Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< September 7 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 9 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


September 8

[edit]

UK's literature, contemporary of Savile's time

[edit]

I was going through the article Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. It seemed there were multiple substantial institutional failures in addressing abuses in timely manner. When regular systems fail to provide justice to a large number of people, there would be some chance some of the victims or those who are closely aware of the plight would raise issue through literary media like allegorical poems, fiction, letters, autobiographies etc.

The Wikipedia article in popular culture takes note of documentaries and plays after inquiry into the scandal.

But specially UK's Savile's contemporary literary scene in his own life time would have been vibrant enough so are their any likely reflections of his misdeeds in his contemporary literature. Part of the time period people had access to blog writing tools so any examples of the victims expressed themselves through blogs etc. Then consider contemporary academic Gender studies reports too.

If not then why do even literate people having literary writing skills fail to take even fictionalized note of not so ideal experiences around them.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to answer a question which asks why something didn't happen. Our article describes how he was protected to an extent by his reputation as a supporter of charities and all-round public hero, which turned out to be a front for his darker activities. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of people blew the whistle on Savile to the press. Without exception editors spiked the story, until it was eventually run by The Oldie. 2A00:23C4:570A:601:1139:8157:25CB:4FEA (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Govt. Institutions and Economic Development

[edit]

what could be the possible approaches to economic development that federal arms of government (judiciary, legislative and executive) may take in their own spheres? Grotesquetruth (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enacting laws (Legislative branch), executing laws (Executive branch), and enforcing laws (Judicial branch) comes to mind DOR (HK) (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
impact assesment of government branches in catalysing economic development. Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of homicide detectives

[edit]

Wikipedia automatically redirects homicide detective to homicide, which contains no law enforcement section. I was thinking the other day about how both pop culture and the actual real-life cops I know consider homicide to be the worst crime and therefore the homicide detective to be the highest or at least noblest distillation of law enforcement; like, nobody's making TV series about the detectives investigating fraud or writing books about the burglary squad. Do we have anything on when the earliest dedicated homicide squads were formed within police departments? I have a gut feeling they didn't exist pre-WWII but maybe coalesced as a full-time job around the 1960s or 1970s. Dr-ziego (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Homicide Squad, a 1931 crime film, indicates your timeline is incorrect. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we are using fiction for evidence, the Sherlock Holmes stories depict Inspector Lestrade and Inspector Gerard of Scotland Yard … who are in charge of investigating homicides in the late 1800s. However, they might have also investigated other crimes. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely pointing out that the term and concept must have been well-known enough in the '30s that filmmakers were comfortable using it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or that the concept was novel enough to make a striking title. —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, London's Metropolitan Police, whose headquaters are known as Scotland Yard (actually, it has been three different buildings in different locations over time), created a Criminal Investigation Department in 1878, replacing an earlier Detective Branch which had been found to be corrupt. [1] As far as I can tell, no British police force has a department specifically dedicated to investigating murders, they deal with other crimes too. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the relevant article is Murder#Investigation, but it's a one-liner at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst Gennat was the first head of the Zentrale Mordinspektion (central homicide inspectorate) of the Berlin police, the unit being established in 1926. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In The New York Times, the phrase "homicide bureau" is used as early as January 31, 1902, referring to a branch of the District Attorney's office which evidently worked closely with the police but which was not a part of the NYPD. It is clearly characterized as an investigative section in the issue of February 19, 1902. The last mention of this homicide bureau in connection with the District Attorney occurs in the issue of March 12, 1906. In the issue of November 28, 1908, reference is made to a "homicide bureau at Police Headquarters". Presumably the District Attorney's homicide bureau was reorganized to be under police control at some time between these latter two dates. Shells-shells (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are NYC poll workers treated so poorly?

[edit]

Till it apparently rose recently to $250 they only gave a flat $130/day for being an election observer from 5am till the precinct gave final count which could be like 10pm. Plus $25 (now $100) for 4 hours of training (thankfully on a weekend). One old white guy did this every year for less than $8 an hour though at least they never asked him to travel far. They must be willing to commute to the rest of their county however so since half have to be registered to each party a lot of these workers are probably waking up about 4am and immediately rushing there and not getting to sleep till 10:30+. Most Staten Island Democrats are on the North Shore and they'd have to commute there up to about 13 miles at a time and place with very poor public transportation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was an election worker in Napa County, California for many years and the circumstances you describe were very similar there. I certainly did not do it for the money but rather as a civic duty, a point of pride, and to learn the nuts and bolts of democracy at the lowest level. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do it for free one time to see what it's like if I was guaranteed the second half shift and once more for free to see the first shift if I could do it jet lagged but I'd never do 17-hours more than once without a lot of money. And what if you have to stay till the wee hours waiting for someone to fix a voting machine bug? My circadian rhythm is a night owl trap: I've tried every way to get sleepy earlier for jury duty, school etc including sleeping pills and staying awake up to 40 hours and the quickest and easiest way is to spend about 3 weeks sleeping a little later every day till I went almost all the way around. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and I are different and I was happy to do it once or twice a year for about 15 years although I am not a morning person. I was self-employed so I had the luxury of taking Tuesday and Wednesday off work. I would sleep in after the long day of hard work in the precinct, and then read about and watch the election results the next day. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS W. F. Babcock

[edit]

While reading Golden Gate, I noticed an image of a 1920's postage stamp showing the Golden Gate with two ships sailing through. The most prominent is a square rigged sailing ship and the one in the distance has a plume of smoke. The Golden Gate article says that the USS W. F. Babcock is portrayed. The Babcock article says that the Babcock was a wooden schooner-rigged coal barge with no engine and a crew of six, that operated on the east coast of the U.S. during World War I. Would the Navy have sent such an inconsequential east coast vessel all the way to San Francisco, or (as seems more likely), is this a misidentification? If so, is there any way to learn which sailing ship is shown? And when did the US Navy stop using sailing ships without engines? Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letters from voyages aboard the ship W. F. Babcock, 1883-1887 "Each letter documents a voyage in W. F. Babcock (Ship), including five between San Francisco (CA) and Liverpool (ENG)." Though doesn't appear to be any service 1917-1919 on the west coast. The citation in Golden Gate has "A painting by W.A. Coulter inspired the vignette. The full-rigged ship depicted in the painting and on the stamp was reportedly the “W.F. Babcock.”". Should probably be looking for a connection to the painting. fiveby(zero) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Err, maybe linked to wrong painting? fiveby(zero) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this looks like Glory of the Seas off Fort Mason 1912[2]. fiveby(zero) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed "schooner-rigged" in your post, here's a photo of W. F. Babcock so it looks like we need to find a good reference to clean up all the WP articles. fiveby(zero) 20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury promotions

[edit]

In March, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak were appointed Lords Commissioners of the Treasury [3]. Why was it done at that time, given that both were being investigated by police and received criminal records shortly thereafter? 2A00:23C4:570A:601:1139:8157:25CB:4FEA (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixed penalty notices issued for offences under coronavirus legislation are non-recordable" says the website of the Criminal Records Office. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These weren't "promotions", and they were re-appointed, not appointed. Both had been in those positions since 2020. As our article (Lords Commissioners of the Treasury) explains, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer are always the First and Second Lords of the Treasury, and the junior lords are assistant whips in the House of Commons. All that happened in March is that some of the junior lords were reshuffled, but as they are all always appointed as a single commission, the proclamation is worded as if all are appointed at the same time. Proteus (Talk) 16:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regnal name of UK monarch

[edit]

RIP QE2, long live KC3. The TV reported QE2 had passed, so I looked on Wikipedia to find out the new monarch's regnal name which turns out to be Charles III.

I have the impression that prior to QE2, becoming the UK monarch was like becoming Pope, in that you'd pick a name for yourself that only sometimes was your everyday given name. For example, QE2's father George VI was known as Prince Albert before his accession. George was one of his other given names. Similar happened with Queen Victoria.

Has that somehow changed? I don't mean to say Charles III's regnal name is a surprise, but was it completely predictable, or would another choice have also been a non-surprise? Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the name Charles III is official yet. There's a move discussion going on right now on the talk page. wizzito | say hello! 19:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This says he will be known as King Charles III. wizzito | say hello! 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was talk, a few years ago, that he might take George instead - e.g. https://metro.co.uk/2018/04/27/will-prince-charles-called-king-king-george-vii-7503245/ -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
King George VI was known to his family as Albert (or Bertie), but George was one of his names. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that Queen Victoria wished that no King of England should ever bear the regnal name 'Albert' to avoid overshadowing her Prince Consort, and that George VI changed his name for this reason. However, I can not now find a reliable source for this. -- Verbarson  talkedits 21:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been the official line but this biography (p. 252) quotes MP Chips Channon, who claimed that the then Duke of York had chosen George instaed of "Albert which people will think too Germanic". It was less than 20 years after the Great War. He was always called David in the family, so probably wasn't too attached to the name Albert. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't it George VI's brother Edward VIII who was known as David? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, quite right, Albert was "Bertie". The perils of late-night editing. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Watching BBC TV coverage, they were initially careful not to use any reganal name, saying that it hadn't been decided yet. The title Charles III was first used by the prime minister, Liz Truss, in her speech [4] about an hour after the Queen's death had been announced. This was confirmed a few minutes later in a seperate statement by Clarence House, Charles's office in London. It's his choice but does need to be confirmed by parliament in the form of the Accession Council, which will probably do its thing tomorrow. It's a bit of a formality, but it reminds us that the King only reigns with the consent of the people. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember reading on the contrary that Queen Victoria wanted all her successors to be named either Albert or Victor(ia); but of course her son Albert Edward said phooey to that. —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such a missed opportunity. He could have been Arthur. It's even one of his given names. How can you resist? --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]
We almost had a King Arthur a while back; see Arthur, Prince of Wales who died in a pandemic. Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowering lower than half-mast

[edit]

Were there any events where flag(s) was/were lowered lower than half-mast to show outstanding mourning? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t speak about the entire world, but in the US the official etiquette is that the flag is flown full or at half staff. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The convention in the UK and the Commonwealth is that the flag be lowered about one-third the way down the staff, [5] but some suggest only a flag-width down. [6]. Other nations may have their own ideas. Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, that would trigger a race to the bottom to prove how patriotic you were, until they were dragging in the mud. — kwami (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a passage in the United States Flag Code that no part of the flag should ever touch the ground ("should never touch anything physically beneath it" is the actual wording). I'm sure there are similar official or non official rules in other places. So lower than half mast is a risk. Xuxl (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

modern jurisdictions follow either a common law/civil law or sometimes a mixed legal system. why were these legal systems exactly formed? what is the idea behind the concept 'legal system'? Does legal system mean the judiciary system? Grotesquetruth (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sections Common law § Origins and Civil law (legal system) § Origin and features answer your question? The term "legal system" refers to the totality of the body of laws of a jurisdiction, which also includes the rules on how these laws are administered.  --Lambiam 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 --Lambiam by " totality of body of laws of a jurisdiction" does a legal system or a legal structure include also legal units like legal institutions (i.e; executive and govt. agencies, legislative and judicial institutions)?? Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official definition of the combination of words "legal system". In general, the term can be used to refer to any collection of interrelated components that relate to law. When common law and civil law are referred to as legal systems, the term just means the laws (sets of rules determined by legislative bodies), and not the institutions that apply these laws to administer justice. But the term can also be used in a broader sense to encompass these institutions, or even in another narrow sense for solely these institutions. Usually the context will make clear which sense is intended if the distinction matters.  --Lambiam 19:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
alright so basically a system of directives/rules that tames social behaviours yeah? Grotesquetruth (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2022_September_8&oldid=1110528826"