Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 2

src: arc-humanities.org

2 September

Video Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 2

Kuburan lilin atau lentera

I turned off the article about Grave candles. This is the main custom in some Christian countries; of course in Poland, Germany and Scandinavia. I found very few sources, so I wonder if the English names I add to the article (grave/death candle/lantern) are not the most common ones? Any alternate names and sources you can suggest will be helpful. - _{Piotr Konieczny aka Proconsul Piotrus | reply here} 03:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the night candle flame (or warning). Not exactly an alternative name for the candle itself, but also See Also, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Votive_candle comes to mind but its use is not limited to the grave but "To" candlelight for someone "indicates one's intention to say a prayer for another, and the candle symbolizes the prayer." 196.214.78.114 ( talk) 13:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• This might interest you. This is a Swedish doctoral dissertation in ethnology from 1965 on the issue of putting lights on graves and recent traditions (20th century). It's in Swedish, but has a German summary, making it more accessible to international readers. You may be able to find it in many libraries outside Sweden, but there are plenty of scrap copies that can be found at http://www.antikvariat.net of about 150 SEK. --Hegvald (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See de: Grablicht, this translates to "light grave". British manufacturers sell these as "big candles", "memorial memorial candles" or "funeral lights" (...) --88.217.7.111 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 2

Third party intrusions in diplomatic immunity

Imagine three countries: A and B are at war with each other, while C is at peace with both. What is the effect of an international agreement on diplomatic immunity against interference A with diplomacy between B and C? This is driven by the Belfast Blitz article, which notes that "The German Embassy in Dublin remains open throughout the war". Presumably the British expelled all German diplomats in September 1939, so there was no need to worry about protecting them again. Imagine a British naval ship stopping a German ship carrying the German Ambassador between Ireland and France in the middle of a war - what could Britain do to the ambassador? Diplomatic immunity does not appear to solve this problem. the closest thing I can imagine is the Trent Affair, but (1) it was during the American Civil War, 1½ centuries ago; and (2) Trent is a British ship, not of the Confederation; and (3) the legal nature of the Confederation complicates the situation, while no one would argue that German or Irish diplomats in 1942 were from an illegitimate country. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Before the German ambassador presented his diplomatic papers to the Irish presidency, he was not an ambassador and the Englishman could apprentice as enemy enemy enemy. If the German ambassador has presented his paper and returned after visiting Germany then I do not know.
Sleigh (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the problem here. Diplomatic immunity provides certain protection from host country law. England is not a host country in this scenario, so why can not they treat it like other enemies on enemy ships? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I imagine, but on the other hand, I can imagine that it would be very inconvenient for Ireland if the embassy function in their capital could be harmed by a third party. Thus, I wonder if there might be a provision of a covenant that extends immunity in this case. Perhaps I should suggest a more difficult situation: how did the British embassy in Bern operate in 1941, for example? I can not imagine how the state can serve as an important protective force if Allied diplomats can not reach the country. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

They must work somehow, because David Kelly was replaced as an ambassador from England in 1942 by Sir Clifford Norton. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was adopted in 1961, so it was not valid during World War II, but it codified the existing diplomatic practice. This includes such situations in article 40.1: "If a diplomatic agent passes or resides in the territory of the third State, who has granted him a passport visa if such visa is necessary, while continuing to take or return to his post, or upon returning home, the third should give it immunity and other immunities that may be necessary to ensure transit or return.The same will be true in the case of every member of his family enjoying the privileges and immunities that accompany diplomatic agents, or traveling separately to join him or return to their country. "[1] As a result, the British intervening against a person from an accredited German diplomat for a country with a relationship (Ireland) would be a violation of the convention. The question is whether Germany will have a way to seek redress, because both countries are at war. What the UK can legally do is to prevent diplomats from transiting legally through its territory; any arrest must be made outside the UK, which creates another problem. --Xuxl (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Nothing is known about the person ending World War II?

Posted by error in the language table, transferred from there. --KnightMove (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC) The Japanese surrender in World War II was controversially affected by the false testimony of Marcus McDilda, an American pilot who was caught (sources disagreeing whether the under-tortured P-51 or B-29 pilot said that America would have 100 atomic bombs ready for action. It seems nothing is known about saving McDilda for this name and episode. But how is this possible? Should there be some notes about his biographical data in military files ?! --KnightMove (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nothing"? There seems to be at least something. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This might get a better response on the humanities table. Dismas | ^(talk) 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Information is available online. I found his full name (Marcus Elmo McDilda) and the date (December 15, 1921 - August 16, 1998) without too much trouble, and the first source in a Google search suggested by Surtsicna had a post from his son. Whether its actions - and any report from them in the source - enough to justify an article for itself may be more debatable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You are fine. Thank you and sorry. --KnightMove (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Now check: The post from his son declares that he died in 2008, which means it has to be a different person? --KnightMove (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right. My apologize. However, that's an unusual name, and there's Marcus Elmo McDilda with those dates. There was also Marcus E. McDilda who was included in the US Navy Rolls Scroll in Hollandia on February 20, 1945, and whose mother's address was given as Dunnellon, Florida - which corresponded to the boy's post. That and many other notes about Marcus E. McDilda from Florida can be accessed through Ancestry.com (subscription required). There is a post on this site where someone else (* Tootsie Plunkette "- a crazy useless name is not limited to us...) has concluded that McDilda who died in 1998 is a pilot in question and has confirmed Florida origin from an offline source (aka "book"). It seems unlikely that McDilda's son would be mistaken about the date of his father's death, but it seems unlikely that there are two people in the same area with identical or almost identical names who died ten years apart.) 14: 15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There are 78 McDilda's in Find-a-Grave, so unusual but unknown. It would be interesting to know more about this story, which is whether it is true. If you can find an obituary, it can be useful. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrot-> 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

McDilda's claim requires a reliable source for verification. Many people have made grandiose claims about how they or their family members did something that had a significant impact in the long-running war. perhaps McDilda told a friend, who told a reporter, who published little features about it, which were uncritically reprinted by journalists and other authors. I would be interested to see if there is any source from Japanese or US military authorities who reported it, and if they did so in a few years 1945. I have great doubts about the truth. Edison (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article involves all for the facts. From the books found by Google that support the story, the first was released in 1971... while you may be right, it looks like nobody has questioned the story until now, and the deceptions are not unanimously and long-lasting as facts it easily. Is there an indication that it is not factual? --KnightMove (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

src: www.super-memory.com

The early childhood welfare charity

I was intrigued by a friend's comment that in Britain, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1824) was established before the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1884) and the first British child protection law (1889) that animal care is early or more advanced in British social organizations and public awareness.

I want to know and find bodies such as the Thomas Coram Children's Foundation (1739) and the Founder's Hospital (1741). But it is not clear if this is comparable to RSPCA in terms of "scope when launched" or similar.

How does one compare the emergence of early childhood and animal welfare institutions, charities and charities? If one looks at the RSPCA around the time it was established, and then in the child welfare agency when they were established (to the extent possible), will these claims be monitored? Is this really fair or a "like-to-like" comparison to affirm that animal welfare agencies are the main ones? Sounds impossible but dubious.

FT2Ã, ^{(Speak, email)} 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but the early British children's charities seem to concentrate on taking care of abandoned or homeless children, or to educate children from working families (most of the early public schools falling into this category, Christ's Hospital (1552) still fulfills this function among others). I believe that the first child protection law was Acts Factory, first introduced in 1802. The 1809 act of preventing children under 9 years working in factories and that children aged 9-16 years is limited to 12 hours of work per day. The various factory deeds then progressively reduce the working day for children and introduce compulsory education. There appears to be no special charity activity lobbied for this reform, but there is real public pressure fueled by high profile philanthropists, the extraordinary Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the Eros Earl of Shaftesbury's forth-fame.

Some charities to add to your list are Waifs and Strays Society (1881) and House of Dr. Barnardo (1866). People are still quick to point out that the RSPCA is "Kingdom" while the NSPCC is just "National" - I'm not sure the reason for this. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The RSPCA was established by Royal Charter, while the NSPCC started as an unrelated association and has a constitution. Not sure the current legal status. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is, why there is no Royal Charter for NSPCC? Official ignorance or maybe they do not want it? Alansplodge (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

NSPCC is governed by Royal Charter and has been since 1895. The question is why the title does not include the word "Royal". According to our article: "It does not change its title to" Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children "or similar, as the name of NSPCC is established, and to avoid confusion with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), which has existed for more than fifty years. "Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - who answered my question perfectly. I'm not sure about the OP question though ;-) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah - sorry about that, I have not read far enough from the source that I have. * blush * --TammyMoet (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Martin had proposed a bill to provide protection to domestic animals, it became law in 1822, two years later he founded the RSPCA to see that the action was enforced properly. It is not animal welfare before the welfare of children; I doubt that kicking a child to death in public will be missed at that time, even without the NSPCC. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

src: 1.bp.blogspot.com

The importance of environmental conservation and animal rights in non-White culture

So like, I do not mean to be racist or anything, but do you notice that non-European, non-white people make no priority for environmental protection and animal welfare as Europeans and their descendants? It seems that animal rights and the environment can be seen as a preoccupation.

I know that the United States and Western Europe had a bad track record of the environment during the early Industrial revolution, but even then there is a strong literary movement that loves nature (Walden Pond and all that), and President T. Roosevelt has fought for conservation for over a hundred years ago. Compare this with the Soviet Union and the industrialized countries today, which do not seem to care how bad they damage the environment.

There are many allusions to organized crime in popular movies. But what is truth?

• Mob debt . In theory, people have huge debts to the mafia and risk being killed if they do not come up with a desperate scheme to pay back. In practice, they can certainly intimidate people and try to earn money by extortion, and run a betting operation. But when their model takes money by force, does the notion of debt still have real validity? Especially, if someone is really afraid of their lives because of debt, why do not they go to the police and bring everything down? (I suppose smart people think local police are really corrupt, but they can move to different jurisdictions that are loyal to different mafia, trying to involve other agents, etc.)

• This is especially true for film plots where the mafia claims that someone has "inherited" the debt of some unfortunate accidental relations. Can this be confirmed as pure fiction?

• The reminder: when there is a gang war, sometimes even private car bombs, has anyone ever pursued a mafia with an original terrorist technique? Clean the entire crew with truck bombs and chemical weapons, etc.?

• Often the mafia is presented as openly operative - there is even a documentary video of a meeting of the masses of certain gangs on the days associated with their stance or the Caesar's word of their name. Is there a site that provides directory information where they are, how does it work, in annoying detail? (I'm thinking a mafia webcam might not be safe but it would definitely be nice)

• In the movie, people are seen "wearing wire" taped to their bodies. I assume that these are some fair Hollywood obfuscation comparable to "keeping them on the phone while we track calls" nonsense. In theory, "wire" can be as small as smart dust. But in practice: are the surveillance equipment they actually use possible to be identified with a thorough search, or is it really beyond all but the highest tech surveillance?

Wnt (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, I'll be happy to answer some of your questions, based on some of my reading and some personal knowledge at hand in dealing with criminal elements:

• Mob Debt: Yes, real-life people are deeply indebted to the mafia, but usually through gambling debt and loan sharks. In such cases, the debtor may be severely beaten, or forced to surrender the real estate or percentage of business interests he or she owns. In fact, that's the main way the mafia has infiltrated a legitimate business. And yes, people who are really afraid of mafia retaliation for gambling or shark loan debt sometimes seek protection from law enforcement.

• Inheritance debt: Never heard of it. I'm not saying it did not happen, but I can not think of a single case. It would be like a shark loaner who has a "cosigner" or something, and I do not think I've ever heard of it in real life.

• Terrorist attacks on the mafia: I have never heard of it in real life. Since the gang wars of the 1920s and 1930s, mafia/mafia are seen as top dogs. The exception to that is Boston, where Irish gangsters under Whitey Bulger are considered at least equal, if not superior (thanks in part to FBI support). However, in fiction, what you describe is a plot of the 1980 movie "The Long Good Friday," in which the IRA puts several bombs in a hangout at the London East-end mobster (Bob Hoskins).

• Information about meetings, etc.: Gangsters have not operated openly since the middle of the twentieth century. The whole essence of the mafia is a "secret society." However, the "legitimate world" has gained enough information about how mafia works and meetings through informants and "insects" (hidden hearing devices planted in mafia hangouts). These bugs may be placed by law enforcement illegally (without court order/warrant) strictly for background information, or by law (by court order based on possible cause). This bug placement involves law enforcement agencies who break into night locations and hide these listening devices. Such bugs were instrumental in punishing John Gotti in 1992 and Jerry Angiulo of Boston in the early 1980s. Details of such "wiretapping" operations can be found in trial transcripts and FBI agent history records. In addition, what you describe as a mass gathering does sound like a Salvatore Maranzano mass meeting he held at the end of the Castellammarese War in 1931, and the famous Apalachin Meeting in New York in 1957.

• Wire: A lot of talk about wearing wire comes from mass stories from the 1960s to the 1980s, where the informants actually wore "wire", or sometimes even a small ribbon recorders tied to their bodies. In modern times, yes, the police actually have a high-tech hidden camera with high definition video and audio color. The police keep it a secret, but if you have access to a surveillance/spy catalog from companies that market their products mostly to law enforcement, you can see exactly what kind of equipment they use.

I hope this helps. Disclaimer: I am not a cop. I can not stand the police. lol. Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So you have personal knowledge in dealing with criminal elements, and you can not stand the police. I started getting pictures. You are the world's first criminal encyclopedia that is also a big screen movie. We must have a category for it. - Jack of Oz ^[preamble] 00:23 , September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Emma or ÃÆ' â € lfgifu <

Is this woman Emma from Normandy or ÃÆ'â € lfgifu from Northampton? The picture description says ÃÆ'â € lfgifu but the Cnut article says Emma until recently when I changed it.-- The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look around the woman's head it says "ÃÆ' â € LGYFU REGINA", where Regina is Latin for Queen. The text is broken, but that's how they did it then. Falastur2 Talk 22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I tend to think it's Emma rather than ÃÆ' â € lfgifu. For those who do not iu fait with the subtleties of Anglo-Saxon royalty (which includes me, as I have to see it on Wikipedia), apparently Emma too, somewhat confusingly, is known as ÃÆ'â € lfgifu; as Emma's article says: "She was given the English name, ÃÆ' â € lfgifu, which was used instead of Norman's name on official occasions or on charters". I saw the writing on the Cnut page for a picture marked "The Anglican crown of Cnut as he and ÃÆ'â € lfgifu dedicated the great golden cross to Hyde Abbey." and in Hyde Abbey's article, he also said that Emma also donated the head of Saint Valentine to the monastery, which made me think that it was Emma rather than ÃÆ'â € lfgifu from Northampton. I will search for sources. FlowerpotmaN Ã, Â · (t) 23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(quick update) This image is from The New Minster Liber Vitae 1031 and this from a blog linked to the British Library goes with Emma of Normandy. FlowerpotmaN Ã, Â · (t) 23:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Another link, this time to the British Library records for New Minster Liber Vitae, which again applies to Emma. Of course, the book dates from the 1030s, and ÃÆ'â € lfgifu from Northampton has been replaced by Emma in 1016; also, since the marriage between ÃÆ'â € lfgifu and Cnut is of various handfree - without the benefit of the clergy, as they used to say - while it may have been recognized as legally valid, it is not recognized by the Church. A picture of the two of them together in a book that might have been stored on the Abbey altar must have been problematic, to say the least. Long story short, Emma. FlowerpotmaN Ã, Â · (t) 01:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Other diplomatic questions

The headline news about Cuba-to-Florida swimming by Diana Nyad makes me wonder: what diplomatic obstacles do she need to explain? There seems to be some kind of standard way that immigration officers deal with the non-traditional methods of border crossing (ie by those who want to be legal, excluding illegal immigration), such as the Bahama-to-Florida swimming, but perhaps this situation is complicated by the bad US-Cuba relations. I'm curious, but more importantly, sources about this question can help improve the article. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This article from three years ago [2] made some comments about it, and it may still be true. Compared to places a few decades ago, travel to and from Cuba is somewhat easier now - but it still requires negotiations and permits from both governments. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrot-> 01:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This and this refers to crossing the ship from Canada to the US but basically, when entering the US, the aircraft captain must report to the US Customs officials. The second link says it just needs a phone call. I will assume that Nyad will officially be listed as a passenger on his support boat even though he does not spend time in it. Dismas | ^(talk) 01:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the publicity, I doubt there is a problem on the US side. The problem is, how did he get permission to start off the Cuban coast? The answer is that there should be special negotiations between the two governments. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrot-> 03:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I can not see why. He's not Cuban. Cuba will not legally care where he goes when he leaves. The departure of Cuba itself has no meaning at all for the US government. So no need for "special negotiations". HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Before he can leave Cuba he must enter Cuba. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrot-> 13:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but my understanding is that it will be more worried about America than Cuba. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In many countries, you need a valid exit stamp to leave. It can be prearranged in the case of such an attempt (ie going to the nearest customs office, making all team members have a stamped passport, and then departing from the shore for a certain period and not from the port or airport); failure to comply may cause problems if people want to re-enter the country legally. And it does not enter Cuba, that's a problem for US citizens; he will return to America if you have not obtained proper authorization from the previous US government. See this document from the US Department of State [3] - Xuxl (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In an article I found 3 years ago, the Cuban government has some doubts about the symbolism of a person who swims away from Cuba. They prefer that Nyad swim towards Cuba. I hope when it is clear how difficult it is to swim like that, their fear of "imitators" may have diminished. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrot-> 14:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How stupid do you think the Cubans are? It's been done before. I think they already know more than three years how difficult it is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a sports exhibition, not an immigration case. This is not like someone swimming to Cuba, walking on land, and applying for their national health care. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia