Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 13

= August 13 =

What is the family relationship called between two sets of in-laws?
Let's say that we have a husband and a wife. The parents of the husband are the parents-in-law (father-in-law and mother-in-law) of the wife. Conversely, the parents of the wife are the parents-in-law (father-in-law and mother-in-law) of the husband. My question: What is the relationship called that exists between the two sets of in-laws? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per they would be "inlaws." This is to distinguish relatives by marriage from those who have some genetic relationship with you by virtue of common ancestors. Ancestry.com, however, would call the father-in-law  of my daughter "father-in-law of daughter." rather than "your in-law."  Edison (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * But I believe that the term "in-law" is merely a suffix of sorts. So, you need a word in front of it like, for example, sister-in-law or father-in-law.  So, back to my original question (and your reply): if they are "in-laws", then they are what-in-law?  How would the blank be filled in here:  (something) -in-law?  Again, I believe that "in-law" needs some word to precede it.  No?   As an example:  if we talk about a "sister-in-law", that means "she is your sister not by blood but by marriage"; hence, she is a relative by law (because the law says so).  So, I don't believe that the phrase "in-law" can stand alone, without some preceding relationship (like, "sister") recognized "by law".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This exact question has been raised on the Ref Desks at least twice a year over the past 11 years since I've been around. The answer is always the same: there is no generally accepted term for this relationship, in English.  That might seem odd, but every one complains about this glaring omission in our beloved language, while doing absolutely nothing to correct it.  If there is such a term in other languages, and you have to translate into English a text containing this term, you have to come up with something that suits the translation.  Sometimes that might be "in-laws", other times it might have to be "my daughter's parents-in-law" or "my son-in-law's parents".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no relationship. In the Eskimo kinship which is used in Europe, the nuclear family is emphasised. There is no term in English because they are not relatives. Sleigh (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly more inclined to agree with "they are not relatives" than with "there is no relationship". Of course there is a relationship.  In my case, my parents and my wife's parents became close friends.  But they were clearly more than just friends.  They had grandchildren, and now a great-grandchild, in common, with more generations to ensue, I hope.  That is a lot closer, in my eyes, than two unrelated people who meet and become friends.   As for "they are not relatives", I'd argue they're indirectly related by blood and marriage.  That's before any kids come along; after that, the marriage bit is redundant because they're now inseparably, if indirectly, related by blood.  If by "there is no relationship" you meant "there is no relationship that has a name in the English language", I could concur.  But if you meant "there is no relationship whatsoever", well, clearly that claim falls to the ground. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (Bit-of-an-aside warning) In German there is (theoretically) the word "Gegenschwiegereltern" (something like "counter-parents-in-law") for the parents-in-law of one's own child. Similarly, there is "Schwippschwager"/"Schwippschwägerin" for one's co-brother-in-law/co-sister-in-law. I have to admit though, that both terms, particularly "Gegenschwiegereltern" are not used very frequently, and normally the relationship is explained as "our daughter's parents-in-law" or even "the parents of my daughter's husband" etc. in German too. See, for example, this discussion at leo.org. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of crystal ball gazing, I'm going to predict that Gegenschwiegereltern is not a term that's going to take the Anglosphere by storm. A radical assumption, to be sure, but one I'm willing to lay money on. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there isn't a specific term yet. I propose the one pair can refer to the other as "In law in-laws", or "In-law in-laws", "In-law-in-laws", depending on how they feel about hyphenation and reduplication :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The most commonly used term is "in-laws" - as here. It may have originated as a suffix requiring a word in front of it, but language evolves, and the currently evolved correct term is "inlaws" (hyphenated or not).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec)"in-law" is given as a headword in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1983 ed) meaning "a relative by marriage". OED has "In recent colloquial or journalistic phraseology, in-law has been humorously used to designate any relative so connected. Hence in-lawry n. the position of an ‘in-law’. in-lawship n. the state of being an in-law." DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the "been humorously used to designate any relative so connected" tip, Eric Clapton and George Harrison were known to refer to each other as ex-husbands-in-law, having both been married to, and divorced from, Pattie Boyd. See  for example.  -- Jayron 32 21:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good one. Then, I wonder how Milton Berle and Billy Rose referred to each other at various stages of their multiple relationships with Joyce Matthews.  They both married her twice, and both divorced her twice, although both Berle's marriages preceded Rose's. Lots of other juicy stuff at List of people who remarried the same spouse.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

UK legal system
In the UK. Legal system, can a law that didn't exist at the time of the occurrence of whatever's being debated, be used in court if it exists at the time it's being debated in court. Likewise, can a law that no longer exists but existed at the time of whatever's being debated be used? 94.2.196.149 (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about an ex post facto law? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That only seems to really cover the first part. For the second part, I think it's a fair amount more complicated, particularly in unclear circumstances as outlined. If the law was repealed and reenacted with amendments (i.e. replaced by an updated law, I think it's a little more complicated in the UK but see that article and ) and the historic offences are still offences under the current law, normally the offences will be prosecuted under the historic law (although if the new law has lower penalties, it may be under the new law). It can get complicated if the date is unknown and it could be under either law and the law is poorly written or planned statutory rules aren't made, see and Sexual Offences Act 2003 for one such case. If the law was completely repealed and whatever it is is unlikely to be an offence under current law, while it's technically possible the repeal will still allow prosecutions of historic offences, this is fairly rare in most of the world including the UK AFAIK. (I couldn't unfortunately find a good sources referring to the situation in the UK.) Note however that most repeals don't affect historic convictions so people may still suffer consequences from them   . (Nominally I don't think there's even any guarantee people in prison for a repealed law will be released, but again I'm having trouble finding UK specific refs probably partially because it's rare that a law is fully repealed but there are people in prison for it. I believe in cases where this is a risk, a specific provision in the repeal normally provide for their release, even if the conviction stands.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "debated". To reinterpret your question in a more concrete way: let's say an accused person, X, committed a crime on date A. He is brought to trial on date B. In this context, your question might be understood to mean: (a) can his lawyer cite a law that did not exist at time A, but was made later and applied at time B? and (b) can his lawyer cite a law that existed at time A, but was later repealed and no longer applied at time B?
 * The answer to both questions is "it depends". Parliament is sovereign and can make whatever laws it wishes (subject to some vague constitutional constraints and more concrete human rights obligations). In case (a), the new law might affect X's case directly (if it says it does), or it might not affect him. In the abstract, the latter is more likely as parliament is not supposed to make laws with retroactive effect, and it usually doesn't, but it sometimes does. In case (b), it also depends, but if a law is repealed it is most likely gone for good. So if X was charged under a law that has been repealed, then it is almost certain that X will not now be prosecuted under it.
 * However, in a more general case, you can almost always talk about a later law or an earlier law - even if it is not directly applicable, it might be useful as a comparison. There is nothing that stops the lawyer from raising it, if it is irrelevant the other side would probably say so and ask the court to disregard it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, ex post facto/retrospective criminal laws (or perhaps more accurately laws with retrospective criminal penalties) are strongly frowned upon in much of the developed world. Take a read of the article BB linked to. Even in the UK, while parliamentary sovereignity may technically allow them, the UK would likely need to violate the Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights to do so. There is the case of the War Crimes Act 1991, but this only really affected the jurisdiction since the acts covered were likely violations of international law at the time (and article 7 specifically allows that). As the article mentions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also mostly restrict that and while we are know many countries can be fairly bad at actually following these, it's more difficult for a developed countries particularly in cases where it's difficult to try and make an alternative argument. See also Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali and the current view of the Australian AG . Or to put it a different way, is it possible? Sure, as with anything which just requires people to agree, ignore or lose. After all even if you're in the situation like the US with a constitution that's very hard to amend you can amend it. In fact even if you have eternity clauses, you can always say "screw that" and make a new constitution without such clauses, fire or kill anyone who doesn't agree and hope you don't inspire a counter revolution. Is it likely? In the developed world, only in extreme or borderline (of whether it's actually a retrospective penalty) cases. Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yes, post facto / retrospective offences are frowned upon in any country that can credibly claim to have the rule of law, but it is not unknown. Provisions that might lead to incarceration would get lots of frown, but a small retrospective adjustment to the tax treatment of some category of money (for example) might not, and breach of the tax law could be criminal.
 * I should also note that we have focussed on criminal sanctions, but OP's question does not specify this. Laws that confer a benefit retrospectively are fairly common. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, despite the Australian AG's grandstanding, his party is well known for its retrospective migration laws. While not criminal laws, they impact people's lives in a fundamental way and many people would say are as unfair as retrospective criminal laws. See Ruddock v Vadarlis for example. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

World's 10 best newspapers
Here's a classic reference desk challenge! It's also squarely "Humanities" because it's about UNESCO!

China's People's Daily claims that in 1992 UNESCO ranked it as one of the world's most authoritative / trustworthy newspapers. A casual Google search shows no other newspaper claiming the same accolade - you would expect at least 9 other newspapers to make the same claim.

It might be that they are just making it up, but it seems more likely that they are exaggerating something - it might be that it was a ranking published by someone else and included in a UNESCO newsletter, or the ranking was actually "the world's most Communist newspapers".

Does anyone who have access to better materials than me find anything that might suggest where the claim comes from, or alternatively disprove the claim entirely - i.e. show that UNESCO never published such a list? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No such "list" can or should exist. I find   "When Reporters without borders published their first ranking of countries according to their press freedom, “the US rank[ed] below Costa Rica and Italy score[d] lower than Benin” (RSF, 2003). But – as Merrill points out – what might be counted as repression by some could be seen by others as “stability, religion and social order”, and could be valued higher than a free press (2004: 6)".    Which does seem to conform with the PRC newspaper being best in the entire world with such criteria. http://www.rsf.fr/articles.php3?id_article=4116 is now a deadlink.  Their lates "press freedom index" places the US at #49 - well below  such luminous places as Costa Rica, Ghana, Uruguay, Belize, all of the Eastern Caribbean, Trinidad, Jamaica,  and Burkina Faso, among other nations famed for a free press.  Canada is #8 - but last I checked, the norms for the US and for Canada press sont egal.    explains that it is the US  which has "security paranoia".  I daresay some would find differing mileage.  The "People's Daily" seems to claim 3 million circulation- which would put it "up there" in circulation, but whether this translates in any way to respected or authoritative (its claim) is moot.  UNESCO does have a "guidebook"  from 2013 - defining what statistics are, and giving none.  Three or four pounds of NaCl would help on such a claim. Collect (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It will be interesting to see how (or if) they cover the recent explosion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Covered in English online site for sure, and apparently quite accurately.  shows how they regard a CNN reporter at that site, however, who blames everything on security forces etc. Collect (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CNN: The most trusted name in news, according to the most trusted name in news. Can't get a higher accolade than that, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CNN uses a 2002 Pew survey for that claim (apparently not a trademark per search). . And a TV Guide blurb from 2003. The Washington Post, itself a contender for one of the top (N) newspapers in the US: "Fox News Channel beats out CNN for America's most trusted cable or broadcast news coverage, and MSNBC lags far behind, even among Democrats, according to new polling done by Quinnipiac University. The poll found 29 percent of people say they trust Fox News' coverage the most, followed by 22 percent for CNN and 10 percent for NBC News and CBS News."  Collect (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The story neglects to say 71% of respondents say they trust their local news "somewhat" or "a great deal". From that angle, "they all take a back seat to your local news". Or that this is according to 0.0004% of the US population. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Polls: The least trusted word in news, according to polls. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * According to that poll, American 18-29 year olds trust scientists most. According to Cracked.com today, there are six reasons to not trust science. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's CNN taking Fox News' word that Donald Trump is popular. As he remained next month, according to NBC. But CNN says women might not love him, according to CBS News. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here, Fox News says CNN incited violence with their lies in Venezuela. NBC and CBS don't mention that, but NBC cites a CNN poll calling Trump popular. And here, CNN calls FNC a "master negotiator" and "the Republican party's #1 network". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is an impact factor (IF) for newspapers, then that would be useful for this discussion.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried Googling "according to CNN" and "according to Fox News" to get a Google hit count (not that those are trustworthy). Fun Fact: That's not a Googleable phrase! Even in quotes, just gets results from those outlets, like a site search. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or no, it sort of works. But not for the first page of results, and sketchy afterwards. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @OP: The claim is not to be disproven; the complete ( classical ) statement follows: "in 1992, UNESCO ranked the People’s Daily as one of the world’s top 10 newspapers. Editorials published in the People’s Daily are routinely and carefully studied by foreign observers as authoritative statements of government policy". Some other details in this neurope.eu article ( if standing one short shot of PCC aesthetics.. ) --Askedonty (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is according to an anonymous article from the 582nd best online newspaper. Not that there's anything wrong with that. According to the same ranker, People's Daily is #3. Though #2 is The Daily Mail, so it's clearly not talking about journalistic quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And those rankings aren't close to these ones. So never trust anything on the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. I even wrote "classic". The precise sentence I know word for word, this dates more than 15 years back, so where I'm concerned target our state-owned media here round rather than the Internet. --Askedonty (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "classical" and "standing one short shot" bit flew over my head, sorry. State-owned media gets part of the blame, but the Internet is a bullshit river with many tributaries. Always easier to spot a lie than to find the liar at the source. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, understood. I'm then forced to add, not that I care about their flavor but as I quoted them I have to make them justice and the ranking site you gave probably referring to the website gives their price as 'free', which would make their claim for religious and political independence perhaps doubtful, no, the New Europe title (neurope.eu) in their paper edition is reasonably a profit enterprise at 3.50 Euro the issue  and they are printing a lot of nice pictures and have a lot of very serious editorial content as well. --Askedonty (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "not that there's anything wrong with that" wasn't sarcastic. Some great things are obscure and some terrible things are mainstream. But people tend to trust the devil they know over strange tiny angels (fairies?). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Are those things made to be eaten ? If people have "adapted" this way, they may as well keep going ( symbiosis ).--Askedonty (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if they took a para similar to this from UNESCO in 2013 (example only) "During 2012, 32 editorials by the Director-General were published in many of the world’s most influential and widely-read newspapers. Subjects ranged from the complex issue of protecting cultural heritage in conflict, published in The New York Times (USA),  Le Figaro (France)  and Dar Al Hayat (Saudi Arabia) to the urgent need to provide skills for young people, published in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong China) for the launch of the EFA Global Monitoring report, or education for sustainable development, published in O Globo (Brazil) and Mainaichi (Japan) for the Rio +20 Conference."
 * It doesn't take much spin to then write that "the NYT, Le Figaro etc were named some of the most influential newspapers in the world in 2012 by UNESCO". Nanonic (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And as a quick aside, I chose to google for 'influential' as the newspaper states on its english language site that "People's Daily is the most influential and authoritative newspaper in China. According to UNESCO, it takes its place among the world top 10." Nanonic (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No results found for site:unesco.org +newspapers +"people's daily", Your search - site:news.google.com/newspapers +"1992" +unesco +newpapers - did not match any documents, Your search - unesco newspapers Jan 1, 1992 to Dec 31, 1992 - did not match any documents. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. I think that's about as far as we will get towards disproving the statement. I like Nanonic's theory of where they might have spun it from. It would be nice if someone would publish an article about how dodgy the claim is -- in the absence of that I guess there is nothing more we can do in article space to caveat the claim. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized this was a practical question. Wikipedia shouldn't claim this, especially in the lead, because it's from a primary source. Those are good for some things, like official names and company structure, but in this case, it's essentially bragging. Even worded as is, reading the idea plants it in reader's heads.
 * It's like when shitty outlets use question headlines to state what hasn't happened. Right now, CNN's homepage is nothing but a big picture of Joe Biden at a podium, captioned "Biden for Prez? WH not pushing it. Source: West Wing has little enthusiasm for VP's potential bid." There are at least four ways Wikipedia should be better than that.
 * I'll delete it, till a reliable secondary source notes it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

49th State
Why were Hawaii and Alaska both admitted in the same year 1959 as states? Basically what was special about this year in particular given how old statehood movements were in these states prior and why both states were admitted in the same year? Also Hawaii always described itself from 1912 to 1959 as the potential 49th state of the United States (you even have outdated books that reflect that belief) never anticipating that Alaska would admitted a few months before it. Was this the same in Alaska? Did its residents considered themselves as potentially the 49th state before statehood or even if these current states ever considered that they would have beaten Arizona or New Mexico in the race to statehood before 1912. I remember how early proponents of Hawaiian statehood wanted the territory to be admitted as a county of California. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some background at Alaska Statehood Act; it seems that many Alaskans opposed statehood, especially business leaders, who recognized that statehood would bring with it some additional burdens in terms of regulation and taxation. The first actual bill for Alaskan statehood came before Congress in 1916, but it died due mostly to there being little support among Alaskans themselves towards becoming a state.  So, while it seems Hawaiians wanted statehood, and thus saw themselves as the potential 49th state, many Alaskans, for decades, opposed statehood, and thus didn't see themselves as such.  Perhaps ironic that it worked out the other way around.  There's also information in there to indicate that Alaskan and Hawaiian statehood were directly linked.  It was believed that the expectedly Republican Hawaii would be balanced by an expectedly Democratic Alaska (note, that this is based on the 1950s political leanings of the parties, which in some ways is close to the exact opposite of today).  This reflects the statehood process that also propagated throughout the first half of the 19th century, whereby free states and slave states were expected to be admitted side-by-side to avoid upsetting Congressional balance (see Missouri Compromise for example)  -- Jayron 32 21:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Flag questions related to above
With there being roughly eight months between Alaska and Hawaii becoming states I have wondered if that is the shortest time between single stars (I know North and South Dakota became states on the same day) being added to the US flag. Also is there any info as to whether 49 star US flags made during those months are considered rare or collectable items. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * New stars always appeared on July 4, according to "historical progression of designs" in our article on the US flag, so the shortest time between stars being added (apart from 0) is one year, of which there are nine examples there. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, so now we have to take leap years into account. That leaves us with six flags that lasted 365 days (the 49-star flag (without Hawaii) is among the three one-year flags that lasted 366 days). ---Sluzzelin talk  21:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Taking the time to do the extra math for leap years shows an attention to detail that is much appreciated. I can remember classes (though they are a looong time ago now) about how states entered the union but I don't think any of them mentioned July 4 as the day that stars were added to the flag. Very interesting stuff. Thanks again. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * All flag designs from the past are still legal flags - even the one in Baltimore which has 15 starts and 15 stripes. 49 star flags are not "rare". Collect (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And that takes care of my other question. Thank you . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am the opposite of an expert, but searching for the value of 49-star flags yielded the same result (common, produced in large amounts, though possibly of value if made by the US Navy). Regarding non-flag shortitude, I'm assuming you (Marnette) also saw the link to List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union. (Anyway, I kinda like this flag, though of course it raises questions regarding the identity of the big fat central star)! ---Sluzzelin talk  22:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The stars are all really the same size - this was an early attempt at a 3-D flag, with the centre star being closest to the viewer. Google will have patent problems . Collect (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And the study of flags is "vexillology". Collect (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)