Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/HWP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

September 18

Conrad Noel, the Red Vicar of Thaxted

Why was Conrad Noel rusticated from Corpus Christi, Cambridge? Neither our article nor the ODNB say. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to this lengthy book review of Conrad Noel and the Catholic Crusade: A Critical Evaluation – ed. Ken Leech, he was "rusticated for the singular zeal with which he evaded lectures for the pleasures of elaborate supper parties, effigy burning, serenading the young ladies at Newnham, and careering about the country in a dog cart: all in the name of the Catholic faith." So there you go. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Conrad Noel and the Thaxted Movement: an adventure in Christian Socialism (Groves 1967) he was only rusticated for a year, but decided for himself not to return to University. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 15:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As, indeed, the article says. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 15:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified vessel

In Tulcea, so presumably a Romanian navy vessel. I can't even guess what sort of craft this is, so any info would be useful. Note the "301" at right, if that's any help. Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a floating drydock to me. PiusImpavidus (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PiusImpavidus: very plausible. Have you ever seen one that looked like this? Or did I just chance upon a very unusual floating drydock? - Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of equipment of the Romanian Armed Forces#Auxiliary vessels, RF301 is a Lupeni class river tugboat, but the vessel in the picture looks totally different than any picture of the Lupeni tugs I can find online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.221.58.21 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried following the reference link on Lupeni in that table and Firefox gave me a bunch of warnings about the site. I got as far as the McAfee pop-up and opted out. I'm glad I use NoScript. "Romania Forum" doesn't sound particularly WP:RS to me either. The archived version here is okay, but as you say, those vessels don't look like the one pictured. Matt Deres (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that many floating drydocks, but I've seen some, in large seaports. On most, the ends of the side walls are vertical, here sloping inward. That reduces the stability in pitch a little while partially submerged, but shouldn't be too much of a problem. The sloping ends are used for stairs here. It's also a pretty small floating drydock, for boats with up to 4 metres of draught and 60 metres long, more or less. That may explain the position of the stairs. Otherwise not a very remarkable floating drydock: a flat pontoon, two sidewalls with scales for draught all the way up, two cranes and various other structures on the top of the walls, painted in navy grey.

It's certainly not a tug. You could put a tug inside though. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another place to ask is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships which is very active and helpful. Alansplodge (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "Acostarea interzisă" means "docking prohibited" so not much help. Alansplodge (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holding up one hand to pray

There's a thing some USians do when performatively praying, of holding up one hand as seen here. Where, when, and why did this originate? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the general topic and it seems to be an ancient practice. It might have fallen out of favor for a while after the Nazis hijacked it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot (like 26000 entries) of peer-reviewed material about prayer gestures involving the hands on Wikipedia library. I would suggest @DuncanHill you might start there to find some useful information on this topic. You should definitely qualify for access. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For one example see Kneel, stand, prostrate: The psychology of prayer postures in three world religions. By: Van Cappellen, Patty, Edwards, Megan E., Kamble, Shanmukh V., Yildiz, Mualla, Ladd, Kevin L., PLoS ONE, 19326203, 8/22/2024, Vol. 19, Issue 8 - This suggests that up / expansive gestures (generally standing prayer gestures) correlates with feelings of praise and thanksgiving and a generally positive valence to prayer as opposed to a more supplicant, negative valence to crouching, kneeling and prostrate prayer postures. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the standing/sitting divide that bothers me it's the one hand raised vs the normal prayer gesture of two hands together, which can be, and is, done standing, kneeling, or sitting. Like most of the pictures at Commons. DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And @Simonm223: I was rather hoping for a reasonably concise answer, not an instruction to read 26,000 articles! We could just replace the whole RefDesks with "spend the rest of your life looking things up instead of asking people who actually know things". DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Duncan. Prayer posture is a heavily studied subject but, frankly, most of the research I've seen is concerned more about posture than about the number of hands raised. I'm cognizant that, if you wanted to dig through all the refs, you could probably do so yourself which is why I provided one which I read while formulating the answer. I was hoping it would at least give you somewhere to start. I can note that there are several biblical references to prayer with raised hands but it is generally in reference to two raised hands rather than one. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation, but the one hand gesture might stem from prayer being a form of “testimony”… similar to how one raises a hand to take an oath (with the other hand on an appropriate sacred text or holy relic). Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All praying hand positions I’m familiar with are symmetric, with the right and left hands held in mirror symmetry. If observations of this asymmetrical custom are confined to the US, it is plausible that it originated there. ‑‑Lambiam 20:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the MAGAts don't want to acknowledge the existence of the Left in any way whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this in the UK by those that espouse the Charismatic movement, which our article says began in the US in the 1960s. This US article says:

Even though I had grown up attending rural Catholic parishes, I had never seen Catholic laypeople lift their hands during Mass until I had reverted to Catholicism and attended urban parishes. This particular gesture is known as the orans posture, which involves outstretching the hands to the sides of the body and lifted upwards. It is an ancient custom that dates all the way back to ancient Greco-Roman and other pagan cultures. In the Early Church, it was adopted to be performed by the priest who leads the congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer during Mass, which is still practiced to this day. But in recent years, the orans posture seems to have become a trend among laypeople in light of the charismatic movements of the 20th century.

This is of course, referring to the raising of both hands; I suspect one hand may just be a variant thereof, but I have no special insight. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In person, I've most commonly observed this usage (whether in prayer or a benediction) by a clergyman who wishes to raise both hands, but has to use one to keep something in place, e.g. he's using a Bible without a bookmark, or he's outside and doesn't want his notes to blow away. In my faith tradition, it's rare to see ordinary worshippers raising hands, and when they do, it's pretty much always two, unless they're holding something (e.g. a psalter or a baby) with one hand. In the linked image, it could also be a practical matter of space — note that the people are standing close together, and if they raised their left hands, they might hit those standing in front of them. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Any media reports on the current state of mind of USA Supreme Court Justices?

Specifically, do the 6 conservative US Supreme Court justices actually think everything is fine and dandy right now? Are they really utterly unconcerned?Rich (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not their role to be concerned about the state of the nation. They deliberate on constitutional and other matters that are officially brought to their judicial attention.

They cannot, for example, send a letter to the president saying "Dear Mr President, We think you're making a mess of things. Please lift your game or we'll do something about it." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It's rather startling that you, an Australian, understands the US Supreme Court's role better than many Americans do! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, there could be millions of Americans who don't understand the Supreme Court, but still, most adult Americans understand it.Rich (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, do the justices themselves have a common (shared) understanding of the Supreme Court? ‑‑Lambiam 20:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Jack of Oz, but I should have said that I am asking about if they are concerned about the results of their decisions. I had this in my brain so strongly that I didn't realize it needed to be stated. Of course you can't read my mind.Rich (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We knew you were going to say that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the question backwards, in a way, Rich. The justices are learned, experienced, intelligent, well-connected people. The default assumption must be that they are highly aware of the likely real world effects of their decisions. That must surely go with the territory of judgeship, and not only in the US but world-wide. The question is whether they are happy with those likely outcomes or not, and to what degree, if any, their decisions are tempered by such considerations. Are they guided solely by their understanding of the law, or do they take a broader view?

Governments must also wrestle with these things when drafting new legislation. If they know that a certain proposed measure is likely to lead to widespread protests and possibly looting and murder, but they still believe the greater good of the nation is served by the measure in the longer term, then they have a choice to make. And there will be many inputs into that decision-making process, not least their electoral popularity. But Supreme Court justices don't have that luxury to pick and choose which arguments to favour, other than arguments about the existing law and how it has been or ought to be interpreted. But I'm sure there must be a lot of literature about how judges wrestled with their consciences, and why they made the decisions they did. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have th question backward, Jack. I am aware that much of what you say is sometimes true, especially among the liberal justices, although you are idealizing a serious situation. Even if your idealization is partly true, my question is good, and waiting for an answer.Rich (talk)<

It's just that I very much doubt you will find any sort of contemporaneous extra-judicial commentary from serving justices. That could so easily be construed as political commentary, even if that was not their intention; so they would know not to do that, because they would not relish calls for their resignation or impeachment. Their memoirs, published a significant time after their retirement, might be a place to find some indication of the concerns they may have had back when they were serving and making decisions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it weird that they attend the SotU! —Tamfang (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is from 2002[1] and was the first thing I thought of, but yeah, Justices do sometimes speak outside of the court, and the stuff they do allows some inferences into what they are thinking. It's not something I try to follow but it's a safe bet that there are usable sources giving opinions on such matters, that would be usable and informative even if their conclusions can't be treated as having certainty. This was interesting. It's not about the Justices' state of mind per se, but it discusses a judicial strategy that they seem to be following and imputes some motivations. 2601:644:8581:75B0:D6BC:8B5E:FA0F:CFBA (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since these judges made decisions that were against the spirit of the Constitution, cf. Trump vs. United States, they are really fine with all this. This maybe is the greatest tragedy of today's America - a Supreme Court that acts anti-constitutional: separation and balance of power (cf. Montesquieu): nope. Bribery: yes. Decision, who's on the ballot: Constituion says States organise the vote, Supreme Court says they have no say who can be on the ballot. Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that Congress "may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability", Supreme Court says it also takes Congress to remove such a person. It's not in the amendment, doesn't make no sense at all, precedents say otherwise. This Supreme Court has no interest in protecting the Constitution, they often reject decisisons of lower courts that rule against Trump with little or just no explanation.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's some interesting analysis and speculation here, but this is deep, deep into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. The OP was actually one of our minority of initiating parties here who actually predicated their question in terms of a request for sources, which is the actual purpose of these fora. Please constrain your answers to providing such sources if you can, or at least staying closer to their line of inquiry, and take the rest to reddit or another appropriate space. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course pretend that everything is fine but from my perspective (being a German who lived in a dictorship and studied history) there is no seperation of power anymore, there is no rule of law. Comparing these events with our history it reminds me of March 1933. You are here: Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling act) done - see Trump vs. United States; Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service) = Project 2025 in progress; Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Reichstag Fire Decree): assassination of Charlie Kirk, Trump uses this horrible incident to go after his enemies, the so called "radical left", i. e. everybody that is against him. Hitler did the same on 28 February 1933. Trump is just slower because he can't just arrest people like Hitler did (see Preußenschlag that gave Göring the power to use Prussian police forces). However Trump is already taking a grip on the federal system sending the National guard and Marines to "enemy" cities. The lower courts could fence his authorian regime however the Supreme Court with his anti-constitutional majority will undermine these decisions. That's of course one reason why Weimar ended - the judges were anti-constitutional too. Trump uses pseudo-legal means (in German scheinlegale Mittel), i. e. he uses the law against his enemies and he uses illegal strategies so that his actions seem to be legal.

One last thing: You might feel a certain degree of hypocrisy now for example Comey being indicted on no legal grounds but other Trump officials have to fear no consequences whatsoever (see Hegseth, see Homan etc.). Well, it isn't. You'll get used to it if you live in an authorian state. There is no law and order, there is no justice. All what's left is despotism. And it will be worse if you don't do anything against Trump's actions.--92.210.41.137 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user's great knowledge of German history has clouded his judgement; The "Great War", the Weimar hyper-inflation, the Russian revolution, the Great Depresssion; all this was needed to put Hitler in power. And Trump is not Hitler (just listen to Hitler speaking). There is no SA - and also no Rotfront Kämpferbund. There is no Papen, no Schleicher, no Hindenburg.--2.207.209.115 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because history doesn't happen exactly the same way is doesn't mean it won't happen. Rich (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-gives-bonkers-reason-for-scotus-to-tear-up-settled-laws/ Rich (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he user's great knowledge of German history has clouded his judgement; The "Great War", the Weimar hyper-inflation, the Russian revolution, the Great Depresssion; all this was needed to put Hitler in power. Hyper-inflation was in 1923, it did not have a direct impact. Brüning used deflation policies that had a big impact on the German economy because they made the depression even worse. The Russian revolution had no direct influence.

There is no SA - and also no Rotfront Kämpferbund. There is no Papen, no Schleicher, no Hindenburg. Of course there are not because history does not repeat itself. However, there are similarities throughout history. That's one reason why one studies history. I warned a friend living in America about Trump's policies almost two years ago: he will use Projet 2025, he will use military forces, he will send people to camps, he will try to undermine and destroy democracy. There were simply red flags, e. g. Trumps wanted to terminate the constitution, he wanted to be dictator for one day, he said that his supporters wouldn't have to vote anymore, he wanted to suspend FCC licences, e. g. in September 2024 (Does that ring a bell?). Moreover January 6 clearly showed that he had no interest in the constitution, in voting rights. He also embraced violence (cf. Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch). So there are clear analogies to Weimar because neither Hitler nor Trump made a secret about abolishing democracy, they made it abolutly clear but people were either okay with it or didn't just believe them:

Trump: "No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator." or: "We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country".

Now Hitler: "Die Herren haben ganz recht! Wir sind intolerant! Ich habe mir ein Ziel gestellt: nämlich die 30 Parteien aus Deutschland hinauszufegen!" ('The Gentlemen are right. We are intolerant! I have one goal: I want to sweep the 30 parties out of Germany.' 1932), Hitler about jews (Mein Kampf, ed. Hartman et. al. [2018], p. 473): "Wenn an der Front die besten fielen, dann konnte man zu Hause wengistens das Ungeziefer vertilgen." (If the best soldiers died at the front lines then one could at least liquidate the vermin at home.) "Man mußte rücksichtslos die ganzen militärischen Machtmittel einsetzen zur Ausrottung dieser Pestilenz." (One had to use all military force to wipe out this pestilence.).

Hitler used the expressions "marxistisch", "bolschewistisch" etc. to discredit all democratic and left wing parties. What does Trump nowadays: all Democrats are part of the radical left, Marxists etc. This is the same behaviour, a simple view to divide Americans into MAGA and enemies. In the end all Americans will be the enemy because dictators trust no one. Because this is how dictators act: they form an in-goup, this in-group is above all other people that form the out-group. This out-group is the enemy: migrants, LGBTQ and of course leftists. You think what Trump is doing to migrants is well-deserved? Just look out he will come after you because he's already targeting Americans. I often see Americans quoting Martin Niemöller's "First they came ...". You can see the meaning of these words right now in America: First they came for the migrants and You did not speak out, because You were not a migrant, then they came for Anti-fa, and You did not speak out, because You were not an Anti-fa member, then they came for Democrats, and You did not speak out, because You were not a Democoat - but someday it will be You they will come for. Fighting despotism is not a hobby. It takes strength and stamina. Jimmy Kimmel is just one example what this regime (yes it is a regime in the pejorative sense) is willing to do and they won't stop. You have to be aloud every day, you have to be alarmed everyday to stand up against unconstitutional behaviour, you have to convince your fellow Americans that they are on the wrong path, that these people who are in power now are Anti-American. Look what people can achieve if they stand together: Monday demonstrations in East Germany, Alexanderplatz demonstration and finally the Fall of the Berlin Wall. There is still hope if you protect your institutions, if you demonstrate against those who hate. One could quote Charles Chaplin's final speech from "The Great Dictator" or just quote Timothy Snyder's "Twenty Lessons For Fighting Tyranny".

Or you'll just live happily ever after in a dictatorship thinking about what you can say publicly or even privately because you are not sure if there's someone who might tell Big Brother that you didn't like him. I just remember these days when one had to be careful when for example the teacher asked you if you had watched TV last day and how the clock had looked like, i. e. if there had been numbers or not. Note: The news programme "Aktuelle Kamera" had no numbers while "heute" had. So if you said the clock had numbers the teacher knew you had watched the news of the enemy. Parents told their children not to talk about TV because adults feared the MfS (Stasi, the intellence service) could then start an investigation into their lives.

So to keep things short ;-): The signs were so clear but even now some people do not want to see the whole picture. Media cooperations were and are enraged about Trump's words and actions yet they looked at every event as if they were isolated. Trump's election campaign used a video with references to a "unified Reich". Yeah, that's just a coincidence. Noboby, really no one asked where a presedential candidate had got that video from. It clearly showed the mindset of Trump and the people working for him but no one cared. Media outlets did not connect the dots with all the other horrible stuff Trump said during his campaign. So there's no wonder that up until this day only a few people have realised that the Supreme Court works against the Constitution, that the "conservative" majority has just cleared all obstacles for Trump and they're still doing it. They answered Elizabeth Willing Powel's anecdotic question: "A monarchy, of course."--92.210.41.137 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little addendum: Compare this memo (Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence) to the "Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zur Abwehr heimtückischer Angriffe gegen die Regierung der nationalen Erhebung" (Regulations of the Reich president for Defense from Treacherous Attacks Against the Government of the National Uprising and the "Gesetz zur Abwehr politischer Gewalttaten" (Law to Prevent Political Violence) (March/April 1933). The memo is just as broad as the German regulation and law and they have certain things in common: prioritisation of crimes like arson offenses and fight against so called "Organized Political Violence": "The United States requires a national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts." Therefore the regime says: "A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required."

Just look at the regulation of 1933: "Ist die Tat in der Absicht begangen, einen Aufruhr oder in der Bevölkerung Angst und Schrecken zu erregen, oder dem Deutschen Reich außenpolitische Schwierigkeiten zu bereiten, so ist die Strafe Zuchthaus nicht unter drei Jahren oder lebenslanges Zuchthaus." (Michaelis et. al. (Ed.), Ursachen und Folgen, vol. 9, p. 281, If the crime was committed to create an uproar or to arouse fear and terror among the population or to create troubles with regard to foreign affairs the punishment will not be under three year of penitentiary/prison.) Because of the broader meaning of these words it justifies strong measurements.

So the regime uses legal measures to prosecute those who fight against illegal actions, e. g. ICE Officers arresting migrants without warrants. These are the pseudo-legal means that I mentioned above: the regime commits crimes but they use the law against those who call them out. These protesters are defined as "terrorists". I just quote Snyder here: "Listen for dangerous words. Be alert to the use of the words extremism and terrorism. Be alive to the fatal notions of emergency and exception. Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary." Because that's the vocabulary of authorians. It's always the same playbook and people fall for it. So ask yourself: who are the terrorists? The answer is quite easy: possibly you.--92.210.41.137 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 20

foreign leader

If a foreign leader (let's say the PM of Whateverland) visits the US, do they have diplomatic immunity? I thought that diplomats were a special category, different from politicians. This came up on another site. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:673E:3CA5:AB05:E6B9 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they act as their own ambassador – unlike a random mayor or legislator, say. —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems ambiguous. This extract suggests it depends in part on whether the person in question is seen as a legal entity of the state or as a privileged individual.

https://academic.oup.com/oxford-law-pro/book/58829/chapter-abstract/489466485?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

This article describes the shifing international view on crimes committed by heads of state.

https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/are-international-immunities-of-heads-of-state-and-government-officials-undergoing-a-major-change

Dalliance (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the answer was (generally) yes, but the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations full text of 1961 doesn't appear to cover that case. Diplomatic immunity is conferred on "diplomatic agents" which are defined as "the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission". Eluchil404 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The exception might be heads of state with arrest warrants outstanding for war crimes. I'm not sure that a sitting head of state or premier has ever been arrested on a foreign visit though. Alansplodge (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Putin is on there. I'm really curious whether any country would have the nerve to execute that warrant. Not sure I want to find out. The current situation is...uncomfortable, but things could get much much worse. --Trovatore (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any country except the USA perhaps? (the US is not a member of the International Criminal Court, but 125 others are). Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would they, though? Their laws might say they should; don't know on that point. But would they do it? --Trovatore (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we didn't when we had the chance recently. While I would say that the current administration is the least likely to do this to Putin, I don't think any prior administration would either. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you can't invite someone and then arrest them when they come. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? The US Marshals disagree. I see a story like this every year or two. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is broken. But from the title it sounds like some sort of a sting operation. Sure, but there you're not trying to preserve the credibility of international negotiations. If you invite someone to a parley, and then turn on them when they're at a disadvantage, who is going to parley with you in the future? --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm only seeing fake news Down Here, but it seems literally nothing is off the table as far as this administration is concerned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a point. If anyone would be willing to burn down all future credibility to make one arrest, it would be Trump. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'm reminded of a Poul Anderson story, I think Satan's World but I'm not 100% sure of that. The protagonists, who may have been Nicholas van Rijn or Dominic Flandry or both, make a discovery. To figure out what to do about it, they consult certain mysterious figures of absolutely unshakable reputation for complete integrity. Said figures immediately abscond and become the antagonists, seeking to use the secret for themselves. Turns out they were only waiting for something of sufficient value to throw away their reputation.
Of course there is no one in the real-world story who has that sort of rep. It should be clear to everyone that you can't trust Trump. Whether you can trust America is slightly more nuanced, but in any case she cannot be said to have had an impeccable record up to this point. But it just reminded me of the situation. Is there someone that so needs to be arrested that it would be worth having no one ever be willing to negotiate with you again?? --Trovatore (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Most things involve some degree of risk. That's where mature judgement comes in. Despite the increase in whistleblower protections, there are still numerous cases of whistleblowers who have been convicted and jailed for breaking some law by doing what they consider the right, necessary and moral thing. They must know this is a possibility but must feel it's a price they're prepared to pay. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this out of the hypothetical, Augusto Pinochet was arrested for crimes against humanity while visiting the UK and subsequently was nearly extradited to Spain to stand trial until the UK decided to release him on health grounds. He was, at the time, a senator within the Chilean government. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as comparable. Chile doesn't have nukes. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And more specifically, he was merely a legislator when arrested, not the head of state or the head of government. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely irrelevant to the point, or at least the one I was making (if this is still responding to me; hard to track all the subthreads). My point was, irrespective of the legalities, arresting Putin would be a bold (foolish?) move, because of the risk of Russian reprisals, up to and including nuclear war. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a rule that heads of state and government and foreign ministers, just those three, have special immunity. Can't recall where I read that. I am waiting for the appropriate question to answer falsely so I can abscond and immediately become the antagonist of the questioner, but this isn't the one.John Z (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC) [reply]

September 21

Who were the Bucheldians?

William Marshall's frontispiece to Daniel Featley's The Dippers Dipp'd (1645), available here, lists several types of Anabaptist, including "Bucheldians". According to Google, this name, sometimes spelt "Buckeldian", appears in various seventeenth-century dictionaries and word-lists, where it's unhelpfully glossed as "A type of Anabaptist", but I've not been able to find anything substantive about them. Judging by the illustration, they practiced polygamy - can we find anything more? Tevildo (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"... which Alstedius comprehends ...", that is, Johann Heinrich Alsted. How is "anabaptists" written in Latin? I guess I should try to find the relevant encyclopedia and search it for anabaptistae. Likely this will turn out to be the sect of some Swiss radical called Büchel.

Or perhaps this Austrian? Perhaps "Bucheldians" is just a name for the otherwise untitled Swiss brethren? Card Zero (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A comment in the 1870 catalogue leads to John of Leiden or Johan Beukelszoon, a leader of the Münster rebellion. It is unclear where the catalogue gets Boekheldt from, but the pronunciation fits "Bucheldian". --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1778 Encyclopedia Britannica: John of Leyden, otherwiſe called Buccold. See Anabaptists. ... John Boccold, or Beukels, a journeyman taylor of Leyden, poſſeſſed with the rage of making proſelytes ... (Also Bockholdt) Card Zero (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Münster_rebellion#Siege Jan van Leiden made polygamy compulsory, which explains why the frontispice shows a guy with two women in the picture for the Bucheldians. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! The reference is clearly to the followers of John of Leyden. Is it possible to find a citation that says this explicitly - "The followers of John of Leyden were known as Bucheldians"? Despite the illustration, the term does not appear in the text of Featley's book (available at archive.org) - he frequently mentions John of Leyden and has a chapter on the Siege of Munster, but gives his real name as "John Becold" (p. 243) and does not give his followers any distinctive name. Tevildo (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's there in the text, page 26, after the illustration, but Featley or the printer has managed to render it "Eucheldians", and it isn't given a meaning. It's true that an explicit connection between some form of Beukels and some form of Beukeldians would be nice to have. On page 31 he instead says John Leyden, and Cniperdoling, who in the yeare 1532. infected and infeſted alſo Munſter. There is a marginal note in Latin that references Alsted again, that would be a good source to locate.

Oh hold on a minute, what's this? I took a shot in dark and tried "Bockoldians": The Bockoldians were the followers of King John of Leyden. Don't ask me what that source is though, something from Calcutta apparently. Card Zero (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a manuscript image

Biblissima mentions a miniature of Alice of Champagne found in a manuscript in Saint Petersburg: Alix de Chypre et la succession du Royaume latin de Jérusalem (Russie, Saint-Pétersbourg. Bibliothèque nationale de Russie, Fr. F. v. IV. 5, t. 2 f. 115v). That image would make a good addition to the article about her, but I am not able to find it. Some assistance would be much appreciated. Pinging our manuscript Doric Loon. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RX? 2601:644:8581:75B0:712B:BE5D:1D64:41BA (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna Well there's a digitalization of the manuscript which you are supposed to be able to reach here, but I'm getting an error message. So you could try to contact them. Or contact the library themselves. The problem is not usually accessing a manuscript but getting permission to reproduce it, as libraries often charge heavy fees. So if the colleagues in St. Petersburg haven't placed it in the public domain yet, that's probably as far as you can go. Doric Loon (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, pages of medieval manuscripts are all public domain. The question is whether a library allows access. Perhaps some knowledge of Russian is required to find the image if it is online. Otherwise I might have to contact Biblissima about the error message. Surtsicna (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Can VA hospitals treat non-veterans?

This is about the US Veterans Health Administration. Let's say Trump authorizes the VA to offer lobotomies (or some other procedure) to anyone who wants one. Does that run afoul of any statutes that anyone can think of? Do they already do anything like that, other than some possible exceptional emergency care? Not seeking legal or medical advice, just thinking out loud. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:63AB:4592:D57D:7247 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the VA states: "You may be eligible for VA health care benefits if you served in the active military, naval, or air service and didn’t receive a dishonorable discharge."[2] On the other hand, a lobotomy isn't generally considered a benefit. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2020 Donald J. Trump was treated at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, presumably in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, without actually having served in any of them due to a (highly publicized) medical exemption. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that where he got his cerebrectomy? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC) [reply]

He'd benefit from a lobotomy, but I don't think anybody would notice any difference. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a veteran, even with a honorable discharge, doesn't guarantee you VA benefits. There are many cases in which a veteran is denied benefits and must go through legal procedures to gain access. As for treatment of non-veterans, as a hospital, the VA will provide life-saving services to anyone as necessary, but will charge for those services. Also, families of veterans are covered for VA services through CHAMPVA and similar programs. Finally, many clinics are in areas where they adopt part of the VA's "Fourth Mission" to include community health services, such as free flu vaccines. 4.17.97.234 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looks like former Pres. Joe Biden had brain surgery (lobotomy not mentioned specifically) at Walter Reed in 1988, while he was still a US Senator.[3] I don't think he is a veteran. It looks like emergency surgery, but it still sounds like there is a pathway for ordinary civilians to get access. 2601:644:8581:75B0:E58B:E956:D61D:1A11 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The VA is about supplying benefits. Presumably, Biden and Trump didn't need to partake of those benefits, and their health care was paid for outside of the VA. That said, it's still an actual hospital that can do actual hospital things, and there's no reason to think they are required to only have veterans there. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but VA hospitals aren't open to ordinary randos for ordinary services, even if the randos have insurance. Trump as someone mentioned is the military commander in chief, so Biden's case was more interesting. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:3BD:2C18:7EA2:567F (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to US VA hospitals, but in the UK, military hospitals regularly treat civilian patients in order to keep their support staff and facilities occupied and their medical staff in practice and up-to-date in carrying out treatments and operations.

I would have thought that VA hospitals would have similar concerns, unless they're already at full stretch, which seems unlikely since they would then have insufficient resources if/when the US gets involved in more conflicts that result in more veterans requiring treatment. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Yeah, but VA hospitals aren't open to ordinary randos for ordinary services, even if the randos have insurance" The VA is not turning away a former president, dude, regardless of their insurance status. --Golbez (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP — the US-VA hospitals serve former servicemen, including those whose service was decades ago. One can easily find stories/news reports of long backlogs in the VA system, even though it's been several years since significant numbers of US servicemen were in combat, and more than fifty years since the US had a long, sustained conflict with a foreign government. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, when Biden had that big surgery at Walter Reed, he was still a mere US Senator. He became VPOTUS years later, POTUS years after that, and ex-POTUS even more recently. Thanks everyone for all the other info. Fwiw, lobotomies with the patient's consent appear legal in all 50 states.[4] Finding that info was harder than I expected it to be. I have added that link to the lobotomy article. 2601:644:8581:75B0:DF6C:C6CB:A7C3:1CE7 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, my mistake on the timeline; that said, again, they aren't turning away a senator who needs surgery. --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Running for multiple offices

AOC is being talked up as a potential 2028 candidate for both NY-SEN (primarying Chuck Schumer) and US President. I'm not exactly a fan of hers but am wondering more about the rules for this sort of thing. In 2000, Joe Lieberman ran for VPOTUS as Al Gore's running-mate and also ran for re-election to CT-SEN. So does anything stop AOC from running in both primaries at the same time, or even both general elections (plus re-election to her House seat)? People keep saying she would have to pick what to run for, but "all of the above" seems like a strategy too. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:3BD:2C18:7EA2:567F (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dual mandate#United States covers this: "Also typically permitted is for one person to seek multiple offices at the same level of government in the same election, although attempting to simultaneously seek multiple offices in the same branch of government (e.g. a sitting U.S. Representative seeking re-election to the House and election to the U.S. Senate) is severely frowned on and prohibited in many states (the constitutionality of these prohibitions is uncertain)." Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running for both the Senate (or again the House) and the presidency might not be the smartest move. Theoretically, though, AOC might be attending the vote count in her role as senator (or representative) on January 6, 2029, that will declare her the winner of the presidential election. ‑‑Lambiam 08:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Bentsen ran as the vice-presidential candidate for Michael Dukakis in the 1988 United States presidential election, while successfully defending his senate seat at the same time. There was criticism at the time that his running for re-election to the Senate seemed to indicate he had little confidence that Dukakis would win the presidency. Xuxl (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrentmore

I recently came across this article but after doing some research, I could not find whether or not the history it provides about the family name is real. It claims that the subject may have came from another surname but I could not find evidence of that name not coming from this Wikipedia article. Could someone here do some research to confirm that the claims are verifiable? RanDom 404 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to page 228 of The Teutonic Name-System Applied to the Family Names of France, England, and Germany., it is derived from rand (rim, i.e. shield) and mar (famous), so "famous shield"? (I have tagged all of the unsourced claims and added two bearers of the surname to the article.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mauer (as in Berliner Mauer) is German for "wall", so maybe "shield-wall"? 2601:644:8581:75B0:F3FC:F0D7:CE7A:118F (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Various 'Family tree' type sources findable with websearches on Wrentmore's meaning (as you may already have discovered) attribute it to 'the name of a now-unknown place in Somerset', and/or suggest it includes a reference to the wren (bird), but I suspect these are unsubstantiated guesses of little or no value. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Family Names--Their Origin and Meaning, Reverend Henry Barber (1903) p. 281 says it's after a location but no other details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

Popular picture

Depending on where on the internet you look, this is someone called Mpho Nthunya [5], Moges Kebede [6], Bediako Asare [7] or Elvania Namukwaya Zirimu [8] (that one takes time to load). There might be more.

So, referencers, who is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fairly convincing, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Singing Away the Hunger'. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

Striking testimony from the record in The Verdict

In the 1982 film The Verdict, a witness (a nurse) in a civil trial gives evidence that an anesthetist improperly dosed the victim and subsequently ordered her (with threats to her career) to amend a form to change a "1" to a "9" re: the hours since the victim had last eaten. The nurse reveals that she kept a copy of the unaltered form and the plaintiff's lawyer attempts to enter that as evidence, however, the defence successfully argues that a copy of a document cannot be entered, which the judge upholds, and the nurse's testimony is stricken from the record. My question is: maybe you can refuse to enter that document as evidence, but surely you cannot strike out the witness' sworn verbal testimony, especially when she is alleging a criminal offence - i.e. the doctor blackmailing her into falsifying a document? Dr-ziego (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but fictional works frequently contradict reality, whether unintentionally through the ignorance of the writer(s), or intentionally for the sake of making a more dramatic story – see Artistic licence. This also happens in supposedly factual 'docu-dramas' and 'biopics': for example, the film The Sound of Music adapted a stage musical inspired by an earlier film based on the (presumably accurate) memoir of Maria von Trapp, but invents, distorts and omits many details of her real life.

Both fictional and dramatised factual works depicting crimes may also deliberately contain inaccuracies to prevent people successfully copying their methods in real life. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

O'Shúilleabháin clan

@Bearian: This was redirected last month to O'Sullivan family because it was unsourced, but the subject is not mentioned at the target. There was previously some information about this clan at Bellewstown, but it has been removed. This was previously an article, but I can not find any information about this clan. Could someone do some more research? No sources were added by any editors beforehand, so pinging Bearian to see their insight on this. I am not saying what to do, but I would like to hear some thoughts. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirected article can always be recreated by rolling back the last edit, which saves the edit history. I don't have ready access to possible sources offline or deeper in the web. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One source at Archive.org: The Blasket Islands: Next Parish America (Joan & Ray Stagles, rev ed 1998) -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 16:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that's pertinent, where do you mean? (I can only see the search results, not the book itself). The spelling "O'Shúilleabháin" doesn't look right, the common spelling is "Ó Súilleabháin" for men and "Ní Shúilleabháin" for women. The original article looks a bit fishy to me. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I supplied a URL with a search term embedded. Searching for Erse/accented/punctuated/anglicized names is a tricky business, and one search term definitely does not suffice!

In the index, O'Shuilleabhain family (unaccented, but using a curly quote) is cross-referenced to O'Sullivan family, which refers to pages 33-40 passim, 131. That's almost the whole of chapter 3 "The Island Families", plus one other page.

According to that chapter, the earliest appearance of the name O'Sullivan in the island's baptismal register was in 1838, which is later than any period covered by either of the articles in question. This source may therefore be irrelevant, unless someone wants to extend the articles by several hundred years.

There is also a reference to the literary efforts of Maurice O'Sullivan, a twentieth-century inhabitant of the island.

(I recommend setting up an Archive.org account; it has a vast, if inconsistent, range of publications, with at least something useful for every topic I have searched.) -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada in BC

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 24 has an entry for Next British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election, where I learn that the party's BC branch basically doesn't exist anymore, having rebranded to BC United and become a rather minor party. The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is mostly composed of Conservative and NDP members, with a few independents and minor-party members, but no Liberals or BC United Members. However, our article on the 45th Canadian Parliament (the current one) tells me that twenty of British Columbia's forty-three MPs are Liberals. Is there some other provincial organisation for the Liberal Party of Canada? Seems a bit odd that the party could elect so many federal MPs without some sort of provincial existence. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada (British Columbia) DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial political parties in Canada, even if named similarly to federal parties, are not "branches" of them. The provincial parties run candidates for the provincial legislature while the federal ones run candidates for Parliament. Note that since the federal Progressive Conservative party disappeared, there are still provincial Progressive Conservative parties in a number of provinces. --142.112.140.137 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thanks for the helpful responses. Both here in Australia (e.g. Victorian Liberal Party and Victorian Greens) and in my native US (e.g. Ohio Republican Party and DFL), one encounters state branches of national parties, and I just assumed that the same was true in Canada. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Jain units of time

I have a few questions:

Are purvaangas, stokas and kaullaka bhavas real units of time? I would assume that a purvaanga is a real unit in Jainism, since the amount of years in it (equivalent to the lifespan of the tirthankara Shreyansanatha) is the square root of the amount of years in a purva.
- If a stoka is a real unit of time, how long is it?
- If a kaullaka bhava is a real unit of time, how long is it?
A Hindu lava is either 1.111 milliseconds or 140 milliseconds, yet this chart shows its Jain counterpart at the 10¹ range. How long is it?
A Hindu prana is 4 seconds, yet this chart shows its Jain counterpart at the 10^-1 range. How long is it?

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

If the baseline (10^0) represents one second, then 10^-1 is one tenth of one second.

So, if the prana, as represented on the chart, is 10^-1 (but it would be nice to have any source for this) of a second, it is one tenth of one second 130.74.59.64 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been long acquainted with how the powers of ten work. What I mean is "How long are a lava and a prana in Jainism?" because, if the chart were about Hindu units instead, then Lava would have to be shown at the 10^-1 or 10^-3 range, below Second, whereas Prana would be shown on the same row as Second or just right above it. If the lava and prana are the same across both Indian religions, then their positions on this chart are incorrect. If their positions are correct, then their precise lengths are what I'd like to know, alongside those of the stoka and kaullaka bhava. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Advanced Glossary Of Jain Terms (N. L. Jain 2006), found on Archive.org, includes some of these terms. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 14:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full minutes of the Soummam conference including annexe

Hello. The Soummam conference was an important meeting of leaders from the Algerian FLN held August-September 1956. A copy of the minutes appears in Mohammed Harbi (ed.) Les Archives de La Revolution Algerienne from p160. Under the initial report from the Nord-Constantinois, Zone 2 (p161), it says "... (voir résumé du rapport a la suite)." English: "... (see summary of the report below)." However, there is no such summary attached in Harbi's volume.

In Lakhdar Ben Tobbal's book Mémoires de l'intérieur he writes: "We immediately began the preparation since the principle of the meeting was now decided, the date known and the region too ( Kabylie, without further details). We held working sessions at the level of the wilaya to finalize the reports. Everything was reviewed, the numbers, the number of weapons, the amount of the fund. The organizational report, the financial report And the morale report and policy of North Constantine were all written during this period. They would later appear in the minutes of what would become the Soummam Congress."

So my question is: is this annexe (and/or other annexes) available anywhere, and if so where? Many thanks for any suggestions.

Sonnyvalentino (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The summary referred to on p. 161 of Les Archives de la révolution algérienne may be on p. 167, under the heading Zone n^o 2. ‑‑Lambiam 10:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Three men and the Queen

This is a news photo of Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of the official opening of part of the Victoria Line of the London Underground in 1968: [9]

I've found several copies of this photo on the Net, but none of them is provided with a caption that identifies the three men in the photo. As the line did not open to the public until later that day, I suppose each of them is either a London Transport representative of a member of the Queen's household staff... but can anyone identify them?

--142.112.140.137 (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[10] --Viennese Waltz 09:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see the caption when you click on it because I can see on a google search it starts "Queen Elizabeth II opening the Victoria Line, London's first completely new underground railway for 60 years. With her, from left; Maurice Holmes, ..." but when I open the page, the caption is nowhere to be found. Nanonic (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the caption. It reads "Queen Elizabeth II opening the Victoria Line, London's first completely new underground railway for 60 years. With her, from left; Maurice Holmes, Chairman of London Transport Board; F.E Wilkins, Chief Public Relations Officer, LTB; Anthony Bull, vice-chairman, LTB; Richard Marsh, Minister of Transport." --Viennese Waltz 11:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the caption. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can see it here. ‑‑Lambiam 09:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so long as I don't scroll down and back up, if I do that the picture gets replaced by adverts for a gluten-free Lady Gaga or somesuch. DuncanHill (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Maurice Holmes (barrister), Anthony Bull, Richard Marsh, Baron Marsh, and the London Transport Board (LTB). DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar since the Q has been answered: Interesting. I can see the caption in VW's link with no issues. I assumed this was because I am using Firefox with NoScript, which blocks a lot of the noise, but even when I temporarily allow all scripts, I can see the caption fine. Likewise, Chrome and Edge also display the caption with no issue. If you're one of the unlucky ones who cannot see the caption on the picture [here, what browser are you using? Are you accessing it via your phone? Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it in Firefox, Edge or Chrome. Using Windows 11 PC. Nanonic (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. It's a German site, but from top down there's a header area, a search bar that spans the width of the screen, the caption in question, and then the image. Like this. Are you missing the other pieces as well? Matt Deres (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and cannot access Imgur.[11] Here's a screenshot of what I see [12] Nanonic (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Bottom of the image page if you fancy that too)[13] Nanonic (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edhe, Win11, desktop, in UK so Imgur useless. I see what Nanonic sees. DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, the caption in question is in two parts: a title and some text; you and DuncanHill are only getting the title, while I see the text beneath as well. Hopefully, I uploaded this correctly: link. I checked the source but didn't immediately see any reason why the caption would truncate. Matt Deres (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I think my previous searches found the Getty image but without that caption, although following Viennese's link worked for me. I also normally have JavaScript disabled. By the way, the event was not the original opening of the Victoria Line, but of the third section completed, an extension from Warren Street to Victoria station. --142.112.140.137 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

research topic suggestions

please suggest me topics of research in themes of law and justice in a globalised world also topics of research in themes of comparative constitutional law. Grotesquetruth (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Start with constitutional rights (there are many). Different countries guarantee different rights. Now, identify variances between countries, such as variances in digital privacy laws. Finally, identify which of those cross borders (globalised) such as social media services being located in one country with one set of privacy laws and constitutional rights, but the user is in a different country with a different set of laws and constitutional rights. Research. 4.17.97.234 (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black education journals in the US

As far as I can tell, the Journal of Negro Education is the oldest (1932)--does anyone know of any older ones? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2