Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 January 17

= January 17 =

Was the 1949 Geneva Convention caused by the allied powers?
Was the usage of POWs for dangerous work after WWII one of the causes of the 1949 Geneva Convention? I know that the Germans were the main reason that it was created, but I was wondering if the allies' using German POWs to clear landmines was a factor in the creation of the convention. Thanks so much! 107.2.89.236 (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The treatment of prisoners of war is dealt with in Geneva Convention III, which is a revision and extension of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War of 1929. The website of the International Committee of the Red Cross has a commentary that gives some of the reasons why this revision was necessary, and states: "The Convention establishes the principle that prisoners of war must be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities (Article 118)." It may be difficult to find an explicit statement tying post-war abuse of prisoners of war directly to the motivation for this extension. --Lambiam 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A future King James of the United Kingdom - "VII" or merely "II"?
James VI and I, as his name suggests, was both King James VI of Scotland, and King James I of England.

My question is, were some future king named James (such as James, Viscount Severn, the highest "James" in the line of succession to the British throne) to some day ascend to the throne of the now-United Kingdom (the successor state of both the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland), what regnal number would he be given - " James II", or "James VII"?

Or, as I understand from previous discussions on UK matters here, is this something which the UK deals with as most constitutional questions of theirs - "we'll fix it if and when it breaks"? i.e. as long as the question remains hypothetical, no need for the monarchy of government to address it?

Pinging    you bunch have answered questions on UK matters before; do you have anything to offer on this one? Eliyohub (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is discussed at Regnal Number... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that "James VI and I" was not the actual style, as at the time the two kingdoms were individual sovereign states; in one James Charles Stuart was King James VI, in the other he was King James I. --Lambiam 10:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Eliyohub (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems the answer is James VIII instead of James III. But it is of course hypothetical and very unlikely. Epsecially if the SNP get their way. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the independant Scotland proposed by the SNP would retain the Union of Crowns; see Scottish republicanism. Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for clarifying. So they'd just be rid of World King & crew (but that might happen a lot sooner). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We've already had a James VII/II. Some would say we've also had a James VIII/III as well, but I would argue that, per Terry Pratchett, the true king was the one who got crowned. Iapetus (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Being a democracy, the true king or queen is whoever Parliament says it is. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Titanic sinking
Is this footage real or fake?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2p9A2bVCBw https :// youtu. be/ v2p9A2bVCBw]

--2001:B07:6442:8903:A111:EC24:C6A:CBEC (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be an ecumenical matter. Ultimately, it depends on your definition of "real"... No, this is clearly not from 1912 and it does not show the actual Titanic. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For those unfamiliar with Father Ted, the phrase "that would be an ecumenical matter" was his way of getting out of a difficult conversation. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at the ripples on the water suggests to me that this is a scale model. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And the film quality is way too good to be from a home movie camera in 1912. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the sound. —Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, water shows it to be a very poor scale-model mock-up. How spookily bereft of screaming people it is? Although, if you listen very carefully, you can actually hear Celine already starting to warble... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another reason it's obvious that this isn't the real disaster is the daylight shining in the windows. Presumably this is a movie scene, but I could not guess which of the numerous movies about the disaster, going right back to 1912, it might be. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's funny to imagine some poor schmo going around filming while everyone else is scurrying for lifeboats. It's even funnier to imagine how the camera would have survived. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are, of course, no photographs (let alone movie film) from the actual disaster, but there are photos from earlier the voyage that have survived. They were taken by a man who wasn't going to New York, but rode only from England as far as the stop in Ireland. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * OTOH, if the Titanic were to sink nowadays, would there be passengers taking selfies of it all? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.173.225 (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the lifeboats would come with an emergency supply of selfie-sticks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You bet. I've just watched a documentary about the Costa Concordia disaster filmed entirely on passengers' phones.--Shantavira|feed me 11:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * See sail-by salute.  The idea was for the passengers to take photographs. 79.73.243.183 (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Kashrut
How does one go about making tea on the Sabbath while keeping kosher? Can you use a dispenser of preheated hot water that controls its own temperature with a thermostat, or what? Are there standard fixtures for this? Thanks. Just wondering. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You could wait till sundown. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 1 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I Googled "making tea on shabbat" and How to Make Tea on Shabbat was the first of several pages of results. This suggests that the Texas synagogue is on the liberal side of the Orthodoxy spectrum, so perhaps wouldn't apply the strictest interpretation of the laws. Alansplodge (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alansplodge. And whoops, I somehow garbled the Reuters link before pasting it--fixed now.  Bugs, the question was due to that guy who took hostages in a Texas synagogue a few days ago.  The article doesn't say but I had presumed that the incident happened during the daytime.  Apparently, when the guy first entered the building (and before people knew what he was up to), the rabbi offered to make him some tea.  So I wondered how that was allowed.  2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * After watching tonight's news, I figured out why you were asking. I don't think making tea on the Sabbath would be a problem for the average American rabbi. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Texas synagogue that had hostages taken last Saturday is affiliated with Reform Judaism which is vastly less stringent on matters of kashrut than Orthodox Judaism. Cooking (or making tea and coffee) on Shabbat is commonplace in Reform synagogues. To understand how Orthodox Jews consume hot food and beverages on Shabbat, read Cholent and Blech. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe they have gentile servants?  One beckoned me into their house one Saturday morning to turn a switch.   There is also the eruv, an arrangement of poles and wires which allows you to do things on a Saturday which you couldn't otherwise. 79.73.243.183 (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Our Reform Judaism article says: "A liberal strand of Judaism, it is characterized by lessened stress on ritual and personal observance, regarding Jewish law as non-binding and the individual Jew as autonomous, and great openness to external influences and progressive values". A look at this synagogue's website shows a liberal stance, for instance their support for the LGBT+ community. Alansplodge (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, this question has nothing to do with Kashrut, which is about what you can eat. Observance of Shabbat is an entirely separate concept. --ColinFine (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's mostly true, although the article says "Food prepared in a manner that violates the Shabbat (Sabbath) may not be eaten." That could theoretically include preparation of any food, including tea. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding wikilinks to Melakha, a very detailed article that explains both tea bags and heating water, as well as the dispensation for life-saving activities. Electricity on Shabbat also goes into some of the complications of interpreting these laws in modern life. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Besides the discussion of what is or isn't permitted, and how strictly one or another branch may interpret it, all branches of Judaism interpret preserving life and health in extraordinary circumstances above restrictive dietary laws intended for daily routine, so they could have offered their captor bacon cheeseburgers along with the tea and shared the meal together, if they had judged that that might have helped defuse the situation. Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's the "greater sin" axiom. It may be a sin to violate the Sabbath, but it's a greater sin to allow murder to happen. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

To avoid problems of "cooking" on Sabbath, some Orthodox people will use tea granules or prepare 'tea essence' before Shabbat. Others will use standard tea bags but rely on the concept of kli shlishi - that if the boiling water goes into a cup and then from that cup into a third vessel, it cannot be cooking.

In any case, the water needs to have been brought to the boil before the Sabbath. Our article on the subject Sabbath_food_preparation is pretty poor. In terms of "standard fixtures", almost every Orthodox Jewish home will have what I have only ever heard called an "urn" (might be BrEng Jewish slang), for which we have no article, as urn, samovar and Electric water boiler are all wrong. Argos call it a "hot water urn". It's used to boil the water before Sabbath and it then keeps the water hot. It can't be topped up on Sabbath. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would call one of those an urn, or a tea urn, or an electric urn. You can get gas ones too, which I would call urns, or tea urns, or gas urns. Standard British English, unrelated to religion or ethnicity. Every Scout hut or village hall has at least one. DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked back over some of the previous answers. Yes, a Reform Rabbi would have just made a cup of tea the same way everyone else does, even if it was Sabbath. I'll avoid the horrified Brit comment about the apparent preference Americans have for using microwaves rather than kettles, and the opportunity to make any jokes about that being sacreligious. In terms of the 'gentile servants' comment above, there's only narrow scope for benefiting from a Shabbos goy, although our article only really hints at them. Finally, yes Pikuach nefesh, the preservation of life, would overcome all concerns, even for the most Orthodox and religious Jew you could possibly find. If they genuinely thought it might save a life to use a kettle (or microwave) they not only can, but must do so. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)