Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< November 6 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 8 >
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 7

[edit]

Taghut and democracy

[edit]

The news today covered a statement by ISIS that for American Muslims to participate in an election - even to support Muslim causes - is a form of taghut, a sort of idolatrous offense against Allah by suggesting that someone else can make legislation. It seems to be a very strong rejection of positive law in all forms; in some ways it seemed reminiscent of a Christian anarchist position, actually. (Such is the atmosphere of this election that the essay by the world's foremost lunatics was actually one of the better-written and argued positions I've read about it lately, alas)

Anyway, I was curious... a) how widely is this believed? b) can you use this to deduce that an American Muslim who votes is definitely not a member of ISIS (note that American voting records - not the votes but whether you cast them - are essentially public), and per a, does that extend to Al Qaida and other groups? c) If this caught on (or is done already) would they consider going into the poll to cast a blank vote a "taghut" or would that be OK to deceive security forces? d) And if they did do that, how many people cast blank votes? Would that stand out as a strong indicator they were members, if some sinister three letter agency has access to that data (and who thinks they don't...)? Oh, yeah, and e) while I said "essentially public" I have no idea how to find out if Tashfeen Malik voted, for example, to see how this fits in with theory - any ideas?

I doubt I'm going to hear answers to all those, but at least there ought to be a section in taghut as to how that influences Muslim views of democracy and voting. I don't feel competent to write it myself. Wnt (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this was widely believed, then there wouldn't be Islamist parties standing in elections in countries like Tunisia, Turkey, Egypt or Pakistan. Or indeed Muslims standing for election in Western countries, e.g. Sadiq Khan. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unknown but it's very fringe. I've gone past in London a stall promoting Islam and a sign saying that voting in elections is un-Islamic. Blythwood (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can NASCAR drivers refuse a car with an ad against their political, moral or religious beliefs?

[edit]

In my city cabbies can refuse to drive something with a strip club, alcohol or I think tobacco ad on it. Do NASCAR drivers have similar rights? If there's penalties and they're not willing to take them then are there penalties for believable, obvious, or farcical sandbagging? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I know almost nothing about NASCAR, but do they in fact accept ads from these kind of businesses? I thought most jurisdictions banned tobacco advertising in any form (at least that's the case here in Australia, and think in many U.S. states too?), and I would be surprised if NASCAR wanted to associate itself with strip clubs. So I presume the issue is, in practice, limited to alcohol ads? DO NASCAR cars ever carry strip club or tobacco ads? Outside the U.S, I could imagine a potential controversy over gambling ads, but gambling is mostly illegal in the U.S anyways.Eliyohub (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cigarette TV & radio ads were banned in the US on Jan 2 1971 but they were on NASCARs for much longer. (here's a picture of a Camel car in 1997: ) The federal government only banned tobacco ads in NASCAR in mid-2010. Some New York City taxicabs have strip club ads on them. NASCAR ads definitely have strip club patron eyeballs as well but it has many socially conservative fans so it might make sense for them to not allow any. I don't know if they're allowed/existed but car ads are so pricy that I'm not even sure if strip club owners are big enough to recoup the cost. There are actually full blown casinos in most states by now (though some of those keep them 30 to hundreds of minutes from population centers). i.e. Texas has more people than Australia, America's 4th biggest city, is bigger than France and has only 1 casino (on an aboriginal reservation near Mexico) and a boat that sails to the high seas from a second-rate metro area. I Googled casino NASCAR car and found out that's happened already. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More from me, now that I have time. Sagittarian Milky Way, I think you’re missing a key difference between the cabbie and the NASCAR driver.
The cabbie is a low-paid, vulnerable worker, with little power vis-à-vis his boss. Ergo, the law must protect his rights.
NASCAR drivers, especially the super-elite ones, are highly trained, highly paid professionals, in great demand. They have bargaining power when it comes to such things, I would assume?
Do they have a legal right to refuse to drive a car with that sort of advertising? Probably not, unless doing so violates their religious beliefs ("political" and "moral" beliefs probably wouldn't cut it in most jurisdictions, I would think). But this would depend on general anti-discrimination laws in that particular jurisdiction, and how much they required employers to accommodate religious employees when doing so will cost them money, e.g. the alcohol sponsorship (and the money it brings in) is irreplaceable, or scrapping it will mean breaking the already-signed contract with the alcohol manufacturer sponsor, which will incur a financial penalty for the NASCAR team. I think different jurisdictions would have different thresholds as to how much pain the employer must absorb. Here in Australia, the courts have ruled that the requirement for "reasonable" accommodation falls somewhere between "convenience" and "necessity". An employer must accommodate, even if it's inconvenient for them. They do not need to accommodate if it makes their business impossible. As I said, other jurisdictions may see things differently.
In practice if you have an elite Muslim NASCAR driver, and he refuses to drive a car with alcohol ads on it, he can probably simply demand in contract negotiations that his contract contain an explicit clause to this effect – no alcohol sponsorship on his car. If he’s good enough, than if one team won’t or can’t accommodate him (e.g. they’ve already signed alcohol sponsorship deals), another almost certainly will, I presume. So he probably doesn’t need the sort of government protection that a cabbie does, does he? I may be totally wrong here about NASCAR drivers' situation - As I said, I know almost nothing about NASCAR. But in Formula one, if during the peak of his career, Michael Schumacher were to refuse on principle to drive cars bearing tobacco ads (when such ads were still legal - they've since been banned in many places), someone would accommodate him. No question! He's worth more to the team he drives for than the tobacco company's sponsorship is! Winning a race is worth far more than the money paid by a company to put their logo on your car. And if your car has a winner driver with throngs of fans, you'll almost certainly find other companies eager to step into the breach and sponsor his team instead. Eliyohub (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Trump car in yesterday's top league race but it's driver didn't have much bargaining power. He was 41st out of 51 in most recent drivers championship and usually finishes near the back. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is similar to where his sponsor will hopefully finish in Tuesday's presidential elections. Not that I'm a giant Hillary fan either, but you go for the lesser of the evils. Perhaps the poor not-very-talented driver could ask the rich but possibly equally untalented sponsor of his car to bail him out? In any case, my feeling about such a driver is that he either needs to train harder, or find himself another career. Not blame Trump or his supporters or opponents for jinxing him. If he was usually a good driver, I might feel differently. Why would Trump sponsor a perennial loser? Not a good image. Eliyohub (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For all I know he could be a Trump supporter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to ramble on even further, but I just thought of an actual precedent along these lines which illuminates this sort of issue. World star hall of fame baseball pitcher Sandy Koufax absolutely refused to play on the Jewish high holidays, which, very inconveniently for his club, often coincided with the World Series. Would the club be allowed to tear up his contract for failing to turn up and play? In his case, probably not, as I assume he explicitly had a clause in his contract allowing him to do this. But let's assume there was no such clause - could the club dump him? Assume modern-day law - I don't know if anti-discrimination laws existed in his time. My guess is, probably yes, they could dump him from the team if omitting him from those games caused significant disruption. In practice, which club in their right mind would ever dream of ditching Sandy Koufax??? Every baseball fan would think the club coach had rocks in their head if he did such a thing! That's a practical example of bargaining power. He had no need to resort to anti-discrimination law! I wonder if the same would hold true for a genuinely talented NASCAR driver in the situation you describe. Eliyohub (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You use the terms 'probably' and 'I think' and 'I guess' a lot for someone supplying answers on the Reference Desk. Please back up your assertions with some reliably sourced references. Matt Deres (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Koufax was able to get away with sitting out Yom Kippur because he was Koufax. Your clout in any given situation will depend on how badly you're needed. On the other hand, it wasn't such a big deal at the time, at least not to the team.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For once you get to be BASEBALL Bugs, and no doubt understand what I'm saying - that any coach who ditched Koufax must have rocks in his head, even if Koufax did miss a game from time to time for religious reasons (there were in fact several games he missed over various seasons, to my understanding, though some were more important and notable than others). I now understand that not all NASCAR drivers would be in this situation (though the very top ones would be, wouldn't they?). Eliyohub (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The team can certainly refuse the sponsorship for any reason or no reason at all. Drivers are a different story, as to whether the team will allow the driver to dictate who they will or won't sign as a sponsor. As I said, this issue mostly applies to the lower-ranked drivers, who aren't as badly needed and hard to replace, and can't dictate terms to their team from a purely commercial perspective ("I'm worth more to you than the sponsorship"). If he was an elite driver, he could simply opt to drive for one of the teams which refuses alcohol sponsorship, if his current team refused to accommodate him. The driver can refuse the to drive a car bearing alcohol sponsorship, but it doesn't answer the OP's question: Is the team obliged to keep him as a driver regardless, if passing up alcohol sponsorship will cost them money? Eliyohub (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, you may have to write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post and demand a retraction from their 2004 story in which they reported on exactly that. --Jayron32 15:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post article, from what I can see, says nothing of the sort. I read it before posting my previous reply, by the way. It does state that Morgan Shepard refused drive a car carrying alcohol ads. It says absolutely nothing as to whether his team could hypothetically terminate his contract, or refuse to renew it, over this stance - especially when it comes to team sponsorship, as opposed to driver sponsorship. If I'm missing or misreading something in the article, or I'm showing my lack of understanding of how NASCAR sponsorship deals work (are sponsors always for "drivers" rather than "teams? It seems that there's both, judging by the article and posts here), please do point it out to me (preferably politely). I admit a degree of ignorance on matters NASCAR. Eliyohub (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of authors

[edit]

This link includes a gallery of Conservative scholars and statesmen. Could you help me identify those I am missing?

Thank you in advance!!!

94.65.14.193 (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third row, third from left is Hilaire Belloc. I'm amazed you can identify anyone in the 4th & 5th rows because of the dark banner overlying them.- Nunh-huh 14:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first one in the third row is indeed Chesterton—same photo used by Encyclopaedia Britannica in their article. Deor (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the last one in that row is indeed Newman. Deor (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second row, fourth from the left is Simon Heffer. I'm also struggling to make out anybody in the fourth and fifth rows, but fifth row, fourth from the left is Enoch Powell. And you're right about Scruton. --Viennese Waltz 15:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second row, third from the left is Russell Kirk. First row, fourth from left is Maurice Cowling. First row, far right is Robert Nisbet. --Viennese Waltz 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Third row, fourth from left is Immanuel Hermann Fichte. --Viennese Waltz 15:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that 4th row, second from left is Alain de Benoist? 17:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:813C:F300:941F:93A5:3344:C96E (talk)

Yes, looks like it could be Alain de Benoist - image appears similar to others provided by Google images. This is a real rogues' gallery, isn't it! RomanSpa (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your POV... 2A02:587:2904:600:2012:2F06:D170:5102 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Wilde's plays

[edit]

Which publishing house first published the plays of Oscar Wilde during his lifetime? Or did he self-publish them? 2A02:2149:813C:F300:941F:93A5:3344:C96E (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to look at each play individually, and I haven't done that... But The Picture of Dorian Gray (I know, not a play) was published by Ward Lock in 1891, and An Ideal Husband (1899), The Importance of Being Earnest (1899), Lady Windermere's Fan (1899), and several other works (inc. The Ballad of Reading Gaol) were published by Leonard Smithers & Co. The first English edition of Salome was published by John Lane (The Bodley Head) (1894). So not self-published. - Nunh-huh 19:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are banknotes "really" cheques

[edit]

In the UK, banknotes purport to be cheques (they bear the words "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of"), but to what extent is this true? In England and Wales, Bank of England notes are legal tender, so declaring them to be cheques seems nonsensical.--Leon (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Banknotes of the pound sterling. As it notes there "Bank notes are no longer redeemable in gold, and the Bank of England will only redeem sterling banknotes for more sterling banknotes or coins. The contemporary sterling is a fiat currency..." This bit of boilerplate is merely a bit of tautology that states that the banknote can be redeemed for equivalent currency. The text does not include the word cheque and neither does the text contain any equivalent of what a "cheque" is there. You can compare the Wikipedia articles titled cheque and banknote to understand the difference between the two financial instruments. --Jayron32 20:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An important point is that you can, if you wish (though I certainly don't know of anyone ever doing this) require that payment of the notes be made in coins. RomanSpa (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So if you win £5 million in a slot machine you can ask for 30 tonnes of £2 coins? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Boring answer is that you can't win £5m in a British slot machine. The limit is a jackpot of £4000, except at the so-called Regional casino or supercasino - but the only supercasino approved, in Manchester, was cancelled. Smurrayinchester 09:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Doesn't completely answer the question. What if you win the British National Lottery? Can you demand a truckload of coins? Or is the lottery allowed to have an explicit clause in its terms and conditions that big wins can only be paid by bank deposit or cheque, and if you want to convert it to coins, you'll need to sort that out with the bank? Eliyohub (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section 9.1(a) of the National Lottery Terms and Conditions [2] reserves the right to pay by cheque, bank transfer or direct debit. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Have a look at Negotiable Instruments - the original idea was to avoid carrying large amounts of cash on long journeys: a piece of paper which allowed you to exchange it for the cash at your destination was a lot safer. These came in two types - ones which authorised payment of the cash to a particular named person (which evolved into cheques), and ones which authorised payment to whoever had the piece of paper (which evolved into banknotes). Wymspen (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that banknotes in England evolved from a different instrument from banknotes on the continent. RomanSpa (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference in history?--Leon (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, cheques have a date and banknotes don't have a date. If a banknote is accidently cut in half, the soiled half banknote can be redeemed for half value. Half a cheque is worthless.
Sleigh (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC) is[reply]
How much has to be intact for it to have value? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about other jurisdictions, but what counts here in Australia is the bit with the serial number. Many denominations have the serial number in each of the two diagonal corners. If you have both the pieces (corners) with each of the same serial number intact, you can redeem the note for the full value, even if the rest of the note (the middle part) is missing. If you only have one serial number piece, you can redeem it for half its value (as they assume someone may turn up with the other half / number). And if the serial number is itself torn completely in two (meaning there's the risk the bits could belong to two separate notes), that half of the note probably can't be redeemed (admittedly, citation needed on this last sentence, but I'm sure of the accuracy of the rest of what I've said). Eliyohub (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I made a mistake! - that was the previous policy. Mea culpa. For Australia's current policy on damaged or incomplete banknotes, see the Reserve Bank of Australia's damaged banknotes policy. Eliyohub (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales (but apparently not in Scotland) there is a concept of "legal tender". This sheet [3] seems to explain it quite well but I can't vouch for its reliability or whether it's up to date. Legal tender is what you are allowed to use for settling a debt. So if you owe council tax to the council and you take along a pile of used fivers to the exact amount they have to accept it, but if you take bags of 5p pieces they don't. But in the case of the national lottery they tell you in advance how your win would be paid [4] - cash up to a certain amount, cheque or bank transfer for a large sum - so if you don't like that idea, don't play the lottery. Or ask a bank to open a new account for you to pay in your lottery millions and then take all the money out in £1 coins. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain banknotes do have a date - it is part of a copyright notice they have carried ever since the Bank of England failed to convict for "passing off" an artist whose work consisted of paintings which closely resembled banknotes but were not exactly the same design. Our article "Cheque" is not completely accurate - writing the words "Account payee only" inside the crossing did not prevent them being negotiated to third parties. For this reason, and because of increasing fraud, the banks now print their cheques "Pay X only" instead of "Pay X or order" as previously. This renders them non - transferable and hence non - negotiable as well. The subject was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 June 5#Half of the money. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The artist you refer to is J. S. G. Boggs, and by the decision of the jury, he did nothing wrong, he never claimed his paintings were real money. It's doubtful that copyright laws would be any more effective - copyright specifically allows for parody, which his paintings were. For example, where the governor of the bank of England usually has his signature and title (Governor, bank of England), Boggs' notes had Boggs' signature, with HUMAN BEING underneath. Here's an example of his work. Would anyone think it was real? It's clearly parody. Eliyohub (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star trooper man, the promise is (or rather, used to be) made by the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England whose signature is on the note: that the Bank of England will pay you the money on the note face in coins if you brought the note in. If I pay you £5, it's not a promise made by me but a promise made by the bank. But this is now obsolete and the statement is merely customary: since all money in the UK is now fiat currency pound coins and bank notes are equally valid (or invalid, if you're a gold standard person). I'll quote the official explanation:

The words "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five [ten/twenty/fifty] pounds" date from long ago when our notes represented deposits of gold. At that time, a member of the public could exchange one of our banknotes for gold to the same value. For example, a £5 note could be exchanged for five gold coins, called sovereigns. But the value of the pound has not been linked to gold for many years, so the meaning of the promise to pay has changed. Exchange into gold is no longer possible and Bank of England notes can only be exchanged for other Bank of England notes of the same face value.

The Bank of England is really now a regulator and doesn't offer bank accounts or banking services (until this year it did for employees), but you can still walk in and exchange old banknotes and they will substitute them for you. Blythwood (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blythwood's edit summary indicates that (s)he is a little confused. A cheque which a bank draws on itself is a banker's draft. All cheques are a particular form of Bill of Exchange, payable on demand. Banknotes, as the name indicates, are a promise by the bank to pay money (originally gold) on demand. Originally they were a receipt for gold deposited at the bank. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the last English banknotes not issued by the Bank of England. It can be redeemed (for coins, presumably) at the bank issuing it or Barclays.
Yes, this is true - I was trying to keep it simple in my edit summary. As a summary: a bank note is a promise by the bank to pay the note-bearer. This meant that until the nineteenth century, ordinary banks could issue notes against the value of money they stocked. This obviously wasn't very secure from fraud, and the right was gradually wound down from 1844-1921, when the little Somerset bank of Fox, Fowler and Company was taken over and forfeited the right to issue its own notes. But Scottish and Northern Irish banks do still have the right to issue their own notes.
In fact, no Scottish or Northern Irish banknotes are directly issued by the government: they're all issued, in theory, by private banks. Even weirder, in Northern Ireland, some are issued by the Bank of Ireland and Danske Bank, which aren't even based in the UK. Of course in practice all these banks do is decide what the note is going to look like, since it's really regulated by the government. An additional weirdness is that Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes aren't legal tender anywhere, not even in the country of issue. Blythwood (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Itsmejudith's link answers part of a question which was posed previously (what happened to the value of silver Maundy coins minted prior to 1953 on decimalisation) but not the other part:

On the subject of statutes which are believed to be in force but are not, the copper coinage was demonetised by the Coinage Act 1860 which is not listed at List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In its place a new bronze coinage was issued, in the form of "bun" pennies, halfpennies and farthings and also a one - third farthing which was used in Malta until the twentieth century. Now, the 1860 coin set also included a proof half - farthing of the appropriate weight and dimension ( a proof is a highly - polished coin which, although being specially made, is just as much legal tender as the ordinary circulating version). So was this half - farthing legal tender up to decimalisation in 1971? (The farthing was demonetised by Royal Proclamation in 1961).

The document explains

There are some other coins which for historic or legal reasons are legal tender though they are not in general circulation.

So it might have been legally possible to spend a half farthing until 1971. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 June 5#US Penny, in which Baseball Bugs excelled himself. The following question was posted but not answered:

This question is a follow - on from the discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 February 18#Royal mint and legal tender. The Royal Mint is issuing a fifty pound coin. Its advertisement states

All coins made by the Royal Mint are legal tender whether commemorative or circulating, however only circulating legal tender coins are designed to be spent and traded at businesses and banks. This coin is a commemorative coin so banks, post offices and shops will not accept them.

As I understand it, the Mint instructed businesses not to accept the coins, something it has no authority to do. Say a customer enters a supermarket and fills her trolley with fifty pounds worth of groceries. By scanning the goods and producing a till receipt the cashier agrees the sale. The customer offers legal tender cash in payment in the form of a fifty pound coin. If the supermarket sued for the cost of the shopping the customer would have a complete answer to the complaint - the defence of "tender before action". So having tendered payment for her goods (an offer which the store has chosen to reject) is the customer entitled to walk out with her property? 86.128.234.239 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colonels in American culture

[edit]

I noticed various US folks liked to style themselves as Colonels in common civilian usage, like Colonel Sanders, Colonel Tom Parker, and non-human Colonel Ebirt or Colonel Meow (with Colonel Abrams apparently having it as a given name). Was this phenomenon discussed somewhere or it's just the popularity of colonel grade? Brandmeistertalk 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: To quote this website

"To be named a “Colonel” is to be recognized for “outstanding service to community, state, and nation.” The sitting governor of Kentucky, or the Secretary of State of Kentucky, are the only ones who can bestow such an honor onto an individual. These colonels are “Kentucky’s ambassadors of goodwill and fellowship around the world” and are “people from all walks of life.”" Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ive found some google books mentioning self titled colonels, here and here, perhaps it will help. I think it may have something to do with it sounding good, another interesting theory I've heard is that due to the positions authority it is "High enough to respect, but not high enough to hate for its position." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see Kentucky colonel for more. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a relevant detail there may be that the Kentucky colonels are honorary aide-de-camps to the governor, and apparently (according to that article) many of those in various countries hold a rank of colonel or better. Wnt (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Kentucky Colonels are not "self-styled" any more than the modern British "knights" are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off-topic: up till about the mid-twentieth century there was a lot of use in British and American writing of addressing people by honorary degrees as if they were real or using titles that we would now consider formal jobs or qualifications as, basically, generic terms of respect. Benjamin Franklin was addressed in his lifetime as "Dr Franklin" - he never attended university but held several honorary degrees and doctorates. In the Lady Hope letter she describes Darwin as a "professor", a position he never held. Conductor Fritz Reiner was addressed as "Dr. Reiner" despite only having an honorary doctorate. C. E. M. Joad was often addressed as professor, although he wasn't one (he did head the philosophy department of a university college, so it wasn't far off, although arguably that should have made him more careful to correct them). Even as late as 1973 the Guardian newspaper interviewed Philip Larkin as "Dr. Larkin" based on his honorary doctorate. And so on. This is now not done: you only get to be called "Dr. Whoever" if you have an actual earned doctorate or medical qualification. I imagine it's similar for this. Blythwood (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now intrigued as to what medical qualifications Dr.Dre has earned... Lemon martini (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_November_7&oldid=749194361"