Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 5

= March 5 =

Canadian_Airlines
From Canadian_Airlines:

"On November 5, 1999, a Quebec judge ruled that the Onex takeover was illegal, breaking the law that stipulates that no more than 10 percent of the company can be controlled by a single shareholder. Onex subsequently withdrew its offer and Air Canada stated it would proceed with the takeover of Canadian Airlines."

I'm a little confused as to why the Onex takeover was illegal but the the Air Canada takeover isn't. When Air Canada took over Canadian Airlines did it control more than 10 percent of Canadian Airlines' shares? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe "single shareholder" refers to a person (including a corporation which, legally, has the ownership rights of a person) that owned a large portion of Onex stock, and would therefore own a large portion of the airline, if they took it over. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As usual, StuRat has not done any research and just "winged it" for his answer, with the usual spotty results. If you want real information, best to review a proper source, like this summary.  Here's a few key points:
 * The Canadian airline business was in trouble. Canadian Airlines was facing bankruptcy.  In a surprise move to stave off the disruption that would result from the failure of Canada's second-largest airline, the Canadian federal government suspended the relevant portions of the Competition Act for the airline industry, allowing merger and restructuring proposals to go forward.
 * Onex presented a bid to purchase both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. The bid was funded by Onex and AMR (parent company to American Airlines, and a major shareholder in Canadian Airlines), and would have brought both airlines into the Oneworld alliance.  It would have consolidated a massive share (about 90%) of the Canadian air travel market under one corporate umbrella.
 * But, as Canada's flag carrier, Air Canada was subject to additional regulation. After privatization in the 1980's, Air Canada's ownership was governed by the Air Canada Public Participation Act.  That law, to which Air Canada alone – not Canadian Airlines – was subject, forbade any single individual or group from controlling more than 10% of the shares in Air Canada.
 * Consequently, a Quebec court ruled that Onex's bid could not go forward, as it would place the majority of Air Canada shares under Onex's control.
 * The subsequent takeover of Canadian Airlines by Air Canada was allowed to go ahead, as Canadian Airlines shares were not subject to similar ownership restrictions&mdash;nothing barred Air Canada from acquiring a majority stake in Canadian.
 * There's almost certainly a lot more gritty detail and Canadian financial intrigue (?!) that one could go into, but I think that's the gist of it. And I've shown you my key source, so you know as much as I do now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation: did any State direct that elections were to be held for congressional delegates?
Article V of the Articles of Confederation indicates that Congressional delegates are appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct. Under the Articles of Confederation, did any State direct that elections were to be held for the people to vote for a congressional delegate to be appointed by the State legislature or did every State legislature directly appoint their congressional delegate without having the people vote? JimmieRMorris — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmieRMorris (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This says that the states legislatures selected representatives to the Congress of the Confederation. -- Jayron 32 03:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * JimmieRMorris -- Each state had only one vote in the Confederation (Continental) Congress, and the delegates were representing the government of their state (as much ambassadors as congressmen in the post-1789 sense), so there wouldn't have been much point in direct elections... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Trial by peers
Who was the last Irish peer to have been tried by his peers in the Irish House of Lords? DuncanHill (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's possible this book will say. The summary does mention the cases of Henry Barry, 4th Baron Barry of Santry in 1739 so not much interest and Robert King, 2nd Earl of Kingston which was in 1798 so I'm assuming would be one of the last. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a look at which unsurprisingly doesn't cover the Irish House of Lords and unless these trials were a lot more frequent in the Irish House of Lords, Robert King may very well have been the last. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, maybe you already know it but the list I saw in the above PDF is at List of trials of peers in the House of Lords, indicating how uncommon such trials were in the UK and predecessor House of Lords which is what lead me to believe Robert King may have been the last in the Irish House of Lords. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In case the first link doesn't work, the book being referred to is "The Irish House of Lords: A Court Of Law In The Eighteenth Century" ISBN 978-1-905536-56-6. I also came across which refers to "Lords of the Ascendancy: The Irish House of Lords and Its Members, 1600-1800" ISBN 9780813208404 which may cover this but I'm less sure. Using the Google Books search, I was able to confirm it does Henry Barry, but I'm less sure about Robert King. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I finally found Lyall, Andrew. "The Irish House of Lords as a Judicial Body, 1783-1800." Irish Jurist 28 : 314-360 / /  which I do have access to. (If you don't, you're welcome to ask on my talk page if this is for personal study or to improve a wikipedia article.) It seems to confirm my suspicion. In the section on 'Original criminal jurisdiction', it says:
 * "There were three trials of peers before the Irish House of Lords in the 18th century. All were for murder."


 * the last case mentioned is indeed Robert King, and the whole section ends with:
 * "It seemed that the relatives of Colonel Fitzgerald did not want to pursue the matter. The elaborate ritual had been for nothing. The lords were called upon to pronounce their verdict in the absence of evidence. Each peer stood up in turn, the most junior first, and each declared the accused not guilty. Five days later, as Hale notes, the Irish rebellion began and one effect of that, as Hale puts it, was the murder of the Irish Parliament."


 * The other case is Nicholas Netterville, 5th Viscount Netterville if you're wondering.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, very interesting and informative. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

With what was Lord de Clifford charged?
Edward Russell, 26th Baron de Clifford was tried and acquitted by his peers in the House of Lords in 1935. Our article on him says it was for vehicular manslaughter, but as that article points out, there is no such offence in British law. The article Privilege of peerage says it was for "motor manslaughter" but I do not believe that there is or was such an offence in British law either. What was he actually charged with? DuncanHill (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The record of the trial states in one place that he was charged with "felony" and in another that he was charged with "manslaughter". Unfortunately, this record does not include the text of the indictment itself for clarification. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Then most likely manslaughter as that is an indictable charge in England, and is a felony. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, what that trial record actually says is "indicted for felony" and "charged with manslaughter". Presumably "felony" in British usage of the period was a mass noun, so it wasn't "a felony" as we'd expect in North America, but that must have been the meaning. So yes, the charge must've been manslaughter. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Prior to 1987 UK law distinguished between misdemeanours (minor crimes) and felonies (serious crimes). Manslaughter would have been classed as a felony. The phrase "vehicular manslaughter" is an American one, which has never been formally used in the UK courts. Killing someone when driving would, if negligence was involved, have been charged as simply Manslaughter - though today there are more specific offences of causing death by dangerous driving, and causing death by careless driving. Wymspen (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, that makes much more sense. DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In 1972, the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was introduced with a 5 year maximum sentence, as (if I recall correctly) juries were unwilling to convict on a charge of manslaughter in motoring cases, because it carried a much more severe penalty and drivers in the jury tended to think "there but for the grace of God, go I". The maximum was increased to 10 years and is now 14 years, A lesser offence of "causing death by careless, or inconsiderate driving" has also been introduced. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

ṭawāf and chirality
I'm told that when Hindus and Buddhists walk around a venerated object they keep their right side to it, and therefore go clockwise. So I was surprised today to learn that the Hajj includes circling the Kaaba counter-clockwise. I know Muslims aren't Hindus but I expected the bias to be the same, for the same reason.

So can anyone tell me: why counter-clockwise? —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you've not got an answer. FYI I did ask for you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam; you may wish to follow up there if this archives without an answer. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

words for counter-clockwise

 * I don't really know anything about other cultures in this context, but the English language used to have a specific word for speaking of the counter-clockwise direction in a disapproving manner: "Widdershins"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure of the "disapproving manner": I have only come across "widdershins" as the opposite to "deosil" which means clockwise to pagans. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article widdershins explains that going to the opposite direction of the apparent motion of the sun was considered bad luck in sun-focused traditions. OP, it also mentions counter-clockwise being the correct direction in Judaism, but for a non-generalizable reason. If we find the answer for Islam, it could be added to that article. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In tidying up our article sunwise, I went to the OED, which says "deasil" is auspicious and "withershins" is unlucky. I'd not come across either of those spellings before; the OED gives many variants, but doesn't acknowledge "deosil". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * TammyMoet -- the OED 1st edition (whose definitions were written in the late 19th century and early 20th century) gives two definitions for "Widdershins" (actually listed under "Withershins" with "Widdershins" as alternative spelling): "wrong way" (marked as obsolete as of the time of OED publication) and "In a direction contrary to the apparent course of the sun (considered as unlucky or causing disaster)". The neo-pagan meaning was unknown to the OED as of 1933 (1st edition and 1st edition supplement). AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Eh? What is the neo-pagan meaning of widdershins if not "in a direction contrary to the apparent course of the sun"? —Tamfang (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let us not forget Neo-Pagans south of the Equator.
 * The next major difference between the Hemispheres is the direction in which the Sun moves across the sky. As in the Northern Hemisphere, the Sun still rises in the East and sets in the West, however on its journey across the sky in the Southern Hemisphere, it travels via the North because of the tilt of the Earth's axis. For this reason, most Pagans in the Southern Hemisphere cast their circles in this direction, via the North or in an anti-clockwise direction. It irks me when authors refer to deosil as meaning "clockwise" and widdershins as meaning "anticlockwise."
 * From Southern Hemisphere Magick. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See Sundial.  I used to live in Perth but I don't recall encountering the one illustrated, or any others come to that. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting note in the article, the sundial that is accurate in Perth, Western Australia is accurate in Perth, Scotland as well. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Tamfang -- in its pre-neo-pagan use (16th to early 20th centuries) it usually had a negative or disapproving meaning (as I indicated in my original comment, and TammyMoet questioned)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

question about the Constitution of Australia
Have any Australian federal governments (apart from the Hawke Government in 1984) been able to get away with ignoring the Australian Constitution when it was convenient for them to do so? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All state governments, except Queensland, were illegally collecting petrol excise and diesel excise for decades until the federal government took over collecting the excise. Sleigh (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * on all the above claims. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it's mentioned in Referendums in Australia that Hawke claimed he had a legal opinion to ignore what the Constitution says about the time limit for submitting referendums. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The federal government has been collecting fuel excise for the states since 1997. See footnote . Sleigh (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Paul, I'm not understanding why you mentioned the 1984 case at all. If the legal opinion was never challenged, then that would suggest nobody believed the government was operating extra-constitutionally.  Hence what is the relevance of this episode to your question?
 * As an aside, I'd like to see a source for the 1984 material in Referendums in Australia. Do you know of one? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What is "乾亨行"
Language question; moved to WP:RDL. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hanover Trust Company
Is there any information on this bank other than its' association with Ponzi? Eddie891 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Try the "Handbook of Frauds, Scams, and Swindles: Failures of Ethics in Leadership" edited by Serge Matulich, David M. Currie Wymspen (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Calling the LDS children's magazine 'The Friend' a _Christian (at the bottom of the page) magazine
My question is, do you not consider truth when you allow an article to be posted on Wikipedia ? Also, do you not consult experts to review articles before they post ?

No authentic Christian would ever say that Mormonism is a Christian religion because their 'secret' doctrines so much disagree with Christianity's statements of faith and belief.

A comparison would be to consider ISIS a true branch of Islam and though I haven't checked the articles here regarding ISIS and the two mainstream Islamic belief systems, I am certain Wikipedia doesn't link ISIS to Islam as a legitimate expression of that belief system.

Even though LDS isn't radical in the sense of armed conflict, it is certainly radical in its belief that God was once a regular man and only _became God through His actions in life and so 'becoming'more and more holy until He miraculously became God as a result. This is in keeping with their belief that any man can become a 'god' after some time in Heaven and go on to create his own universe. Women aren't included in this 'opportunity' so Heaven to Mormons is a 'man's world' too.

They further believe that God lives in a galaxy named Kolob (on a planet of the same name or just the planet is called Kolob-that part is unclear). There He has sexual relations with an 'Earth mother' entity whose origins are vague as well.

There are many more differences that preclude Mormonism from being a Christian religion but the two I listed are enough in themselves to exclude them from a list of Christian denominations.

Mormonism is _not a legitimate branch of Christianity, period. Its founder, Joseph Smith, said God's angel Moroni had given him golden tablets to enable him declare a _new Christian belief and that the LDS church is the _only true church in existence. They also disavow the triune nature of God, Father-Son-Holy Spirit which is the very foundation of Christianity.

I have read some of Wikipedia's articles on the differences between LDS and Christianity but my problem is this: A person not well versed in Christianity but open to it, just reading the article on the LDS book 'The Friend' and, at the bottom seeing it called a 'Christian' magazine, would see nothing wrong with getting it for a child presenting that child with misinformation about true Christianity. Michael10sley (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRUTH. Truth is a complex philosophical concept. We try to approximate it, but our criteria are based on what is written in reliable sources. Mormonism in general and the LDS in particular are offshoots of mainstream Christianity. The LDS certainly considers itself to be a Christian church. And while the LDS is following some beliefs even more weird than mainstream Christianity, I don't think your "secret" characterisation is even remotely correct. Trinitarianism is only one branch of Christianity, if the predominant one at the moment. I'd say that a person which does not know the difference between the LDS and whatever form of Christianity they consider acceptable does not really have a basis for any objection. And I've always found that children have a lot more robust scepticism than many grown-ups. Anyways, objections to an article are best discussed at the relevant talk page, in this case Talk:The_Friend_(LDS_magazine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your comparison to ISIS is a bit inflammatory, but in any case you're wrong about our page for ISIS. It is listed in lots of categories, including "Islamic states" and "Sunni Islamist groups". Our category Category:Christian_magazines includes subcategories for LDS, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc. These are all "Christian" in the sense that they are religious movements that are obviously based on Jesus as a central figure. They are also more or less incompatible with each other and with "mainstream" protestant theology. American Christians (I'm one too) don't usually use the word Christian to refer to any movement that is doctrinally incompatible with their own, but the word is being used differently here. But I'm going to move The Friend (LDS magazine) into Category:Latter Day Saint periodicals since that's a more specific category. Staecker (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See also No True Scotsman; the fallacy the OP is using here. As noted at Mormons, Mormons are of a Christian branch known as the Restoration Movement.  The OP seems to be making the mistake that they get to define for other Christians what it means to be a Christian, and if a group doesn't believe exactly what he believes, then they aren't Christians.  As noted at Christianity, the minimum requirement for a religion to be Christian is that it is based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.  Mormonism meets that requirement.  -- Jayron 32 13:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per our article on the Restoration Movement, no, that's not the case at all. The Restoration Movement produces the various flavors of "Christian Church" / "Church of Christ" / "Disciples of Christ" within the US. The development of the LDS church is contemporaneous but distinct, and while it uses the term "restoration", it does so as a separate concept.
 * To the concept of whether the LDS church should be seen as a distinct church, I'll point to our article at Latter Day Saint movement, "theology" section: "Nevertheless, Mormons agree with non-Mormons that their view of God is significantly different from the trinitarian view of the Nicene Creed of the 4th century" (as referenced there), and "Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism.... A prominent scholarly view is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism" (second sentence referenced in the article, first sentence noted as "citation needed" but verified by my UMC-ordained wife). Which is to say that there is plenty of material support within a religious reference point to draw a dividing line between the LDS church and mainstream Christian churches (the mutual denial of validity of the other's fundamental means of admission, i.e. baptism, being the main point), and that I find the dismissal of the same as being a "no true Scotsman" case to be weakly supported. However, that's not the same as saying that Wikipedia should attempt to draw such distinctions. &mdash; Lomn 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Acceptance of baptism is a red herring: Baptists do not accept infant baptism, and yet they do not claim that denominations that practice it are somehow "not Christian". -- Jayron 32 15:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is why I noted mutual non-recognition. When both parties say that the other is fundamentally wrong and incompatible, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are in fact not the same thing. &mdash; Lomn 16:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the same thing does not mean they both aren't Christians. Dogs and cats are not the same thing, but they are both carnivora.  -- Jayron 32 17:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Granted, but what is the standard used to determine "is / is not Christian"? You mentioned our Christianity article up-thread; if we go by the first sentence of the first paragraph ("based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ"), one answer suggests itself. If we go by the first sentence of the second paragraph ("Christian theology is summarized in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed"), the opposite answer is most suitable. And, as I noted in my initial reply, the theological answer most suitable for the OP may not be the encyclopedic answer most suitable for Wikipedia. One need not invoke logical fallacies in order to acknowledge that "truth is a complex philosophical concept". &mdash; Lomn 18:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Except, there are also pre-Nicene and non-Nicene Christians as well; for historic reasons trinitarianism came to dominate Christianity, to the point where statistically that core theology and Christology has so dominated that many forget that other perspectives have existed and continue to exist alongside the dominant forms of Christianity. Nontrinitarianism has existed within Christianity, and still does in some small sects.  Jehovah's Witnesses, Monophysite churches, Nestorianism, Syriac Christianity, the Nasrani of India, etc,  all come from non-Nicene historical traditions, and are still all clearly Christian.  To include any definition that goes beyond "A religion which is primarily concerned with following the teachings and life of Christ" is No True Scotsman-type fallacy.  "Well, you can't be a REAL Christian if you follow Jesus but you also XYZ.." or ".. you don't ABC".  Christians are people who follow Christ.  Anything extra is what makes them different kinds of Christians of which there are MANY types.  Some of those types also consider themselves the only true type, but of course, that's hardly fair from an objective perspective.  -- Jayron 32 20:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * By way of a reference, Is Mormonism a Christian Denomination? (from a Catholic standpoint) says: "In one sense, clearly, Mormonism is Christian. If you were going to categorize Mormonism according to world-religion criteria, you would have to say they are Christians". It goes on to list the points where Mormonism diverges from all the mainstream Trinitarian denominations. Alansplodge (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Peculiar mix of political beliefs?
On YouTube, there is one particular user living in the United States who appears to favor stronger environmental protection laws, increased public transit, higher taxes on people which higher incomes, while opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants. How would such a mix of political beliefs be defined on the political spectrum? Are there any US politicians currently in office who hold this particular mix of political beliefs? It seems to me that the first three beliefs are left-leaning beliefs while the last one is a right-leaning belief, and these beliefs don't seem to mix well in contemporary US politics. 173.52.236.173 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As your last sentence implies, the single-axis 'Left–Right' political spectrum, which dates back to a short-lived seating layout in an 18th-century French parliament, is increasing irrelevant to an analysis of modern politics. There are several proposed two- and three-axis methods (as you'll see in the linked article). The example you mention might be described as Liberal nationalism, but there are doubtless other equally apposite or better descriptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.75.147 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Is amnesty for illegal immigrants a fundamental principle of left/liberal politics in the US, or just a commonly held one? If the latter, I'd say that the person mention sounds like a leftwing or liberal that disagrees with one common left/liberal policy.  Iapetus (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The general catch-all for these sorts of things is independent.--WaltCip (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There's nothing peculiar about a generally politically left wing person being slightly anti-immigration. Historically, labour parties in many countries have been in favour of controls on immigration. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that being anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the same as being anti-immigrant, as it's possible to support immigration, done legally with extensive vetting, while opposing illegal immigration. This stance may be more popular now, due to the threat posed by foreign terrorists trying to infiltrate and attack western nations.  The US political group who seems to have lost out most recently (other than the immigrants themselves), are the "business Republicans", who actually wanted illegal immigration, as it gave them a large, low-paid workforce with minimal legal rights, who were easy to exploit for profit. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Tribal Shamanism vs Organized Religion?
Dont get me wrong, I know this is probably a very controversial topic, but which of these two in your opinion is better, and why? Idielive (talk) 6:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the big box at the top of this page, which among other things, says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Who says they're distinct? Also, in addition to what Nyttend pointed out: this is the language desk, not the humanities desk. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)