Humanities desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 7

Historical Precedent For A Diplomatic Action

I need a historical precedent or event that would justify a sovereign state telling other countries what actions to take regarding either possible terrorist threats or extraterrestrial contact. I need only one event or action by any countries in the past and I need it ASAP.76.88.39.179 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not easy to understand but I think you are asking for an example of an ultimatum. There are many examples -- an ultimatum is often the last step before declaring war. For example, the United States issued an ultimatum to Afghanistan demanding that it turn over Osama bin Laden and others after the 9/11 attacks. Does that meet your needs? Looie496 (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage ratios

The impression I get from my local newspaper's "public records" section is that female-female marriages outnumber male-male by about 5:1. Is this typical? --67.160.38.148 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This story states that one (somewhat limited) survey of 500 gay couples that were either already married or engaged to be, 75% were female-female. --Jayron32 06:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics from the UK for civil partnerships (not marriage but in most respects the same) show slightly more male: 29,319 male and 22,145 female, total 53,417. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NZ is somewhat in between these two. According to Civil union in New Zealand and [1] (Excel file), female same sex couples outnumbered males in every year since the introduction until the end of 2012. (However there were more male same sex civil unions than opposite sex civil unions in each year except 2010 where it was equal.) In terms of numbers, slightly under 60% of same sex civil unions were female in the whole period. (Or slightly over 46% of all civil unions.) With the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, Same-sex marriage in New Zealand will become available on 19th August 2013, so some statistics will be available, next year (probably before), more decent ones perhaps after 2015 (two full years and comparison between the years will give an idea if there was an initial rush).

Note that the differences within NZ between civil unions and marriage is small and only really relate to adoption. And even without a civil union, most of the same protections and requirements apply to a couple living together in a relationship similar to marriage or a civil union after 2 or 3 years. The only big difference is in adoption, where traditionally only married couples were able to adopt as a couple although a recent court case appears to have extended this to a opposite sex couple in a long term defacto relationship [2] but also expressed the opinion that this would most likely not be extended further [3] (suggesting it would not be extended to same sex couples). With the recent law change allowing same sex couples to marry, this would also allow them to adopt as a couple [4] so it's possible adoption would be extended to any couples in a civil union or long term de facto relationship (presuming the adoption act isn't amended or rewritten in the meantime). Non family adoptions are very rare in NZ so it's usually suggested the actual effect is likely to be small [5]. I say all this not to defend the practice but simply because it's usually suggested one of the reasons for the low rates in NZ (our marriage rate is also fairly low) is because many couples don't bother or do so later (meaning presuming there is no difference which seems unlikely but let's assume for simplicity, some couples will simply never marry or enter a civil union because their relationship is already broken up before they reach that stage) as there's less impetus to do so. However Kiwis like to travel so beyond the obvious preference a number of couples may have for marriage due to the history and social implications of the institution and name (which may turn some off but also draw many, particularly same sex couples long denied the right), there is also the advantage in that countries are generally more likely to recognise a marriage than a civil union.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles related to the question: Boston marriage, Same-sex marriage. Edison (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace culture and cya

Hi all, I was talking with someone about something a third party had done, and I referred to the actions as just "a case of third party X just covering himself." The person I was talking to baulked rather heavily at what I had said, and told me to be very careful not to say this to him. I was not going to tell the person anyway, for I knew that such a statement was not actually a compliment, but I was surprised at the reaction. It was as if my interlocutor was saying it was outright inflammatory. Is this an acknowledged part of workplace culture, that you have to be extremely careful when referring to someone as "just covering themself"? Would it ordinarily be inflammatory? I had never heard of this before, even though covering oneself is a reality of the modern workplace. Everyone does it, so why do we care? IBE (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some circumstances, and if "just covering oneself" is taken to imply avoiding responsibility or covering up a mistake rather than fixing or reporting a problem, it might be explicitly against company policy and a disciplinary offence.

ObPersonal: I used to work in the Pharmacological Industry; personnel were both required and encouraged to report any errors of action or documentation they made because (a) to err is human and nobody never makes a mistake, and (b) a concealed problem or falsified documentation might lead to an incorrectly formulated medicine being created or not withdrawn, which in the worst case could kill someone. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on it : Cover your ass. It is something that people do in many types of work: industry, academic research labs, or the military. When a boss wants to skirt the rules, and things go wrong or the practice is exposed, a subordinate may become the "fall guy" or scapegoat. To avoid this, the subordinate may email the boss a "cover your ass memo," in which he documents that his action or inaction was at the boss's direction. E.G., "Per your instructions, I stored the prepared lunches in the refrigerator, even though the cooler is not working properly." or "As you instructed, I shipped the new computers without running the quality control test." or "Per your direction, I will not include the lab rats which died in the totals for the study of the new drug." This takes away an element of deniability that the boss would otherwise enjoy. This is an alternative to refusing to do something without written instructions. Naturally, the boss might prefer that the subordinate not do this, feeling that a truly loyal subordinate would trust the boss, or that a politician's assistant would "take a bullet" for the politician. When things go wrong, and the memo comes out, it could put the bosses job on the line, and some bosses would consider it insubordination, or malicious compliance, or they will reply "Are you insane? I never told you to do x," at which point the subordinate can do the work properly. A coworker in the days before computers said she had a file of such memos going back years, from every job she had ever held. In the era of computers, a different co-worker sent copies of all his emails to his home computer where he archived them on CDs, since on any given day he might be fired and denied access to his office computer account. The COYA memo might not save the employee's job, but he might get the satisfaction of paying the boss or the employer back, as well as avoiding some repercussions of a catastrophe he warned against. Some consider COYA memos as "cowardly, shameful and a sign of distrust." But they help the boss out when he has a little memory failure about how he told you to do the thing that turned out badly. Much the same thing is achieved by emailing a "memo of understanding" to the other parties after a meeting, to clarify and document what was decided, and this also avoids you doing something that was discussed but then not really confirmed as a course of action. More on "cover your ass memos: Donald Rumsfeld, Edison (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19th century Chinese decline

I have read often that the Manchu Qing Dynasty was the blame for the decline of China during the 19th century specifically focusing on the Manchu aspect of the dynasty. Would China had fair better with a Han-ethnic ruling dynasty? Corruption and stagnation seems to a thing that transcend all the dynasties of China, non-native or native? Also would China had fair better under a dynasty at its peak rather than in decline like the Qing was during this period. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you mean "Would China have fared better ...?" in your first question.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-discussion about speculation

This calls for "what-if" speculation of a kind we don't do here. Rojomoke (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the hat of of the above user as this is not a speculative query. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with Rojomoke here. Can you explain why it's not speculative, Cookatoo? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close again per Rojomoke, Jack and Myself. We have no references to offer. (The "would have" analysis is also incorrect....) μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove hat. Ignorance of a topic is no reason to deny others a chance to provide a meaningful answer. I also have not come across any citable analysis of this question, but there may well be relevant research out there. Several aspects of the question's scope seem like viable research topics. For example, the question seems to ask "to what extent did the Qing dynasty's Manchu customs and practices impact the outcome of China's interaction with the outside world in the 19th century"? The answer might look at the clan-based social organisation, stratification of society along ethnic lines (to the extent this was still an issue in the 19th century), the banner-based military organisation (or lack of organisation thereof), dynastic succession procedures, etc. For another example, the question seems to ask "had China's interactions with the outside world in the 19th century had occurred in the 18th century instead, would the outcome have been different"? The answer might look the personality differences between the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors, the different levels of comparative military power, or the different military alignments at the time.

To put it simply, the question poses hypotheticals of a sort which could support genuine academic research, so it is a legitimate question that is capable of being answered with references. If User:Clio the Muse was still around and if Qing China was an area of her interest, we would've had some very nice answers by now, with footnotes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, you're saying we can provide references in which other people speculate to their hearts' content, but we ourselves cannot speculate. Is that how our policy is supposed to work? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my understanding of how the reference desk works. We provide references that have answers: any question that deals with future or hypothetical matters, and many that deal with current matters, necessarily involve a degree of speculation. If we start cutting out any question that requires speculation in answering, the reference desk would be a lot poorer as a resource. If someone asks for next year's forecast world GDP growth, that can be answered very well by linking to the World Bank or IMF's forecast. Similarly, if someone asks for what would have happened had Whitlam not accepted the dismissal, there are also ample sources, both scholarly and primary, to which the questioner could be directed.

In my view, questions are inappropriate only if they cannot reasonably conceivably be answered with a reference. Questions that directly ask the reference deskers for their opinion ("what do you think about...") is probably also not proper, but I think the appropriate response in that case is to (1) tell the questioner we cannot provide opinions, and (2) if possible, give them directions to reliable sources - in other words reading the question as if it was asking for opinions in reliable sources, not those of reference deskers themselves.

In any case, not all of this question was specualtive - at least some of it was quite inoffensive even on a wide interpretation of the speculation rule. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. My concern is that if an OP asked "What would have happened if ...", and we provide references giving people's opinions about what would have happened, we're not really answering the question. Problem is, nobody knows what would have happened if, and all we can ever know is what prominent commentators believe would have happened. We can provide those refs as long as we qualify them acordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key differences between Manchus and Hans are language and culture. Neither was the likely main cause of the fall of the Qing Dynasty. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Tennyson Turner

Why did Charles Tennyson Turner use the surname Turner? Was it to differentiate himself from his brother? RNealK (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"1 October 1835 ‎(Age 27)‎ Changed his last name to Turner when he inherited the property of his great-uncle, Rev. Samuel Turner of Caistor, Lincolnshire." [6] I'm not sure about this case, but it was sometimes stipulated in the will that the beneficiary had to change their surname in order to perpetuate the family line, albeit in a rather artificial way. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For one example of Alansplodge's point about inheritance and name changes, see Benjamin Hallowell Carew. - Ka renjc 23:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my favourite, Hedworth Lambton, who cheerfully abandoned his aristocratic surname to inherit the brewery fortune of Valerie, Lady Meux, an eccentric heiress and former barmaid, who had taken a shine to him. Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how many turn up when you start looking. I found the third paragraph Lawson baronets#Lawson, later Howard-Lawson baronets, of Brough Hall (1841; Second creation) fascinating as an example of the survival of this kind of thing into the modern age (and the problems it can produce), and updated it slightly with new sources. - Ka renjc 10:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some brief details to the Charles Turner article, based on the ref that I linked above. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there only one hospital and school in Monaco?

I recently learnt that Monaco has a population of 35000 where it has a area of 2 sq km. Really I am having a tough time understand this. My very basic questions?

Are there only flats or are there individual houses?
Is there only one school the Lycee Albert Premier?
Is there only one hospital the The Princess Grace Hospital Centre?

Help appreciated. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Monaco blows your mind, consider the Vatican City, which is a sovereign state whose entire land area is 0.44 sq km, ~~which would be a space 22 meters by 20 meters.~~ --Jayron32 21:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to check your maths, Jayron. I make it 663 x 663 metres. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. I missed the squared bit. Good catch. Still, that's about the size of a small-to-middle sized suburban subdivision. --Jayron32 00:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I know vatican city very well but Monaco is strange. It has a gambling industry yet no school or hospital. If a man falls sick where he goes for treatment. To casino! That is what blows my mind. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco has several schools - read the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what about hospital? Do Monacons never fell ill? Solomon7968 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you've linked to one hospital in your question. There's also the Cardio-thoracic center of Monaco. Btw, the people of Monaco are called Monegasques. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not monacots? Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See hospitals in Monaco and schools in Monaco. I think that Monegasques can be hospitalized in France, if needed, and go to French schools too. — AldoSyrt (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer the original question, there are indeed almost no individual houses in Monaco. The entire principality is built over, and services that cannot be provided within the borders can readily be found in nearby French villages and cities. It's not as if the place is surrounded by a moat or a border wall; one can get in and out with nor formalities (establishing residence there is more complex). --Xuxl (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Xuxl Can you elaborate "nor formalities". It is after all a sovereign country. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I last visited 20 some years ago, but at the time there was no border crossing, no need to show a passport, just a sign on the road stating you were now in the Principality of Monaco. That was even before the Schengen Agreement, so I doubt it's gotten any harder to enter the country. Se here for details [7] --Xuxl (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, when camping near Grasse I chatted to some Americans who had driven into Monaco but found nowhere to park in the entire nation-state, so had driven away again. Therefore I never visited that country. I have visited Andorra, of which the capital is one long shopping street ("venta") and the Vatican, of which much is a museum. 23:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)