Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 February 24

= February 24 =

History of Zunyi -- sources?
Hey, I've been trying to work on the Zunyi article and been trying to find an in-depth history of the city. Unfortunately, information seems to be rather sparse? Britannica has a bit of information, but I'm having trouble finding some deeper, concrete information. I've tried looking on Baidu, but I just really see Baidu Baike and Zhihu answers, and a lack of reliable sources. Could anyone help point me in the right direction? Maybe I'm missing something? The sources can be in English or Chinese. Thank you! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you tried investigating the sources/information on the Chinese Wikipedia? They aren't necessarily the best either, but I think it might provide a helpful starting point as you research.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! Thanks for suggesting that. I looked at the Chinese article and it has some good material as a whole, and the history section looks similar to what I saw on sites like Zhihu, so I think it's proabably accurate (wish they cited their sources though, haha). At the very least this'll provide a good starting point, like you said. Thanks! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Poet Zheng Zhen (1806-1864) and the Rise of Chinese Modernity is an English language source which has some historical background about Zunyi (from p. 45). Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also The Legend of Zunyi, a 2013 article in China Today. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bronx Supreme Court/Supreme Court of USA
Does the State Supreme Court in the Bronx have the same symbol/logo of the SCOTUS? If so can this logo be used in a court-case article on Wikipedia? Senator LEVI  03:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't use the same symbol. Bronx uses the NYS seal, when needed. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Senator  LEVI  03:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, and bear in mind that in the state of New York, "Supreme Court" means trial-level court. It is very unlikely that a NY State Supreme Court case should have an article about the case itself (as opposed to the incident that gave rise to the case). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that, I was browsing through Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law, and found People v. Tabitha Walrond with the same court I asked about. It has several sources and can easily be used to make an article. I dropped it because I'm unsure on how to make a court-case based article due to my inexperience. Senator  LEVI  05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If an article should be made about that case, it should probably be entitled Death of Tyler Walrond. See WP:CRIME. Unless there's some particularly important aspect of case law here, it shouldn't have a standalone article about the litigation—and it being a relatively recent (i.e., last 100 or so years) state trial court decision, it's not precedent-setting and unlikely to be cited for anything really, and therefore isn't going to be important case law. Also, I should note that the case cited at the requested articles list is the appellate division case... which was essentially a summary affirmation. It's not a notable case on its own, whoever put the case and that blurb at the requested articles page is flat out wrong. There are not any sources listed there of the type necessary to justify an article about the case itself rather than about the crime. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, however it is an important case of that time IMO. Its been mentioned in multiple news websites/papers and also gained a lot of attention. It also highlights the failure of doctors at that time to inform the mother properly, it could also be linked to racism against black people at that time IMO. Multiple sources state negligence of Medicare as well as doctors. I've found enough material to make it a good article. However its not something I'd write any time soon due to the difference in format. Senator  LEVI  07:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All that has to do with the crime and not the case. An article on caselaw exists because the caselaw is significant. The event leading to the case may not be notable (and often is not). All the coverage you mention deals with the underlying crime, public policy that led to the crime, and racial inequities that may have led to the crime. There's nothing different here regarding "format" than any other crime article. Seriously. Look at articles about crimes and look at articles about case law. Try and figure out which of those two pigeonholes this subject belongs in. I guarantee you, the answer is crime. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Compared to other caselaw articles this one has significant coverage, both in the number of reliable sources as well as information online. The event to the case is notable, there is enough buildup before the actual case (for a lack of a better description). Other parts like Court background is also present as well as media coverage. When I said format I meant compared to the articles that I have written. Due to my inexperience and the fact that I have only written 4 articles something like a caselaw article with the info-box, specified lawyers and judges, laws applied, citations, court membership, etc would be hard for me. Regardless I am not going to be writing this article until I think I am ready to do so, or if someone else has. Senator  LEVI  10:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the coverage is of the events. Not the law. I don't know how I can be clearer about this. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The event is what the article would be about. There's nothing else to be clear on. Senator  LEVI  02:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Viewers of the Law & Order TV franchise would be familiar with the way "Supreme Court" is used in New York City. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's not just New York that's like that. Here in Ontario, Canada, for about 100 years starting in 1881, the "Supreme Court of Ontario" included both a trial-level court for important cases and the Ontario Court of Appeal.
 * P.S. Could you lose the bright colors in the signature? They're kind of distracting.
 * --142.112.149.107 (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like ketchup, mustard and bleu cheese. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed it, probably long overdue. Senator  LEVI  05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

See New York Supreme Court for background and Bronx County Courthouse for the court. Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, while the Judiciary of New York (state) has a court structure similar to the Federal Judiciary, the terminology doesn't match. This table should help clarify:
 * There are other courts outside this structure, since they don't operate in perfect parallel. For example, New York also has county- and city-level courts for hearing minor civil and criminal cases; no equivalent exists at the federal level.  Similarly, the U.S. has subject-matter specific trial (district-level) and appeals (circuit-level) courts that have no New York equivalence.  -- Jayron 32 13:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Canadian system looks to be modelled on the English one.  In 1873 the various courts (e.g. Court of Queen's Bench) which dispensed law and the Court of Chancery (which dispensed equity) were merged into three divisions of the High Court (Queen's Bench, Chancery, and Probate, Divorce and Admiralty).   All branches dispensed both law and equity.   The High Court and Court of Appeal together formed the Supreme Court of Judicature, and the final appeal court was the House of Lords.   The system lasted till 1999 when the appellate function of the House of Lords was transferred to a new Supreme Court. 95.150.9.67 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

English royal non-assent under the Stuarts
Under the Stuarts, when the monarch did not grant royal assent, what was the process: did the monarch outright reject the bill in some way (comparable to the US President's veto today), or did the monarch simply ignore it, or were both processes used? Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * See Disappearance of the veto in England. Yes, the Stuart monarchs could and did refuse their assent, but they could also give their assent and then invoke their power of dispensation which suspended the legislation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Understood, but it doesn't address my question at all. Let me rephrase it: during this era, if the monarch chose not to grant royal assent, would he (1) outright reject the bill, (2) merely ignore it, or (3) sometimes reject it and sometimes ignore it?  Nyttend (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That appears to me as a very different question; the House of Stuart ruled only until 1714, which precedes "this era" by a considerable gap. The rephrased question is too hypothetical to be answerable. At the very least, one should consider the cause of the monarch's reluctance to grant assent. Is it displeasure because the bill, as presented, grossly and wantonly impinges on generally accepted human rights? Or does it severely curtail whatever rights the monarch still possesses? Surely, the extent to which the bill was supported in parliament and is supported by the general populace will be a factor. One can only speculate what might happen, and then one person's opinion or prediction will be as baseless as the next one's. --Lambiam 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you men, speculation? If records exist, anyone familiar with them could answer the question.  During part of this era, the monarch ruled absolutely, and during the rest of the period, as Alansplodge's link demonstrates, vetoes were still an accepted power of the monarch; that's a good deal of power.  The concept of "generally accepted human rights" didn't develop until centuries after this era, and an appeal to the general populace is ridiculous generations before the Reform Act 1832.  Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the two of you are using "this era" to mean different things. Lambiam is taking it to mean "the era we're currently sitting in" and Nyttend is taking it to mean "the era under discussion".  You should probably first come to an agreement on which definition you want to use before continuing your argument.  -- Jayron 32 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The actual procedure of assent used before the 19th century (which is perhaps what you are asking) is described here:
 * "When there is no business that requires immediate dispatch, the king usually waits till the end of the session, or at least till a certain number of bills are ready for him, before he declares his royal pleasure. When the time is come, the king in the same state with which he opened it; and while he is seated on the throne, a clerk, who has a list of the bills, gives, or refuses, as he reads, the royal assent. When the royal assent is given to a public bill, the clerk says, le roy le veut. If the bill be a private bill, he says, soit fait comme il est desiré. If the bill has subsidies for its object, he says, le roy remercie ses loyaux sujets, accepte leur bénévolence, et aussi le veut. If the king does not think proper to assent to the bill, the clerk says, Le roy s'avisera, which is a mild way of giving a refusal". (Le roy s'avisera might be translated as "The king will advise upon it".)
 * The Constitutional History of England by Henry Hallam. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

One phrase in the Constitution
Courtesy link - Article One of the United States Constitution DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, para 2 says at the start and the end of this paragraph "No Person shall be a Representative ... and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen"

I don't understand it. What does it mean? AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you don't live in State X, you cannot be elected as a representative for State X. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's written like a double negative. It means you must reside in the state you are representing.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The first negative does not cover the statement, second does, however, altogether it sounds like you cannot live in the state where you want to be elected. Strange. AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The archaic uses of "shall" make this harder to understand, Rephrasing this in two steps: (1) No one can be a Representative if they are not, when elected, an Inhabitant of that State in which they were chosen. (2) If someone is not a resident of the State in which they were chosen at the time of their election, they cannot be a Representative. Note that the double negative is maintained. --Lambiam 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are times when I wish they had stopped after “No person shall be a Representative” (same with: “Congress shall pass no law”). 😉 Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What is it with the US Constitution and weird use of commas? The Second Amendment is probably the most notorious use, but as you note, in this case it seems to reverse the intended meaning of one of the second requirement.  The actual text of the clause is "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.", which parsed logically looks as though it means:
 * You cannot be a Representative if any of the following apply:
 * You are under 25 years of age
 * You have been a citizen for seven years
 * You do not reside in the state for which you have been chosen.
 * I think they really need to drop the first comma, or put another "not" before "been a citizen". (Or stop using the weird construction with double negatives and just say "a Representative must be at least 25 years of age, have been a citizen for at least seven years, and reside in the State for which he shall be chosen"). Iapetus (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That analysis would apply if the text had been, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and who shall have been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." The participle "been" is governed by the same finite-verb combination "shall not have" as the prior "attained", and so the the first "" conjoins two subclauses both governed by "have" and has the force of logical conjunction. Also without consideration of the verb forms, the absence of "" after the first "", combined with its presence after the second "", should make it clear that the intention is as indicated by the bracketing in "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have (attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States), and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." In the days the constitution was drawn up, there were no manuals of style or punctuation guides around. As a rule of thumb, a writer would insert a comma wherever they were inclined to briefly pause when reading a sentence aloud. --Lambiam 12:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 18th century legalese. It probably made sense at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I look at that sort of stuff and wonder, what on earth were they thinking? It's as if it is deliberately written so that only lawyers could understand it. These days that sort of phrasing may as well say, "I went to a third rate law school." (At work I often find, after spending maybe an hour and a half trying to make an email or similar as clear and concise and jargon-free as possible, the end result is only four or five sentences. I think, "Huh? Is this how really how I was taught to write?... Well, yes, as a matter of fact it is.") Pete AU --Shirt58 (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This means Donald Trump can be elected a Representative in at least two states: Confusion and Denial. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And knowing The Donald, he would probably try for both at the same time. 🙃 Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes fair use of Australians' web content, under their new law?
What kind of content is Google and Facebook paying for? I've never used Facebook and Google's search engine only gives snippets of content, plus we often share webpage addresses, but is this status quo here being jeopardized? Obviously Google and Facebook can afford to pay A$ to Australian publishers, yet it seems these guys would seem to be rather happy with draconian pay-to-play arrangements in place to keep other search engines and platforms at bay. So what is the impact of Australia's new law, if any, on the continuance of fair use practices in general, such as the sharing of links to Australian websites on Twitter, on Wikipedia, or in articles published in the USA? --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What does fair use have to do with Australian law? Copyright law of Australia has never had fair use. It's only had fair dealing, like quite a few Commonwealth countries. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So I want to know how the new law affects their specific fair dealing exceptions to copyrights. Precisely why the law affects Google's and Facebook's wallets, but apparently not Wikipedia's? --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. Fair use and fair dealing fall under "fair practices" and Europeans favored the news generators over news aggregators, but American law favored the news aggregators. . --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I've found a partial answer here. "Improper use of materials outside of legislation is deemed 'unauthorized edition', not copyright infringement." --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still unclear to me how it can affect internet platforms such as Wikipedia that have a global reach. --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation has a legal team whose job it is to deal with that. Ordinary editors such as you and I have no responsibility in that regard.  -- Jayron 32 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So is Wikimedia Foundation's legal team dealing with that and are they going to share their conclusions with us? 2003:F5:6F0B:9F00:C489:F4F6:2036:991B (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Marco PB