Humanities desk
< April 24	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 25

Track down an article?

Can anyone find this article? Davis, J. (1982). "Palmerston and the Sicilian Sulphur Crisis of 1840: An Episode in the Imperialism of Free Trade". Risorgimento 1 (2): 5–24.

It’s cited places, but I don’t even see it indexed in worldcat. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it anywhere. Your best bet is to email the author. --Lambiam 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this: [1] ? --Soman (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoos for minor children in Italy

Long story short: I was watching an Italian TV program. It is a realty show, titled something like Collegia. It is a reality show where a group of high school students live in a boarding-school dorm; and they have to live as if it were the year 1960 (no cell phones, etc.). Anyway ... there are 18 contestants on the show. They are all high school age (age 14 to 17 or such). Both boys and girls. I noticed something quite odd, though. A lot of these high school kids had tattoos. They seemed to be "real" tattoos, not the fake/temporary "rub-off" types. I'd say a good six or eight of the 18 kids had tattoos visible, at various points during the show. I was quite surprised, when I saw the first tattoo ... and, even more so, when I noticed more and more tattoos. So, my question: does anyone know how this could be? In Italy, is it legal to get a tattoo if you are under age 18? Does anyone have any idea how this works over there? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the show, on IMDb: [2]. It is called Il Collegio. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 2015 paper Implementation of European Council Resolution ResAP(2008)1 in Italy. National and Regional Regulation of Tattoo Practices: Diversity and Challenges, "Compared with the significant growth of the practice of tattooing in Italy, related legislation has not succeeded in keeping up with its development. This situation is common to many European countries and, in most cases, ‘strongly suggested directives’ or ‘Guidelines’ rather than specific regulations have been issued." Furthermore, "the percentage of teenagers (12–18 years of age) with at least one tattoo had increased from 6.6 to 7.5% in the years 2002–2011". (However, Legal status of tattooing in the European Union states that in Italy, the minimum age is 18, though that isn't sourced). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source states that below that age they require parental consent: "It is forbidden to perform tattoos on minors under eighteen without the informed consent of the parents or guardians." (Antonia Pirrera, Alberto Renzoni (17 October 2019). Tattuagi: "Quadro normativo". EpiCentro.) --Lambiam 08:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Note that according to Legal status of tattooing in the United States, even in the US maybe about 1/2 of states allow tattooing below the age of 18 if there is parental consent so I'm not totally sure why the original surprise arises. Maybe the apparent ease with which civil suits seem to occur means few tattoo artists/parlours are willing to tattoo someone below 18 just in case they are sued when the minor later regrets it and/or they didn't meet the consent requirements despite their best efforts? Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The "original surprise" arises because ... if I saw a random group of 18 kids of high school age (14 to 17), I would hardly expect to find one tattoo in the bunch ... much less, to find seven or eight. I guess the culture in Italy (today) is rather liberal/permissive, when kids ask their parents for a tattoo. Yes, that definitely surprises me. And even more surprising, it involved high school girls, not just boys. Yes, I was definitely surprised when I saw the first tattoo, much less the subsequent parade of them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, we are talking about 18 "random kids" in a college-prep dormitory boarding school. (Probably "elite"; probably expensive. Definitely homogeneous; no racial diversity. Etc.) Not a youth prison or a juvenile delinquency institution or some random bunch of homeless kids / drug addicts / etc. Yes, many stereotypes in my comment ... but, nonetheless, I was surprised when I saw the TV show. I mean, really ... what kind of parent gives their 14-year old daughter permission to get a tattoo? How ridiculous, in my opinion. I am sure that she (the daughter) "changed her mind" and regretted the tattoo ... about 11 minutes later ... or when her next boyfriend didn't like the design. Adolescent girls are fickle, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of your comments seem to be based on very outdated stereotypes.--Khajidha (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I acknowledged the presence of "stereotypes" in my post. Stereotypes, however, are often -- not always -- grounded in reality or experience or perceptions. They don't generally arise out of whole cloth, with no foundation whatsoever. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what is your current experience with teenagers? Working at a community college, I encounter many who get tattoos as soon as they are legally old enough. And many others whose parents allow them to get them before 18. If anything, I see more white teenagers with tattoos than kids of other races. And virtually none of the kids I know are juvenile delinquents and such. Everyone of the stereotypes you mentioned just seems completely outdated compared to my own experiences.--Khajidha (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitely homogeneous; no racial diversity seems more of an issue with America being rather racially diverse and many Americans not realizing how homogeneous many countries are; than outdated stereotypes. The homeless / addict thing is definitely an outdated (and frankly ridiculous) stereotype (how the hell are homeless people supposed to afford tattoos?). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption was that the chronology of events was: (1) get a tattoo; and, later (2) become homeless. Not the reverse: (1) become homeless first, and then (2) get a tattoo subsequently. (I said "chronology", not "causation".) That is, getting the tattoo does not lead to a person being homeless. But -- generally speaking -- poor, impulsive decisions (e.g., a tattoo at age 14) ... probably later leads to poor life circumstances (e.g., being homeless). Basically, that was my point. I was also referring to homeless people in the general / adult population ... not young, homeless, high school kids. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitely homogeneous; no racial diversity seems more of an issue with America being rather racially diverse. Also more generally (I don't know if its relevant here), but I think there is often an issue with Americans assessing issues of diversity and racism in other countries in terms of the groups and prejudices that exist in America. Iapetus (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A side thought: what's the actual rule/law in the USA? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of tattooing in the United States says "However, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutory laws requiring a person receiving a tattoo be at least 18 years old" but that " Most states permit a person under the age of 18 to receive a tattoo with permission of a parent or guardian." Notes about minors appear in the "Notes & Exceptions" column. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how could a country like Italy or the USA justify an absolute prohibition of tattoos for underage children, I mean independent of parental permission? You had to forbid for parents to let their children tattooed if they (the parents) wish. I don't think a democracy can do this easily and without giving serious reasons for it (regardless how I personally feel about tattoos and tattooed people) 2003:F5:6F04:6400:69EA:E9B7:32C8:F18A (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

Well, the prohibition of children getting tattoos without permission is "based on the legal principle that a minor cannot enter into a legal contract or otherwise render informed consent for a procedure" (as stated in the article Ian thomson linked to. As for preventing parents from consenting to tattooing a child, that could be seen as allowing child abuse. --Khajidha (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the same way that any other thing has legal age restrictions put on it (i.e. that minors can't meaningfully consent). Iapetus (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, minors can't drink; can't vote; can't drive a car; can't get a working job; etc. Regardless of whether or not the parents want them to. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet arctic convoys in WW2

By random YouTube watching, I ran across Operation Wonderland. Our map in there piqued my interest. In particular, the blue "routes of Soviet convoys" did. Of course, in the high Arctic, many map projections are highly distorted. Looking at a globe (well, at Google Earth as the next best thing ;-), I can see that it is plausible for the lend-lease convoys to indeed go north of Svalbard to enter the Kara Sea and reach Murmansk and Archangelsk. But even then, I can see no obvious reason why they would sail via the Laptev Sea and the Vilkitsky Strait between Bolshevik Island and the continent, as shown on the map. So my question: Do the blue routes indeed refer to the lend-lease convoys? If so, are there unobvious reasons for this route? If not, were there other Soviet convoys running parts of the North East passage from further east? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to avoid the heavier ice pack further up north? --Lambiam 09:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Convoys to Russia 1941-45 shows the winter and summer routes for Lend-Lease convoys departing from Britain. The summer route in red went around the top of Iceland and approached from as far north as possible to try to avoid German air attack or reconnaissance for U-boats, which had 24-hour daylight at midsummer. In the winter, there was only a narrow gap between the north of Norway and the pack ice as Lambiam says, however the short daylight hours and foul weather gave the convoys a sporting chance. The objectives were either Murmansk or Archangel, the latter being preferred because of better transport links once the supplies had been unloaded. Once Murmansk had been reached there was relative safety because it was within the Soviet air umbrella. Arctic Convoys: 21 Aug 1941 - 30 May 1945 gives the itinerary for each convoy, some of which formed-up in Iceland, presumably if they were coming direct from North America. I can't see any which went further east than Archangel. Alansplodge (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The maps you linked are very schematic, but they are clear that the convoys definitely even run south of Svalbard. So our map is unlikely to show the Iceland/Scottland-based convoys. I found this source (from our Operation Wunderland article) that indeed describes significant convoys along the Northern Sea Route. And Northeast Passage describes the Soviets shipping materials along that route during the war. Our coverage seems to be relatively limited, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1940s there was more sea ice than nowadays (climate change, you know). It was generally impossible to pass north of Svalbard or Franz Jozefland even in summer with an icebreaker. See this map of sea ice in October 1946. October is when the ice begins to grow again. Navy ships tend to have strong hulls because of armour, so they can handle some ice, but their bow isn't designed for ice breaking. They won't sink easily in pack ice, but they can get stuck. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have to go slower too, which is not good if you're trying to outrun submarines. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ill-gotten consequent gains

Say someone robs a bank and escapes with $100,000 (this is not supposed to be a realistic story). He invests the $100K in the stock market and makes another $100K, but then he gets arrested and convicted for the bank robbery. Obviously he doesn't get to keep the first $100K. I have to figure he can't keep the second $100K either, but what is the legal theory that says this, and who gets it instead of him? Does it matter if the numbers are bigger and the timeframe stretches over years, so that when he's caught he has a complicated set of holdings?

Motivation for asking: not really specific, but there are some people in the news whose past (lucrative) malfeasances are possibly catching up with them. Also there is a cliché about what is behind every great fortune. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries have laws for asset forfeiture that explicitly allow the State to seize illegal gains. I think the $100K capital gains should qualify. --Lambiam 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a forfeiture law requires conviction of the offence that enabled the criminal's acquisition of assets, the statute of limitation of that jurisdiction will apply. This criminal-law limitation does not extend to civil litigation, which has its own limitations. But in a civil case, the amount awarded to plaintiff would not exceed their (material and immaterial) damages. --Lambiam 09:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the criminal statute of limitations runs out, then the guy never gets tried for the robbery so can't have been convicted. I guess I could imagine the civil statute being longer, so the bank discovers and proves the robbery after the criminal statute lapses. In that case the robber returns the initial loot but not the post-robbery gains.

In the criminal situation (the one I wondered about more), assset forfeiture sounds like the theory I wanted, but looking at the article, it just doesn't seem to happen except for terrorism or maybe drug dealer cases. Let's dilute the money further and say that the guy is already a seemingly legit business dude with millions in the stock market, when he takes it into his head one day to go rob a bank (this is science fiction and they do stuff like that there). The $100k in loot gets added to his portfolio, which on the whole does pretty well, and then he is arrested. Perhaps his whole account has 25% cap gains between the robbery and the arrest.

So what happens-- do they make him forfeit $25K of the gains and let him keep the rest? Does the judge pick some amount more or less arbitrarily? I don't understand why these people are allowed to keep even their underwear. The bank robbery is of course a simplifying abstraction, but more complicated versions of this story seem to happen in real life all the time. Thanks again.

(Added: I wasn't specifically thinking of Jeffrey Epstein but it occurs to me he is an example. He was a "money manager" whose real business was blackmail and/or victim procurement. He took millions in criminal proceeds off rich people and invested them, and the investments happened to do quite well (he wasn't super skillful, but he wasn't an idiot and the market as a whole was booming at the time, so it worked out, unlike Madoff who lost his own shirt and everyone else's). There are a lot of civil suits against Epstein's estate, but I don't know of any efforts of the criminal courts to go after it.) 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments, it sounds like you're especially thinking of the situation in the US. If so, I think you're reading too much into an article which maybe a bit flawed. (But even in NZ, it's not like it's restricted to drug dealing e.g. the infamous Kim Dotcom case.) Although I will note Civil forfeiture in the United States does actually say

In many areas civil forfeiture adversely affects persons from minorities and low-income communities, in which the typical seizure is less than $500, and Democrats have also been critical of civil forfeiture programs.[14]

and

Forfeiture rules were used to confiscate cars of intoxicated motorists.[7] In such instances, there are two types of cases: a criminal case against the drunk driver as a person, and a civil case against the property used to facilitate the drunk driving, specifically their car.[7] Critics contend that the punishment can be "deemed out of proportion with the offense"; for example, after a drunk driver is arrested and convicted and possibly imprisoned, is it proper to punish him or her additionally by civil forfeiture means by confiscating a $50,000 car?[7] Civil forfeiture has been used to discourage illegal activities such as cockfighting, drag racing, gambling in basements, poaching of endangered fish, securities fraud, and other illegal activity.[9]

But anyway, even in terms of "drug dealing", as our article indicates there tends to be assumption that if you have a lot of cash or deal in a lot of cash, you probably are up something illegal, no matter if you're buying stuff from eBay, as made semi famous from this video. [3]

While your scenario doesn't deal large amounts of cash, the fact remains that these example demonstrate that there are various US governments and their agencies, often police, who are quite willing to seize assets they "suspect" are derived from illegal activities whatever those activities are, and sometimes with questionable motiviations. And remember most states do not even require a conviction, and there is generally nothing like ""assumption of innocence". If your assets are seized and you don't provide evidence they were obtained legally in the case against your assets or don't challenge it, you lose them.

In something as clear cut as a bank robbery, especially with a conviction, I would be surprised if most US governments or their agencies don't try some sort of forfeiture assuming they can find the assets. I imagine one reason why you don't find this mentioned much is because there aren't many bank robbers who it applies to and no one is particularly surprised about it.

As for investments, see e.g. [4] which while yes dealing with drug dealing this likely reflects the fact that this is when it arises. Note I make no comment on Epstein comparisons.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USA specifically has a de facto presumption of guilt in cases of civil forfeiture, and a perverse incentive in terms of law enforcement agencies directly profiting from successful prosecutions, a successful defendant still incurs court costs etc., in contrast to most of the West. Asking this question in the EU would be more interesting. 93.136.55.42 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the plot of "Not the Running Type", a 1960 episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents where the person serves his prison sentence and on release promptly returns the original amount stolen and retires to live off the interest. Rmhermen (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of entrenched clause?

Apparently, some of the currently used constitutions contain an entrenched clause that makes certain articles legally impossible for the legislature to amend. But, if the legislators want to amend those so called "permanent" articles in question, wouldn't they just vote to repeal the entrench clause first before doing what they want anyway? That is, if they did not simply decide to write a new constitution and put it into effect. So, is there any logic to having an entrenched clause to begin with? StellarHalo (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked before, though searching the archives is a royal pain. As I recall, trying to pass an amendment to repeal such things would be a tall order. For example, the requirement that every state have exactly 2 senators. It would be impossible for such an amendment to get passed, because who in their right mind would give up their equal membership in the Senate? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 19:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 June 28#Constitutions; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 13#Amending the U.S. Constitution; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 September 25#Anti-tampering device for laws; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 October 6#Entrenched provisions. --Lambiam 09:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some constitutions have entrenched the articles that say that the form of government has to be a republic and not a monarchy (ex. France, Germany, Greece, Italy) or that the state has to be either unitary (Indonesia) or a federation (Brazil). I am just wondering if the politicians who wrote these entrenched clauses into their constitution actually believed that they cannot just be repealed if there is enough pressure from the majority of the populace. For the US constitution, in the hypothetical extreme situation that vast majority of states agree to punish a state for reasons such as unilateral secession, I could totally see that requirement being amended to suspend their equal representation. StellarHalo (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being booted from the Union would be a different situation. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, any law only exists and has force because people agree that it does. Society is really just a big LARP.--Khajidha (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm curious about the Indonesian clause mentioned. What does it say and what effect can it have? --Tamfang (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo -- you may be interested in the game of Nomic. Currently, the only entrenched clause in the U.S. constitution is that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". There's some discussion of whether this theoretically could be gotten around at Article Five of the United States Constitution#Constitutional clauses shielded from amendment. Any attempt to do so would probably cause an instant constitutional crisis, and in any case, any amendment requires the approval of three-fourths of state legislatures. AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article in question regarding the equal Senate representation in question would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to amend under normal circumstances anyway as Baseball Bugs said, then doesn't that make the clause that entrenches the article come off as extremely redundant in practice? StellarHalo (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe now, but maybe less so when it was first ratified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing sounds like it may be more difficult or at least likely to happen a lot rarer than normal constitutional amendments given the controversy. So I'm unsure why your initial question about the logic of such provisions even arises. I mean you might as well just ask why some countries even have written constitutions with specific amendment provisions (often requiring a super majority) in the first place.

As for your followup about what the "politicians" believed, while I don't know for sure what happened in any particular historic situation, I'd note that in NZ in modern times when entrenchment comes up, a number of commentators who either support or oppose entrenchment often of the Māori Seats are aware that you could just amend section 268 with a majority to do away with the supermajority requirement but still feel it has a purpose to discourage such actions [5]. In fact I'm fairly sure I've heard some arguing that such provisions should only be introduced with a supermajority to try and ensure the supermajority requirement is seen as having a sufficient backing for protection.

I'd also note many constitutions weren't written just by people generally considered politicians. Speaking generally, I personally would be surprised if there were that would think whatever they were writing could never change with enough pressure, although it's possible they hoped that level of pressure would never exist for whatever they entrenched.

Since you brought up France, I mean we're already on the French Fifth Republic, so it would seem fairly surprising if there were really that many who thought "there is zero chance this constitution will ever be replaced".

Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the point of entrenched clauses is to highlight them as being extremely important things that shouldn't be changed lightly. --Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another more basic point is getting the constitution ratified in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead people with politics titles/offices

Are there any other people apart from the leaders of North Korea who are dead but still have official political titles, i.e. Eternal Leader? —77.98.70.212 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think North Korea is the only nation that gives their leaders titles that are UNIQUE to only that one person.

That said, MANY nations give their leaders titles that continue after death. For example, Queen Elizabeth II will still be known as “Queen Elizabeth II” after she dies. President Obama will still be referred to as “President Obama” after he dies. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous title. For example general Guan Yu was made a marquis, duke, prince, emperor and a god after his death. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements to become an university president/chancellor

What are the requirements to become an university or public university president/chancellor? Do they require years of experience in working in higher eduation? WJetChao (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no fixed requirements. It will depend on the specific University, and it's specific needs. One University might need someone with financial/fundraising expertise... another might need someone with an administrative background. Most are not academics. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware than in some systems, the chancellor can be a ceremonial position and the actual running of the university is done by the vice-chancellor (See Chancellor_(education)). In that case, quite often the only requirement is just name recognition, though not always (see List of chancellors and vice-chancellors of British universities). For instance, Birmingham City University has comedian Lenny Henry. As a counter example, Cardiff University had sir Martin Evans as chancellor for years, who definitely had relevant achievements and strong links to the university. Fgf10 (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that as mentioned in that article, in places where the vice-chancellor is the one who runs the university, it's common that they are the president, not the chancellor. So the requirements to become a "university president" would be quite different from becoming a "university chancellor". Therefore the / makes little sense. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case in the UK (as my second link shows), but I can't speak for other countries. Fgf10 (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I assumed from the lead of the first link that this applied to England at a minimum but it seems it's only the case in Northern Ireland and a small number of cases in England. Still, it seems to apply to most of Canada, I think most of Ireland, some of NZ (and for that reason even where the vice-chancellor is not formally the president, if you ask about the president people will probably assume you mean vice chancellor e.g. List of New Zealand university leaders), some of Malaysia, some? of Australia (List of Australian university leaders), some of Hong Kong (List of Hong Kong university vice-chancellors and presidents). Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit more, I think it's a bit more common that the chancellor article may lead us to believe. (AFAICT, the List of chancellors and vice-chancellors of British universities is worse, it doesn't seem to reflect if the person has for formal title of president at all, except for Alice Gast as she is not vice-chancellor.)

Besides the examples of Warwick and Manchester given in our article, a quick search also finds University of Sussex [6], University of Bath [7], University of Bristol [8], University of Nottingham [9], University of York [10], Loughborough University [11]. And well I stopped on the first page of search results.

I also see [12] has Brunel University London, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff University, Newcastle University, The University of Sheffield, University of Bolton, University of East London, University of Kent, University of Leicester, University of Southampton, University of Surrey, University of the West of England, Bristol, University of Westminster. But I don't think that page is complete, since for example while Warwick, Manchester, Bath and Nottingham do mention the president part; Sussex, Bristol, York and Loughborough do not mention the president part. Also while Queen's University Belfast did mention the president part, Ulster University did not maybe because the person is only interim but [13] does confirm our article is not misleading and vice-chancellor is also president. Note I also excluded those who were president but not vice-chancellor.

Still even being generous, it seems likely it could be under 25% of the 137 members. Any volunteers for coming up with a complete list or at least reliable statistics?

(I appreciate some including Fgf10 may have person experience but we have to be careful here because as the Warwick example shows, just because you never heard the person referred to as president doesn't mean they aren't. I mean when even the list provided to Universities UK doesn't always include the 'president' even if that appears to be one of their formal roles/titles, it's perhaps not particularly surprising that people aren't always aware the person is actually also president. I also wonder if this is a somewhat more recent development, as sort of suggested by the Manchester and Warwick examples given in our article. Perhaps in part for greater clarity when communicating with people less familiar with the role of vice-chancellors in UK universities and those Commonwealth countries who've mostly followed or kept them. And for related reasons, followed by those where it may matter more i.e. those institutions with less prestige or recognised history.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of formal title, I can assure you that at least at Cardiff (where I work), he is universally referred to as the VC (or any number of swear words at the moment, but that's a different matter). Indeed, this is reflected in the infobox of our article. This is the case for every single one of the institutions you list. Fgf10 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never really touched on that as it's irrelevant to my point. Namely that it doesn't make sense to treat the role or university president as the same role as university chancellor and that their requirements at least match within a university as implied by the OPs question wording; since in a number of cases, apparently including at least ~15% of UK universities, the university president is not the chancellor. The university president is the vice-chancellor regardless of whether the person is ever called that. (Since the usage of these terms and their roles vary so widely, the question is problematic anyway as several answers including yours attest. But still I felt it important to emphasise that university president may not be the same thing as university chancellor, as the question seem to assume.)

However since you made such a strong claim implying in none of the cases listed does the term president ever predominate, can I ask what evidence you have to dispute our article's claim that Alan Gilbert used the term 'president' as his primary title? True it's unsourced in the the chancellor article but I'd note that University of Manchester also uses president in the infobox. And these UK articles also refer to him as president Alan Gilbert [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. This probably isn't a complete list although the number is not very high compared to "vice-chancellor Alan Gilbert". however purely counting numbers is difficult to assess since most of my results for vice-chancellor seem to be for when he was at the University of Melbourne.

What he was referred to informally e.g. among colleagues or in discussions among staff of various universities may have been different, but that doesn't preclude him commonly being referred to as president or president and vice-chancellor in most formal address. See also [19] which refers to him as president in the headline, president and vice chancellor in the beginning of the article, and says "unusually for a UK vice-chancellor". And while I know headline writers can be careless, IMO this more likely seems to reflect the recognition that the term vice-chancellor is the common one for the role (which I don't dispute, it's the case in NZ too, actually I think most places where the person is also president), but the fact that for this particularly case the person probably preferred to be either called president or president and vice-chancellor.

Edit: Rereading your response, I think I misunderstood and you weren't meaning to say the person is generally referred to as vice-chancellor in all the institutions I listed. Rather you only meant it's the case that the infobox uses vice-chancellor for all the institutions that I listed. So I've struck out the part of my response that was based on my earlier misreading, apologies for the confusion. Note however that although I didn't link to University of Manchester before now as it was already linked from within the chancellor article, I did list it, along with Warwick. And the infobox for University of Manchester (but not Warwick, which isn't surprising given what our article says) does indeed use president not vice-chancellor.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The meaning of these terms also varies considerably among countries, and within countries between universities, ranging from a primarily executive function to a purely ceremonial role. Check out our article Chancellor (education). The chancellor of UCLA, Gene D. Block, has excellent academic credentials, and so does the chancellor of UCSD, Pradeep Khosla. Both have earned their reputation also by serving with distinction in leading administrative positions as officers of academic organizations. The current President of the University of California, Janet Napolitano, has no specific academic or educational background in her career since graduating, but she has a strong background in positions combining governance with a need for political astuteness. --Lambiam 08:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain one traditionally needs to be a member of the great and the good. DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian May of the band Queen was appointed chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University when his astrophysics PhD was approved.

-- AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academics fight the rise of celebrity chancellor (The Times; London, 2014). Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel winner managed to beat out the comedian but was eventually ousted by a politican... 93.136.46.218 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]