Humanities desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

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.

September 2

instigation of French revolution

Who instigated the french revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iphonelover22 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Causes of the French Revolution. The causes were complex, and trying to pin down a single group of 'instigators' results in a gross oversimplification. Our article summarises major factors thus :

Cultural: The Enlightenment philosophy desacralized the authority of the King and the Church, and promoted a new society based on "reason" instead of traditions.

Social: The emergence of an influential bourgeoisie which was formally part of the Third Estate (commoners) but had evolved into a caste with its own agenda and aspired to political equality with aristocracy.

Financial: France's debt, aggravated by French involvement in the American Revolution, led Louis XVI to implement new taxations and to reduce privileges.

Political: Louis XVI faced virulent opposition from provincial parliaments which were the spearheads of the privileged classes' resistance to royal reforms.

Economic: The deregulation of the grain market, advocated by liberal economists, resulted in an increase in bread prices. In period of bad harvests, it would lead to food scarcity which would prompt the masses to revolt.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the root cause of the French Revolution was the same as for most revolutions - a reaction against autocratic government, encapsulated in this instance by Marie Antoinette's comment on receiving the report that people were rioting because there was no bread: "Let them eat cake". 80.42.79.200 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we have an article called "Let them eat cake", which say that the quote was first published in 1755 when Marie Antoinette was only 9 years-old and was first directly attributed to her in 1843, nearly half a century after her death. Andy has succinctly hit the various nails on the head above. An additional factor was all the French soldiers returning from the American War of Independence, describing how the locals were able to overthrow the king's army and establish a republic; the oppression of having to pay an extra thrupence for a packet of tea must have seemed a very minor imposition to the French, who paid as much tax as the nobility thought they could get away with on such staples as bread and salt. Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation tower in harbor

Tried asking this a week ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force#Navigation tower in harbor, but so far no responses there so I'm asking here. Is there a correct name for a marker tower in a harbor that serves a similar purpose to a buoy, as shown in the picture at right? - Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Harbor marker tower", perhaps? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Range marker? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is Navigation Structures at Frankfort Harbor and Navigation Structures at Pentwater Harbor so it may be that Navigation structure, a redirect to beacon, is the term. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general term for a non-floating thing serving the same function as a buoy is a "beacon". Iapetus (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the general term for the light on top of them? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on this topic: Beacon. 92.25.66.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those not familiar with the term, a "zebra crossing" is the equivalent of a "crosswalk" in Australia, which is modelled on the American pedestrian crossing even to the extent of the "WALK" "DONT WALK" signs. Some of these Australian crosswalks are lethal at night - they are simply a band of black and white stripes across the road with no lights to warn drivers. Apart from the black and white stripes (hence "zebra crossing") there is a pole at either end with a flashing yellow globe on top, called a "Belisha beacon" from the Minister of Transport who introduced them after the war, Mr Hore - Belisha. The beacon is the light on top of the support, not the structure that it is fixed to. 92.25.66.96 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Leslie Hore-Belisha, 1st Baron Hore-Belisha. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicably, the initial proposal to call them "Hore beacons" did not find favour. {The poster formally known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne don't have to put out the red light! Besides, whores on rocky outposts are called sirens. Did you know the awooga horn that cartoons make when they see a fetching cartoon lass or that movie ships make before they sink is called a klaxon, not a siren? Or, that on cloudy nights (or silent nights when all is bright) a foghorn's sound essentially moves faster than light? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty firmly believe "beacon" is just the light on top (for obvious reasons) or, alternatively, something that sends a radio signal, and that a buoy can also have a beacon, so "beacon" is a bit of a non sequitur. FWIW, on Commons we have a general Commons:Category:Navigational aids (maritime navigation) (which is where I have this right now). It has a subcategory Commons:Category:Navigation buoys, but no category for things like this that are fixed rather than floating. This is presumably a range light or some other sort of channel marker, but that still doesn't deal with the fixed tower vs. buoy thing. - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Beacon tower" has some Google results, including one at our own Gribben Head article: "The 84 feet (26 m) high square beacon tower was erected by Trinity House in 1832 to distinguish the Gribben from Dodman Point and St Anthony’s Head, and thus make navigation into Fowey and the harbours of St Austell Bay safer. It was never lighted, but is painted in broad red and white bands as a daymark." So it seems that you can have a beacon without a light. Also, the Ordnance Survey map symbol for such a structure is simply labelled "beacon", although this may be purely British usage. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the Ordnance Survey marked a shoreline structure without a light as a beacon that would surely be a serious matter - navigators would be looking for a light and accidents could result. "Beacon tower" does not demand the existence of a light, especially where the reference makes it clear that there is no light. I don't see how you can have a beacon without a light or radio transmitter, although the term for the latter would normally be "radio beacon". 80.42.79.200 (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The unlit tower linked above is indeed marked by the OS with a "beacon" symbol: type "Menabilly" into the search field this map - there is an option to view as an OS map on the tool bar at the top left. Note that OS maps are not intended for maritime navigation - you need an Admiralty chart for that. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a mariner is using an OS map rather than a nautical chart, then and accidents he has as a result are his own fault. To answer InedibleHulk's question, the term for the light on top of a buoy or beacon is a "light". The term for a non-light marker on a buoy or beacon is a "topmark". The general term for buoys and beacons is "sea mark" or "navigation mark". See sections P and Q of [the international list of nautical charting symbols ] for details. Iapetus (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, see our Day beacon article: "A day beacon is an unlighted nautical sea mark. Typically, day beacons mark channels whose key points are marked by lighted buoys. Day beacons may also mark smaller navigable routes in their entirety. They are the most common aid to nautical navigation in shallow water as they are relatively inexpensive to install and maintain." Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of unlighted, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So would Beacon towers presumably be the right name for a Commons category? - Jmabel | Talk 18:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable - I would think it ought to be a subcategory of "Category:Maritime safety" which already contains "Category:Buoys". Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, it would be a subcategory of Commons:Category:Navigational_aids_(maritime_navigation). - Jmabel | Talk 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! It's already there as Commons:Category:Beacons (maritime navigation). - Jmabel | Talk 09:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One crime, two sentences for runaway sailor?

One day, a certain H.H. O'Bryan decided his master's ship seemed unseaworthy and decided to stay on land. He made a good call, because that ship foundered on the voyage. But a contract's a contract, so three weeks before things played out as he thought they might, he was sentenced to hard labour. Not 21 days of it, but 14 days and 7 days.

What's up with that? Could a sailor be charged with two counts of not proceeding to one ship? Were these consecutive or concurrect sentences? Was one a mistake quickly realized as too harsh/lenient, but kept recorded for formality's sake? Did H.H. O'Bryan have a brother named H.H. O'Bryan who concurred that the boat shan't float? Simple clerical error? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link. Perhaps you meant this one. No comment otherwise. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the one! Stumbled into this whole mess trying to find out if a "mutiness" was a female mutineer, accidentally left a virtual paper trail. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody knows, I'll go with the brother guess. Not that the truth matters much now, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communion and Political Opinion in the Catholic Church

From time to time I have heard of people being denied communion by the Catholic church simply because they held political opinions (or supported political candidates) that the Catholic church didn't like. Is this standard practice within the Catholic church? Are there any written rules within the Catholic church that specifically permit this? 98.116.86.229 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canon 915 is the place to start. Grants permission to deny permission. There's a very long answer, too, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what is meant by "political opinion". For example, birth control and abortion are two topics which are political questions in certain countries, but which are also covered by Catholic Dogma: One cannot be considered to be in compliance if one willfully lives in a state of sin, including supporting political policies that the Catholic church considers to be sins. So, it depends on the particular "political" issue. Can you be denied communion for supporting legal abortion? Yes, but only because the Catholic church considers abortion not a purely political issue. I know of no Catholic church where a priest would deny communion for other political issues, such as whether or not you support a particular school funding referendum or whether or not you vote for a specific candidate for office. But yes, there are matters which the Catholic church expects you to believe before you can take communion. That's what religions do. --Jayron 32 15:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't mean that last sentence. Lots of religions do nothing like communion whatsoever. Lots of Christian sects will give communion to anyone who wants it. For instance the United Methodists "... have no tradition of refusing any who present themselves desiring to receive" - [1]. So rejecting people from taking communion based on their belief or actions is not a general feature of religion. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are religions in the world that have NO beliefs they expect you to agree with? Belief in a doctrine is generally part of the whole religion thing, and to be a part of that religion, they generally wish you to also believe it as well. --Jayron 32 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. As I say below, I was perhaps being over literal in my reading, sorry about that. When I first read the last two sentences you wrote above, it seemed like you were saying that demanding adherence to a specific belief in order to receive communion is a general feature of religion, and that's just not true. An atheist can take communion at a Methodist church, and not a catholic church. An atheist can be a part of Unitarian_Universalism along with a Satanist, a Pagan, a Christian, etc. You can't really expect members of a UU church to share that many beliefs, but that's sort of their whole thing, they're really into inclusion. I suppose many people would not consider UU to be a "real" religion, but I don't want to play no true scotsman right now :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But many or most religions do have something along the lines of excommunication, which is in a lot of ways ultimately the same thing. And, yes, some of those other groups have expelled or excommunicated individuals in whatever ways they use to do so for what some outsiders might call "political" reasons. This will probably be most frequently true to older groups which others have schismed away from. Groups of individuals who have been, in a way, excommunicated from other groups are probably less likely to do any excommunicating themselves.

Also, particularly within the Catholic Church, the taking of communion during mass is indicative of the individual being in agreement and compliant with the central teachings of that church. And that church has taken a stand that what others might call purely political matters, including birth control, abortion, capital punishment in some cases, and other topics are inconsistent with the teachings of that church, and that promoting these activities, which in this instance are generally counted as mortal sins by that church body, and even remotely supporting such actions is something that church, and its recognized and adherent members, cannot support. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, many religions kick people out. I think OP has good answers and refs at this point, and perhaps I was being a little too picky in my literal reading of Jayron's last sentence. In-group favoritism and Out-group homogeneity are probably also relevant to general religious inclusion/exclusion practices. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been high profile cases of refusal of communion, such as the Rainbow Sash Movement people. They would turn up at a church wearing their sashes that proclaimed their homosexuality, daring the priest to deny them en masse. Well, he took the dare, and they promptly complained of discrimination. I wonder why. Not. Now, if they'd all just turned up without their sashes, as many other homosexuals do all the time, they wouldn't have been denied anything. Priest can't be expected to be able to identify the murderers, rapists, sodomites, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen, Wikipedia editors, or what have you in their congregations just by looking. But if one carries a big sign identifying one's lubricious doings, the priest can hardly be expected to ignore it, because that would be tantamount to condoning the uncondoneable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, but there is an expectation of earnestness in these exchanges. The Catholic church expects a "free conscience" in people who take communion; that is they expect that people who take communion to be in full compliance with Catholic doctrine and beliefs. People can, and do, take communion despite this, but Priests who are in knowledge of someone who they know to be out of compliance of Catholic doctrine are allowed (even expected) to deny access to communion, just as earnest Catholics who know themselves to be outside of church doctrine, either through their actions or beliefs, to voluntarily refrain from communion. Of course people can lie, mask, or deny their beliefs or actions in order to take communion, and they'll still get a wafer and a sip; it doesn't mean that the church teaches they should do that. Earnestness is expected on both sides of the rail, and if either the priest or the communicant knows that they are not "right" with the church, for whatever reason, it is not unreasonable that they refrain from communion. One cannot stop liars, but one can at least have the expectation of earnestness for believers. --Jayron 32 01:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are not the Catholics and the Orthodox free to communicate in each other's churches now that the eleventh - century excommunications have been revoked? The Orthodox are not bound by many of these political dogmas. As for getting a wafer and a sip in a Catholic church, in which country does this happen? Leaders pay lip service to the idea of giving Communion in both kinds but I am not aware that any priests have actually implemented it. 80.42.79.200 (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone many, many times when I was younger and gotten both kinds once. I went to that specific church many times and got bread only all but once. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also as I remarked before, even if the priest is fairly sure you shouldn't be receiving communion, it doesn't mean they will deny communion. There is recognition that sometimes a public denial may cause unnecessary scandal. I suspect an example would be if a person had told the priest that their spouse left them and is banging their same sex secretary day and night. If it's a small congregation, perhaps the priest will recognise the spouse. But even if they genuinely believe that the person was telling the truth and that the spouse is obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin, they probably still won't deny communion initially, instead privately approaching the spouse and reminding them of the churches teachings. If the spouse continues to try and receive communion, perhaps only then will they deny it. See [2] for example. <pAs for the Rainbow Sash Movement, I believe this is distinct from the other denials. While those who are in same sex relationships may be be "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin", I don't believe the church is necessarily willing to say the same for those who simply disagree with the churches teachings and who are supporting their children/parents/siblings/random straight people/whatever. Despite what our article suggests, from my previous research e.g. [3], I believe the sash is also worn by such people. The reason for the denial is instead because the chuch feels it's not "to use the reception of Communion as an act of protest" [4], rather than because the sash is a sign the person is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin". (Well okay, it's possible that using the receiption of Communion as an act of protest could be "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin", but I don't think that's the statement, and I think it's hard to argue wearing it once is "obstinately persevering" too.)

In fact, even in the case of abortion or euthanasia, as per our article Canon 915 and other sources, my understanding it isn't simply those who disagree with the teachings. Rather, it's those who are considered to be part of it, doctors who carry out such procedures obviously, but also politicians who are considered to be "formal cooperation" in the practices via their support of laws which allow it. (Although the later is particularly controversial.) Perhaps a prominent blogger, or even a wikipedia editor who strives to remove excessive Catholic content from articles on the topics could be considered to be cooperating in the practices, but I'm not sure if some random person has a discussion on the topic with their priest and rigirously disagrees with the church's views, even if they go as far as to say if someone were to ask them they would say so, would be denied communion by even most hardline priests.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees from developing contries not recognized?

A Nigerian immigrant I know told me he has a 4-year degree in Mechanical Engineering from a Nigerian university, but it is worthless and not recognized here in Ireland. Why is this? Are the univerities in Nigeria really that bad, or is this due corruption/ignorance on the part of Irish authorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.124.1 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on the employer or academic institution in Ireland, as well as the specific institution in Nigeria. See Higher_education_accreditation and List_of_recognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations. It may be that the specific engineering degree simply did not come from a properly accredited institution, and the fact that it's in Nigeria is secondary. On the other hand, it could be some form of casual racism/xenophobia at work. Without knowing any specifics, it's impossible to say for sure.

Here are some lists of accredited universities in Nigeria [5] [6]. I don't think those lists are highly reliable (WP:RS), but you should be able to look at each of these (or any other specific) universities and learn what their accreditation status is, and what body granted it. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has your friend looked at taking any of the engineering examinations? Regulation and licensure in engineering covers the various requirements around the world, but in many places, one must take and pass certain examinations to be a licensed engineer. It may be allowed for him to take and pass the exam, even if his degree is not properly accredited. In the U.S., engineers have to pass two exams: the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination which is taken prior to any engineering employment, followed by their Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination after some number of years working on the job, to become fully licensed. Further exams are available to get additional endorsements in various specialties, for example the Structural Engineering exam for civil engineers. Has your friend looked into such requirements in Ireland? If he passes the requisite exams, it may not matter as much where his degrees come from. --Jayron 32 15:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense to check the website of Quality and Qualifications Ireland. For whatever reason, their database does not indicate recognition of engineering degrees from Nigeria, although it does list other Nigerian qualifications. It might be that a determination was made that engineering education in Nigeria is not up the same standard as comparable education in Ireland. However, that website has a number of pages advising on how to gain recognition for foreign qualifications. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My brother went to medical school in some developing country called the "United States", yet he can't practice in Canada without going through some sort of gyrations. (Now I admit Canadians have become more highly evolved in order to play hockey better, but still ...) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia does not allow people trained at overseas institutions to simply start practising upon arrival by brandishing a degree certificate. I know this is particularly true of medical degrees, but I think it extends to all fields. They have to at the very least sit examinations to prove their skills and knowledge and experience match those of locally trained persons. Often they have to do more training. Similar protocols apply in other countries. Our article Validation of foreign studies and degrees is pathetically woeful. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I see Australian firms recruiting directly out of Irish colleges.--88.81.124.1 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Just because they are recruiting students from Ireland doesn't mean said recruits are exempt from Australia's qualifications.--Jayron 32 23:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors who wish to work in Australia and are registered in New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, the United States and Canada, because of the quality of their qualifications and training are fast-tracked through the system. Eligible source countries can opt out — Singapore and South Africa have done so to minimise workforce loss. Once the source country's registration documents have been processed and visas obtained then that's more or less it. The Australian Health Practioner Regulation Agency issues limited registration for supervised practice to the foreign doctor. No competency examinations are deemed necessary. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the specific case mentioned, nor can I comment about UK universities in general, but I can point out that the constituent colleges of the University of London do not automatically accept all degrees from Nigerian universities as being of equal academic merit. For example, only graduates from an "acceptable university" in Nigeria will meet the requirements for admission to postgraduate courses. I'm also aware of several cases where graduates with BAs or BScs in Commonwealth countries read for a second undergraduate degree at a UK university before progressing to their postgraduate studies.

On an "anecdotal" level, I have taught/lectured to graduates from many universities around the world. Whilst some graduates of Nigerian universities have proven very able students, in my experience the great bulk of them have not, to the extent that my heart now sinks slightly whenever I find that I have a graduate from a Nigerian university in a class. (For the avoidance of doubt, please note that I am here referring to graduates of Nigerian universities, and not Nigerians.) RomanSpa (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to practice law in Singapore, there's a list of overseas Universities that you have to have graduated from. There's only four approved in the US! Believe it or not, if you did your JD at UPenn or Northwestern, you wouldn't be eligible.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]