Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 14

= May 14 =

Events known by different names in different countries
Is there a Wikipedia list or some other source that lists events that are known by completely different names in different countries based on their perspective of the event (e.g., the Spanish–American War known in Spain as the Disaster of 1898)? czar ♔  01:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find a list, but I can make this one longer. The Turkish-Armenian War was just the Eastern Front of a wider war, to some.


 * On the other hand, what we call merely the Eastern Front (World War II) was the Great Patriotic War to the Russians. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Going through List of battles and looking at the lead sentence may be helpful (though more tedious than you'd probably like). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The US of course had the War of Northern Aggression, depending on your perspective. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And for those who didn't like the term Civil War, it was also called The War Between the States. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hell, most of the battles were named differently depending on which side you were on. (First Battle of Bull Run / First Manassas, Battle of Antietam / Battle of Sharpsburg, and so on.) &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article American Revolution states that the British use the arguably more accurate designation "American War of Independence". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And pretty much every war is just "The War" to someone. So much so that we don't even bother at the disambiguation page. So in a sense, I'm giving a pretty crappy answer. What we have here...is a failure...to communicate. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Vietnam War says "also known as the Second Indochina War, and known by the Vietnamese as the American War." HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Day of the Battle of Puebla" is commonly called the fifth of May. (And we're all focusing pretty hard on war events, aren't we?) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, May 14, 2014 (

The world's first global war (or its various theaters) is known as the French and Indian War, War of the Conquest, Pomeranian War, Third Carnatic War, Third Silesian War, or Seven Years' War. Another example that comes to my mind is the Battle of Grunwald / First Battle of Tannenberg. — Kpalion(talk) 04:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How can anyone stay mad at a Pomeranian? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of tricolours, the July Revolution has a few names. Getting away from France proper and war for a bit, see jeux olympiques d'hiver. French language, but globally official. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As a Holocaust archivist writing in English from sources in numerous languages, here's my working solution: From the WP page in your native language, go to the interwiki link for the corresponding page in the language of interest. (Presumably such a page exists because the conflict will be relevant to speakers of the target language.) I then transcribe or transliterate the name in the original language followed by a gloss of its meaning in English. When I can't determine this from the text, I post the query to the Wikipedia Language Reference desk. Note that this is also useful for names of organizations, military and otherwise, and of course exonyms for place names. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 is known as India's First War of Independence (term) in India. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Indian Rebellion of 1857? Ooh, that's a new one to me - Indian Mutiny, Great Mutiny, Sepoy Mutiny, and India's First War of Independence are all familiar to me. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a display at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich which mentions both 'Mutiny' and 'First War of Independence' versions. It strongly suggests that neither is fully adequate (and gives reasons), but does not propose a third option. 'Indian Rebellion of 1857' is not mentioned, and is new to me as well, as far as I can recall. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Korean War is knwon as Fatherland Liberation War in North Korea. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Our article World War II says that it ran from 1939 to 1945. Americans apparently have another name for the first two years of that period, but I don't know what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At least one Dane called it the "Northern European Overture to War". His book costs $209 US. Shipping's free. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Americans have the exact same starting and ending points for WWII as everyone else, and there is not a special, uniquely American term for the first two years of the war. There is the term Phoney War sometimes applied to part of the first year or so of the conflict, but again I don't know that the term is uniquely American.  -- Jayron  32  11:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They had their own uniquely infamous date, though. Wikipedia calls the post-era "Military history of the United States during World War II", but that's not catchy. The oft-forgotten 1937-45 part has a whole section on its different names. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When the winter solstice strikes in Greenland, New Zealanders call it the summer solstice. Good reason for that, but this ain't the science desk. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Nagorno-Karabakh War was known as the Artsakh Liberation War in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. --Viennese Waltz 09:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

September 11 attacks has some different namings in different countries, primarily as the dominant US name "9/11" don't have the same connotation where 911 isn't the emergency phone number and where dates are written "day/month" (would be 11/9). --Soman (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the UK, "9/11" is called exactly that, even though that designates the 9th of November for us Limeys. It isn't our emergency number, either. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed: however a London Ambulance Service paramedic recently told me that dialling "911" in the UK now connects you to the emergency switchboard, as so many people - fed on a diet of US films and TV - think it's the correct number to dial, instead of "999" or the pan-European "112". I haven't tried it though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your ambulance person is an idiot, and downright dangerous to the public. Dialling 911 in the UK will not connect you to the emergency operator. Lots of normal numbers start with, or contain, the string 911. DuncanHill (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will pass on your comments. Alansplodge (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the strong words, but dialing the wrong number in an emergency can cost lives. In the UK dial 999 or 112. For an ambulance professional to propagate urban myths is highly irresponsible. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point Duncan and I don't disagree. A quick Google suggests that it is a quite widely held belief. Our 999 (emergency telephone number) article says: "It has been reported that some mobile phone handsets sold in the United Kingdom and Ireland may connect calls dialled as 911 to the GSM standard emergency number 112. It is also possible that 911 may be mapped inappropriately to emergency services in some VoIP equipment or private networks. However, the digits 911 could form the start of a normal local number in Ireland or the United Kingdom, so the code is not supported by the public telephone networks. This is simply a quirk of programming. 911 is not the official number and cannot be relied upon in case of an emergency". I still won't be trying it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a British jokebook as a kid. How do you make a policeman come running on his hands? Dial 666. As a Canadian Judas Priest fan, it took me years to understand there was no link to Satan. And also that Judas Priest was British. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Our September 11 attacks article says: "9/11 is pronounced "nine eleven". The slash is not part of the pronunciation. The name is frequently used in British English as well as American English although the dating conventions differ.", but large parts of the world is not Anglo-phone, and "nine eleven" doesn't translate (albeit, many people in non-English speaking contexts still use the English "nine eleven" in conversation. But it would not be used by say, on the TV news). --Soman (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the US, prior to the 9/11/01 attacks, 911 was often referred to as "nine-eleven". Hence the old joke, "Why couldn't the blonde call the emergency service? Because there was no 'eleven' on her phone." Since then, "nine-eleven" nearly always refers to the attacks, and the emergency call system is nearly always called "nine-one-one". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

enquiry about the original book of Robinson Crusoe
Good afternoon,

I've just read the Wikipedia article about the book of Robinson Crusoe, trying to find out just how long was the original unabridged version, including the second part of the book (further adventures of Robinson Crusoe or some similar name)- how many words in the book if it is possible to discover this.

I read the book as a seven year old, wading through every word of it, which took me a few months and which I now realise was a mammoth undertaking for a young child and one which most even far older children would never dream of attempting.

Is there some way of finding out the length - total of pages and words - in the original version? And is there anywhere online I can read this book again?

Sincerely, Lori Australia 124.171.139.173 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)≈≈≈≈


 * Project Gutenberg should help. You can download the text and get your word processor to count the words. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are direct links to various versions of the book at Robinson Crusoe, including this plain text version from Gutenberg. MS Word tells me the main body of the text contains 232,236 words (about three times a typical modern novel), which is certainly good going for a seven-year-old. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many classics available free of charge as ebooks, notably from Project Gutenberg but even from Amazon. If you haven't already, you could also try Wilkie Collins' The Moonstone where Gabriel Betteredge considers that "such a book as Robinson Crusoe never was written, and never will be written again" and so considerately believes "there are great allowances to be made for a man who has not read Robinson Crusoe since he was a child".  Thincat (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbeitskarte work papers during World War II
I read in the denaturalization decision of Theodor Szehinskyj that (according to the historian picked by the US government to testify in the denaturalization trial) laborers in Axis-occupied territories during World War II were issued work cards (known as Arbeitskarten) which, if these people were on the streets, Gestapo officers would often stop them to check their work papers. If someone was discovered carrying an expired and/or otherwise invalid Arbeitskarte, that person would be considered to have no identity or to have broken a labor contract, both of which were sufficient grounds for them to be sent to a concentration camp. I have tried to find other literature documenting this issue but have had no success so far. Does anyone know of the existence of such literature? 24.47.140.246 (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like you might be able to get more details about the work papers system in the book Hungern für Hitler. There is a blurry picture of such a card on page 157 of this PDF. Shii (tock) 02:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem with a morphine overdose as a means of execution?
It is not cruel (morphine is a narcotic), it is not uncommon (junkies on every major city do it), it is sure (the effect is well-known substance and the lethal dose can be calculated), there is plenty of it around (morphine has legit applications, so no way of blocking its commercialization). OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw a short BBC(?) show whose presenter concluded, "If we must have the death penalty, nitrogen asphyxiation would be most humane way." He spoke to a defender of the death penalty who said, "No!! Justice requires that the convict suffer."  (I paraphrase.) —Tamfang (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a compromise for the right and the left: Explode his head between 350mph mallets. Wash everything into a meatgrinder that leads to the sewer so no one sees it. Make sure he did it! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of Jack Vance's Emphyrio. The extreme penalty in Fortinone is exile into Bauredel, a neighboring district.  The exilee's departure is hurried along by a giant piston.  In Bauredel, a quarter-inch over the border, stands a sturdy stone wall. —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be unusual, the way has to fulfill all the criteria above. And the defendant of the death penalty was not right in legal terms, that was just his preference. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the unusual part? Nitrogen? An airtight room? – The advocate of cruelty was speaking of policy, not law. —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I posted in the last discussion on the death penalty, the programme was a BBC programme presented by Michael Portillo called "How to Kill a Human Being". --TammyMoet (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The drugs used in lethal injections often have parallel legitimate applications; they are often widely sold and distributed, in fact. The problem (for the executioners) is that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to sell their drugs for this purpose; some jurisdictions also expressly forbid such sales. EU regulations, for instance, prohibit the export of any pharmaceutical product for use in executions.  See this reprint of a Scientific American article on the topic:
 * ...Supplies of propofol, a widely used anesthetic, came close to being choked off as a result of Missouri’s plan to use the drug for executions. The state corrections department placed an order for propofol from the U.S. distributor of a German drug manufacturer. The distributor sent 20 vials of the drug in violation of its agreement with the manufacturer, a mistake that the distributor quickly caught. As the company tried in vain to get the state to return the drug, the manufacturer suspended new orders. The manufacturer feared that if the drug was used for lethal injection, E.U. regulators would ban all exports of propofol to the U.S. “Please, Please, Please HELP,” wrote a vice president at the distributor to the director of the Missouri corrections department. “This system failure—a mistake—1 carton of 20 vials—is going to affect thousands of Americans.”
 * This was a vast underestimate. Propofol is the most popular anesthetic in the U.S. It is used in some 50 million cases a year—everything from colonoscopies to cesareans to open-heart surgeries—and nearly 90 percent of the propofol used in the U.S. comes from the E.U. After 11 months, Missouri relented and agreed to return the drug.
 * In principle, I suppose, a death-penalty state could create its own pharma company for the production of death drugs, but so far that hasn't happened yet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In theory, the Euro companies that refuse to sell their drugs to US prisons could be banned, by the US Congress, from selling drugs of any kind to any US customer. That could cause a lot of collateral damage, but theoretically it's possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If they're looking for an extremely common, well-tested and legal method that people in the streets of major cities do to escape pain everyday, they can find it at Wal-Mart. Same tool they use to execute almost every other American animal. And if Wal-Mart's too expensive, some places are (almost) cheaper than dirt. Once Pfizer runs the guns, it'll probably become acceptable again. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, firing squad is one of several options still available. Hanging is another. Electric chair maybe. Although now that lethal injection has become standard, lawyers might argue that those other methods are "unusual" and hence unconstitutional. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no squad. Too much glamour, too many bullets and executioners. Just one in the heart. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why'd they even put that word in there? The thing we really care about is the not cruel. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends who "we" are, I guess. In the context of the law-passing, they were we. Personally, the idea of lethal injection is as unusual as when I first heard of it. It's like Mousetrap. That bugs me more than a bit of cruelty (provided they have the actual cruel killer). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The theory was that lethal injection should take the "cruel" part out of it. The recent fiascos with untested drugs may force a re-think of that assumption. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know the theory. Makes the whole thing seem even stranger. If they want to keep up illusions, I suppose they could still restrain and paralyze the guy before shooting him. And they could still draw the curtain if he (God forbid) gasps or twitches, as dying people do. The prison PR people could still swear he was fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where there's a will, there's a way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of why specific methods are chosen and others are rejected, but I would imagine morphine overdose would take far longer than the drugs that are currently being used. I've seen people die of morphine/heroin overdoses (in a professional setting) and it's not like some super quick thing. Personally, I don't think any capitol punishment should be used as long as we allow prosecutors to get away with hiding evidence, lying about evidence, lying to the jury, expert shopping, witness tampering and allow prosecutors to fight testing of DNA evidence after conviction or require the defendant pay for testing. But to me, it seems like a quicker and easier way to do it is with anesthesia (the same kind you use for surgery) and then beheading. Quick, easy, relatively painless. It just seems ridiculous that what happened last week with the botched execution could even happen in this day and age. I mean, really?Bali88 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's what happens when we become too dependent on the products of foreign countries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is the single drug protocol but it favors barbituates and not opiates. There's a long history of the multi-drug protocols (some of it detailed in our article) and not much of its history seems based in fact. There are indeed plenty of ways to kill people with various pharmaceuticals. The basic reasons to favor certain drugs boils down to this: time of action, side effects (including pain), evidence of death, individual tolerances to the drug (opiate tolerance across populations may vary much more than say tolerance to cyanide), etc.


 * But I'm in agreement with a lot of people's points... the multi-drug protocols are needlessly complicated and probably ineffective, which is an unconscionable mistake to make when we trust euthenizing our pets to much more tested and effective methods.


 * Finally, I'd point out that the needless complexity in death penalty protocols is a boon to the anti-death penalty movement. Those opposed to the death penalty can point to shortages of the drug (usually due to political pressure) as a reason to eliminate the death penalty, or to the ambiguity in the humaneness of the protocols. A single, verifiable humane method makes the death penalty more palatable. The flip side of this could be argued too (the move away from hanging had the effect of keeping the death penalty palatable to most). Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hanging, while gruesome, is alleged to be more humane than the electric chair. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If gays had rights, thieves would have rights too
What kind of fallacy is this? It is obviously anti-gay, but I am interested in the logical non-sequitur problem of this way of thinking. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a false equivocation; there's no reason a priori to think that the two groups named have any relevant factor in common. It's also slippery slope, and the consequent is neither false nor transparently undesirable; thieves do in fact have rights in law (at least in most democratic nations), and society has not ground to a halt. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind one use of "non sequitur" is as a name for a type of logical fallacy. This page gives more of a logical perspective. The fallacy is that, true or false, the consequent is not entailed by the premise. (post EC) I disagree that your example fits well into the slippery slope: that usually pertains to things that are more or less continuous, e.g. "if we let 18 year old buy alcohol, then pretty soon they will want 17 years to be the age, and soon enough we'll have 10 year olds drinking!"  SemanticMantis (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect the reasoning runs like this: "Homosex, theft, murder and idolatry are bad because they are forbidden in the Bible. (It would be wrong to bring up non-Biblical arguments against any of them, because that would amount to saying the Word of God is not sufficient reason to obey.) Thus homosex is morally equivalent to anything else that the Bible forbids, and to defend homosexuals is to defend thieves." It's a bit like affirming the consequent ("all mortals are Socrates") but not exactly. —Tamfang (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But thieves DO have rights. Many rights. It's just a dumb thing to say. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the complainers might be less excited if all you wanted were to guarantee the filthy somdomites a fair trial before their stoning. —Tamfang (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's smuggling in the unstated premise that thievery and homosexuality are criminal. Most Western people don't accept the premise that sexual acts between consenting adults are criminal. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What about agreeing to an hour of sex with an economy sized roll of tape on your head? I wonder if legal prostitution is favored by >50% of Westerners? Maybe. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The logical problem is still the smugling in of the unstated premise, which it seems the two opponents would not agree on, ending the argument. As for the facts, I may be wrong.  But I suspect there's opposition to notorious and public drunkenness and prostitution, and unregulated use of Marjuana and so forth, rather than a metaphysical opposition to them. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I was quoting not verbatim, but as I remembered the sentence. Indeed it was "If homosexuals are allowed to change the law in their favor, why not prostitutes, thieves, or murderers." In a context of a speech against acknowledging the gay civil rights movement. OsmanRF34 (talk)


 * (Of course, we do let more than a few thieves change the laws; either we elect them to office directly, or the thieves bribe them contribute to their campaigns.)
 * Incidentally, I read the statement as originally formulated in the thread header ("If gays had rights, thieves would have rights too") as being a technically true statement. It's rather akin to saying "If vegetarians had rights, plumbers would have rights too"; some of the people in the first named group (vegetarians or homosexuals) happen to also be members of the second group (thieves or plumbers).  There are gay thieves; there are vegetarian plumbers.  (There are also non-gay thieves, and omnivorous plumbers.  And gay non-thieves, and vegetarian non-plumbers.  And so on.)  I figured that the purpose of such a statement is to imply without explicitly stating it that gays are associated with and/or disproportionately represented among thieves.  It's not quite an affirming-the-consequent fallacy (or any fallacy) so much as an invitation to fallacious reasoning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I keep thinking of George Dyer, who was discovered breaking into Francis Bacon (artist)'s house and was given the choice of accompanying Bacon either to the police station or to his bed. He chose the latter.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding to that quote, both homosexuality and prostitution, if crimes at all, are "victimless crimes". Or, to be more specific, the "victim", if one can be identified, gives their consent.  So, it might be reasonable to say "If we allow homosexuality then we should also allow prostitution".  Theft and murder, of course, are not victimless crimes, as no consent was given, so that part is silly. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * &lt;whacko simulation mode&gt; Nonsense! The victim is everyone forced to endure the presence of immorality. Won't someone think of the children? &lt;/mode&gt; —Tamfang (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a strawman, especially with regards to prostitution. Issues are rarely as simple as a transaction between two completely independent consenting people; the institution of prostitution as a whole raises issues regarding forced sexual slavery, or wage slavery where the prostitute is beholden to the pimp, sexual exploitation of women, etc. etc.  I'm not saying that these are the ONLY factors to consider, but there is a multitude of confounding factors when we're trying to decide how to handle, as a society, an issue like this.  The existance of these confounding factors is not, in itself, a prescription for a simple course of action (such as jailing women who engage in prostitution, or men who pay women for sex, etc.) rather, it just means that it isn't as simple as the false dichotomy of "men and women should be allowed to exchange money for sex freely" and "It's just immoral so we shouldn't do it".  Neither of those positions significantly represents the actual practice, and unless we're willing to face the actual way prostitution works, and all that entails, trite solutions like "we should do nothing" and "we should arrest everyone and charge them with felonies" are both inadequate.  -- Jayron  32  12:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, just because something is legal doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. Just as alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean it's legal to drive drunk or sell it to minors, similarly kinds of sex can be legal, without making it legal to knowingly spread disease, or for a pimp to beat a prostitute.  In both these cases, I would expect current laws to apply.  However, additional laws, like those requiring regular medical exams for prostitutes, might also be a good idea.


 * And note that being illegal automatically denies those who engage in that behavior from protection under the law, as they would have to admit to their illegal activities to explain why they were assaulted. StuRat (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I also suspect there's some circular logic in place. In a nation where homosexuality and prostitution are both illegal, one could argue that "Those are crimes, therefore people who commit those crimes are criminals, and we shouldn't enabled criminals to legally engage in such behavior".  Of course, this boils down to "anything which is now illegal should stay illegal forever". StuRat (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Some member of the US Cabinet (iirc) said, "It is a misconception that if the law against something is repealed then it is no longer illegal." (I paraphrase, of course.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, that can be true, if it was also illegal under another law. One example is that bald eagles are no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act.  However, they are still protected under an earlier law which was written because they are the US's national symbol, not endangered.  Another example is that as states legalize marijuana, the Feds can still arrest people under federal law. StuRat (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The line was about the law, not a law. —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * At the heart of Stu's argument, of course, is the issue of natural law. The source of conflict is the difference in paradigm between the notion that "There's an ideal way people should behave, and laws should merely exist to recognize that natural order" and "laws are entirely creations of humans in a specific context, and therefore there is no higher principle besides what the powers decide".  The problem with position #1 is that it presumes that we all would agree at what the natural order is; clearly we don't.  The problem with position #2 is it leads to tyrrany: If the law is just what the government says it is, without any higher principle than the people making the laws, there is not restraint on the government from making any arbitrary law it wants to.  Either "something is a crime because it's bad, and so people shouldn't do it" or "something is a crime because the people in charge says it is".  That's the core of the conflict.  -- Jayron  32  12:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But even if a majority agree that something is bad, making it a crime still isn't always the best option. Look at Prohibition, for example.  In a Detroit suburb, they are considering making it illegal to idle your car for more than 5 minutes, which would require that cops park up by you and wait 5 minutes, which is both rather a waste of time for the cops and Big Brotherish for the driver.  Also, the cops are likely to idle at the same time.  StuRat (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The terminology of 'rights' can be misleading here. When talking about laws, we say that a thing is illegal if it is against the human law, immoral if it is against (what we think we agree is) the 'natural' moral law, and impossible if it is against (our current understanding of) the physical law. Conflating the first two gives the presumption that the human law can always be agreed on and always be moral (as in Jayron's case #1). But when we speak of 'rights', it's very common to equivocate rights we feel people ought to have with rights the law actually grants them at present. (We also sometimes equivocate universal rights with permissive rights such as rights of way.) As someone who is in favour of a human-rights-based approach to law and society, I wish we had a less ambiguous way of talking about these concepts. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the best way is to have laws expire (see sunset clause and desuetude) and do referendums to see if they should be extended. That way we know what the current society thinks is good or bad, so hopefully don't leave any laws on the books making it illegal for women to show their ankles. StuRat (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Think you're living in a world of pure ideal --Askedonty (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

West Georgia, Alaska


What, if anything, do we know about part of far northern Alaska being called "West Georgia?" Google only finds pages about Alaska related to the University of West Georgia. 2001:18E8:2:1020:747B:79F0:67B3:36A1 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this?
 * Note: Escholtz Bay is now spelled Eschscholtz Bay. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 19:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Only thing I've found is a Google Books reference, Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. Quote:
 * ""Name shown on Capt. F. W. Beechey's chart of Point Rodney to Point Barrow, 1826 &#8212; 27.""


 * So, it sounds like the name was added by the mapmaker. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite
 * Indeed Italian geographer Adriano Balbi in several of his works names Capt. Beechey (Compendio di geografia) as originator for that designation. Wasn't this perhaps some kind of a distant acknowledgement of the definitive independence of the United States relatively to the British Crown ? --Askedonty (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Frederick William Beechey was not a mapmaker (well, only incidentally) - he was the naval explorer who first named the area. This seems to confirm that he came up with "West Georgia", and that it never passed into general use. Interestingly, the name isn't used in his 1831 book of the voyage, so perhaps he dropped it quite soon after first publishing the map.
 * It's unlikely that it had anything to do with the United States - Alaska was Russian at this point, and there was a lot of British North America and disputed territory to get through after that before you reached the US! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More likely a reference to (East) Georgia, a part of the Russian Empire since 1800. I took the liberty of thumbnailing (?) the map to tidy the page. Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Disability
The name and reference to persons with disabilities are constantly changing. Each time a suggestion is made, it is played down by an individual or group as being offensive. I work with "Persons with disabilities" I my country, but we are not too sure how these persons are to be referred. Can you tell me the best term to refer to persons with disabilities? When we say "persons with Disabilities" they say all persons have some sort of disability. I am confused.190.213.37.76 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's a habit of coming up with more extreme euphemisms to describe anything bad (see euphemism treadmill). Just as we went from "mentally retarded" to "special", we also went from "crippled" to "handicapped" to "disabled" to "differently-abled".  Of course, at this point the euphemism no longer means anything (aren't we all "special" and "differently-abled" ?).  If you feel the need to be politically correct, then you will use the latest euphemism, no matter how imprecise it is.  However, in a more scientific setting they will likely use more accurate words, like "disabled".  However, I would suggest you say "physically disabled", if that's what you mean, to distinguish from the "mentally disabled".  As you might expect, the physically disabled don't like being lumped in with the mentally disabled, especially if their physical disability can be mistaken for a mental one, like in the case of the deaf and dumb (PC term: deaf-mute).  StuRat (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we do not all have some kind of disability. 'People with disabilities' is sufficiently clear for most purposes. Specify physical or mental disabilities as necessary. You don't say what country you're in; not all of what StuRat has said necessarily applies everywhere (or anywhere). For example, 'special' never fully took on the meaning he describes here in the UK - 'special school' was a recognised expression, but calling a person with a disability 'special' would come off as extremely patronising here. And there's a countervailing conservative tendency to complain about the changes of terminology, regardless of whether the changes serve any useful purpose or not. "Differently-abled" sounds wrong to me because 'abled' doesn't mean anything; we otherwise say 'capable' for the adjective or 'enabled' for the participle - one cannot 'able' someone. Moreover, the 'differently' aspect can seriously erase the lived realities of disability; one does not automatically get some kind of compensatory superpower for being disabled, like the comic-book character Daredevil. While I prefer "people with disabilities" to "disabled people", either is clearly an improvement over "the disabled", which gives too strong an impression of defining people solely by one aspect of their lives. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Autism (version of 01:27, 12 May 2014).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, there is a movement within "the disabled community" to call "normal" people "not disabled yet". (Personally I wonder what happened to the phrase "chronically sick and disabled" - I find it a much better descriptor of such people than anything else I've come across.)--TammyMoet (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I expect that "not disabled yet" would be treated with all the seriousness it deserves, and would have a commensurate effect on donations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Donations? We don't stand outside shop doorways with our caps in our hands these days in the UK you know bugs, we have a welfare state (or what's left of it) to take care of us!--TammyMoet (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also the possibility of completing the description by suggesting the statute of assisted or eligibility to being assisted. There remains drawbacks whatever the choice however. It will always be too restrictive for the one or the other, be they the ones directly concerned or otherwise undirectly concerned. --Askedonty (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find source of quotation - Foot family (British politicians)
I'm trying to find something I seem to recall being said by Isaac Foot about his sons Hugh and Michael. It was on the lines of "Anyone can govern Cyprus, but writing a book is special". Any help much appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't trace this, but supposing that Isaac Foot did say it it would surely have been a whimsical joke prompted by the publication of The Pen and the Sword in 1957. That book appeared while Hugh Foot was having quite a hard time in Cyprus. See Isaac Foot: A Westcountry Boy - Apostle of England at pp. 305–306, which says Foot was "overjoyed that one of his sons should have ventured into literature and history". Moonraker (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll see if I can get hold of a copy. I have a nagging suspicion it may have been in Sarah Foot's book on Isaac, which I thought I had a copy of but am unable to locate! DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Origin of law enforcement as a distinct occupation
When and were did the job of law enforcement first emerge as a distinct occupation - who were the first cops? I know that in the Roman Empire it was just one of the tasks of soldiers to arrest criminals. Then my knowlege has a looooooooooong gap up to the nineteenth century when sherrifs, peelers, bobbies, etc were already well established as the professional catchers of the crooked. I'm not at all convinced that the Sherrif of Nottingham's suposed single-minded pursuit of Robin the Hoodlum and his gang, some time during the Dark Ages/Early Medieval era, is based on historical reality. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Robin Hood is a legendary, rather than historical, figure. But are you saying you just don't believe in actual medieval sheriffs, even though they existed? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The role of Medieval English sheriff was more like a modern magistrate or even a mayor or civil administrator than that of police officer. There was only one sheriff per jurisdiction, not dozens of them patrolling the streets rounding up drunks and catching burglars. Criminals of that time met the sheriff in court where he was the judge, not the person who physically caught them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. A full answer to your question would be different depending on where in the very varied medieval world you were considering. But it's my understanding that in London, for example, there was a volunteer watch during the late middle ages and Renaissance - very much on an ad hoc basis, people would either serve as watchmen themselves or pay someone else to do so, but there was no central organisation. Sheriffs would have been responsible for ensuring criminals were captured if they wanted to be able to try them, but they'd have used their authority to get the citizenry to round up the accused, rather than going off and trying to do it themselves. Eventually - to continue the London example - the Bow Street Runners emerged, to serve the court of the same name, which led into the more widespread forces you've already mentioned. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) The sheriff was responsible for raising the power of the county (see, I hope, Posse comitatus (common law)), to round up wanted people. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Sheriff (or Shire-reeve) of Nottingham's main job would have mostly been settling property disputes, like making sure that people didn't plant too close to the edge of their property so as not to use of their neighbor's fertilizer. The High-reeve was allowed to also organize a state-sponsored mob that wasn't quite an army (or "deputies").
 * The history section of the Police article gives a good overview on who the first cops (after the Roman vigilantes) were. In the early medieval era, the peace was more or less kept by civilian vigilante mobs tempered by institutions that we could call lawsuits, such as weregild.  There were also usually some watchmen whose main job was to watch out for invading forces, but eventually rulers figured "might as well have them watch for criminals as well."  Louis XIV of France appears to be the first to actually have these guys become a clearly designated police force whose job was merely to keep the peace, not war (prior instances being soldiers who also policed areas).  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lictor, constable, gendarmerie & standing army. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In crusader Jerusalem (to give an extremely specific example...), viscounts had the duty of patrolling a city at night and rounding up criminals - or at least, one viscount is known to have had these duties, in Acre in the thirteenth century. I don't think this was a typical duty of viscounts in Europe, rather it was probably adopted from the duties of Islamic officials. Islamic terms for the person with these duties could vary, but a typical one was "shihna". Otherwise, in Jerusalem as in Europe, there was no police force, criminals were expected to be caught and brought to the court by their victims (or relatives of the victims). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In medieval times, the noble classes (and sometimes merchants and gentry who could afford them) had retainers (bands of armed thugs) that served various purposes, including arresting people whom they deemed to have wronged them, for later trial in courts. -- Jayron  32  10:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, lots of good info and links to follow up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese history / fiction question
I am currently researching a 17-century daoyin manual that references supernatural feats of strength from Chinese history and fiction. It references Xiang Yu lifting the 1,000 cattie tripod and Wu Song killing the tiger. The version of the manual I have states that those who practice the exercise will be able to behead or pierce the side of an ox with the bare hand. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I honestly can't think of any historical or fictional source I've read mentioning this. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what question you are asking. If it's about the history, the source for Xiang Yu's story is Sima Qian, who lived only 100 years afterwards. If it's about piercing oxen, Mas Oyama was famous for being able to kill an ox with his bare hands. Shii (tock) 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking about the source of Xiang Yu's feat of strength. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I didn't already know it. It's the same thing for Wu Song. I'm asking if anyone has ever come across an instance of a person in Chinese history--which rules out Mas Oyama--or fiction who kills an ox in the manner described above. The aforementioned manual basically claims those who practice it will gain super strength. I realize this is bullocks, I'm just trying to trace all of the allusions to historical or fictional characters. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That which you did there, I see it. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I just read Romance of Three Kingdoms and I didn't see any story like that. Shii (tock) 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That narrows it down a bit. If it's not in Three Kingdoms or the Water Margin, the claim may have been something the author just made up instead of pulling from some cultural source. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This makes me think of 隔山打牛, which is fictional.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)