth in perpetuity (or they could switch back and forth from time to time, just for variety). A bit of eternal slavery would solve that problem. Either that or have rude people run things, so conflicts aren't so civil. No more "May I attack you, please?" Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

See Childhood's End. That book provides one way to do it. Comes at a cost, though. --Jayron32 15:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• post removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:570A:601:1139:8157:25CB:4FEA (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You are aware that you've just spent an entire paragraph covering information relevant to only approximately 1/200th of the potential civil wars in the world, right? Please try to be useful, and not ramble on with such rants as well. It is not what we do here. And the rules don't say there are no rules. They say you're allowed to ignore rules, if the rule gets in your way of making an encyclopedia article better. You've done nothing like that. Please stop, and if this is what you intend to do at the reference desk going forward, please don't return. --Jayron32 22:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I searched your question verbatim on JSTOR and came up with (among other interesting articles) "Preventing Civil War: How the Potential for International Intervention Can Deter Conflict Onset", the freely viewable first page of which claims that various factors are correlated with an increase in civil wars, including low average incomes and nondemocratic governments. It seems plausible, then, that one should raise average incomes and support democratic governments to reduce the chance of civil war. This jibes well with my own intuitive belief that democracy and a concern for public welfare tends to improve society and reduce discontent. Perhaps the role of democracy is that it provides a "safety valve", as it were: a method to change government without resorting to violent means. It seems reasonable to me that governments mutable by peaceable, popular means are less likely to be forcibly altered through warfare.

It's also important to differentiate between prevention and eradication. Other replies seem to have interpreted "prevent future civil wars" to mean "destroy all possibility of future civil wars occurring". I think it's more useful to interpret it to mean "take preventative measures to minimize the chance of future civil wars occurring". One of these goals is easier than the other. Shells-shells (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Presented without comment, James Meek's article "What are you willing to do?", examining civil wars around the globe against the current American context and considering that "if it is a real danger that civil war may threaten democracy, it is also a real danger that democracy may die because its defenders refuse to start one." Dr-ziego (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is very closely related to the=paradox of tolerance, popularized by Karl Popper; people who value tolerance will tend to allow intolerant people to become entrenched in power; and because the intolerant people are more willing to use abhorrent tactics to get and maintain power, the tolerant will tend to be marginalized over time. OR even more simply, if I'm willing to murder you to get what I want, and you aren't willing to do anything to stop me from murdering you before I murder you, you're always going to get murdered. --Jayron32 14:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As exemplified by the Russian revolution. At the time of the uprising the Bolsheviks were out of the country and the moderates had seized power. The Bolsheviks hatched a plan to return and oust them by undemocratic means. 2A00:23C4:570A:601:1139:8157:25CB:4FEA (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles. (German user--Ralfdetlef (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If the concept of the state is sufficiently discredited, maybe no one will bother trying to be it. —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

September 7

Did Admiral Halsey Really Say "...the Japanese language will only be spoken in hell"?

I'm writing an historical novel about the second world war in the pacific. I've come across various versions of the following quote attributed to Admiral "Bull" Halsey: "When we're finished with them, the Japanese language will only be spoken in hell" But when I google the quote, I find many quote sites but none with what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources, especially when and where he said it. It sounds like something he would say. I don't mean that in a negative way, I think one has to understand the mindset of people during war. I would like to include the quote but would like to also include where and when he said it. Or if he didn't say it (if known) how the quote came to be associated with him. Thanks. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This happens so often to me. After asking a question, I immediately think of the likely answer. As soon as I posted the above I realize "perhaps check the Wikipedia article on Halsey?" and sure enough there it was and he did say it right after Pearl Harbor. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: William Halsey Jr.#Early Pacific carrier raids. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Top tip: try searching Google Books for a better class of results (although not an immense improvement in this case, but Mark Felton is a reliable sort of chap). Alansplodge (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ian W. Toll has parenthetically "probably apocryphal" in The Conquering Tide. The citation is incorrect in the Halsey article, it's actually p. 81 of Admiral Halsey's Story and apparently the recollection of then Lieutenant H. Douglas Moulton his flag secretary. E. B. Potter in Bull Halsey cites this and Edward P. Stafford's The Big E. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How does Confucianism legitimize Yu the Great? (Or does it?)

The story of Yu the Great leaving his family for decades to stop the flooding of ancient China is a widespread tale, and Yu is often celebrated for his commitment. I wonder though, how does (or does it?) Confucianism legitimize Yu's decision to leave his family (& village) for so long? It seems starkly at odds with Confucian family and community values; perhaps it is simply a matter of 'higher purpose' or 'priority' in the Confucian lens, but maybe it's more complex? I am reminded of the frequent critiques to early Chinese Buddhism, where Confucians derided the tradition's emphasis on leaving society/family for monk-hood. Aza24 (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

September 8

UK's literature, contemporary of Savile's time

I was going through the article Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. It seemed there were multiple substantial institutional failures in addressing abuses in timely manner. When regular systems fail to provide justice to a large number of people, there would be some chance some of the victims or those who are closely aware of the plight would raise issue through literary media like allegorical poems, fiction, letters, autobiographies etc.

The Wikipedia article in popular culture takes note of documentaries and plays after inquiry into the scandal.

But specially UK's Savile's contemporary literary scene in his own life time would have been vibrant enough so are their any likely reflections of his misdeeds in his contemporary literature. Part of the time period people had access to blog writing tools so any examples of the victims expressed themselves through blogs etc. Then consider contemporary academic Gender studies reports too.

If not then why do even literate people having literary writing skills fail to take even fictionalized note of not so ideal experiences around them.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's very difficult to answer a question which asks why something didn't happen. Our article describes how he was protected to an extent by his reputation as a supporter of charities and all-round public hero, which turned out to be a front for his darker activities. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of people blew the whistle on Savile to the press. Without exception editors spiked the story, until it was eventually run by The Oldie. 2A00:23C4:570A:601:1139:8157:25CB:4FEA (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Federal Govt. Institutions and Economic Development

what could be the possible approaches to economic development that federal arms of government (judiciary, legislative and executive) may take in their own spheres? Grotesquetruth (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Enacting laws (Legislative branch), executing laws (Executive branch), and enforcing laws (Judicial branch) comes to mind DOR (HK) (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

impact assesment of government branches in catalysing economic development. Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

History of homicide detectives

Wikipedia automatically redirects homicide detective to homicide, which contains no law enforcement section. I was thinking the other day about how both pop culture and the actual real-life cops I know consider homicide to be the worst crime and therefore the homicide detective to be the highest or at least noblest distillation of law enforcement; like, nobody's making TV series about the detectives investigating fraud or writing books about the burglary squad. Do we have anything on when the earliest dedicated homicide squads were formed within police departments? I have a gut feeling they didn't exist pre-WWII but maybe coalesced as a full-time job around the 1960s or 1970s. Dr-ziego (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Homicide Squad, a 1931 crime film, indicates your timeline is incorrect. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As long as we are using fiction for evidence, the Sherlock Holmes stories depict Inspector Lestrade and Inspector Gerard of Scotland Yard … who are in charge of investigating homicides in the late 1800s. However, they might have also investigated other crimes. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out that the term and concept must have been well-known enough in the '30s that filmmakers were comfortable using it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Or that the concept was novel enough to make a striking title. —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, London's Metropolitan Police, whose headquaters are known as Scotland Yard (actually, it has been three different buildings in different locations over time), created a Criminal Investigation Department in 1878, replacing an earlier Detective Branch which had been found to be corrupt. [1] As far as I can tell, no British police force has a department specifically dedicated to investigating murders, they deal with other crimes too. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the relevant article is Murder#Investigation, but it's a one-liner at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• The modern notion of an investigative police force (rather than a watch service) is usually traced to no earlier than the 19th century, and the credit is usually given to Eugène François Vidocq, who started the investigative wing of the French National Police (then known as the Sûreté) in 1811. That at least gives a time frame on when to look for the first distinctly dedicated homicide investigative units. --Jayron32 12:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Tho not dedicated to keeping the peace as are police, we should mention custos placitorum coronae, there might be a jurisdiction in Colonial American where a coroner had arrest powers and conducted only death investigations. Probably not relevant to the question, but very relevant to the history of death investigations. fiveby(zero) 04:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ernst Gennat was the first head of the Zentrale Mordinspektion (central homicide inspectorate) of the Berlin police, the unit being established in 1926. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In The New York Times, the phrase "homicide bureau" is used as early as January 31, 1902, referring to a branch of the District Attorney's office which evidently worked closely with the police but which was not a part of the NYPD. It is clearly characterized as an investigative section in the issue of February 19, 1902. The last mention of this homicide bureau in connection with the District Attorney occurs in the issue of March 12, 1906. In the issue of November 28, 1908, reference is made to a "homicide bureau at Police Headquarters". Presumably the District Attorney's homicide bureau was reorganized to be under police control at some time between these latter two dates. Shells-shells (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are NYC poll workers treated so poorly?

Till it apparently rose recently to $250 they only gave a flat $130/day for being an election observer from 5am till the precinct gave final count which could be like 10pm. Plus $25 (now $100) for 4 hours of training (thankfully on a weekend). One old white guy did this every year for less than $8 an hour though at least they never asked him to travel far. They must be willing to commute to the rest of their county however so since half have to be registered to each party a lot of these workers are probably waking up about 4am and immediately rushing there and not getting to sleep till 10:30+. Most Staten Island Democrats are on the North Shore and they'd have to commute there up to about 13 miles at a time and place with very poor public transportation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I was an election worker in Napa County, California for many years and the circumstances you describe were very similar there. I certainly did not do it for the money but rather as a civic duty, a point of pride, and to learn the nuts and bolts of democracy at the lowest level. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd do it for free one time to see what it's like if I was guaranteed the second half shift and once more for free to see the first shift if I could do it jet lagged but I'd never do 17-hours more than once without a lot of money. And what if you have to stay till the wee hours waiting for someone to fix a voting machine bug? My circadian rhythm is a night owl trap: I've tried every way to get sleepy earlier for jury duty, school etc including sleeping pills and staying awake up to 40 hours and the quickest and easiest way is to spend about 3 weeks sleeping a little later every day till I went almost all the way around. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You and I are different and I was happy to do it once or twice a year for about 15 years although I am not a morning person. I was self-employed so I had the luxury of taking Tuesday and Wednesday off work. I would sleep in after the long day of hard work in the precinct, and then read about and watch the election results the next day. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

USS W. F. Babcock

While reading Golden Gate, I noticed an image of a 1920's postage stamp showing the Golden Gate with two ships sailing through. The most prominent is a square rigged sailing ship and the one in the distance has a plume of smoke. The Golden Gate article says that the USS W. F. Babcock is portrayed. The Babcock article says that the Babcock was a wooden schooner-rigged coal barge with no engine and a crew of six, that operated on the east coast of the U.S. during World War I. Would the Navy have sent such an inconsequential east coast vessel all the way to San Francisco, or (as seems more likely), is this a misidentification? If so, is there any way to learn which sailing ship is shown? And when did the US Navy stop using sailing ships without engines? Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Letters from voyages aboard the ship W. F. Babcock, 1883-1887 "Each letter documents a voyage in W. F. Babcock (Ship), including five between San Francisco (CA) and Liverpool (ENG)." Though doesn't appear to be any service 1917-1919 on the west coast. The citation in Golden Gate has "A painting by W.A. Coulter inspired the vignette. The full-rigged ship depicted in the painting and on the stamp was reportedly the “W.F. Babcock.”". Should probably be looking for a connection to the painting. fiveby(zero) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Err, maybe linked to wrong painting? fiveby(zero) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But this looks like Glory of the Seas off Fort Mason 1912[2]. fiveby(zero) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I missed "schooner-rigged" in your post, here's a photo of W. F. Babcock so it looks like we need to find a good reference to clean up all the WP articles. fiveby(zero) 20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Treasury promotions

In March, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak were appointed Lords Commissioners of the Treasury [3]. Why was it done at that time, given that both were being investigated by police and received criminal records shortly thereafter? 2A00:23C4:570A:601:1139:8157:25CB:4FEA (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Fixed penalty notices issued for offences under coronavirus legislation are non-recordable" says the website of the Criminal Records Office. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Regnal name of UK monarch

RIP QE2, long live KC3. The TV reported QE2 had passed, so I looked on Wikipedia to find out the new monarch's regnal name which turns out to be Charles III.

I have the impression that prior to QE2, becoming the UK monarch was like becoming Pope, in that you'd pick a name for yourself that only sometimes was your everyday given name. For example, QE2's father George VI was known as Prince Albert before his accession. George was one of his other given names. Similar happened with Queen Victoria.

Has that somehow changed? I don't mean to say Charles III's regnal name is a surprise, but was it completely predictable, or would another choice have also been a non-surprise? Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the name Charles III is official yet. There's a move discussion going on right now on the talk page. wizzito | say hello! 19:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This says he will be known as King Charles III. wizzito | say hello! 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There was talk, a few years ago, that he might take George instead - e.g. https://metro.co.uk/2018/04/27/will-prince-charles-called-king-king-george-vii-7503245/ -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• It’s now been officially announced (Charles III) … people just need to be patient. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

King George VI was known to his family as Albert (or Bertie), but George was one of his names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I have read that Queen Victoria wished that no King of England should ever bear the regnal name 'Albert' to avoid overshadowing her Prince Consort, and that George VI changed his name for this reason. However, I can not now find a reliable source for this. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That may have been the official line but this biography (p. 252) quotes MP Chips Channon, who claimed that the then Duke of York had chosen George instaed of "Albert which people will think too Germanic". It was less than 20 years after the Great War. He was always called David in the family, so probably wasn't too attached to the name Albert. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't it George VI's brother Edward VIII who was known as David? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, quite right, Albert was "Bertie". The perils of late-night editing. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Watching BBC TV coverage, they were initially careful not to use any reganal name, saying that it hadn't been decided yet. The title Charles III was first used by the prime minister, Liz Truss, in her speech [4] about an hour after the Queen's death had been announced. This was confirmed a few minutes later in a seperate statement by Clarence House, Charles's office in London. It's his choice but does need to be confirmed by parliament in the form of the Accession Council, which will probably do its thing tomorrow. It's a bit of a formality, but it reminds us that the King only reigns with the consent of the people. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading on the contrary that Queen Victoria wanted all her successors to be named either Albert or Victor(ia); but of course her son Albert Edward said phooey to that. —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Such a missed opportunity. He could have been Arthur. It's even one of his given names. How can you resist? --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We almost had a King Arthur a while back; see Arthur, Prince of Wales who died in a pandemic. Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lowering lower than half-mast

Were there any events where flag(s) was/were lowered lower than half-mast to show outstanding mourning? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can’t speak about the entire world, but in the US the official etiquette is that the flag is flown full or at half staff. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The convention in the UK and the Commonwealth is that the flag be lowered about one-third the way down the staff, [5] but some suggest only a flag-width down. [6]. Other nations may have their own ideas. Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In the US, that would trigger a race to the bottom to prove how patriotic you were, until they were dragging in the mud. — kwami (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a passage in the United States Flag Code that no part of the flag should ever touch the ground ("should never touch anything physically beneath it" is the actual wording). I'm sure there are similar official or non official rules in other places. So lower than half mast is a risk. Xuxl (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

legal system clarity.

modern jurisdictions follow either a common law/civil law or sometimes a mixed legal system. why were these legal systems exactly formed? what is the idea behind the concept 'legal system'? Does legal system mean the judiciary system? Grotesquetruth (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Do the sections Common law § Origins and Civil law (legal system) § Origin and features answer your question? The term "legal system" refers to the totality of the body of laws of a jurisdiction, which also includes the rules on how these laws are administered.  --Lambiam 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 --Lambiam by " totality of body of laws of a jurisdiction" does a legal system or a legal structure include also legal units like legal institutions (i.e; executive and govt. agencies, legislative and judicial institutions)?? Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no official definition of the combination of words "legal system". In general, the term can be used to refer to any collection of interrelated components that relate to law. When common law and civil law are referred to as legal systems, the term just means the laws (sets of rules determined by legislative bodies), and not the institutions that apply these laws to administer justice. But the term can also be used in a broader sense to encompass these institutions, or even in another narrow sense for solely these institutions. Usually the context will make clear which sense is intended if the distinction matters.  --Lambiam 19:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

alright so basically a system of directives/rules that tames social behaviours yeah? Grotesquetruth (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

September 9

Totem poles

For the record: I tried this first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but got no response. Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons just got a very nice contribution of high-res scans from the Seattle Public Library Special Collections, including some very nice late 19th-century pictures of totem poles. However, I've found enough errors in metadata in areas where I do know my stuff to be very suspicious of the metadata in areas where I don't. The following two high-res images were identified as being from Wrangell, Alaska:

• 
  Bear family totem pole and buildings in Wrangell, Alaska, ca. 1899
• 
  Beaver totem pole in front of home in Wrangell, Alaska, ca. 1899

However, they don't match any other images we have for Wrangell in that era, and we have a lot. I suspect they are from somewhere else near Wrangell, and I also suspect they will turn out to be the best images we have of the respective poles.

Any help would be appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Several images of photos of this totem pole, from other sources than those two above from the La Roche collection, have "Wrangell" on them in handwriting. This makes it likely they are indeed from Wrangell.

The totem pole can also be seen as situated in Wrangell in another completely independent source, Muir's Travels in Alaska^[7] (you may need to scroll up one page to see the image).  --Lambiam 08:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting: File:Bear family totem pole and buildings in Wrangell, Alaska, ca. 1899 - DPLA - a0b08c22c7783bb6f2d465163f5bfe51.jpg and File:Beaver Totem, Wrangell, Alaska. - NARA - 297737.jpg do appear to be the same pole, but if you look carefully at the top, the former appears to be topped by a bear, and the latter by a beaver! I wonder if at some point one was substituted for the other? - Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it. I think the animal was misidentified in one or both. It looks like the same carving, just a different angle and lighting, and more weathered in 297737 'beaver'. (The house is beat up by then too.) — kwami (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It is the same totem pole and it is from Wrangell. It is a beaver totem. I can not enter my own experience (OR) as evidence of this but there is other photographic evidence that is covered by copyright and therefore can not be included which verifies this as fact. However, as stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Anyone here with expertise on totem poles?, I recommend contacting the wonderful curators at the Wrangell Museum for clarification. --ARoseWolf 15:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is Prince of Wales?

The article Prince of Wales says that Charles ceased being the Prince of Wales when he became king, but it does not mention who currently holds that title. Is his son and heir apparent the new Duke of Wales, or does Charles need to appoint someone to that role? RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

RudolfRed, Duke of Cornwall is automatic and already assumed. Prince of Wales seems to require a formal step. as does Earl of Chester. Slywriter (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Source -https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/prince-william-kate-titles-queen-b2162984.html

Looking at the Prince of Wales article, it appears there have been lengthy gaps from time to time, and in any case it is not automatic; when used, it is granted by the monarch. So typically it would fall to William, though there's not necessarily any rush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

All noble titles belong to the sovereign as the font of nobility, who may grant them (as either lifelong or inheritable) to another person. Any title of a person who dies, or a family line that ceases, reverts to the sovereign. Therefore Charles has gone from Charles, Prince of Wales (because his mother bestowed that title on him) to Charles III (who holds the title Prince of Wales - along with many others - because it has not been granted to anyone else). He will almost certainly grant it to his son Prince William at some point, following tradition. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 07:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For 'font of nobility', read 'Fount of honour'. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 11:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Some monarchs have a long list of titles, all the way down to petty lordships, because their kingdom formed by accretion; Spain and the Netherlands are good examples. In Britain, on the other hand, the theory is that the monarch cannot be his own vassal; so all British titles held by Charles vanished when he became king, except those that pass automatically to the heir apparent (when such a person exists). — As I understand it, the titles Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester (though not automatic) are reserved to the heir, i.e., the king is not free to grant them to anyone else. —Tamfang (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• To clarify: Right now, there is no Prince of Wales.

We can assume that King Charles will follow tradition, and grant the title to Prince William. However, there is no need to rush it (it’s not like the position has to be filled immediately). They will likely wait until after King Charles’ Coronation. Guessing: it will be announced some time next year, or even the year after. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected… announced much sooner than I expected. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Did Edward VIII retain his Prince of Wales title even after he abdicated? If not, there was a gap of more than 2 decades before it was filled by Prince Charles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No, Edward did not retain the title. He ceased being Prince of Wales in 1936 (upon the death of his father, George V - ie when Edward became King) … and, yes, there was no Prince of Wales from 1936 to 1968 (when Queen Elizabeth II gave the title to Charles). Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But he did make off with the prince's coronet, it wasn't returned until the Duke of Windsor's death in 1972, so a new one had to be made for Charles to use in 1969. Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

“Directly His Majesty's decision [to abdicate] became known an obvious point for curiosity was that concerning his future style. Clearly he would no longer be ‘His Majesty’ or ‘King’. Prince of Wales? Equally obviously not. That title was reserved for the eldest son of the Sovereign, the Heir to the Throne. The ex-King would be neither the son of the new Sovereign nor his heir. ¶ The most comical suggestion I remember was to the effect that, though he could not revert to his old style of Prince of Wales, arrangements would probably be made for him to resume the style of Duke of Cornwall—and to resume, apparently, his enjoyment of the revenues of the Duchy! This ingenious suggestion ignored the legal and inescapable position that, equally with the style of Prince of Wales, the Dukedom of Cornwall—and its revenues—was reserved for the eldest son of the reigning Sovereign, and could be vested in no one else unless that son died during his father's lifetime and his son succeeded. ¶ From such fantastic suggestions speculation veered to the other extreme. Since all the titles which had accrued to him, those to which he succeeded when his father became King, and those which were subsequently created for him, became extinguished when he himself ascendd the Throne, then by divesting himself of the Crown the King became—what? Just an ordinary commoner like the rest of us? Just plain Mr. Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David Windsor? … ¶ There was certainly room for confusion. The case was without precedent. … ¶ I was at that time responsible for the news columns of The Sunday Times, and we had to decide in what way we were to refer to the ex-King, a point on which there was then no official guidance. The view I then expressed was that … the King reverted to the state in which he had been born, i.e. His Royal Highness and a Prince of Great Britain, styles which had not been created for him personally but which were his by right by reason both of his being the son of one Sovereign or the grandson in the male line of another. ¶ That, in fact, was the style accorded him when, on the occasion of his farewell broadcast, Sir John Reith introduced him to the world as ‘His Royal Highness Prince Edward’. I think it can be taken for granted that the then Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation was not speaking without having sought advice and received authority.” —Valentine Heywood: British Titles, 1951. —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• He just gave it to William now in his speech. Not sure if it requires a more formal step than that. Pinguinn 🐧 17:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I think that's it. William and Kate are now Prince and Princess of Wales. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See William, Prince of Wales (didn't take long did it?). Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Much sooner than I expected. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I expect there will be a written Patent, to avoid disputes. A few royal children from Stuart times are listed as “styled Duke of X” because the monarch called them that but never did the formal thing. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Two answers above don't gel. User:Verbarson said that Charles III retained the title Prince of Wales until he bestowed it on his son (which he has since done). But User:Blueboar said that Edward VIII did NOT retain the title after he became king, on George V's death. He had no son to bestow it on, in any event. Who's right? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Noone's wrong. I'm reading "He ceased being the Prince" but he's now in charge of the font of nobility. --Askedonty (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I may be misinterpreting you, Jack. I heard that Charles ceased to be the Prince at becoming king, on the TV first. --Askedonty (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See Hereditary peer § Merging in the Crown -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. The title merges in the Crown when the Prince of Wales accedes to the monarchy. Until such time as the new king grants it to his eldest son and heir apparent, it is held by nobody. Not even the king, except in the sense that it is in his gift to bestow on his son. Is that not so? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Authors writing under cross-gender pseudonyms

There are plenty of examples in 19th-century Western literature of women writing under men's names (some becoming quite famous). Are there instances of men writing under women's names? Outside of Western literature, are there any authors who wrote under a name associated with a different gender? Shells-shells (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For the first question, scanning through List of pen names, I see William Connor writing as Cassandra, Dean Koontz as Deanna Dwyer, L. Frank Baum as Edith Van Dyne, Peter O'Donnell as Madeleine Brent, and the grand prize winner, Ben Franklin, who wrote as Alice Addertongue, Caelia Shortface, Martha Careful, Polly Baker and Silence Dogood. I may have missed a few where the gender of one of the two names was not clear to me. CodeTalker (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This article mentions several 19th century men who wrote under women's pseudonyms. Pinguinn 🐧 05:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It gives a wonderful warm feeling, when one's curiosity is piqued by a slightly esoteric subject, to be presented with a lengthy dissertation on that very topic. Many thanks! (I'd certainly love to hear more answers, of course.) Shells-shells (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Many stories in the School Friend, aimed at girls (such as stories about Bessie Bunter), were written by various men under the pseudonym Hilda Richards. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Alan Moore used the pseudonym Jill de Ray in some of his early work, although this was a pun on the name of the Medieval child murderer Gilles de Rais. Turner Street (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yasmina Khadra is a famous contemporary Algerian writer. The name is clearly feminine, but it's a pseudonym and the author is a retired (male) militray officer. Xuxl (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I was once acquainted with a male writer whose works include a novel designed for readers who wanted another The Clan of the Cave Bear; for this novel he adopted, or was given, a feminine name and a surname beginning with A. —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

legal systems. could someone provide clarity on this?

how were legal systems formed? what was the guide to formation/adoption of such "legal systems" like the so called common law/civil law or mixed legal system? were they brought to legal effect via virtue of Constitution or through a country's judiciary/legislative/executive force? Grotesquetruth (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Going back a thousand years or so, the English common law system originated in the king directly dispensing justice, and appointing judges to do the job when he wasn't available (the precedent for this can be found in the Old Testament). The king still (in theory anyway) appoints judges and criminal cases are brought in the name of the king. The constitution of the USA replaced appointment of judges with election (except the Supreme Court who are appointed by the President), and cases are brought by "the people" rather than the crown. Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

US federal judges are appointed, not elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

US federal judges are appointed by the president and must then be confirmed by the US Senate. No election is involved. Some state level judges are elected. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• In much of Continental Europe, legal systems tend to follow civil law systems, some based on Roman law, and some based on the Napoleonic Code in the early 19th century. --Jayron32 11:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Presidential death across the International Date Line

Following a discussion in another place, I'm curious about this scenario. Say a US president is visiting Australia, and gets sick and dies. Deaths are always dated as per the time zone of the place of death, at that exact time. It's 9 September Down Under. Washington is immediately notified and the VP is sworn in within an hour. It's still 8 September in Washington. The record will show that the new president's term started on 8 September even though their predecessor did not die until 9 September. How would this be handled administratively? Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting hypothetical. Most of the presidents who died in office were in the eastern time zone when it happened. JFK died in the central time zone, though it was still the same day, and LBJ was there anyway, so there was no date confusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It may be interesting, but it calls for speculation, so there's no point in asking about it here. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding got sick in Seattle following a stadium speech to 25,000 people. His Portland events were canceled and he proceeded by train to San Francisco where he died one week later, in the Pacific time zone. Cullen328 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Harding's vice president Calvin Coolidge was visting his parents in a village in Vermont, and they did not have a telephone. A messenger had to be dispatched. He was sworn into office by his father who was a justice of the peace, at about 3:00 a.m. the next day, about 4-1/2 hours after Harding died. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It happens that a twin is born just before 1 AM on the night the clocks go back and his or her younger brother or sister follows shortly after the hour. Then the younger sibling is, on the evidence of the record, the older. Westbound passengers on Concorde routinely arrived, as far as local times are concerned, before they set out. And the future William III, having accepted the offer of the British crown, set out from Helvetsluys on 11 November 1688, arriving in Brixham on the 5th of the same month. 2A00:23A8:4C31:5901:9580:C3C4:6DB1:AE40 (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Helvoetsluys, now Hellevoetsluis.  --Lambiam 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In the United States, Pearl Harbor is noted as having occurred on December 7; I remember reading at some point that in Japan, it's considered December 8. The answer, I'm sorry to say, is basically "depends on who's asking." In this case, he would almost certainly be considered as having died on "September 8 at x:xx eastern or UTC (September 9 x:xx local time)". --Golbez (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Golbez. You are correct. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines (then US territory) simultaneously. The Philippines campaign (1941–1942) began on December 8, but it was still December 7 in Hawaii. My wife's uncle was stationed on Corregidor and did not survive nearly three years as a Japanese prisoner of war. He died in the sinking of the Arisan Maru prison ship in 1944. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See this xkcd cartoon... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

legal institutions

do you think the government, their specialised legal institutions/agencies (i.e; executive, legislative and judiciary) is actually a subset of the legal system and that they are merely just legal units of this legal structure? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See top of page: "We don't answer requests for opinions...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

ok I just want to know if these legal units (i.e: the executive, legislative and judicial institutions) are really a subset of the legal system? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

And the answer is "yes" and "no" and "maybe" and "what do you want it to be?". Why do you think that a phrase such as "legal system" would have a precise enough (and universally agreed-on) definition to be able to answer your questions? ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Division/divizion

Resolved

The official Russian list of German standards at the Moscow Victory Parade of 1945 distinguishes between division (дивизия) and divizion (дивизион) standards. The divizion article says it's English equivalent is battalion, but the Russian list also distinguishes between battalions and divizions. So to avoid confusion in the list I'm thinking of using German-language equivalent, unless it's spelled identically to the English one. What was Nazi German equivalent of Soviet divizion? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

HEER UNIT FORMATIONS & ORGANIZATION may help. I have posted a note at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, so hopefully someone who knows what they are talking about can assist. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The German WWII equivalants are abteilung or batallion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Law question

If I am in a shop and the owner dont want to provide a service or sell a product, item or other, could I call Police, and report the problem? Or this is unusual? 2001:B07:6442:8903:B5DF:A073:C7EE:6805 (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you already pay for it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not yet... --2001:B07:6442:8903:FCC3:C5B2:3E0A:AF47 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, if a trader proffers goods for sale, then refuses to sell them to a willing purchaser, it would be a civil matter dealt with through the local authority's Trading Standards section, not a criminal matter dealt with by police. Note that, according to English contract law § Agreement, the trader may be entitled to refuse without committing any offence. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless in doing so they are in breach of the Equality Act 2010, which protects people from being discriminated against "because of age, gender reassignment, marital status, being pregnant, disability, race (which includes colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin), religion or belief, and sex or sexual orientation".

See also the fairly recent "Gay cake case", where a baker's shop in Northern Ireland refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, because of their religious beliefs. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See also a similar case in Colorado several years ago. —Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We can't answer your question without knowing what jurisdiction you are referring to. Even then, we probably can't answer your question because that would be legal advice, which we are forbidden to give here. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a page with information for the U.S. Right to Refuse Service [8] RudolfRed (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the traditional Right to Serve Refuse. --Lambiam 21:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

grouping legal systems.

Why is it that legal systems of nations are categorised under names of either a common law/civil law/ mixed legal system and not by the name of a nation (for example " the Canadian legal system" )? Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Who says they are? We have an article Legal system of Canada.

Grotesquetruth, I am finding your multiple questions about legal systems odd, and hard to answer. I have a sense that there is some underlying question or point that is what you really want to know. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

it's tricky to explain but what constitutes a legal system in the general sense? maybe you'd be able to answer this? Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In the 'general sense' legal systems are social constructs - they exist because people believe they do, and act accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

correct me if I'm wrong but could we say that a legal system of a nation is the administration of a body of laws in the nation through rules and procedures laid down by legal institutions of the government? Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Again… yes and no… in common law countries such as the US and UK, some things are based on codified rules and procedures… but there are also things based on precedent and custom (things that are not necessarily written down, but done a certain way because “that’s how we have always done it”.) It’s all too complicated for the generalized labels you keep using. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

September 10

Commonwealth currency

Commonwealth coins and currency (or at least UK, Canada, and I think Australia) that I'm used to seeing, all had QE2's portrait. Will they switch those over to KC3? Will they recall the old ones? Any other changes likely besides the portrait swap? Also, QE2 is a very familiar and standard abbreviation while KC3 as far as I know is something I just made up. I don't remember ever hearing of QE2's predecessor being called KG6 or anything like that. Why the distinction? Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Old coinage won't be recalled. Expect a new portrait on next year's issues. I saw shillings and florins from at least one previous reign circulating in England in 1986. (A shilling became 5 new pence, a florin 10.) Such coins, being heavy (imitating former silver coins of significant value), were later recalled and replaced with smaller ones, including those that had Elizabeth's head. —Tamfang (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Possibly some people would insist that QE2 is a ship and only a ship, named not for the late queen but for an earlier ship of the same company. The correct abbreviation for the monarch is EIIR; now CIIIR or C3R, remains to be seen which he prefers (I've seen both styles in Scandinavian royal cyphers). I just hope he's not enough of a wanker to go for “C 3.0”. —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I didn't know about royal cyphers. I had heard of the ship but I thought QE2 referred to the queen, to distinguish her from QE1 of the so-called Elizabethan era. QE2 (album) is also a record album by Mike Oldfield, named after the ship, fwiw. No idea about C3.0 but if I get to be monarch, maybe I'll use C++ ;-). 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Pre-decimalisation, the copper currency was valid back to 1860 and the silver currency back to 1816. I found pennies dated 1860 in change occasionally, and once an 1820 shilling. One year I think the local branch of the Trustee Savings Bank ran a competition to submit a penny of as many different years as possible (to be deposited in a savings account?) I sent in an awful lot but two people submitted the complete set (not including 1933, of course). There was a rumour that 1920 pennies were worth eight pounds (do the math - 12 x 20 x 8 = 1920). For those who don't know, all stamps which don't have a barcode must be used before 31 January 2023, when they become invalid. That deadline was fixed months ago, but the Post Office is now saying that all stamps with the late Queen's portrait will be invalidated from that date. 2A00:23C4:570A:601:1D49:1F37:425A:A93A (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In the States coins older than 1965 rarely circulate at face value unless they're 5 cents or pennies cause that's when the silver was removed. You'd have to be pretty desperate to do that but accidents happen. I've never seen a 5 cent coin old enough to have an American Indian on one side and a buffalo on the other (though coins are legal tender forever Americans seem to spend old designs less if both faces' designs rarely circulate). Which is why the oldest American coins circulating at face value more often than the silvers are wheat pennies: same Abraham Lincoln face 1909-forever?, wheats on the back instead of the national capital's Lincoln monument (which wasn't even designed yet in 1909). 1809: Lincoln born, 1859: 1 year before national fame and election. Every 50 years after: He gets a penny (2009-2058 is a shield). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

From 1582 to 1919 British silver coins were struck in Sterling silver (.925 fine). In 1920 they were debased to .500 fine, and from 1947 on they have been base metal. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And you switched from .900 gold to paper in 1914 while we didn't till spring 1933. Our coins were .900 silver till they hoarded the mint half to death in the 60s. The mint hoped they could end the silver price speculation by dumping enough coins lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This routinely happened in monarchies throughout history. Since the introduction of euro coins, the obverse sides of coins from Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Monaco and Vatican City were changed after changing the monarch, but the old coins are still in circulation (for the former three; coins from the latter two are so rare that they're all in the hands of collectors). And before, around the year 2000, here in the Netherlands coins from 1960–1980 with a portrait of queen Juliana (abdicated 1980) were still common and occasionally one could even find coins minted in 1948, still featuring queen Wilhelmina. Coins can last in circulation for decades; recalling them all and minting replacements at once when the design changes slightly is just a waste of money (pun intended). Of course, introduction of the new obverse with the portrait of the new monarch could be an opportunity to change the reverse too. Changing the size, weight or composition is another matter. In 1948, the composition of some Dutch coins was changed, so those from 1947 and before were recalled. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't find a source at the moment, but I recall reading that there was a rush to get the new king's coins and stamps released in time for the 1937 coronation, which was only six months after the accession, having been originally planned for the abdicated Edward VIII. We don't know the date of Charles's coronation yet, but they have generally been held in the late spring or summer, in the (usually vain) hope that the weather might be kinder. Elizabeth II's coronation was 16 months after her accession, in contrast to the first Elizabeth, whose rushed coronation was only two months after accession and it snowed. Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday I heard an interview with the head of Royal Mail, which issues British stamps. He said that they had received guidance from Charles' office that he did not want anything to be wasted because of the change of monarch - so stamps already printed with the queen on them will continue to be issued until stocks are used up. That is a good example of Charles' environmentally friendly approach, and I suspect that the same principle will be applied to banknotes, coins, and anything else that will eventually require a changed design. Wymspen (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Regarding US coins, we don't often see pennies from before 1973, since they were made of copper before that and zinc afterwards. There have been times when the copper in old pennies was worth more than $0.01, so I'm sure a lot of them got melted. Also I notice that QE2 (the ship) was named after QE1 (the earlier ship), but QE1 was not named after either of the monarchs called Queen Elizabeth. Rather, QE1 (launched in 1938) was named after the spouse of George VI, who was then the Queen Consort and later (after Elizabeth II's accession) called the Queen Mother. I really shouldn't care about this stuff but I find it interesting.

My favoorite tweet about Charles III: "you mean England has a male queen now? This woke stuff has gone too far!". 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Zinc cents are from 1982, not 1973. There was a copper price spike in the 70s that caused aluminum wires etc but it wasn't till the 80s that cents became zinc. It's been about 10 years since I last paid attention to years and there was some melt price-induced loss (including hoarding that wouldn't have happened anyway) but I didn't see a major jump at 1982. Eventually they get to someone who keeps cents for the rest of their life or get lost, smooshed into ovals by trains or tourist re-pressers or worn/rusted in fountains/damaged and replaced by the next bank they reach. And the older, more archaically designed and more circulated a coin is the more likely it's passed though someone who removes anything that has or might one day have numismatic value above face value or at least kept it for their collection of as many years and mint marks as they can get. Also with the benefit of hindsight they banned exporting or destroying large amounts of pennies (though not hoarding) around 2006 and the profit incentive per coin or pound is much lower than when silver was $50 an ounce (a bit more than $1 of face value) in 1980 (when dollars were worth more). Copper was an I think then record ~1 cent per gram in 2006 and pre-1982 cents are 3 grams so it could be less than 1 cent per unsorted penny before it was made illegal. I've still noticed a few silvers in my change (only one better than a dime: a 1950s quarter). The oldest nickel I found was from the 40s and the oldest penny was 1919. This was the mid-2000s so as old as a 1930s penny today. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the U.S. government did not withdraw pre-1964 dimes and quarters (the U.S. rarely demonetizes coins). Rather, private individuals took them from circulation when their bullion value exceeded their face value. The U.S. government has done nothing about the fact that the penny has no useful economic purpose for so long, that now the nickel has little useful economic purpose. AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I know but presumably an individual piece of metal would get replaced with a better one by the time it's in worse condition than the worst we see in circulation (I know for sure that this is how bills die. The first time they go to a bank above wear level X they're destroyed and a new one takes its place). Eventually America's going to have to get over its dislike of coins bigger than quarters cause laundromats and vending machines are starting to fill up faster and you can hardly buy anything with a quarter anymore. Some washing machines take multiple loads of quarters now, you have to put a buttload of quarters in a harmonica of grooves, push the metal tray into the washer against some hidden spring resistance cha-chink then do it again. In the New York City metro area the once-rare dollar coins are common in the 21st century cause they've been in train fare vending machine change for many years but a cashier was suspicious as hell of them only a few hundred kilometers away. To be fair those fake gold reverses looked like Native American casino tokens (the earlier fake gold bucks and the big quarter-looking ones before that look more like legal tender). Many major dollar-sized currencies even have 2 unit coins and no bills below 5, the most valuable being £2 I think. And New Zealand released a $5 coin which later surpassed £2. Except for a brief approximate parity in 2015 the NZ$5 coin has been worth more since 2009. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Y'all don't have bill accepters and card readers on your washers, dryers, and vending machines in NYC? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

One reason why the U.S. dollar coin hasn't caught on, is that there was a big mistake in the late 1970s when the modern version was first introduced -- it was too similar in size to a quarter. For practical use of coins, you have to be able to basically feel the differences between different denominations of coins in your hand without having to look closely at the coins. It's highly unlikely that the U.S. will knock a zero off our currency (something which the U.S. has never done before, and which some people in the U.S. associate with Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe), but it wouldn't be a bad idea to simulate this by discontinuing the penny and nickel, and introducing a workable dollar coin (of a different size). Of course it's possible that physical currency (coins and bills) will be abolished before we ever get around to this... AnonMoos (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Same color and edge grooves too, later fixed with the 2000 Sacagawea dollar. Smooth edge. Later they cut text into the smooth edge. I never thought about the feel thing before. I'd just take a handful out of my pocket, find what I need with my eyes and put the rest back in my pants. The dollar was 1.5 inches wide for about 200 years which was too big to circulate much in the 50s (before the speculation), at least in the East (which had more tolerance for high face value premiums over raw material cost). Since the late 70s the dollar coin has apparently been 1.04331 inches, I wonder what's the best balance between quarter size differentiation and bulk. They'd have to upgrade or replace all the vending machines if they make it a bit bigger though. And if it's too big it'll delay Middle America's acceptance of the $5 coin in the future.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to make the dollar stronger so that it is actually worth something? Why have we accepted the idea that the basic currency unit of a country has to trend downward in value? How is that a good thing? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

See Inflation#Positive. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In NZ, it's currently estimated it will take a few years for Charles to appear on coins and longer still for bank notes [9] and [10] With reference to the other stuff circulating cent coins in NZ date to 2005/2006 at the earliest since that was when the new smaller composition coins with a different composition were introduced Coins of the New Zealand dollar. However $1 and $2 coins could date to 1990/1991 in theory. Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the odds he dies or abdicates before any coins or notes are released? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In Canada, the currency will eventually switch over, but it may take some time as the denominations get refreshed at different intervals. For example, 20s get refreshed every five years and are due next year so they'll likely transition easily. But if Liz had held out another year or so, it would have been another five years until our 20s got uglier. Each denomination goes at its own rate, so it will be uneven regardless. There is also some talk about removing the portrait altogether or going to Canadians a la Canadian ten-dollar note and $5 note, but it's just chatter at this point AFAIK. Matt Deres (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is Joe Stiglitz replying to in this "reply", Daly

In this short "reply", Stiglitz is answering criticisms from Daly, but he doesn't cite any sources. What is the citation to the original criticism by Daly, or is it from someone else? Llamabr (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a book review; see Herman Daly for a list of possibilities in the Selected Publications section. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Possibly an article in the same publication. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a book review to me. First, if he were reviewing a book, he'd mention the book. Second, he seems to be replying to a particular narrow argument, which I assume was from a recent paper, probably in the same journal, and maybe even the same volume. Llamabr (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably Daly here, and some background. fiveby(zero) 19:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Abhira tribe, Habiru

Is the Abhira tribe descended from the Habiru? Or even vice versa? Thank you. Rich (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have some reason to suppose they might be? Judging from our articles on the subject, the Habiru (who were not a tribe) lived at least a thousand years earlier then, and far away from, the Abhira. In the absence of any evidence, this is like asking if the Canadians are descended from the Akkadians, because they both have "k-d" in their names. ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Richard_L._Peterson -- Habiru begins with a guttural consonant (velar or pharyngeal fricative, depending on the branch of Semitic), while Abhira doesn't even really contain an ordinary [h] consonant, but rather a breathy voiced [b]... AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, does that make a connection very unlikely linguistically? Rich (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Historical and geographical factors already made the connection very unlikely, and the linguistic comparison didn't do anything to overcome this pre-existing barrier... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Abhira and Biria. Japanese and Javanese. Or, as ColinFine said, Akkadian and Canadian. Coincidental look-alikes are all over the place. You need more than than before someone would think there might be a linguistic connection. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Voltaire described some similar efforts as a style of etymologizing in which "the vowels count for nothing, and the consonants for very little"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Do the colors on the aromantic asexual flag mean anything?

If the pertinent sections of the Pride flag article aren't wrong on the subject, the colors on the asexual pride flag represent asexuality, gray-asexuality and demisexuality, allies and community respectively, while the stripes on the aromantic one represent aromanticism, the aromantic spectrum, aesthetic attraction, gray-aromanticism and demiromanticism, and the sexuality spectrum. I wonder what the colors on the aroace flag could mean. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing ovbious about it, now perhaps John Sullivan could tell. --Askedonty (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The colors in your gif look kind of faded, evoking a less powerful physical force driving the person. That is just guessing on my part though. I didn't know such a flag even existed. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Until recently, I wasn't aware of that particular flag either. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Those flags were created recently by specific persons and/or organizations. You'd have to reach out and ask that person or organization directly. --Jayron32 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but think {{Color sample}} would've been a better way of illustrating the top comment: ("...represent   asexuality,   gray-asexuality and demisexuality,   allies and   community respectively..."). Rob3512 (Talk) 18:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to highlight "community" to be able to read the word. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

September 11

Attlee, Churchill, and the Beaver

According to our article on Lord Beaverbrook Clement Attlee said, presumably during the War, "Churchill often listened to Beaverbrook's advice but was too sensible to take it" - and this has been repeated elsewhere on the Internet. I have been unable to find a source. Does one exist? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Anne Chisholm in Beaverbrook: a life cites a 1987 interview with Kenneth Harris (Chapter 18 fn 31), but I don't find anything in Attlee. fiveby(zero) 14:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Painting

Please, can you help me to find the author and title of this painting from Case Closed film 2? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.236.70 (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you found something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.205.70 (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a very generic sea-scape, in the late 19th century realistic style. There's no element that is striking enough that it would allow for a more precise identification. It's definitely not meant to be a well-known work that a viewer would recognize instantly. Xuxl (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but can you search for the author and title anyway? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.213.53 (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A Google Reverse Image Search didn't find a match. Don't know what else we can do. It seems likely to me that it was made up by the animator, who is Gosho Aoyama. Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You can write also "Japan" to search in Google Reverse Image Search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.213.53 (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Did it work? Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to search for it, then can you help me? Thank you.

Governance structure

How do institutions of governance influence the level and rate of economic development in a society? Grotesquetruth (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Statutory instruments may be used, although those are more and more moderating environmental preoccupations. Other subjects of interest are Rulemaking, Legislative veto, Sunset provision. Regarding the United States specifically, the Budget and Accounting Act can be considered a starting point for reference. Before that an intrument of legislation is used for enacting any given rule, there is most often a program to be established. It can be for example a Quinquennial strategic plan (or Five Year Strategic Plan: to strengthen ability in managing economy. Sunset provision allows for some flexibility regarding the duration of, for example, coercive ( see Authorities' Coercive and Legitimate Power) measures. Compare Legitimate power --Askedonty (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

One could write a huge book on the topic. The term "governance" covers a wide range of forms of influence on the way a society operates; see the section Governance § Types. To make the question answerable in a form that does more than scratch the surface, you need to confine it to more specific types and forms of institutions. The actual influence institutions can exert is not as large as is often thought. The market, which is the major driving factor, is famously unpredictable. Today's economies are globally interwoven and subject to forces that cannot be controlled by local institutions. It is possible, though, and unfortunately all too easy, to make the local economy tank by making unwise local decisions. Some important factors that favour economic development are sociopolitical stability (which tends to be higher in more egalitarian societies), a low rate of corruption, a fair and navigable justice system, and good and accessible education. Each of these can benefit from wise governance by responsible institutions.  --Lambiam 15:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Governments have a LOT to do with the economy of their countries. Government policies regarding State-owned industries vs. Private industry, a government's fiscal policy and monetary policy, it's control of tariffs and duties, trade policy, taxation of goods and services, government subsidies, involvement in wars and other matters of foreign relations, etc. etc. I'm having a hard time considering ways in which the institutions of government do NOT influence economic development. --Jayron32 15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

differences?

what is the difference between a government unit and legal units of government? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

How about you stop spamming the reference desk with stupid questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

sorry if my questions appeared that way, I was only attempting to clarify my queries of a related subject matter. Grotesquetruth (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Both terms have no well-defined meaning by themselves and need to be interpreted in the context in which they are used. In every-day English there is no substantive difference between "unit of government" and "government unit", although one would use the latter mainly for established units (whatever kind of units these may be). Furthermore, "legal unit of government" is ambiguous: it could mean a government unit that is involved with issues of law, or a government unit that is lawful. Without context, one cannot tell.  --Lambiam 14:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There are no stupid questions; only Reference Desk contributors who can't let a question go by without commenting, regardless whether their comments are at all relevent. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

UK voluntary regency

Is there any example in the history of England/the UK/the Empire/etc in which the reigning monarch sought (whether successfully or not) to have a regent appointed in anticipation of his own upcoming disability? I'm thinking of something like Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 3: President's declaration of inability, where the US President can temporarily relinquish his powers, such as in preparation for a medical procedure. Today I suppose this would be pointless, since the monarch's role as a figurehead means that he doesn't need to be available all the time, but I'm wondering if this would have happened centuries ago when the monarch exercised much power on his own. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a regency, but the Counsellors of State can perform certain functions for the monarch in cases of illness or absence DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Not strictly for health reasons, but on some occasions in the past, regencies have been established during the absence of a monarch. When Richard the Lionheart was on crusade, his brother John was named regent; his regency was the basis for the Robin Hood stories. --Jayron32 11:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Also somewhat related; when there was a Union of Crowns between the kingdoms of Hanover and the UK, there was a viceroy, who ruled in the stead of the King of Hanover, as that King was also King of the United Kingdom and acted as a regent for the purposes of Hanover. Initially, George, The Prince Regent served in this role, as his father, King George III, had been entirely incapacitated by mental illness and would be until his death in 1820. In 1816, The Prince Regent's brother, Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge was named Viceroy of Hanover, a role he would maintain through the reigns of George IV and William IV, until the ascension of Queen Victoria, after which yet another brother, Ernest Augustus, became King of Hanover separate from Victoria. --Jayron32 15:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean "accession"; Accession day and Ascension day are different things. Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Regency and Counsellors of State is a briefing document for Members of Parliament and covers about everything. It points out that the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret acting as Councillors of State, dissolved the UK Parliament in February 1974 because the Late Queen was touring New Zealand. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

September 12

concept of policy.

what is the difference between a public policy from a government policy. and, are these policies "laws" or are they merely a course of action agenda statements? Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

See policy. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

See also Public policy. A policy is not by itself law but may sometimes be implemented or supported by appropriate legislation.  --Lambiam 23:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sir Humphrey Appleby said it best: Yes, I do think there is a real dilemma here, in that while it has been government policy to regard policy as the responsibility of Ministers, and administration as the responsibility of officials, questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the administration of policy and the policy of administration, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts or overlaps with responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• As with every single question you have asked, the answer is largely "it depends on which country you are talking about". Every country uses sometimes similar words, in sometimes different ways. There is no universal definition here, only the meaning in context of a specific jurisdiction. --Jayron32 12:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth

Had the queen passed away on the 5 September after the announcement of Liz Truss as the leader of the Conservative party but before her being invited by HM to form a government would this have provoked a constitutional crisis. Would it have meant Boris Johnson would have been compelled to stay on to implement Operation London Bridge. Or given that accession to the throne is automatic that Charles would have appointed Liz Truss to form a new government as his first act. It would seem this would create difficulties as the appointments to the cabinet of all the key positions in the transfer from one monarch to the next wouldn't have been appointed. Does the constitution have anything to say about this? --Andrew 21:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The UK has no codified constitution, which makes it easier to bend the customary procedures to whatever circumstances may require. I suppose it would not have reached the level of a crisis if, due to circumstances, this traditional formality had had to be postponed for a day or so.  --Lambiam 23:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if the UK had had a codified constitution, it's very unlikely that the leader of a political party would be mentioned in it. It's just that the UK election system is built in such a way that normally one party has a majority in parliament and can choose the PM and there's the custom to choose the party leader for that position. If there's a longer delay between electing a new party leader and appointing this person as PM, only the party would care. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not the delay between the election and the appointment, but a possible time gap between one PM stepping down and the next one being appointed. Can the United Kingdom survive a PM-less day?  --Lambiam 10:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course they can. The day-to-day operation of government services is mostly handled by Civil Service. Everything doesn't grind to a halt because one person isn't available to do a particular job. --Jayron32 12:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Had Queen Elizabeth died before the official PM hand-over, there might have been a short delay… but only by a day or two. Instead of being one of the last things that the old Queen did, it would have been one of the first things the new King did. Blueboar (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Spencer Perceval was assassinated on 1 May 1812. The office was vacant until 12 June. In fact, looking at the List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom there have been some lengthy interregnums. This is not the stuff of a constitutional crisis - the House of Commons is always in charge. Now, if it were to be found that the king was not married to the woman he calls his wife that would be a constitutional crisis. 31.124.153.252 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

September 13

Opposite of paraprosdokian

I recently saw Emo Philips perform. He is known for paraprosdokian humor. One of his jokes was the opposite. Instead of changing the meaning of the sentence at the very end, he changed the meaning of the sentence by not including an end. The joke was: "I've been asked if I ever had a job I hated. In college, I was often strapped for cash." He doesn't continue, changing the meaning of the sentence. Is there a term for this or is it in the catch-all of paraprosdokian humor. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Emo Phillips is, among many other styles of humor, also known for antijokes. There is not a specific word for every single kind of joke, and as far as I know, no word that means "the opposite of paraprosdokian". --Jayron32 13:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that actually is a joke, presumably he's making a play on words, i.e. implying that he got paid to be whipped. Seems sufficiently Paraprosdokian. As to the "opposite", the opposite of most any joke is a serious statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel that I should explain why I feel the joke above is the opposite. His usual humor is based on the end of the sentence changing the meaning of what comes before, such as "I have a love for animals that is almost illegal" or "I kissed her f

rom the top of her head to the bottom of her toe tag." Those end with something that changes the meaning instead of not ending with something, which changes the meaning. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that your interpretation of the joke is different from mine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Where it's maybe a bit different is that you as the listener are conditioned to wait for the other shoe to drop and when it doesn't, it causes you to more carefully read the previous words. By itself I think it's just the same sort of paraprosdokian humour, but within the context of his routine there's additional humour added by making you do the work. There's probably a separate word for that, though I don't know what fits the bill. Here's something similar, though. There's a limerick that goes "There once was a man from Verdun." On its own it's meaningless and incomplete, which is why collections always preface it with a variation of "There once was a man from Peru / Whose limericks all stopped at line two." Kind of the same thing in that the audience has to do the work themselves rather than it being made explicit. Matt Deres (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if it is an Anapodoton? --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Muslim personal law.

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems in the Indian jurisdiction, muslim laws are separate in form and not under a uniform civil code. what could be the legal consequences of marriages that are declared irregular and void under muslim personal law in india? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

By established law of the State of India, Muslims in India (except for Goa) are subject to the Muslim Personal Law Application Act. In general, the civil authorities will recognize and accept the validity of relevant determinations made by Muslim clerics as if they were made by a civil court, with the same consequences. One exception is the triple talaq divorce, which has been ruled unconstitutional.  --Lambiam 17:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)