Humanities desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 20

Requesting inputs

Greetings,

Just as I stumbled upon a term and sources, I initiated a Draft:Irrational beliefs, but since then it is under discussion @ Draft talk:Irrational beliefs#Related Articles Whether Draft:Irrational beliefs can stand out as an independent topic or it's better to cover under one of related topics like, Cognitive distortion , Fallacy, Superstition, Irrationality, Delusion.

Requesting some more inputs @ Draft talk:Irrational beliefs#Related Articles.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a separatism in Saudi Arabia

Have Saudi Arabia's Shi'a population ever expressed any separatist sentiments? Futurist110 (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Shi`ites live in the region where most of the oil is but don't receive proportional benefits, and that their practice of their religion has been persecuted in ways both petty and brutal, I'd be quite surprised if there wasn't separatist feeling... AnonMoos (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean, this would be my own hunch as well, but it would be nice to see if there is ever actually anything written about this topic. Futurist110 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Saudi regime is among the harshest oppressive regimes – no opposition of any kind is tolerated. See also Shia Islam in Saudi Arabia § Restrictions and persecutions. Anyone expressing separatist sentiments will promptly be re-united with their Maker. --Lambiam 11:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, unfortunately. Futurist110 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian plans if Iran would have won the Iran-Iraq War?

Does anyone here know if Iran had ever made any concrete plans about what it was going to do next if it would have won the Iran-Iraq War? For instance, was invading Kuwait and/or eastern (Shi'a-majority) Saudi Arabia ever on the table for Iran in such a scenario? Futurist110 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was just a motto saying 'the road to Qods passes through Karbala'. No mention of any other region. Omidinist (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Qods would presumably be Farsi for al-Quds, aka Jerusalem. Futurist110 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Omidinist (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq was the aggressor. Most certainly, Iran would have insisted in a regime change, installing an Islamist Shi'a-friendly one - presumably not difficult in a country with a majority Shi'a population that felt oppressed by the secular anti-Shi'a regime. While we are entering the area of speculation, I deem it somewhat unlikely that (Persophone) Iran, led by the pragmatist Rafsanjani, would have had an appetite for territorial expansion into Arabic-speaking regions. --Lambiam 11:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini was the real leader in charge of Iran during this time. Futurist110 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(At first I thought you wrote "Persephone" and was wondering what Greek mythology had to do with it.) Iran does rule over the traditionally Arabic-speaking province of Ahvaz... AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QUEEN ELIZABETH THE QUEEN MOTHER

Could Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother be prosecuted in a court as she was a crowned queen herself? And was her residence considered as a royal residence where any sort of arrest could not have happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.74.218 (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I heard (though I can't vouch for accuracy) that monarchs have sovereign immunity and thus cannot be prosecuted. So, theoretically, they could even murder someone and yet avoid persecution. However, this would certainly result in the creation of a republic since such an act (specifically murder) on the part of a monarch is likely to extremely massively decrease the monarchy's popularity. Futurist110 (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any decrease in popularity might depend on whom they murdered. :) --Lambiam 10:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A republic seems the least likely result; an abdication followed by the succession of the next in line could be done in a single day, whereas writing a new constitution and electing the first president would take many months. Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An involuntary psychiatric confinement and a regency could probably be set up quite quickly. Killing might not be strictly illegal if done by a monarch but might be used as an excuse for mental treatment. Rmhermen (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the Queen Mother is dead, she cannot be prosecuted under current law. I assume the question is really whether the sovereign immunity enjoyed by monarchs extends to (living) former monarchs. One may also wonder whether it extends to the consorts of monarchs. I have found no information as to how it is decided in the UK which dwellingd legally qualify as "royal palaces", and also not on the specific question whether the Royal Lodge, the residence of the Queen Mother, was considered to be a royal palace. --Lambiam 10:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also queen consort. Not sure how reliable, but The members of the Royal Family who can and can't be arrested says that "While the Queen cannot be arrested, other members of the Royal Family can be unless they are with her. The law also states that no arrests being allowed to be made in the monarch's presence, or within the surroundings of a royal palace".

Looking back into the distant past, queen consorts Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr were both tried in court and subsequently executed. There is also the precedent of the High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I, although the constitutionality of that was disputed, even by the officials appointed to conduct it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it particularly changes your point, but I'm going to guess you meant Catherine Howard here! Though it's worth mentioning that Parr was also almost arrested. 2601:248:8104:9D0:1138:841D:71:DB66 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question of sovereign immunity of former king Juan Carlos of Spain is current events in Spain. --Error (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be explicit about something nobody above has said explicitly: The Queen Mother was never the monarch, but rather she had the title of Queen because she was married to the monarch, King George VI. Her daughter, by contrast, is the monarch. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, queen consort typically means something very different from queen regnant. Non-ceremonial privleges of the former tend to be those of any royal family member. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current British consort, Prince Philip, was in a car crash two years ago. Although he was not prosecuted, the writing about it implies he technically could have been. Prince Philip will not be prosecuted over car crash, says CPS. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much to his annoyance (allegedly), Philip has never been officially appointed Prince Consort, unlike Prince Albert. But I'm sure you're right, he can be prosecuted like anyone else. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History the past

Is it possible to know when they say history is the past what do they mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.98.153 (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the linked article says History (...) is the study of the past., which differs much from what you quote. --CiaPan (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should've worded it better but that's generally what I meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.98.153 (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do they mean by "the past"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.98.153 (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of "the future". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The past is everything that has already happened. It is the opposite of the future, everything that will happen. What separates them is the present, everything that is now. --CiaPan (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has something gone dreadfully wrong in the Australian educational system? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me started. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Bender. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to define what you mean by the present (Relativity of simultaneity). Dja1979 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life is a gift. If you're alive right now, it's your present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia even has an article on the past.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the past, just as we are interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]