Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 April 19

= April 19 =

Have there been any other cases of naturalized citizens becoming classified as natural-born citizens?
I know that Maryland declared the Marquis de Lafayette to be a natural-born citizen in 1784; see here: Honorary citizenship of the United States. However, were there any other cases of naturalized citizens becoming classified as natural-born citizens of a particular state, territory, or country? Futurist110 (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * New Zealand nationality law: But many countries don't really have the distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalised citizens that may exist in the US so your question is unclear anyway. AFAIK, there is absolutely no difference in the rights or privileges (including for any political office) in NZ between New Zealand citizenship by birth and New Zealand citizenship by grant. (AFAIK, the terms "natural born" and "naturalised" are not generally used in modern NZ citizenship legal parlance although naturalised will still apply for some people who acquired citizenship in the past.)  The only difference is for NZ citizens by descent who cannot pass on their citizenship in certain circumstances, although they can go through the same process to receive NZ citizenship by grant as anyone else. Note that NZ also eliminated guaranteed birthright citizenship in 2005.  If you want to stretch it, the only possible distinction between citizenship by grant and citizenship by birth I can think of in NZ is that it's possible citizenship by grant can be revoked (deprivation of citizenship) if you lied or willfully misheld information when applying for your citizenship and you likely wouldn't have been granted citizenship if the correct info was known. Also if a mistake was made and likewise.  The law doesn't allow this for citizenship by birth, but the concept doesn't make sense anyway since if the info which lead to your citizenship by birth is wrong then you're simply not a citizen by birth. The citizenship isn't being revoked because it simply doesn't exist. Likewise citizens by registration can have their citizenship revoked for the same reasons, but not citizens by descent.  Note anyone can have their citizenship revoked if they have some other citizenship and did something "".  Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for all of this information! Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Statistical chart for ranges
Well, of course, I do not even know the language I need to express myself. But, I'm looking for a chart/graph which allows for not just individual points but ranges across various points too.For example:Say I have a number of files from over a decade, some of which their precise year of origin is known, but in others, only an approximation is. Something like one from 1950, two from 1954, three from (somewhere between) 1953–1956), two from 1958, and one from (somewhere between) 1951–1959, and one from (somewhere between)1955–1960.I'm only assuming there's a cartographical mode of expression; but if not, perhaps something else would achieve the same?Apologies for the convolution :) Cheers! —— SerialNumber  54129  08:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Excel calls these stock charts. The stockcharts website calls them bar charts .--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, I think you might have just cracked it—I always think of bar charts as columns rising from zero rather than "floating" like that; but yes, that should work! Cheers! ~#
 * See also box plot and related. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Research sources for Earhart/Hawaii Clipper Search and Rescue efforts
I’m doing research comparing the search and rescue efforts for the 1937 Earhart/Noonan and 1938 Hawaii Clipper disappearances, trying to reconstruct how many nations participated, what areas were covered, what coordination happened, etc. Where should I be looking for both archival records and already published material? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.207.189.38 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the latter, the following might be a good place to start: . — See also references in the article: Hawaii Clipper There is a team of "renowned investigative detectives" with a website: ; they also post the The Civil Aeronautics Authority Investigation —2606:A000:1126:28D:3107:F3D5:1B67:5D45 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * November 2013 issue of Aviation History has a fairly comprehensive description of the Hawaii Clipper search and rescue effort, republished online here: —2606:A000:1126:28D:3107:F3D5:1B67:5D45 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Can one realistically write and publish a law review article if one isn't a law school student or lawyer?
Can one realistically write and publish a law review article if one isn't a law school student or lawyer? Futurist110 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That would depend entirely on your definition of "lawyer". Many law lecturers write such articles without being lawyers in the sense of "qualified to practise law", for example. If you want to exclude anyone who has graduated in law, there is a considerable overlap between philosophy and jurisprudence (John Rawls springs to mind). I'd imagine academics qualifed in economics and other social sciences might also dip their toes in. HenryFlower 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What about non-academics who are interested in law? In other words, regular people with an interest in law. Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - by "law review article" do you mean an article for a scholarly journal focusing on legal issues, or a Wikipedia article related to law reviews? If you mean a scholarly review, that would depend on the editors of the publication. If you mean a Wikipedia article, then any editor can create such an article as long as the contents are factually accurate and it is based on reliable sources (WP:RS). - Epinoia (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I meant the former--specifically a scholarly review. Futurist110 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - each law review will have its own submission guidelines and acceptability will differ from journal to journal - the Harvard Law Review Submission Guidelines does not say that manuscripts have to be written by law school students or lawyers - at the Harvard Law Review, "each piece is reviewed anonymously," so the editors considering it do not know the identity of the authors and whether or not they are lawyers - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Most papers are jointly authored, either by two direct collaborators, or by an author working within a department of a law school etc. So there's often outside influence, from people other than the main author. It's not common, but nor is it unusual, for someone from outside the field of law directly to be involved in such a paper, but to be collaborating with someone who is qualified or training in that way. This would likely be on some crossover between their own field and the law, such as medical ethics, or technology and the law, or IP rights from some other field. To write a paper it's necessary to interest an editor in accepting it, and to convince some reviewers that it's competent. There's rarely any formal qualification required.
 * There's also international variation. If someone wishes to have a career "in business" in a broad sense, an American will commonly begin by training as a lawyer. Whereas a Briton will instead train as an accountant. A European might even be an engineer. Look at the differences between a group of generic "management consultants" and the split of first qualifications by country. So a Brit writing such an article on some aspect of commercial law could very well have a background more formally qualified in accountancy than in law. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)