Humanities desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 14

Do Catholic bishops reign?

Is the first sentence of this edit accurate in its wording? I know that popes reign, but I can't remember if lower-ranking Catholic bishops can also be said to reign. I'm asking about official terminology, if there is such a thing; using Google, I've found references to bishops reigning, but only on blogs and similar types of pages. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pope only reigns in his secular role as Head of State of the Vatican City. Bishops (of which the Pope is merely one, officially) preside, I believe. At least, that's a formulation I have heard before. --Jayron32 04:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adendum; there was a time when Bishops did actually reign (in the secular sense), see Prince-Bishop. The only such Prince-Bishop left is the Pope. --Jayron32 04:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Bishop of Urgell also a prince-bishop, being a bishop and a co-Prince of Andorra? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shonuff. I stand corrected. --Jayron32 15:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following are some sites (some official Church sites) using the "reign" terminology: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben-Hur:_A_Tale_of_the_Christ's prison

In this book (or film) some characters are condemned to some years in prison. Was that possible at any time in the Roman Empire? I thought that prisons were just a temporary solution and never the actual punishment. Quest09 (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Prison article agrees with your statement. I wouldn't necessarily assume that everything presented either in the book or on-screen in Ben-Hur is historically accurate. I would suspect that the book's author was not necessarily a history scholar. I still find it funny that there's a somewhat Kevin-Bacon-like connection between Charlton Heston and Billy the Kid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Apostle, for one, was imprisoned several times in various places in the Roman Empire – in fact he was even famously "set free" once (but chose to stick around and convert the prison-guards instead;) from one prison in Macedonia when it was destroyed by an earthquake! (Acts 16:20-40)

Also, more specifically in response to your question, the Arrest and death section of Paul's article says: "He was held as a prisoner for two years in Caesarea until a new governor reopened his case in 59". WikiDao ☯ 05:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We might distinguish an ancient prison or dungeon where you lock some one up while their case is being tried or while they are awaiting execution or punishment, from a modern prison where you lock someone up for many years for punishment or in an attempt at reforming him. In ancient times, wasn't it more common to punish and release or banish, or to execute, rather than to incarcerate for many years after trial? Hang them, brand them, mutilate them, whip them, expose them in the stocks, transport them to Australia. No "prison system," though certainly they might be sentenced to the galleys or enslaved for life. Modern incarceration is hideously expensive, costing about as much in the US per prisoner per year as tuition at an Ivy League college. (It presently costs close to $50,000 per year to keep a California prisoner). Edison (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And, yes: our Prison article says:

"Only in the 19th century, beginning in Britain, did prisons as known today become commonplace. The modern prisons system was born in London, as a result of the views of Jeremy Bentham. The notion of prisoners being incarcerated as part of their punishment and not simply as a holding state until trial or hanging, was at the time revolutionary."

...as was already alluded to by Bugs in the first response above. WikiDao ☯ 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks abstracts for geopol students

Hello, Wikipedians!

I am a student at a university in Norway, where I study politics. Of course Wikileaks has been invaluable in my eyes, in showing the true paths of diplomacy where normally all we have are past events and theories. Therefore I seek an outlet for these cables where they are sorted, by date etc, but also by the more subjective 'importance'.

Are there any webpages that provide daily/weekly/monthly abstracts of a list of the most serious cables? I'd imagine someone has gotten around to putting the cables into system by now, but I don't know of any of them. Pray, are you able to assist a student?

Thanks in advance! 88.90.16.188 (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://cablesearch.org/ --Mr.98 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy do a weekly round-up of the more important cables in the Wikileaked section of their website, with more in-depth analysis of particular cables throughout the week. It works quite well as an aggregator, but it's not sorted in the exact way you're asking.

Noble titles

The article Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark states (with impeccable sourcing) that in 2008 the Queen of Denmark created the title "greve af Monpezat" (count of Monpezat) and conferred it upon her sons.

Now, I don't know much about how nobility works, but Monpezat is a place in France. The French Republic claims sovereignty over it. The Danish monarchy never did, and neither did the Danish kings personally, even as ceremonial or customary titles. How can the Danish monarch now purport to appoint counts over it -- or rather, how can she do it without (apparently) eliciting any furious protest from France?

Where can I find the rules for appointing nobles to places outside the appointing monarch's own territory? It cannot just be a free-for-all, can it? I suspect that extremely nasty diplomatic notes would be exchanged (and some demonstrative naval exercises hastily arranged) if the president of Turkey were to appoint a High Steward and Bailiff of Lesbos, or if Elizabeth II appointed someone Governor-General of Massachusetts. Could the king of Spain go create a Duchy of Novosibirsk and select a duke for it? –Henning Makholm (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the first paragraph of House of Monpezat answer your (first) question?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, especially since the validity of the comital title traditionally used by Henrik's family was in dispute. How can the French willingly suffer that a foreign monarch acts like a final arbitrator over whether one of their noble titles should even exist (and a not very impartial arbitrator at that)? And even if they are happy that the title exists, shouldn't they at least take issue with the Queen's purporting to prescribe new rules for its succession? –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that France is a Republic, the French government may not really care about this. It isn't like the Danes are claiming sovereignty over the town. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Land and titles of nobility once associated with the land have been severed for hundreds of years. To learn more, see Lord of the Manor. For other examples of foreigners holding titles of nobility that were formerly associated with actual French locations, see Prince of Orange and Duke of Aubigny. It is not as strange as you think. Conferring the title has nothing to do with the land anymore and all to do with the family, which held the title at least at some point in history. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is twofold. First, as 24.38 notes, there is no longer any connection between a title and the nominal estate the title grants one; there has not been for hundreds of years. Secondly, regarding possible French reaction to this, the answer is the French couldn't give two shits about what some noble family in Denmark is named. They're not making any actual claim to any French territory; as a republic for the past 140 years, they no longer have any pretenses that such issues matter anymore. --Jayron32 15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A monarch can create whichever noble title he or she wants to create. So yes, the King of Spain can create someone Duke of Novosibirsk. Doing so is in no way illegal. The Queen of the United Kingdom created Sue Ryder Baroness Ryder of Warsaw in 1979, even though Warsaw was never a part of the United Kingdom nor a part of any of its predecessors. There are many, many more examples. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand... appointing someone "Governor-General of Massachusetts" might imply a claim of sovereignty over the territory ("Governor-General" being an office as well as a title). Even then, there is nothing to prevent the Queen making such an appointment ... The reaction in the US would probably be to laugh and ignore it (unless there was an attempt to actually carry out the duties of the office). Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an additional implication. When in the UK new life peers are appointed (by the Queen, but usually on the recommendation of the current government), they get to nominate where they want to be made Baron/ess of, and often choose somewhere with which they have a personal association or interest, which is generally taken as a compliment by them to that place. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No more laughable than the senile U.S. judge who sentenced someone to transportation to and penal servitude in the "colony of New South Wales". Oh, this was only about 20 years ago. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "U.K. judge", right? I don't think the States ever practiced penal transportation to Australia. Rimush (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was precisely my point. It was a guy from somewhere around Tennessee who'd obviously read about this historical practice of the British and thought it was available to him to impose on a fellow US citizen. Needless to say, the sentence was not executed (but I just said it anyway). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for that? I can't find it in Google News Archives. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Sydney isn't a colony of the US anymore? I could have sworn... Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :) I remember looking for a cite once before, and failing. But I have a clear memory of seeing this news item and relating it to a mate of mine, and us both laughing uproariously at the stupidity of it. This would have been some time in the 1980s, probably, so maybe up to 30 years ago. For some reason, Tennessee sticks in my mind but I won't swear to it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, there's the Viscount of Alamein... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to forget John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent, whose domain either is a small rock in Portugal, or, more likely, the water around it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the Viscount Barfleur, the Earls of Camperdown, the Marquesses and Barons Douro, and, perhaps most recently, the Earls of Ypres. Also, less obviously, the Earls of Albemarle (that title being an anglicisation of the French County of Aumale). (It should also be noted that titles in the form "Viscount Montgomery of Alamein" (not simply "Viscount (of) Alamein") and "Baroness Ryder of Warsaw" have never implied sovereignty/ownership/control by the peer of the place named, merely an association with that place. This is why the second part of these titles can be duplicated - there can be Lords/Ladies Cave of Richmond, Fanshawe of Richmond, Wright of Richmond, Watson of Richmond, Harris of Richmond, Hale of Richmond, etc., but (in theory) only one Duke of Richmond.) Proteus (Talk) 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. I guess I assumed that furnishing a place with nobility was such a quintessentially sovereign act that it per se implied an assertion of sovereignty. Even though (as I'm fully aware) the practical consequence of the title are nil, international relations has always been about symbolism and appearances, right? When there is no practical effect left, the symbolic consequences must be the entire point, and it still baffles me how the symbolism of a monarch granting the formula "<rank> of <fief>" can not include a premise that the place is his to enfeoff.

The question then becomes, when did this change? Did some diplomatic congress sit down and decide that henceforth the granting of extraterritorial titles is to be considered a domestic parlor game rather than an explicit announcement of dynastic ambition? –Henning Makholm (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's Ross of Bladensburg, in honor of the British sack of Maryland and Washington, DC, which seems sort of like a claim of overlordship of Bladensburg, Maryland. Corvus cornix_talk 07:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood fingerprinting, adult conviction

Like a lot of youths, I was a cub scout in my younger days. We were all fingerprinted as part of a program for finding abducted children. I'm sure the same thing happened to other kids around the country at that time and throughout the proceeding decades. Now, I realize criminals get imprisoned all of the time based on fingerprint evidence, but have any ever been convicted of a crime based on their childhood fingerprints? Just for an example, imagine a scenario where a person commits some sort of heinous act, but their finger prints are not in the normal military / criminal database. One lab tech decides to check the database for children and finds a match. Is this possible? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible ... however, many places have laws about how long the records of juveniles are kept on file, laws that set out how and when such records can be accessed by the police. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fingerprint has lots of interesting information on this subject, including the point that it's not 100 percent reliable, and also that there has been resistance to routine fingerprinting of children as "fishing expiditions". The article also implies that one's fingerprints are relatively constant through life. I say relatively because they are often not a perfect match, even from the same hand done twice in relatively quick succession. As Blueboar says, it would be theoretically possible to look for a match, but fingerprints taken in some institutions may not be available to the FBI database, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police holding children's DNA records on a national database has been a hot topic in the UK in the last few years[6]. Big Brother may not be watching you but he probably knows your DNA profile. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is arguably not Big Brotherish. The problem with the Big Brother state is not that it can identify and arrest criminals, but that it can define crimes arbitrarily to cover speech and political activity. Technology can certain exacerbate the latter, as it does in 1984, but it's not the main problem, and arguably not the driving force behind it. I don't see how fingerprints, or DNA registries, really affect that by themselves — they aren't even "tempting" technologies, the way that intrusive monitoring of communications or movements might be. I would be more worried if DNA information was given to insurance companies, for example, than police agencies. (Though of course DNA fingerprinting would not, as far as current practices are concerned, be of any use to an insurance company, as it is just an extraordinarily small sampling of one's genome.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Mr98, you're an expert on almost everything. 92.15.25.173 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My sarcasm meter is not very good, but I will say that the field I formally study is fairly wide-ranging when it comes to issues of science and history (science and technology studies), so I know a bit about a lot. In theory, anyway... --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of US children's fingerprints being taken as help in any abduction, but the prints were given to the parents to store, and not put in some police database. Any reference for there being a police database of random childrens' fingerprints in the US? Edison (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's the safe way to do it, and only give the prints to the cops if your child goes missing. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most Child ID programs do it that way... the collected materials (finger prints, photos/videos, DNA samples, etc) are given to the parents, not the police. I doubt the police would keep a child's finger prints on record unless the child was arrested for a juvenile crime. And, as I said, there are strict rules on when and how juvenile records can be opened and used once the child becomes an adult. Blueboar (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly ditto to what's been said above. When I was in Cub Scouts, we went to the police station for a tour and all of us got fingerprinted. The prints were given to our parents though and not kept by the police. While looking through some of my parents things for something unrelated, I remember seeing the fingerprints in a collection of old papers when I was in high school or possibly even college. Dismas|^(talk) 01:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

Just a quick question after having visited Cuba last year (2010). We did a week touring the mainland and visiting Havana for 4 days followed by an all-inclusive week on one of the Cuban Cayos. The contrast (as seen through the eyes of a tourist) was totally incomparable. Lovely people, living in grinding poverty with empty shops and crumbling buildings under the ever watchful eyes of security guards on every corner, but seemingly unresentful of tourists like me spending money and eating food that the ordinary Cubans could only dream of being able to do. Many of them quietly told us they wished the 1959 revolution hadn't resulted in the later affiliation with Russian aided Communism. Several others appeared very happy with the socialist state that had resulted even allowing for the subsequent fall of Russian support. My question? Oh yes. Has Castro or any of his compadres ever suggested that they would have preferred to stay close to American and Western political and trading systems rather than pursue the Soviet system? Thanks 92.30.12.170 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug up some interviews - this is the only stuff I could find. Castro was interviewed by Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic, in which he states that the 'Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore' Cuban Model article This suggests that he thinks the 'Cuban model' did work in the 60s and throughout the Cold War. It also suggests that he thinks Communism does work and that he still believes in it, but that it isn't working in Cuba. In another article by Goldberg, Goldberg writes this: "I asked him, "At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the U.S. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?" He answered: "After I've seen what I've seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn't worth it all." Here's the link: Soviets bombing US - article Hope these help. Winters111 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2011 (GMT)

Winters, I can't thank you enough for those fascinating links. I had truly expected some brush-off responses, if any at all, but what an insight you provided me with, into Castro's re-invention of himself, and his current thinking about the cold war threat of nuclear action against the USA. Thank you so much - I am very grateful to you. 92.30.12.170 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recall that it wasn't clear Castro would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence when he first gained control of Cuba, that evolved over time. So, he wasn't as "idealogically pure" as you might think. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stu. I had already arrived at that conclusion after my visit there. I can't imagine that anyone other than a despot would have wished to get rid of Batista only to replace him with the unimagineable oppression and poverty we witnessed during our stay. Yet despite our observations and the post-Batista cruelty and executions perpetrated by Castro and Guevera (and others)on their pro-Batista opponents, I somehow can't classify Castro as a despot. He is and was a highly educated lawyer with a deep interest in human rights, who was seemingly diverted from his stated objective of fairness and decency for all Cubans, and that noble goal somehow evaded him and he subsequently threw his lot in with the Soviets who saw him and Cuba as a launch pad for their ICBM's against the USA, as you correctly infer. I wonder now whether the views he expressed in the 2 links provided above by Winters have ever trickled down to the ordinary Cuban via media such as the state newspaper Granma, or other information sources? 92.30.247.85 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "abject poverty" in Cuba is as much the result of the US embargo and the subsequent reliance on Eastern block politically motivated trade than on the economic system. While the sugar trade kept Cuba afloat (and economically reasonably well off - compare Haiti or Jamaica) during the cold war, it also created a dependency that caused an economic collapse once the Soviet block disintegrated, in particular since the most natural partner for trade and tourism still maintains a boycott. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what a fascinating co-incidence that here am I asking these questions whilst at the same time, I have just read that President Obama is directing that travel restrictions for US students and Church groups wanting to visit Cuba should be loosened. Amazing. Do you think he read my post here on Wikipedia? I think that when they get there they will be gobsmacked at the number of Canadian, Chinese, European, and South American tourists and businesses already visiting and successfully operating there. I think that for years, the USA has quietly assumed that post-Castro, they would merely step into the gap, but they are, in my humble opinion, in for a major shock. 92.30.247.85 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

build your own car

If I wanted to build my own car in Missouri, USA, what requirements would I need in order for me to be able to get it properly registered and licensed for use on the road? Googlemeister (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on references from their FAQ, you will first have to pass a safety inspection. Then, using bills of sale for the major components of the vehicle, you license it as "manufacturer" instead of a purchase. From that point on, it is just a vehicle and all paperwork is no different from any other vehicle. -- kainaw ™ 20:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a kit car as a middle ground, just a thought. 91.85.164.90 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]