Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 3

= June 3 =

Utilitarianism and perfect information?
In doing a research paper on consequentialist justifications of violence, specifically, within the context of dissidence against a state. I've identified 'intentionality' as a criterion for justifying violence. I'm having some difficulty though, determining whether Utilitarianism requires Perfect Information. I'd imagine there's some debate on the subject, but I'm unable to find any academic resources that contend the issue.

Any thoughts/references would be greatly appreciated.

Perfect Proposal 00:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Queen Pomare IV's Letters
Can someone help me find a complete version of Queen Pōmare IV's letters, one to Queen Victoria and another one or two to King Louis Philippe I?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it is the complete version of the letter to Victoria, but try this. It seems to be longer than a version of the letter I found on Goole Books here.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the complete version published in The Spectator, starting on the bottom right of page 824.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And a letter (and I am not sure if it is complete or edited) to Louis Philipe from November 1842 here which I think is the letter that you are looking for.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 02:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Were there ever any replies from them?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any replies - that doesn't mean there weren't any, although in the case of Victoria at least, I think that political considerations might suggest there wasn't a direct response from her. There is a collection of correspondence in the this volume of the State Papers from 1843 that contains letters from the British Government  and from Pomare that date back to 1825, including a letter from Queen Pomare to George IV in 1825 and a 1838 letter to Victoria, as well as correspondence from Palmerston and Pritchard  and correspondence between the French and Pomare.(Link starting at page 267)  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 00:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Chinese marriage history question
So many foreign merchants started to marry local women during the Tang dynasty that one emperor enacted a law that forbid them from taking their Chinese wives with them back to their native lands. Does anyone know if this law was carried over into the Song Dynasty? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

law for demonstrations in the United States
Hello, I am a French student, trying to learn English and for that going to English lessons. In one of them, we studied a newspaper's article dealing with some demonstrations against the WTO. And I was wandering... I think I remember that in the United States, people are not allowed to demonstrate without moving... I can not remember where I read that, but it seems to me there is a law that avoids demonstrators to be static in the street... Did I dream? Does such a law exist or did it ever exist once? Shall I give up my English learning ambitions?? I thank you in advance for your answer! Céline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.14.48.21 (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Constitution guarantees the right of assembly and protest... it bars the Federal government from limiting such. So, I doubt there is a Federal Law like you describe.  However, there might certainly be Sate or Local level laws and ordinances that do so.  A lot of cities require a permit to hold a legal demonstration... and the type of permit obtained will often define where and how the demonstration takes place.  For example, if the demonstrators are issued a parade permit, then the demonstration can be defined as being a "parade" (or "march"), which would have a defined starting point, travel along a defined route, and stop at a defined ending point... and I could certainly see the permit including language that says a "Parade" is required to keep moving. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is complicated. Per the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause, the Bill of Rights covers the States and municipalities as well as the Feds.  That is, no state government may pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights (including the freedom of assembly) any more than the Federal government can.  This is known in U.S. Constitutional legal circles as the "incorporation doctrine".  Now, as with other aspects of the Bill of Rights, the freedoms guaranteed are not truly 100% absolute.  Famously, the Freedom of Speech does not apply to Shouting fire in a crowded theater; in other words there are restrictions on the Bill of Rights in order to maintain order and prevent real danger: the courts have generall interpreted these restrictions very narrowly, that in order to violate the strictures set out by the Bill of Rights, the Government must establish that a Clear and present danger exists for Imminent lawless action.  In other words, the state cannot deny people's right to peacably assembly, but it can prevent people from, say, forming a lynch mob.  The line gets fuzzy in the middle, esepcially since states do have the right to require permits for large groups to use public spaces for an extended period of time, people who assemble also do not have the right to themselves, through their assembly, violate the rights of others (for example, people who assemble in such a way as to block a street and thus prevent others from going about their business).  So, governments in the U.S. cannot absolutely ban peaceful assemblies, but they can restrict the time and place of such assemblies in order to assure their peacefulness.  -- Jayron  32  12:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Salut Céline, perhaps you might be interested in the article Free speech zone. The "Free Speech Zones" in the US were sometimes small enough to force demonstrations to be static. Tinfoilcat (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you are remembering the right country? I immediately thought of the British case Arrowsmith v. Jenkins (1963) (which ought to have a Wikipedia article) where Pat Arrowsmith was prosecuted for obstructing the highway, and it was argued that if the people at the meeting had been "passing and repassing" they would have been using the highway properly and not guilty of obstruction. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Depending on the size of the protest, a parade permit might be required. RudolfRed (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you are trying to learn English, let me make minor corrections to your otherwise excellent paragraph. "Wandering" is walking about aimlessly, what you meant is "wondering".  And "law that avoids demonstrators to be static in the street" might be better written as "law which prevents demonstrators from standing still in the street".  "Static", meaning still, tends to be used in technical writing, not informally.  Other definitions of "static", such as "radio frequency interference", are used casually.  And saying that "law avoids" something would mean it doesn't deal with it at all (neither permits nor forbids it).


 * Your writing is easy to understand, it just doesn't sound quite like a native English speaker yet. Incidentally, I am a US English speaker, but as far as I know, this advice also all applies to UK English, but I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.  StuRat (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There appear to be state laws requiring permits if you plan to block a street or sidewalk (, Pennsylvania for example). This mentions a Chicago law and a federal law against blocking entrance to abortion clinics. Rmhermen (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all fundamentally based on free speech doctrine, which has lots of details to it. But there's no general principle about having to keep moving, or not moving. Restrictions on speech generally need to be neutral. So the government can require anyone wanting to form a rally to get a permit, but they can't have different criteria based on the type of speech. And then some restrictions, even if neutral, may be severe enough to restrict speech that they're unconstitutional in all cases. Shadowjams (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "no general principle about having to keep moving, or not moving." Do you have a source for that claim? Rmhermen (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to find a source for the non-existence of a rule. If there is no source saying the rule exists, then you just have to assume it doesn't. --Tango (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-moving protests have frequently been conducted in the United States. See sit-in.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That they occurred does not mean that they were legal. Tango, you had better tell the courts, Congress and ACLU that their positions are incorrect according to your unsupported opinion. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show some court decisions or laws that prove Tango wrong, I'd suggest you lay off the snark. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Highest number of illegitimate children
Woud anyone happen to know which French king sired the most (recorded) illegitimate offspring? I recall having read many years ago that it was Henri IV, but can anyone back this up or refute it? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Much easier to refute than to prove. Henry IV of France's wives and mistresses says Henri IV had only nine, where the articles for Louis XV of France and Louis XIV of France list 14 each and say those lists are incomplete. I did not look further back in the list of kings. 184.147.120.184 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for other references besides Wikipedia but thank you for replying all the same.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Largest Muslim population in Europe 2
In the previous question about Largest Muslim population in Europe, In the EU, the countries were France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Bulgaria. After Bulgaria, who comes next? Denmark? Sweden? Austria? Belgium? Netherlands? Finland? Greece? Portugal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.56 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that, in all of your research at Wikipedia, and in all the time you've been looking into this, you had not yet found the article List of countries by Muslim population. By cross-referencing that list to EU membership, you can easily work it out for yourself.  -- Jayron  32  19:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not surpised, hasn't the OP asked like 4 times about Indonesians in the Netherlands? Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's usually different diaspora in different countries each time, but there have been a lot of questions on the same basic topic. --Tango (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many, many Muslims whose ancestors have lived in some parts of Europe, and nowhere else, for half a millenium or more. Many former European posessions of the Ottoman Empire, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, former Soviet Republics, parts of Russia, European Turkey, etc. have had Muslim people living on the same patch of land for 500 years, longer than most of those countries have existed as states.  At some point, people stop being part of a diaspora or migration, and merely become native.  It is true that a lot of Muslim people who live in Europe are first- or second-generation migrants to the region, but there are a non-negligible number of very native European Muslims.  -- Jayron  32  14:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Altho the OP has asked a lot of questions about other demographics, there were at least 3 questions about Indonesians in the Netherlands Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 29, Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 May 17, Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 25. I thought there were more, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I see that these questions were subtly different, and perhaps the OP showed some slight understanding of the earlier answers. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)