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

December 17

longest streetcar routes in world

TTC's 501 Queen streetcar route is the longest in North America but what about in the whole world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.129 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Coast Tram in Belgium. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Belgium is quite a place for trams (streetcars); the Brussels Pre-metro is a weird system where the trams run in tunnels and stop at metro stations. When I visited in the late 1990s, it was a bit of a puzzle, because the trams were only marked with a number and when one arrived at the station, you had to run over to a very complicated map to find out where it was going. I'm sure information technology has moved on since then. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's one seen in a pre-metro station in 2005, showing the destination endpoint Esplanade as well as the route number. A nice technique that most cities don't use is that the color seen on the rollsign, here light blue, matches the color used for this route on the system map (you'll find Esplanade just left of center, near the top edge of the map, and the route goes south from there). Similarly with the brown color on this route, which you won't find on the map since it is no longer operated. Unfortunately the STIB has abandoned this helpful practice, I suppose for cost reasons, for newer rolling stock on the system, which all has the same orange LED destination signs. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Damn! I never cottoned on to the colour code. Alansplodge (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What made Greek/Ancient Greek such a major influence/factor on modern languages ???

What made Greek/Ancient Greek such a major influence/factor on modern languages ???

Even languages far different from their language, like all the Germanic languages for instance, have lots and lots and lots of words and vocabulary coming from the Greek language. I suspect even many languages which originate from other continents will be quite influenced by Greek. All these scientific words, as well as the names of so many animals and plants etc. If you look up the origins of a word, you'll so often find it stems from Greek. Why, and how ??

I know Greece supposedly raised many a philosopher and forward-thinker with theories and ideas, and which had a natural curiosity to match. They'd no doubt put words/names on many things, possibly before others had come so far, but it can't be that simple and it don't really explain why and how. The language's legacy is so widespread and such a big part of our every-day speech.

How and why did it come to be, to such a great extent ?

2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:BDE4:E107:4A9A:F02C (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

See Eastern Roman Empire. --Jayron32 13:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And even before the empire split, Greece was an especially valued part of the Roman Empire (see Roman Greece) and the countries were close enough that Roman and Greek culture blended into one Greco-Roman culture. Roman writers enjoyed and quoted Greek philosophers and poets (much of what we know of the Greek-speaking Sappho for instance came to us via Latin authors) and this helped establish Greek as a respectable language to do intelligent things in. This was especially important in the Middle Ages – if you wrote in your own language, no-one outside your borders would understand you (nor would many inside it, before spelling reform and the printing press standardized the language) but if you used the classical languages of Latin or Greek, most educated Europeans would. Smurrayinchester 14:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Greek culture was so influential on Roman culture that they even rewrote their own origin story to include explicit connection to the earlier Greek civilization, see The Aeneid, which makes the Homeric epics into the prequel for the Romulus and Remus story. --Jayron32 14:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The story of Aeneas and of the Trojan origins of Rome was probably borrowed from the Etruscans: see this. There's also a little at Etruscan origins (skip the first paragraph). In fact much of Greek culture came at first to Rome through the Etruscan civilization. Contact Basemetal here 15:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you! --Jayron32 16:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically because of Alexander the Great's conquests. Even though his empire fell apart after his short reign, most of the territory he conquered remained under Greek rule for some time. In this Hellenistic period, the Greek language and culture became dominant in a large area, and Koine Greek became the lingua franca of much of the civilized world, which persisted even after some of these regions were conquered by the Romans. - Lindert (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Also not to be ignored in the influence on future Western civilization is that Language of the New Testament was Koine Greek, greatly influencing the status of that language among Western academics (who were mostly Churchmen for much of the early middle ages anyways). The Koine Greek New Testament and the Vulgate translation by St. Jerome both had a profound impact on the status of Greek and Latin in Academic settings in Western Europe. --Jayron32 14:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

When did European languages start using Greek lexical elements (along with Latin lexical elements) to produce new words in science, etc. (e.g. "astrophysics", "chromatography", etc.)? I'm of course not talking of Greek words inherited directly from Greek or through Latin, which were already in use in classical times (e.g. in their Latin forms "philosophia", "historia", "musica"). Was this already happening in medieval Latin? Or did that practice only start in the 15th c. and 16th c. when the West started "relearning" Ancient Greek? Contact Basemetal here 15:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

According to Classical compound, "English began incorporating many of these words in the sixteenth century; geography first appeared in an English text in 1535." Smurrayinchester 08:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Latin did not really use a lot of Greek words, unless the author was unusually well-educated - they tended not to learn Greek in the Middle Ages (when they start to learn Greek again, that's one definition of the beginning of the Renaissance). Or, they were using classical dictionaries or wordlists of Greek words, just to sound fancy, kind of as a game, without taking any consideration of meaning or context. That was popular in Hiberno-Latin with Irish monks. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and for your answers. :) 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:BDE4:E107:4A9A:F02C (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

travel to eurape

hi

i am living syrian near boarder lebanon

my family, cousin to leave. please. the best way escape route syrian eurape, germany or safety to country here we canott be stay here long danger

thanks you please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.141.221.102 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't advise you on the best route. You can read the Wikipedia article titled European migrant crisis which has some information on common routes taken by people in your situation. This webpage also shows common routes taken, though we cannot recommend which is best or safest at any time, at least its some data on routes others are using. --Jayron32 16:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can contact Pro Asyl and ask them. Their English site is here. To contact them it is probably best to use email: proasyl@proasyl.de. But if you are truly in imminent danger the best is probably to just go to Lebanon (even though Lebanon is already swamped with Syrian refugees) since you say you are close to the border. Contact Basemetal here 16:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't there much information about the Angles?

But there's a lot more information about the Saxons? ScienceApe (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

History is written by the victors. The Saxons established a hegemony throughout central Europe, with many important Saxon groups and leaders taking prominent leadership roles in the emerging German nation. The Angles never did so. The Saxons became one of the Stem Duchies of the German kingdom, and the noble house of Saxony became one of the most prolific in Germany. You can start reading about this history at Duchy of Saxony and follow information from there. The Angles never got established as a major political force, and were largely absorbed by other groups, mostly the Saxons. Most of the smaller Germanic tribes were consolidated into one of the larger Germanic groups during the early middle ages, either the Saxons or the Franks, the Bavarians or the Swabians/Allemani, i.e. the Stem Duchies. --Jayron32 19:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Then wouldn't the term, Anglo-Saxons be a misnomer since the Angle contribution to these people would be very minor, especially since the Saxons absorbed other smaller tribes equally as much as the Angles as you pointed out? ScienceApe (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Angles were a distinct group during the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, which is why they get mentioned separately there. There was also a third group, the Jutes, which were also involved in the Germanic settlements of England; their name gets left out of the term "Anglo-Saxon", but Bede lists them among the three invading groups, they settled in Kent. The Jutes were later absorbed by the Danes; their name lives on in Jutland. The Anglo-Saxon settlement mostly occurred during middle 400s to middle 700s; the Stem Duchies didn't really coalesce until the end of that period. --Jayron32 19:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. So are you saying that Anglo-Saxons are not comprised of Angles at all? ScienceApe (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the opposite. In the middle 400s, when the Anglo-Saxon settlement began, the Angles where a distinct group. By the middle 700s when the Stem Duchies were forming, they were not. 300 years is a long damn time. You've made the mistake of assuming all of history happened simultaneously. It's a common problem when people look back at the past. When they settled England, they were absolutely a distinct group. They disappeared as a distinct group some time later. --Jayron32 20:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

However, it wasn't all bad for the Angles, we ended up calling ourselves English rather than Saxonish, although the Welsh and the Scots still call us that. Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As Richard Armour put it, the Saxons knew all the Angles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Another way to put it: the Saxons who participated in the Anglo-Saxon migration were cousins of some of the ancestors of the Saxons who became prominent in later German history, but one shouldn't equate them. —Tamfang (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note also the former were speakers of North Sea West Germanic whereas the latter were speakers of a form of Continental West Germanic. Another interesting observation is that Denmark used to be in the West Germanic area when the invasion of Britain took place and only later became part of the North Germanic area. Contact Basemetal here 11:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

One reason that the Angles may get neglected in the history of England is that while the Saxons used that tribal name for each of their kingdoms (Essex, Sussex, Wessex) the Angles didn't. Only the name East Anglia reveals its origin - but the much larger and more important kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria were also founded by Angles. Of the seven kingdoms of the Heptarchy three were Angle, and three were Saxon (with Kent being Jutish in origin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.86.201 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There's also the issue that the major Saxon kingdoms (well, Wessex) largely survived the Danish invasions (excepting, of course, the times when they didn't), while the more easterly Anglian kingdoms were largely subsumed by the Danelaw, with only rump states left of Mercia and Northumbria. Of course, by that point in history (the 800s-900s, now almost half a millenium later than the initial Anglo-Saxon-Jutish settlements) the distinctions between Angles and Saxons was entirely inconsequential. That is, the ethnic distinctions that would have made Angles and Saxons a distinct people in the 450s when they settled England were meaningless by the 850s; there was instead by then a single "Anglo-Saxon" ethnicity (by now also quite distinct from the Continental "Saxon" ethnicity), as there arose a distinct "English" national identity, see for example Alfred the Great's unified plan for English-language education for the whole of his realm. By the early 900s, kings formally dropped the pretense even of "Anglo-Saxon" or "Angles and Saxons" (a formalism which had been maintained long after the groups had lost their individual identity) and adopted titles that indicated cultural unity, such as the title "Rex Anglorum" (king of The English) which was first adopted by Æthelstan (though how much he used the style is disputed a bit). Certainly by the time his brother Edmund I became King, the title "Anglorum rex" was fully in use. Later the style changed to "King of England", especially when used by foreign dynasts (such as Cnut and William I).

As a sidebar to all of this, it's interesting that Modern English, descended (with much modification and absorbtion of other elements) from the speech of the period in question, is most closely related not to the continental descendants of the Saxon, Angle or Jutish dialects/languages, but to Frisian.

I recall an exercise not too long ago where Eddie Izzard learned some Old English and then visited the Frisian Islands, where he was able to converse successfully with locals by using it (he bought a cow).

I've seen conjectures that at the time of the original invasions/migrations, the speakers of those related but perhaps not mutually intelligible tongues used Frisian as a lingua franca because Frisians, who had the most extensive coastline in the area, were coastal traders who came into contact with everybody else. (See also Ingvaeonic languages.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Ingvaeonic grouping postulates Low German is closer to Anglo-Frisian than to Dutch. That seems to go against Dutch, Low German and High German forming a single continuous dialect area, with Frisian not being part of it. Contact Basemetal here 20:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Eddie Izzard I am skeptical, but judge for yourself. Regarding Frisians, I don't know why, but German people think East Frisians (who no longer speak a Frisian language) are particularly dim. The East Frisian jokes are the German equivalent to Polish jokes. Contact Basemetal here 21:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

December 18

Shell Shock during WW1.

When troops had shell shock on the actual front line, how did it effect these troops? Did it alter their perceptions of the battlefield? --Vïtapalast (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read our article shell shock (and its more modern diagnosis, post-traumatic stress disorder)? Shell shock manifested very differently in different people, but about 10% suffered Conversion disorder, which is when severe stress affects the senses. The article also mentions dizziness and hypersensitivity to noise, both of which would be severely disorienting and frightening on a battlefield. Smurrayinchester 11:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Some disturbing film exists of extreme manifestations of this disorder; see - British Pathé Shell Shock Victims. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Between my wife and I, we had four biogical uncles who served in World War II. Two of my mother's brothers, and two of her mothers's brothers. One of my uncles and one of hers were killed, her uncle after 2-1/2 years in a Japanese POW camp. The two surviving uncles suffered from "shell shock" which interfered with normal family relationships for decades. War is hell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that "shell shock" included both post-traumatic stress disorder and concussion/closed head injuries. As we know from recent American football studies, the latter can also have severe consequences, both physical and psychological. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

December 19

carpet

There is a photograph with the caption "A meeting of Foreign Ministers about the situation in Syria is pictured at the Palace Hotel in the Manhattan borough of New York December 18, 2015" but I can't find an image of the pictured flooring using Google Image search. I am guessing is is a carpet. It seems so extraordinary that there would be an image of it online. Can anybody find it? Bus stop (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

[1] --164.215.104.173 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is it. Thanks. The design looks so much larger in the Reuters photograph. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, neither picture shows the whole carpet, so you may be seeing different parts of it. Possibly a similar pattern occurs in more than one place in more than one size. Also, note that the original photo seems to have been taken with a wide-angle lens, which somewhat exaggerates the size of things nearest the camera.

Here are two other pictures of the hotel's Villard Ballroom. On page 4 of this PDF document you can see a large table partly covering the central design feature from the original photo. And again in this photo a large table is partly covering that feature. That last table looks as if it would fill most of the space inside the U-shaped tables of the original photo. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a pretty good picture of it. The original link I posted above no longer works. Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, notice the bit that reads &w=976 within that URL. On some news media web sites, this is used to specify how wide you want the picture to be. If you trim it out of the URL, often you get a higher-resolution version. That works with this one. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That is wonderful. Thank you. I'm glad I started this thread. I learned something. Bus stop (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Conference rooms I've been in are typically tight-weave carpeting. Tile or other hard surfaces tend to exaggerate noise and are less "cozy" anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

They should sit on the carpet to maximally enhance conviviality. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Or to enhance pain, maybe. Tight weave carpet on a concrete floor would be even less comfortable than typical conference room chairs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspending the whole thing on a trampoline might bring about whirled peas. Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And the boy gets a cigar! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

South Korea: presidential or semi-presidential regime?

Article South Korea states that it has a presidential regime. But South Korea also has a prime minister. I'd always thought that any regime with both an effective non-ceremonial president elected through a general popular vote and a prime minister with a cabinet that comes out of parliamentary elections (e.g. France, Russia, etc.) is by definition semi-presidential. Wouldn't that make South Korea a semi-presidential system? If not, could anyone point to another presidential regime with a prime minister? And another thing: article Turkey says that it is a parliamentary system. But as far as I can tell it also fulfills the definition of a semi-presidential regime. Have I misunderstood something? Contact Basemetal here 10:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkey was a parliamentary system until recently, with very limited powers accorded its president. However, constitutional changes introduced in 2015 at the behest of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan after his election as president have changed the nature of the regime, making it semi-presidential. Note that in the past, both Turgut Özal and Suleyman Demirel exercised significant power out of the presidential seat in spite of the regime being parliamentary in name. --Xuxl (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Republic of Korea is a presidential representative democracy, as per our article. The president exercises executive power, the National Assembly and the government exercise legislative power and the Supreme Court and subordinate entities exercise judicial power. The President appoints the Prime Minister, with the approval of the National Assembly. In my experience, the main job of the Prime Minister is to resign, so as to accept responsibility for any embarrassment that might befall the President. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly how Vth Republic France works and that is (according to WP) a semi-presidential regime. Contact Basemetal here 13:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly how Vth Republic France works, and to the question "France, presidential or semi-presidential regime?", the French (who probably don't read WP carefully enough) would without hesitation answer "presidential". Akseli9 (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

uh, I am French, and I listened at school, and I definitely would answer "semi-presidential" without hesitation. What French do you socialise with? --Lgriot (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And yet it was a French political scientist, Maurice Duverger, who came up with the concept of régime semi-présidentiel and applied it to the French Cinquième République (Maurice Duverger, Le système politique français, PUF, 1970). See fr:Régime semi-présidentiel. Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Citizens From Countries That Need Visas To Travel v Using Ethnic Profiling To Prevent Crime - Explain The Difference?

The passport that my wife holds, requires a visa to travel to most countries on earth. I am from a European country and hardly ever require a visa. She finds this completely unfair, and whilst I do sympathise with her, she understands that as her country is extremely poor and corrupt, a lot of it's citizens would like to leave and never come back.

But isn't this just the same as ethnic profiling to prevent crime/terrorism?

She has travelled widely with me and has always returned to her country (we both live there). Obviously we can go through the process of applying for a visas, but this is extremely troublesome and expensive. However, over time as she has visited more and more countries, the application process becomes a lot easier

But surely what foreign governments are doing is just a bigger version of ethnic profiling? Basically, they are saying either:

• The people in your country are generally very poor, if we didn't check you out in advance, you might not come back

OR

• We have noticed in the past some people from your country have overstayed, therefore you might overstay as well

So lets just substitute a couple of words, and then allow the police to use this logic instead of the border guards:

• The people of your ethnicity in this country are generally very poor, therefore you might be tempted to commit crime

• We have noticed in the past that people of your ethnicity are more likely to commit crime, therefore you might commit crime

Now of course, you can say that citizenship does not equal ethnicity, however, in many examples (especially in the developing world) this is actually true

In this day and age of political correctness, I'm amazed that the whole visa system hasn't be targeted as surely it is one of the last bastions of legal discrimination

However, if on the other hand, the visa system does work, then surely ethnic profiling should be adopted by police forces all around the world? Jaseywasey (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't post long political scenarios and then ask for comment on various arguments you have made. Please feel free to add specific requests for factual material. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhatted because Medeis does have a point but there is further information for the questioner. The further information is that visa requirements are often on a tit-for-tat basis. So, coming from the UK, I need a visa to go to Cambodia, but at the same time a Cambodian needs a visa to come to the UK. By contrast a citizen of Vietnam doesn't need a visa for Cambodia, and a citizen of Cambodia doesn't need one for Vietnam. You could say that there should be more such arrangements, and lots of people would agree. If you look right across the world, there has been a fair amount of loosening up, mainly for tourism purposes, but also for cross-border work and migration for work. Your post assumes that visa-free travel is the default and then countries impose visa requirements for specific reasons. It's the other way round, really. Visas were required more or less everywhere, but the requirements are being dropped. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Nations have the right to decide who comes in and who doesn't, and as Judith indicates, those rules vary for and about each country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If nations have the right to decide who comes in and who doesn't, what exactly made the ban on Chinese immigration in 1923 or Trump's recent proposal so objectionable? Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Because they were seen (by some) as racist and arbitrary. But these decisions are enacted by law, meaning they are debated and discussed, both in Congress and in the general public. And if they are objectionable to the rest of the world, it doesn't matter. The rest of the world does not have jurisdiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The OP's question had a verbose introduction which included unnecessary biographical information, but it was basically a very simple one: Are visa policies which distinguish between different countries a form of ethnic profiling? If yes, what makes it acceptable in this case and not in other cases such as crime prevention? It is a perfectly valid question for the RD in my opinion. Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reclosing, because while we're bandying about terms like racist, not a single person above has offered a reference or article in response to the OP's rather long argument. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Visa (document) has a lot of information about visa requirements. Respondents are pointing out to the OP that the restrictions on people entering countries because of their nationality are different from any proposed restrictions by ethnic/religious criteria. Schengen Agreement and Fortress Europe may also be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that immigration rules are largely ethnic and racial-based, so you can call them racially and ethnically discriminatory. However, in some cases this seems to be a necessary evil. Consider the case of a small, prosperous nation and a large, poor nation. If the small nation allowed everyone in from the poor nation, the numbers would soon overwhelm them, and they would be so outnumbered that their nation would become little more than a colony of the large, poor nation. That is, their culture, language, and eventually even form of government would likely change to match the larger nation. So, laws are passed to prevent this. If the two nations have different racial or ethnic makeups, then those laws will necessarily discriminate in those ways. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It is still worth pointing out that most of the time the restrictions on entry are set by nationality. See for example Visa policy of Mozambique, with the map showing which countries have visa-free entry. We have articles like this on most or all countries. So as a UK citizen I need a visa to enter, and that is entirely dependent on my UK passport, not on race, religion or any other aspect. If I moved to South Africa and took South African nationality, I would be able to enter Mozambique visa-free, and of course that would again be with no reference to race or religion. I don't know of any exceptions that are currently coded in official statements about visas. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And it's also worth pointing out that there is more than one understanding of nationality. From that article's lede: "In English and some other languages, the word nationality is sometimes used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth)." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Question (historic racists)

Can you list me some people from the past who were considered by their contemporaries to be far right racist and backwards like people today consider [some politicians] to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikou35464 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Mikou35464 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the BLP violations, "far right racist and backwards" covers a lot of ground, and the list could be very long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You might include some pro-slavery politicians in the US prior to the Civil War, who were considered to be racist by at least some of their contemporaries (the abolitionists). John C. Calhoun comes to mind. More recently, those US politicians who opposed civil rights and supported segregation, like George Wallace, might qualify. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the awesomely horrible Cornerstone Speech. Outside of the U.S., one might consider some of the particularly hardcore imperialists like Cecil Rhodes (see Mark Twain's quote in the article). --71.119.131.184 (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also note that "far right" and racist aren't synonymous. Hitler, for example, was about as racist as one can get, but wan't particularly far right, which in Germany would have meant a supporter of restoring the monarchy. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In modern terms, Nazism and other forms of fascism would be almost universally considered far-right. Some monarchist groups are far right (e.g., the ultra-royalists), but monarchism is not part of all, or even most far-right movements, whether contemporary or historic. Neutrality^talk 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I added to your title, to make it actually useful as a title. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The original question mentions Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. There was no reason to delete these, as the OP didn't give any judgement on them, merely correctly stated that they are considered racist by (some of) their contemporariness, which is true. They are useful to mention as examples of the kind of people the OP is looking for. Though I must mention that Farage is more centrist in most of his other 'policies'. No BLP problems there, he isn't calling them racists. Fgf10 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, I was wondering if he wanted us to give those examples. So having had those examples, I can confidently name UK people like Enoch Powell, Oswald Mosley and John Tyndall (politician). --TammyMoet (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Racism isn't always the sole prerogative of the right-wing however; consider Joseph Stalin and his Decossackization programs. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin weren't left wing or right wing, they were totalitarians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe those terms to be mutually exclusive. Stalin at least professed to have left-wing ideas, supporting equality of wealth for all (the Constitution of the Soviet Union actually granted generous rights to all, too bad they just ignored it and did whatever they pleased). However, whether he actually believed that or merely used it as a convenient way to fool the masses is up for debate. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

How many citizens did Stalin murder? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

They're still counting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Stalin, like Killgrave, never killed anyone. It is always someone else who does the killing. 175.45.116.66 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

He was responsible for the murders of tens of millions, but how is the relevant here ? Is your argument that a mass murderer can't have a right- or left-wing philosophy ? StuRat (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The left-right spectrum is quite simplistic; one improvement on it is the political compass. The Zong massacre may be relevant to the OP. Munci (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

December 20

How would anyone know if they are a beneficiary in a will?

I am not asking for any legal advice. But a curious legal question came to my mind. If you are listed as a beneficiary in someone's will, how would you even know that that's the case? Where, when, and how would you ever receive that information? This is the hypothetical example that came to mind. Let's say we have an elderly parent (who is a widow/er). The parent has only one child, who is alive. The parent hates the child and leaves him/her absolutely nothing in the will. All of the assets of the parent's estate are willed to, let's just say, the American Cancer Society. Let's also say that the assets are $1 million. So, how would the American Cancer Society ever know about this? So, let's say the parent dies. The unscrupulous child goes through the parent's papers, finds the will, and immediately destroys it (and subsequently states that no will exists). Now, all of the assets (the $1 million) will go to the child, as the next of kin. The American Cancer Society has no idea that they are the beneficiary of the will. So, they are not going to raise any questions or red flags. The child will get away with a $1 million fraud, no? Am I missing something? So how do problems like this get prevented? This question refers to the USA, by the way. Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:218B:AF5E:F560:98C6 (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See Probate for our general article: it's the duty of the executors to inform the beneficiaries of a will and ensure they receive their legacies. In a case of intestacy, the courts will appoint an administrator to distribute the estate. In the case you mention, the child would indeed have successfully defrauded the charity - if the testatrix had taken professional advice in drafting the will, and (a) named a trustworthy executor (such as a lawyer, or an official of the charity) and (b) deposited the will with a trustworthy entity (such as a lawyer), rather than leaving it among her personal effects, her wishes would not have been frustrated. Tevildo (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That just begs another question though - how does the lawyer or the executor (with whom the will has been entrusted) know that the person has died? In general, how do hospitals, emergency services, undertakers, etc go about informing the various people who need to know? For example - suppose a life insurance policy exists but the person who is to benefit from it doesn't know it exists to make a claim? I could imagine that they'd be able to find family members and inform them - but lawyers, insurers?? SteveBaker (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is why, when you make out a will or contract an insurance policy, you should advise a (trustworthy) next-of-kin or friend where the will and other important papers can be found. There have indeed been many cases of unclaimed life insurance payments because no one informed the insurer that the policy holder had died. See Estate planning. --Xuxl (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that, in some jurisdictions (particularly in Louisiana, which derives much of its legal system from the French codes), the parent would not have been entitled to completely disinherit the child - see Freedom of disposition. Tevildo (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting and informative article. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Wow, how very sad. And, yet, sobering. Rest in peace, Mr. Bell and the others. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In my hypothetical example above, would that child be guilty of any crime? Let's amend the hypothetical so that the child did not destroy the will. He simply finds it in a desk drawer and leaves it there, without telling anyone of its existence. (In other words, he is passive and does not actively destroy the will.) Would that constitute any sort of crime? On the one hand, it seems like some form of fraud (i.e., he is "knowingly" taking money that belongs to someone else). On the other hand, I cannot imagine that the child has any legal duty to go searching for any potential wills in existence and then notifying authorities of the results of his search. Is there any criminal activity here? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine how we could give a solid answer without having more details, and in that situation, a solid answer would amount to legal advice, which we can't give here. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What more details do you think would be necessary here? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What jurisdiction you're referring to for starters. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned USA in the original question. Do you mean which specific state in the USA? I can't imagine much difference from one state to another. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Criminal law does differ very considerably between the different US states. The child will undoubtedly have committed fraud, and the charity will have a civil case against him (if they can prove the facts), but whether he's committed a crime, and what that crime will be called, will depend on jurisdiction. See Theft#United States. He hasn't committed larceny at common law, as he's not physically dispossessed ("asported", to use the technical term) anyone of anything. Beyond that, we'd need to go into the specific legislative provisions of the state in question. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting off topic. But any decent lawyer (in a civil or a criminal case) would be able to get the child/defendant "off" on these facts. The child has no legal obligation to go hunting for a will that might or might not exist. If he does find it, I doubt he has any legal obligation to "report" that finding to anyone at all. Needless to say, he can simply assert "I never saw that will. It was mixed in with a bunch of papers and I never bothered to read them all" or "I didn't know what it was or if it was an important paper, so I just threw it back in the desk with all the other papers". As a matter of fact, his best defense would be: "If I really wanted to do something wrong or illegal, I would have and could have easily destroyed that will, but obviously I did not do so. This proves good faith that I genuinely believed that I was the beneficiary." I can't see him being found liable either civilly or criminally. Now, it might be the case that the real beneficiary (the American Cancer Society) can seek to get the money back through some legal mechanism. But, I think, it would be easy to argue that the child didn't do anything wrong or illegal. Or, better stated, it would be virtually impossible to prove that he did so. Nonetheless, an interesting hypothetical. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Roman City/Province-names; Etymology

I've been trying to translate and interpret the meaning of the names of many Roman cities and Provinces, but I've met with only moderate success. I've used Latin translators/dictionaries and I've checked lots of Wiki articles on specific cities/provinces and looked for 'etymology' etc. but its hard to use dictionaries, because the names often are not written exactly as words were normally pronounced and written in Latin, and articles often lack information on the origins and meaning of the names.

I would have liked to maybe find a site dedicated to Etymology of Roman place-names. I haven't found any. Got any clues that could help ?

2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:C53D:8CBC:A967:377E (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see some examples. And keep in mind that place names are not necessarily easy to trace. They could be from local names established before Latin became the standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Examples of what exactly ? Of what I struggle to find info on ?

Well. Probably more than half of all Roman place-names end with "cum," "ium," "num" or simply "um". "Cum" translates to many things in English, but none that makes any sense in these cases. But of course, many place-names will use abbreviations of longer words, often two words, that will combine to make one name.

"-nensis" is another much used word. I've managed to translate it to "of/from". for example; "Gallia Narbonensis" means "Gauls of Narbon."

"iae" is another three letters that is sometimes at the end of names. I know not its meaning.

Those are all usually endings to the names. The first part/word of the names is even harder to find out, with little info on Eytomology... sometimes also because the names stem from times before the Empire. Most of them probably do to varying degree.

Here's a few translations, most of them not really that helpful, with a few exceptions. :

Africanum/Africum = Africa

Castra/Castri/Castrum = Castle

Cum = Under command/at head of ????

Desertum = Desert

Galli = Gauls (Gallia)

Internum = Internal

Legionis = Legion

Lugdunum = Lyon

Mare/Maritimae = Coast & Litus = Shore

nensis = from/of  ?????

Nova = New

Ours = Nostrum

Sol/Solis = Sun

Vallum = Walls / Ramparts

I certainly would have liked to understand "cum" / "um" 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:C53D:8CBC:A967:377E (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Latin is an inflected language; the endings of Latin nouns changes based on the grammatical function of the word in a sentence (taking into account the number and gender of the word. I suspect that's the reason you're finding so many with similar endings; the number of endings for Latin nouns is pretty limited. Some of the cities' names are of foreign origin. ("Cum" by the way is most often encountered as the word meaning "with", or in its enclitic form (attached to the end of a word) meaning the same thing.- Nunh-huh 18:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A well-known example of a name ending in -cum is Eboracum, the Roman name for York - our article discusses the etymology of the name: in particular the "-um" suffix seems to arise from Latinisation of an earlier name, such as "Iburakon". This is fairly clearly related to the Norse name Jórvík (still preserved in name of the Jorvik Centre), and indeed "York" itself. The similarity to Latin "cum" = "with" is just a coincidence: in general I don't think you can take -cum as a suffix that carries a particular meaning. Likewise with endings like -ium and -iae: as Nunh-huh says, these are just typical grammatical endings of Latin words. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you need to learn more about how Latin noun morphology works before you can understand word endings. Try reading Latin declension, which explains how nouns are formed in Latin, particularly the word endings which have no meaning other than expressing the grammatical function of the word. It's complicated, especially if you're not used to languages as heavily inflected as Latin, but I'm afraid it's necessary background before you can get anywhere analysing Latin placenames.

"-um" is the typical ending of a neuter noun of the second declension in the nominative case, i.e. the form the word takes when it's the subject of the sentence. If the word ends in "-cum" or "-num", the "c" or "n" are not part of the ending, but part of the stem of the word.

To take one of your examples, Gallia Narbonensis, "Gallia" is the Latin for the country of Gaul. "Narbonensis" is "Narbon-", the city of Narbo (which forms its oblique case endings with an -n-, hence its modern name, Narbonne), plus "-ensis", a common Latin suffix meaning something like "belonging to (a place)". (So you were nearly right, but the suffix is "-ensis", not "-nensis" - the "n" belongs to the first part of the word.) The English ending "-ese", as in Japanese or Portuguese, is its linguistic descendant. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Similarly, the Latin name for the Canada goose is Branta canadensis—the second word literally means "Canadian". (Our "-ian" here, of course, has the same meaning as "-ese". See demonym for such formations in English.) Incidentally the first word Branta is not the classical Latin word for goose; that's Anser and it's used for a different type of geese. According to my Random House dictionary, Branta actually derives from Icelandic. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to answer me, all of you ;) 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:C53D:8CBC:A967:377E (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over your examples:

• Africanum/Africum = Africa

Did you really find a name containing Africum? There was a province of Africa (roughly Tunisia), and the derivative adjective is Afric-an-a/us/um (depending on the gender of the head noun).

• Castra/Castri/Castrum = Castle

castrum = castle, castra = castles, castri = of (the) castle

• Desertum = Desert

'uninhabited'; the modern English usage of desert for a sandy region is quite recent.

• Legionis = Legion

of (the) legion.

• Lugdunum = Lyon

a dun (hill fort; a Celtic word) named for the god Lug

• Nova = New

also novum or novus or novi or novae, depending on the gender and number of the noun

• Ours = Nostrum

also nostra or noster or nostrae or nostri ...

• Sol/Solis = Sun

solis = 'of the sun'; did you really find Sol on its own?

—Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I found 'Sun' translated to both 'Sol' and 'Solis' on this translator : http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/english/sun

The region/province you refer to when you speak of Tunisia is Cartagho, of course. It is in Africa indeed, but the Romans already then knew the African continent by more or less the same name as we do. Many Roman maps refer to the vast area south of its African provinces as "Desertum Africanum" or "Africum." I would very much lean towards them meaning the "deserts of Africa", but if you prefer "uninhabitated Africa," so be it. I won't argue.

Anyway, I just checked the same translator to which I gave you a link, and it translates to Africanum, Africum and several more variants, probably bending of the word; Africa, African, 'of Africa' and whatever.. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:ECBB:2701:B38A:DDFA (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant, did you find the word Sol (rather than Solis) or Africum in an ancient place-name? I'm less interested in trying to explain the translations that Kevin Mahoney's homemade dictionary server may give for an English word. —Tamfang (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cooking temperature

• A cooking thread at the Humanities Desk? Is this what God intended? Contact Basemetal here 14:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If an item should be cooked at 180 fan but you're also cooking a chicken at 160 fan, how much more cooking time should you add to the 180 degree product? --Andrew 16:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Fan"? Anyway, I would think you should cook them at the preferred temperature, which means you should cook them separately, unless you have two ovens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I presume our OP means 'Fahrenheit'. SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That is an absolutely dreadful assumption, especially since it's already explained below, posted before you did. Do pay attention. 82.8.32.177 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the 160 is F. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC) It appears to be Celsius after all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody would ever cook a chicken at that low a temperature. Have you ever tried cooking a chicken? That sounds about right for the meat temperature on the inside though. 82.8.32.177 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

160 F internal temp as discussed below. I expect if you cooked it at 160 C, you'd end up with a large cinder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The OP clearly wasn't asking about internal temperature. Don't be obtuse. It's fine to make a mistake when answering questions, just admit it. Don't fudge about it. You do indeed cook a chicken at 160C (usually bit higher really), until it reaches an internal temperature of 70C or so. Fgf10 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what the OP was talking about, with that peculiar term "fan" thrown in there. As for you, Mr. Obtuse: "You've got it wrong" would be quite sufficient. You don't have to be a jerk about it. Yes, it appears to be Celsius, as to what temp to pre-heat the oven. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To any English speaker, the question was completely obvious, without any 'peculiar terms'. I can't help it you speak American, can I? Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I speak English. Don't be obtuse. Try another angle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fan. Don't you have those in the colonies? I'd normally just do the average at 170 and keep an eye on it, bit shorter for the 160 product and bit longer for the 180. Not hard and fast rules. Definitely no need for separate oven when the difference is that small. I'd normally cook at chicken at 180 anyway, 20 minutes per pound plus 15ish minutes (if it's a decent size and quality). Fgf10 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what you're cooking. Some things take time to cook - and that time can be varied by altering the temperature - other things have to reach some internal temperature in order to cook - and as soon as they reach that temperature, they're done. If the thing that needs to be cooked at 180F needs to do so in order to reach an internal temperature that's above 160F - then no amount of additional time will allow it to cook with your chicken at 160F. But it it's something that just needs more time at 160F and less at 180F - then the answer is different.

Incidentally, 160F is not hot enough to cook chicken. To safely cook a chicken, the internal temperature (measured in the thickest part of the meat - but not touching a bone) is 165F.

So we need to know what you're cooking with your chicken or we can't answer your question. SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)The answer will depend on the other item. If it's not meat, then you might get away with just cooking for perhaps 25% longer, but any advice we give might be dangerous because we don't know what you are cooking. Dbfirs 16:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

180 fan will be 180 degrees Celsius, cooked in a fan-assisted oven. No Fahrenheit cooking over this side of the pond.--Phil Holmes (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So "180 fan" is a Britishism for what you just said? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's English for it yes, as I mentioned above, don't know what you call it in the US. My answer obviously also assumes Celcius, since I don't live in the States. Fgf10 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I made the same mistake on this side of the pond, and assumed Fahrenheit here in the UK since that's the first temperature scale I learnt here (many years ago). I can also think in Centigrade, but need to concentrate harder to interpret it, and still sometimes mentally convert to Fahrenheit to know how hot it feels. Dbfirs 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as per google, chicken is supposed to be in the 160s F or about 75 C. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That is the internal temperature for it to be cooked. Good luck getting a decent roast chicken by setting your oven temperature to that. Two very different things. Fgf10 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In Bugs' defence, this page from the (US) Food Safety and Inspection Service does say that it's _safe_ to cook chicken at 165°F. Whether it would taste very nice after prolonged roasting at that temperature is another matter. Tevildo (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course you can cook chicken that low, usually bits of it sous-vide, but not in an oven. You know, it's quite sad that it seems the state of average cooking knowledge has dropped so far that people don't even know how to roast a chicken. Oh well, I've got bread baking in the oven, so must dash off. Fgf10 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You can cook chicken perfectly well at lower temperatures, you just cook it for longer. If you cook it for 6 hours in a slow cooker, the meat falls off the bones. A bit like pulled pork. Yum! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

For the OP, roast chicken cooked at 170 fan. Fgf10 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

1) In the US, we just would say "Cook in a convection oven at 180°" (which would mean F, unless otherwise specified).

2) Note that you need to cook at a higher temp than what you want as the interior temp. Or, more precisely, "It would take an infinite amount of time for the internal temp to match the external temp." (Excluding infrared and microwave technology, which can heat the food more than the surrounding air.) So, to speed things up, you use a higher external temp.

3) 160°C and 180°C are 320°F and 356°F, respectively, so those temps might work to get the interior temp to a safe level (165°F for chicken) fairly quickly.

4) Now cooking two things in an oven together that require different temps is always tricky, whether it's a convection oven or not. It's not always possible to get good results this way. But, the way I would handle it would be to turn the temp up after removing the lower temp item, then carefully monitor the higher temp item using an internal thermometer, etc., to check for doneness. However, if the higher temp item needs a shorter time period, this may not work.

5) An additional concern, with a convection oven, is that too many items cooked at once will block airflow, leading to uneven cooking. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, unless you want to cook both at 170, which should be fine given that it's not much difference and your thermostat may not be completely accurate anyway, not very many extra minutes. 5 should be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it make sense to say Abrahamic religions pray to the same god?

If you don't believe god exists, does it make sense to say it's the same god? --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure... An atheist can believe that others all talk to the same imaginary friend ... without personally thinking that the imaginary friend is in any way real. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask, I suppose. There are certainly those zealous enough to get all up in your face for "offending" them and whatever religion they believe in. I for one say such distinctions are irrelevant. They come from the same source... all these Abrahamic religions branched out from the same starting point. So it can't be wrong to say it's the same God. I say the same as you. Krikkert7 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is a very common statement, especially when promoting interfaith dialog. Generally speaking, Christians will usually say that Jews worship the same god as them, and Muslims say that both Christians and Jews worship the same god as them (they have an explicit acknowledgement of this in their religion in the form of the People of the Book)... although naturally individuals vary, and some people take a harder line. Going in the other direction and accepting later religions is rarer but does happen when people are trying to establish interfaith dialog or encourage peaceful coexistence. Some people have extended this even further; eg. at some points in Islamic history, declaring that Brahman and Allah are one and the same has been used as a justification for accepting Hindus as Dhimmi. During eras of religious conflict, on the other hand, you tend to see people arguing that the other religion is worshiping a false god. --Aquillion (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Aquillion omits to mention that many Christians also believe that Muslims worship the same God as they do. Lumen Gentium, a statement of faith for Roman Catholics arising out of the Second Vatican Council in 1964 declares "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind" (Chapter II: "The People of God"). Pope Francis reaffirmed recently that "...we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by". [2]. Of course, there are major differences and Christians are divided on how far these can be overlooked. Our Interfaith dialogue article has more details. Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Many Christians also do not believe it's the same God. That's why they'll use the word "Allah", to imply that it's not the "real" God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is pointless, because al-Lah is Arabic for "the God" and Arabic-speaking Christians of all denominations use it to mean God. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This last statement is yet another example of the Etymological fallacy. Contact Basemetal here 11:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that it is also factually incorrect. Allah (الله) is a contraction of al-Ilah (الإله) which does mean "the god" but there is no Arabic word "Lah" (له) meaning god. So Allah does not mean "the god". It is the contraction of a phrase that does mean "the god" but "Allah" is the name of one specific god that one may or may not identify with some other god, e.g. the God of Christianity, etc. Some people do, some people don't. Even those who do use the same word do not necessarily identify the concepts. Incidentally, in Malaysia Christians have been forbidden by Islamic courts to use "Allah" to refer to the Christian God, which is something that they had done for a hundred years at least. Contact Basemetal here 11:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That certain religions "branched out from the same starting point" is not a definitive reason to say that adherents to those religions worship the same god. Over time, concepts of their respective deities may have grown so far apart that they are no longer recognizable as the same god. As an anology, take languages. Linguists agree that English and Russian "branched out from the same starting point". That does not mean however that today they are essentially the same language, or even that they are mutually intelligible or grammatically similar. That said, I am not denying that a good case can be made that Christians and Muslims pray to the same deity, but I think it is more complicated than that. It depends on what exactly is meant by "the same god". - Lindert (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is doubtful, as I think it is, that any representative sampling of (choose one) {Christians | Muslims | Jews} worship the same god, then it would be incredible to say that they all do.

On the other hand, I am reminded of Bertrand Russell's story of his imprisonment for his pacifist writings towards the end of WWI:

"I was much cheered on my arrival by the warder at the gate, who had to take particulars about me. He asked my religion, and I replied ‘agnostic’. He asked how to spell it, and remarked with a sigh: ‘Well, there are many religions, but I suppose they all worship the same God.’ This remark kept me cheerful for about a week."

• Russell, Bertrand (2009) [1958]. Egner, Robert E. (ed.). Bertrand Russell's Best. London: Routledge. p. 31. ISBN 9780415473583., from his Portraits From Memory -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If the three Abrahamic religions are considered monotheistic, is the fact that the Christian deity is a Trinity an essential distinction? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer the OP's original question: No that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Such an atheist would be himself in need of psychiatric attention. If they're imaginary then they're not real so in what sense could they be "the same"? All you could say is that the believers of those religions believe (or not) or have agreed as a matter of courtesy (or haven't) that it is the same god, in other words that "it is the same god" is a political or theological statement of their respective religions. Even if you studied the characteristics of those gods at length and concluded that they have indistinguishable features (which is hardly the case of course, or we would not be talking of three different religion) you still (as an atheist) would have no grounds for affirming they're "the same".

Regarding Deborah's observation: The answer to your question would be "yes and no". You seem to be asking from the point of view of a believer of one of those religions. (Note the OP's question was from the point of view of the atheist.) Since we're talking about three different religions clearly the way they describe God will be different, since if it wasn't we would not be talking about three different religion but about the same religion. Where the descriptions are different a believer of one of those religions has one of two choices: either they take the position that those different descriptions are so fundamentally different that members of one or both of the other religions can't possibly believe in the one true God but have been misled in fact to believe in "someone/something else" that masquerades as the one true God but can't possibly be Him (the reasons for that can be human stupidity, evil, Satan, the second law of thermodynamics, or whatever). Or they can take the position that much of those different descriptions is erroneous (again for various reasons) but not enough to say that the other religions do not believe in the same God. I believe in practice Muslim attitudes towards Jews and towards Christians (and the doctrine of the Trinity) and Jewish attitudes towards Muslims and Christians fall mostly in the second category even though the Trinity tends to cause more problems to Jews than does Muslim theology. Similarly most Christians (leaving aside early centuries Gnostics, Marcionists, etc. who thought the God of the Jews was actually a different and evil god) take that position towards Jews. Towards Muslims however I believe, while most Christians take the second attitude, a sizable minority hold that the god of Islam has characteristics that make it too much more like "the other guy" and thus adopt the first attitude. Maybe something a bit like what the Gnostics and Marcionists thought of the Jews.

Contact Basemetal here 10:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone cite this recent NPR story on the topic: [[3]] Llamabr (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Further to Basemetal's note above, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27970565 and https://www.rt.com/news/167968-malaysia-allah-god-ban/. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia is not exactly a haven for free speech. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is like asking if China and England have the same dragons. You don't need to believe in dragons to check if both cultures have similar sources for the belief. So yes I would say it makes sense, even if you don't believe in God. Really it is a matter of semantics. HighInBC 17:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That would only say that those two cultures have the same concept of "dragon". But to religious people "God" is not just a concept. It is a unique person. So for two religions to affirm that their God is "the same" goes beyond saying that their concept of God is the same. It requires a positive dogmatic statement. Since such a statement is not simply the outcome of a logical argument it has to be meaningless to an atheist. All that an atheist can observe is that those two religions have the statement "our God is the same" in their theology. From the religious point of view it is emphatically not just a matter of semantics. Contact Basemetal here 19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Listen, Basemetal, of course God(s) are just concepts. They are an *idea*. There has never been any sign of them, and there's never been anything that points toward any person or entity ever having possessed the powers that any Gods from any pantheon supposedly do/did. So they're ideas. All things in our minds are simply ideas until they are carried out/confirmed/proven etc. Krikkert7 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• STOP... It is one thing to neutrally state the fact that X group believes Y to be true... but we cross over the line into potential personal attack zone once we start criticizing those beliefs. Besides we have gotten away from the original question (which has been sufficiently answered). I think it best to end the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I never criticized any beliefs. I pointed out that it is an *idea*. If you read it again, you'll see I didn't attack anyone or anything. I guess you're right though, that the Q has been answered and it's time to draw the line. Fair enough. I bow to your wisdom ;) Krikkert7 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw into the pot a note that the concept that all believers worship the same God is a key precept of the Freemasons. I think that's relevant to the discussion, albeit not directly to the original question; the original question asked whether it made sense for someone who doesn't believe in God, whereas the Masons do, and this is presumably why it makes sense for them. --Trovatore (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

-
Doesn't "monotheist" mean there is only one god? If there is only one god, undoubtedly it's the one they all worship, since there is no other god? Akseli9 (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A possible view is that the people who believe as you do worship the one God, whereas the others do not worship any god at all, but either a figment of their imaginations, or some other sort of entity that is not a god (say, an idol or a demon). That's what makes the Masonic view non-trivial; they do not say that. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that India is the only true democracy in the world. The other countries claim to be democracies, but they're all flawed or corrupt in non-trivial ways. You believe that the USA is the only true democracy. Alice believes that France is the only true democracy. Surely India, USA, and France are not the same country, even though you, me, and Alice are all mono-democratists. --2001:4898:80E8:B:0:0:0:404 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether belief in democracy is a good analogy for belief in God, but you are entitled to your belief. Do you really think that Indian democracy is not flawed or corrupt in non-trivial ways? Personally, I'm with Churchill: "it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" Our article People of the Book contains some views. Dbfirs 01:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Lawyer-client confidentiality and privilege

I asked a question above about how someone will ever know if they are a beneficiary to a will. This made me think of another tangentially related question. A lawyer has a duty to his client to keep all of their communications private and confidential. What happens when that client dies? Does the confidentiality rule still apply? Or is it then inapplicable? Same question for doctors and the confidentiality of medical records. Same question for schools/colleges and the confidentiality of educational records. Are these matters still held to be confidential after the person dies? Or does their death render moot the confidentiality and privacy of the information? I am asking about the status of this issue in the USA. Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this would vary from state to state; if I'm wrong, the best way to start is demonstrating that I'm wrong. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The attorney-client privilege survives the client's death, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998). You may read the opinion here.

As for medical and doctor-patient information, see Opinion 5.051 (Confidentiality of Medical Information Postmortem) of the American Medical Association (December 2000); and Health Information of Deceased Individuals from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (explaining that the HIPAA Privacy Rule protects individually identifiable health information (see protected health information) for 50 years following the date of death of the decedent).

As for education records - as for "education records" (as defined by FERPA) as applied to a deceased student: the general rule is that "the FERPA rights of eligible students lapse or expire upon the death of the student." See this 2008 letter from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development and this 2000 letter from the Oregon Attorney General's office.

FERPA and HIPAA are federal acts, so states may have some additional laws, which may or may not be "preempted" under the federal acts. Neutrality^talk 22:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So, here is a question with regard to FERPA. If a person is alive (example: Barak Obama) and I call up their college and request that person's college transcript, the college will tell me "no". But, if that person is dead (example: Ronald Reagan), the college will tell me "yes"? Is that correct? 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Under FERPA, a college would not be legally barred from giving you the "education records" (20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)) of the dead person. But federal law would not require them to give up the information, either. (And even if it did require them, there is no private right of action to enforce the right, see Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)). The college or university can create its own policies on the matter. One exception if a state law (e.g., an open records law applicable to state universities) came into play. Neutrality^talk 03:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes some sort of sense, I guess. So if a college wanted to, they could have the policy "we will release the transcripts of any deceased alumni to anyone who requests them". And that is perfectly legal? 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Under federal law (FERPA), yes, it is perfectly legal. For public state universities, a state law might either prohibit release (if it has some stringent privacy provision) or mandate release (under a broad open-records law). But otherwise it is up to the administration. You can see some of the array of different approaches:

U of Florida: "Records of deceased students ... will be released only to the executor or executrix of the student's estate or to the student's next of kin, upon submission of appropriate documentation."

Columbia U: "The Office of the University Registrar will evaluate each request for the release of a transcript or other academic records of a deceased student on the individual merits of that request and reserves the right to deny the request in whole or to release only part of the academic records that are requested. The Office of the University Registrar does not release academic records of deceased students to the news media or for research purposes...The closest living next-of-kin may submit a written request [with documentation] .... If there is no living next-of-kin, academic records may be requested by the executor of the estate or holder of power of attorney for the deceased [with documentation."

Ithaca College: "The transcript of a deceased student may be released to a spouse, parent, the executor of the estate, a surviving child, or pursuant to a court order or subpoena, upon written request to the Office of the Registrar."

U of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: "FERPA’s protection of personally identifiable information in a student’s education records ends at the time of a student’s death. As a courtesy to the families of recently deceased students who were enrolled at the time of death, the University generally will not release information from their education records for one year without the consent of the deceased student’s next-of-kin...Unless it has information to the contrary, 75 years after the date the records were first created, the University will presume that the student is deceased. Thereafter the student's education records will be open."

Northwestern U: "FERPA rights cease upon death. However, it is the policy of Northwestern University that no records of deceased students be released to third parties after the date of death, unless specifically authorized by the executor of the deceased's estate or by the next of kin."

Catholic U of America: "When the former student is deceased, the policy at CUA (which is set by the Provost) is that education records will not be released until 50 years after the person's death."

Neutrality^talk 19:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's crazy. I never gave it any thought until this discussion just now. I never realized that a college had such great liberty with my confidential records once I am deceased. As a practical matter, I think that the alumni in general would "revolt" (for lack of a better word) if the college administration just willy-nilly started handing out photocopies of any decedent's transcripts just because some yahoo wanted to see it. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Fallacies of 4+ terms

The fallacy of four terms article notes that syllogisms must always have three terms, so anything with four or more is fallacious. Example:

Major premise: All fish have bones.

Minor premise: All goldfish are fish.

Conclusion: All humans have bones.

Of course this is a formal fallacy, because the premises say nothing about humans. But what about this?

Major premise: All fish have bones.

First minor premise: All goldfish are fish.

Second minor premise: All humans are goldfish.

Conclusion: All humans have bones.

I don't understand why this is a formal fallacy. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. It's a perfectly valid first-figure syllogism (Barbara); the second minor premise happens to be false, but that doesn't invalidate the logic. Tevildo (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but the intro to fallacy of four terms says that this is "the formal fallacy that occurs when a syllogism has four (or more) terms rather than the requisite three". How would you suggest amending it? Perhaps "...occurs when a two-premise syllogism has..."? Or perhaps "...syllogism has too many terms, a situation typically appearing in a two-premise syllogism that has four terms, rather than the requisite three"? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been a long time since Logic 101, but the way I read it is that you aren't limited on the number of terms, as such; it's just that they have to have connections. That's why the first example fails and the second one works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The fallacy of four terms applies to categorical syllogisms in standard form, with two premises and a conclusion. Your second argument is not strictly a syllogism, since it has three premises and a conclusion. Your argument is two syllogisms stuck together, to form a valid argument. The way to fix it is to more clearly define 'syllogism'. Our article says "two or more" premises, but doesn't cite any source for that claim, and as far as I know, is false. Or, simply to say that the fallacy of four terms applies to categorical syllogisms. Llamabr (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the premise that all fish have bones is also false, as sharks are fish and have cartilage rather than bones. StuRat (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. The issue is not the truth value of the statements, each of which has an implied "If" in front of it - it's whether it's a valid logical construct. Substitute "wings" for "bones", then substitute "clams" for "goldfish", then "pigs" for "humans" and you have nothing but false premises leading to a false conclusion; but they still make a valid logical construct. Or maybe you knew that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Then pigs might fly. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. However, when discussing logic errors, it seems unwise to toss in false premises, as that just clouds the issue. (It's a non sequitor, but the literary type, not the logic type). StuRat (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See also Polysyllogism, especially the "Sorites" section. Deor (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Population of towns with MD medical school programs

Our article on Hanover, New Hampshire says that the census population was 11,260 in 2010. Does that include Dartmouth students, or are students not included in the census? Are there any towns that are smaller by population, and that also have a school with an MD medical school program? Llamabr (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The census date is in early April if I remember rightly, and it's definitely during the schoolyear, so the schedule wouldn't exclude students. You're supposed to record yourself as being present wherever you are on that date, unless of course you're travelling out of town. This includes university students who live elsewhere: they're counted in the university town (or wherever they maintain during-the-schoolyear residence) and not in whatever place they legally reside, unless of course those two are the same. This negates the effect of double-counting people with multiple residencies, although without being as efficient as the population without double counting solution. (Side note: some population-based legal definitions have an adjustment to exclude non-local college students and prisoners; see Ohio Revised Code §703.01 (B), which specifies that municipal status doesn't count students and prisoners from out-of-town). Therefore, I expect that most Dartmouth students are included, but presumably some live in adjacent towns and communities even farther away. As far as towns: are you just talking New England towns, or all places with the legal status of "town", or all settlements whatsoever? Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the census background. I'm wondering about medical schools that grant the MD degree, anywhere in the US. Is Hanover the smallest? Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Need the history of the Haines & Sons Tobacco Manufacturing Company, in Abbottstown, Pennsylvania

Does anyone know any history of the Haines & Sons Tobacco Manufacturing Company, in Abbottstown, Pennsylvania around 1890 through 1940?I have some old tobacco advertising clocks that have their paper label on them. I'd love to learn more about this company and their history in the tobacco business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.194.224 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You could consult Adams County History, a publication of the local historical society, but it's understandably not held by many institutions, and (assuming that the WHOIS information for your IP address is accurate) the closest one to you is in Davenport, Iowa. County histories being ubiquitous, there's a History of Cumberland and Adams counties, Pennsylvania. Containing history of the counties, their townships, towns, villages, schools, churches, industries, etc.; Portraits of early settlers and prominent men; Biographies; History of Pennsylvania, statistical and miscellaneous matter, etc., etc., and at least volume II is online, but it was published in 1886, so I suppose it probably doesn't mention anything. Your best choice is probably to contact the Adams County Historical Society in nearby Gettysburg. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Slavic City names - their meaning (Etymology)

Hey, I've been trying to figure out the meaning of Slavic City/Town-names.

In order to do that, I've been doing a lot of research, but it's hard as I am a speaker of a Germanic language, which is very different. I've met with little success. I am especially trying to understand those in western Slavic nations/kingdoms.

Languages will differ a little across the different countries, of course, but generally speaking I've been able to interpret some; like "Slava" means glory (as in the city of Bratislava, meaning 'Braslav's Glory'). "Grad" means 'city' and 'Castle' in old Slavic. Used in several city names, such as in Belgrad to mention one, which means "White City." Newer versions of the word includes hrad, grod, gorod etc. That's just to mention two.

But I could do with some help interpreting some more words (which is at the end of the names) that I have been unable to solve myself. It may be that some of these are simply suffixes without any real meaning though, which may in some cases explain why I struggle so to find its meanings. But they have in common that they are frequently used, which is what makes it important and interesting to find out their meaning.

The words are as follows:

• -wice
• -vice
• -ice
• -nica/ica
• -nik
• -awa/wy/wa/ow
• -zin/cin

If some of you happen to speak a Slavic tongue, then obviously that would be of great help. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:C53D:8CBC:A967:377E (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you right away that –awa/wy/wa are unlikely to be meaningful elements; the –a is a feminine ending, the –y is a plural ending. –ow, on another hand, is often a genitive plural ending ('of the ——s'). — Also, have a look at Bratislava#Etymology. It's easy to be misled. —Tamfang (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Verily. When I was a kid, whenever I read the word "misled", I thought it was the past tense of the verb "to misle", and I pronounced it accordingly. True story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And you kept wondering: who's "Miss Sled"? Contact Basemetal here 09:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

misle rhymes with isle, right? —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Tamfang, since I asked this question I've been able to learn that Warszawa means "Warz's city" and Krakow means "Krak's city", which could lead me to think wa/ow etc. were different dialects or different languages of different times that all meant city/town. But in truth I have found little to back that up. I have found no proof that these suffixes mean anything... so it may be that you're right after all. They may just have been added to the end to give it a more typical place-name. Many place-names end this way. Take 'Transylvania' f.instance, coming from Roman, trans mean travel/across and sylva/silva meaning forest in Latin, which translates to "Place beyond the Forest." The last three letters 'nia' means nothing.

By the way; the link you gave me. It claims that 'Bratislava' means "Braslav's City," But that is wrong. I have confirmed from various sources that the name means "Braslav's Glory," and that 'Slava' is the Slovak word for 'Glory'. The Slovak word for city is 'mesto'. But I remain in the dark on whether the other suffixes I listed has a meaning. Still trying to find out, but failing. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:ECBB:2701:B38A:DDFA (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can point you to the German articles de:Namen auf -ow, de:Ortsnamen auf -witz and de:-itz. They are (if of Slavic origin) suffixes that have a possessive or appellative function (similar to English -ing). So, Warszawa would be "Warz's", Krakow "Krak's", with "city" only implied. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Wrongfilter. This is really helpful, even if I have to use a translator. :) They definitely help me understand some of these suffixes. I'll keep at it :) 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:ECBB:2701:B38A:DDFA (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What struck me about Bratislava#Etymology was that the current form Bratislava is anhistorical, apparently coined relatively recently from a misunderstanding or mis-copying. — As for Transylvania, my guess is that it went trans sylvam ('beyond the woods') → [provincia] Transylvana (with the adjectival suffix –an–) → Transylvania (with –ia to make a country-noun out of the adjective). —Tamfang (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, slava means "glory", so "Braslav's Glory" would be Braslavova Slava, not Bratislava. The "words" you're specifically asking about are suffixes which modify the meaning of words but do not have meaning on their own (like English "-ness", "-ity" or "-ing"). For example:

• -ov, -ów (masculine) or -ova, -owa (feminie) are possesive suffixes; in place names they indicate that the place once belonged to a given person: Kraków "Krak's (town)", Warszawa < Warszowa "Warsz's (village)";
• -(ov)ic, -(ow)ic, -(ow)icz, etc. (plural -(ov)ice, -(ow)ice, -(ow)icze) are patronymic suffixes; in place names they may indicate that the place once belonged to descendants or heirs of a given person: Mysłowice "(place of the) sons of Mysław", Budějovice < Budivojovice "(place of the) sons of Budivoj";
• -nik is an agent suffix (borrowed from Russian into English, it has produced words like "beatnik"); in place names it usually doesn't mean much, it just modifies the base noun: Prudnik < Prądnik < prąd "current".

— Kpalion^(talk) 23:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Serving bread and wine at Catholic Masses during Communion

When I have witnessed a Roman Catholic Mass (here in the United States), I would say that 99.99% of the time, the priest consumes his host and then offers a host to the congregants receiving Communion; however, when it comes to drinking the wine, the priest will do so, but he does not offer any sips of wine to the congregants. (There has been a rare occasion -- here or there -- where I have actually seen the wine being offered to all of the congregants. In fact, I think that I have seen this exactly once.) So, my question is: why is this? Isn't the "blood of Christ" (the sipping of the wine) just as critical to the Catholic beliefs of Communion as is the "body of Christ" (the consuming of the host)? Why do they "skip over" this important step? Is it a financial reason? A legal one? A practical one? It seems odd. Also, when a little kid (usually in first grade or second grade) receives the First Holy Communion, would a Church legally be allowed to offer the kid a sip of wine as part of the ceremony? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You'll find some info at Communion under both kinds#Roman Catholicism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1) This is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the topic. It is dated, as it is early 20th century, but gives the background. Wikipedia has an article on Communion under both kinds. Here is a Vatican article on the topic, and here is a statement by the American bishops on how it is supposed to work.

To summarise: the priest(s) celebrating the Mass (at the altar) is supposed to receive under both kinds (that means under the form of bread and wine), because that is part of making sure the Mass is actually taking place in the way it should. Everyone else, if they're receiving Communion, can receive either one or both: it doesn't make a difference from a 'real' spiritual point of view, because a single drop or a single crumb is believed to contain the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The benefit of people other than the celebrating priest receiving both is that it "makes the sign more complete": that is, it helps people see/imagine more easily the whole Body and Blood of Christ being offered.

For centuries, people other than the celebrating priest were not offered both kinds, and in fact were often forbidden from being offered it. The reasons for this are more complicated than the Wikipedia article make it sound. Certainly, an awareness of the counter reformation will help with understanding this, but we're not just looking at the hierarchy imposing these rules from above. You have to remember that some rules in the Catholic Church were brought in because people were so afraid of messing up that they weren't receiving Sacraments. Confession being offered in its modern form of a private Confession that the priest must on no account reveal was a reaction to people delaying Baptism until they were dying: the rule that everyone must receive Communion at least once a year was a reaction to people constantly thinking they were not prepared to receive and being afraid of being disrespectful by receiving. The offering of the chalice seems to have been a combination of priests and laity being afraid of treating it without complete respect (what if it spills?!), but it being made a rule was a reaction to people who saw this new normal practice (which gradually developed over centuries) and responded by not only offering both kinds but insisting that everyone had to receive under both kinds, or they were missing out on something important. That crossed the line into heresy, which is why the ruling was not only that nobody missed out by receiving under only one kind, but that everywhere should only offer one kind: to avoid people thinking the heresy was Church teaching.

2) Children often sip from the chalice, yes. It is more often offered at special occasions, and first Communions can be that, but obviously this varies by place. The chalice is offered more often than not around here, on Sundays anyway, and not everyone chooses to receive from it every time. Children are a little less likely than adults, but they still do: most countries, even if children that age are usually forbidden from drinking even under parental supervision, include some exception for reasonable religious practice. We're talking a tiny sip here.

94.9.163.213 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A relevant issue is the doctrine of the Real Presence. If the priest's words of "Hoc est corpus meum" literally transform bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, making it appropriate and important to exhibit and give worship due only to God himself to elements of the Sacrament that weren't consumed by parishioners, think how thoroughly debasing it is to spill some of Christ's blood. It's noted by 94.9.163.213, but I didn't see anything of this issue in the Communion under both kinds article. Your point about "just as critical" was taken by the earliest Protestants, who argued that it was a high-visibility example of the Church's corruption; that's why the use of both bread and wine (or grape juice in alcohol-unfriendly churches) is universal in Protestantism, and why when I spilled some while taking the sacrament in my church several years ago, it was merely considered to be a matter of using a napkin to clean up a miniature mess. Final note — aside from "communion under both kinds", another term is "communion under both species"; this term is used by the Library of Congress Classification for library books and resources, for example. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Some perfunctory questions here. (1) How exactly do they offer the sip to each congregant? Do they "wipe it clean" after each individual drinks? (2) When the chalice runs out of wine, what happens? Does someone (an altar boy or whoever) come up to the priest and "refill" the chalice from a bigger bottle/jug with more wine? (3) What is the status of grape juice? They can/cannot offer it in lieu? And does that "count" as wine? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For Roman Catholics, grape juice is not an option. It must be grape wine under canon law. Interestingly, it can be white or red. There's a sort of a loophole allowing the use of partially fermented grape juice ("mustum"), as a low- but not non-alcoholic alternative. Similarly, the bread must be wheaten; there is no gluten-free alternative. As to [1], some places (but not Catholic churches) use disposable dixie cups for each individual serving. But more often, it's a communal chalice wiped between sips. Not that that does much for sanitation. The actual risk of contagion from sipping at the chalice is, however, rather low. There have been some actual studies (search for "Anne Lagrange Loving" or click here :) - Nunh-huh 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1) Someone stands with a chalice, and hands it over for sips (never moving their hands far away) to people who come up for it. The place they drank from is wiped with a cloth (a special cloth that is treated in a special way afterwards) and the chalice rotated for the next person so that it has time go dry by the time it comes around to the same place again.

2) When the chalice runs out, that's it: no more. Usually, there is a little left by the end (priests get good at estimating before they start) and that remainder must be drunk by the person holding the chalice, and then rinsed with water that is also drunk. If it runs out, the person holding the chalice turns to face away and everyone knows not to go up for it. It is not considered to be wine any more, so could not be topped up with wine. Consuming it is, where possible, considered the most respectful way to dispose of the Eucharist.

3) Grape juice is not permitted because it is not wine, is not what Jesus used, and does not carry the connotations of wine. The Church actually says that if it is not wine made from grape, the Eucharist does not take place: there is no change into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. But if you are not a priest, you do not need to receive from the chalice at all to receive the full Graces, so nobody has to drink wine if they cannot. 94.9.163.213 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

On the contagion issue, see our Oligodynamic effect article; a silver chalice is safer to use than chalices made of other metals, because silver self-sterilises. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Over a course of hours, yes, but a chalice is drunk from every few seconds. Even with the rotation, it's only a minute or two until it comes back around. Smurrayinchester 10:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Another thought: so is it true that the Church would then need two people (priests or deacons or whatever), one to dispense the host and another for the wine? A single priest cannot do both, correct? (In other words, the single priest gives a host, then wine to the first person; then repeats for the second person; and so forth.) 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

December 21

Temple of Music

The article states that the aforementioned building (as well as most other buildings used in the Pan-American Exposition) were demolished after March of 1902 (the exposition took place in 1901). The question: why were the buildings demolished in the first place? Neither article gives information on why the buildings were demolished. Given what happened at the aforementioned building, I'm surprised there wasn't some sort of movement for it to have been preserved in some manner, if only to serve as a theater for events in Buffalo or as a McKinley memorial (today, the site is just an avenue with houses, with only a boulder plaque marking what used to be on the site). Interestingly, there was a movement to save one of the other structures from the exposition, the Electric Tower, but the move failed due to lack of funds. This page suggests that a similar movement to save the Temple existed, but also failed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a reference for you, but I strongly suspect that it was only designed as a temporary structure and would have needed considerable work to make it permanent. The elaborate buildings thrown up for these events were nearly always demolished afterwards. Two exceptions spring to mind, the the Crystal Palace which was dismantled and moved across London onto proper foundations after the Great Exhibition of 1851; also the Eiffel Tower which was built for the Exposition Universelle of 1889,and was only saved because it turned out to be a useful radio mast. Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Also in Paris, by contrast, the Grand Palais and Petit Palais (1900 Exposition) and Palais de Chaillot (1937 Exposition) were always intended to be permanent. Compare also Olympic Parks, which typically contain a mix of permanet "legacy" works and temporary structures dismantled after the Games. jnestorius^(talk) 20:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It was, as Alansplodge writes, always intended to be a temporary structure. It was built with a framework of wood and cast-iron, but the facade consisted of plaster of paris on a jute cloth underpinning. The lower parts may have had some concrete added for strength. "Nowhere more fitting than in the Temple of Music by the Tower of Light between the Fountain of Abundance and the Court of Lilies at the great Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo" :) - Nunh-huh 20:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Police training

In many terrible incidents of shootings across the world, police end up shooting the shooter and killing them but will they always try to make an arrest first such as by giving them the opportunity to surrender or tackling them to the ground or do they just go in straight for a deadly shot without thought? What if they shoot a victim or hostage by accident? 2A02:C7D:B91D:8000:2946:E9DC:EA34:D4A2 (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they will only try to arrest the shooter or give him a chance to surrender if they can do this without substantial risk to themselves and to bystanders. Protecting lives is considered more important than treating dangerous suspects fairly. Whether it is acceptable to risk other lives by shooting the suspect is a decision that has to be made on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils. - Lindert (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, in many countries, police will usually go substantial lengths and policemen will take substantial personal risks to de-escalate situations and get shooters to stand down and surrender. In the UK, most policemen don't even carry weapons. Of course, the overall risk may be more acceptable in these countries because shootings are very rare in the first place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Aside from everything else, going in straight for a deadly shot without thought is risky to the police: convincing the guy to surrender is a lot safer, because you might not need to go in at all. If he doesn't have hostages, it's possible to wait it out if you're the police: if there's no way in or out, the guy's bound to run out of food (and you could get the water company to cut off water to the house), while you can be supplied indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, practical matters also figure in. The same guy who they would just shoot dead, if out in the open, they may negotiate with, if he is well barricaded. Another practical matter is that if they can't kill the guy quickly, then the press may show up, and at that point they need to be careful to avoid any obviously unjustified killings, as the media will broadcast those and they will get into trouble. (It's a lot easier to lose or erase their own video than the media's.) StuRat (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This questions, and the answers below, are pretty much asking for, and providing opinions. Abaget (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See Raoul Moat, particularly 2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt#IPCC_investigation_and_inquest for an example of police officers in the UK, well supported by plenty of armed officers, opting to try to Taser a suspect so that he cannot harm himself or anyone else before they arrest him. They were unsuccessful. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pitman Tomb/Mausoleum at Mount Auburn Cemetery

Can anybody find reliable non-self published sources, maybe even a primary source newspaper, about the Pitman Tomb/Mausoleum at Mount Auburn Cemetery? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Antietam and Battle of Sharpsburg

So I have a gravestone that talks about a solider fighting in the Battle of Antietam and the Battle of Sharpsburg. But they are just two names for the same battle. What may explain this redundancy? Was there a Battle of Sharpsburg that was distinct from Antietam?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us the exact text of the stone? (Minus the name, if necessary.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The person is Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman, but the question is not specifically about him. But as to why someone would mention Antietam and Sharpsburg side by side as if they were distinct battles:--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A member of Co. H, 22nd Regiment
Mass. Vols., was with his Regiment in the
battles of South Mountain, Antietam and
Sharpsburg. Was taken prisoner by Stuart's
cavalry on the march to Fredricksburg;
Imprisoned in Libby Prison, paroled and
sent to Camp Parole, Annapolis, and died in
camp of pneumonia.

Not really my field, but I can't find anything that suggests there were two different events. Perhaps a breakdown of communication between whoever wrote the epitaph and the stonemason? Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it was meant to say Battle_of_Shepherdstown, which happened a few days after the other battle. RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

He did fight in Battle of Shepherdstown.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

One possibility is that whoever came up with the text for the stone didn't know that they were the same battle. If they got info saying he fought at Antietam from one source, and another source said he fought at Sharpsburg, he wouldn't automatically think to consult an expert and ask if those were distinct battles. So, if he didn't already know it, and nobody (like the stone-carver) corrected him, the error would stand. And after it was literally carved in stone, they might be reluctant to attempt a fix.

That is might original assumption to that it was a mistake of the sculptor. I just wasn't clear if there was an obscure skirmish also called Sharpsburg as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, being that the victim was Hawaiian, I have to wonder if the people who were involved in making up the text were his relatives, and therefore also Hawaiian. At that time, I expect that details of the US Civil War were rather scant in Hawaii, so the locals not knowing which battles had alternate names would be perfectly understandable. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

His relatives are all basically now living in Massachusetts not Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The naming reflects the differences between Union and Confederate practices. The Union always emphasized rivers in the naming of armies, and to some extent battles: see Army of the Potomac, Army of the Tennessee, Army of the James and so on. The Confederates were a bit more straightforward and gave names like the Army of Northern Virginia, Army of Kentucky, etc. Battlefield terminology followed the same pattern: the so-called-by-the North First Battle of Bull Run was the First Battle of Manassas in the South. Likewise, what the North called the Battle of Antietam (named for Antietam Creek), was the Battle of Sharpsburg for the south, named after the town. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

True, but why would they list them on the stone as if they were separate battles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pittsburg High School in Pennsylvania?

Apparently there was once a Pittsburg High School located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (For example, it was attended by one Thomas Lyttleton Lyon, Emeritus Professor of Soil Science at Cornell University.) I searched Google but I couldn't find out what happened to it. Presumably it was replaced by another High School, but I'm not sure which one. Any suggestions? Praemonitus (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

See Etymology of Pittsburgh#Spelling controversy; the post office attempted to force "burgh"s nationwide to drop the "h", and while they were successful in most places, Pittsburg(h), along with assorted Newburghs, was able to resist. Nevertheless, in the last years of the nineteenth century and the first years of the twentieth, "Pittsburg" was a common spelling. And if your source dates from that time period, it was likely to spell the high school's name "Pittsburg" even though it wasn't spelt that way when Lyon was graduated from it. Are you talking about [4] or something else? Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a slight chance, I suppose, that this is an anachronistic reference to Allegheny High School (the city of Allegheny got annexed into Pittsburgh in 1907, three years before [5] was published), with the author of your source assuming that anything "Allegheny" was being renamed. However, my best suggestion is to try to look up information from Cornell, either looking for biographical information for the class of 1891 (the much smaller class sizes of the period meant that sketches of all alumni were practical; such a thing appeared in 1908 for my alma mater, for example) or for a post-1906 collection of faculty biographies. Cornell's got an archival collection of class printed materials; you could perhaps contact them about that, or better yet, Lyon has an entry in their faculty biography files. While archival research is detailed enough that archivists can't generally do significant research for others, this is a simple enough question that you might be able to get good help. You can email their reference desk; if you go that way, be sure to pick the option for Kroch Library (Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections). Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nyttend. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

December 22

Anne of Bohemia and Medieval Dowry

Why didn't Anne of Bohemia's marriage to Richard II of England come with any dowry? Weren't all daughters supposed to have been provided with dowries in the Middle Ages? Even in the 1600s, John IV of Portugal had to give up two colonial cities to England for the marriage of his daughter Catherine of Braganza. I am not understanding why Richard II would have paid his wife's family for the marriage (the opposite of a dowry); it makes less sense because there were little to no benefits to the marriage unless you want to argue that as an imperial German princess she would have a higher rank that other potential royal, ducal or comital brides but genealogically most European royals were of the same blood by the time anyway. What other examples of disadvantageous royal marriages were there where husbands had to pay their wives' family for the marriage? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Jennifer C. Ward explains: "As was customary from the eleventh century, the dowry was the concern of the bride's family and the dower of the bridegroom's. The dowry, however, did not always materialize. It was agreed at the negotiations that Anne of Bohemia's dowry would be settled later; it was never paid as her brother, the Emperor Wenzel, could not afford it. Chroniclers commented on Margaret of Anjou's lack of a dowry." Jennifer Ward, Women in England in the Middle Ages (2006), p. 124. Neutrality^talk 06:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine that, in some circumstances, the groom (or his family) was more keen to secure an alliance than a dowry. Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Nhs

Does the uk nhs operate as a business? It's it a state owned company? 2A02:C7D:B91D:CC00:50A6:F242:785:AAF3 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No the department of health is a government department. The nhs isn'. Does it have an organisational structure?t. 2A02:C7D:B91D:CC00:50A6:F242:785:AAF3 (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no "UK" NHS. NHS England (if you're talking about England) is run as an Arm's Length body by the Department of Health. NHS England commission services or other commissioners. See National_Health_Service_(England)#Structure --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

But does it operate as a business with an organisational structure and appointed CEO etc? Also there are some "arms length public bodies" that are also registered companies. For example the post office, NATS, Highways England and Network Rail. 2A02:C7D:B91D:CC00:50A6:F242:785:AAF3 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Our article on NHS England is quite enlightening. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The NHS as a whole doesn't operate as a business, but various bits of it do - and it's not a single organisation. Health services in a particular area are overseen by an NHS trust, which is efectively a publicly-owned company given a budget by the government, and each has its own CEO, board of directors and so on. The trust either runs or contracts out various health services. GPs and dentists are contractors, and some treatments can be outsourced to private surgeons, clinics or hospitals when NHS hospitals are overloaded. The trusts buy equipment, drugs etc. from private companies, and there's an "internal market" where trusts can outsource services, equipment etc, to each other. There are different kinds of trusts, and the details differ in the various constituent parts of the UK, but I think that should give you a reasonable general idea of how it works. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. But they aren't registered with companies house? Why are some public bodies registered as companies? 2A02:C7D:B91D:CC00:50A6:F242:785:AAF3 (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No idea. The Royal Mail was sold off a couple of years ago, so it's a private company now, but before that it charged the customer for its services, so it was always a commercial enterprise - it wasn't operated as a public service. If by NATS you mean NATS Holdings, the air traffic control body, it's a private company operating under licence by the government, not a public body. Highways England and Network Rail are state-owned companies, so are probably also considered commercial entities, not public services. But if you need to know what bodies are required to be registered as companies and what aren't, that's probably a legal matter, and I'm not a lawyer. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Familiar With Microsoft Word ?? Need a bit of assistance with "Sort ascending," or making it possible to read my Tables in chronological order.

Anyone happen to be familiar with Microsoft Word ???

I am working on some documents where I make lots of different Tables with different sections, and I really need to be able to "attach" the option of reading each different section in a chronological, alphabetic, numerical order etc. I believe the English call it "Sort Ascending." You know, so that you can switch between viewing the sections as you please, in an orderly fashion. I am convinced that Microsoft Word must have this option/tool, considering how otherwise advanced it is. But I can't find the option in the toolbar above. It must be there though...

If it is somehow unclear what I mean, here's a random example from one of Wiki's articles. Here the Tables has three different sections which you can switch between reading in chronological order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

Like I said, I need to be able to use Microsoft Word to include "Sort Ascending" in my tables. Krikkert7 (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's easy to use Microsoft's sort table function, but I assume that you want a symbol at the top of the column that when you click it produces this effect. For this you need a Word Macro. You don't have to use Visual Basic to write this, you can record the macro and assign it a shortcut key or button. The method for assigning to a button is given here. If you are preparing a table for use in Wikipedia, then the procedure is much simpler, of course. Dbfirs 15:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The link you gave me, it is for Microsoft Excel... It works for Word also ? Krikkert7 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)