Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 September 23

= September 23 =

Simon de Montfort's Parliament
When did Simon de Montfort's Parliament end? The article says that it was "held from 20 January 1265 until mid-March the same year", but given today's authors' likelihood to forget when the New Year began; I'm wondering if it might have continued just barely into 1266. So basically, I'm looking for the day of the month when the Parliament closed. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The dates of the Parliament are doubly cited to two reliable books. While WP editors may not be familiar with Old Style dates, I have strong doubts that the authors of those books are likewise.  Follow the footnote for the statement, read the books it cites, and see what they say.  -- Jayron 32 01:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I don't have the books. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're near a library that could either have them or could participate in an interlibrary loan. If you aren't, you could put in a request at WP:REX to see if anyone can get them for you and look up the citations themselves.  -- Jayron 32 02:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a librarian, and I'm just slightly better aware of what services are offered by local libraries. In short, you're wrong.  Anyone care to try to give me actual help?  Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your rudeness is thanks enough. -- Jayron 32 02:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an ebook version of the first source, which can be purchased for less than $15.00. The second doesn't have an eBook version.  If you'd rather not spend money, I noticed from your user page that you are from Ohio.  Not knowing exactly where, I aimed for the middle of the state, Columbus seemed reasonably centrally located.  The Carpenter book (the first reference cited to the particular text) is located at these locations, many of whom may be located nearby to you, or may offer interlibrary loan to the library you are employed at as a librarian.  The Maddicott book (the second reference so cited) is located at these locations and could also be similarly located.  Shall I contact the librarians at the library you work at to see if they can perhaps set up the exchange for you?  -- Jayron 32 02:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant pages in the Carpenter book are visible (to me at least) on Google, but they don't say anything about the end date of the Parliament. The relevant pages in Madicott are not visible to me, but there is a preview on Google so maybe someone else will be able to see them. In any case, "Mid-March" sounds like it would be before Lady Day anyway, which was March 25. It's possible that modern authors could forget about the different start dates for a medieval year, but for professional historians of medieval England, it seems unlikely. For somewhere else in Europe, it's a bit more likely...but for England, history written by English speaking historians trained in England writing about English medieval history, with all the English language resources available and English historians' love of nitpicky trivia, it's extremely unlikely! They've all got Cheney's Handbook of Dates memorized, I'm sure. The original date could have been recorded as January 20, 1264, but that would definitely be corrected to 1265 in modern history books. It's also possible that the date of the Parliament was recorded in some other way, since it's not always as simple as "the year starts on March 25", depending on who was recording these things. But a modern history will take all this into account and 1265 is definitely the correct year, I'm certain. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * March 14 per this source, which looks scholarly to me and references the Maddicott book in a footnote. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It says "c. March 14", presumably because that is the last date that the Parliament did something that was dated (i.e. the confirmation of Magna Carta). But it may have met after that and dissolved at a later date in March. So we need to find Madicott's book. It would also be interesting to see how the March 14 date was recorded at the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read further down, she also mentions A proclamation issued on 14 March (described below), which gives an account of the parliament - I took the "account" to mean it was issued after the Parliament was over and that 14 March was the latest possible day, but you are right that it is not certain. You can read Latin, so maybe you can make the "account" out better - in the translation I can't see it says much about the parliament at all! 184.147.131.85 (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, neat! It does just say March 14. It's also typical that it gives a regnal year instead of an Anno Domini year, but incidentally if it had given an AD year, it would have said 1264 since it was before March 25. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

How many battleships?
In a national security speech at the Citadel in South Carolina which was covered on the CBS Evening News today,Carly Fiorina said "We know we need 300 to 350 battleships." I had this video recorded and listened to it a couple of times to confirm that was what she said. What is the largest number of battleships the USA ever had in commission at the same time? How many battleships has the US commissioned ,in total from first to last? How many have there been in total, among all countries? Is every navy ship a "battleship", loosely speaking? Edison (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Short answer: no, a battleship is (as the link you've linked describes) a particular type of heavy warship. Either Fiorina misspoke, or she was misheard and/or misquoted. I can't be bothered to dig out the reocording of that particular speech.  Elsewhere, I can find reports that Fiorina wants 300-350 total ships – type unspecified – in the U.S. Navy (e.g. ).  This makes a bit more sense as a number, as the United States Navy currently has approximately 270 ships in commission, with a total of around 300 expected in the 2020s.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For more details, you can see List of battleships of the United States Navy and Timeline of battleships of the United States Navy. Currently there are no battleships in commission in the U.S. Navy. The peak number was around 40 during World War I.  (There were fewer such ships in World War II, though individually each was much more heavily armed and armored.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer question #3, hundreds. As you'll see in the second paragraph of the battleship article, the term is sometimes used for what is otherwise normally called a ship of the line.  Sixty vessels termed "battleships" were involved in the Battle of Trafalgar alone, and forty-four at the Battle of Jutland 111 years later, by which time ordinary usage referred to a radically different kind of ship.  Closer to the latter battle, the British navy had dozens of battleships of various classes; there were eight King Edward VII-class battleships and eight Formidable-class battleships, for example.  To answer question 2, please see List of ships of the line of the United States Navy in addition to the list that Ten Of All Trades gives you.  Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The US Naval Vessel Register offers two "Fleet Size" lists, the "Ship Battle Forces" and ships "Active In Commission", as defined by SECNAV Instruction 5030.8B. Ms. Fiorina was likely referring to the former (currently at 273) and "battleship" was a slip of the tongue. -- ToE 12:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that she might have meant "warship" rather than "battleship" - it's a fairly common error. This article entitled "Britain's Brand New £1 Billion Battleship" is actually about a frigate. The term "ship of the line" became obsolete along with sails in my opinion, but I'm not having much luck with a reference which states that explicitly. Alansplodge (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

subordinatephobia
Is there such a thing as a phobia wherein an individual fears that their destiny is in another persons hands; for example living in your moms basement, not knowing when the person who owes you something is coming back, using a tour guide, having your identification documents taken from you, being financially dependent on a spouse, an authoritarian and restrictive governemtn, etc. If so, whats the name for this phobia? Kleinebeesjes (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Colloquially it's called "paranoia". I might call it "pantophobia", the fear of everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 05:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * …and here I thought that pantophobia is a Scots phenomenon which causes bekilted caber-tossing bagpipers to eschew the wearing of underpants. --178.191.230.224 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (Oops, posted by --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC))
 * Tossing a caber while playing the bagpipes is quite a feat in itself. I guess he figured people's gazes would be so fixed on that unusual demonstration of multiskillitude that they wouldn't notice whether he wore knickers or not (an excellent technique for diverting the audience's attention, all you stage hypnotists and magicians out there); but that anyone who was still more interested in what was visible between his legs than in what he was doing with his hands and mouth, was welcome to whatever they could find down there.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not paranoia when only the above specific things cause the fear. Hence it probably is nonexistent as a phobia - am i correct?. Kleinebeesjes (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks sufficiently "paranoid" to me. Although it occurs to me that the core fear actually is about having to depend on someone else. It would be the opposite of being self-sufficent. You could invent a name - such as "dependophobia". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find anything like this at either Oxford Dictionary's list of phobias or Wikipedia's own list of phobias. It's sounds familiar, but looks like there is no specific word for it. There is tyrannophobia (which we don't have an article on), the fear of tyrants. That would at least fit the last one you gave. Interestingly enough, this very non-authoritative list includes a phobia for fear of parents-in-law, but not parents (hah!). Anyway, all that said, I'm not sure what you're describing is a phobia, though it would depend on how extreme of a fear you had in mind. Medically, something would be called a phobia typically only if the fear is irrational. Some degree of fear of the government is perfectly reasonable. With regard to the rest, it sounds more like anxiety than paranoid fear. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Eleutheromania (Carlyle) is "a mania or frantic zeal for freedom", but I don't think it's ever been used in a medical context. Tevildo (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliability issues
are sources (even secondary) for bangladeshi politics reliable? take into account the nature of government and community-induced censorships and coverups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:BFF9:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a problem that people have when reading about politics in many if not most countries. You might like to read the Wikipedia guideline WP:Reliable to understand why this is so and some examples of how bias and reliability work.
 * Usually the best idea is to read widely, and include publications with different agendas in your reading so you can build up a picture from the various views. International news agencies such as Reuters have good reputations for identifying the sources of their information and trying to present different sides of an issue. They may help for overviews. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Degrees of independence
Is Greenland more dependent or less dependent on Denmark than Denmark is dependent on European institutions? Or than a EU country which (unlike Denmark) is also in the Eurozone? --Assid reign (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Danish Realm has some discussion about the three constituent parts of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their relation to each other and to the Kingdom as a whole. -- Jayron 32 15:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the philosophical view that asserts that humans defined the definitions of all that is?
example:talent,creativity,leadership and so on "qualities" are not innate but defined by perception of the mass people (consuming insects being considered talent by some societies but not all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:BFF6:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Conceptualism -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Article dives off deep end early, straightforward definition here: -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Article cites fuller, still short, authoritative definition, worth quoting in full. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WIN Watch
I am looking for information on a WIN wrist watch. I have found one similiar but have not found the exact one. This has a cloth - red, white and blue wrist band. It is made by the Honest company. I would like to know value on it. I was told this is very rare. I do not know how to include a picture. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bev1214 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you tried google image? you can either describe it and search on the words, or, upload the image you have into reverse image search, and google will find images that look like what you have on your computer. See https://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&ei=PPUCVqy2MMLg-QHWoYJ4&ved=0CBYQqi4oAQ

Like the one shown opposite, perhaps? See Whip Inflation Now for the background. I'm afraid we can't offer any sort of valuation on the Reference Desks. Tevildo (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably more valuable than the WIN program itself was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oath in court in UK
If a person is asked to give evidence in a court in the UK, I understand that they are legally required to attend the court. However, once at the court are they legally required to speak, or can they remain silent? If a person is asked to take an oath or affirmation, are they legally required to or can they remain silent? If they are required to speak, what laws or acts of parliament specifically mandate this? The Oaths Act 1978 doesn't seem to address this issue. I am not asking for legal advice, just references to UK laws if they exist. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.28.80.40 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the relevant document from the Crown Prosecution Service. Anyone competent to give evidence can be compelled to do so, on pain of imprisonment for contempt of court.  This is a common-law offence, rather than one created by a specific statute.  A witness cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves, nor (in some circumstances) to give evidence against their wife or husband. Tevildo (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have an article: Right to silence in England and Wales --TammyMoet (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The following dialogue is likely.

JUDGE: Call the next witness. (Witness attends and is identified) Now raise your right hand and repeat after me: "I promise to tell the truth..."

WITNESS: I promise to tell the truth

JUDGE: ...the whole truth, and nothing but the truth....

WITNESS: What does that mean? I would be a liar if I claimed to know the whole truth because truly I don't. I can only tell what I know. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If I'm ever called, I'll ask, "Will this Court allow me to tell the whole truth?" —Tamfang (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that legalese tries to cover all the bases. Someone could tell partly truth and partly falsehoods. That's where the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" comes in. It would be the whole truth from what you know. If you don't know, you can't make stuff up or try to connect the dots. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You say that a witness cannot be required to incriminate himself, but if a motoring offence is committed and the authorities send the form to the registered keeper asking him to divulge the driver's name he's in trouble if he doesn't.  If he knows he's over the limit and is asked to take a breath test the drink driver who refuses can be sentenced as if he had failed.   Sometimes two occupants of a car each say the other was driving and then neither can be prosecuted.   However in the case of child abuse where each parent says the other was responsible that doesn't always work.
 * Barristers have a duty to the Court which overrides their duty to their client, which means that their submissions must disclose things unfavourable to their case.  For example, when citing cases they are not allowed to omit the ones that do not support the argument they are making.   A solicitor is technically a "solicitor of the High Court" and both branches of the profession can be sanctioned if they transgress.   One bar student passed all his examinations but just before the ceremony when he was due to be called to the Bar the authorities found out he had been beating his wife and his Inn of Court terminated his membership.
 * A common question is how can solicitors represent clients who they know to be guilty?  When taking instructions they simply do not ask the questions which would prove guilt.   Theoretically, if the client admits guilt they are not allowed to put a contrary case to the Court.   That said, the Bar operates on a cab rank principle, which is to say that a barrister does not have discretion to refuse a brief which is offered.   Whatever the theory, in one American case attorneys were instructed to represent a man who they knew to be a violent sexual offender.   The case they were instructed to present would likely have resulted in his acquittal.   They were so appalled by this that they sabotaged it in some way and he was convicted. 92.24.105.12 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * please. Do you have references for any of that?  "This one time, I heard about an American case..." is hardly protocol for answering questions at this desk.  Not that the rest of it was referenced either.  At the reference desk, we provide references to help users find answers to their own questions.  We don't provide our own responses from memory, or if we must, we make abundantly clear we're just making it up as we go along, rather than presenting our personal experiences and memories as stone cold fact.  -- Jayron 32 17:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where is the question about drink driving?  We don't give legal advice but if a motorist wants details of the relevant statute I'll gladly provide them. 92.24.105.12 (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You left a 20-line response and provided no references.  Please do so in the future.  This is the reference desk.  Our first, last, and only purpose is to direct people with questions to further reading.  Do keep up.  -- Jayron 32 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is simply for the convenience of the questioner, to avoid him having to plough through a lot of verbiage relating to a question he has not asked. 92.24.105.12 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you type out all that verbiage, then, instead of providing them with a reference they can read, which is to say, this is the reference desk. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that this is helpful to those readers who have queries similar but not identical to the one raised by the OP.   I do think, however, that it is better not to provide specific references for questions which have not been asked to avoid the possibility of readers considering that we have wasted their time by directing them to material which they find, after reading it, does not give them the information they want. 92.24.105.12 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be presenting two options. One is the option you chose, which was to let readers waste their time reading an answer which doesn't cover their question, and which they have no way of knowing if the answer is even true because there are no references and for which by the time they are reading the answer, the person who can provide references may be long gone. The other option which you rejected, is for readers to be given references which they can be told are irrelevant to their question, and they can then choose whether to read or not to read, and which they can be somewhat confident in being true if they do choose to read, and hopefully use these resources to help them find further resources without having to ask someone who may be long gone. Not sure why you think option 1 is better for readers on the reference desk. Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the situation in England and Wales, Right to silence in England and Wales which was linked above before you long comment already discusses the requirement to disclose the driver in certain circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a questioner may be happy with the answer given and leave the desk satisfied, but I'm thinking of others who may come to the desk with a slightly different query who may find a more comprehensive answer of value.  Having read the article, I can think of many other examples, for example there is a canvass of householders at this time of the year to prepare the new electoral register, and if the form which requires details of people living at that address is not completed and returned an offence is committed. 92.24.105.244 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The example above is slightly different,as the canvass form is not related to the investigation of a crime, but there are very similar considerations relating to the rights of people to enter your home to collect evidence.  For example, if you don't have a television licence every month the TV Licensing people will send you threatening letters saying their enquiry officers are going to come unannounced to check whether you possess a television set.   What they don't say is that you are under entirely no obligation to let them in. 92.24.105.244 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the Council Tax is levied using the information from the electoral register, hence the penalties for non-registration. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)