Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

April 17

Flag of Vanuatu

According to the Flag of Vanuatu page, the flag was adopted in February 1980, ahead of independence later in the year. Was this the official flag of New Hebrides in the intervening months? Hack (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "adopted" simply means that an official resolution was adopted designating the design as the flag of the future independent republic. If you want to raise the new flag to mark the moment of achieving independence, the design has to be finalized in advance. According to this article, flag raising was a prominent aspect of the independence celebrations, with "over 91 flag raising centres" throughout the islands. (Does that mean 92 flag raising centres?) If the flag had already been replaced earlier and thus remained unchanged at the moment suprême, I think the flag raising would not have had the symbolic value warranting the effort of ceremonies at that many flag raising centres. Also the language used in the remainder of the article ("The National flag ... gave the people their first rightful identity as the citizens of the new Republic of Vanuatu", "The new nation was born with its own national constitution, national flag, national anthem, coat of arms") supports this. --Lambiam 09:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This video: Vanuatu History Documentary (YUmi Winnem Freedom), shows (after 53:00) the Union Jack being lowered at midnight with much colonial pomp and a Royal Marine band playing Sunset, and then the new president being sworn-in. 12 hours later, the Vanuatu flag is raised while a local choir sings How Great Thou Art, and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester reads a message from the Queen. Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the U.S. federal government gonna go broke?

I'm worried about the U.S. stimulus package, giving a lot of Americans $1,200. The $2.2 trillion. And talk of giving more money away in future months. Good for the people sure, but isn't this bad news for the federal government?? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

A topic that is covered in extensive detail on the article about national debt of the United States. The general consensus by economists is that the effort to stimulate the economy and replace lost income is crucial, and that alone outweighs the cost of doing nothing and thus triggering a total economic collapse. It's also very likely that it will not be the last stimulus package of its kind this year.--WaltCip (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard hope or expectation is that this is effectively an investment - that stimulating the economy will eventually result in more tax revenues for the government. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 12:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that the U.S. debt hawks always ignore is that the U.S. economy is not entirely like other economies, and where other historical or modern countries have run into debt troubles (say Spain under Philip II or modern Greece) is that the U.S. maintains the world's most important reserve currency. The U.S. government has financial and monetary tools in its toolkit that other countries do not necessarily have access to (there's some criticism to be made that the U.S. economic strength in such matters is built on the backs of other economies that aren't so endowed, but that's a discussion for another day). What that means is that the U.S. is in a sui generis economic position in many ways that allow it to leverage debt in such ways that other countries can't. The U.S. capacity for sovereign debt is not infinite, but it also has the ability to absorb events such as this in ways that other economies can't. There is a limit, but the U.S. has really never come close to hitting it. --Jayron 32 13:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A better time to ask this would have been around the time of the 2017 tax cut (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), when major increases to the U.S. deficit were enacted to reward Republican donors (the rich and large corporations), while this year's stimulus was enacted to mitigate economic problems and ease hardships caused by Coronavirus. Since the congressional Republicans (who previously posed as the champions of limited government and fiscal probity) showed in 2017 that they didn't take deficits seriously, good luck in trying to convince most non-Republicans to take the debt seriously... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the above, plus they can always mint a trillion-dollar coin. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the United States can borrow money effectively for free (that is, interest on the debt is less than or equivalent to the rate of inflation), there is literally no reason *not* to borrow money.

Just about every dollar borrowed by the United States since 2010 has been at a negative real interest rate, making that borrowing literally free money. There is zero risk of the United States government ever defaulting on its debt, hence it is the definitive place for a flight to quality to land. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a creditor of the US and Trump got re-elected, I'd take an insurance against the USA defaulting. --Lambiam 20:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. He has a track record of bankruptcies. And it's not WP:NOTFORUM to state that. It's a known fact.--WaltCip (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More directly to the point of the question in the header: a government with monetary sovereignty can only "go broke" (default on its financial liabilities) if it chooses to. It can borrow money if people are willing to lend to it, and it can always assess taxes to obtain more revenue, or create ("print") money to redeem its debt. If it creates too much money (expanding the money supply too much), there is the potential of high inflation, but too much is a relative term. At present the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is not especially high; it's less than half that of Japan. You need to look at percentages and relative amounts, not nominal values. A trillion U.S. dollars is a big number, but in the context of a U.S. economy with an annual output valued at many trillions USD, it's not so relatively large. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answers here are generally spot on (particularly Jayron32): the US will remain solvent right up until the moment it isn’t, and there is no way of knowing when (if) that moment will be.

AnonMoos alludes to the role of revenues, which is just about always the reason for large deficit (spending takes far too long; revenues, as we are seeing this year, can vanish in a sneeze). However, the 2017 tax cut was taken at a time of relative economic strength, and while it was wholly wasted as a fiscal policy action, it wasn’t all that much worse than what Reagan or W Bush had done before.

NorthBySouthBaranof mentions interest rates, which have a big impact on the cost of servicing the debt (the remaining influence is how much is coming due this year). The thing to bear in mind is that we are pretty close to average (for the past 35 years) when it comes to debt servicing payments, and the economy is much larger than in the 1990s.

Lambiam makes the frequent mistake of assuming that the US can default on its debts. That is not the case. “Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” That has been widely interpreted to mean defaulting would be unconstitutional. In other words, the United States cannot, without a constitutional amendment, choose to default. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Right now, the U.S. Government can borrow money for free (that is, at negative real interest rates) for up to the 30-year length of a Treasury bond. [1]. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess my lack of understanding is the federal government doesn't store it's money in it's own bank account, but also on bonds? So it never really hits 0? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

United States Treasury security has some details, This 2018 audit of the U.S. General Fund may also be useful to the discussion. --Jayron 32 12:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

Do illegitimate children have succession rights to the British throne if they've been subsequently legitimized?

Do illegitimate children have succession rights to the British throne if they've been subsequently legitimized by their parents' marriage? Futurist110 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what parliament says in the relevant law. See Katherine Swynford... AnonMoos (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does the relevant British law say right now? Futurist110 (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- there would be a separate specific law for each case of legitimization (and conversely, for each "declaration of bastardy", see Titulus Regius). AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading some kind of guide for romance fiction writers, that emphatically said this couldn't happen, at least in the historical milieu of interest (the Jane Austen world, basically). A quick web search couldn't find it, but we have an article Illegitimacy in fiction. 2601:648: 8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even in Jane Austen's time, there was a provision in Scottish law that a child born out of marriage would be retroactively legitimated for many purposes if his/her parents subsequently married, provided that the parents would have been free to marry each other at the time that the child was conceived or born (neither was married to other persons and no other impediment). However, I'm not sure how this interacted with noble stuff, and it didn't apply in England... AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Legitimacy Act 1926 and the Legitimacy Act 1959 stated that legitimized children could not succeed to any title, including the Crown. Thus the Hon. Benjamin George Lascelles, eldest son of the Earl of Harewood and great-great-grandson of King George V, cannot succeed to the earldom or the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reasoning behind these two acts in regards to this specific issue? Futurist110 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was... was that pun deliberate?--Khajidha (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No; it wasn't. Now, are you going to answer my question here? Futurist110 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What pun? ["Issue" as in "having children"?] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both those acts have been repealed. What does the current law state? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same. It's the Legitimacy Act 1976. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1: "It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne." Proteus (Talk) 11:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spain & the Italian unification

From 1859 to 1861, through military backing from France, the combined armed forces of Savoy-Piedmont-Sardinia and Italian nationalists marched from the Po Valley down the Italian Peninsula with the clear intention of unifying it and the surrounding islands under a single state. As a result, much of modern Italy with the exception of Latium and Venetia was annexed by the House of Savoy extinguishing a few Habsburg and Bourbon states in the process. Austria put up a quite a fight in the war but Spain completely remained on the sideline iirc. Why was this the case? Why didn't Queen Isabel II have her government militarily intervene to save her dynasty's states that they used to fight the Habsburgs so hard to defend during the 18th century, especially her mother's homeland? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, puzzling. Perhaps – warning: pure speculation – Spain feared that a serious clash between the Spanish forces and the irredentists plus Savoy could lead to Habsburg gaining the upper hand, as in the saying "two dogs fight for a bone, and a third runs away with it". The risk may have outweighed the possible gains of what anyway would have been a costly operation. Historians must have developed explanations; perhaps someone can find some pointers. --Lambiam 20:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that the Habsburgs has long completely given up hope of acquiring Parma and Naples and has been on good term with the Bourbons ever since the Diplomatic Revolution in 1756. In addition, fear of more revolution and uprising would have prevented either of them from trying to upset the balance of power set by the Congress of Vienna. Austria fought hard against the Savoys and the French but it just seems to me that Spain made no effort whatsoever especially when threatening war with France or sending in reinforcements to the Austrians had pretty good chances of reversing the outcomes of the Second Italian War of Independence, imo. If I recalled correctly, Spain was not even occupied with another event at the time and after the loss of Parma, you would think the Spanish would have sent in an army to reinforce the position of the Two Sicilies. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expedition of the Thousand stated that José Borjes was a Spanish general who fought for the Sicilians. Some searching indicate that he was a Carlist supporter. Seems Spain was pretty politically unstable at the time and was in no place to fight a distance war for a cousin branch. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: Spain#Liberalism and nation state "The Napoleonic War left Spain economically ruined, deeply divided and politically unstable. In the 1830s and 1840s Anti-liberal forces known as Carlists fought against liberals in the Carlist Wars. Liberal forces won, but the conflict between progressive and conservative liberals ended in a weak early constitutional period". Note that at that time, Spain had ongoing military expeditions in alliance with France in the Cochinchina Campaign (1858-1862) and the Second French intervention in Mexico (1861-1867), and also on her own in the Hispano-Moroccan War (1859–60). Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not particularly unique to post-Napoleonic Spain among European countries. The 19th century was a very turbulent time for many countries. France, for example, after Napoleon went through the Bourbon Restoration, the July Monarchy, the Second Republic, the Second Empire, the Paris Commune, and the Third Republic all in the space of less than 70 years. Rapid and disruptive political shifts pretty much typified Europe in the 19th century. --Jayron 32 18:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, now that you mentions the Carlist threats, Spain did experienced two relatively minor uprising by the Carlists in that time period, one in 1855 and another in 1860. In addition to that, the two liberal forces, the Moderates and the Progressives, have been locked in a long at times violent political struggle for the past decades. So, Spain was definitely experiencing quite a lot of political instability at the time. However, I have a lot of doubt about it actually affecting its foreign policy. As mentioned by Alansplodge, Spain was in fact fighting foreign wars at the time and will be sending a naval expedition to South America in 1864. Even so, I am still puzzled by the lack of Spanish action in the fall of Parma and the Two Sicilies. Surely, it should not be hard for Spain to exert diplomatic pressure or send in some troops for a nation of its size. Moreover, the annexation of the Two Sicilies was not part of the agreement France had with Piedmont-Sardinia and was only possible because Sardinia was able to occupy the territory after Expedition of the Thousand had taken place. So, there was definitely room for Spain to act to at least save the Two Sicilies. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Spain in alliance with Napoleon III at that time? Napoleon was driving Italian unification to give the Austrians a hard time, if I understand correctly. Alansplodge (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The island of Sicily experienced three popular revolts between 1816 and 1848, including one in 1848 which removed Bourbon rule for 16 months (see Two Sicilies#Expedition of the Thousand). Maybe Spain saw the Thousand's revolt as just another one of those revolts Two Sicilies was used to and only realized the outside influence when interfering would have been too late? After all, a few months passed between Garibaldi landing in Sicily in May and arriving unopposed in Naples in September but the Sardinian army only arrived in October (Battle of the Volturno). Regards So Why 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phone directories and privacy

Back when telephone directories were widespread were there any privacy concerns due to disclosed personal information and possible prank calls? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People who had privacy concerns, such as celebrities, could have an unlisted number. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prank calls were fairly widespread, but were pretty much looked on as just childish fun. They were usually just silliness of the "Is your refrigerator running? Well, you better go catch it!" type. Actual harassment, threats, and such did require law enforcement to step in, though. --Khajidha (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, you used to have to pay for an unlisted number. To save money, you could use a false name when you took over the phone bill. I appeared in the book as Ducat I --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine would on say April 19, 1988 (4/19/1988) call local number 419 19 88, and if the call was answered, he'd congratulate the people with their phone number's anniversary. --Lambiam 19:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny and harmless. And if they have caller-ID, they can screen out those goofy calls. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 15:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the prank calls started long before caller ID was invented. Prank calls are probably almost as old as telephone service in general --Khajidha (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And now we have better options for dealing with them: caller ID, answering machines, call blocking, etc. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 18:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha -- in the earliest days of telephones, the telephone exchange lady picked up your wire (and knew exactly which household you were calling from) and manually patched you through to the household you were calling. I bet the possibilities for prank calls were greatly expanded with inventions such as the Strowger switch... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of operators didn't seem to prevent such things: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2222406/lan-wan-history-s-first-prank-phone-call-was-way-back-in-1884.html https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/first-prank-call-ever --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most classic mid-20th century phone prank gag (at least in the U.S.) was probably "Prince Albert in a can"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or in the can, implying he's locked in the bathroom. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern world, most people are on their phones in the can... --Jayron 32 17:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We live in the Too Much Information Age. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 15:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons has maintained the tradition of prank calls. See Wikiquote HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Antibody testing for Coronavirus

Can somebody help me find a list of ALL universities and labs working on an Antibody testing for COVID-19? I know Stanford, Emory and UWash.

Do you actually mean ALL universities, or just all universities in the US? Fgf10 (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Either way, I doubt that there is such a list. This is unlikely to be static at the moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO website maintains a list of approved tests (pdf) by country and manufacturer. This includes antibody tests. --Lambiam 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another illegitimate claimant to the British throne?

The question above piqued my interest. Some time ago I worked on the article Remittance man, in the course of which I found a tale of an alleged royal remittance woman. Is there any truth to this, and did any enterprising journalist track down this putative princess and her daughter?

Ella Higginson, poet laureate of Washington State, applied some poetic licence to the story of royal scandal publicised by Edward Mylius. The case that went to trial concerned an alleged secret marriage in 1890 between the young naval officer who was to become George V, and a daughter of Admiral Sir Michael Culme-Seymour, 3rd Baronet. As Higgison tells it, in Alaska: The Great Country (1909), when the young royal had to renounce this marriage, his beloved was given the most royal of exiles: near the City of Vancouver "in the western solitude, lived for several years--the veriest remittance woman--the girl who should now, by the right of love and honor, be the Princess of Wales, and whose infant daughter should have been the heir to the throne."^[1]

Mylius served time in jail for publishing this story. Note my use above of hedging words. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems historically quite dubious. For a real marriage of this type, see Maria Fitzherbert... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there isn't anything about it on the Wikipedia article, but apparently some people in the U.S. South in the 19th century and/or early 20th century were convinced that they were descended from the child of Flora Macdonald and Bonnie Prince Charlie, even though historical evidence is against any such child (for one thing, most of the time that the two were together was in a small open boat with seven other people...). AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Roger Lafosse makes a similar claim. —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Higginson, Ella (1909). Alaska: The Great Country.

April 21

Preeminent universities

As is well known, Florida classifies its state universities into "preeminent" and "emerging preeminent universities" based on specified criteria which reflect quality. Are there other states that do that?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it classify any as "Just average"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - only Florida.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Board games

Are there museums of board games in the world?--95.233.83.162 (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was this one, but it closed in 2009. You can still view the contents of the museum online. --Viennese Waltz 10:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed an exhibition devoted to board games at the V&A Museum of Childhood in London; Game Plan: Board Games Rediscovered which was due to close this week but actually shut weeks ago due to the current emergency. They have a large board game collection, part of which is usually on display, and you can view it on-line here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Museum of Games Tobyc75 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, there's the de:Deutsches Spielemuseum in Chemnitz and de:Deutsches Spielearchiv in Nuremberg, with 35,000 and 30,000 board games, respectively. 2A01:598:9183:BDEB:1:1:3919:F4B4 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Human being

Are human beings are also a type of animals (in Islam) - ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist, I've not found any such thing in Islamic texts. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not likely to find that in the text of any major religion, at least not explicitly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In colloquial use, the word "animal" excludes human beings, as when someone says, "We are not animals", or when a mother reprimands her child, "You eat like an animal!". Of course she does; she is an animal. Most people who have not had a formal education may not be aware that the biological sciences place the human species (Homo sapiens) in the biological kingdom Animalia, in the same tribe as chimpanzees. While, as far as I'm aware, there is no direct similar placement in Islamic texts, the sura Al-‘Ankabūt says, "Every soul must taste of death, then to Us you will be returned" (Qur'an 29:57). Here "every soul" is generally interpreted as including animals. The word translated as "soul" is نَفْسٍ (nafs), of which the primary meaning is "living creature", related to an Arabic word that can mean both "soul" and "breath". (The English word "animal" comes from Latin animalis, which literally means, "possessing an anima", where Latin anima can likewise mean "soul" and "breath".) So I think any separation between humans and other animals is not an absolute one in Islamic thought; all are God's creatures who God at some time will call back. --Lambiam 18:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also our article Animals in Islam. --Lambiam 18:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam gave a good answer. One decent resource for questions like this is the Islam Stackexchange. Temerarius (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

17 Ming princes

Both questions regards the Manchu conquest of China

1. The Kingdom of Tungning was founded by the Zheng family under Koxinga. Did they intend to restore the Ming or start a new dynasty? Koxinga supported the Yongli Emperor until he was captured and killed in 1662. Was there an attempt to place a figure head Ming emperor from the remaining imperial princes by the Zheng regime until Zheng Jing “abandoned any pretense of restoring the Ming dynasty by the time he invaded Fujian in 1676” as it states in his article?

2. During the end of the Kingdom of Tungning, 17 Ming dynasty princes were sent back to the mainland from Taiwan. Zhu Shugui and Zhu Honghuan are the only princes whose name I could find. What were the names of the other princes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.14.47 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I am not an expert on the subject, but I think Koxinga's goals in the time period started out as helping the vestiges of the Ming, supporting refugees from the mainland, and generally being a bastion of Ming culture. That said, eventually with the Ming overthrow, Koxinga became much more independent and less connected with restoring the Ming dynasty, an impossible task as a governor of a small island, and focused more on piracy and developing a kingdom and dynasty on Taiwan still connected with Ming culture but less connected with the Ming empire. Zoozaz1 03:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoozaz1 (talk • contribs)

Luxette - cooking

I have a recipe for "Eggs and Luxette". It is a savoury, to be served at the end of a meal.

2 or 3 hard-boiled eggs
1 1/2 oz butter
1 tablespoonful luxette
seasoning

Divide the hard-boiled eggs in half, remove the yolks and mix smoothly with butter and luxette, rub through a sieve, then pipe into the egg, stand each cup on a slice of cooked beetroot or tomato, garnish with cress and serve.

What is luxette? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down to the comments section here DuncanHill is says that it is a fish paste. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more info including a pic of the jar label. Now I'm hungry :-P. MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That label sent me to the dictionary to look up triturate. Thanks for the new word! --76.71.6.31 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are both welcome :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there 76. This has some fun words. My particular favorite is Vellichor. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw "defenestrate" used on a game show the other day: they said someone defenestrated a piano and asked what it meant. I don't know which one; I'm watching a lot of them these days. It might've been the new celebrity version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, or if not, then it was another one. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Defenestrate" used (say, 50 years ago) to be widely understood in the UK, because many secondary school history courses would mention The Defenestration of Prague (specifically, the 1618 one). I'm not sure if that's still the case, though. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.214 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Millennial colleague, with a masters degree no less, recently asked what Napoleon was, she had no idea that it was even the name of a person. So probably the Defenestration of Prague does not impinge much on modern consciousness. I suspect that it was only included in British histories to reinforce the idea that the Reformation was a Good Thing, which is not an obsession of the 21st century. Alansplodge (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse schooling with education. I've never presumed a person's level of knowledge based on any certifications they may have. --Jayron 32 12:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 50. We learnt about all the Defenestrations of Prague in O Level History. That of Jan Masaryk was the one relevant to the course but our teacher, quite rightly, thought it would make it all a bit more interesting and memorable to mention the others. I've since been to Prague, and I can't say its windows lend themselves more to defenestration than those of other European capitals I've visited. Must be something in the water. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were told about such things. Again, never presume anyone learned what they were told in school. I imagine lots of your classmates would deny ever learning such matters. --Jayron 32 13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Honolulu Catholic sisters in 1859

So on May 4, 1859, ten Flemish and French nuns [2] from the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary arrived in Honolulu and established a boarding school on July 9, 1859 and a day school later on (these were the precursor of Sacred Hearts Academy). What were the names of these nuns and their final fate (did they remain in Hawaii or return to Europe)? KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Kosovo...

I am not quite sure myself if this question is going to make sense but, I will ask anyway. I apologize beforehand if the following comes across as confusing in any way. Around two and half years ago, I asked on here a logic question about double standard and hypocrisy and the main reason I asked was the argument that Kosovo is unique and thus does not establish a precedent that got often brought up by most Western governments as a response to whataboutism from Russia and proponents of other cases of separatist secessions. While there were useful answers, I was not exactly satisfied and so, I will ask it more directly this time around.

Does the argument that Kosovo is sui generis and thus is is not a double standard to treat it differently from other cases of unilateral secession such as Catalonia makes logical sense? If it does, could you use the fact that every situation is inherently unique to a certain extent in term of context and situation to prove that all accusations of hypocrisy or any fallacious whataboutisms are inherently opinions? Or is the aforementioned argument just mental gymnastics to just metaphorically say "hurr durr The West is always right. Kosovo is unique and different because we say so and we are always right, why won't you get it? smh" since there is a huge gap in logic between "Kosovo is unique" and "We should treat it differently from other cases of secession"? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as a "sui generis" case would obviously depend on one's own opinion; so, whether it involves hypocrisy would depend on what one's own personal views are. For instance, one could refer to the post-World War II expulsions of Germans as a "sui generis" case that was justified but otherwise refuse to support ethnic cleansing, but whether one would be viewed as a hypocrite for this position would depend on whether or not other people will think that you've made a sufficiently strong case in favor of these specific expulsions being "sui generis" and thus more justified than other expulsions are.

Another interesting point in regards to Kosovo is that it was something described as being "illegal but legitimate" (or, alternatively, "illegal but justified"). This means that the West believes that there are certain actions that are contrary to international law but that are nevertheless legitimate or justified. (Of course, this raises the question as to why exactly such actions should be illegal in the first place; after all, shouldn't legitimate and/or justified actions actually be legal--similar to how it's legal for a good Samaritan to accidentally break someone's rib while saving their life?) The thing is, of course, that this opens the door for other countries--such as Russia--to likewise violate international law in cases that they consider to be justified--and then the West won't be able to criticize these countries (such as Russia) for violating international law because these countries are simply going to say "Yes, we did violate international law, but our action was nevertheless legitimate and thus justified and appropriate!" Indeed, one can refer to the Crimea annexation as being legitimate due to the fact that the majority of the Crimean population does appear to have endorsed it after the fact. (It's less clear whether a majority of the Crimean population endorsed it before the fact.) So, in at least some way, the Crimean annexation was compatible with the principle of national self-determination--which one can certainly view as a legitimate principle even if it is one that isn't actually universally recognized by international law. (The situation and political climate in regards to national self-determination right now is, of course, much more favorable right now than it was a century or two ago, but it's still by no means a universally recognized right according to international law.) Futurist110 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did Russia ever admit that they do not subscribe to international laws or some something similar rather than just using whataboutism to justify their actions in the last 12 years? Also, would you agree with the assertion that international laws are a combination of "The strong/winners make the rules" and "screw the rules, I make them"? I mean, whenever I see arguments surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict, the argument that Israel violated international law by occupying the West Bank or intending to annex some parts of the territories it had conquered got brought up like no tomorrow but this is far from the first time an act of unilateral annexation got later internationally recognized and widely accepted as fait accompli. Let's not even get to debate surrounding right of return (Sudetenland, Operation Storm anyone?), the fact that China could legally do whatever it want with Hong Kong and Taiwan according to international laws, and claimant of prisoners of war status by unlawful combatant (IRA). 70.95.44.93 (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Higginson, Ella (1909). Alaska: The Great Country.

[1]