Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 10

= February 10 =

Ineligibility Clause, US Constitution
Do we have any idea whether the Philadelphia Convention considered requiring something comparable to a ministerial by-election for congressmen being appointed to a civil office of the United States? The concept having been introduced into the British House of Commons in 1707, the convention delegates could easily have been aware of it. Obviously the prohibition on congressmen simultaneously holding other positions would prevent the precise situation from arising, but I'm imagining either a ministerial by-election (for simultaneous legislative-executive incumbency) being proposed but then being rejected in favor of an outright prohibition on such officeholding, or some sort of election by the people (for representatives) or the state legislature (for senators) being required as a method of ratifying the appointment, for appointments to "civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time". Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See here for excerpts from the Records of the Federal Convention dealing with what became Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2, the Ineligibility Clause. The closest statement I can find is this:
 * Mr Govr. Morris. Exclude the officers of the army & navy, and you form a band having a different interest from & opposed to the civil power: you stimulate them to despise & reproach those "talking Lords who dare not face the foe". Let this spirit be roused at the end of a war, before your troops shall have laid down their arms, and though the Civil authority be "entrenched in parchment to the teeth" they will cut their way to it. He was agst. rendering the members of the Legislature ineligible to offices. He was for rendering them eligible agn. after having vacated their Seats by accepting office. Why should we not avail ourselves of their services if the people chuse to give them their confidence. There can be little danger of corruption either among the people or the Legislatures who are to be the Electors. If they say, we see their merits, we honor the men, we chuse to renew our confidence in them, have they not a right to give them a preference; and can they be properly abridged of it.
 * --Neutralitytalk 16:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Guided Learning (Buddhism)
Wikipedia has an "amazing" amount of information on Buddhism. Enough information that anyone could spend week/months reading through it all.

Buddhism is fairly new to the west and very many of the terms and words used are not translatable into English. This means for a massive learning curve for entry into deeper understanding. All/most of the answers are within Wikipedia but stumbling back and fourth, to and fro is a very slow and difficult and inefficient process.

My question is directly related to Buddhism but it equally relevant for all topics that have significant barriers to entry. Can someone develop a course on a subject using wiki pages as the course materials? ie. Today I was interested in broadening my knowledge of the different types of meditation practiced in Buddhism. I found a wonderful list that contained a pretty brief list of meditations in both English and traditional languages (which wasn't exactly what I was looking - it was even better). Through my own experience of Buddhism and meditation I had been exposed to two different traditional Buddhist languages, so having them all in a single table allowed me to connect a lot of dots! but to try and understand each form of meditation exposed me to a mountain of new vocabulary. Each word of which requires reading another page (or more).

For those not familiar with this barrier to entry, single words I have read may require 3-4 pages of understanding. I understand why the authors simply leave the words untranslated but often/frequently/nearly always these 3-4 page explanations also contain words that require 2-3 page explanations. I guess my (and I assume million of other peoples) issue is we enter any topic at point X. We only know what we know. we don't know to under stand X we need to first understand A, B and C.

And that is my question. Someone (likely the authors) know what understanding is required for a topic to be understood (what assumptions are made - assumed or otherwise) for the page to make sense (intended audience). (Sorry I am very much thinking aloud). Is it possible to add a section on 'intended audience'? For example a PhD student searching for a page on the big bang may well want something different than someone with no formal education at all. An 'intended audience' section would allow authors, editors and users to:- 1. Write the article in a way suitable for the intended audience 2. Provide guidance to more appropriate page for the 'actual user' 3. Provide guidance for background knowledge appropriate/required for understanding.

For example: if i wanted to understand the sun, I might only want to know some physical properties of it - area, weight, etc but if I wanted to know that it is made of, there is a pretty big barrier to entry. for someone to understand what a plasma is they should probably understand what solid, liquid and gaseous matter is. Of course an individual could do a PhD in any of these topics, and huge amounts of information is available on Wiki, but what does this individual want/need at this time? The author or one of the editors probably has a fair idea.

Perhaps what I am asking for is actually a new form of teaching. I might even name it - guided self directed learning. I am interested in learning about the sun, I want to understand this, instead of stumbling around (struggling and ending up learning way more than I need to), wiki can guide me to the information I need, in the sequence that makes most sense for where I am starting.

Like a real teacher, Wiki might need to ask some questions: a) do you know about states of matter (solid, liquid, gas)? Yes, No, a little b)  do you know anything about electron shells? c) do you know about nuclear fusion?

after answering these questions a selection of pages could be complied and an individual who was unable to understand why sunlight is the colour it is, now has a general understanding equal to that of a university graduate in physics. Sure they can't calculate the number of solar photons reaching the surface of Venus per second, but if they wanted to work that out Wiki actually has all the information required to work it out. And with a 'smart' mentor (as advised above) the user would be able to work that out for them self within a few hours (if they have the mathematical skills) and perhaps a few weeks if they needed to learn the mathematics as well.

Paradoxically, do we want Wikipedia full of all the answers to questions? or do we want Wikipedia full of information on how to answer my question for myself or BOTH? if your starting a pole I say BOTH. but now Wikipedia has so much information (data), the real next (LEAP) is for wiki to help people learn (teach them-self).

Regards Justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Digney (talk • contribs) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The article Distance education introduces the subject of educating students who may not always be physically present at a school, particularly the technology of virtual education made possible by the internet. Self-paced courses are attractive for well motivated students but may not always be appropriate or reliable enough for granting formal qualifications. Learning environment and Open supported learning (stub article) will be of interest. Wikiversity is creating a range of learning materials for self study that often build on Wikipedia articles. However there is no easy substitute for a conventional academic Degree completion program or a qualified professional Tutor. Blooteuth (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For Buddhism in particular, you might find http://www.wildmind.org helpful.--Shantavira|feed me 09:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think my colleagues quite understood the gist of your question (or maybe I don't). Wikipedia isn't organized into a course of study because it's an encyclopedia and not a textbook. The two can be similar at times, but their organization tends to be different. A textbook, for example, is usually written to follow a particular curriculum and is designed to impart knowledge in a systematic way. A textbook on biology, for example, might start with a chapter on a core concept like the cell and end with a chapter on more advanced theoretical material like ethology or evolution. An encyclopedia of biology, on the other hand, would likely begin with aardvark and end with zygote; it's meant for ease of looking something up rather imparting understanding from the ground up. This should not be taken to mean that Wikipedia doesn't need improvement in this regard. One of the difficulties with reading a technical article on WP is the conflict between precision (presenting details) and concision (economy of words) which drives the use of jargon (technical terms not understood to a wider audience) which results in more difficult reading. I don't have an answer for that problem. There are a series of article beginning with "Outline of..." that attempt to organize the articles of a field into more a more natural system of understanding (for example, see Outline of biology or, to bring it closer to your initial question Outline of Buddhism). See also WP:OUTLINE. Matt Deres (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sinking of a navel vessel
I was just wondering when the last time a navel vessel was sunk during a conflict. The last ones I can remember was way back during the Falkland War! Have there been any more recent sinkings? I am asking about during an armed conflict (vessel vs vessel)as opposed to vessels that may have sunk while in port due to terrorist type attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.156.127 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The most recent was the Battle off the coast of Abkhazia in 2008, where a Georgian missile boat was allegedly sunk, though there is no solid evidence this actually happened, just statements from members of Russia's military and state media. Before that, last time a warship was sunk was the First Battle of Yeonpyeong between North and South Korea in 1999, which saw the sinking of a small North Korean torpedo boat. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See also List of single-ship actions and List of naval battles. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears that there has not been a larger ship (such as a destroyer or frigate) since the Falklands war. 76.71.156.127 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so. The Iranian frigate Sahand was sunk by US Navy aircraft and the USS Joseph Strauss during Operation Praying Mantis in April 1988. Also the ROKS Cheonan, a Pohang-class corvette, sank in mysterious circumstances in March 2010. A multi-national team of military and civilian investigators reported that the cause was a North Korean torpedo, probably fired launched by a midget submarine. See ROKS Cheonan sinking.  Alansplodge (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not actually "sunk", and technically not a "naval vessel" but a passenger ferry, but certainly "during a conflict" of sorts, attempting to run a naval blockade, see the ugly scene during the raid on MV Mavi Marmara.Not sure if this is relevant to the OP, but I thought I'd point it out. Eliyohub (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also quite loosely-related, but police alleged conspiracy to hijack a skiff and sink a lobster boat in Maine last year, weeks after another suspiciously sunk. 2009 saw a bit of a lobster war (though nothing like the international incident). And a lobsterman off of Devon alleged the German navy was accidentally sabotaging his lobsters. Unknown if this is spillover from the French-English Scallop War. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone. Would I be correct in saying that WWII saw the largest number of battle ships sunk in history? 76.71.156.127 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know the figures, but note that in the European theater, most ships sunk by German submarines were "merchant ships" bringing war supplies, rather than actual warships, I think? (Am I correct?) In the pacific theater, I assume naval losses of actual warships would have been much heavier? Sorry for the lack of sources, am I correct? Eliyohub (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your conclusion is right but British capital ships sunk by U-boats: HMS Royal Oak, HMS Ark Royal, HMS Barham. British capital ships lost in surface actions (Europe and Atlantic theatres): HMS Glorious, HMS Hood. German capital ships lost in surface actions: Graf Spee, Bismarck, Scharnhorst. In the Pacific War, the world's three largest navies were engaged. In the first days of the war, the US had lost four capital ships and the British two. The various US v Japan engagements were on a scale never witnessed before and by the end of the war, virtually the whole Japanese navy had either been sunk at sea or destroyed at their moorings. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean battle ships, or warships? (The former is a specific type of the latter). Iapetus (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)