Hello editors, good evening! On March 25th, I asked for your help in finding the best sources that I could use in my article about the Russian Invasion of the Khanate of Astrakhan, and with your answers I was able to use not only sources from your suggestions, but also other bibliographic sources that I found during my research, and I am immensely grateful to you! However, I would like your help again with a final evaluation of my draft, so that my article can finally be approved, especially regarding the references, since my article had been rejected precisely because of this. Before the first evaluation, I had only added 5 sources on random websites in Russian to complement my article. This time, I added almost 45 sources, which I am almost certain are considered reliable, and so I am sure that I have improved, but I would like an early review from more experienced people, like you. Thank you very much for your attention, good evening! Marcus Vlasov (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of the Reference desk responders is to find answers, not to assess adherence to the encyclopedia's policies. Just let our good reviewers do the work. It is not dishonourable for a draft to experience multiple rejections; the feedback should enable the submitter to improve it. That said, it is conventional to cite the titles of books in a non-Latin script not only in transliteration, but first in their original script followed by a transliteration, like История государства Российского (Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiyskogo) and preferable also a translated title (History of the Russian State). I further do not understand the role of the asterisks in the references ("9. ^ * Spiridov, Matvey Grigorievich", "12. ^ * Penskoy, Vitaly Viktorovich", "14.^ * Filimonov, Lyapun", ...).  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can use "author-link = :ru:Спиридов, Матвей Григорьевич" (twice) to get a link to the article on the Russian Wikipedia.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Marcus Vlasov (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living presidents give a birthday speech for Jimmy Carter, except Trump. So why wasn't Trump included in the Jimmy Carter birthday commemoration video? --2600:8803:1D13:7100:A152:3EC2:C68C:9D84 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's a total imbecile? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because he has no class and is incredibly vindictive: "Donald Trump Mocks Jimmy Carter on His Milestone 100th Birthday" (People). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because he will do anything - and there are literally zero exceptions to this - to get attention. It's not as if we were all living under rocks and were unaware of him. We know him only too well. He's the POTUS for *** sake! But he still craves attention and will make sure he does or says anything that will cut through all the international complexities and become the main story every day. Hence, we're talking about him now. He just won. I let him win because I chose to contribute to this thread. But my preferred approach is to not to talk about him, and not add to the oxygen of recognition he needs. I recommend it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, an exception has been dousing himself with gasoline on the White House lawn and setting himself ablaze, an act guaranteed to draw attention. But one can remain hopeful. The upcoming Easter egg roll offers an excellent opportunity.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STOP - This is not a forum for sharing your opinions (good or bad) about Trump or any other politician. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion over on the talk pages for the Danish Realm and the Kingdom of the Netherlands over what symbols represent them. The problem is that sources don't really distinguish between the sovereign states as a whole and the constituent countries of Denmark and the Netherlands, so it's hard to tell if a symbol represents just the constituent country or the kingdom as a whole. In this case, the national symbols in question are the flag, coat of arms, motto, and anthem.

My gut instinct is that the national symbols of the constituent countries are equally applicable to the kingdoms as a whole. After all, they are the dominant parts of the state, and they even share the same name. However, I would like some kind of source that definitively states which symbols represent what. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To put an end to a discussion about the colours of the national flag, a royal decree of 19 February 1937 determined once and for all: "The colours of the flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are red, white and blue" (my emphasis by underlining). But note that at the time the Kingdom consisted of just one constituent country, that had several "overseas territories" (read: colonies), which still included the Dutch East Indies. When Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten were declared to be constituent countries, this did however not change the status of symbols representing the Kingdom. So now, in fact, while the Country of Aruba, the Country of Curaçao and the Country of Sint Maarten each can sport their own flag, the Country of the Netherlands must do with a shared flag.  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst researching for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Communist Party of India, I was confronted by another mystery of West Bengal election results, and no matter how much I search I can't find any answer. In the 2001 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election the result in the Santipur Assembly constituency looked as follows:

• AJOY DEY M INC 69117 42.99%
• BADAL BASAK M Independent 47541 29.57%
• KUMARESH CHAKRABORTY M BJP 37576 23.37%
• ASIM GHOSH M RCPI(R) 6527 4.06% [1]

RCPI had contested Santipur in every election since independence, and within the Left Front seat-sharing arrangements Santipur was one of the constituencies assigned to it. But here the RCPI candidate came in fourth place. Whilst its possible that there could be a different local dynamic than state level results, it seems like CPI(M) locally would have supported the independent candidate rather than the official RCPI candidate. I've been trying to locate sources on this, but came up with nothing. Anyone knows an online archive for West Bengal newspapers for this time period? -- Soman (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Blackstone's ratio we are enjoined "Never to convict any person of murder or manslaughter till at least the body be found dead; on account of two instances he [sc Sir Matthew Hale] mentions where persons were executed for the murder of others who were then alive but missing." What were those two instances? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the term was not already used in another legal sense, this injunction might be termed habeas corpus ("you should have the body").  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The technical term is actually corpus delicti, which works nearly as well in this context. 194.73.48.66 (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article references [2]. The reference there is St. Tr. I paſſim.

--Error (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't you know, at sufficient magnification j comes before i. It's "2 Hal. P. C. 290". DuncanHill (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which "Hal. P. C." stands for "Hale's Pleas of the Crown".^[3]  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Pleas of the Crown. DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The number 290 is the page number: [4].  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did Blackstone follow this injunction in cases when witnesses observed someone being killed in a manner that didn't yield a dead body? Imagine two men fighting aboard a ship in a storm, and one throws the other overboard in full view of the witnesses; or imagine a man being beheaded in full view of witnesses and his body then being burnt in a large fire. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case, the victim's death cannot be certain, so the charge ought not to be murder. In the second, reliable witnessing of the body's destruction (and surely some remains could be recovered) would be taken as sufficient proof – I suggest. I'm sure criminological enthusiasts will be able to instance some actual cases of these kinds.

Also, cases like the first are one argument against capital punishment. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. List of murder convictions without a body contains at least 5 cases where someone was convicted of murder without a body, and the supposed victim later turned up alive. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it does show that, contrary to Blackstone's ratio, murder convictions can and do occur in such situations. Conviction is based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not on absolute proof, and the system has to allow for some doubt or no one would ever be convicted of anything. (Even in the case with many witnesses, it's possible - just incredibly unlikely - that they are all part of a massive conspiracy to set up the accused. And frankly, even where there's a body, it's possible that it's the body of a doppelganger or long-lost identical twin rather than the alleged victim.) Speaking as a lawyer, I can't see "yes, I pushed him off the ship into the raging seas in the middle of the storm and he hasn't been seen since, but it's theoretically possible that he didn't die" getting you very far - you're definitely going down for murder if that's all you've got. Proteus (Talk) 09:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah! My eyes, my eyes! Some colorblind devil must have chosen brown as one of the colors. Replaced with a somewhat less hideous light blue. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]