Humanities desk
< February 26	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 28 >

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.

February 27

Maritime flag protocol

When a merchant ship from country A visits a port in country B, it flies the flag of country B as a courtesy. Of course its own flag/ensign is always on the "main" flagstaff, which is usually on the stern, the host country's flag goes on another mast. Does this rule also apply to warships? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This US Navy document, in section 8, discusses the display of foreign ensigns: "While firing a salute to the nation upon entering a foreign port, returning such salute fired by a foreign wsrship, or firing a salute on the occasion of a foreign national anniversary, celebration or solemnity, a ship shall display the ensign of the foreign nation at the main truck." This salute appears to be mandatory per section 4: "When a ship enters a port of a foreign nation, the government of which is formally recognized by the Government of the United States, she shall fire a salute of 21 guns to that nation..." Several exceptions follow. So under normal circumstances, a US Navy ship must display a host nation's ensign when visiting a foreign friendly port. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm answering only with respect to the US Navy, as you specified no particular nation. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a British yacht club website: "The custom is to wear the maritime colours of the country being visited, known as a ‘courtesy flag’, close up to the starboard cross trees. No other flag should be in a superior position to the courtesy flag, so if that is where you normally fly the club burgee you will need to find somewhere else for it. The courtesy flag for visitors to the UK is the Red Ensign, no matter which part of the UK you are visiting". Just to clarify the language used by the USN above, the main truck is the flag position on the main mast of the ship, like the image on the right. The ship or boat's own national ensign is flown at the back "flag pole", or ensign boom, while the front "flag pole" or jack stay flies the ship's own national flag or "jack" when in port. Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Royal Navy, the answer is: "Her Majesty's ships do not normally hoist courtesy flags when entering, laying alongside or leaving Commonwealth or foreign ports, as the use of courtesy flags is exclusive to the merchant service. Commanding Officers however have discretion to fly a courtesy flag subject to diplomatic advice". See Naval Flags and Ensigns - A Note by the Naval Staff Directorate (p. 8/40). Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this explains the lack of a courtesy flag on a South African warship visiting a British port. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Commonwealth navies still follow British naval customs. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do, the South African Navy is very "British" in many ways. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarians

Closing this before the OP embarrasses themselves more than they already have. --Jayron 32 17:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What portion of the population thinks it's okay to punch male libertarians? Benjamin (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever given a poll on this subject, so it is an unanswerable question. But I think you already knew that. Please don't make political statements and then put a question mark at the end pretending it is a good-faith request for references, when we all know it isn't. --Jayron 32 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Perhaps a better question would be, are there any surveys of radical political ideologies? Benjamin (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to libertarianism?--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some radical anarchists / communists think it's okay to punch male libertarians ^{[citation needed]} and I'm wondering how widespread that view is. Benjamin (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've had enough here. Find another place to do this. It isn't welcome here. --Jayron 32 17:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if you find such a specific poll, but you might have more luck with polls that ask if political violence is acceptable to achieve political ends. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's the sort of thing I'm looking for. And also how it relates to ideologies, and also perhaps the statements of prominent figures of those ideologies. Benjamin (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this question is a reference to this story. As a white male libertarian myself, I found it, of course, provocative. But obviously none of us know what fraction of the population agrees with the provocative assertion, or even whether it includes the person cited as making it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that those guys aren't libertarians, they're neo-Nazis. If a survey asked the question, "Is it OK to punch a Nazi?" you might get a different answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whom you mean by "those guys". Richard Spencer is definitely not a libertarian, although I don't think that makes it OK to punch him. But Monteiro wasn't talking just about Spencer. I don't think the tweet was meant entirely seriously, but it's hard to be sure. --Trovatore (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a libertarian, he's a racist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said he was not a libertarian. Did you read the tweet in question? --Trovatore (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Without knowing more about its author, I can't tell if it's serious or sarcastic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only scientific poll we have on the matter, as presented in evidence, is a tweet from someone saying it's okay to punch male libertarians. So, to answer the OP's question of 'what portion of the population': Roughly one in 320 million. Hope this helps! --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the average pollster would probably say that's too small a sample size for reliable statistical analysis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Did you run an ANOVA?--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that argument holds much water. How many people have tweeted that it is not ok to punch a male libertarian? Anyway isn't it a self selected sample? Plus why the sexist distinction, that doesn't sound right - was the sex distinction something the researcher chose after seeing the results so shouldn't we increase the degrees of freedom by one - which pretty much eliminates the one sample. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the analyst consciously tried to skew the result - it is generally accepted that it is not O.K. to go about punching women. 86.128.236.125 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... unless you're her parent. Or her husband. Or a famous sports star. Or a sports player of any type, really. Or a congressman. Or a chief of staff. Or a cabinet secretary. Or a president. Or white, and she's not. Otherwise, yeah, totally frowned upon. --Golbez (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A more realistic cynic might claim that "Or white, and she's not" has an unnecessarily narrow precondition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]