Humanities desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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.

November 20

Barack Obama in Southeast Asia

President Obama is currently on a visit to several Southeast Asian countries. Today he was in either Myanmar or Burma. Which name did he use when discussing his visit? I did notice that he said Rangoon, not Yangon. He also said that the US Ambassador is in Rangoon. Why is the US Embassy not in Naypyidaw? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a strange half-built something-or-other which is more isolated from the outside world? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the ambassador part, Naypyidaw only became the capital in 2005, and construction only started around 2006 or so, so it's still a fairly new city. Perhaps it's for convenience, since the center of business is still Yangon, although I'm not an expert on Myanmar/Burma so I can't be so sure. I also read that some countries don't recognize Naypyidaw as the capital, although I don't know the reason, but that may be a factor as to why they haven't moved the embassy yet. It's also interesting to note that most embassies of countries which have diplomatic relations with North Korea are in Beijing rather than Pyongyang, although the reasons for that are far more obvious. Also, several Libyan embassies are in Benghazi or elsewhere rather than in Tripoli, although again I don't know the reason. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of that is historical. Libya formed from the union of three seperate territories, Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and the Fezzan. Two of these, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica are ancient in origin, dating back to Roman Empire times or earlier. For a significant time period, Libya had two official capital cities, Tripoli (in Tripolitania) and Benghazi (in Cyrenaica). Though Benghazi's "official" capital status has since been dropped, it has continued to be an unofficial "secondary capital", with many national government functions; so it hosts embassies as well as Tripoli does. Similar situations, where a country maintains its embassy in a city other than the official capital, happens often enough. The US Embassy in Israel is in Tel Aviv, and its Embassy in the Netherlands is in The Hague. The former because Jerusalem has been a disputed city; Tel Aviv is seen as safer from a security and political stance. The latter because The Hague is the Netherlands seat of government and de facto real capital: Amsterdam is its "official" constitutional capital, but doesn't host any national government functions. The same thing happens in Bolivia; Sucre is the "official" capital, but the government and most ambassadors work out of La Paz. I can find another half dozen cases of U.S. embassies alone which are not resident in the Capital cities, and they all have reasons similar to the reasons noted here. --Jayron32 14:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this news report [1], Obama used "Myanmar" as "a courtesy" to the country's leaders even though the official US position continues to be to refer to the country as "Burma". Dragons flight (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hillary had also referred to it as "Myanmar" during her visit there some months ago. This is a country that appears to be voluntarily trying to expand its civil liberties after decades of repression, so calling them what they want to be called seems like a fair thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set of line drawings all titled 'The Beaujolais Sset'

Each of the drawings is of a 'madam' or 'madamoiselle' plus a name, each in a different costume with a printed decription of their character below. I am just curious to know what their origin or purpose might be. They are just print onto an sheet of card or paper about twice A4, and in the bottom rh corner have a 'c' in a circle and FWFF 88.

Thanks if you have any info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WychwoodYewTree (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat - this is original research and a long shot, but I suspect you may have some promotional materials produced by the international marketing group SOPEXA, or more probably by one of its subsidiaries called FWFF which doesn't seem to be operating now, not under that name anyway, but did so back in the lates 80s/early 90s according to a number of LinkedIn career profiles of marketing professionals. FWFF appears to have focused on promoting wine and food from French regions including Beaujolais. Perhaps the various madames and mademoiselles are images representing different towns, grapes, vineyards or similar - posh giveaways for an upmarket promo campaign? - Ka renjc 11:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is relevant, but drinking Beaujolais nouveau was an icon of Yuppie culture in London in the 1980s. It has spectacularly fallen from favour and you would struggle to give the stuff away now.[2] Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One might say it rose without trace. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Israelis have it all mapped out?

Presumably no one here knows what is going to happen in Gaza, but I'm wondering how likely it is that someone in Israel does know? Specifically, would it be likely that the Israelis have drawn up a battle plan covering the entire outline of their offensive from beginning to end, including such items as lists of bombing targets and the use of ground forces (if any). Or is it more likely that they got into this conflict without having decided on a particular battle plan and exit strategy?

Since we are unlikely to know any specific details about the current operation, I'm curious what is known about past operations by the Israelis (e.g. the 2009 Gaza War), as well as similar conflicts that might have occurred elsewhere? Do historians know whether it is generally the case, in a conflict like this, that the whole course of the conflict has been roughly mapped out before it begins? Or is it more often the case that the military / political leaders make most of their decisions about the course of the conflict only after having begun hostilities? For a larger scale example, when the allies invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, was it already decided that no direct attempt would be made to depose Saddam? Dragons flight (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Publilius Syrus said 'It is a bad plan that cannot be changed', and the Israelis know this. Of course they have a plan (or several), but they will not follow it blindly, and they will adapt the details, or even their entire strategy if the situation requires it. - Lindert (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: this is a bad translation of Publilius Syrus, but that can be changed. A better one: "A plan that cannot be changed is a bad plan" or "It is a bad plan if it cannot be changed." Original: "Malum consilium quod mutari non potest " OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Lindert's version was any worse than your two, Osman. It's in the same vein as "It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good". That could be rendered as "A wind that blows nobody any good is an ill wind" or "It is an ill wind if it blows nobody any good", but where's the value added? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because (to me) the first quote read as if it was in reference to a specific plan. I only understood the intended meaning after reading Osman's versions. --Iae (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I maintain that my translation has a different meaning. In the case of Lindert's translation it implies that you just have one plan, and this one plan cannot be changed. In the original and in mine two versions it implies that good plans are those that can be changed if needed. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily have a different meaning. It depends on how you read it. It has the potential for a different meaning but it can still have exactly the same meaning as the other two versions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a bit even to see Osman's objection. He thinks Lindert's translation amounts to "It is a bad plan (and one) that can't be changed." But I would have translated it exactly as Lindert gave, or even more poetically and less ambiguous: Bad the plan that can't be changed. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, there is no question that an umambiguous translation, such as Osman's, is better than an ambiguous one. Before Osman clarified, I read and understood the unintended meaning of the first (poor) translation. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-known idiom in British (and Australian) English, following the Latin structure, not a poor translation, but if it is not universally understood by competent speakers of English world-wide, then it's poor communication. Dbfirs 08:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lindert's seems to be the standard form[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once a translation is canonized into a "standard form" (whatever that be), there is not way of changing it? Why does the Bible has alternative translations then? It is a bad translation that cannot be changed? Philoknow (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here has argued that there is just one acceptable translation or that there's anything wrong with suggesting new translations. - Lindert (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idioms are not easy to translate between languages, and sometimes they don't translate between varieties of the same language. Did this idiomatic British sentence structure arise as a result of translations from Latin? Is it not used in the USA? Dbfirs 09:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divorcing a spouse with mental instability

Can it be done? It is a problem for the editor in the last episode of Downton Abbey. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 divorce was only possible in cases of adultery. However, those rich enough could probably arrange for "evidence" of adultery to appear. Rojomoke (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... with a quick look, I have not found an article that lays out the history and development of various divorce laws in England. Divorces were indeed much harder to obtain during the Edwardian Era (the setting for Downton Abbey)... I assume that the 1857 statute that Rojomoke points us to was still in effect, but it would be helpful to have one article that summarizes the various changes over time. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brief history of divorce: From Henry VIII to White v White says "In 1937, the law was changed and divorce was allowed on other grounds including drunkenness, insanity and desertion." This page, A brief history of divorce supports that, so it seems that before 1937, you could only divorce on grounds of adultery. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there another alternative like annulment? μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the "mental instability" was present at the time of the marriage, then presumably a case could have been made that the spouse was not able to enter into the contract properly, and an annulment would have been possible. Rojomoke (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether this article might be helpful, if someone could access it. - Ka renjc 20:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if you wanted to divorce your spouse who has mental instabilitty, all you had to do was commit adultery? Sounds easy enough. What's the catch? – b_jonas 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, in order to have legal grounds for divorce, you had to prove that your spouse had been unfaithful, so that wouldn't work. - Lindert (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the common people, it was easier to commit said family member into an asylum and pretend they didn't exist. (OK so this is OR, I have a great great aunt to whom this happened. Her grandson was under the impression she died 6 months after being commited: she actually died 30 years later.) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was only the aggrieved spouse who could sue for divorce on grounds of adultery. I don't think a husband could go into a court and say, "Here is my mistress. Here is my servant who can testify to what he saw us doing. Now grant me a divorce from my insane wife." I think it would have to be the insane wife who requested the divorce, though of course she might have been induced to sign a document asking for divorce. Marco polo (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes [4] [5] and Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 seem to confirm the husband needed to prove his wife commited adultery. While they don't specifically say the husband couldn't petition for a divorce based on his adultery, I would say it's implied. (They do mention the wife had to show more then just plain adultery from her husband.) My understanding is this was the norm for most such laws in various countries. Note that if the husband was rich and well connected, her likely still had the option available before the act existed i.e. convincing parliament to pass a Private bill (Local and Personal Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom) to grant him a divorce. I'm not sure whether it was normal for parliament to pass a bill in such a case but my assumption is if the husband did have the necessary wealth and connections, unless the wife had someone to fight for her, he would be able to get a divorce. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on annulment above, would it have any legal meaning, given Britain has a state church? μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the existance of an established church would make any difference. Nevertheless, the concept of annulments exists in both British secular law and Church of England law, so I don't see there being a problem. --Tango (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annulment is legally meaningless in the US, since it's purely a church matter, and churches have no legal status. You just implied that there is secular law regarding annulment in Britain, as I suspected there might be, given you have an established church. So, the question remains, would annulment have been a legal alternative to divorce in any sorts of cases where separation was sought but there was no adultery involved? μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annulment is a legal procedure in multiple US states (two are described in our annulment article). No idea if there are/were similar laws in the UK. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right; religious annulment and civil annulment are similar ideas but totally separate procedures in the United States. In both cases it means the marriage has no effect because it was never valid, but the kinds of "effect" and the reasons for invalidity are different. I would be surprised if there were any state that does not have a notion of civil annulment; it's a pity that the article lists just New York and Nevada. (Here is some info on California.)

I had the notion that a marriage could also be annulled if it had never been consummated, but that does not seem to be listed as grounds in California. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That harks back to a question I asked here a few months ago. A lot of American celebrities these days seem to talk about getting annulments rather than divorces. I've always suspected it's loose language ~~because, as you say, annulment is solely a church matter in the USA, not a civil matter~~. Even if you do procure a church annulment, the law of the land still considers you to be married, and if you want to remarry (a third party), you're first required to kill or divorce your legal spouse. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They will almost certainly be practicing Catholics, who pursue annulment as a religious work-around given the prohibition on a church remarriage even after a civil law divorce. Remarry without an annulment and you are in effect excommunicated as willfully living in sin. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above — religious annulment and civil annulment are different. I'm not sure which celebrities Jack has in mind so I can't comment on which applies here. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The examples given of legal annulment in the USA rest on situations of fraud, dishonesty, consanguinity, one party being already married, one or both parties lacking the legal capacity to give consent, or things like that. But what I’m talking about is celebrity couples who marry where none of these issues apply. It's an absolutely valid marriage. But down the track (in about 3 weeks) they find their marriage is not working, so they go and get what they often call an "annulment". In most cases this is just a loose or euphemistic way of talking about what the rest of us would call a "divorce". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual example of this? I went and searched in the archives and found you had asked such a question, but it wasn't about real life; it was in the context of a soap opera, which of course is not really required to get legal details correct. --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1854 engraving of Waimea

Base on this illustration and the names "Lossing=Barritt." written on the side can someone tell me if the person is the engraver or artist and when this may have been originally made. It must predate 1854.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lossing" is Benson John Lossing, who according to his article "joined William Barritt in a wood engraving business that became one of the largest of such firms in New York" in 1846. It may be difficult to determine who executed the drawing or painting from which the engraving was made, since I don't see any indication on the cut itself. Publishers of the time often inserted illustrations (the 19th-century equivalent of clip art) that had nothing to do with the authorship of the work in which they appeared, so it's probably unlikely that the G. W. Bates who wrote Sandwich Island Notes made the drawing or had anything to do with the illustration's appearance in the book. Deor (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon B. Johnson corruption

This Bloomberg [6] article accuses Lyndon B. Johnson of bribery to the tune of millions. Is there any truth to this? I can't find any reliable source to corroborate this claim and Google is no help thanks to all the JFK conspiracy theory nuts. His own biography contain claims of fraud and ballot stuffing, but nothing about bribery. A8875 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article says nothing about Johnson and bribery. It states that he was wealthy by the time he became President, but doesn't speculate about how he got there. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, nothing explicit was said, but it's still strongly implied: "After 27 years of service in modestly paid public offices, he has managed to become one of the richest Presidents in U.S. history.". In any case, I'm looking for references to these alleged corrupt dealings implied by the pseudo-accusations.A8875 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're referring to this article, not the Bloomberg piece. But I still don't see even a pseudo-accusation. You mentioned The Years of Lyndon Johnson; have you read it? It goes into astonishingly extensive detail regarding his business dealings. If you want a solid reference regarding his finances in the absence of anything more specific to go on, I suggest you start there. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest this is just a minute curiosity so I probably won't spend the time to go through the 4 volume biography. I just skimmed through the WP article on said biography and it didn't mention any corruption so I'll just assume none was mentioned in the biography. A8875 (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of drawing this out too much, I wouldn't say that corruption isn't mentioned, since corruption has a much broader definition than bribery. Quite the opposite, in fact, particularly considering his very special relationship with Brown & Root. The first volume of Years alone covers many things on the corruption checklist including election fraud, cronyism, and patronage. It's just that Johnson's goal was to become President for reasons other than money, so building a personal fortune was a side benefit of his considerable political connections rather than a direct result of envelopes of cash. In fact, the very first paragraph of The Path to Power relates an incident where Johnson turned down a very lucrative sweetheart deal because accepting it may have negatively impacted his political career. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be what George Washington Plunkitt would have called "honest graft"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]