Humanities desk
< August 8	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 10 >

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.

August 9

Time capsule

Pages 2, 8 and 12 of the supplement "Kick-off: a 12-page guide to the new football season in north London" inserted into yesterday's Islington Gazette are datelined "Weekday, 32 Janutember 2999". The other pages are datelined, more prosaically, "Thursday, August 8, 2019". Is this the latest dateline ever recorded? 2A00:23C5:C708:8C00:F177:1593:A994:19B8 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't even a dateline, is it? The latest linedate ever recorded to date is "Saturday, August 10, 2019" (that some Kiribati newspaper used right now). Enjoy, the record will be broken in just a few hours. Gem fr (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Gem, this is not a legitimate dateline. It is Filler text which has been published by mistake. When something is to be published, the designers of the page will create a "mock up" of the final version often before they have received the text to go into the publication. This is more efficient since the designers can work up a design simultaneous to the text being written, instead of waiting around for the final text before starting their design. The intent is that when the writers submit their pieces, the filler text is replaced by the actual intended text. Occasionally, something is made live without proper double- and triple- checking, and the final version is actually less than final, resulting in bits of filler text being left in. This happens quite often, and doesn't mean that they actually meant to use that text. The use of the nonsensical day and month "Weekday, 32 Janutember" is the giveaway that it was supposed to be replaced. If it was done properly, a proofreader would have noticed the nonsensical date, and sent it back for fixing. --Jayron 32 16:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bad proofreading Jayron describes, of course, is not new; the same situation was responsible for the Etaoin shrdlu phenomenon. A difference, however, is that today one could theoretically instruct a computer to look for this text before sending the page to press, unlike 100 years ago. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is the banned user Vote X for Change and his post should have been deleted on sight rather than receiving the above good faith replies. It's unfortunate that I wasn't around at the time to delete the question, but we are where we are. --Viennese Waltz 07:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Customs and immigration procedures for people rescued at sea

How do customs and immigration authorities deal with the situation when a foreign national is unexpectedly brought into a country after having been rescued at sea, particularly when the person concerned would not normally qualify to enter or when their passport has been lost? Is there an international treaty or protocol that covers this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as lost passports, you might look into what was done for Titanic survivors; they were taken to New York, which was already their destination (so "not normally qualify to enter" doesn't apply), but presumably a good number of them lost their papers. Unfortunately this detail is absent from Sinking of the RMS Titanic and Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some governments go out of their way to make sure such people never get into the country. See Tampa affair. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't quite seem the same. If I understand the article correctly, the individuals in question were already trying to enter Australia illegally, while the question's asking about people who aren't trying to get into the country at all. I think the question's basically the same as "what if a Russian gets shipwrecked in Australia while trying to go from Indonesia to New Zealand". Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by using the word "illegally" there, you've stepped right into the ugly can of worms this is all part of. These boat people would have been aiming to claim asylum once they reached Australian shores, and that is not illegal. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When rescued, you are already in a country. Either because you were in territorial waters, or the very moment you are brought inboard (as per ship registration). Pretty sure there are some admiralty laws, mandating help to the ship if now in trouble for rescuing (overload etc.), providing health care and food, etc.

But short of that, I don't expect customs and immigration authorities to care whether you were washed ashore, brought in by the vessel because you bought a ticket, or because the ship rescued you. Your embassy/consulate should help you with required paperwork, so you get any preferential treatment that some treaty mandates (fi: oh, you are European, you are free to go then). Gem fr (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the flag of convenience of a jet ski? There has to be a minimum size for registration or a boy's kayak could be fake Liberian. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand why these crafts are restricted to operate in territorial waters only, AFAIK Gem fr (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, the procedure should be similar to what happens when an airplane makes an emergency landing in a country other than the flight's origin or intended destination. There was a famous case about 12 years ago, where a flight from Guyana to Toronto landed was diverted to Puerto Rico because a passenger had a heart attack. The US authorities checked the travel documents of everyone on the plane, and where irregularities were found, did not permit passengers to continue on to Canada but instead put them in a detention facility, including a 9-year-old Canadian citizen. [1][2][3] Mathew5000 (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the historian in this video?

Does anyone here know who the historian in this video at 9:45 is? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r72X5oUPTwM

2600:8802:1200:946:1597:B71D:F677:9C6 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube version has no credits, but the producer site version has:

https://timeline.pixel.video/watch/35066296

I didn't check, but I guess the name is one of those credited

Gem fr (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these men?

I am pretty confident that the taller standing man second from the left is Henry Howard (diplomat). The photo was taken at the studio of Mathew Brady in Washington in the mid to late 1860s. Can anyone help identify the other three men? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretary to the British Legation in 1860 was Walter Douglas Irvine [4] but it doesn't seem to be him in your photo. Secretary to the Legation from 1861 was William Stuart (1824–1896) but I can't find an image. George Sheffield was attache and later Third Secretary, a photo of him is here. He replaced Arthur H. Seymour but no photo of him either. [5]. Best I can do at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Howard did not arrive in Washington until 1865, well after Stuart had departed. Since the Brady studio recorded Howard's name but not the others, he was probably the most senior of the group. Those fellows look pretty young to me. Thanks, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some more potential names can be found in the Foreign Office List. For example, the January 1865 edition is available free at archive.org [6]. Searching it for "Washington" brings up a list of people who could then be searched for individually looking for other photos as Alanspodge did.

Envoy: Lord Lyons

Secretary of Legation: Joseph Hume Burnley

Second Secretary: Francis Ottiwell Adams

Second Secretary: Edward Baldwin Malet

Second Secretary: Frederick Antrobus

Third Secretary: Richard Temple Godman Kirkpatrick

Third Secretary: John Gordon Kennedy

Third Secretary: Edmund Constantine Henry Phipps

Third Secretary: Arthur Henry Seymour

Third Secretary: William Bowyer Smijth (sic)

Third Secretary: George Sheffield (see Alanspodge's note above)

Attache: Hon. Thomas George Grosvenor

The book contains bios of them all, if that would assist the research - you could check birthyears for the young'uns. Later editions are available but not for free online - for example, there's an 1874 version in snippet view. Perhaps a library could help. There's also an 1878 version at the University of Minnesota - it won't load for me, but might for someone else. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the list Phipps was transfered to Munich in 1865 MilborneOne (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any thought it could be related to Howard's wedding in 1867. MilborneOne (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the painting and the caricature in Edward Baldwin Malet, I suspect that the fellow with the cane in the massive carved chair to the left may be Edward Baldwin Malet. It is actually that well-known chair to that I am researching. Hundreds of notable people including Abraham Lincoln had portraits taken while sitting in that chair. Thanks for the leads. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YWelcome. What an interesting project! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on appearance and dress (particularly the ribbon worn by the man on the left), I suspect that they may not all be British diplomats. This could be representatives of several nations who had been meeting and had a commemorative photo taken. Wymspen (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]