Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 4

Was Fyodor Rostopchin a general?

(old headline: Rostopchin & Paskevich - done)

Does history know any noted interaction between Russian generals Fyodor Rostopchin and Ivan Paskevich? --KnightMove (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, it does not. Rostopchin was not a general, by the way. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. According to the Russian Wikipedia, he was a "генерал от инфантерии", a General of the Infantry. They also sketch his career as an officer. The English article seems to be incomplete in this regard. --KnightMove (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with name of book.

Does anyone know the title of a book I remember reading about 15 years ago. From what I can remember of it, the story was about this guy who comes across a chess set then when used in a game & if the other player loses then that person will die. In the end of the story the guy with the chess set plays a chess game with someone that he expects to lose but he loses himself. Any ideas ?Scotius (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at List of chess-related deaths#In fiction and see if any of them ring a bell, although none of them sound quite right for what you are looking for. This list might help as well. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You might try asking user Bubba73. He's a chess maven, and might have heard of this story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I talk to Bubba73 ? Scotius (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Click on User talk:Bubba73 and post your query there (at the bottom). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Scotius (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 5

Congressional sessions in the 19th century

In the 19th and early 20th century Congress was always in session after the next election was held (between November and March). Incoming presidents signed their first bill a year into their term, so congress was out of session for a long time. Then congress passed a large number of laws in the closing months of the election cycle; many presidents signed bills in the time between the election and inauguartion of their successors. What's the reason for this? In my opinion, it's unlogical to make laws after a new congress (and president) is elected and doing almost nothing in the first twelve months after the inauguartion of the senators, congressmen and president. --89.12.6.172 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

See Lame duck (politics) where it explains the situations you are asking about. --Jayron32 00:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Us tribal reservation law enforcement

Do the law enforcement officers of us tribal reservations count as US federal law enforcement officers?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.110.77 (talk • contribs)

That appears to depend on whether they're officers hired by the tribal reservation or granted to them by the US government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs Police enforce federal laws (so probably a "yes" to your question), while Indian tribal police appear to only have authority on the reservation (so a "no" to your question). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 6

French painter

A French (or at least francophone) painter, usually grouped with surrealists, who painted mainly ancient Greek and Roman figures, either in grotesque ancient settings or interracting with contemporary people, often accompanied by old fashioned dress forms. Can you help with his name?--85.74.121.116 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He's not French, but the closest I can think of that matches that style is Giorgio de Chirico. --Jayron32 03:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that you might've been tricked by the dress forms. What I forgot to mention is the figures are also accompanied bu skeletons, and that, apart from the grotesque imagery that characterizes him as a surrealist, his style is very realistic. I hope this info helps.--85.74.121.116 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Now, this was externally answered. I asked a friend of mine if he recalled such a painter and he did. The name was Paul Delvaux.--85.74.121.116 (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be better if all legislators will be required to obtain a law degree before entering into politics?

Are there any empirical researches out there disproving the correlation between legal education and good public policies?

Culturally speaking, most people believe that legislation is mainly for lawyers, so much so that in some countries, most politicians are lawyers or, at least, have a background in law. I think we should break this culture that has prevailed for a long time and let other people who excel in some other fields, like the sciences, share their views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.198.47 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In a democracy, great importance is placed on the notion that the people are the best ones to determine who will represent them. Apart from legal provisions to exclude convicted felons, bankrupts etc., no further constraints should be applied. If a majority of voters wish to be represented by a person with no legal education, or perhaps no education at all, no action by the legislature should deny those voters their choice of representative. Dolphin (t) 06:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Would what be better? An incumbent's chance of reëlection? —Tamfang (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Legally trained people know, inter alia, about how to interpret laws and how to use them to guide one's choices about certain things in life. But they are no more or less expert than you or I are when it comes to knowing what laws should or should not exist in the first place. That's the job of legislators to jointly decide. Think of legislators as the car makers and of lawyers as the drivers. There's an overlap, but they're still distinct groups. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

1) This is a request for opinion, and 2) that makes no sense at all. You need people that actually have experience in the areas they're legislating in, not in law. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really a request for opinion. See the line in bold under the heading. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that would be a very dangerous approach. Legislators need to be informed by relevant experts but they also need to act in the interests of the whole community, so they need to consider a wide range of views, opinions, issues, concerns and, yes, expertise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And experts can't? The only reason most legislation is nonsense is that the legislators have no clue about what it is they're legislating. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Most legislation" requires numerous examples, please. Or .-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"No, that would be a very dangerous approach." 82.21.7.184 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States begins with the words: "Congress shall make no law...". I often wish that James Madison had put a period after those words, and stopped writing. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's actually the standard approach being used by the present US Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• First, kill all the lawyers. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahem. The relevant article is Representation (politics). The concept of descriptive representation (which is one of several ideas about representation) means that an elected body as a whole should share the relevant characteristics of the constituency. Sjö (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Lawyers make their living by interpreting the law for lay people. Laws that are badly drafted, ambiguous or otherwise difficult to interpret mean more work for lawyers. So requiring all legislators to be lawyers could create a conflict of interest, and, I suspect, the large number of legislators who are lawyers may mean that conflict of interest already exists. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What was in the original Japanese text?

In The Box Man by Kobo Abe, in one of the early sections ("A Safety Device... Just in Case"), we have a cut-off sentence right before the narrator runs out of ink and has to change pens.

In the English translation I'm reading (translated by Saunders), it says:

No matter how much one rejects the world and disappears from it by getting into a box, essentially a box is di...

I'm wondering what the original Japanese text has for this cut-off sentence, but the translation I'm reading is lacking in translator's notes, and as someone with a mostly nonexistent knowledge of Japanese, I'm asking here since it might well be somewhat difficult to find this on the internet. --Morningcrow (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did the russian stop kissing each other after communism

OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

They didn't. Why do you think they did? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I mean russian leaders kissing each other.OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, WHAAOE, there is even an article about it.Socialist fraternal kiss, which has all about it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 7

Did Jesus get married?

I was looking up "Jewish monasteries", which brought me to this article. So, Judaism never has this concept of monasteries? If Jesus was a real human being who was Jewish, then does that mean that there is a high probability that he is married? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly that point has been argued. See also Gospel of Jesus' Wife. However, the overwhelming view in the dominant strains of Christianity is that he never married.

One explanation as to why not (this is no longer mainstream) is the assertion that he belonged to some ascetic sect, such as the Essenes. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See also Unknown years of Jesus which mentions one theory that he married Mary Magdalene. Dismas|^(talk) 01:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ec... :You seem to be asking 2 questions. The first, about monestaties in Judaism, Judaism does have communal religious communities, which is what a monestary is. See kibbutz for an example. For the second question, the best answer we can give is "we don't know" and the second best answer we can give is " not according to any reliable literature we have" for any given value of " reliable". There are some traditions that hold that Jesus may have been married,but none tied to any literature that would have come within centuries of his life. See Jesus bloodline for more on this. --Jayron32 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article goes by the definition of some sort of secluded place that regards the outside world as evil, and in light of this definition, the article argues that Judaism never has monasteries. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you invent your own definition, you can get anything you want. Most definitions of monestary don't confine it to good and evil terms. See no true Scotsman for the problem with the specific definition you gave. If you just define a monestary as a relatively closed religious communal group, Judaism has those. --Jayron32 01:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the article I linked to? I am not making it up! You still haven't criticized whether the Jewish reference is accurate. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See monasticism#Judaism. Deciding whether or not Judaism has monasticism or at least similar analogues to monasteries depends entirely on what you decide is the defining characteristic of what a monastery is. I've already indicated what the problem is with the specific definition of monastery is in that article. It isn't incorrect, except in its restrictiveness in a way that allows one to say that Jewish monasteries don't exist. Which is true in the sense of the definition of monastery given in that article. But is isn't true if you take a wider perspective on what a monastery is. --Jayron32 02:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not take a "wider perspective on what a monastery is". If you reread my post, I was simply stating my interpretation of what the article said. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you did. I am saying you should. --Jayron32 02:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I was merely restating what the article said. This is what I said: "The article goes by the definition of some sort of secluded place that regards the outside world as evil." As you can see, I was NOT describing the defining characteristic of what a monastery is. I was going by with what I think the article is saying, and THAT ARTICLE - NOT ME - says that a monastery is some sort of secluded place that regards the outside world as evil. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

and then you asked for, and were given, commentary on that. I still don't know what your issue currently is with my answers here. All I did was respond to your request for elaboration on what the article said . I have so elaborated as you asked. --Jayron32 20:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the article titled Nazirite. --Jayron32 01:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Did Nazirite status have any effect on marriage? (That phenomenon is a curious mystery BTW - was it an ancient way of effectively dealing with alcoholism by allowing people to set themselves aside? OTOH I very uncertainly recollect something in Numbers about the hair of an army being weighed, as if they were using them like sheep... but I can't find it now, and it's possible it's some delusion) Wnt (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing the weighing of Absalom's hair (in 2 Samuel 14:26) with the account of David forcibly circumcising Philistines (presumably largely soldiers) in 1 Samuel 18:27 and bringing their foreskins back to be counted. That does sound like something that would have happened in Numbers, though.

More to the point of the question, I am aware of theories that take Jesus to have been a Nazirite rather than Nazarene, and claim that such confusion was the source of the epithet "of Nazareth," rather than that little ol' town in Galilee being his hometown. But it seems highly unlikely to me that the phrases "הנזיר" (the Nazirite) and "מנצרת" (of Nazareth) would be confused by any native Aramaic speaker such as the Jesus movement's earliest members. Zayin and Tsade are hard letters to get mixed up. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent response - besides, Jesus is frequently described as drinking wine, without any specific objection being raised to it. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The main thrust of the theories I've heard was to explain Jesus' long hair as depicted in Christian iconography, presumably in conflict with Paul's statements on men having long hair. The wine is a rather insurmountable problem with that idea, though.

I can't remember the passage, but I believe Paul is said to have taken a Nazirite vow at one point, though I'm not sure if that is Paul's firsthand account or something from Acts. As far as I know, there was no restriction on marriage under the Nazir's job description. It's also important to note that Samson's status as a lifelong Nazir/Nazirite was an oddity; most vows (like Paul's) were of a limited duration. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. In the Mishna, a standard Nazirite vow is binding for 30 (uninterrupted) days, unless another duration is specified or one vows to be "a Nazirite like Samson". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This question cannot really be answered with a definitive (or even "likely") yes or no. There was no rabbinical command to marry and reproduce until after the destruction of the temple (source). It's just as reasonable to project that command backwards as it is to assume that the command is a result of the destruction of the temple. Paul, in discussing marriage and celibacy, never really cites Jesus as an example either way (unless one wants to skew the analogy of being married to the church in bizarre ways that would also allows us to argue that Paul was really John the Baptist, and Jesus Simon Magus). Paul appears to have been celibate, however, which does give some support to the notion that Jesus might have been (after all, if Jesus followed that part of the law, and Paul proudly considered himself to be a good follower of Jewish law, he would have gotten married too). Jesus's marriage would have ultimately been more ammo for the proto-orthodox Church than the Gnostics, since Gnostics held that the flesh was evil (and so assumably would not have encouraged trapping more souls in flesh). The Gnostic works that support the idea of Jesus being married are centuries late to be considered seriously, especially since some of them get outright hallucinatory and pornographic in their descriptions of Jesus's marriage (I remember one work describing Jesus making Mary Magdelene cum so hard she saw heaven, before pulling out and stating that that's how humanity will be saved). The least insulting possibility there is "it's an allegory." The Gnostics with a reputation for being a bunch of orgiastic free-lovers got that reputation through accusations by the early Church fathers, who still never accused them of marrying.

There is also the third and intermediate possibility that Jesus was planning on marrying "some day," and got killed before that could happen.

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife was written in the 2nd century at earliest. Our article states King has stated that the fragment, "should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married".

And while there's nothing to say that Jesus was part of the Essenes, celibacy among their number is not disputed, and is evidence that not all Jewish men got married during that period.

From all this, I believe that knowledge of whether Jesus was married or not was totally lost by the end of the first century, that that information is about as likely to be recovered as an authentic Gospel of Jesus, and the social evidence and Paul's behavior leaves the options of married, unmarried, and celibate equally possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned earlier, but the OP needs to read Mary Magdalene. She seems the most obvious candidate for the wife (if any) of Jesus, but given the swirl of contradictory theories, it's clear to see that no one knows. In the Bible she is mentioned in the last days of Jesus, and it's reasonable to suppose that contemporary readers "knew who she was" so there seemed no particular need to elaborate on details. This is actually pretty common in contemporary accounts of events, that certain facts are assumed to be understood by the reader and need no explanation. Over the long haul, unwritten facts are lost and we're left with mysteries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, "Jesus did not marry" (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22jesus+did+not+marry%22&p=par), but he sacrificed his perfect human life to redeem imperfect humans from sin (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22ransom+sacrifice%22+adam&p=par).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be strictly their opinion. The Bible is silent on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is no doubt very weak evidence at best, but if Our Lady of the Pillar is taken as a genuine belief from 40 A.D., it indicates that it seemed appropriate that a message would be brought by the mother of Jesus, rather than, say, his wife. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A movie about a child murderess

There was a British movie in which some woman was a governess, and her charges figured out (from the initials on her property being other that those of her assumed name) that she had been a famous murderess as a child. I recall it as being a 1940's or 1950's black and white movie, something like a Hitchcock film. What might be the title be? (I was reminded of this by the 12 year old accused girls in the Slender Man attack. Edison (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You're more likely to get this answered if you ask it on the Entertainment Reference Desk. Rojomoke (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like Lady Audley's Secret, which became a 1920 British film. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

I had to read that twice, the position of your signature made it look like the most unlikely film from a book ever!

I would make a pretty stupid title. But Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? becoming Blade Runner didn't make a lot of sense, either. Not sure I have the legal footing to say "All Rights Reserved", but it can't hurt. Who knows what laziness lurks in the hearts of screenwriters? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

It's indeed a bit like the Audley story, but I recall in the movie one or two snoopy children who find some item of property, like a box, with initials which are not those of the name the governess is currently using, but which match the initials of a celebrated child criminal from years before. The reformed youthful offender is a more sympathetic character than the mad bigamist woman in the Audley story. Edison (talk)

I'll admit, I hadn't read the book, just the Wiki article. Mentioned discovering the real name through stickers on a travel box, seemed worth a shot. Glad Moonraker found it for you. It's annoying to half-remember something like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be remembering The Chalk Garden, a play by Enid Bagnold which was filmed in the 1960s. Some of your details are a little out, but the governess was a murderer and her real initials were on her paint-box. We have a page for The Chalk Garden (film), but it is only a stub and the plot section is hopeless. Moonraker (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Spot on! Now what was her original name? "Constance Doris" something.Wakeland? Mateland? At what age did she commit the murder? Edison (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're thinking of Constance Kent, she was sixteen. She wasn't a governess, but the mother of her victim (or maybe her father's victim) was. The fictional Chalk Garden girl's name was Laurel. The actress who played her had a mother who wrote a 1947 play based on the Kent story. Maybe just a coincidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

While I'm following the coincidence trail, the actress' mother shared a name with another child-murdering British girl (10 years old). Neither Mary Bell was related to accomplice Norma Bell, who likewise isn't related to Norma Bell of the Mothers of Invention. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Successful lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation

Has the Wikimedia foundation itself ever been successfully sued in court (in any jurisdiction) over Wikipedia content?

I know people have brought unsuccessful cases, but these are not what I'm asking about. Also, I'm not asking if contributors have been sued.

If yes, can anyone direct me to the specific judgements and cases?

For completeness' sake, I have absolutely no intention of suing the foundation. I'm simply curious. 58.168.149.224 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation.—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ira B. Dutton

Who was Ira B. Dutton's (aka Joseph Dutton) wife? When did they marry, how long did she live and how was she unfaithful?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does an Englishman say "dollars" in The Hound of the Baskervilles?

In Arthur Conan-Doyle's "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1901-02), the character of Sir Henry disclaims "How is the owner going to restore the glories of the Baskervilles if he has not money enough to keep up the property? House, land, and dollars must go together." (Chap 5, p. 69) Rather curious as to why this character, a Baronet, said "dollars" instead of "Pounds". Why is that? Zombiesturm (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Sir Henry Canadian? In any case, 'dollars' as a casual expression for money is far from unknown in the UK; at one time 'dollar' was a common synonym for the sum of 5 shillings (a crown) because of the exchange rate. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Dollar" was just a term for a type of coin, Anglicised from "Thaler". See dollar. Shakespeare uses the word many times. It just happens that the term for currency in the US was derived from this common English word for coins. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote is not in British English. I checked wikisource [1] and the quote is correct. Could wikisource be from an American edition?
Sleigh (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As AlexTiefling said, Sir Henry is Canadian. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment two above about "wikiquote". I typed the quote out myself and I have the novel right in front of me. And yes, Sir Henry had been living in Canada for a long time. But it seems there is more to it than that. Zombiesturm (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does it seem that? It just looks like characterising him as Canadian to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll get back to you when I finish the book. You yourself also stated that dollar was a term used in England. I agree, therefore, the "He's Canadian" explanation is not sufficient. Zombiesturm (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, that's not how logic works. "He's Canadian" is a sufficient explanation; "A dollar sometimes referred to 5/" would not be a sufficient explanation (because I don't know if at applied at the time the novel was set and published), but that doesn't matter, because the first point is sufficient. I just thought that mentioning it might be informative; you're reading into it something I didn't intend. I'm sure there's nothing mysterious about Sir Henry's use of the word 'dollars'. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• More precisely, Sir Henry had lived in both the US and Canada (both countries using currencies called "dollars") for most of his life. He says so explicitly at his first meeting with Holmes, in the previous chapter (search for "States" on the page). And by the way, since someone wondered if US editions were different, I'll add that I confirmed the word "dollars" in my copy of the novel, whose pages are reproductions of the original pages from The Strand. --50.100.189.160 (talk)

The first point is not sufficient just because you claim it to be so. With respect, that's not how logic works. Zombiesturm (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Zombiesturm, Alex gave you useful information and your response seems to be to attack him. By the time the novel is set Canada had currency called "dollars", so that is sufficient explanation for the term being used by a character who is supposed to have been living in Canada. In addition, "dollars" was a long-established generic term for "money" in English dating back to Shakespeare - well before the existence of the US dollar. That generic usage continued to be familiar in the 19th century, though it was fading by the time the novel was written. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I reported the redlink for his obscenities (since deleted) but the do-nothing admin wouldn't take action. So this is just FYI that Zombie is on notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

L.O.L.! Get real, you mall cop. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... So, is "mall cop" a lesser or "worser" attempt at an insult than is "faggot"?[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason Sir Henry uses the word "Dollar" here has nothing to do with the fact that he has spent all his adult life to date in Canada, where dollars are the medium of currency, nor the fact that the word "dollar" can be used as a word to mean a coin. He is in fact passing on a secret message to an escaped convict who is out on the moors, who Sir Henry has a modicum of sympathy for. In this circumstance, both Sir Henry, and indeed Conan Doyle, are using the word dollar to mean "Don't Object. Landings. Look Around. Run.", essentially indicating that his position is untenable and he should seek to escape by sea. This is often overlooked in modern readings of the novel. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting theory. What's your source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read the novel? (spoiler alert!) It's his servant who passes the messages, unknown to Sir Henry. In any case the scene occurs in London. How can he pass a secret message to a convict in a private conversation with Holmes miles away from the moor? Paul B (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If the OP is indeed only on chapter 5, I'd be wary about giving too much away about the escaped convict for fear of spoilers. I believe Ronald Knox first proposed the idea in one of his lectures on the subject, and there's a brief mention of the theory in Gavin Brend's 1951 book "My Dear Holmes". Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well congratulations to them for coming up with a theory that makes no earthly sense whatever. Paul B (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies - you are indeed correct. I have just checked the sources, and this message does indeed not appear in the Hound of the Baskervilles. I was in fact thinking of a story of Arsene Lupin by Maurice LeBlank, possibly one of his brushes with the legendary detective Holmlock Shears. Sir Henry does not pass any message on to the convict - it is indeed the worthy Barrymore and his wife who do so. I am currently flicking through my Lupin books to find the story in which an acronym code is used by an American / Canadian (?) lord or member of the gentry to pass messages to an accomplice on the moors, but whether this is a deliberate nod to the Hound of the Baskervilles I am not sure. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

jesus and messianic prophecy

did jesus fulfill messianic prophecies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.3.81 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's purely a matter of religious belief. Jews would say no, Christians and Messianic Jews (who are regarded as Christians by other Jews) would say yes, and Muslims would probably say "sort of." Part of the problem is that what qualifies as a Messianic prophecy and the very definition of "Messiah" tends to vary between each group. See Messiah for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See also Jesus and messianic prophecy for a comprehensive list of prophecies that (some) Christians believe to be fulfilled by [in?] Jesus. Tevildo (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Judaism's view of Jesus (and this site for more details) and Jesus in Islam for how Jesus fits (or in the case of Judaism, does not fit) into those religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing a web page

When informally referencing a web page, I'll say something like "Do a find (Control-F) on 'invisible pink unicorn', and look for the third occurrence". Is there any way to say something like that in formal references to web pages (which often are huge and yet lack any other way to specify a location) ? StuRat (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you used {{cite web}} you could use the "quote=" and put in "quote = ...an invisible pink unicorn could be seen sitting..." which would make it distinct from the other two usages of invisible pink unicorn. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 01:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but the search term isn't always the same as the quote that proves the point. How do I handle that ? StuRat (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(How to ask for) references on pedophilia

"Are there any academic works that discuss the role pedophilia, pederasty, or child marriage served in different cultures, such as those of the Spartans?

Is there any scientific research into what role pedophilia might play in evolution, or into the "nature vs nurture" aspect of it?

Are there any sociological or psychological studies or works that discuss the ramifications of lower ages of consent, adults engaging in romantic relationships with teenagers, and/or criminalization or decriminalization of associated activities? Anything on how the children develop in the long term, perhaps in terms of income, incarceration rates, hospitalization rates, drug abuse rates, graduation rates (both high school and collegiate), and general "well being" surveys?

I'm not asking for any particular result, I merely want neutral and scholarly information on the topic. As such, I do not need any literature or forum-posts discussing the ethical concerns of these issues. I'm capable of rendering my own moral decisions (my views paraphrase Luke 17:2 if anyone really needs to know). This is purely a matter (actually a hypothetical demonstration) of research into the topic."

Off-topic meta commentary

Notice that, excluding the thread title, this note, and my signature: 72% of my post was asking for references The remaining 28% discourages opinionated discussion My own opinion, left to quell any suspicions, only took up 16%, only stated what the position was (without arguing for it or even explaining it) I did not attempt to rationalize any particular position (even my own) I will admit that my interest here is primarily in showing that this thread is possible (though after this much trouble I will at least look for/at/through any references anyone finds). There were some editors (on both sides of the discussion, I won't point fingers) who seemed to believe that this subject matter was why someone got blocked. Never mind that that troll's most recent "question" spent 67% of its time non-neutrally rationalizing a point of view (doesn't matter what it was) and only 13% possibly (3% directly) indicating some need or desire for references and opinions; or that his prior posts included commands from God, invitations to time-travel, and outright vandalism. The subject matter is not the problem, as demonstrated in this thread.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well done! One other approach might be something like this, although it clearly and explicitly states a bias:

Gender and sexual roles vary dramatically between societies and eras. The societal idealization of children in Western society is generally recognized as of recent origin. To what extent do these different norms of modern Western society impact our views of all forms of sexuality, including pedophilia/pederasty and (possibly) bestiality?

I actually remember seeing some lengthy discussion in reference works on this topic somewhere, but I forget where right now. I think it was in relation to gender studies. Journal of the History of Sexuality might have useful informaion as well. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your question looks way more like "hey guys give me a high five" than a legitimate attempt to properly address a highly emotive subject area. I have a sneaking suspicion that the powers that be here will take a dim view of this. Good luck with it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.70.184 (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, a (now blocked) user had used the subject to troll the site (assuming he wasn't just crazy), but I'll at least look at any references anyone finds, and this thread is for the people who had a honest scholarly interest in the subject (as more than one editor did express some degree of interest). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that to be more specific we should first sort out whether ancient Greeks were actually pedophiles versus pederasts, since someone called bogus on my comment about this during the question's prior unfortunate detour to ANI. [3] This has to do first with the age range - the pederasty article says some restrict it to 12-17, but then says the historical range was greater, which tells us little. And I vaguely remember one of those famous ancient Greek novels - was it the Odyssey? - that starts out with warriors making fun of one of their number because he continues to be with a kid who has started growing a beard. The other thing is the motivation - were they genuinely sexually motivated by a preference for the kids, or was there some strong strange incentive to avoid childbirth? As I recall, the Spartans actually died out from a failure to reproduce .. as if their culture were literally annihilated by some strange wave of pedophilia. They had some very peculiar customs - incredibly traumatic childhood, a strange and ubiquitous "black broth" diet, who knows what else? Could something there cause pedophilia? -- ah, I see Pederasty in ancient Greece claims an age of no less than 12 or 13, with some refs. Wnt (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, people were exposed to a lot of different things back then than they were today. Consider the issue of lead poisoning in Rome due to the vessels they kept wine in; it's been speculated that madness among the crazier emperors may have been related to this. Antibiotics didn't exist, and sanitation was a very different thing; issues of water contamination were probably greater, and there are a number of waterborne parasites that cause neurological and psychological disorders. This is of course presuming an organic as opposed to a purely psychological cause, and moreover that the prevalence in Ancient Greece isn't exaggerated. I suspect the decline of Sparta has more to do with a bad defeat or two that killed off a large number of the fighting men, which in turn would have led to a decline in population and generally lessening the ability of Sparta to fight off incursions from the outside. That's my theory anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

People certainly ask questions on this subject without necessarily being accused of trolling. See my question a while back at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2011_May_19#Quantitative_Analysis_and_Sex_offender_registration. The discussion of the matter was perfectly civil, albeit nobody managed to reference any scholarly studies on the matter at hand there, sadly. That said, inevitably sometimes a wikipedian will "jump the gun" in breach of WP:AGF - whilst on the other hand, some will ask questions on the matter merely to WP:TROLL or WP:SOAPBOX. 58.168.149.224 (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, well your commentary basically admits to being WP:POINTY, and that's not great, but at least you are upfront about it. That meta-discussion would be better on the talk page. I'm of the view that WP:NOTCENSORED is key, as long as references are what's being asked for.

For the specific question and many similar ones: Google Scholar and WP:REX and your local library are your friends here. Here's an open-access article titled '"All against pedophilia". Ethnographic notes about a contemporary moral crusade" ' [4]. Here is a whole research monograph entitled 'Pedophilia', which is pretty much exclusively dedicated to academic research on the broad topic, from a variety of angles [5]. Here is a paper focusing on clinical treatment "Clinical Features of Pedophilia and Implications for Treatment" [6]. Here is a nice open access review article "Explanations of Pedophilia: Review of Empirical Research" [7].

Anyway, my links should help anyone get a decent academic overview of the topics, and further searches and references therein can be used to dive into more specific issues. (This isn't that hard, is it?) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 8

Need help identifying a portrait from a movie

I was just watching Charlie Wilson's War and was wondering who is depicted in this portrait[8] that is hanging in (the fictional version of) Charlie Wilson's congressional office.WinterWall (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's Stonewall Jackson, but I think that about most similar portraits. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

I think I may be righter than usual. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!WinterWall (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Origin of Kings

When I was a kid, one of the things I never understood is how someone became a king in the first place. You know when humans first entered Europe, they were all more or less equals living in small huts and what not. How did someone then get everyone to just do their bidding? Whether it's the King of England or France, or the Emperor of Japan.. So how did they first become kings, get everyone to do what they tell them to do, live in castles, and then establish this nonsense about royal blood and how their descendants should rule when they die? ScienceApe (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

See Leadership.... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: Neolithic Revolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What's your source for "they were all more or less equals"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your questioning of the premise. I'm pretty sure there were smaller scale chieftains and warlords, as well as whipping boy analogs and lower classes. Tribalism is often patriarchal and has some degree of hierarchy. Problem is, we have some information on Neolithic Europe (i.e. early era of human settlement in Europe), but archaeologists are mainly limited to material culture for sources of evidence, and don't know with certainty how these people lived. (Far outside my expertise, I welcome correction to my vague understanding of the topic.) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's actually true, the idea that neolithic societies took the form of Primitive communism is fairly widespread and widely-taught. It wasn't an unreasonable assumption to have made at the time the theory was first espoused (the late 19th century). The least technologically advanced societies that European explorers at the time were coming into contact with (in Australia, Arctic Canada and the Brazilian rainforests) tended not to have kings and chiefs, while the more technologically advanced Native American and coastal African tribes had the whole gamut of chiefs and courtiers in place. The theory is hokum, but based on the evidence of the time it was a reasonable guess to make. Mogism (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If there were no leaders, how were decisions made about anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The irony of someone asking that question on Wikipedia is not lost on me. (Boring answer; the same way Inuit etc tribes still do today; everyone with an interest in the issue gets together and argues it out until they reach a consensus or compromise. Bear in mind that the decisions to be made in a neolithic society would rarely have been particularly complicated.) Mogism (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comparison would be true only if there were no admins or arbitrators or checkusers... and no Wikimedia foundation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Overstated. Most of the time, this is exactly what happens, since we don't go running to the nearest admin, and further, when admins are involved, it's just whichever admin decides to get involved, who makes the decision. IBE (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy the Grump was on the right track. The construction of massive monuments such as Newgrange and Stonehenge strongly suggests that they were built by hierarchically organized societies in which figures of authority were able to organize and command groups of workers. Neolithic societies that survived into historic times, in the contact-era Americas, for example, all had some degree of hierarchical organization. That said, many did not have what we would call kings. Many instead had clan or tribal chieftains. Even in historical foraging societies, such as the Inuit, there is some degree of social inequality and elements of leadership, though typically these features are much more fluid than in sedentary societies and based largely on an individual's charisma and interpersonal relations. History (for example of such groups as the Mongols or of early medieval Europe) suggests that kings emerged when clan chieftains or local warlords were able to establish dominance over their rivals and peers. Kings were able to maintain their power and bequeath it to heirs by creating networks of dependents and a rudimentary state apparatus to assist them in consolidating control. Marco polo (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mogism:, you make it sound as if local governance in northern communities is completely different to the rest of the world but it isn't. We have directly elected mayors and hamlet councils, local education authorities and other organisations. There are no Inuit tribes living out on the land today. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, not living. But sleeping, perhaps. Seriously though, a great fictional series about power and weakness. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) [rarely particularly complicated] ... from our 21st century perspective. But they weren't living in the 21st century, so that's a hollow comparison. Power (including the power to make mundane decisions) has always been prized, no less so in Neolithic societies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

---

ScienceApe -- Anthropologists have actually worked out a well-defined sequence of leadership roles in various societies at various levels of social organization. In small quasi-nomadic hunter-gatherer bands (where there are no real wealth differences or ability to transmit property or position to the next generation), leadership is based entirely on your individual personality and reputation, and your ability to persuade other people at any given moment that some course of action is the right thing to do. In slightly larger or more densely-settled groups, there often tends to be a formally recognized "big-man" position, but it's still very dependent on individual force of personality, and the big-man being able to give constant gifts to his followers. The next stage of social organization is the "chiefdom", where there is a form of hereditary noble families, and the beginning of leaders exacting taxes or tribute from their followers. Then comes the true state (including kingdoms)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There's an old boxing truism: "A good big man will always beat a good small man". Not entirely a mind game. A leader should be strong, and of those who want to lead, the strongest naturally prevail. This seems particularly appropriate in more primitive cultures, before even shitty small men could win with long-range missiles and gold. But even since, a good big arsenal and bank beats the good small ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

I like how the Druids handled it. They had kings, but if those kings didn't do a good job, they killed them, tossed them into the nearest bog, and got a new king. Perhaps we should do that with our politicians ? :-) StuRat (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If there's anyone else who read the question in other terms, I think it is said that if you develop agriculture to a certain extent, you can sustain a population where there is a group of people who can survive off of the labour of others, and can then engage in other activities, leading to a more complex division of labour and ultimately organising some people into the administration and management of production, which eventually becomes class, division, hierarchy, the state, etc.

If you're willing to entertain the words of the philosophers, this is a good read as well. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Bible contains a classic anti-monarchy rant at I Samuel 8... AnonMoos (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If we're getting philosophically classic, here is the giant heir to the universe, shrunken by a leaf from the Nirvana tree and contemplating the meaning of the throne, seeking guidance from his own trash heap, whom he'd never heard before. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Context. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Careful of assuming that monarchy and kingdoms are absent from Africa. Not suggesting that you do assume that, but your original post could be read as assuming that. Anyway, you might find it interesting, from an English point of view, to read about the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, the Witengamot, and so on. Also, consider the English Civil War and the so-called 'Glorious' Revolution, as evidence that the right to inherit has always been somewhat dependent on the will of at least some of the people. 86.129.13.205 (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Second most powerful office in America

Which political office is de facto the second most powerful office(s) in America after the president; or the office where the occupant is able to make to most far reaching decisions? It's likely not the Vice-President (although it is de jure the second highest office). As far as I know the VP doesn't have much pracitial power. Perhaps the Secretary of State, Sec. of Defense or the treasury? House Speaker? Senator? Governor? Mayor? --89.14.114.154 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "able to make most far reaching decisions"? I mean, the decisions and actions of e.g. the Koch brothers and Bill Gates are very far reaching, but I'm guessing "billionaire" isn't the office you're looking for. Mayors have a lot more power over how their city is governed than e.g. the president does. And some big-city mayors could be argued to have more power than small-state governors. I'm sure you'll get plenty of opinions here, but unless you specify your question a bit more, this isn't something that can be definitively answered with references. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is no accepted way to quantify power. Cases could be made for any number of offices, such as Jerry Brown, governor of California, or a person such as Anthony Kennedy, not just because of powers inherent to his position, which he shares with 8 other justices, but also because of his frequent role as the swing vote. But there is no clear way to determine whether Brown or Kennedy, for example, has more power. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

University of Wales, Islamic Theology

On Bilal Philips it says he went "to the University of Wales, where he completed a PhD in Islamic Theology in 1988." On his official website it says he completed "a PhD in Islamic Theology from the University of Wales (1994). Interestingly enough, his PhD thesis was on “The Exorcist Tradition in Islam.”" [9]. On his small bio at the Islamic Online University which he founded, it says he "completed a Ph.D in Islamic Theology in the department of Islamic Studies at the University of Wales, UK" [10]. At which college was this department? Which library has his thesis? Does it have a call number? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I found it: [11] Title "Exorcism in Islam", date 1993, from St. David's University College (now Trinity St. David), Lampeter. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 9

Nazi food and oil pre-Barbarossa

Was the Third Reich self sufficient in food and petroleum immediately before it invaded the Soviet Union?--Wikimedes (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lord of the Manor titles

I was recently reading up about people losing money on buying (fake) Lord of the Manor titles and am intrigued. What is it people would have to actually purchase in order for such a title to be valid? Obviously many of these titles are almost a thousand years old, so one couldn't possibly purchase the original "deed" or whatever.

Plus according to the changes in Manorial Incorporeal Law 2010 "A full set of correctly worded and correctly executed and consecutive deeds are required from when the lordship was first granted or Time Immemorial (1189). A statutory declaration stating ownership or partial deeds will not prove legal rights of ownership to a Manorial Lordship title."

So surely this means all subsequent owners of the title must be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.192.37 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What's your source for the 'manorial incorporeal law'? The phrase has very few Google results, which all seem to relate to a business, or at most two businesses, claiming to carry on such a trade. One of them (the top hit, which has a horrible website) uses a clearly misleading business name to perpetuate its business. I'm not convinced that there is such a law. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)