Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 29

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.

August 29

Prince of Eichstätt

The article for Eichstätt states that the principality of reverted back to Bavaria in 1855 after it had been given to Eugène de Beauharnais and his family. My questions are 1. when exactly in 1855 did this transfer occur; 2. was Eichstätt an independent state at the time or still nominally part of the Kingdom of Bavaria; and also 3. why did the transfer occur in 1855 during the time of Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg's son what were the reasons of it; Maximilian had already married a Russian grand duchess and moved to Russia but he died in 1852.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1. April 21, 1855. Source. For the reason, you'll need someone who's better at German than I am. The text says: "Einigen Ersatz bot seine Erwählung zur Hauptstadt des durch Deklaration vom 15. November 1817 gebildeten, unter der Souveränetät Bayerns stehenden Fürstenthums Eichstätt, welches dem Herzoge Eugen von Leuchtenberg als Majorats-Fideicommiss um de Summe von 5 Millionen Franken zugewiesen wurde. Unterm 21. April 1855 aber kam die Stadt mit dem Fürstenthums durch Retrocession und Auflösung des Fideicommisses wieder unter unmittelbare Landeshoheit, und nimmt nunmehr mit ihren banerischen Schwesterstädten Theil an den Institutionen einer aufgeklärten, für das Landeswohl gleich mässig besorgten Regierung." The key technical terms seem to me Retrocession and Fideicommiss. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My translation from German: Some recompense was made in picking it as main city of the Fürstentum Eichstätt, made by declaration on November 15th 1817 under the sovergeinty of the State of Bavaria, being awarded to Duke Eugen von Leuchtenberg as Majority-Fidecommis at a sum of 5 Million Francs. Meanwhile at 21st of April 1855 the city, via retrocession and dissolution of the fidecommis, the city came back into the hands of the state and participates with her bavarian sister-cities in the Institutions of an enlightened government interested equally in all of their welfare. --Abracus (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

note: Fürstentum = principality. --Xuxl (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And of course the good man was not a Duke (Herzog) but a Fürst, to name him in English: a Prince. I am sorry, but translating titles is not my specialty and I missed that one on account of the general appelation of any kind of nobility as Fürst. --Abracus (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, a Duke of Leuchtenberg. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool; the translation answers question 2 – the Principality of Eichstatt was never independent but always came under Bavaria. Abracus, can you translate more of the source text to see if there's anything about question 3? My guess is it was because the dukes of Leuchtenberg had not actually done any ruling of Eichstatt since 1824 (the second and third dukes were minors when they succeeded) and the fourth duke who inherited in 1852 was 12 years old in 1855, had lived all his life in Russia, and was under the guardianship of his uncle Tsar Alexander. But a guess is not a source and I don't know whose idea it was to cut off the fee tail – the king of Bavaria, or the Tsar, or someone else. Another factor could be that the Dukes of Leuchtenberg had also lost their French titles in August 1853 (source), so perhaps losing the Bavarian ones too didn't seem like a big deal. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some reasons and background in German. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

@IP at the moment I'm busy, but I could take a look at the texts during the next days and translate relevant passages. --Abracus (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Principality of Eichstätt. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay when was exactly did Bavaria bought back the Principality in 1833? And does that make Maximilian not a Prince of Eichstätt?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the source given by Pp.paul.4 I believe I can answer some questions. The text of the source can be found here. Herzog Eugen von Leuchtenberg died Feburary 21st 1824. The government of his principality fell, first as custodianship of the mother, later independently, to his son August. In the year of 1832 negotiations were initiated by him on the possibility of acquisition of the lands by the crown. Negotiations were conducted on side of the crown by the Ministry of State (Staatsministerium) represented by Ministerialrat von Metz and for the Herzog by his court-bankier Freiherr von Eichthal. A preliminary Convention (agreement) was reached by both parties on retrocession of the Principality of Eichstätt. Insight into the grounds of the retrocession gives a letter of the widowed Auguste Amalie dated 16th of January 1833 to her brother, King Ludwig, in which she gives her agreement to the preliminary contract as guardian of her child Maximilian. In it she writes... and so on. (Her Text is archaic and while I can understand it, I cannot give a good direct translation. Basically she says that there is a principal imbalance between income of the principality and the sums of payments on it (both as down payment and as payments to the high-ranked officals ( Beamte). She goes so far as to say the payments would be the ruin of her house (verderblich). She calls the very creation of the principality an economical error. As for the source: The retrocession, New Spy, went into effect to the beginning of the fical year of 1832/33. It states no date, but that information can be dug up somewhere I'm certain. --Abracus (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Prussia in the German Empire

Why didn't the Kingdom of Prussia simply unite all of Germany into one after Austro-Prussian War?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article says, "In order to forestall intervention by France or Russia, Bismarck pushed King William I to make peace with the Austrians rapidly, rather than continue the war in hopes of further gains." Looie496 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgeable on this subject, but maybe Prussia correctly anticipated that it would be able to unite all of Germany into one in several years with much less tensions than at that moment. Futurist110 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. My question was asking why didn't Prussia united Germany by annexing all the other German states after it defeated Austria.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The best reading for a general overview of the deeper questions surrounding German unification was the German question. In brief, after the Congress of Vienna, everyone knew that Germany would be created eventually, but there was serious debate over the role of the Habsburg lands in any unified German state. Prussia favored a solution that excluded the Habsburg lands, because the Habsburgs controlled huge swaths of non German territory: either Germany would include this non-German land (not acceptable), or you included only those parts of the Habsburg lands that were German (basically Austria), then the Habsburgs could still use the resources of their non-German lands to dominate the federation, which was ALSO unacceptable to Prussia. So Prussia sought a Germany that would exclude all Habsburg lands from a Unified Germany. The Habsburgs, of course, wanted Germany to include them as well. In many ways, the Austro-Prussian war was a strugle within the German-speaking world, and though Prussia came out victorious, that victory was not enough to convince the rest of the German states that a unified Germany under Prussian leadership, and excluding Austria, was in their best interests. The foremost roadblock was Bavaria, which like Austria was Catholic, and was generally opposed to being in single country dominated by Protestant Prussia. Bavaria and the numerous other smaller states mostly were happy to be independent, or at best involved in a customs union like the German Confederation. What it really took to encourage the Germans to form a unified state was France. When Napoleon III declared France an Empire, all the little German states got a bit panicky, remembering the LAST time a Bonaparte declared himself Emperor. The Franco-Prussian war convinced them that a) the only way that Germany would be strong enough to resist its enemies was if it was unified and b) That once Prussia defeated France that Prussia was strong enough to lead that unified state. After victory in the Franco-Prussian war, the German Empire was declared very shortly thereafter. --Jayron32 03:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sidenote: Please be aware that the German Question, at least for dewiki, refers to the question of "Deutsche Einheit" as a whole and not only during the time period of Prussian dominance and covers a time period of 1806-1990 in which the Institution of a German state and german Nationhood, as well as its pertinent territory, were repeatedly in question. --Abracus (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Main note: The German Question kept at the forefront of Central European politics for some time, and was a central issue in the rise of Nazi Germany as well. Hitler, as an Austrian, was a strong support of Greater Germany, and his early moves, including the seizure of the Sudeten and the Anschluss with Austria, were certainly part of the same philosophical differences that existed from the 19th century. You are correct that the German Question did not end with German Unification, as there were still political forces that supported the Greater Germany (including Austria) concept for some time after; when those forces got into power, they acted on their long-held plans. I think that extending the question to 1990 is a bit of a stretch; the German Question was mainly about the role of Austria in a German State; after World War II this was essentially settled permanently, the issue of a divided Germany between 1945-1990 was a different issue; first and foremost is the fact that the German Question was a North-South issue, the Iron Curtain was an East-West issue, and related to the reduction of Germany to a pawn in Cold War struggles between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. --Jayron32 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason the Kingdom of Prussia didn't outright annex the other German states after defeat of Napoleon III in 1870 was noblesse oblige. Bismarck manipulated France into a war against the North German Confederation in 1870 by altering the infamous Ems telegram, with the expectation that this would inflame German nationalism toward the union under Prussian leadership he desired. That worked. But the Hohenzollern King of Prussia, Wilhelm I, was not merely a reactionary, but was a gentleman who objected both to "picking up a Crown from the gutter" and to the forcible deposition of his fellow German monarchs, many of whom were his kinsmen (Wikipedia's article, accusing the King of wanting to be "Emperor of Germany" instead of German Emperor is wrong: Bismarck, not King Wilhelm I, craved that title for the Hohenzollerns). The only way it could work is if Germany's monarchs offered the crown of the German Empire to the Prussian king, which was what Bismarck proceeded to manipulate. After the Franco-Prussian War King Ludwig II of Bavaria (chief rival for and potential opponent of Prussian leadership of the Germans once Austria was ousted) was pressured into nominating Wilhem of Hohenzollern as German Emperor. Still, Wilhelm I, German Emperor refused to acknowledge the new title Bismarck procured for him, resulting in amusing conversations between him and his court at Berlin, including with his son/heir to whom the Emperor/king referred to his consort as "the Queen" while the latter referred to her (his mother) as "the Empress". There was no need to offend the old King's sense of honour by deposing his fellow German sovereigns de jure, since Bismarck had effectively forced them to come under Prussia's domination de facto: Bismarck didn't mind them exercising internal rule, once he had control of Germany's united foreign policy and military, so he left them on their thrones. FactStraight (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent assessment of the situation. William wasn't a despot, and the Empire didn't form because Prussia conquered the other German states or defeated them in wars (as in the Austro-Prussian war). William had no desire to establish a Germany founded on such principles (as you note, I don't know that William ever did anything except begrudgingly accepted the Imperial crown). The real force behind German unification was the conservative Junker class, led by Bismark, who saw the growth of other unified nation states on all sides, including France, Italy, Britain, and Russia, all of whom were busy with Empire building and colonization. Germany was to be left behind in those endeavours unless it solved the problem of how to unify. The Austrian Habsburgs were building their own Empire by cleaning up the scraps of the dying Old Man, the Ottomans, but Prussia and the North German protestant states needed some means to secure their own safety, both economically and physically. --Jayron32 19:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ex-convicts in 1880s

What would life be like for a former convict in Australia in the 1880s? Would there be a social stigma attached to them, or were they so common in Australia that it did not matter whether they had been in prison before or not? Would potential employers have access to records pertaining to former convictions? And would the ex-convict have to carry around papers signifying that they had a previous violent conviction, such as Jean Valjean did in Les Miserables? I know that's the wrong country and decade, but had things changed concerning that? Thank you for your time, it is much appreciated. Southernlegacy (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Constance Kent might give you some info about this. Futurist110 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Most male ex-convicts were given bushland which they cleared for farming. Therefore most ex-convicts didn't have an employer.

When a convict was released he or she was given a ticket of leave. I don't know if this was an entry in an offical's ledger or a document kept by the ex-convict.
Sleigh (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearing bushland wasn't common, nor profitable. Australia's economy has always been defined by proletarian labour. Convict status, or former convict status, was a social stigma amongst the squattocracy, and considered increasingly shameful until gumleaf nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s replaced imperial self-conceptions. Connell & Irving Class Structure in Australian History. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the bushland given to ex-convicts (for subsistence farming) wasn't cleared then the colonial government confiscated it.
Sleigh (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to read up on the so called squatocracy and the distribution of land in Australia. Noel Butlin did some excellent work on the pastoral industry. You might also want to read Connell and Irving who specifically discuss the dispute over "closer settlement" and the ownership of land. I assure you that the land provided to ticket of leave men was on the whole garbage not worth clearing. Profits in Australia have been made by supplying credit to farmers who proceed to bankrupt themselves in the interests of large landowners and bankers. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This site says "Ticket of Leave holders had to keep their ticket on their person at all times and present it to a constable if requested. Tinsmiths made slim waterproof tins to hold Tickets of Leave. Ticket of Leave holders also had to attend the annual ticket of leave muster or forfeit their ticket." So it seems to have been a portable document rather than an entry in a ledger, and imperative to carry it and keep it safe. If a ticket-of-leave holder wanted to work in, or travel to, an area not covered by their ticket s/he had to get written permission: there are images of these "ticket-of-leave passports" online to look at which give the holder's name, details of their arrival including ship, and length of sentence, and details of what movement the passport permitted, but they don't seem to specify the actual crime committed. Ticket-of-leave was only a kind of parole; when convicts had completed their whole sentence they received a Certificate of Freedom. No idea whether they had to carry that around, but it would certainly prove their status if challenged. - Karenjc 09:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Iran, its nuclear program, and a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East

How come Iran says that it will end its nuclear program once Israel agrees to a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East yet refuses to end its program right now? I don't get Iran's logic in refusing to end its nuclear (weapons) program right now if it is willing to give it up eventually and if more sanctions will be put on Iran in the meantime, which could threaten the security of the Iranian regime from an internal revolution if things in Iran get bad enough due to the sanctions. I know that the Iranian regime hates Israel, but Israel has already promised to disarm after getting a peace treaty signed, so why put your nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip (for Iran) to get something (Israeli nuclear disarmament) which will eventually happen later on anyway? Can someone please shed some light on this issue? Futurist110 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, where has Iran said that??

Secondly, if Iran did say that, it would make sense - it's a demand that won't be fulfilled, but in the meantime they can pretend there's an excuse to their nuclear program. They don't need to worry about the demand being fulfilled, as it won't be. If Iran ended its nuclear program, on the other hand, then that would very likely accelerate the possibility of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East (you need to understand Israel's security concerns, which hasn't been invaded for over 30 years since claims emerged that it built nuclear weapons. A nuclear-free Middle East would require peace in the region, which would be very tough, and that would also be impossible for Iran. Otherwise, a nuclear-free zone may very well be suicidal). The fact they said that doesn't indicate anything about ending the nuclear program.

If Iran was serious that its nuclear program was peaceful, it would've allowed IAEA officials months ago to visit the site at Parchin, instead of hiding buildings and covering it up with pink tarp, as ISIS uncovered. But I digress, that's not part of the OP's original question.

In short - Iran is saying that because the demand won't be fulfilled. But saying that doesn't indicate a willingness to abandon nuclear program, even if the demand was fulfilled.

Hope it helps. --Activism1234 02:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So basically it's a strategy that they use to try shifting the blame on Iran's continuing nuclear program on Israel (and the West, for not pressuring Israel enough)? That would make sense, since Iran hates Israel. Also, I am aware that Iran probably has a nuclear weapons program, since it if had nothing to hide, I seriously doubt that Iran would be willing to keep on getting hit with sanctions by the West. (Saddam and his alleged WMD and nuclear program was a separate and unique case and more of an exception to the rule than the rule.)

As for sources about Iran saying this, here you go:

• http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/26/world/la-fg-iran-non-aligned-20120827
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4756652.stm
• http://old.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=185704

However, I do want to point out that I'm much more optimistic on Middle East peace than you are over the next 10 years, so if Iran keeps sticking to this demand it could screw itself over later on. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh no no no, I know about those refs you provided. Reading them carefully, Iran isn't saying "We want a nuclear free zone in Middle East, then we'll give up our nuclear program." That wouldn't make sense. It'd essentially be a confession "Yeah, our nuclear program isn't peaceful, which is why we're not willing to give it up now." After all, if it's only for civilian needs, what does one have to do with the other? The call Iran is making is just in general for a nuclear-free weapon zone. This tactic is for a similar, but different, reason - "We want a nuclear free weapon zone, and people (especially governments) never lie, so this obviously is direct proof our nuclear program doesn't have a malicious side to it." It's essentially to reinforce that their nuclear program is peaceful, regardless of whether it really is.

It's like when terrorist organizations deny responsibility for an attack, saying that they would "never harm civilians" (a statement the Taliban made just a few days ago) or citing "humanitarian concern." If they care about humanitarian concerns, how can they be a terrorist organization?

Hope that helps. --Activism1234 04:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Two major points here buttress your entire question:

1. Iran will end its nuclear program if a NFZ is enacted in the Middle East.
2. Israel will also disarm its nuclear weapons program if a NFZ is enacted.

Both are entirely misrepresentations or misunderstandings. Since neither Iran nor Israel acknowledge having non-peaceful nuclear programs, they certainly aren't setting terms on when they'd be stopping or disarming them!

A separate claim that you make is that sanctions threaten the internal security of the regime. That is just not the case. No regime has even been taken down from within or from the outside because of sanctions. Historically, across the board, sanctions allow authoritarian governments to shore up their political base, given the common people a common external enemy, and lock countries into exactly the paths that the sanctions are meant to be preventing. It's not terribly surprising that many analysts argue that sanctions are worse than ineffective at their goals, but counter-productive. They are an "easy" thing for a country like the US to do — a form of warfare that doesn't involve actual troops — but I doubt the Iranian government feels threatened because of them. In the specific case of Iran, anything that involves oil sanctions drives up the cost of oil — which hurts the US far more than it does Iran. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Separately, you might ask yourself, why wouldn't Iran close down shop immediately if it thought that Israel would do the same with its nuclear program? The answer is fairly obvious: Iran doesn't think Israel would do such a thing and has no reason to think such a thing. Even if Israel shut down everything first, it's not obvious that it would be in Iran's interest to also shut down their program, but that situation just isn't going to happen. A grand total of one nation (South Africa) has ever truly given up the bomb once acquired, and that was for extremely local and unusual reasons (it happened just before the total end of the Apartheid regime). Even if Israel proclaimed tomorrow that it had dismantled all of its nuclear warheads, why would Iran believe them? It would require such a momentous shift in policy — signing the NPT, opening up to full international inspections, accounting for all prior nuclear work — that would take years to sort out. It's not even really worth considering as a plausible option at this point, given Israel's stance on things. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Until or if Iran disavows its intention to destroy Israel, there's no chance they would disarm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

In male dominated times, places and cultures how do we explain the presence of Queens?

Obviously gender equality has come a long way in the last hundred years (and we have further to go) but even many hundreds of years ago we had female rulers. Even in times when it was seen as vital to have a male heir women could ascend to the throne.

Why was this? Why didn't such male dominated cultures simply reject the rule of women? Why was a system not set up to bypass female claims to power? For the removal of doubt, I don't ask this because I feel that would have been the right thing to do, I most certainly do not. It's simply that I don't understand how a Queen could exist in cultures where women were otherwise deprived of rights and empowerment. --bodnotbod (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming your premise, a Queen's male relatives who cannot themselves ascend the throne have a strong incentive to rule indirectly through her. Power politics trumps gender ideology. Queen Elizabeth I seems to have played the men around her off each other quite well. I am sure others can mention more such cases. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the converse, in countries where females could not rule in name, they often ruled in fact if not in name, acting as the Éminence grise or power behind the throne. In france, for example, there were several women who held great power despite not being Queen Regnant; I think particularly of Catherine de' Medici. --Jayron32 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There also was a system set up to bypass female claims to power, Salic law. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In 16th-century England, following the death of young King Edward VI, the claimants to the throne were exclusively female. One of these - Lady Jane Grey - was deliberately chosen to replace Edward's half-sister Mary I. As another editor has mentioned, the husband of a female monarch was expected to take the reigns of power for himself, hence Elizabeth I's refusal to remain unmarried.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are and always have been multiple vectors of inequality, and the most powerful one has always been class or status. The person holding the power may be male, but the women of his family and circle of friends will share the benefits of that far more than other men with no connection to the ruler, and will be quite happy to use as cannon fodder. A ruling class, no matter how male-dominated, will usually see a woman of their class as a better bet than a man from outside their class. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the prime objective in sticking to the laws of primogeniture was to avoid civil war as it was highly unlikely that a man born outside the nobility would ever be able to wrest the crown away from a legitimate female heir. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's more stable to have it descend through female as well as male heirs, and given that a king may only have female children, that way you don't have him messing with the system, but content that the crown will descend in his line, rather than a collateral one. Jeanne, could you re-read your post of 07:23?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that last statement bamboozled me, too. It seems to be the exact opposite of Elizabeth's historical position. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Jeanne means her determination, not refusal, to remain unmarried. Sussexonian (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Yes I had meant to say her refusal to marry. The fact that I made the edit at 7.23 says it all (no morning expresso, tea, pasty, etc.)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For the English monarchy, the outcome of the 12th-century Stephen-Matilda wars established that the crown could descend through a woman, while the events of the mid-16th century established that the crown could descend to a woman herself. However, a number of other European monarchies rejected such possibilities into the 20th century. One famous rejection of all woman rulers was The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women, but its author was probably wishing that he been a little less vehement and categorical less than two years after its publication... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Queen Victoria was unable to become Elector of Hanover, but would have done if she had been a boy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

She was also unable to become Elector of Hanover as that position had been abolished some decades before she was born. She was unable to become King of Hanover because the laws of Hanover prevented females from inheriting. --Jayron32 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite right - I stand corrected (but " George III's government did not consider the dissolution to be final, and he continued to be styled "Elector of Hanover" down to 1814." - 5 years before Victoria was born). Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While Hanover had been useful to the British from time to time, it also served, in this case, to get the Duke of Cumberland out of England, where he had been a pain in the royal arse for the past forty years.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the rival parties in the Wars of the Roses based their claims on whether or not precedence should be given to descent through the female line of the second son of Edward III (Lionel of Antwerp) or descent through the male offspring of the third son (John of Gaunt).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If 3 Wikipedia Articles all say the same thing on a claim.

If 3 Wikipedia Articles all say the same thing. On history like. Greek mythology. Should I trust them. I read Three wikipedia pages. That Zeus returned the Cyclopes from Hades. After Apollo killed them. 2 of the page creator's could not tell me where they got the information from. Because they didnt remember. 3 Greek mythology experts. Told me they have never read it. One was a German Greek mythology college teacher. The two other's are website creator's on Greek mythology. They say they know nothing of Zeus returning the soul's of the Cyclopes from Hades. What am I suppost to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An abstract number count really doesn't mean anything in itself. If you have deep questions about an obscure sub-facet of something, then could do your own research on it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can only trust Wikipedia as much as you can trust its sources. If you have reason to doubt what Wikipedia says, check the original sources. --Jayron32 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In practice you would trust Wikipedia slightly less than the published sources. I have seen edits because "referenced source does not substantiate the claim" more than once. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia sources on history come from published books.

Does Wikipedia sources on history come from published books. Or internet site's. Or could some information be a lie. And if so how long does it take to get seen. And changed. Another thing I dont want a politcaly corret answear. I want a staright forward and most likely true answear. If three articles on history or Greek mythology say the same thing. However a lot of people disgree or dont know. With what was said. If three Wikipedia writer's say the same thing. Did they all get it from a book thats published. Because I cant find the information on the internet. Only 1 website on Greek mythology said what Wikipedia said. And that site is not on the internet anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your questions are, in order: Yes, Yes, Yes, until someone notices, until they care enough to change it. The answer is always, if you doubt something at Wikipedia, you should check the original sources it comes from. If you find that something at Wikipedia misrepresents what the original source says, or is contradicted by other sources, you are invited to fix it. --Jayron32 20:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayron32 answers this above. For the appropriate standard, see WP:HISTRS. You're sweet out of luck if the "true" answer is the "politically correct" answer. Wikipedia bases its system of truth on what experts agree upon, and indicating where experts disagree, and if no experts are available on what higher quality reliable sources agree upon, and indicating where these disagree. Such a system records what experts or high quality sources believe to be true—not what is actually true. For actual truth I suggest that you start communing directly with a Spinozan God. You should be able to "trace the antecedents" of the article, by looking at the sources the article uses. Then you can judge for yourself whether you believe the article is true. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

*Anyone who mentions the Spinozan God gets a star. It always strikes me as odd that people think Wikipedia is less reliable than any other source. You always have to verify everything, as 99% of academia and the media is полно говно. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a very specific question that this poster has been asking constantly, about Zeus and Apollo and the Cyclopes, in which case he may be right that somebody just made something up and put it on Wikipedia. But we can't really do anything about that on the Reference Desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually let me try again...we've been trying to answer the earlier questions but maybe we haven't been clear. Hesiod's Theogony says that Zeus released the original three Cyclopes from Tartarus, and they helped him defeat Cronus by forging his thunderbolts. Apollodorus says that Zeus killed Apollo's son Asclepius with a thunderbolt, so in revenge, Apollo killed the Cyclopes (or possibly, their sons) who made the thunderbolts. This story is also told in the play Alcestis by Euripides. Our Cyclops article says that in the play, Zeus resurrected them and Asclepius from Hades, but the play doesn't actually say that, as far as I can tell. He did bring back Asclepius, and turned him into a constellation, but there is no mention of the dead Cyclopes. This text was added to our article by User:GoldDragon in 2008 (in this edit). GoldDragon has been banned as a sockpuppet, so we can't ask him to explain, but he probably just made a mistake (or he made it up). I have removed the incorrect sentence. 24.12.228.62, does this answer your concerns? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Where (other than our article) are you finding that "Hesiod's Theogony says that Zeus released the original three Cyclopes from Tartarus, and they helped him defeat Cronus"? In one of the previous threads, I pointed out that I examined the Theogony and found no statement of either of those "events". Deor (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's around line 500 of the Theogony, in Evelyn-White's translation (on Perseus): "And he [Zeus] set free from their deadly bonds the brothers of his father, sons of Heaven whom his father in his foolishness had bound. And they remembered to be grateful to him for his kindness, and gave him thunder and the glowing thunderbolt and lightning". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology points to "Apollod. i. 1; Hes. Theog. 503" for that. For Apollodorus it is 1.2.1 of the Library (Frazer's translation on Perseus): "They fought for ten years, and Earth prophesied victory to Zeus if he should have as allies those who had been hurled down to Tartarus. So he slew their jailoress Campe, and loosed their bonds. And the Cyclopes then gave Zeus thunder and lightning and a thunderbolt, and on Pluto they bestowed a helmet and on Poseidon a trident." Adam Bishop (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I missed lines 501–505 because the Cyclopes aren't mentioned by name. I still maintain, however, that a significant amount of what's in the Hesiod section of our article on the Cyclopes (Campe, other things they forged, etc.) is from the Bibliotheca and other sources, and not from Hesiod. Deor (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like it. Also, on my talk page the OP seems to think I'm lying about all this, Zeus did resurrect the cyclopes a second time, and he still wants to know where that is written. It was on Wikipedia so it must be true... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Hyginus

Hello, all. What was Hyginus' ethnic and/or cultural background? Was he Celtic, Greek, Roman, Punic or something else entirely? Much obliged, Van Gulik (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

According to our article, at least, he was born either in Spain or Alexandria. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology notes that Suetonius says he was born in Spain, not Alexandria, as other authors had written before him. Presumably there is more recent scholarship on the subject, but I don't know anything about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I look a bit more, it seems a bit complicated because there may be more than one Hyginus, or later works were attributed to him. But apparently the consensus is that Hyginus the freed slave of Augustus was Spanish. See Lorne D. Bruce, "The Procurator Bibliothecarum at Rome", Journal of Library History 18 (1983), p. 150. The expert on Hyginus, cited by Bruce, seems to be P. van de Woestyne, but I've been unable to access the article which probably discusses his origin, "Un ami d'Ovide, C. Iulius Hyginus", Musée Belge: Revue de Philologie Classique 33 (1929). But since that is what Bruce is citing, I'm sure van de Woestyne also says he was Spanish. Our article mentions Alexandria because it's from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, which evidently got it from Suetonius, even though he said it was incorrect. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does make most sense that he'd be in Spain. Thank you!Van Gulik (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I question whether describing someone as "Spanish" is meaningful for that era/milieu, when there were various Celtic and non-Celtic (speaking) peoples dwelling (and under the Empire doubtless moving about individually or as groups) within the Iberian peninsula. Without a contemporary attestation as to his ethnicity, I doubt that it's deducible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

True. Suetonius says he was "Hispanus", so he was from Hispania, but we don't even know which province specifically. And now that I look at Suetonius directly, he doesn't seem to deny that Hyginus was from Alexandria, he says only that other authors thought so. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Accidental Kidney Donation

I was wondering what happens in various developed countries if a hospital accidentally removes someone's kidney and gives it to someone else who needs it, and then the first person wants his/her kidney back? Would the law allow the first individual to reclaim his/her kidney from the second person even if this might cause the second person to die? This is a completely serious question, by the way. Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that ever happening... you do get mistakes in surgery, but it would take a pretty incredible sequence of events for them to accidentally transplant a kidney from someone. It would have to be that they switched the patients and operated on the wrong one, I guess. If that happened, there is a good chance the kidney wouldn't be a tissue match and it would have to be removed from the recipient anyway (if it's too bad a match, it could cause the recipient to go into severe shock (with something similar to acute hemolytic transfusion reaction). Whether it could be returned to the donor, I'm not sure - probably not. The damage that would have been done to it during the transplant, while in the recipient's body from their immune system, and then during the second transplant would probably be too severe to make it worth the risks of the surgery. This is no evidence that you are really any worse off with only one kidney (I'm not sure they would do live donations of kidneys if there were), but there are plenty of known risks with major surgery. Even if it were medically advisable, I can't see how the recipient could be forced to have further surgery - you need consent to operate on someone. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Something similar did in fact happen here in Denmark very recently: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article1814336.ece. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Judging by a rather poor Google Translate of that article, it sounds like they thought the patient was brain dead, got consent for organ donation, and then before they had a chance to do the tests to check she really was brain dead (which would have revealed that she wasn't), she woke up. Hardly a big story. They do those tests precisely because it is easy for the initial assessment to be wrong. --Tango (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, we don't have an article on legal redress. Basically you can sue for (normally monetary) compensation for the damages done you, as well as punitive damages. Presumably you would ask for well beyond the cost of the surgery to have the kidney restored, and the judge would have a hard decision as to how to get you to the top of the recipient list, if he could do so. But that isn't going to entitle you to an eye for an eye, or to seize your kidney back from an innocent third party. See also, The Merchant of Venice. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any law review articles on this topic; any takers? Legally speaking, it would require a law review amount of work to answer it satisfactorily. Shadowjams (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What about your right to bodily autonomy/integrity and property? Also, what if I modified my scenario and had some gangsters steal a kidney from someone and give it to someone else who needs it? Has this scenario ever happened in the West, and what would the law say about that? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any law that would override the recipient's rights, regardless of the circumstances. Even if the recipient were culpable, I don't think they could be forced to give back the kidney. You can be forced to return stolen property, but I doubt that could be extended to include forcing someone to undergo major surgery. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Kidney transplants are by no means an easy copy and paste operation. It's hard to do it clandestinely. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem and solution creation? in politics and business

Hello,

I know a strategy used by businesses and politicians throughout history is they create a problem, then pretend to offer the solution to the very problem they created. What is the term for this strategy? Thanks!--Colonel House (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It might help to have some examples. In politics, do you mean a wag the dog scenario or maybe an agent provocateur ? In business, do you mean where businesses do things like replace a product like handkerchiefs with a disposable one, which now needs constant replacements and ends up earning them far more money ? Or perhaps you mean planned obsolescence ? StuRat (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Problem-reaction-solution. I don't think the concept is exactly, um, mainstream, but it's circulated in certain quarters for a while. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edward Roderick Davies

The Edward Roderick Davies article says, Davies immigrated to the United States with his father David Davies who had black lung disease and had been injured in a mining accident. David worked at a Ford plant and paid for his wife, Annie Davies, and son, Edward, to come thereafter. So when did Edward come to the United States? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article you linked states 1929. --Jayron32 00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And then it says "Edward came thereafter". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It says "In 1929 Davies immigrated..." Presumably, the "thereafter" happened in 1929. The unanswered question is when his father arived, presumably sometime in the herebefore 1929. --Jayron32 00:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But it says he immigrated with his father. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is confusing. What do the sources say? --Jayron32 03:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's from the Telegraph source which is also vague on the father's immigration date: Ann Romney's "grandfather, David Davies, emigrated to the US in the 1920s after being crushed in a mining accident. He did whatever work he could find to pay for his family to join him. His wife, daughter and three sons – one of them 15-year-old Edward Roderick “Rod” Davies, future father of Mrs Romney – arrived in 1929, just as Wall Street crashed and the Great Depression struck." 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail version says David Davies "'took the bold and brave decision to move to the U.S. in 1929 and soon earned enough money to pay for his wife Annie and son Edward to join him, despite their initial reluctance to leave Wales behind." and in a caption: "Ann Romney's grandfather David Davies, pictured here with his son Leslie, emigrated to the U.S. from Wales in 1929 after falling on hard times due to an industrial accident" 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

However, the BBC quotes Ann Romney directly: "When he was 15, Dad came to America." If the 1930 birthdate in the article is correct, he can't have emigrated in 1929. The BBC piece later says: "Mrs Romney 's grandfather was David Davies, a miner who emigrated to the USA in the 1920s. Mr Davies worked at Coegnant Colliery before moving to Detroit in 1929 to work in the car industry. He was later joined by his wife, Annie, and his son, Edward, who was Mrs Romney's father."

NB, the Telegraph article is dated Jan 6, the Daily Mail Aug 6 and the BBC Aug 29. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)