Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 May 27

= May 27 =

Hi! There is a dinosaur documentary I would like to stream online and I'm not sure where.
There is a documentary called Dinosaurs: The Final Day with David Attenborough also known as Dinosaur Apocalypse that came out 6 weeks ago and another dinosaur documentary called Prehistoric Planet with Attenborough narrating is on Apple TV Plus. But I don't know where to stream the other new documentary. Does anyone know? Thank you! 2001:569:5262:A00:491E:3D46:C0B2:6CF9 (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dinosaurs: The Final Day with David Attenborough is available to stream on BBC iPlayer.
 * --2603:6081:1C00:1187:91E:A078:65D2:1D26 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC iPlayer programmes are only available to stream to viewers in the UK. The OP is in Canada. There are ways around this restriction involving the use of a VPN service. --Viennese Waltz 08:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP is in Canada, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. You can't edit Wikipedia from a VPN, so the OP is definitely in Canada. --Viennese Waltz 10:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not necessarily true. Logged-in users should have no problem. And not all VPN connections are blocked. This comment is now added through a VPN connection to the U.S.A. from the other side of the world. 50.196.138.188 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooh! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How can I stream the documentary within Canada? I don't live in England. 2001:569:5262:A00:B56E:6276:F0EE:D99 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Officially, you can't watch BBC iPlayer from outside of the UK. British householders have to pay a hefty tax called the Licence Fee to fund the BBC, so the iPlayer is not really a free service to us and it's reasonable to prevent people from other countries watching for nothing. But a Google search brings up numerous alternatives, although what the legal status of these are, I can't say. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The show is on the BBC Earth site here: Dinosaur Apocalypse. BBC Earth is a "channel" or division of BBC Worldwide. Other shows on that site say that they are available on particular networks in particular countries (never including Canada, for some reason). This one, however, offers only "in the UK" under "where to watch". Maybe what's happening here is that they want to make deals with overseas networks to broadcast it, and until a broadcast date is arranged in Canada, it won't be available to download (or watch on demand) there. The site implies that none of these documentaries are ever broadcast in Canada, though, which is strange. Perhaps it's lumping Canada in with "in the US"? In which case it might be on Discovery or PBS, in due course. Card Zero  (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The show is on the BBC Earth site here: Dinosaur Apocalypse. BBC Earth is a "channel" or division of BBC Worldwide. Other shows on that site say that they are available on particular networks in particular countries (never including Canada, for some reason). This one, however, offers only "in the UK" under "where to watch". Maybe what's happening here is that they want to make deals with overseas networks to broadcast it, and until a broadcast date is arranged in Canada, it won't be available to download (or watch on demand) there. The site implies that none of these documentaries are ever broadcast in Canada, though, which is strange. Perhaps it's lumping Canada in with "in the US"? In which case it might be on Discovery or PBS, in due course. Card Zero  (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

US Navy ships named after people
Most (all?) navies name at least some of their ships after people. In the Royal Navy, this always seems to be simply the surname: HMS Scott, HMS Duncan, HMS Nelson, etc. However, in the United States Navy, there seems to be a random fluctuation between surname only and full name, even amongst ships of the same class. For example, the lead ship of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers is the USS Nimitz (not the "USS Chester W. Nimitz"), but all subsequent ships of that class have used full names (although the second ship, now the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, was originally simply the USS Eisenhower). That might suggest a general shift in practice, but other classes show a far more random allocation. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, for example, seem to have switched repeatedly between the two naming conventions: Arleigh Burke, then Barry, then John Paul Jones and Curtis Wilbur, then Stout, then John S. McCain, then Mitscher, and so on (although after Spruance, commissioned in 2011, all subsequent ships of this class appear to have used full names). What is the reason for this? Are there any guidelines (e.g. is the namesake's family asked which they would prefer?), or is it simply up to the personal preference of whichever official is in charge of ship naming on each occasion? Proteus (Talk) 13:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * United States ship naming conventions has some information, but does not seem to directly answer your question... However, there are further references and external links that may help you research the answer. -- Jayron 32 14:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy, goes into some detail about the system (or lack thereof), which it calls "a vibrant ship naming process that works quite well", but might also be called a right old muddle. As with many things in the USA, the whole thing is politicised and in the hands of a politician, the United States Secretary of the Navy. There are traditions and conventions, but each secretary is free to ignore them if he chooses. Added to that, Congress frequently enacts legislation requiring ships to be named after a particular person they wish to honour, the report states that 12 acts of this sort have passed into law since 1989, while a further 28 bills were not enacted, but had to be considered anyway. Another confusion is that presidents are given to announcing ship's names without consulting anyone, Ronald Reagan once announced the naming of a submarine after a senator, which had already been named after a US state. The report also tells the story of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who when asked why the US Navy had abandoned the custom of naming submarines after sea creatures, replied that "Fish don't vote". Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That report is interesting, but it kind of passes quickly over the naming of ship DD 641 for sen. Benjamin Ryan Tillman, a virulent violent racist who was controversial even in his own time -- he was a semi-serious candidate for president in the 1890s until he sabotaged his own candidacy with an extreme speech which shocked the ordinary genteel racists of the day, who usually didn't like to hear things stated in such raw brutal terms... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just once, but twice. Apparently one of those interventions by Congress, nominated on the grounds that he advocated expansion of the US Navy in the run-up to WWI. Alansplodge (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, you may be interested in the Royal Navy system, which since 1918 has had the Ships' Names and Badges Committee, comprised of four members, three being naval officers and one being the Garter King of Arms. They advise the Navy Board, who present the names to the Queen for approval.  Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason may be that some name origins would be unclear were only the surname used: which Jones would be meant by a hypothetical USS Jones, which Wilbur by Wilbur, or even which McCain by McCain? I believe, however, that all presidents get their full name used as a show of additional respect. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is a flaw in the British system; it was unclear whether HMS Dundas was named after George Dundas, John Dundas, Richard Saunders Dundas, Thomas Dundas or James Whitley Deans Dundas, all of them notable British admirals. It turned out to be the latter. Alansplodge (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would note that it gets more confusing than that! Some ships, such as HMS Hood (1891), were named after multiple people. Without looking one wouldn't really know whether any new Hood (not that there would be one) was named after Samuel Hood, Alexander Hood, Horace Hood or yet another Samuel Hood. Not for the faint hearted... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the reason behind the Canadian consulate in Cartagena?
Canada has two embassy/consulates in Colombia: one in Bogotá and one in Cartagena. The one in Bogotá makes perfect sense as that is the capital city. I'm a little puzzled by the choice of Cartagena though. Colombia shows that Cartagena is the fifth largest city in Colombia. When country A has 2 embassy/consulates in country B, it's usually in country B's largest and second largest city.

I can think of some possible reasons for choosing Cartagena (over other larger Colombian cities):

1. large number of Canadian tourist visit Cartagena

2. large number of people immigrate from Cartagena to Canada

3. important trade link between Cartagena and Canada

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that there are several direct flights from the Rafael Núñez International Airport to Canadian cities. They are all seasonal flights, which might support the Canadian tourism theory. Daniel T Wolters (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The roles of embassies and consulates are very different. A country will normally have at most one ambassador, and therefore at most one embassy, in another country with which it has diplomatic relations. The role of an ambassador is to maintain the political relations between their government and that of the host country. The embassy will therefore be located in (or very close to) the seat of government. That is usually the capital city, but in the Netherlands the embassies are in The Hague, not in Amsterdam. The main roles of a consulate are to promote the economic interests of their country (such as by maintaining trade relations), to serve the interests of their citizens in the host country, and issuing visas to prospective visitors. There is no reason other than the cost of maintaining consulates to limit their number. They will usually be found in the economically most important cities, and particularly if these are major ports, like Cartagena. Note that the Canadian embassy in Brazil is in the capital city, Brasilia, but its consulates are elsewhere (Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo). --Lambiam 20:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Daniel T Wolters (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Canadian consul in Cartagena is an 'honorary' consul, which means that he or she isn't a formal member of the diplomatic service and is instead a private citizen employed by Canada. An honorary consul is set in place either because the government needs to extend its consulate services cheaply to an area far from the embassy, or because it believes having honorary consuls in general is something prestigious, important countries do. I suspect the honorary consul in Cartagena is there for the first reason, and (to give an example) the Norwegian honorary consul in Winnipeg, who runs the consulate out of a spare bedroom, is there for the second. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * (EC) I'm not sure the answer to this question, but I'm not convinced the norm is for the largest cities as you suggest. First, as our diplomatic mission article mentions, embassies are generally located in the capital city, generally the administrative capital if there's a split (e.g. Pretoria). There are exceptions for various reasons (Israel is an obvious one) but because a core function of an embassy is to interact with the host government, it makes sense they are in the same area. This means most (or all?) embassies in NZ are located in Wellington although it's only the third largest city. In such cases where the embassy is not located in the largest city, and especially if there is a relative large distance, the most likely location for a consulate is the largest city. Even more so where the population difference is as large as it is in NZ.  (Auckland does have a US consulate-general for example.) However this may still mean as is the case in NZ that the locations are not the first and second largest. (Christchurch does not have a US consulate AFAIK.)  Perhaps more significantly, where the embassy is already located in the largest city, I'd suggest it does not automatically follow that the most obvious location for a consulate is the second largest city. Other factors are likely to come into play a lot especially geography, economy, relative population sizes and in some cases, security. If the two largest cities are relative close together, and the third largest city is quite far apart, has a population not far off the second and perhaps would also be a better choice for a fair chunk of the countries population, I'd imagine it's far more common for the third largest city to host a consulate than the second. Note when I say city, I actually mean urban agglomerations, I think it's rare for a country to have a consulate in a city that is part of the same urban agglomeration as the embassy although our article does mention some countries have multiple buildings for their embassies and they may also have one or more service centres or similar in a particular large urban agglomeration.  To give a sort of example, from what I can tell from China has consulates in Penang, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu. [//my.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/] They do not have one in Johor Bahru [//www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/10/11/johor-keen-to-see-a-china-consulate-in-jb], nor in Ipoh. However from List of cities and towns in Malaysia by population while Penang is the second largest urban agglomeration so makes sense from a pure population standpoint, Kuching is after Johor Bahru and Kota Kinabalu is after Ipoh. But Kuching and Kota Kinabalu are both very far away from Kuala Lumpur being on Borneo/making up East Malaysia, while Johor Bahru is right next to Singapore (admittedly even assuming you could get service in Singapore, it may still be complicated to get to Singapore in the COVID era even if you're a Malaysian citizen with a passport) and not that far from KL (although a similar distance as Penang) and Ipoh is even closer. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a country which has or had a consulate in KK or Kuching or even both, but not Penang.  It's perhaps also important to distinguish between a consulate and an honorary consul as our article explains.  Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)