Humanities desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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

September 9

Totem poles

For the record: I tried this first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but got no response. Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons just got a very nice contribution of high-res scans from the Seattle Public Library Special Collections, including some very nice late 19th-century pictures of totem poles. However, I've found enough errors in metadata in areas where I do know my stuff to be very suspicious of the metadata in areas where I don't. The following two high-res images were identified as being from Wrangell, Alaska:

Bear family totem pole and buildings in Wrangell, Alaska, ca. 1899
Beaver totem pole in front of home in Wrangell, Alaska, ca. 1899

However, they don't match any other images we have for Wrangell in that era, and we have a lot. I suspect they are from somewhere else near Wrangell, and I also suspect they will turn out to be the best images we have of the respective poles.

Any help would be appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several images of photos of this totem pole, from other sources than those two above from the La Roche collection, have "Wrangell" on them in handwriting. This makes it likely they are indeed from Wrangell.

The totem pole can also be seen as situated in Wrangell in another completely independent source, Muir's Travels in Alaska^[1] (you may need to scroll up one page to see the image). --Lambiam 08:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: File:Bear family totem pole and buildings in Wrangell, Alaska, ca. 1899 - DPLA - a0b08c22c7783bb6f2d465163f5bfe51.jpg and File:Beaver Totem, Wrangell, Alaska. - NARA - 297737.jpg do appear to be the same pole, but if you look carefully at the top, the former appears to be topped by a bear, and the latter by a beaver! I wonder if at some point one was substituted for the other? - Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I think the animal was misidentified in one or both. It looks like the same carving, just a different angle and lighting, and more weathered in 297737 'beaver'. (The house is beat up by then too.) — kwami (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same totem pole and it is from Wrangell. It is a beaver totem. I can not enter my own experience (OR) as evidence of this but there is other photographic evidence that is covered by copyright and therefore can not be included which verifies this as fact. However, as stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Anyone here with expertise on totem poles?, I recommend contacting the wonderful curators at the Wrangell Museum for clarification. --ARose Wolf 15:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Prince of Wales?

The article Prince of Wales says that Charles ceased being the Prince of Wales when he became king, but it does not mention who currently holds that title. Is his son and heir apparent the new Duke of Wales, or does Charles need to appoint someone to that role? RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RudolfRed, Duke of Cornwall is automatic and already assumed. Prince of Wales seems to require a formal step. as does Earl of Chester. Slywriter (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source -https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/prince-william-kate-titles-queen-b2162984.html

Looking at the Prince of Wales article, it appears there have been lengthy gaps from time to time, and in any case it is not automatic; when used, it is granted by the monarch. So typically it would fall to William, though there's not necessarily any rush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All noble titles belong to the sovereign as the font of nobility, who may grant them (as either lifelong or inheritable) to another person. Any title of a person who dies, or a family line that ceases, reverts to the sovereign. Therefore Charles has gone from Charles, Prince of Wales (because his mother bestowed that title on him) to Charles III (who holds the title Prince of Wales - along with many others - because it has not been granted to anyone else). He will almost certainly grant it to his son Prince William at some point, following tradition. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 07:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For 'font of nobility', read 'Fount of honour'. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 11:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some monarchs have a long list of titles, all the way down to petty lordships, because their kingdom formed by accretion; Spain and the Netherlands are good examples. In Britain, on the other hand, the theory is that the monarch cannot be his own vassal; so all British titles held by Charles vanished when he became king, except those that pass automatically to the heir apparent (when such a person exists). — As I understand it, the titles Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester (though not automatic) are reserved to the heir, i.e., the king is not free to grant them to anyone else. —Tamfang (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Right now, there is no Prince of Wales.

We can assume that King Charles will follow tradition, and grant the title to Prince William. However, there is no need to rush it (it’s not like the position has to be filled immediately). They will likely wait until after King Charles’ Coronation. Guessing: it will be announced some time next year, or even the year after. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected… announced much sooner than I expected. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did Edward VIII retain his Prince of Wales title even after he abdicated? If not, there was a gap of more than 2 decades before it was filled by Prince Charles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Edward did not retain the title. He ceased being Prince of Wales in 1936 (upon the death of his father, George V - ie when Edward became King) … and, yes, there was no Prince of Wales from 1936 to 1968 (when Queen Elizabeth II gave the title to Charles). Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But he did make off with the prince's coronet, it wasn't returned until the Duke of Windsor's death in 1972, so a new one had to be made for Charles to use in 1969. Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 1936 to 1958. From George V's death in 1936 to the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952, there was nobody eligible to be Prince of Wales since neither Edward VIII nor George VI had any sons. Once Elizabeth II acceded, Charles was eligible to be named Prince of Wales since he was the monarch's oldest son and heir apparent, but he wasn't actually given the title until 1958. Charles was created Prince of Wales in 1958, but his investiture ceremony was not held until 1969. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Directly His Majesty's decision [to abdicate] became known an obvious point for curiosity was that concerning his future style. Clearly he would no longer be ‘His Majesty’ or ‘King’. Prince of Wales? Equally obviously not. That title was reserved for the eldest son of the Sovereign, the Heir to the Throne. The ex-King would be neither the son of the new Sovereign nor his heir. ¶ The most comical suggestion I remember was to the effect that, though he could not revert to his old style of Prince of Wales, arrangements would probably be made for him to resume the style of Duke of Cornwall—and to resume, apparently, his enjoyment of the revenues of the Duchy! This ingenious suggestion ignored the legal and inescapable position that, equally with the style of Prince of Wales, the Dukedom of Cornwall—and its revenues—was reserved for the eldest son of the reigning Sovereign, and could be vested in no one else unless that son died during his father's lifetime and his son succeeded. ¶ From such fantastic suggestions speculation veered to the other extreme. Since all the titles which had accrued to him, those to which he succeeded when his father became King, and those which were subsequently created for him, became extinguished when he himself ascendd the Throne, then by divesting himself of the Crown the King became—what? Just an ordinary commoner like the rest of us? Just plain Mr. Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David Windsor? … ¶ There was certainly room for confusion. The case was without precedent. … ¶ I was at that time responsible for the news columns of The Sunday Times, and we had to decide in what way we were to refer to the ex-King, a point on which there was then no official guidance. The view I then expressed was that … the King reverted to the state in which he had been born, i.e. His Royal Highness and a Prince of Great Britain, styles which had not been created for him personally but which were his by right by reason both of his being the son of one Sovereign or the grandson in the male line of another. ¶ That, in fact, was the style accorded him when, on the occasion of his farewell broadcast, Sir John Reith introduced him to the world as ‘His Royal Highness Prince Edward’. I think it can be taken for granted that the then Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation was not speaking without having sought advice and received authority.” —Valentine Heywood: British Titles, 1951. —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He just gave it to William now in his speech. Not sure if it requires a more formal step than that. Pinguinn 🐧 17:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that's it. William and Kate are now Prince and Princess of Wales. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See William, Prince of Wales (didn't take long did it?). Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Much sooner than I expected. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there will be a written Patent, to avoid disputes. A few royal children from Stuart times are listed as “styled Duke of X” because the monarch called them that but never did the formal thing. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two answers above don't gel. User:Verbarson said that Charles III retained the title Prince of Wales until he bestowed it on his son (which he has since done). But User:Blueboar said that Edward VIII did NOT retain the title after he became king, on George V's death. He had no son to bestow it on, in any event. Who's right? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noone's wrong. I'm reading "He ceased being the Prince" but he's now in charge of the font of nobility. --Askedonty (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may be misinterpreting you, Jack. I heard that Charles ceased to be the Prince at becoming king, on the TV first. --Askedonty (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Hereditary peer § Merging in the Crown -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. The title merges in the Crown when the Prince of Wales accedes to the monarchy. Until such time as the new king grants it to his eldest son and heir apparent, it is held by nobody. Not even the king, except in the sense that it is in his gift to bestow on his son. Is that not so? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authors writing under cross-gender pseudonyms

There are plenty of examples in 19th-century Western literature of women writing under men's names (some becoming quite famous). Are there instances of men writing under women's names? Outside of Western literature, are there any authors who wrote under a name associated with a different gender? Shells-shells (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, scanning through List of pen names, I see William Connor writing as Cassandra, Dean Koontz as Deanna Dwyer, L. Frank Baum as Edith Van Dyne, Peter O'Donnell as Madeleine Brent, and the grand prize winner, Ben Franklin, who wrote as Alice Addertongue, Caelia Shortface, Martha Careful, Polly Baker and Silence Dogood. I may have missed a few where the gender of one of the two names was not clear to me. CodeTalker (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions several 19th century men who wrote under women's pseudonyms. Pinguinn 🐧 05:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It gives a wonderful warm feeling, when one's curiosity is piqued by a slightly esoteric subject, to be presented with a lengthy dissertation on that very topic. Many thanks! (I'd certainly love to hear more answers, of course.) Shells-shells (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many stories in the School Friend, aimed at girls (such as stories about Bessie Bunter), were written by various men under the pseudonym Hilda Richards. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Moore used the pseudonym Jill de Ray in some of his early work, although this was a pun on the name of the Medieval child murderer Gilles de Rais. Turner Street (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmina Khadra is a famous contemporary Algerian writer. The name is clearly feminine, but it's a pseudonym and the author is a retired (male) militray officer. Xuxl (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was once acquainted with a male writer whose works include a novel designed for readers who wanted another The Clan of the Cave Bear; for this novel he adopted, or was given, a feminine name and a surname beginning with A. —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shells-shells:: As recently as 2021, it was revealed that the winner of Premio Planeta, Carmen Mola, was not a woman but a team of three men. It raised a polemic. -- Error (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

legal systems. could someone provide clarity on this?

how were legal systems formed? what was the guide to formation/adoption of such "legal systems" like the so called common law/civil law or mixed legal system? were they brought to legal effect via virtue of Constitution or through a country's judiciary/legislative/executive force? Grotesquetruth (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going back a thousand years or so, the English common law system originated in the king directly dispensing justice, and appointing judges to do the job when he wasn't available (the precedent for this can be found in the Old Testament). The king still (in theory anyway) appoints judges and criminal cases are brought in the name of the king. The constitution of the USA replaced appointment of judges with election (except the Supreme Court who are appointed by the President), and cases are brought by "the people" rather than the crown. Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US federal judges are appointed, not elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US federal judges are appointed by the president and must then be confirmed by the US Senate. No election is involved. Some state level judges are elected. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In much of Continental Europe, legal systems tend to follow civil law systems, some based on Roman law, and some based on the Napoleonic Code in the early 19th century. --Jayron 32 11:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential death across the International Date Line

Following a discussion in another place, I'm curious about this scenario. Say a US president is visiting Australia, and gets sick and dies. Deaths are always dated as per the time zone of the place of death, at that exact time. It's 9 September Down Under. Washington is immediately notified and the VP is sworn in within an hour. It's still 8 September in Washington. The record will show that the new president's term started on 8 September even though their predecessor did not die until 9 September. How would this be handled administratively? Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting hypothetical. Most of the presidents who died in office were in the eastern time zone when it happened. JFK died in the central time zone, though it was still the same day, and LBJ was there anyway, so there was no date confusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting, but it calls for speculation, so there's no point in asking about it here. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warren G. Harding got sick in Seattle following a stadium speech to 25,000 people. His Portland events were canceled and he proceeded by train to San Francisco where he died one week later, in the Pacific time zone. Cullen328 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harding's vice president Calvin Coolidge was visting his parents in a village in Vermont, and they did not have a telephone. A messenger had to be dispatched. He was sworn into office by his father who was a justice of the peace, at about 3:00 a.m. the next day, about 4-1/2 hours after Harding died. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happens that a twin is born just before 1 AM on the night the clocks go back and his or her younger brother or sister follows shortly after the hour. Then the younger sibling is, on the evidence of the record, the older. Westbound passengers on Concorde routinely arrived, as far as local times are concerned, before they set out. And the future William III, having accepted the offer of the British crown, set out from Helvetsluys on 11 November 1688, arriving in Brixham on the 5th of the same month. 2A00:23A8:4C31:5901:9580:C3C4:6DB1:AE40 (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helvoetsluys, now Hellevoetsluis. --Lambiam 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, Pearl Harbor is noted as having occurred on December 7; I remember reading at some point that in Japan, it's considered December 8. The answer, I'm sorry to say, is basically "depends on who's asking." In this case, he would almost certainly be considered as having died on "September 8 at x:xx eastern or UTC (September 9 x:xx local time)". --Golbez (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez. You are correct. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines (then US territory) simultaneously. The Philippines campaign (1941–1942) began on December 8, but it was still December 7 in Hawaii. My wife's uncle was stationed on Corregidor and did not survive nearly three years as a Japanese prisoner of war. He died in the sinking of the Arisan Maru prison ship in 1944. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this xkcd cartoon... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

legal institutions

do you think the government, their specialised legal institutions/agencies (i.e; executive, legislative and judiciary) is actually a subset of the legal system and that they are merely just legal units of this legal structure? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See top of page: "We don't answer requests for opinions...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok I just want to know if these legal units (i.e: the executive, legislative and judicial institutions) are really a subset of the legal system? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer is "yes" and "no" and "maybe" and "what do you want it to be?". Why do you think that a phrase such as "legal system" would have a precise enough (and universally agreed-on) definition to be able to answer your questions? ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Division/divizion

Resolved

The official Russian list of German standards at the Moscow Victory Parade of 1945 distinguishes between division (дивизия) and divizion (дивизион) standards. The divizion article says it's English equivalent is battalion, but the Russian list also distinguishes between battalions and divizions. So to avoid confusion in the list I'm thinking of using German-language equivalent, unless it's spelled identically to the English one. What was Nazi German equivalent of Soviet divizion? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HEER UNIT FORMATIONS & ORGANIZATION may help. I have posted a note at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, so hopefully someone who knows what they are talking about can assist. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German WWII equivalants are abteilung or batallion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Law question

If I am in a shop and the owner dont want to provide a service or sell a product, item or other, could I call Police, and report the problem? Or this is unusual? 2001:B07:6442:8903:B5DF:A073:C7EE:6805 (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you already pay for it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet... --2001:B07:6442:8903:FCC3:C5B2:3E0A:AF47 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, if a trader proffers goods for sale, then refuses to sell them to a willing purchaser, it would be a civil matter dealt with through the local authority's Trading Standards section, not a criminal matter dealt with by police. Note that, according to English contract law § Agreement, the trader may be entitled to refuse without committing any offence. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 16:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless in doing so they are in breach of the Equality Act 2010, which protects people from being discriminated against "because of age, gender reassignment, marital status, being pregnant, disability, race (which includes colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin), religion or belief, and sex or sexual orientation".

See also the fairly recent "Gay cake case", where a baker's shop in Northern Ireland refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, because of their religious beliefs. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also a similar case in Colorado several years ago. —Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can't answer your question without knowing what jurisdiction you are referring to. Even then, we probably can't answer your question because that would be legal advice, which we are forbidden to give here. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a page with information for the U.S. Right to Refuse Service [2] RudolfRed (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with the traditional Right to Serve Refuse. --Lambiam 21:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

grouping legal systems.

Why is it that legal systems of nations are categorised under names of either a common law/civil law/ mixed legal system and not by the name of a nation (for example " the Canadian legal system" )? Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they are? We have an article Legal system of Canada.

Grotesquetruth, I am finding your multiple questions about legal systems odd, and hard to answer. I have a sense that there is some underlying question or point that is what you really want to know. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's tricky to explain but what constitutes a legal system in the general sense? maybe you'd be able to answer this? Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'general sense' legal systems are social constructs - they exist because people believe they do, and act accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

correct me if I'm wrong but could we say that a legal system of a nation is the administration of a body of laws in the nation through rules and procedures laid down by legal institutions of the government? Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again… yes and no… in common law countries such as the US and UK, some things are based on codified rules and procedures… but there are also things based on precedent and custom (things that are not necessarily written down, but done a certain way because “that’s how we have always done it”.) It’s all too complicated for the generalized labels you keep using. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes see "time immemorial", something which has been done since before statute laws (in England, it means before 1189 AD). Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many legal systems are, in some sense, mixed. That's because there is code, which is the law that is written down, and there is precedent, which is the written law as applied to specific situations. In a very general way, "code" is what we call "civil law", which is to say the laws as written, and "precedent" is "common law", which is to say the law that has been applied via court rulings and the like. Both components are important. In the US federal law is codified in the United States Code, and US legal precedent is the results of every federal court case in history, which I guess you can research at LexisNexis. If you want to know why lawyers require so much training and cost so much money, going through all of that case law is a bear, even with digital databases. --Jayron 32 14:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]