Print referencing for a London business, circa 1801-1810.

Does somebody have access to a London business directory? Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Didier and Tebbett needs some references, and the best would be to use a London business directory circa 1801. According to the draft, "Peter Didier and William Tebbett operated children's book and board game shop Juvenile Repository of English, French, and Italian books and Repository of Instructive Games, 75 St. James's Street, Pall Mall, London." That seems correct based on Project Gutenberg frontspieces, but we could use a good source or two. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1803 Kent’s Directory appears to be on google books: but I don’t see either name. My library has an 1816 Kent’s, nothing in there either. You could try asking at WP:RX as well as here.142.150.38.155 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A dichotomy in basic attitudes about laws and legality

I vaguely remember reading something many years ago that broadly/roughly explained a difference in mindset or attitudes about legality between "pioneer" versus "settled" cultures.

The concept (as I remember it) is that "pioneer" cultures tend to regard an activity or thing to be acceptable unless it is explicitly prohibited wheras "settled" cultures tend to presume that the same or similar thing or activity is not acceptable unless it is explicitly permitted by law, rule or regulation. It broadly explains things such as difference in gun ownership between Europe and America and even some of the differences between Democrats and Republicans or East coast US (original 13 states) versus the rest of the country (Wild West).

Has anyone else heard of this concept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've heard it argued, but it isn't true. The 'permissive' construction of the law - usually common in common law jurisdictions - certainly applies here in the UK, where we've had more or less continuous government for 1200 years, and we have laws still on the books going back about 800 years. I don't think we can be considered 'pioneer', and we have extensive gun control - but we meticulously legislated it, because the presumption is that people can do as they please - subject to normal common law principles about tort etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The US Bill of Rights, specifically amendments 9 and 10 directly contradict this premise. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As I understood the piece I read it's not about how the law itself is written/formulated, it's how people behave and their attitudes to legal uncertainty. A (rather extreme and stereotypical) example would be the everyday normality of openly carrying firearms anywhere and everywhere in the "Wild West" but at the same time such behavior being frowned upon in the "genteel" East coast cities. The cowboy's attitude is "I can and will do it until someone shows me the law that says I can't" while the gentlemen of Boston and Philadelphia would say "That's just not done, except on a designated shooting range" even though it might not actually be legally forbidden. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

_{I seem to remember the joke: "In US everything is permitted, unless explicitly forbidden, in Germany everything is forbidden unless explicitly permitted, in Italy everything is permitted, even the things that are forbidden, and in Russia everything is forbidden, especially the things that are explicitly permitted".129.178.88.85 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)}

The US and Germany parts of the above joke encapsulate the concept quite well. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you recall much of the source in which you read this purported principle? It seems to be a personal impressionistic finding, or the type of soft/no-proof axiom that gets floated around quite frequently in sociology suggesting fundamental differences between disparate groups. Certainly, I don't see any way this rule of thumb could ever be empirically validated to exist across different cultures; there are just far too many other social factors, which are themselves varied between groups and individuals, which factor into how people view the permissibility of certain acts and the legitimacy of law or other social pressures permitting or disallowing them. I will say though that it's not exactly controversial that the variable degree to which government authority is established and backed-up by institutions such as courts and police will have a direct impact on how likely individuals are to respect and adhere to various principles of law. Whether you parse that as short-term pragmatics which individuals weight in their decisions or something that becomes a part of the local cultural zeitgeist is largely a matter of speculation, but the core idea is not new, going back to the earliest record we have for law in classical culture, for the obvious reason that it seems, intuitively anyway, to be undeniable that people will act in a less restrained manner in the absence of an outside force which looks out for the greater good (a concept labelled "the leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes, but, again, one which has been broadly advocated historically, before and after). Snow talk 23:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014

Some background: So a lot of people in my area are concerned about the Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014 (SB 212). Its a law that just passed in Maryland that grants transgender folks non-discrimination rights. A lot of the conservatives in the area though are pointing to it and calling it the "bathroom bill" and saying that it will allow child predators to use the other gender's bathrooms to prey on children. They have even tried to bring the bill to referendum, unsuccessfully. Now as far as I have been able to see this sort of thing has happened pretty much every time that a bill like this has passed or come up to vote (My research tells me this last source is very partisan and sometimes unreliable because of that bias).

Anyhow, I've read SB 212, and I can't actually find any provision that discusses bathrooms at all. Can anyone point me to a provision in the law that would even make the predatory thing remotely possible? As far as I can see the bill only talks about employement, access to restruants and other public shops, housing, and credit. NOTE: I am not trying to start any sort of war about whether or not this bill should or shouldn't have been passed. I'm just looking for a straight answer or non-discriminatory discussion of the facts. I know this can be a heated subject. Zell Faze (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The act requires substantial evidence that the gender identity a person espouses is sincerely held, either by living full-time as that identity, or by other means (not specified in the act, but more than trivial). It also allows providers of changing rooms and other facilities where people undress in sight of each other to provide both 'non-trans' and 'trans-inclusive' facilities if it suits them. So I don't think it's going to enable anyone to pose as trans on a casual basis in order to gain the rights outlined in the act for the adopted gender identity, and the only facilities where nudity is an issue have an exemption. So I think the scaremongering is simply false. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read through all of that bill yet, but the way I understand it affects restrooms is that it accepts someone's gender identity as representing their true gender, rather than their assigned sex at birth, basically equating gender identity and sex under the law. Sex-specific facilities are exempted from sex-based discrimination, so men can't use women's facilities and vice-versa, but they are not exampted from gender-identity based discrimination. A trans man's sex is recognized as male for the purposes of this bill, so he can use a men's restroom and may be denied access to a women's restroom. He cannot be denied access to the men's room due to his gender identity. Katie R (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about this specific Maryland act, but my understanding about some other jurisdictions with similar laws is that they merely prohibit discrimination. They don't require employers and service providers to treat the transgender person as a member of the sex they identify with, per se. They merely require that the trans individual be treated as an equally entitled human being regarding access to employment, services, venues, facilities, etc. In most areas, the difference is semantic, as laws generally prohibit discrimination between men and women in any case. With rare exceptions, you can't advertise a job "for women only", for example.

The issue you mention only arises in those (relatively few) areas where, even in "modern" society, we accept that men and women are to be segregated, e.g. bathrooms. My understanding of the law is that if a transgender individual asks a publican (for example) to use the pub's bathroom, the publican is perfectly entitled to politely tell the person "please use the mens / womens /disabled cubicle", as the publican considers appropriate in his / her judgement. That would not in itself be discrimination. What would be discrimination is if the publican said "since you're not fully a man or a woman, you can't use the bathrooms at all in this pub, as you'll make patrons uncomfortable whichever gender rooms you use. You'll need to hold onto your bladder until you get home". The same would apply to changing rooms at swimming pools - the pool's managers can tell the person which changing room they want him / her to use, they just can't leave them in a situation where they can't use either changing room. Can anyone either confirm or refute this? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is precisely this situation which the Maryland act aims to address: there's a link at the top of this thread; please go and read it. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read through the law, there appear to be no references to any requirement that the transgender individual be treated as a member of their "self-identified" gender - the sole exception I can see is that an employer must allow a transgender employee the right to dress in accordance with their self-identified gender. Am I missing something? Would I be correct that a venue owner could still direct a trans individual as to which bathroom or changing room to use (not necessarily their self-identified gender one), as long as the person wasn't ultimately denied the ability to change or empty their bladder somewhere? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The part that makes it tough is 20-303(2), which I certainly would have preferred to see updated to use gender-based language rather than sex-based. The definition of gender identity in 20-101(E) makes it clear that gender identity covers everything normally associated with sex regardless of assigned sex at birth, and I think that given that definition along with the declarations in 20-102(2,3) it could be argued that a transgender person has the right to use facilities that are restricted to their identified gender, as that discrimination does "cause limited or prevented access to basic necessities of life, leading to deprivation and suffering." Katie R (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I was able to find this FAQs on Senate Bill 212, which seems to state that currently transgender people use the restroom associated with their gender identity, and that this bill codifies that option as law. They sort of explain it as part of "public accommodation". They say that public accommodations are not bathrooms persay, but rather places like bars, restaurants, etc., but if such a place offers bathrooms that those would be covered as well. This still doesn't quite answer my question satisfactorily I think, but it does help a little bit. Is anyone else here able to expand on that at all and maybe explain why this is the case (or if perhaps everyone seems to be mistaken, if that is the case). I'm not terribly familiar with a lot of civil rights legislation. Hopefully that FAQ can help point someone here who is slightly more knowledgeable than I in the right direction. Also thank you very much @Katie Ryan A: for hat-ing the thread at the beginning. Zell Faze (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The clearest explanation I can think of is that if there is a restroom that is open to women but not to trans women or men but not trans men, then access to it is clearly based on transgender status, and this law makes that discrimination illegal. The only possible problem I can see with that interpretation is section 20-303(2) which I mentioned above, but I think it is clear that the intent of the law is to treat gender identity as sex in that sort of context. I recommend contacting someone at Equality Maryland with your specific concern. They may be able to give you a more informed explanation of things. Katie R (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Age of Japheth at time of death

Does anyone know of a traditional source (possibly apocryphal) that specifies the age of Japheth, son of Noah, at the time of his death? Because the Genesis lineage goes through Shem, Genesis specifies the (legendary) ages of Noah and Shem at the time of their deaths, but not Japheth. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the conflicting Biblical evidence for the births of Noah's sons is here, but I couldn't find anything about their deaths I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was aware of the inconsistencies involving the respective ages at birth of the sons of Noah. I have gone with the Book of Jubilees in making Japheth six years younger than Shem. Based on that, and using 3761 BC = 1 AM (Jewish chronology), I have Japheth born in 2364 BC. Given Noah's and Shem's lifespans, apparently if you grew up under the "vapor canopy", it rendered you almost immortal even after climate change to modern conditions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The EU

Could the EU make it illegal for the UK to leave the EU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.66.93 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not unless the UK had first allowed it to, which it so far has not. There are no credible proposals that it should. Such a move would only make sense if the EU were to reconstitute itself as a nation, which it really isn't. After all, what sanctions could it levy? A nation which leaves might expect less favourable trade with the EU anyway. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There is as yet no precedent for a member nation withdrawing from the EU. In that event, the EU as a Legal personality could sue a defaulting nation to claim compensation for any alleged specific breach of agreement(s). The Court of Justice of the European Union could find in favour of itself(!) which would give the EU executive arm, nominally Commission President Barroso, grounds for enforcing sanctions by all EU nations against the defaulting nation. Nothing more concrete than symbolic economic measures by the EU against the UK are conceivable because of its semi-dominant rôle as a nuclear power in the military alliance NATO to which 22 EU member countries also belong. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

See the article "Withdrawal from the European Union". Gabbe (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 5

Last Spanish monarch to wear a crown

No monarch of Spain has been crowned as such since John I of Castile (1379), Ferdinand I of Aragon (1414), and Eleanor of Navarre (1479). But who was the last to wear a crown (no tiaras) on their head minus a coronation ceremony?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. We really can't know which ones once tried a crown on in private, so do you mean which monarchs made a public appearance in a crown, were painted or photographed in one, etc. ? StuRat (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Physically worn a crown and is known to have done so. If they did privately and there are sources stating that then it would count.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The blog I cite below implies (but does not state) that the last Spanish monarch to wear a crown (as oppose to being coronated) was Ferdinand VII of Spain in the early 19th century. The actual practice of coronation (which is known as "being crowned") (that is, having the crown invested to the monarch by a religious authority) started to die out during the 16th-17th century. The Holy Roman Emperor, arguably the monarch with the closest historical ties to the pope, stopped being officially coronated in the middle 16th century, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was the last such Emperor to be so crowned; his successors simply stopped doing so. Napoleon famously crowned himself, a rather symbolic statement of humanism in the face of what had historically been a solemn religious event. I'm not sure when other monarchies dispensed with formal coronations (some still do so, the UK does, for example) but as you note unified Spain has never had a coronation. That doesn't mean that kings did not adorn themselves with crowns, just that they didn't go through the ceremony of being crowned. --Jayron32 03:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's such a thing as 'being coronated' distinct from 'being crowned'. If you have a reliable source for this claim, please share. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Coronated" is just a fancy (and very non-standard) way of saying "crowned". --NellieBly (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Royal Crown

Does the Spanish monarchy own any crowns older than the one commissioned by Charles III that were used by the medieval monarchs of Leon, Castile, Galicia, Aragon and Navarre?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is a bit bloggy, but presents several historic crowns of Spain (pictures too!) and their stories. --Jayron32 03:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Donald Sterling suing the NBA

I have read this a few times in the past few weeks: "Donald Sterling sued the NBA in federal court last week alleging the NBA violated his constitutional rights by relying on information from an "illegal" recording that publicized racist remarks he made to a girlfriend." The NBA is certainly not a governmental agency; the US Constitution only restricts the conduct of government (not private parties). So, what am I missing? How can Sterling possibly make a constitutional claim against a private party like the NBA? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Even private entities can be bound by due process to a certain extent. I have no idea what the NBA's bylaws are, but it would not be unusual for guarantees of due process to be explicitly written into such organizations. While private businesses can be protected to a certain degree from laws regarding privacy, freedom of speech, collection of evidence, etc., the courts can (and do) enforce an organization's own bylaws under something akin to contract law (as all parties agreed to the bylaws, they are enforceable as a contract would be, and when violated the aggrieved party may be due damages). Furthermore, the U.S. government has, in the past, expressly established the right to regulate private businesses (for example, enforcing civil rights laws on private individuals who discriminate in certain business transactions, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which made it illegal to refuse to sell or rent a home to someone because of their race, nationality, etc. Which is not to say that Sterling's case does or does not have merit. I'm no legal expert; however it isn't plain that it wouldn't have merit; there could be any number of reasons why Sterling could have a case against the NBA and "not being a government agency" is not necessarily relevant in deciding whether he does, or does not, have a case. --Jayron32 04:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The US government (federal) can – indeed, often does – regulate private businesses. But that is through federal statute; it has nothing to do with the US Constitution. If Sterling contends that the NBA is violating its own bylaws, that would be some type of contract claim. Perhaps the contract has a provision for "due process". (That would be some contractual obligation to provide due process; it would not be the "due process" guaranteed in the US Constitution.) I still don't see how the US Constitution could possibly be involved here. Anyone? I am not saying that Sterling's lawsuit does or does not have merit. It is the constitutional claim that I am questioning. I can't imagine any circumstance where the US Constitution is invoked here such that the NBA is violating Sterling's constitutional rights. Other rights? Possibly? But constitutional rights? Impossible. No? There can't be any claim that the NBA is operating as an arm of the federal government. What am I missing here? Perhaps sloppy journalism? Even that would be hard to screw up, though, from a reporter's stance. The NBA "not being a government agency" is not a defense to the entire lawsuit; but it is a defense to the constitutional claim in the lawsuit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The latest story is that he has dropped the suit, so it could all have been a bluff. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Bluff or no bluff, the lawyers would still have needed to present some viable claim in the suit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. Nominally, a suit must reference applicable statutes, but in some cases, the argument for the suit may be highly flawed and may have been drafted with the clear understanding that it the suit would never reach a favourable conclusion for the filing party. Parties can and do regularly file suits that haven't a snowballs chance in hell of success, for strategic reasons, for purely vindictive ones, or just out of pure obstinacy or obliviousness. And you might be surprised at how high profile some of these cases can be. Certainly there are rules of conduct meant to curb frivolous litigation, but they leave a lot leeway for legal posturing and generally where law concerning contracts of massive financial weight, the type of robust firms that handle these cases have a lot of tools at their disposal for serving the will of their client, even if they do doubt the ultimate legal merit of the core argument and know the situation to be one of posturing.

All of that said, I am inclined to agree with you that the argument that this private recording represents some form of breach of constitutional protections does not seem to hold much water and seems more than a little bit of a non-sequitur. However, from what little I've seen, the threatened suit did not rely exclusively upon constitutional privacy arguments, though a crux of the claims was that the recording was "illicit" and that private statements are inappropriate cause for the fines and penalties the NBA instituted against Sterling. That argument was never likely to win the day for Sterling, but it did have more than enough traction for him to tie the matter up in courts for some time, had he chose to pursue it. This article, though it dates to before the most recent threat of a suit and may not reflect the arguments made therein, does a decent job in briefly describing the relevance and legal weight of the recording. Snow talk 23:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Any lawsuit by Sterling against the NBA would be similar to Tarkanian v. NCAA, in which Jerry Tarkanian claimed that his suspension violated due process. The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts would not consider whether the NCAA's bylaws violated substantive due process, but only whether the NCAA was complying with its own rules. However, it now appears that Sterling has backed off. Maybe his lawyers explained the Tarkanian case to him. (The subsequent history of conflict between Tarkanian and the NCAA does not change the fact that the Supreme Court decision is still law.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The first part of your answer agrees with what I opined: the Supreme Court would not consider a constitutional claim against the NCAA, although they would allow the contract claim to stand. The second part of your answer does not make sense to me (where you state: "Maybe his lawyers explained the Tarkanian case to him."). His lawyers would have been the ones who drafted and filed the lawsuit (alleging the constitutional violation) in the first place. His lawyers would be aware of the Tarkanian case. His lawyers would be aware that the NBA is not a government arm subject to the US Constitution. It's not as if Sterling (himself, as an individual) drafted and filed the lawsuit ... and then, later on, his lawyers pointed out his goof. That makes no sense. Right? Or am I misunderstanding that second part of your answer? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is as Baseball Bugs explains. Sterling threatened to file a lawsuit. He didn't actually file a lawsuit. He may have gone to his lawyers after making the threat, and asked them to file the lawsuit, and they declined, because they knew that the constitutional claim was baseless, and because it appeared to them that the contract claim wouldn't survive, because that would involve showing that the NBA didn't follow its own rules (and it did follow its own rules). (In Tarkanian, the NCAA did follow its own rules, although its own rules were unfair, in that they didn't give Tark a reasonable chance to defend himself.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're overlooking a very simple possibility, which is just that the newsies got the story wrong. Happens all the time. Journalists are rarely experts in the subjects they cover, and while they are trained in fact-checking, they also have to meet a deadline. (This is part of the reason that news articles should be considered low-quality sources for WP purposes.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, that was one of the possibilities I raised in my original post. (I said: "Perhaps sloppy journalism? Even that would be hard to screw up, though, from a reporter's stance.") Even if a reporter is not well-versed in the law, it would seem odd that he'd "concoct" a baseless legal accusation such as a constitutional violation. He'd probably stick with a more generic "Sterling filed a lawsuit" type of claim. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't find it that hard to believe. Sterling's claim might very well be similar to one you would make in a constitutional suit against a government entity, for example that he was being punished for his opinions. A reporter might very well have conflated that with a constitutional claim. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

True. I guess a reporter uneducated in the law might mistake all of these facts for a freedom of speech / First Amendment type of case (which would indeed be a constitutional claim). According to that (incorrect) theory, Sterling's claim would be "the NBA can't punish me for exercising my First Amendment right to free speech". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that threatening to file suit is not the same thing as actually filing suit. If he actually did file suit, presumably there would be a legal document that would describe the particulars. If he merely threatened to file suit, the best you're likely to get is a press release. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is, the newsies got the story wrong in confusing threatening to sue with actually filing a lawsuit. Anyone can threaten to sue. Only lawyers can actually file the suit, and they will consider whether the case has merit. In this case, the constitutional claim is void, and the contract claim is questionable, because that would require showing that the NBA didn't follow its own rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the difference between a threat to sue and an actual suit. I'd have to go back and read all the particulars. I thought he did file a suit and later dropped it. (I could be wrong on that.) Even if this was merely a "threat", I would assume that the language, words, press release, etc., would still have come from the lawyer (not from Sterling himself). And if it did come from Sterling himself (likely against his lawyer's advice), it would seem odd that he'd try to expound some legal theories not knowing anything about their validity or lack thereof. The whole thing is strange. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Note by the way that Sterling is a lawyer (to be precise, our article describes him as a "former attorney", but does not say he was ever disbarred or lost his license, so presumably the "former" just means that he is not currently actively practicing). Also, I don't believe it's true that you have to be an attorney to file suit. --Trovatore (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know that he was a lawyer. And, no, you do not need to be a lawyer to file a suit. Prison inmates (non-lawyers) are forever filing suits by themselves, without a lawyer (pro se); these often makes the news. Two points I'd make. One: If Sterling is a lawyer, all the more reason he'd know not to make a constitutional claim. Two: I would assume that a man of his wealth does not do this work on his own and delegates it to his lawyers to handle. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, to me, the simplest explanation is just that the journalists got it wrong. His claim probably hit many of the same notes as a First Amendment lawsuit, and so they reported it as though that's what it was. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd tend to agree. Ignoring the fact that the NBA is not a governmental agency, the issues do sound somewhat like a First Amendment / free speech case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hate speech is not necessarily protected by the first amendment. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes, it pretty much is. Exceptions would include immediate incitement to violence, or "fighting words" likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace. Neither of those apply in the private phone conversation under discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, so he may have a constitutional right to state racist views, but the NBA, as a private organization, is not required to put up with it. It's not that much different from working in a company with a policy expressly prohibiting hate behavior and hate speech. If someone refers to their colleagues in a hateful way, they can be canned for it. There is no constitutional right to hold a particular job. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the whole point. It kinda/sorta sounds like a First Amendment / free speech case, with all the nuances and arguments pertinent to such (save for the fact that the NBA is not the government). And, a bit off topic here, but some employees do in fact have a constitutional right to hold their particular jobs. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

They do, eh? Name a few. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Some employees do, absolutely. A government employee with a "property interest" in his job. For example, every tenured professor employed by the state at a public university. Every tenured school teacher employed by the municipality at a public high school. Some jobs are considered the "property" of the employee (or, at least, the employee has a "property interest" in that job). Because some jobs are considered "property", the government (that is, the employer: the federal, state, or municipal government) cannot deprive the person of that property (i.e., cannot fire them), unless the government (employer) abides by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. These state, in paraphrase, "the government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". So, indeed, some employees – very many, in fact – do in fact have a constitutional right to hold their particular jobs. Basically, every public school teacher in the USA; every college professor in the USA. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

None of those examples represent an absolute right to retain a given job. It is always conditional. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about an "absolute" right? What I had said above was: "some employees do in fact have a constitutional right to hold their particular jobs". They have a "constitutional" right, not an "absolute" right. That is, those rights (whatever they may be) flow from – and are protected by – the US Constitution. So, indeed, some employees – very many, in fact – do in fact have a constitutional right to hold their particular jobs. If you want to parse it more precisely, we'd say: some employees – very many, in fact – do in fact have a constitutional right to continuing employment in their particular jobs. In my post above, I said some employees have a constitutional right; you asked me to name a few; I named a few. Why are you mentioning "absolute" right in response to my posts above? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Smoking in 1918

"When the queen was eighty- years-old , she was advised to smoke one cigar a day, however, she didn’t. Only smoked a small part of it. She was told to take a little wine, or to smoke, but she preferred a small cigar. She would smoke a small part of it and then put it out and the next day start on a new one." - This was from an interview of Lydia Aholo, the adoptive daughter of Queen Liliuokalani at the end of her life. Did doctors in 1918 seriously prescribe smoking as a health benefit? I thought it was only a social excuse to smoke not that doctors believed it was beneficial for a person's health, especially an elderly person. Was smoking a recommended thing for doctors to prescribe and what kind of illness was it usually prescribed for?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We actually have an article on health benefits of smoking, if it's any help. --NellieBly (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OR, but my mother told me that her father, who was a GP, suggested (but not as her doctor, of course) that she take up smoking because he found it calming and thought it would help her. This would have been in the 40's I think. --ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Equally OR - an older Scout Leader once told me that he went to camp with a teenaged boy who had been prescribed two cigarettes a day by his family doctor "to help his nerves". This would have been in the 1950s. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1918 date would have been before the tobacco companies bred hyper-addictive super tobaccos that they would cut with all kinds of garbage (Y1 (tobacco) being the first example I ran across, but I'm under the impression that pretty much every company started doing so as far back as the '50s). It was introduced to Europe as medicine, since that's how a number of Native American tribes used it (in addition to an entheogen). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

More from the internet: "20,679 physicians say Luckies are less irritating" (1920s advert for cigarettes) and Elliot's Asthma Cigarettes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

千家诗

Does 千家诗 have an official English translation? Like how 三字经 is known as Three Character Classic? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

According to this page, it was first translated into English by Tsai Tingkan in 1932, and there have been six other English translations since then. --Canley (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Bonkers meant the title, not the whole text. But should this be on the language desk? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is somewhat under literature... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, well just the title is usually referred to as "Poems of a Thousand Authors" I think. --Canley (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering what's meant by "official". Is there an Office somewhere that determines how to translate such things? Or do the senses of "official" now include "conventional"? —Tamfang (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nazi rape of Jewish women

I've read different accounts of the Nazis' willingness or unwillingness to rape Jewish women in the concentration camps and ghettos. On the one hand, there are accounts of Jewish women being forced to serve as prostitutes for the German military. On the other hand, some Nazis are recorded as seeing such actions as absolute taboo - not because they necessarily had the slightest compassion towards Jews, but, on the contrary, considered that the Nuremberg Laws (and Nazi racial theory more broadly) strictly prohibited sexual contact between an "Aryan" and an "Untermensch" ("sub human") under the law prohibiting Rassenschande. I presume these same Nazis would not necessarily hesitate to freely murder Jews, or rape a Russian, French, or Norwegian victim, for example.

My question is, did the Nazis have any consensus on the acceptability of raping women of "sub human" races (Jews, Gypsies, etc)? Or were there widely divergent views on the issue? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this a serious question, or yet another dumb trolling exercise? Just read the articles you already linked to and War_rape#Europe. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul - this question doesn't look like trolling to me. Would you awfully mind assuming good faith and not casting aspersions?--Genandrar (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

self-censored because f... it. sorry to the OP and anyone who read this. I'm still right, though Asmrulz (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Was Holden in the The Catcher in the Rye in a mental hospital?

I read some analysis that claim that Holden was in a mental hospital (although not explicitly told by the narrator). Which passage, if any at all, hints about this? OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember a line about "that madman stuff", don't know if that helps you any. It was kind of early, I think, when he was preparing to tell the story. IBE (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the first paragraph includes the line "I'll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy." I suppose you could interpret the "come out here and take it easy" part as hinting that Holden is now in a mental hospital. --Viennese Waltz 09:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did Detroit went down, when other American cities thrived?

Why? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Who says they did? And read about East Saint Louis. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How is that different from Detroit? 1950 population 1,849,568, 2010 713,777? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Why did Detroit went down, when other American cities thrived?" East St. Louis did not thrive. Other cities did not thrive. The reasons cities succeed or fail are dependent on many factors. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, others, although not all, American cities thrived. The point here is that it doesn't mirror economical growth. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The very, very short explanation is that the aftermath of the Detroit Riots of 1967 coincided with the nadir of the U.S. auto industry in the 1970s, leading most people who could afford to move out of the city into the suburbs to do so, which meant that the city was caught in a downward spiral of decreasing population and an increasing concentration of poor people... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Further on from that, any area that has a large work force in one industry, that subsequently has that industry go away, is far more likely to suffer severe economic and social consequences. That happened in Detroit: the automobile industry was a vast employer and when they shut down plant after plant that caused an economic vacuum in the area that spiraled. That is of course only one aspect of a messy puzzle but a significant one. By the way, a fascinating movie somewhat related to your post: Roger and Me, about the terrible decline of Flint, Michigan; sort of Detroit's downfall in micro--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Several other U.S. cities have suffered a similar decline to Detroit, such as Camden, New Jersey and the aforementioned East St. Louis. Detroit is prominent among them for being largest in population and area, and being the center of its metro area... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Detroiter here. My analysis:

1) Early 1900's: Growing dependence on the automotive industry, which would eventually cause a severe shock when it declined. Many poor blacks flock to Detroit to work in the industry.

2) 1930's: Unionization leads to higher wages in US auto industry than in other nations with which the US must eventually compete. Generous pensions also require a large work force to support the retirees.

3) Post WW-2: The GI Bill encouraged whites to move out of cities and blacks to stay put. Aside from being racist, this also denies cities of the majority of their tax base.

4) 1967 Detroit riot: Causes further white flight.

5) 1970's - present: Corruption and incompetent political leaders aggravate the problems. The auto industry declines in the face of free trade with nations with lower wages, and no longer has the workforce needed to support it's large retiree base. Similarly, the city no longer has the population and tax base to support it's large retiree base, as well as provide basic services.

As far as the population decline goes, note that most of that population didn't leave Michigan, they just shifted from Detroit proper to the Detroit suburbs. However, the way property taxes are collected in the US means that Detroit gets no taxes from those suburbanites, although they did pass a "taxation without representation" tax on anyone who works in Detroit, whether or not they live there. This was probably counter-productive, in making people not want to work in Detroit and companies not want to locate there. A broader suburban property tax sharing scheme might work better. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see how "The GI Bill encouraged whites to move out of cities and blacks to stay put. " How did the GI Bill did that? OsmanRF34 (talk)

• See Housing_Segregation#The_GI_Bill. Another factor not mentioned there is that blacks didn't have as much money as whites then (due to education and employment discrimination), so were less able to afford to take advantage of the GI Bill to move to the suburbs. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

StuRat -- I found it quite bizarre that a newspaper article titled "Six Crazy Ideas for Saving Detroit" included no mention whatsoever of urban-suburban burden sharing. Apparently some degree of shared government functionality across a whole metropolitan area goes beyond the merely "crazy" into the stark raving psychotic. A rigid urban-suburban partition also had a lot to do with bogging down and bringing to an end 1960s-style school integration efforts, as it eventually became counterproductive to try to move around the ever-shrinking proportion of white students in urban school systems. Part of the famous resistance to school busing in Boston was motivated by the resentment of working-class whites living within the Boston city limits that their children would be subjected to social experiments, while the children of middle class people living in the suburbs (including many of the advocates of integration) would be exempt... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of those ideas are crazy, but others make some sense. I like the "Detroit visa" idea, that would allow in more immigrants, on the condition that they live in Detroit. They could also allow in refugees, and utilize Federal funding for refugees to fix up abandoned homes they could use. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Newark, New Jersey is another city that has suffered dramatic decline. Philip Roth's American Pastoral goes on at length about this. There are many more examples of declining cities in the rust belt. --Xuxl (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Air conditioning. No, seriously. Read this article. One of the key factors in the population shift from the American north to the American south (not the only one, but certainly one of them) was air conditioning; air conditioning made the south more livable, so contributed to the migration away from the Rust Belt. From that article "Many of the central changes in our society since World War II would not have been possible were air conditioning not keeping our homes and workplaces cool. Florida, Southern California, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and New Mexico all experienced above-average growth during the latter half of the 20th century -- hard to imagine without air conditioning. In fact, the Sunbelt's share of the nation's populations exploded from 28 percent in 1950 to 40 percent in 2000. " People have to come from somewhere, and many of them came from places like Detroit. Largest cities in the United States by population by decade will let you track changes. Most Northern cities on those lists have remained relatively stagnant, either plateauing or declining during the last 50-60 years. Southern cities have seen explosive growth. Look at the 1950 census. Except NYC, every other northern city had their historic population peak in 1950. As those dropped off the list in the next several decades, they were replaced entirely by southern cities like LA, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. Houston is an unlivable climate without AC. Now, it would be folly to consider that Air Conditioning was the only factor, but its effect on the livability of a city cannot be ignored. --Jayron32 13:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sad, really. I mean, electricity was also super cheap when the trend started. I wonder if climate change and higher electric bills might be starting to motivate people to move back north... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and also some desert areas that pump water from underground may soon run dry. They can bring water in on trucks, but that's mighty expensive. So then, they either need to build massive pipelines from wherever there is water, or leave town. See Salton Sea for an example of what can happen when the water starts to dry up (in this case, in a lake). StuRat (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Highest per-capita social spending in the free world since late-imperial-Rome. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Can you prove that ? I'd expect much higher per-capita social spending in the Nordic nations. StuRat (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

June 6

Second largest Somali population in the US?

I am confused. The article "Somali-American" said that Columbus, Ohio has the largest Somali population of the nation while the article Kansas City, Missouri in its section Demographics say it has the second largest Somali population. Which one is true? Is it Columbus, Ohio or Kansas City, Missouri? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.253 (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, I lived for a short time in San Diego, CA in a neighborhood that was primarily Somali at the time. They still claim] to also have the second largest Somali population in the US.--William Thweatt 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless the OP omitted a word, Columbus is first, Kansas City second, where's the problem? —Tamfang (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Somali American, the Minneapolis metro area has the largest Somali population. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the question, I mean to ask: Which city claims to have the "second largest Somali population"? Is it Columbus, Ohio or Kansas City, Missouri? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.253 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they both make that claim. —Tamfang (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this a French military base?

This looks like a military base, and a pretty substantial one stretching a long way south. Can anyone shed any light on it? Even just the name would help in further research. Many thanks. Dalliance (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The settlement you see just to the north of your marker is Biscarrosse Plage (Biscarrosse Beach) which would be one of the settlements of the commune Biscarrosse (You can see the main settlement to the east of your marker. As noted in the article Biscarrosse, there's a military rocket testing facility named DGA Essais de missiles. That may be it. --Jayron32 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The Google StreetView reveals three direction signs at the entrance. They appear to read

• DGA (which is the French ministry of Defense)
• Centre de secours (a first-response facility for fire or paramedics)
• 17 Régiment d'Artillerie

The last one presumably refers to fr:17e régiment d'artillerie, which became the fr:17e groupe d'artillerie (17th Artillery Group), and seems to be located in the correct place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you both very much. Dalliance (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of the city of Caen

Who commanded, and why, the bombing of the city of Caen, during WWII ? This is a question which I was asked once: but why did you destroy Caen ? This did not, and still does not, make any sense to me. Where there any airplanes of the USAAF engaged in that matter ? --Askedonty (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a very detailed article on the Battle for Caen and on Operation Charnwood. Caen was a major strategic hub, controlling the Seine River and the route to Paris, and the German Army decided to make a stand there. So the allies told the population to get out and concentrated all means available on destroying the German forces hunkered in the city, including bombing it. Anthony Beevor has argued in the book D-Day: the Battle for Normandy that the bombing was unnecessary and akin to a war crime, but his view is a minority one (see this article if you can read French ). --Xuxl (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: see Antony Beevor says D-Day bombing 'close to a war crime'. The use of saturation bombing as a means of supporting a ground offensive proved not to be as effective as the advocates of air power claimed. Another controversial event was the Bombing of Monte Cassino. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The point in the question I'd been asked did not seem to be that much the civilian casualties ( the turmoil extended to a much greater area than the city ) than the loss of the old city. But I remember indeed that the next consideration had been the Bombing of Monte Cassino. --Askedonty (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Monte Cassino was slightly different in that, the Allies both not knowing and partly not caring, the Germans were not using the buildings for military purposes, nor intended to. Once the buildings were turned into rubble by the bombings, the Germans used the rubble for military purposes with some success. By contrast, at Caen the Germans were using the city as a defensive position from the outset. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The point of similarity is that in both case, the attacking Allies expected a devastating air bombardment to open up the defences for them, which didn't happen. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Compare the destruction of Louvain in WWI by the Germans, an act that turns my stomach when I think about it. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

June 7

Normandy

I've seen a documentary on the Hundred Year's War saying that the reconquest of Normandy was really difficult and the English met with much resistance. The English kings were Dukes of Normandy only a century before, Did the Norman French by this generation view subsequent Kings of England as a foreign invaders with no sentimental attachment to Normandy? Or were there certain parties in Normandy who desired a restoration of the Duchy of Normandy under English control?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you get a "century"; from 1204 or 1214 to Battle of Crécy was over 130 years. In any case, the long-term English power base in France during the 13th and 14th centuries was actually Aquitaine... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't a century, roughly 100 years?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

From the point of view of most people on the ground in Normandy, it would have been a lot closer to a century and a half than a century -- or two centuries until the systematic English reconquest of Normandy after Harfleur and Agincourt... AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)'

• In those days, popular sentiment wasn't a particularly important factor. Conquering a place meant defeating the opposing army and capturing the castles. If the castles were strongly held and well provisioned, capturing them could take a long time. Looie496 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One thing to remember about the historiography of the Hundred Years War is that the "standard" view of it as "English versus French" is a viewpoint that comes about MUCH later, colored by a sort of nationalism that did not exist at the time. It's much more meaningful to think of the war as the Plantagenets versus the Valois. That the Plantagenets were kings of England was actually not a big factor in the war itself. It wasn't the English that were attempting the reconquest of Normandy, it was the Plantagenets that were, and they were claiming it under the same legal theory that they were claiming the throne of France: it required decent through a female line (in Normandy's case through the Empress Matilda). The Valois view was that decent through females could not be used as a means to inherit a title (Salic Law). The Valois viewed Normandy as having gone extinct, and thus reverted back to the King of France, which by the time of the HYW, they had conveniently also inherited. The Plantagenet claim to the French throne was through Isabella of France, mother of Edward III of England, which would have placed Edward III much closer to the throne via her than the Valois claimant. Edward was a grandson of Philip IV of France, while the Valois claimant Philip of Valois was grandson of Philip III of France, thus further removed from the most recent king. However, Philip of Valois's claim was through all males. The English, as they were, probably didn't give a shit, except as hired soldiers who wanted their pay and to go home after their terms of service were done. --Jayron32 14:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Gifts of the King to President Ling-Kong

So I just learned that there's a historical basis for the bit in The King and I in which Rama IV offers to send war elephants to America to help President Ling-Kong prosecute his war. I note that Lincoln's letter acknowledged the receipt of various gifts of less practical and greater symbolic value, e.g. a sword and elephant tusks. What happened to them? Are they held in the Lincoln presidential library perhaps, or at the Smithsonian, or somewhere else? Do they even exist anymore? Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The letter was sent to Buchanan not Lincoln and wasn't related to the war since it hadn't started yet. They are all in the National Archives Sword and scabbard, Tusk and the Daguerreotype..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads of state

In this image of heads of state, taken on the 70th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, France, who is the tall fellow behind Putin? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands. - Lindert (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bhumibol Adulyadej

Who was the longest reigning monarch in the world before Bhumibol Adulyadej took that spot, presumably on his/her death?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) According to this list, King Bhumi is #29. Admittedly, the monarchs #1 to #28 seem to be dead. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No who was the last monarch who reign longer than him at the time but have since died? It's like the record we have for oldest current living man, I want to know who held the record of longest reigning current monarch before him.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that list is complete, I'd assume Paku Alam VIII (#59) - he died in 1998 having reigned since 1937. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't know for sure, but Hirohito would be a good guess. He reigned for 62 years, and when he died in 1989, Bhumibol had already been king for 42 years, so I guess he claimed the title at that point. Favonian (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This and this say that Hirohito was the world's longest reigning monarch at the time of his 1989 death, but most sources say only that he had the longest reign in Japanese history. In any case, we need look no further back than 21 August 1982, when King Sobhuza II of Swaziland died. He was at that time the world's currently longest reigning monarch, and also the longest reigning monarch ever, having been on the throne for over 82 years. Now, Hirohito came to the throne well before Bhumibol, so if he didn't assume the mantle on Sobhuza's death, who did? The remaining question is: Was there another monarch who assumed the mantle on Hirohito's death, with Bhumibol stepping in at some later time? We really need a List of Successive World's Longest Reigning Monarchs. -- Jack of Oz 21:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hirohito definitely wasn't the longest to date — Louis XIV of France got past 70 years (I'm on a bad Internet connection, and I can't load his article; I wonder why this page loads and others don't?), although the Old Kingdom pharaoh Pepi II may be the ultimate; although the length of his reign is disputed, some historians agree with the ancient accounts of him reigning 90-something years or over 100, since he came to the throne as a little boy and died at an extremely old age. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we may be at cross purposes. The current longest reigning monarch at any point in time is not necessarily the one who has had the longest reign in world history. Bhumibol is certainly not the latter record-holder, but he is the longest-reigning of all the world's currently reigning monarchs, and that's all we're interested in. If he dies before Queen Elizabeth II, she will then assume the mantle, even though she probably won't have beaten Queen Victoria's reign, let alone Sobhuza's. -- Jack of Oz 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II will exceed Queen Victoria's reign if she's still around on 10 September 2015. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I derive from that list. When Bhumibol came to the throne, the champion was Jagatjit Singh (from 1877 Sep 03). On 1948 May 5 apparently his state was absorbed into a republic, and the title passed to

• Wilhelmina of the Netherlands until 1948 September 04
• Ibrahim of Johor until 1959 May 08
• Sobhuza II until 1982 August 21
• Hirohito until 1989 January 07
• Paku Alam VIII until 1998 September 11
• Pakubuwono XII until 2004 June 11

—Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Holding a prisoner or a hostage for a long period of time

The recent news with Bowe Bergdahl made me think of this question. This question is not about his specific case, but just about prisoners (or hostages) in general. When "they" (the enemy) hold a prisoner for an extended period of time (years on end), what exactly do they do with them, day in and day out? Obviously, they must provide some level of "room and board" (housing, food, etc.). They must provide them access to the shower, toilets, etc. So, what is the typical scenario? They basically keep the prisoner locked away in a room 24 hours a day? And then check in on him from time to time, to give him food, etc.? It seems like a lot of trouble and a lot of "work" / effort to "maintain" the prisoner/hostage. Not to mention, if there are several prisoners. It's sort of like taking in an extra room mate, one more mouth to feed. So, what typically happens? Does anyone know? I read all the articles here in Misplaced Pages. I am not referring to situations where, for example, they use the POW as slave labor. I am referring to a situation similar to Bergdahl, where they take one guy (or many) and just hold onto them for many years. Another example that comes to mind is the Iran hostage crisis. They held 66 people for 444 days. That's a lot of people to care for and a long time to care for them. Think of all the necessary food and necessary living space, etc., that that would entail! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In this article you can read Brian Keenan's experience of being held hostage by Hezbollah for nearly five years. There didn't seem to be any imperative to provide shower facilities. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have to read that. I am sure each situation is different. Certainly, showers are not "imperative" (nor even is food, for that matter). But, if I had to have someone living with me or near me for a long stretch of time, I'd want them to be clean, showered, and hygienic. In other words, it's not only in the best interest of the hostage, but it is also in the best interest of the hostage taker. (I would think.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There was something (on Al Jazeera I think) about the "value" of hostages to different groups. It compared Bergdahl's treatment to that of those taken by rebels in South America. Where hostages are taken for their monetary value (ransom) alone, they are often, apparently, treated better as there is an effort to assure families and governments that the "commodity" in question is being kept in good condition - part of the effort to assure them that if they pay, the person will be returned in good condition. Where the purpose of the kidnapping is to terrorise, treating a hostage badly adds to the terror of those "who might be next". As I understand it, the taking of Bergdahl was designed to serve both purposes. St★lwart 00:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

John II got the "royal" treatment: "during his captivity ... he was purchasing horses, pets, and clothes while maintaining an astrologer and a court band." Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of Gothic-Blackletter writing style is this?

I wouldn't call it a "font", but what kind of writing style is this? Is it a variant of Rotunda? It is pretty commond around Siena, but also in other parts of Tuscany. It is commonly associated to Middle Ages and local traditions. Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks more like a type of Uncial script, which is earlier than Gothic, although this is presumably a modern imitation. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've generally seen it called Lombardic. —Tamfang (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - see this, this and this. Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

June 8

Was there ever a colony in New England called West Hampshire Colony?

I heard that name in fictitious novel but did such a place ever exist? Venustar84 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

All the results that Google found relate to a series of books called the Cataluna Chronicles by R L Stine. So the answer seems to be no. Alansplodge (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure about the name, but you might look at the disputes between New York and New Hampshire, etc., in the History of Vermont which delayed its statehood. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerical wear

Can anybody tell if this Catholic priestly wear or Evangelical/Anglican costume? Are the clerical dress of the two denominations distinct enough to be differentiated?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The biretta worn by the guy on our right is probably evidence of his Catholicity, although Anglican priests do sometimes wear them. -- Jack of Oz 07:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the biretta is either Catholic or Anglo Catholic, but more likely to be the former. The priest on the left is wearing a surplice in the Anglican style. Alansplodge (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

News headline I'd like to see: Spelling-challenged arms dealer caught selling surplice biretta to secret agent. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If this were a Catholic funeral, or at any rate certainly a Catholic funeral mass, I would expect that any priests would be wearing the chasuble. As far as I can see all the priests are wearing only surplices and stoles which makes them look Anglican to me. Sadly I can't (on a quick Google) identify any clear information on what vestments must be worn at funerals and funeral masses (or funerals with the eucharist as the case may be) by Catholics and Anglicans respectively and it's also quite possible that styles and/or requirements have changed in the last 100 years. Valiantis (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The man behind and to the right of the priest in the biretta is wearing a Canterbury cap. If I'm reading our article correctly, that definitively marks this event as Anglican. I think it very unlikely that at such a date, and in such an obviously ritual context as this, clergy from more than one denomination would be pictured 'in action' as it were. This would also be consistent with the prince having received an Episcopalian (Anglican) education. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• The picture says it is the funeral of Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole so it's fairly easy from there to work out what's going on. We might even be able to identify some of those in the picture.

The Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii (the resting place of Prince Kūhiō) was dedicated by Anglican bishop Thomas Nettleship Staley in the 1860s. In 1898, the Anglican church (as the "Church of Hawaii) was dissolved and became the Episcopal Diocese of Hawaii. John Dominique LaMothe, then-bishop of Hawaii, is said to have presided over the funeral (picture right). St★lwart 22:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think he might be the gentleman in the Canterbury cap? I think he might, but I'm not sure. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like him to me, but I'm not sure there's any way to be sure without further images of the procession. St★lwart 23:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Princess's pregnancy = possible changes to the Constitution of Monaco?

The Constitution of Monaco had to be amended in 2002 because of the looming succession crisis. Prince Rainier III's son Albert was a 44-year-old bachelor, with no apparent intention to marry, while the crown could pass only to the reigning monarch's descendants; his or her siblings were excluded. Tthe succession rules were changed to allow Albert's sisters, nephews and nieces to retain their places in the line after his accession, so that the line of succession would not be empty.

Twelve years later, the 36-year-old wife of the 56-year-old Albert II is expecting a child. Should that be their only child, which seems quite possible if not likely, wouldn't the 2002 problem resurface? Albert's sisters, nephews and nieces will drop out of the line of succession once he's gone, and his child will probably be childless upon accession. Are new constitutional amendments likely to take place, or am I missing something? Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It likely will. I'm not sure why they didn't go back one generation and limit the line of succession to descendants of the previous reigning prince. On the other hand, if the rumour of twins turns out to be true, it might not be necessary. --NellieBly (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Chakana - fakelore?

I have found no primary sources supporting the existence of the "chakana" - a two-tiered cross - as a component of Inca or Pre-Inca Andean folklore or mythology, and wonder if it is an artifact of contemporary invention, "fakelore." The Misplaced Pages article seems to consist of sources whose references go back no further than the 1990's. Can you shed light on this topic? Below is the url of the Wiki entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Chakana

Thank youCzypcamayoc (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks hokey to me, too. Want me to start a case for deletion? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article is crap, but a quick Google search confirms it's the correct name for the symbol and that the symbol is widely used, at least in conteporary South America/Central America. Maybe a re-write is preferable? Matt Deres (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 9

American Gothic (legends & folktales)

Hi! I'm looking for books about the legends and folklore of the Deep South and the Old West. Can you recommend any?

Thanks! MelancholyDanish (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

You mean tall tales like Paul Bunyon ? StuRat (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Start with Dark romanticism and American Gothic Fiction and progress to Southern Gothic. St★lwart 05:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit is seen by some as putting the African-American in a negative light, as just a Good ol' boy. In another view, it is seen as a triumph of the slave where he always outsmarts the slavemaster in the end. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 13:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to check out Fearsome critters. Matt Deres (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Lots of American Southern folklore is also captured in song. For example, songs like "Tom Dooley", "Stagger Lee", "Cotton-Eyed Joe", etc. --Jayron32 00:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Captain James Mackee

When did a Hawaiian Captain James Mackee live, birth and death date and when he lived/visit Hawaii? There is a whaling captain by that name but I'm not sure if that is the same person.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Online bio gives you the details you need and has his birth as 24 November 1812 (familysearch.org has the year 1813) in Woburn, Mass., (familysearch gives Woburn, Middlesex, Mass.,) and death 16 September 1879 in Honolulu. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyway to known if he is the photographer in the series of photographs of the Lunalilo Mausoleum found in that link?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You can contact the digital archives in Hawaii, see . The sequence of those photographs, different focuses, and very varied angles suggest a sophisticated handheld camera, which would make them posterior to James Makee's own life. However an involvement of the estate with photography cannot be denied (this auction announcement, p.19 and next). --Askedonty (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Duke Kahanamoku siblings

Does anybody know the names (full names) of siblings of Duke Kahanamoku? Also what exactly is the number of Kahanamoku's siblings I have seen sources that he had five or six brothers and three sisters or the nine siblings stated in most sources but other sources state he had twelve siblings or fourteen siblings. I'm guessing a number of them died young, and only the six brothers and three sisters survived into adulthood, but do we know the names of the missing five. These are two sites I have looked at but there is no way to know if that is all of them . An interview by his brother Louis indicate that there was twelve with nine that survived and three who were stillborn . Is this Louis' forgetfulness or the real number, also any knowledge who the stillborns (I known stillborn children are usually not named but extra sister in the genealogy sites indicate at least one was named Kakiana or Pislana K. Kahanamoku) were named and then there is the question if they actually are stillborn or died relatively young (you don't say you have a family of twelve children and include stillborns in the count unless they lived for a while).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thich Nhat Hanh & conflict resolution

Hi folks. For awhile now I've been looking for a certain quote from Thich Nhat Hanh about the tricky role of mediator in conflict resolution. Years ago I heard him in an interview (broadcast on NPR but not necessarily hosted by them) about how difficult that role can be especially when one or both sides want to keep fighting... something about the warring parties both turning against the mediator, who often became stuck in the middle like that. I've tried googling various combinations of keywords with no luck. (I usually consider myself good at searching &researching, refinining etc but on this i'm stumped.) The closest I got was to a recording and transcript of some of his interviews including npr, but none included the specific quote i remember or anything close to it. If anyone has ideas for searching or even another good place to ask, i'd greatly appreciate it. El duderino 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 10

Why does China treat North Korea the way it does?

I often see reasoning like "North Korea is a horrible place and if it weren't for China protecting them it would have been liberated a long time ago". So, why is China so nice to North Korea? Why doesn't China just invade it and make it a new province saying something about a wrong way of communism that obviously failed in North Korea while the Chinese variant is bringing happiness or whatever. Chinese government is not my favorite kind of government, but diplomats would (or should) probably agree that anything happening to North Korea can only make it better, even if that includes China taking over.Joepnl (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who responds to this (other than to say "I agree") would necessarily be engaging in a debate, and we don't do that here. Even if everyone agreed, this is still not the place. If China did what you suggest, you could legitimately ask "Why did they do that?" and get a referenced answer, but there's an infinity of things they haven't done, and there won't be references for any of them. -- Jack of Oz 01:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does have an article titled China–North Korea relations, which the OP can read on their own. As Jack notes, however, it's not our position to tell you what you should or should not think about what you read there, but there's certainly some information and some historical context that may help illuminate the ideas the OP is tossing around. --Jayron32 01:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Some things to consider:

1) NK has a substantial military, including nuclear weapons. While certainly no match for China's military, China could expect major casualties.

2) Once China conquered NK, it would then be their problem, including all of it's economic problems. Much like the US invading and annexing Mexico, why would they choose to do that ? StuRat (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean, OP? -- Jack of Oz 05:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In the aftermath of the Korean War, the communist Chinese didn't want a US ally on their border, so they had to prop the country up. As time goes by, they have less and less incentive to do so, but can't totally abandon North Korea without losing prestige/face. Certainly, there's no benefit to invading the country; it doesn't have anything China needs that badly, and they conduct a fair amount of trade. WAG warning: One remote possibility is if there is so much mass starvation that vast numbers of refugees flood into China, forcing it to step in to restore order. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to provide a detailed answer, but the OP may find this artice from stratfor to be of interest. In a nutshell, forcefully intervening in another country's affairs involves significant risks and costs. That doesn't mean China will never do it, but it will give them pause. It's certainly not something to be undertaken lightly, even for a country like China. Remove this bit if it breaches the ban on "debate". 124.181.239.69 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hitler and the seven dwarfs

I heard recently that Hitler loved Disney films and that they discovered many of his drawings of the seven dwarfs. My question is, didn't Hitler hate dwarfs and other disabled and "degenerate" people? It seems strange to me that he would like the film if he hated the subject matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.10.45.108 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually know what Hitler's opinion of people with dwarfism was, but such people are very different from the dwarfs of Märchen (and Disney). Deor (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Deor is right on the money... Hitler was somewhat obsessed with Germanic mythology (especially the Wagnerian version)... and the dwarfs of the movie were within that tradition (all-be-it in a cute and humorous Disney-fied form)... unlike actual human beings with dwarfism. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

He was a big fan of Wagner, of course. The Nibelungs are dwarfs in Wagner's ring cycle, derived from Germanic myth. Paul B (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the U.S also keep a record as to what percentage of Latinos marry Latinos of nationalities different from their own?

If so, what's their most recent estimate? I'm talking about in the U.S for example, Mexicans marrying Puerto Ricans, Brazilians marrying Colombians, Argentinians marrying Panamanians, Ecuadorans marrying Salvadorans, etc. I know that the U.S does keep a record as to what percentage of Latinos marry non-Latinos. Last time I checked, they said 26% of married Latinos have a non-Latino partner. Willminator (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying whether or not that data DOES or DOES NOT exist (that is, if anyone has tabulated it), however IF it does, you would find it using the databases of the American Community Survey, which can be accessed here. The way the ACS works, you can't post links to database search results, so even if I found the information you wanted, it is a laborious process to describe how I found it. The best advice I can offer is to play around with the website. It is rather comprehensive and pretty easy to navigate once you played with it for some time. --Jayron32 15:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Why do so many cultures around the world hate the Jews? Is there a reason for the global-level of hate towards Jewish people? I mean, hating Jews isn't isolated to one country or culture, it seems to be universal. 219.148.47.124 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

<o,O> --Jayron32 18:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Our Misplaced Pages article on this subject is racial antisemitism. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)