Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 September 16

= September 16 =

Adverse possession by tenant
Alice and Bob are neighbours who own their homes in a jurisdiction where adverse possession is possible. Alice builds a fence that's partly on Bob's property, without any input from Bob, and uses the land on her side as if it were her property. After the appropriate period of time, she goes through the formalities and obtains ownership via adverse possession. This is rather clear-cut. But imagine that Alice, instead of building a fence, leases her home to Charles, who (with Alice's permission) builds the fence in the same place and treats the piece of Bob's land as if it were part of the property he leases from Alice.

Do most jurisdictions permit Charles to claim the slice of land (since he's the one occupying it), which would result in a third piece of property separating Alice's and Bob's, or do most permit Alice to claim it (since it's being treated as her property), or are both approaches common worldwide among such jurisdictions? Joint ownership by Alice and Charles seems comparatively clumsy, and I assume the typical adverse-possession jurisdiction has statute or case law that specifies how to handle this situation.

Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Note:

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This user is a reference desk regular, having started or contributed to over one hundred threads in the last four years. I think they are aware of the guidelines and are not asking for advice, but are posing a curiosity-driven question how "typical adverse-possession jurisdiction" handles a hypothetical situation such as described in the post. --Lambiam 14:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * So was Bob aware that Alice was encroaching, or did he assume she was acting in good faith?  When the application is received at the Land Registry it will write to Bob as registered owner.   (That assumes his title is registered - it may not be, in which case it's a different story).   This makes it difficult to gain a possessory title by adverse possession.   A claim for adverse possession may not be founded on a tenancy.   Leases exceeding seven years are registered at the Land Registry.   Alice's title may or may not be registered (registration of unregistered land is compulsory on sale).   Charles cannot override Alice's claim, and even if either holding is registered Land Registry plans are not necessarily detailed enough to establish exactly where the boundary lies.   Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer. 2A00:23C3:9900:9401:CC8:65F3:DAAB:99FC (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The question is predicated on the assumption that "the typical adverse-possession jurisdiction has statute or case law that specifies how to handle this situation". Even if it has, one should not assume the resulting jurisprudence is uniform. In any specific case brought to court, the question will arise for each statutory requirement to which extent the claimed possession or occupancy by the claimant meets that requirement. The answer to each of these questions depends on the specifics of the case and may be a difficult judgement call. --Lambiam 14:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of you seem to think that I'm asking about a specific location. I'm interested in finding references to add something on the subject to the adverse possession article, references that are capable of making a general statement on the question.  Lambiam, thank you for interpreting my question correctly, and for correcting my assumption.  Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the scenario you describe, Charles clearly does not have adverse possession of the property, since he is occupying the property with permission and makes no claim to ownership. Alice may have adverse possession, if she meets all of the elements.  "Although not all the customary elements of adverse possession are universally acknowledged, and in some jurisdictions, usually because of specific statutory requirements, there are additional elements stated, courts generally agree that possession, to be adverse so as to vest title in the possessor after the lapse of the statutory period, must be actual, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile, under a claim of right, and continuous and uninterrupted."  Corpus Juris Secundum, Adverse Possession § 26 (2023) (footnotes omitted).  Since Charles, her tenant, was occupying the property with her permission, that probably meets the requirement of actual possession by Alice, although I have not seen the particular case.  John M Baker (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For information: is referring to the specific jurisdiction of the USA.  Other jurisdictions may differ! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is accurate, although I doubt if the distinctions among common law jurisdictions would really make a difference with respect to this particular hypothetical. But certainly the quoted language from CJS refers specifically to American law. John M Baker (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Video
Please, can you help me to find a site where I can be see this Japanese documentary? It doesn't matter if it is without English subtitles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.198.72 (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The Japanese article on the case (jp:富士見産婦人科病院事件) has a list of sources, but does not mention the documentary. Perhaps Fuji TV can help; they have a Contact Us page. --Lambiam 15:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The title of that documentary is on the Japanese site that I've edit here. Can you use it for a search on google or other video sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.113.165 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No part of the text is identified clearly as being the title of the documentary. The page contains twice a box with the text
 * 激動！世紀の大事件III 未解決事件の「謎」と目撃者の「新証言」
 * meaning
 * Upheaval! Great Scandal of the Century III — The "Mystery" of the Unsolved Case and "New Testimony" from (the) Eyewitness(es)
 * Is this the title? If you know of video sites that might host 4+ hour documentaries, you can search for this yourself. --Lambiam 20:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the title. But can you help me for the search? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.128.88 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For a work that very likely has never been licensed for distribution outside of Japan, I'm afraid it's going to be very hard for anyone without a working knowledge of Japanese to get anywhere. You could try asking at the Japanese Wikipedia help desk for non-jp speakers, and/or somewhere else people who have fluency in both jp and English or another language you are fluent in may be found. Keep in mind of course that you are requesting that people volunteer to help you, and are under no obligation to do so. 47.155.41.104 (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Has Lincoln read Karl Marx?
Many people do not know that Marx also wrote for the magazine New York Daily Tribune. Rumor has it that from the phrases in Lincoln's speeches, one can tell that he probably must have read his column. Is this true? 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:6C4A:87FC:1D83:DCB6 (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * See this article in the Washington Post: AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't read that article, but I can read Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, which has various "experts" saying "The two men were friendly and influenced each other" and "there is no evidence that Lincoln ever read or absorbed Marx's economic theories. In fact, it's unlikely that Lincoln even knew who Karl Marx was" and that "Lincoln's ties to Marx, including the letter from Marx addressed to Lincoln, "should be alarming for conservative Americans." and "for genuine believers in the Framers' Constitution."" So you pays your money and you takes your choice. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the article linked by AndyTheGrump, Lincoln and Marx “had many mutual friends, read each other’s work and, in 1865, exchanged letters.” John M Baker (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Raghuvaṃśa text, Requesting some help

 * A mention in The Hindu news report says, "..rajdanda** or dharmadanda   .. finds mention in Kalidasa’s epic poem Raghuvamsa, .., .. When Dilipa moved to the forest after embracing asceticism, he passed on the symbols of power to his son Raghu and the rajdanda was one of them,  ..". Looking for help in confirming the same with credible primary and/or secondary sources for cross- verification purposes.


 * rajdanda = Indian sceptre

Thanks &#32;Bookku   (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you tried the 1902 translation by Johnstone? Folly Mox (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At least control Find did not give any result for regular expressions like 'Sceptre' 'Scepter' etc. Idk if I am missing on any term since that is old translation. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I skimmed through the bits where Dilipa and Raghu are both present (pages 22–27), and nothing in the Johnstone translation mentions any kind of rod, staff, wand, or sceptre. It's unclear what he might have translated the term as. Folly Mox (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A different translation implies that the reference is in VIII:16. The translation is given as Raghu and his son, bearing (respectively) the emblems of the ascetic and the king.
 * A footnote on page 200 explains what you probably already know, The principal emblems of royalty are the throne, the sceptre… etc.; and those of a recluse are the deer-skin, the staff….)
 * However, the actual text does not use any form of the word danda as it is just referring to the symbols in general. (Actual words: yatipārthivaliṅgadhāriṇau dadṛśāte raghurāghavau janaiḥ| apavargamahodayārthayorbhuvamaṁśāviva dharmayorgatau ||.) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

130 seconds advertisements
Hi. I've heard somewhere before that superbowl ads are the most expensive ad spots. I googled around and found that everything was just as I expected: superbowl ads are expensive and they come in 30 seconds increments (ad lengths are multiples of 30, so 30-60-90-etc). This "30 seconds increment" thing is congruent with most other TV advertisements that I have seen.

However, I also came across this link that lists multiple 130 second long ads. A few things stand out here:

1. 130 is not a multiple of 30.

2. There are at least 3 of them, so this is "once-off" thing's specially negotiated. It seems to be an industry standard.

Is there any particular reason why it's 130 seconds, as opposed to 120 seconds? Is 130 seconds somehow related to the sport of American football? (I know absolutely nothing about football.)

If I had to take a wild guess, then I'd guess that maybe there's some sort of e.g. 190 seconds intermission where ads can be shown, and thus you can fit a 130 seconds ad and two 30 second ads in there. (Again, I know absolutely nothing about football.) Satoshit1 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No, there is nothing in American football that stops the game for 130 seconds -- unless the broadcaster has negotiated commercial breaks that long. They might make it the normal practice to include a 10-second ad for some upcoming programming on their network, but sometimes choose to omit it in favor of a longer paid ad, or something of that kind. --142.112.221.246 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Might they have been shown during halftime? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The adds listed as "130 seconds", such as Alexa: "Mind Reader", are actually 1:30 long. --Lambiam 13:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup… typo… 1:30 minutes or 90 seconds. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But even so, she appears to have been overcharged (6.5 million per 30 seconds = 19.5 million and she paid 26 million). 2A00:23C3:9900:9401:30AA:25D5:B09F:DD08 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * $6,500,000/30 = about $216,667 per second. 216667*130 = about 28,166,667.  Much closer to $26 million.  Sounds like a 130-second advertisement.  Since Lambiam proved that 130 seconds is an error, maybe your "this link" also got the money wrong?  Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Identify the people in the photo
I just transferred this file from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons. One of the men is a certain Ben Russell. We have articles on quite a few men named Ben Russell, two of whom are English rugby players. Is any of them the man in the photo? Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ben Russell is "CCO, TAE Power Solutions", whatever that might be (probably Chief communications officer). See, which also includes this image. He's the bloke with the yellow tie, cf. . --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ben Russell is Chief Commercial Officer of TAE Power Solutions. Huh, I’m more used to CCO standing for chief compliance officer. John M Baker (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Non-denominationalism and Evangelicalism
Full disclosure: this comes up because commons:Category:Non-denominational churches is currently a subcat of commons:Category:Evangelical churches by denomination. This struck me as wrong, not in the sense of "is non-denominationalism a denomination," which I'm not interested in arguing over, but because it doesn't strike me that non-denominationalism is necessarily a part of Evangelicalism. To further complicate the matter, User:Nathan B2, who made the relevant edit on Commons is also the person who made the corresponding edit on Wikipedia, adding text that is not entirely clear in its meaning and removing quite a bit of cited material in the process, so I'm not willing to just trust what the Wikipedia article has to say about this. I tried asking a couple of days ago on the talk page of Nondenominational Christianity, but no one is answering there, so I'm trying here instead.

The question, simply put: is non-denominationalism necessarily a subset of Evangelicalism? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 22:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * From our Nondenominational Christianity article;
 * Nondenominational churches are recognizable [sic] from the evangelical movement, even though they are autonomous and have no other formal labels [with three citations]
 * So the answer seems to be yes, non-denominationalism is generally a subset of Evangelicalism. Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This may be true in most cases, especially in the US or in churches founded by US missionaries, but there are also many independent Pentecostal churches in the US and worldwide. And there are scattered other nondenominational churches. As it is hard to put a label on them, they are often not very visible, a sad counterexample being the Westboro Baptist Church, which is unaffiliated Primitive Baptist. --Lambiam 13:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This webpage is worth reading. 2A00:23C3:9900:9401:30AA:25D5:B09F:DD08 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Alansplodge, the text you quoted was added to the Nondenominational Christianity article by the same editor the OP is questioning the position of (in the same diff linked in the original question, in fact), and so cannot be taken as an authoritative second opinion within the context of this question. Folly Mox (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In practice? Commonly, especially in the US.  Necessarily?  No.  Congregationalism is a belief that each local congregation ought to be independent, i.e. non-denominational.  Our Congregational church article covers churches that adhere to congregationalism in some sense, including (ironically) many that are now part of denominations.  Historic Congregationalism (think the Pilgrim Fathers) is/was very similar to today's conservative Presbyterians except for the church government issue, and very different from today's evangelicals.  Presbyterians and historic Congregationalists (known as Independents) comprised the Westminster Assembly in London, which created the Westminster Standards, a set of doctrinal statements.  Conversely, today's evangelicals (particularly in the non-denominational sense) typically reject doctrinal statements, or reject doctrinal statements beyond a few short points.  Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason for the "in practice, commonly, especially in the US", by the way, is historic movements of the last century and a half. Many denominations, especially the larger Mainline Protestant denominations, began rejecting historic Christian teachings, such as supernatural concepts (e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus) and the idea that following Christianity was necessary for salvation.  Many evangelicals within those denominations believed it best to leave the established denominations so they weren't influenced by them, and instead of joining smaller denominations or starting their own, many decided to create non-denominational churches.  (The idea is that if a denomination changes its theology, every congregation in that denomination will be affected by those changes, even if it rejects them, while if that congregation isn't part of a denomination, it won't be affected.)  Of course, congregations who agreed with these changes had no motivation to leave their established denominations, so evangelical congregations formed the vast majority of the new non-denominational movement.  Conversely, similar changes had taken place in New England Congregationalism (including the congregation founded by the Pilgrims) in the early 19th century, resulting in many thoroughly non-evangelical non-denominational churches, but eventually they formed the American Unitarian Association.  I suppose there might be independent churches of this type, but they're a very minor movement.  Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * PS, one can occasionally find yet another type of non-denominational non-evangelical church: a merger between two congregations that aren't evangelical and aren't part of the same denomination, so they're functionally not really part of a single denomination. First United Church in Bloomington, Indiana, USA, was formed by the merger of First Baptist Church (then a member of the American Baptist Convention, if I remember rightly) and a United Church of Christ congregation.  From their website, talking about a pre-merger Baptist pastor: He led the congregation from the 1930s through the 1960s and made First Baptist a leading progressive force in the community, a tradition we continue today.  If I remember rightly from when I lived nearby (moved away nearly a decade ago), they're vaguely associated with both the ABC and the UCC, but obviously that functionally means they're non-denominational.  Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * All of your comments are a very helpful contribution to this discussion, but I think there are some difficulties. The first paragraph seem to be arguing that non-denominational Christianity is not necessarily evangelical because the Congregational churches are not denominational and they are not all evangelical. However, unless this argument is a tautology, this assumes that 'big-C' Congregational churches are a subset of all churches without denominational affiliations, even though all of them could be described as 'small-c' congregational churches. I think that that is right: merely being unaffiliated with other churches does not make a church big-C Congregational, since that label has become attached to a particular tradition (originally English and Reformed; subsequently the state church of parts of New England; today largely Unitarian as you rightly say). However, that also raises the possibility that there could be a big-N Non-denominational tradition as well, as another subset of all churches without denominational affiliations. There are researchers who think so, such as William Swatos Jr who argued in Beyond Denominationalism?: Community and Culture in American Religion that non-denominational are (to put his argument very crudely) the denominational impulse expressed in a form appropriate to US culture. (There are also more helpful and up-to-date treatments in unpublished theses and conference papers, but that's not citable on Wikipedia.) And that raises the question is whether our Nondenominational Christianity article should describe this developing tradition or all churches that disclaim denominational affiliations. They are both subjects worth of encyclopedic study that could be covered in that article. Matt's talk 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like en-wiki has something to work through here in its article(s) on the topic. Could someone let me know when en-wiki gets this clear, so that I can try to carry the structure through to Commons? (This is the sort of thing where we—Commons—usually follow en-wiki.) I also believe that this split into two related topics almost certainly should be reflected with two Wikidata items. (In fact, the concepts seem distinct enough to merit two Wikidata items even if en-wiki doesn't split the article.)

By the way, it looks like the Spanish-language article es:Cristianismo no confesional takes the broader sense, making only one mention of Evangelicalism. The Portuguese pt:Cristianismo não denominacional looks like it probably derives from the Spanish-language article. The French fr:Christianisme non dénominationnel is even more focused on the broad sense of the term. So at the moment, of these articles in Western European languages linked to one Wikidata item, the English-language article seems to be alone in leaning toward defining non-denominationalism as a current within Evangelicalism. I can't speak to the other linked articles, because they are in languages I don't read.

Since I've digressed into commenting on the article: the statement "Nondenominational churches are recognizable from the evangelical movement&hellip;" is extremely unclear, and at least the first of its cited sources does not contain the term "non-denominationalism" or "nondenominationalism". I'm going to leave it there: not an area in which I have expertise or I wouldn't have been here asking in the first place, but I can tell a mess when I see one. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 18:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have applied some elementary cleaning up. The section remains a sequence of disjointed statements, though, and the section title "Characteristics" is a misnomer. --Lambiam 20:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It also covers the US pretty exclusively, when this is probably a bigger thing in Africa, which is not mentioned. I've added a globalize tag. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added some comments on the talk page. And with that, I'm probably getting out of this: really not my area of expertise.A Again, if this gets sorted out in a way that should affect Commons categorization, please let me know. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 21:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Nondenominationalism isn't a subset of evangelicalism, but at the intersection there's a notable phenomenon of nondenominational evangelicalism. At Pew Research Center you can find different stats for nondenominational evangelicals vs nondenominational family, mainline tradition. See also . It may make sense to have "nondenominational evangelicalism" category that's a subcat of both. --Amble (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A sister chapel of the Union Chapel also featured in this week's "Open House" listings .  There's a reference to "missionary activities".   These are of the very essence of evangelical Christianity. 2A00:23C0:7984:5101:F828:91E4:4C6C:ED82 (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)