Humanities desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

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.

October 21[edit]

Exhumation of Pope John Paul II for beatification, but not for canonization[edit]

Why was John Paul II not re-exhumed for his canonization even though he was exhumed for his beatification? Our article on his canonization ceremony doesn't seem to go into detail as to why this was the case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Canonization, exhumation only occurs several steps in the process before canonization. The specific phase where sainthood is granted does not need a second exhumation. See that article, under the section "since 1983". Exhumation occurs during the "servus dei" phase, which is the first step. Sainthood is the last step. --Jayron 32 11:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digging up dead popes isn't necessarily always done to "beautify" them; sometimes the motive was the exact opposite - see Cadaver Synod. Eliyohub (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The verbs BEATIFY and BEAUTIFY are spelled differently because they mean different things. DroneB (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although plenty of members of the clergy deserve to be cannonized. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The exhumation does not need to occur at the servus Dei step. Take for example Fulton J. Sheen who was declared Venerable recently even while his remains were embroiled in a dispute of custody. Elizium23 (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about impeachment[edit]

This question refers to the impeachment and/or removal of a sitting U.S. president. If the House votes to impeach, they send the case over to the Senate. Is the Senate required to hold a trial? Or can the Senate simply dismiss the charges right at the outset? In other words, can the Senate "refuse" to move forward? If you have a (regular) criminal case, the defendant's lawyer can request that the judge dismiss the case ... citing various legal reasons. Is there anything similar to this concept, in an impeachment setting? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any time-frame under which the Senate is required to vote, which essentially means they can just ignore it until Trump is no longer president. That's not the same as dismissing charges, though. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmm ... that just doesn't quite seem "right" to me. Are you suggesting that the Senate can "ignore it" for a full five years, until Trump is no longer president? I can't imagine that that would be "allowed". It would defeat the whole point of impeachment, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're assuming Trump will be re-elected. Second, the US Founding Fathers didn't anticipate the degree of partisanship, and specifically the situation where the Senate is controlled by the President's Party, and the House by the opposition party. Although George Washington's farewell address did warn about such things.

Note that a similar unlimited delay is also allowed in approval of Supreme Court judges, which Republicans used to not even consider Obama's choice and rather wait until they next had a Republican president. I agree that these are serious flaws in the Constitution (with the Supreme Court being far more serious, since a Senate that chooses not to even vote after impeachment isn't about to convict, anyway). SinisterLefty (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the Senate does something "not allowed", who is going to stop them? There is hypothetically a possibility that the judiciary could order them to hold a trial, but it's likely the courts would consider this a "political question" not within their purview. (One example of someone discussing this.) And even if they did…the Senate could just ignore the court. Something a lot of people (in my opinion) have a hard time understanding is that laws are not self-executing. They're not magic incantations. Laws only mean anything when they're enforced. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had this situation been foreseen, one possible remedy that could have been put in the Constitution would be to allow the House to hold the impeachment trial, should the Senate decline to do so within a given period. Or we could follow a method similar to Constitutional amendments, and allow state legislatures to vote. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference.[1] Thincat (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That ref doesn't seem to talk about whether the Senate is required to hold a trial, but does assume it will happen. I agree, since being found "not guilty" (even if a majority find him guilty but less than the super-majority required), will no doubt be used to represent it all as a Democratic Party conspiracy. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says "the Senate rules governing impeachment require the vice president to swear in the chief justice immediately after the House’s charges are announced on the floor. The rules then explicitly empower the chief justice to “direct all the forms of proceedings” during the trial." Thincat (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Senate can change the Senate rules.

2) "Immediately" isn't a specific unit of time.

3) If there's no punishment for not doing so, it has no teeth.

4) Swearing him in doesn't mean the trial starts then. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this WAPO article,[2] Mitchell can ignore it. Whether he actually will ignore it will likely depend on which way the political wind is blowing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve purposely avoided most of the unending media coverage—full volumes almost daily—but the recurring tipping point seems to be public opinion. It seems the Senate is unlikely to do much unless/until the vast ‘voting’ public opinion makes it too inconvenient not to do so. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "not doing much" may well take the form of holding a mock trial and quickly dismissing any charges, so as to get it out of the public mind as quickly as possible, prior to the elections. Then, even if public opinion does change, it will be too late, unless Trump is again impeached for his next illegal activity. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The House could theoretically keep impeaching the same person repeatedly for exactly the same reason, though it's questionable whether it would if acquittal were assured. There's nothing like the double jeopardy prohibition for impeachment because impeachment is not actually a judicial proceeding, and its potential consequences do not entail "jeopardy of life or limb". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't keep Trump and his cronies, including Fox News, from claiming it was double jeopardy, and thus convincing his base. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like denying that there's such a thing as an emoluments clause. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification – My question isn't so much "Can the Senate do nothing and simply ignore the House's impeachment?". What I was really getting at was this: "Is there some (legal) mechanism that the defense lawyers could employ -- similar to a (regular) criminal case -- whereby the defense lawyers request (of the judge) that the charges be dropped, for whatever valid legal reasons (not enough evidence, the alleged conduct does not amount to a "high crime or misdemeanor", or whatever, etc.)?" So, they (the Senate) are not really "doing nothing" or "ignoring" the House. Rather, they are taking affirmative action to declare that, legally, there is no basis for a trial. And, thus, no need for a trial. (I understand that we are discussing a political -- and not a legal -- process here. But, I assume there is some overlap.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that assumption may be flawed. Political processes don’t overlap with legal processes. They run parallel to each other. Similar yet not the same. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, I don't follow you. You are saying that, in this case, the impeachment political process is running parallel to ... which other legal process? Also, regardless of my assumption (whether correct or not), my question still stands about the Senate's ability to "drop the charges" (for lack of a better word) before trial. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suppose the president is accused of breaking a law. The impeachment process can't arrest him or send him to jail. All it can do is boot him from office - to "fire" him, basically. The legal system can then decide whether to file criminal charges against the ex-president. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arraignment is the part before a legal trial where the judge determines if there's enough evidence to proceed to a full trial and entertains defense peremptory pleas for a summary dismissal. This is equivalent to the House of Representatives phase of impeachment, where presumably a Rep of the President's party would make such an argument. But once it gets to the Senate, that's equivalent to the actual trial phase. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding extended discussion. Please be mindful of the Ref Desk policies. Please leave "politics" out of this. Please address the question only. Thanks.

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This is a valid question. I am, clearly, not "seeking legal advice". The "closure" needs to be removed (i.e., the question opened back up again). If people are not answering the question "properly" -- whatever that means -- I have no control over that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to reopen it. We can just ignore that closure, which seems inappropriate to me, too. There were plenty of well referenced answers, along with the opinions. I thought we had it answered, though. What else do you need to know ? SinisterLefty (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid question ... that was inappropriately closed. Should be re-opened. On a Reference Desk, anyone is allowed to "pipe in" on an ongoing discussion. This purple "closure template" will dissuade others from joining in the conversation. And from offering further replies. To a (that is, my) completely valid question. Not only does the purple closure template dissuade them from doing so, it explicitly prohibits them from doing so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Between answering your question and discussing politics generally, there is a difference. As I said, if people wish to offer sources (as one would get at a reference desk) to answer your question, I would have no objection. But if the idea is to use your question as an excuse to discuss politics generally, then there are other boards, on other sites, that are better set up for such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Bottom line, it's a perfectly valid question. As I stated above -- very clearly -- If people are not answering the question "properly" -- whatever that means -- I have no control over that. I posted a valid question. I don't control the responses of others (to my valid question). You are "shutting down" a perfectly valid question. Or, at least, attempting to do so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if your action is appropriate -- which I don't think that it is -- then simply "shut down" or "strike out" the invalid and the inappropriate replies component ... not the valid question component. And don't "shut down" the whole thing. You are wielding a sledge hammer to swat a fly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that. Discussion that keeps to our guidelines is perfectly proper and wouldn't be hatted. At worst, I've reset the discussion and reminded people of guidelines.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that. And I did say that. You did not "reset the discussion and remind people of guidelines" ... what you did was to explicitly shut down the conversation. Explicitly. That is the very purpose of that purple closure template. And, furthermore ... you state: As I said, if people wish to offer sources (as one would get at a reference desk) to answer your question, I would have no objection. Well, how do you know that the next editor down the line won't do exactly that? (That is, to offer sources -- as one would get at a reference desk -- to answer my question.) The next guy down the line may be ready to do exactly that. But, now, he cannot. Since you closed the discussion. (Not to mention, chilled any participation.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it to you that politicized language also chills discussion. The answer to your question may have been available to someone who paused here, saw such language, and decided they didn't want any part of the discussion. I notice that you yourself tried to redirect the discussion to what you asked--does the Senate have to hold a trial on an impeachment presented by the House.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So, we have inoffensive / non-objectionble questions. And (according to you) offensive / objectionable replies. So, like I said above, cross out or strike out the offensive replies (over which I have no control) ... not the non-objectionable questions (over which I do have control). And you think the best course of action is to strike the whole thing? Unreal. And please don't try to claim that you were merely "redirecting the conversation" and "reminding people of guidelines". (Please point out exactly where you did that?) You very explicitly shut down a valid conversation. And -- even worse -- are now defending that decision. Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, to directly counter your "closure" comment. (1) I did not ask for legal advice. It's absurd to think that I am seeking legal advice in the event that I may be impeached as a U.S. president at some point down the road. (2) I did not -- per your quote -- "request [any] opinions, predictions or debate". Since you claim that I did both of these things, please point out where I did so? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to answer you three times here only to be edit conflicted and have to change my response. Plainly we disagree, and I will not argue with you. I refer you to the question below as a productive means of continuing the conversation.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me asking valid questions after you accuse me of misconduct (and you avoiding my valid questions) is what you call "argue". How convenient. And, now, so easy for you to "side-step" replying. I see how that works. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My view of the matter is that guidelines cover not just the initial question but the debate as it evolves. I do see where you are coming from on this and probably in future I will look for a more effective means that will spare everyone fuss and muss. I'm not going to go through contributions with a blue pencil, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the problem. You see offensive material (by others) and you see non-offensive material (by me). You state: I'm not going to go through contributions with a blue pencil, though. So -- easy and convenient solution -- you just remove everything ... both the offensive material (over which I have no control) and the non-offensive material (over which I do have control). As I said above (with which you disagreed) ... you are wielding a sledge hammer to swat a fly. And, I don't appreciate it. Me being on the receiving end of your "Well, I don't really feel like taking a blue pen and striking out only the offensive posts" comment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair comment. You have tried to keep the discussion on track and I regret any imputation otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am requesting that this discussion be "un-closed" (i.e., that the purple closure template be removed). Also, I went through every single response above, one by one. And I see very little -- if any -- objectionable material. There was one brief sentence, something about Trump trying to placate his base. And perhaps one other brief sentence in reply to that comment. All in all, there is little-to-nothing objectionable in the above conversation. Again, I am requesting that this discussion be "un-closed" (i.e., that the purple closure template be removed). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. I will ask people, speaking generally, to keep politics out of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Thank you for your help. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no problem with the Q, and most of the answers, but let me ask again, what parts haven't we answered to your satisfaction ? SinisterLefty (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind the OP has a history of re-asking questions that have already been answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help request[edit]

This is way too much wall-of-text for me to figure out why or even who is asking for admin attention. Please have a concise question or request and either re-use {{admin help}} or ping me if you still need admin assistance. –Darkwind (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwind: Hello. Thanks. This above discussion was "closed" with that purple "close template" that says This discussion is now closed. Please do not modify it. I objected to its closure. That is when I posted the "Admin Help" template. A (somewhat) long discussion then ensued. And the closing administrator went back and "opened up" the discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfsberg Castle[edit]

According to the Hugo Henckel von Donnersmarck article, he "rebuilt Castle Wolfsberg in neo-Gothic Tudor style". First question: Would that be Wolfsberg Castle (Obertrubach)? That article suggests not. Could it be another castle nearby? There are possible candidates linked in the article. Or ... perhaps a "citation needed" tag is in order. The link to a potentially useful online source yields '404 error'. Thx in advance for any sourced info. 2606:A000:1126:28D:D0BC:ACFA:AC47:D7A (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it would be Wolfsberg Castle (Carinthia). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That must be it (since it is also known as Henckel-Donnersmarck Castle); thanks! There is a need for better disambiguation; I just now found others: Wolfsburg Castle (is not a disambiguation page), Wolfsberg Castle (is a disambiguation page) -- Wolfsburg Castle, Neustadt -- Wolfsberg Castle (Harz) -- others, maybe? 2606:A000:1126:28D:D0BC:ACFA:AC47:D7A (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC) -- [edit] In the article, I added link to proper castle & cn-tagged the unsourced information[reply]