Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 April 19

= April 19 =

The difference between these two cases of disagreement (redone)
What is the difference between these two cases of disagreement? It should be noted that just because we disagree on something does not imply that there is no absolute.

1. Person A says blonde hair are sexy because he/she (Person A) is sexually attracted to it. Person B disagrees because he/she (Person B) is not sexually attracted to it.

2. Two scientists disagree on which theories better explain a phenomenon.

If you think that there is no absolute for #1 but there is an absolute for #2, I would like to know why?

70.95.44.93 (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your question is not really that clear, but: #1 is a subjective determination (De gustibus non est disputandum...), while #2 is capable of objective determination, at least in theory. In other words, #2 deals with theories that are falsifiable, which is a hallmark of science. See also demarcation problem. Neutralitytalk 05:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In the first case, the can both be right, but they cannot both be wrong. In the second they cannot both be right, but they can both be wrong. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Countries named after their rulers
Watching A Hologram for the King, I was reminded what an odd name Saudi Arabia is ("Arabia of the Saud family"). Are there (or have there been) other countries officially named this way? Obviously there are places like Bolivia and Rhodesia, but these were named in honour of someone else, rather than after the people who actually ruled them. Smurrayinchester 08:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ottoman Empire named after Osman b. 1258. Sleigh (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did it call itself that? —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Habsburg Monarchy was never an official name, but it's widely used. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Napoleonic Wars wasn't a country as such, but about the imperial ambitions of a country as expressed through the will of its leader Napoleon. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Seleucid Empire named after Seleucus Nicator b. 358 BC. Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Saudi Arabia is only odd now because it's anachronistic. If we are looking at historical examples there are many - the Carolingian Empire or the Timurid Empire or the Sasanian Empire for example, or the Cao Wei or Yi Joseon in Asia. Contemporary examples are more difficult. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Charlemagne was King of the Franks, and then Holy Roma Emperor. Talking about the Carolingian Empire is anachronistic: historians may well call it that, but Charlemagne certainly didn't. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but it's also not named for him, but rather for Charles Martel, an ancestor of his. -- Jayron 32 12:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article on the Carolingian Empire defines it as beginning in 800 with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor. I don't think that is compatible with it being named for Charles Martel, even if the dynasty is. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Philippines, for Philip II of Spain. Rojomoke (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Swaziland has a habit of being named after its rulers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A couple more might be found in WP's list of places named after people. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is similar to the Saudi example. Not countries, but Georgia, Carolina and Virginia were named in honour their titular rulers (or their supposed attributes!). Alansplodge (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are looking at US states, add Maryland and Pennsylvania (not even named for the monarch, but for the man who obtained royal permission to found the colony). 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Add Queensland and Victoria, both named (as British colonies) for their queen. However, the British monarch reigns, but does not "rule".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They probably ruled a bit more when those colonies were named. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not much after 1689, still less after 1714. —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a commonly held misconception that Britain has had exactly the same form of constitutional government since 1689/1714. The constitutional system has evolved considerably between then and now. Even as recently as the early 20th century, the monarch's personal preferences were an important factor in choosing governments, and while Victoria never vetoed a law like Queen Anne did, she certainly was a lot more active in choosing governments than the current Queen. Even the current Queen does a lot more than just sit there and read papers. And it's not a straight line evolution either. Apparently Charles intends to be more publicly activist than his mother, and there is nothing unconstitutional about that. The extent to which any monarch "rules" seems to be as much about the increasingly democratic trend in the constitution's evolution as it is about their personal choices.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * China is sometimes thought to have been named after the Qin dynasty, although there are other theories of the name's origin. John M Baker (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But "Qin" is the name of a regime or state, not the name of a person or a family. If it was named after the ruler or ruling family it would be "Yina". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at our article: the Qin dynasty (Wade-Giles:  Ch'in) was named for the Qin state.  Thus, if this theory is correct, China was named for the Qin state only indirectly.  If you are asserting that China would instead have been named "Yina" if it were named after the Qin dynasty, well, I don't speak Chinese.  However, note that "China" is not the Chinese name, which apparently is Zhōngguó or Zhōnghuá.  John M Baker (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * John M Baker, I don't think you understood me. It seems clear that you are not familiar with Chinese historiography, so I will unpack this a bit. Assuming that the theory is correct and that "China" comes from "Qin dynasty" and/or "Qin state", "Qin" is the name of a regime or state. "Dynasty" in the context of Chinese history in the imperial period does not have the meaning of "family" that it does in the context of European history. When discussing Chinese history, "dynasty" purely means a regime, or state, where the ruler's position passes familially. There never was a person named "Qin", or a family surnamed "Qin". "Qin" was a name adopted for his state [in the political sense] or regime by the first emperor because he was prior to that the ruler of the Qin state, which itself was a place name, not the name of a person. When we refer to the "Qin Dynasty", it means the same as when we say the "Qin Empire". It does not mean the "Qin family", because there was no Qin family. In short, in Europe, "X dynasty" can mean both a regime and a family, in China, "X dynasty" only means a regime.
 * As you can see from the article Qin Dynasty, the family name of the ruling family of the Qin State / Empire is "Ying", which is why I said that if you were naming the country after the family, it would be "Yina", not "China". The reason I made that quip is because the OP is asking for countries named after people, not countries named after previous country names. I hope that helps you to understand why, even if "China" was named after the "Qin dynasty", it is not named after a person, and likewise the Tang, Song, Ming or Qing Empires do not qualify for the OP's question, even though each of them are also referred to as the Tang, Song, Ming or Qing Dynasties.
 * I hope that helps.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PalaceGuard008, that makes your meaning much clearer.  It seems to me that China may still qualify as an example if it is named after the dynasty, but that is for the OP to decide. John M Baker (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Liechtenstein is named after its ruling family. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who in turn were named for their castle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is not, however, in Liechtenstein. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Bolivia was named after Simon Bolivar, it's first President. -- Jayron 32 10:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The OP mentioned Bolivia. I'm not sure where to draw the line of who "ruled" a place, but no one has mentioned George Washington --> Washington State and Washington D.C.. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Many American cities and counties, as well as DC and WA, have been named after George, though he was never the "ruler" of any of them, nor were they countries. There are many cities named after other presidents too, especially the founding fathers as well as Lincoln. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And Lincoln was in turn named after a city in England. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 10:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a city in England called Abraham? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly a city, but here is my best attempt to answer that. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Arabia of the Saud family" is not a correct translation of the Arabic name. Rather 'Saudi Arabia' is a closer to the Arabic original. Even more correct would be the translation of the full Arabic name 'Saudi Arabian Kingdom'. Thus the name clarifies that it is a Kingdom and with two defining characteristics ('Saudi' and 'Arab'). When the country is referred to in everyday parlance as 'as-Saudiya', this is part of a common Arabic practice to leave out a noun as implicitly understood (the same is common airlines, for example). --Soman (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is how I interpret the idea - let me know if I'm wrong: The Arabian Peninsula is a geographical entity. A large percentage of it, though not all of it, is controlled by the government headed by the Saud family. Hence, "Saudi Arabia". If the Saud family decided to get out of the government business and abdicated, and some family named Luigi came in, it might become "Luigi Arabia". Right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Europe Travel describing
Il Milione by Marco polo describe a travel to Asia, are there Asian book that describe a travel to Europe?--87.16.178.64 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Two suggestions: of similar antiquity to Marco Polo, Rabban Bar Sauma travelled from Beijing to Paris and left us some writings. A bit later, Fan Shouyi also wrote an account of his travels to Europe. Fan Shouyi is regarded as the first Chinese person to travel to Europe, return, and write about his travels (as Rabban Bar Sauma settled in Baghdad after his journey to Europe and did not return to China). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ibn Battuta travelled to a bit of what is now Russia, Ukraine, Turkey...not really Europe proper though. And he was from Morocco, not Asia. Ibn Jubayr and Benjamin of Tudela also travelled throughout southern Europe, but they were from Muslim Spain. Non-Europeans weren't really all that interested in Europe, which was kind of a backwards and dangerous place for them. A crusader knight invited Usama ibn Munqidh to travel to Europe, and he, ah, politely declined. There were some Ethiopian representatives at the Council of Ferrara in the 15th century, but they were Christian so things were a bit safer for them. I don't think they left any account of their travels though. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For a fictional account of Oriental travellers finding themselves in the middle of the Wars of the Roses, I do recommend Julian Rathbone's Kings of Albion. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahmad ibn Fadlan described his travels from Baghdad to the Volga Bulgars, who were right on the edge of Europe in what is now Russia. Iapetus (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Known as Vulgarians to save time. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Isles of Scilly & Lord Lieutenant
The Lieutenancies Act 1997 places the Isles of Scilly in the ceremonial county of Cornwall for the purposes of the appointment of a Lord Lieutenant. That seems clear enough. I am searching for reliable sources for the position of the Isles with regard to Lieutenancy before then, for the periods (1) 1974 - 1997 (according to our article, "At this time, Lieutenancy was redefined to use the new metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties directly" but the Isles of Scilly were not part of the non-metropolitan county of Cornwall), (2) the period 1888 - 1974 when "areas that were part of an administrative county would be part of the county for all purposes" but the Isles of Scilly were not part of the administrative county of Cornwall, and (3) for the period before the Local Government Act 1888 (which established the administrative counties). DuncanHill (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The article on Lords Lieutenant gives this quote from the 1882 Letters Patent - "...Our Lieutenant of and in the County of X and of all cities boroughs liberties places incorporated and privileged and other places whatsoever within the said county and the limits and precincts of the same." That would be sufficient to include the Isles of Scilly in the Cornwall Lieutenancy. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * How so? As mentioned above, the Isles of Scilly were never part of either the administrative or the non-metropolitan county of Cornwall. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify - if you have a reliable source that says that Scilly was considered part of the county of Cornwall in 1882 then that would help, just quoting a phrase which makes no mention of either Scilly or Cornwall doesn't. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * British History Online has an entry for Scilly, under the Cornwall volume of Magna Britannia, published 1814. Does it help? I don't know enough about the history of lieutenancy to know whether it helps or not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)