Humanities desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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.

February 25

credibility of the source

How useful and reliable is this source for Draft:Alan Singh Chanda? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN is a more appropriate place to ask about the reliability of sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told before. --Lambiam 18:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbians in women's sport

I have been following the Women's T20 Cricket World Cup and have noticed that, in at least teams from countries where being openly gay is accepted, that the number of lesbians seem to be disproportionate. AIUI (and I'm no expert) about 10% of any given population are gay, however teams such as England, Australia and South Africa, seem to have anywhere from 2 to 4 lesbian members. Is this "over-representation" statistically significant, and does it also occur in other sports? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "10%" figure came from a shallow reading of the Kinsey Report, which included many strangely-skewed statistics, so I would really not rely on it... AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an often-commented-upon fact that there have never been any openly gay male professional Australian rules players, but in the women's competition it's almost a requirement to be a lesbian. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last women's World Cup in football had 41 openly non-heterosexual participants. The last men's version had none. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Around 20 years ago in Australia there was a legal case where a female cricketer alleged that her non-selection in the national team was due to her NOT being a lesbian. Unfortunately I cannot recall enough details to put together an effective Google search. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Denise Annetts. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sure would. Thank you. So, closer to 30 years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the overrepresentation is statistically significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.202.220.89 (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any literature on why it happens? Are lesbians really more athletic than average women, or is there another factor involved? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General de Mauduit at St Helena, and the Comte de Mauduit, Chief of Staff

I have just acquired a copy of the 2004 re-issue of the 1940 book They Can't Ration These by the Vicomte de Mauduit, with a foreword by David Lloyd George. Our article on the Vicomte says "He was the son of the Comte de Mauduit, Chief of Staff and a cavalry officer, and his great-grandfather General de Mauduit accompanied Napoleon to St. Helena". I have been unable to identify either the purported general or the purported count. According to the back flap of my book the Vicomte's name was Georges de Mauduit de Kervern. Any help gratefully received. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Chapter 4 of Cockburn and the British Navy in Transition, University of Exeter Press, 1997, Napoleon's entourage aboard HMS Northumberland; "...included Grand Marechal Comte de Bertrand, General Comte de Montholon, both their wives, Comte de Las Cases and General Gourgaud; also fourteen servants and five children." So it seems unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French language sources confirm this (this for example also lists the servants' names [1]). Las Cases wrote an extensive memoir of his sojourn on St. Helena and talks with Napoleon there (The Memorial of Saint Helena), and I can't find any mention of Mauduit in there. There was a Général de Mauduit, but he died during the Revolution, in 1791, so it can't be him [2]. More likely that the claim is a complete fabrication. Xuxl (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information in our article is sourced to the book A Curious History of Food and Drink – a curious source for historical information on Napoleon's entourage – where this is stated without citing a source. I suspect that the book's author derived this from claims in the book They Can't Ration These. --Lambiam 18:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or from de Mauduit's memoirs. A quick sniff through The Times archives has him unsuccessfully suing Gaumont British in 1939 for plagiarism (he said they ripped off his unpublished novel the Man Who Had Sold His Brain to make their film The Man Who Changed His Mind), and within a year being declared bankrupt "present address unknown". Nothing then till the death notices in The Times after War's end. I think perhaps a touch of the Trebitsch Lincoln about him. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mauduit's claim is stated as fact in our Georges, Vicomte de Mauduit article - "...and his great-grandfather General de Mauduit accompanied Napoleon to St Helena" - so this might need qualifying or expurgating. Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the OP was about. Is there a procedure for challenging the correctness of a statement that is supported by a source that formally qualifies as reliable? --Lambiam 21:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, quite right. I may have a go at it later if nobody else has fixed it. Alansplodge (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on Findagrave about his first wife, and this with a little more detail, in French, about our man. I also found what seems to be the record of his death at Dachau (with presumably a transcription error). DuncanHill (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have found a few columns by him, as a "well-known aviator and inventor" from the 30s, and reports of his trial and imprisonment in June 1941, on the British Newspaper Archive. Then the Civil and Military Gazette, Lahore, 18 December 1945, reports his death in Dachau in a story on page 1 "French 'Haw Haw' Dead", describing him as "a former confidence trickster and flaneur... known both to Scotland Yard and the Surete as the man who skated on very thin ice in the criminal world". The story is ascribed to "Globe". Now, he had been given two months in 1941 for spreading alarm and despondency, so how did he get from an English prison in '41, to writing and broadcasting for Petainist outlets on the Continong, and then his death in Dachau in February 1945? He may well not have been the man his blurbs had him, but he certainly seems to have had an interesting life. DuncanHill (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is getting very interesting, it seems he was repatriated to Vichy in October 1941after serving his sentence. Interned by the Germans 1944. The Sunday Dispatch called him a bogus count, said he had a club in London, was supported by a wealthy widow. I am a little puzzled by the repatriation, and the fall from grace with the Germans. The death notices in The Times have him dying "for France". Hmm. DuncanHill (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the various details given above, I suspect that even he had lost track of whose side he was, or was currently supposed to be, on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's another (presumably another) Vicomte de Mauduit who was married to the daughter of Sir Robert Bird, 2nd Baronet. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is de Mauduit even his real name? It sounds like a play on maudit, "cursed". 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any suggestion it wasn't, and the findagrave pages about the family seem to bear up. DuncanHill (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Mauduit. It's shared by a number of people who aren't even all obviously related, including a British merchant, Israel Mauduit, and a French mountain climber, Chantal Mauduit. --Jayron 32 15:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Vicomte claimed kinship with William Mauduit, 8th Earl of Warwick. Interesting that another Mauduit should be a genuine flying ace, as ours claimed to be. DuncanHill (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although not considered a reliable source, Geni reports Georges de Kervern de Mauduit's father as Hugues de Mauduit (1865-1951), whose father is given as Hippolyte de Mauduit (1825-1876). This matches the Hippolyte Antoine Jules Gabriel De Mauduit found in Ancestry.com, whose father, Hyacinthe Hippolyte de Mauduit (1794-1862), would thus be the great-grandfather of Napoleon legend. He was a military writer and author of Histoire des Derniers Jours de la Grande Armée, Ou Souvenirs, Documents Et Correspondance Inédite de Napoléon En 1814 Et 1815, published 1854, where his title is given as "Capitaine"; his Wikidata entry is here). More genealogical info on this family can be found at Geneanet, where the ancestry is traced back to one Adrien de Mauduit who died in 1676 in Brittany. No obvious connection to the Earls of Warwick. 14.203.161.168 (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Cavalry that Broke Napoleon: The King’s Dragoon Guards at Waterloo by Richard Goldsbrough: Mauduit (1794–1862) fought in 1815 in the 1st Regiment of Foot Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard. He went on to write a history of the French Army at the time of Waterloo and included a detailed section based on eyewitness accounts. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo General: The Life, Letters and Mysterious Death of Major General Sir William Ponsonby by John Morewood says: Hyacinthe-Hippolyte de Mauduit (1794–1862) covers this in his indispensable work Les Derniers Jours de la Grande Armée: Hippolyte had joined the French Army in 1813 and had fought in Germany and in the campaign for France in which he had been wounded. He gave up his rank of sous-lieutenant too become a sergeant in the grenadier regiments of the Old Guard and fought at Ligny and Plancenoit during the Hundred Days. Alansplodge (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, Etterkrigshistorie III - Utkant Sentrum p. 11 says: Captain Hyacinthe-Hippolyte de Mauduit resigned his commission in 1830, since his legitimist convictions were too strong for him to take the oath to Louis-Philippe; and he took to journalism. However, he supported Louis-Napoleon's coup d'état of December 1851, and wrote a panygyric about it. Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the penalty for breaking the constitutional law of Japan?

I would like to start on including this on one of the Japanese law pages. What is the penalty for violating the Japanese constitution? GoutComplex (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not by itself a crime in the sense of criminal law. --Lambiam 03:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He never said it was a crime. He used the word 'penalty', which could equally well apply to civil law. --Viennese Waltz 06:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What specific violation did you have in mind? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Japan, but the usual form in most nations is that the action in question is deemed unconstitutional by the relevant court and not proceeded with. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Unconstitutional" is not the same as "illegal"; the concept of a punishment may be wrong. If the resolution is anything like in the United States, a decision deeming an action, regulation, or law unconstitutional would nullify that action, regulation, or law, and possibly result in some kind of restitution. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, constitutional law defines the limits on what the state can do, it does not really define the limits on what people can do; that is the realm of criminal law and Civil law. Generally, individual people cannot violate constitutional laws per se, only organs of the state may do that; generally state actions which violate the constitution are nullified by the courts as unconstitutional, that's the only real "penalty". --Jayron 32 12:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, that may be true in general but nothing requires it to be so. For example, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declared (among other things) that the manufacture of intoxicating liquors "is hereby prohibited". It didn't specify a penalty, leaving that up to Congress, but it could have. --174.89.12.187 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many elements of the US Constitution, if any, state an explicit penalty? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None. The only specific criminal offense discussed by the U.S. Constitution is treason, which is carefully defined (and its punishment prohibited from exceeding certain bounds) because the framers wanted to avoid constructive treason as it had developed in British law. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to treason, see Treason laws in the United States. The Constitution defines treason, but sets no specific laws for it. That is left to Congress to do. See Article Three of the United States Constitution ,to wit, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." (bold mine). It sets limits on Congress with regards to what it can define as treason, and what penalties it could possibly choose to enact, however it still leaves the actual lawmaking to Congress. Which is to say, it still acts as a law against the state, and not against people. --Jayron 32 13:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]