Humanities desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

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.

June 13

US Navy or Marines General Orders for Sentries question

At General Orders for Sentries it says: "When you are a sentry, you are "in charge." This means that no one—no matter what their rank or position—may overrule your authority in carrying out your orders. The only way that you may be exempted from carrying out your orders is if your orders are changed by your superior. For example, if your orders are to allow no one to enter a fenced-in compound, you must prevent everyone from entering, even if an admiral tells you it is all right for him or her to enter. The petty officer of the watch (or whoever is your immediate superior) may modify your orders to allow the admiral to enter, but without that authorization you must keep the admiral out."

Say that example order was given. Say the county police enter the compound, grab you, tell you that you are under arrest and begin reading you your rights. By the order, are you supposed to resist arrest and try to repel them from the compound? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the sentry would only have to explain to the county police that the area is under the control of the Navy (or Marines) and they would recognize their error and beat a hasty retreat. In legal matters, there are many examples where the jurisdiction of one authority is limited geographically. All authorities must train their staff and serving officers to understand the limits of the authority. (The county police must train its police officers to understand the relevance of property under the control of the federal government and the defense forces.) If the county police officers dismiss the sentry's explanation that the area is not an area over which the county police has jurisdiction, and continue their efforts to arrest the sentry, it is most likely they are merely masquerading as county police officers. If the sentry gave this explanation and then fired at the county police in an attempt to prevent them entering, and he was subsequently asked to explain his actions, he could use this rationale as his defence. Dolphin (t) 06:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say that the sentry knows that they are county police. Consider both cases, when the county police do not have jurisdiction (e.g., the police were given incorrect information) and when they do (e.g., the sentry's CO was given incorrect information). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what needs clarification there is what happens if the sentry is out of immediate communication. Obviously, a sentry tends to be more useful when there is someone to notify when there is a threat! And obviously they should have effective radio communications. But if a truck bomb takes out the command post he's supposed to report to, and somehow the radio network is disrupted, is he supposed to try to watch/defend his particular building against people masquerading as police, or to reestablish contact with some authority first? (I don't know, but I would suspect that's not spelled out in the General Orders because military, even sentries, really aren't the mindless automatons we like to give them credit as, and have to make tough calls...) Wnt (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another part of the quoted general order #1 seems on point:

...It is also your responsibility to know the limits of your post. This information will be conveyed to you among your special orders. ...

As well as, particularly, general order #6:

To call the Corporal of the Guard or Officer of the Deck in any case not covered by instructions. The rule here is "When in doubt, ask." If you are not sure what you are supposed to do in a particular situation, it is better to ask for clarification than to make an assumption or to guess.

Note that on U.S. military facilities, police duties are generally handled by military police agencies which are part of the armed forces—not, generally, by civilian police services. Depending on the size or type of facility, different agreements (standing or ad hoc) may be made between military and civilian police forces to allow civilian forces to operate on base; generally if civilian police want to question or arrest a sentry, they make a request to the military and the military police produce the individual. See this forum discussion. In other words, if a civilian police officer just walked on to a base and tried to make an arrest without coordinating with the base commander or miliary police, it would suggest that someone had dropped a ball somewhere, as far as jurisdictional issues went, and the matter would have to be kicked up the chain of command. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the information, everyone. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1883 Kalakaua Proclamation

I know from secondary sources and obituaries of the three princes that King Kalakaua created his nephews David Kawānanakoa, Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, and Edward Abnel Keliʻiahonui princes in 1883. I am guessing this is also the time when he created his wife's sister princesses Victoria Kinoiki Kekaulike and Poomaikelani too. But I can't find contemporary records mentioning the 1883 proclamation, can someone help me find a reference to such a proclamation dating from that time?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Frances Reed, of the Hawaii County Library Here, such records do not exist. She explains why. --Askedonty (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been a verbal proclamation but then it would still have to be ratified by the legislature where the records might exist or even an eyewitness account of the coronation. Liliuokalani's observation in 1883 was written a decade afterward, she refers to only Prince Kawananakoa and sister of Kapiolani by their title during the ceremony. Even this 1883 account call Kawananakoa a prince; I don't know if this is written in acknowledgement of a change of title during the ceremony or not though. It mentions no proclamation.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's right and even, Frances Reed may be too approximate. Article 22 of the 1887 constitution mentions "heirs in direct line", and otherwise, only if there are none. Regarding Kapiolani's nephews, there is clear mention of "royal decrees" in the diplomatic litterature, reports dated from the 1890's. --Askedonty (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway I can another version of the source by Frances Reed with pages? I want to use it for an article. But I want to cite it with Harvard referencing.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to find page numbers for Reed, Frances (1962). Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, 1871-1922. Hilo: Hawaii County Library?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inventor

Who was the first woman to be credited as an inventor ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carllica4 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha Babbitt is the earliest on this partial list, for her circular saw. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sybilla Masters was almost ahead by a century. Technically not the inventor. As the article above noted, early women couldn't patent stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatia is older than the previous suggestions by ~1500 years. Of course, we don't have much of her writings left, but she is still credited with inventing a Hydrometer. Also, there is somewhat of a philosophical debate as to whether new mathematics is "invented" or "discovered". If you think it makes sense to invent mathematical techniques, then she did that too. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who got married

Who is the lovely lady in white currently pictured at the top of this ref desk page? (and why do we include a picture of her)? Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That lovely lady is actually Beautiful Woman. No clue why. Beats Ugly Woman, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she's gone now... so the question is moot. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still see her. Not just here. Every desk. I hope she's not the White Lady. You can see her too, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no ghost hunter, but my Scooby sense is telling me she probably died in April. Or her real identity is April Flowers. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now she's gone for me, too. I don't see any Edit History change. Maybe she just needed us to solve the mystery before she could rest. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For people who are asking "WTF", like me, this vandalism is what they are referring to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks. Now to find out who User:Carllica4 really is. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlicca4 is the ref desk troll. It's under discussion on the talk page. Don't hold your breath waiting for checkusers to do anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this is Carllica4, not Carlicca4. Seems suspiciously socky, but so do people named Mohammed Muhammet after Muhamed Muhammad gives all Mohammads a bad name.InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, it's Carllica4 (talk · contribs) who's the troll and has had that particular sock indef'd. There is no Carlicca4 (talk · contribs). So sue me over a typo. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not suit intended. Thought it might have been an alias, not a typo. "The ref desk troll" sounded like someone you were familiar with, not a new account. Anyway, it seems April may have been a banshee after all. So long, Shaggy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers cannot. He's using open proxies, which means that there's no way for him to be stopped. It's not, as your subtext implies, that they're lack of action is to deliberately spite you. There's nothing to be done except whac-a-mole. --Jayron32 00:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Open proxy article, does this mean that every one of those IP's is an open proxy server? Does it mean they have to be blocked when they appear? Or is there just one server, that the troll is somehow using to jump to other IP addresses? (If the answer would be too much info for discussion openly here, just say "TMI".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering how many beans you've spilled already (i.e. telling the troll on WT:RD how we identify him easily), I see no harm in discussing this. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but basically an open proxy is a kind of Anonymizer that makes it impossible to trace a person's actual IP address. The idea behind an open proxy is that any person can funnel their internet traffic through one, making it "appear" as though the IP address of the proxy is the person's own IP address. Because of their ability to be abused, open proxies are blocked on sight. However, they have to be identified as such first, and that requires someone to actually look into an IP address that is suspected of being an open proxy. The only way that one comes to the attention of checkusers/admins/the good people at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies is if they actually start editing, so we can't stop determined people from using open proxies until they actually use them, and when we block that one, they just find a new one. --Jayron32 03:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully confident that the troll knows we're aware of his techniques. Unfortunately, some users insist on treating that trolling as good-faith, and I think they need to be made aware of it so they can recognize the signs, and I don't feel like handing out my e-mail address to everybody and his mother. It crosses my mind that a troll like this could be a lot more dangerous than just abusing the internet for this "relatively harmless" trolling. It's all very unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]