Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

August 20

Flags hanging style

Seychelles
Cape Verde
NATO

I recently purchased these flags for decoration and am planning to hang them vertically. Since they are non-symmetrical on the horizontal axis, is the proper way to hang them vertically just to rotate them 90° clockwise or to rotate them 90° clockwise then flip them over the long side? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to find an image of possibly a state building with flags draped vertically, I found this iPhone case with the flag of Seychelles. If they did their research, it's simply turned 90* clockwise. Although, they are split on the flag of Cape Verde. Dismas|^(talk) 01:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link at the bottom of our Flag of Seychelles article says that "The vertical flag is simply the horizontal version turned 90 degrees clockwise." Dismas|^(talk) 01:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the custom in the UK is: "If hung vertically, the edge that would normally be the top of the flag should be on the left, so, for example, ensigns have their Union Flag canton in the upper left corner. On ensigns that have an armorial badge, if possible the badge should be upright, and the correct way round." From Flying Flags in the United Kingdom: A Guide to Britain's Flag Protocol (p. 5) produced by the Flag Institute in association with the e Flags & Heraldry Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional American hiding places for valuables

My house was broken into yesterday, and the result was weird — valuables were left alone, while if I listed the things taken, you'd think it as random as "an odd volume of Pope's 'Homer,' two plated candlesticks, an ivory letter-weight, a small oak barometer, and a ball of twine." As I noted to the investigating police officer, numerous cabinet doors were left open; apparently the invader(s) guessed that I was keeping more than toilet paper and baking soda under my sink. Are kitchen and bathroom cabinets traditional locations for valuables in American culture? One's normal array of under-the-sink chemicals presumably wouldn't include things like cold medicine and ammonia, and my conversation with the police office has left me with the assumption that they were opened in hopes of yielding valuables. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've ever been aware of. Closets and dresser drawers are more stereotypical places. Dismas|^(talk) 04:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, sorry to hear about that, the feelings of your personal space being violated are terrible. As to your question, in my experience (anecdotal evidence, etc.) it depends on the neighborhood and socio-economic class (if you catch my drift). I have heard of people taping, or otherwise fastening, cash/drugs/weapons/etc. either to the underside of the cabinet, or up on the inside of the front face (above the door) of the cabinet. It could be that the intruder came from a background where that is common and that is what he/she was looking for.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess your home was broken into by kids looking for a thrill, not trying to find valuables. They probably took whatever seemed neat or like fun. They likely don't even have a "fence" to sell it for them. I once apparently had my car broken into by kids. They emptied the coins out of the tray and smoked some cigarettes in there, but did nothing else. StuRat (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In American fiction (literature and TV shows, mostly) I have dozens of times encountered references to people storing valuables under the mattress, or more rarely in the flour tin. Usually it's money for the former, and jewelry for the latter. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<personal anecdote> I'm familiar with the idea of hiding valuables under a sink from seeing gadget catalogs that sell fake cans of oven cleaner for example, which unscrew so things can be hidden inside. In my working class U.S. family however, money was always kept in bedroom dresser drawers. 198.190.231.15 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the foolish "Hide the house key under the doormat" idea has been mostly eradicated in Britain. I'd imagine it's largely gone from America, too. Still a good stereotype, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not before Hitchcock made Dial M for Murder, though. (That's not a spoiler, for those few dozen Western world humans who haven't seen it.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad von Hochstaden

Can anyone tell me why there is a figure performing autofellatio below the figure of Konrad von Hochstaden on the Cologne City Hall? Dismas|^(talk) 04:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the article was vandalized, and the offending image has since been removed: [1]. StuRat (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about vandalism of a WP article. The actual statue really does portray this activity. The Straight Dope discussed it a while back. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to an unreferenced statement by 81.210.35.114? There is a man looking at the world through his crotch, the famous "Cologne mirror". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm referring to that. Now I'm confused. Is there some other part of that building with a similar statue that you thought I might be referring to? Dismas|^(talk) 19:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the description of File:Rathausturm Köln - Konrad von Hochstaden - Gerhard Unmaze (6143-45).jpg appears informed and names the sculpture "Cologne mirror" by sculptor Herbert Rausch (1925–1983). The sculpture is explained in "Stadtspuren, Denkmäler in Köln", vol. 21, by Hiltrud Kier and Ulrich Krings, J. P. Bachem Verlag, 1996, p. 146. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samarong

What is Samarong referring to I this source? It can't be Semarang, can it if it is referring to an island claimed by the Kingdom of Hawaii?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found the answer but it certainly cannot be Semarang. [2] says: "Palmyra Island and Samarong Island were proclaimed Hawaiian territory by L. Kamchamech, Minister of the Interior, on June 18, 1862."

[3] says with no mention of "Samarong":

"Thereupon the Minister of the Interior duly issued a proclamation on June 18, as follows:

'Whereas, On the 15th day of April, 1862, Palmyra Island, in latitude 5 50 North, and longitude 161 53 West, was taken possession of, with the usual formalities, by Captain Zenas Bent, he being duly authorized to do so, in the name of Kamehameha IV, King of the Hawaiian Islands. Therefore, This is to give notice, that the said island, so taken possession of, is henceforth to be considered and respected as part of the Domain of the King of the Hawaiian Islands.'"

Other sources to the June 18, 1862 proclamation are similar with no mention of Samarong. Palmyra Atoll is one of the Line Islands. Maybe Samarong is a Hawaiian name for Palmyra, or a name for one of the other Line Islands or one of the many islets of Palmyra itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Hawaiian didn't have an [s] sound. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a Hawaiian name. It is suppose to be a Pacific Island claimed by the Kingdom of Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round World vs Flat World

Did experienced ship captains have an idea that the world was round in the 11th century? When did this concept then come into being? Is there records of this? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some info in the article "Myth of the Flat Earth". Gabbe (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The world was known to be round to informed parties since time immemorial. In particular, Pythagoras already supported that view around 500 BCE, and Eratosthenes gave a surprisingly accurate estimate for the size of the Earth around 200 BCE. Our article is at Spherical Earth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to your link, it's having been known since time immemorial does not in fact guarantee that it was known in (at least the early part of) the 11th century. --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The early part of the 12th century, in fact. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

...in English law, not universally. And even in English law, it has different interpretations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Ancient Greeks were (probably) the first civilisation to widely accept the concept of a spherical Earth, and to estimate its size (see Eratosthenes). This knowledge was not lost during the Middle Ages - for example, Hermann of Reichenau was using Eratosthenes's method to re-estimate the Earth's size in the 11th century. An educated European at that time would certainly have heard of the idea of a spherical Earth and would be aware of the evidence for this. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about (university-) educated Europeans, though. It is about ship captains, who generally did not have much formal education. Probably not all experienced ship captains were even literate in the 11th century. We can't know for sure, but our article Spherical Earth suggests that the Greek philosophers' ideas about Earth's spherical shape actually came from the observations of ancient Greek captains and sailors, who noticed that the altitude of stars in the sky varied with latitude and who observed that, at a distance from the shore, only the tops of objects onshore were visible. Seafaring was a continuous tradition in the Mediterranean from ancient times, and Middle Eastern seafarers were likely to have spread this lore from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, from whence it could well have spread to other parts of Asia and Africa. So it seems quite plausible that by the 11th century, ship captains, or at least those who sailed far enough from shore or far enough north and south to observe those phenomena, would have heard of the explanation for them that the Earth is round. Marco polo (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any sailor with a brain could figure it out himself, based on how the tops of ships disappear last as they sail away. After all, this is part of the reason for the crow's nest, to allow sailors to see over the the water to spot distant land. Of course, they might never really think about this, or they might think that oceans are curved while land is flat, since the curvature is harder to spot on land, with hills and forests blocking the effect. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had my doubts for a long time that any observant, thinking person living near the coast or on very flat country ever thought the earth was flat. That there are enough nutters in the world to allow the Flat Earth Society to exist never ceases to amaze me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your doubts are easily dispelled by historical facts. The Chinese believed the world was flat and square until Europeans educated them in the 17th century: [4]. Even then, many Chinese continued to cling to old beliefs, refusing to accept that their kingdom was small and had no central position in the world. Unlike Greece, which is extremely mountainous, China is relatively flat (especially along the river valleys where civilization first developed).

Also note that "non-flat" and "spherical" are not synonymous. You can have an ellipsoid or a curved sheet that doesn't close on itself, like a bent piece of paper. Aristotle made very impressive arguments for Earth's sphericity (see [5], which also directly answers the OP's question):

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere ("if we give precision to our postulate that any body endowed with weight, of whatever size, moves towards the centre [..] earth in motion, whether in a mass or in fragments, necessarily continues to move until it occupies the centre equally every way, the less being forced to equalize itself by the greater owing to the forward drive of the impulse" -- De caelo)
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flat earth society takes its message seriously? I thought they were some kind of avant-garde pastafarians, a satirical organisations. Reading the wikipedia page, it appears they had a Canadian equivalent that was in fact a joke, so that may be why... Effovex (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also look up the "LA Platygaean Society", the brainchild of a friend of mine. Some very amusing USEnet posts, back in the day.... --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The original Flat Earth Society back in the 60s and 70s seemed to be very serious. I'm not sure about the modern internet-age rebirth of the group. APL (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information online at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102004444?q=round+flat+earth&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you gentlemen.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English mixed indep private schools

Which are the best please? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Financial Times page lets you judge the schools according to various definitions of "best". It can only tell you if the sixth form is mixed though (i.e. those where the % girls is less than 100 and more than 0). Some schools are single sex up to 16 and mixed after that. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. Quite ready to fly. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps start at Oxford Boarding. There is, confusingly, another organisation known as 'The Oxford Group' which comprises the 26 top boarding prep schools, but I have been unable to find a full list. The head man of Summer Fields is Michael Faber, an ex-MP and as in Willis Faber. The Dragon is an excellent school, but seriously pushes its pupils. See also: Cothill and its associated schools. The way to start is to look at which public schools the prep school is feeding into: here's who feeds into Aytong. Scholarships, bursaries, and exhibitions are indicative only nowadays because so many are given out (not like the old days). I would have thought Ludgrove would be your sort of establishment. You should really take up that friend of your's offer to have a chat with you about the subject (what was his name, again?), rather than ask strangers on Wikipedia... after all, young Hamish and Angus are in a demographic bulge. The best schools that I found include Belhaven - but that's in Dunbar, which is quite a slog, and the police are all over the A1 and M6, so you have to stick to the speed limit and it takes hours to get there - and Ashdown House, alma mater of Borat Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.58.148 (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and poi

How did Chinese immigrants to Hawaii take to the Hawaiian dish poi given taro was a familiar staple to Southern Chinese and they too mashed taro into a paste like pudding (芋頭沙), although no fermenting is done unlike poi? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Philadelphia history

Before 1951, was there a City Council? How many members served on it? Were any elected At Large?Gaffpat (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before WWII my Father's father's father owned a restaurant in Center City. My father says it had a contract to feed the "town council" and the jail. That's OR and based on a long memory from a very young age. A glance at google was not helpful. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanting to make sure, Gaffpat: did you mean to ask about 1951, or were you thinking of 1854? That's when the city and county were merged by the General Assembly. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

Why did the Pope REALLY resign?

see WP:BLP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Some say he was blackmailed by of [BLP violating speculation removed] ... What is the real truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.253.214.4 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do conspiracy theories, especially not about living persons. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read our article about the Pope emeritus by searching with the search bar on the top right. There is a section on his resignation. But no one short of a mind reader can tell you why he "really" resigned. Most everything you've been reading is baseless conspiracy. You would do well to ignore people who offer explanations for an event but refuse to provide evidence, or often, even reveal where their information came from. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the Pope himself has given two different explanations: (1) his strength waning, he was no longer up to the job, and (2) God, during a mystical experience, told him to quit. [6]. - Nunh-huh 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Item 1 would be, in a sense, the manifestation of item 2. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"God...told him to quit", you mean he was fired. ouch. 202.158.163.3 (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per capita income

Why is per capita income used to show how wealthy and good life in that country is? I mean if everything in that country is cheap and you don't earn much, you'll get along as well as someone with high income living in an expensive country. It's all relative.--77.1.169.221 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, it is fairly relative unless you can somehow allow for things like cost of living, etc. Perhaps more countries should use the idea of gross national happiness. Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By why is cost of living high? There's usually two aspects that raise this the most: scarcity due to demand, and taxation for services. If there's demand, and if people are generally rational, there must be significant utility being derived. Similarly, services generally supply utility. This would be basic economics. Also, like basic economics, the description is not perfect: Frequently quality of life is not the same as income. This can be for a number of reasons. Two big ones: People aren't perfectly rational, and moving both yourself and your wealth to a new area is never without significant cost. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts to adjust for that. For example, look at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita for a ranking adjusted to reflect purchasing power parity. Looie496 (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also want to adjust for Gini coefficient as per capita income doesn't deal with the distribution across population. (Or even more subversively, adopt a social theory of economics that is based around relations of production such that the question becomes who owns social property and directs its use and distribution?) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But cost of living is very low in developing countries. Cost of living of living is high in developed countries because labour cost is high.
Sleigh (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Get along well" isn't always the comparison you want. Rent and food are pretty variable, but many prices are more universal. A low cost of living won't help you buy an iPad.

Countries with high per-capita income can generally afford to import goods manufactured by people living in low-per-capita income areas, but people in low per capita income areas often can't afford to buy those same goods they work to manufacture. That strikes me as an important point of comparison.

It all depends on what you want to compare. If you're trying to figure out who's most likely to starve to death, then you're right. Per capita income isn't the best for that. APL (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age of baptism and circumcision

What is the earliest age at which the male infant is, generally speaking, baptized and circumcised? 140.254.227.112 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which tradition are you asking about? Not all baptized boys are circumcised. Mingmingla (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Orthodox. 140.254.227.112 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source says "Coptic Christians (including Ethiopians) circumcise in imitation of Old Testament Jews, but the time at which circumcision is performed varies from the first week of life to the first few years.". it also says " Ideally Jews circumcise on the eighth day of life.". As for baptism of a male child, this source says "40 days after her delivery, the woman would have recovered from her puerperium and tiredness. Hence, she comes to the church with her baby to ask the priest to baptize him." - Ka renjc 18:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the notion the Jewish "eighth day" is based on inclusive numbering; by modern standards, it means when the baby is seven days old, not eight. Can anyone confirm or refute that? --Trovatore (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Leviticus 12:3 "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." (KJV). Alansplodge (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the question is, is the day of his birth the first day, or the zeroth day? --Trovatore (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to be the 1st day, if the fact that Jesus is said to have risen on the 3rd day after his crucifixion, which is only the 2nd day by our modern reckoning, Sunday being only 2 days after Friday, has any relevance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, "on the eighth day" would mean the same as "seven days old". Somebody in their fiftieth year is 49. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether the sense is "on the 8th day" or "on the 8th day after <an earlier event>", and this may be where an intimate knowledge of Biblical Greek, Aramaic, whatever may be very useful in determining what the scriptures actually say, as distinct from what some think they say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I think most people's understanding of "the first day of life" would be the day that you were born on, not the day after. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But in the crucifixion/resurrection scenario, he was said to have risen "on the third day", which for most people means Monday (the 1st day after Friday being Saturday and the 2nd day being Sunday). That's why I say it matters whether the sense is "on the third day after the crucifixion", or just "on the third day", which takes the day of the crucifixion as the 1st day. The same dichotomy would apply to the timing of any important event, such as circumcision. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Let's just hope nobody gets circumcision and crucifixition confused ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French deputy foreign ministers

Another Lee H. Hamilton question. Now I've found a photo from November 1991 in which Hamilton is shaking hands with a somewhat younger woman. The back of the image is labeled "Madamn [sic] Gisot - French Deputy Foreign Minister". I can't find anyone by this name (or by other spellings) who was the French deputy foreign minister. Does anyone know this woman's name? 2001:18E8:2:1020:202A:8DD6:6403:B77 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing for some mangling of the name, it might be Élisabeth Guigou - not a "deputy foreign minister", per se, but the Minister for European Affairs. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible, since Guigou looks very different from the person in my photo. A pity that these photos can't go online for identification help...I guess I'll just note that it's seemingly an error in the caption. Thanks! 2001:18E8:2:1020:FCFB:D6EF:1ABC:E637 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no minister called Gisot in 91. Guiguou was indeed a junior miniter working under the foreign affair minister, in both 91 governments. --Lgriot (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of USA

Was there any drive or desire to give the country we know as the USA a name rather than a descriptor? I realize that it is defacto the name, but not in the way say, Canada or Belize has a name. I get that it was initially treated as a union of otherwise sovereign states rather than a nation as we might think of one now, so that might explain it a bit. Mingmingla (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Usonia#Origin of the word. 2001:18E8:2:1020:202A:8DD6:6403:B77 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're not going to like the answer, but the name of the US "in the way that Canada or Belize has a name" is America. --Trovatore (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it, though? I always interpret the of part of "United States of America" to indicate the America part refers to the continent, not the country. I know that convention treats it as the country name, but is it? To be clear, I wonder the same thing about the UK. Mingmingla (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no continent called "America". There are two continents, called North America and South America, and collectively they are the Americas. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. But it can become ambiguous when we enter the mysterious world of adjectives. "American", depending on the context, can mean many things. Some people pretend that this means the ambiguity extends retrospectively to the word "America" when used in isolation. It does not. That only ever means the USA. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody calls the UK "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", do they? The other difference there is that the UK takes in all of the places mentioned in their full name, while the USA doesn't - unless, and this is where it gets circular, one considers "America" to be a legitimate name for the nation. It certainly has that legitimacy by popular usage ("the American people", The American President, Coming to America etc - nobody thinks these refer to any place outside the USA). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth keeping in mind that the USA was an independent nation well before all or most of the other European settlements became independent, and they kind of glommed onto the name. When south broke away for a few years, they became the Confederate States of America. Meanwhile, the capital city is in the District of Columbia rather than the District of America. Place names often arise by common usage or whim rather than some well-thought-out plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the capital is the District of Columbia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As opposed to "District of America"; or just "Federal District" as it is in Mexico. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the fact they named DC as such has any bearing on the issue at hand. Calling it the "District of America" would have been decidedly loopy. Imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians usually call the UK Marea Britanie ("Great Britain"), even though it's technically wrong. And that's how they compete in the Olympics as well. (German speakers also usually say Großbritannien to refer to the whole thing.) 92.81.68.23 (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is if they are being pedantic. Much more common to use England to refer to the whole thing. Of course the English themselves do the same. 86.130.155.0 (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "Columbia (name)".—Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the term "Columbia" never appears in the text, only the term "The District". Article I, Section 8, para 17 covers "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

Leszek Kołakowski once wrote a short humorous philosophical story, The Legend of Emperor Kennedy, which – among other things – made fun of the fact that one country may be known by different names. The story takes place far in the future, where historians write about our times using only a handful of written sources that survived a "great catastrophy". They determine that an emperor named Kennedy ruled over two large domains called USA and America (they also conclude that the he came from a northern island called either Ireland or Iceland, and that his three greatest enemies were the kings of Russia, Soviet Union, and Cuba). — Kpalion^(talk) 07:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The toponymist George R. Stewart, in Names on the Land, wrote about the unfortunate name "United States of America", going as far as to say "the makeshift establishment of the national name was the worst misfortune in our whole naming-history. Its too great length has consumed paper, ink, time, and energy. Its vagueness and inaccuracy have caused incalculable misunderstanding, and bad feeling." He explains how the name evolved from the need, during the revolutionary era, for a term describing all the rebelling colonies, and how "united colonies" was used early on, but soon changed to "united states", because it didn't sound as mutinous. That, in short, the name arose naturally, without any single known source, during the revolution. And it was a useful term during the revolution, as it "represented the least possible break with tradition" and "was even an argument of the legitimacy of the Revolution", as Stewart puts it. After the war, however, the "inadequacy" of the name became more apparent and there were movements to adopt a new name. The "chief rival name", again as Stewart puts it, was "Columbia", which dates back earlier than "united colonies, to at least 1775. Stewart says that "Columbia" "was almost everything that the United States of America was not—short, precise, original, poetic, indivisible, and flexibly yielding good adjectives and nouns. The obvious chance to adopt the name was the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But the delegates "did not get around to the question". Stewart points out that the two people most likely to have argued for a better name were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. But Jefferson was in France and Franklin was "no longer vigorous". The Constitution ended up using both "United States of America" and just "United States", without ever specifying an exact formal name. Even after the Constitution was adopted there was some agitation for "Columbia", and many places in the US were named Columbia (such as the District of Columbia). But the effort did not result in any official change, and in 1819 a South American country named itself Colombia, after which the term "was no longer available as a national name". There were still, for a while, some people who advocated a new national name, perhaps most famously Washington Irving, who proposed Appalachia or Alleghania. Unfortunately none of these efforts ever got anywhere and we are stuck with "the worst misfortune in our whole naming-history". Pfly (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's either being extraordinarily pedantic or just being funny. "America" works fine. The term "American" has been around for a long time. "USA" works. "United States" works. Most of us Americans don't worry about this kind of thing. We didn't adopt our unofficial national anthem as official until the 1930s. We still haven't adopted our unofficial national language as official. This kind of thing bothers some of its citizens, but not enough of us to impel any action on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why the Spanish word norteamericano means "American" as in "from the US", even though norteamerica, at least according to google translate, means "North America" (I assume in the sense of the whole continent). Duoduoduo (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

América del Norte is used to mean "North America" in Spanish, while both Norteamerica and norteamericano refer primarily to the USA. In contrast, both Sudamérica and América del Sur both mean "South America". The use of norteamericano as both "North American" and just plain "American" may be to distinguish from Latinoamerica and latinoamericano. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

norteamericano means "North American". "American" as in "from the US" is estadounidense. Using a word other than "estadounidense" to refer to the citizens of the United States of America is rather informal. --Immerhin (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the descriptor idea wasn't that unusual at the time; as well as the United Kingdom, discussed above, the Dutch Republic was widely known to contemporaries as the United Provinces. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A line from a poem

There is a very specific line I remember from a poem, but unfortunately it's the only line I can recall, and I don't know what the poem was. I originally thought it was from a work by Gerald Manley Hopkins, but that might be wrong. The poem, as I remember it, was written around the themes of death, mortality, and willing self-sacrifice, the overall message being a general "pick yourself up and get on with it."

The line was, "For this wast thou made," or something very similar to that. I know that's not much to go on. I don't think the poem was originally written during the period of Middle English, but some of the language had been archaized to give it a stylistic feel. If anyone can help, that would be great.64.134.185.41 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Wesley's "An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time made thee what thou wast - king of the woods; is from William Cowper ,Yardly Oak Hotclaws (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) @Jack - Uh... maybe? I've never read much of Wesley, as I find him theologically infuriating, but that seems to be the only result for the exact wording, which I was pretty sure of. Maybe I read it quoted elsewhere... 198.86.53.67 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Louis Ginzberg in Students, Scholars and Saints, a similar phrase occurs in the Talmud: "A calf, the Talmud tells us, about to be led to the shambles, took refuge with Rabbi Judah, and hid its head in his mantle, entreating help. "Go," said Rabbi Judah, "for this thou wast created.". (Rabbi Jochanan ben Zaccai wrote: "If thou hast learned the law much, do not ascribe the good to thyself; for, for this wast thou created.", so I assume that phrase is well known in Jewish tradition.) The original story seems to be in Talmud - Mas. Baba Metzia 85a.) Dbfirs 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A meditation by St Anselm of Canterbury: "Praise then, and praise with all thy heart; and whom thou praisest, love; for, for this wast thou created, to praise Him, and to love Him also." Dbfirs 07:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(OP again) It was the Talmudic story of Rabbi I was thinking of. Something got crossed in my mind, and I may in fact be thinking of a poem with a similar line, but that is definitely the origin of the specific phrase as I remembered it. Thanks Dbfirs! 64.134.148.250 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was answered already but I found this: "9. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai received the Torah from Hillel and from Shammai. He used to say: If you have learnt much Torah do not claim for yourself moral excellence, for to this end you were created."[7] Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Murugan vs The Morrígan

Is there any connection between the Hindu and Irish deities?

What is being depicted at the right? Is Murugan the peacock?

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the leader of the Dark Fae? --Trovatore (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some TV character? No.

These are mythological/religious characters withsimilar names, one an Irish female and one an ambiguous (to me, at least) Hindu. Both are described as deities of war. Their links are provided. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the article you linked to, Murugan is said to have six heads. So it's fairly obvious that Murugan is the humanoid being in the centre with 6 heads shown. The peacock (which he appears to be riding) is I presume Murugan's mount/Vāhana as mentioned in the infobox where the photo is located and also the rest of the article, similarly the other two are the consorts Valli and Deivanai. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Murugan is consistently referred to as a he. Are the six heads in the center of the figure above right with rouge and lipstick meant to be of a male? Are these images (such as with a hand between Ganesh's legs) of men? I am hoping we have someone here with personal knowledge or at least links to better English sources. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology changes over time; the real question here is whether "Moro-rīganī-s" = "Murugan" (perhaps once Murukan? [8]) . (see netsam) Maybe someone on the Language desk could help? Wnt (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not whether or not Murugan is male (although I think it's clear he is intended to be in so much as such concepts apply to deities particularly Hindu ones were the concept can be fluid*), but your question of what is being depicted in the photo is clearly largely answered in the article. In particular it seems clear Murugan is not the peacock.

*In terms of him being male, beyond the use of the male pronoun, the mention of him possibly being the other son of Shiva (the other being Ganesha) is a big clue.

And I would note that regardless of the difficulty reading the article, you don't really have to read it carefully to get all this. if you are interested in the peacock, a search for the word will direct to the relevant portions of the article. And of course the infobox where the image lives is an obvious first place to look. There of course, you also learn about the consorts and a search for their names will find what our article has to offer on them. The six head thing may be a bit more difficult to think of but it's hard to find images (which you see to be doing) without seeing at least one more head and one of the other images in our article discusses the heads in the caption and it's briefly mentioned in the discussion on names which is an obvious place to look if you are interested in any possible connection with other deities not to mention is the first section. Similarly given you interest in the connection to Ganesha in the photo, a search in the article will find the discussion on being a possible son of Shiva and brother to Ganesha.

I'll freely admit I never read the article in it's entirety simply picked out the relevent portions which addressed issues which seem to confuse you which our article seems to clarify. And despite spending a big part of my early life in Malaysia will a small number of Tamil friends and classmates, I'm not that familiar with Murugan (more the rituals etc) so most of what I'm saying here came from the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a hindu but one of my friends is and she does worship Muruga specifically so I can say that 1) he is male, 2) he is not the peacock, 3) I have no idea why, but many hindus (particularly those in northern India) worship his brother and his parents but not Muruga himself, and 4) the WP articles on this stuff are generally very difficult to read. Aside from the names being similar, why do you suspect any relation here? 163.202.48.126 (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are probably just false cognates, which is something that happens with surprising frequency. It's remotely possible that the names have a common Indo-European ancestry, but I don't think the historical record is well enough established to support that. John M Baker (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously it could be coincidence. That is the whole point in the thread. We have two Indo-European war deities sharing the consonants m-r-g-n in their names. Morrigan has an assumed etymology. Can anyone suggest one for Murugan? μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The etymology of Morrígan is not "assumed", it's well established by the fact that it can be analysed as mór, great, or mor, connoting terror or monstrousness, plus rígan, queen, in Old Irish. This is not a deep etymology of a word that has no obvious meaning, it's transparent. According to the WP article, the name Murugan is Tamil, which is not Indo-European, and he's known as Karttikeya in Sanskrit. So it doesn't look like there's any etymological connection, and the similarity in sound is coincidental. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be just coincidence that these two deities have similar names and are war deities. Our article on The Morrígan states that her name comes from an Old Irish compound meaning "phantom queen". This may of course have been an epithet for an earlier deity with an unrelated name. Meanwhile, Murugan is a male deity that almost certainly originated in South India. In South India, Dravidian languages are spoken. These languages have no proven relationship to Celtic or other Indo-European languages. If there is a relationship, it is a very distant one, such that etymologically related words almost certainly would not be so similar after thousands of years of divergence. Moreover, according to this site, of uncertain reliability, Murugan's name derives from a Dravidian root meaning "the destroyer". This is very different in meaning from "phantom queen". So the apparent resemblance of the two deities' names is almost certainly a coincidence. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is a coincidence. Here is a scholarly reference for some etymologies of the Tamil name Murugan. Note, OP, that the original form of the word had a K not a G. In addition, the paper discusses how the attributes of the North Indian warlike Skanda were fused with the South Indian youthful lover Murugan. 184.147.116.153 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marco Polo and IP 184, for providing sources. The PDF gives an unlikely meaning of young/fragrant, while the website suggests "destroyer" from two different Dravidian roots both found in Burrow & Emenau. It was not my intention to imply any relation between Celtic and Dravidian--I used the term Indo-European above as an areal term. There's always a logical chance that either or both names are folk etymologies and borrowed from some other source, but all I was looking for was an actual Dravidian etymology for Murugan, not just the assumption of one, since I've long known the Irish etymology. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the question of the depiction. Are the six heads in the picture above female or male? Are these images male or female or not stereotypically either as a depiction of a Hindu god? μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This thread is slightly reminiscent of somebody I saw on British TV a few years ago, manfully trying to prove a connection between Idris and Idris. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that relevant to anything here? Is there some discussion of Idris I have missed? Marco Polo seems to have found the relevant Dravidian etymology. It wasn't in Murugan. Is it in either of those Idris articles you've belinked? μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's relevant. It's another example - albeit one more obvious than yours - of the same name occurring in a Celtic language and an Indian language, while not having a common etymology or linkage. I wonder if there are any others? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate and totally irrelevant topic, make a thread for it if you like; I have expressed no interest in a list of false Indo-Celtic cognates.

I only said that it was "slightly reminiscent". Please let's be civil. Alansplodge (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I have been interested in is the etymology of Murugan, which MP has given, and why Murugan seems to be depicted as feminine in so many depictions. Is it a misinterpretation to see these depictions as feminine, as opposed to expressing some other quality or tradition? μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why were two people charged with murdering Christopher Lane

In this news story it was reported two of the boys were charged with murder and one with being an accessory. Chancey Allen Luna allegedly pulled the trigger, and was charged with murder. Michael Dewayne Jones allegedly drove the car and was charged with being an accessory. James Francis Edwards was charged with murder, but I haven't seen anything indicating what he did to get that charge; he presumably did not pull the trigger. Does anyone know why Edwards was charged with murder and not just being an accessory? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common purpose may be relevant here. Our article says "The simplest form of joint enterprise to murder is two or more planning to cause death and doing so. If all the parties participated in carrying out the plan, all are liable regardless of who actually inflicted the fatal injury." This doesn't explain why the driver was only charged with being an accessory, but that could be the result of plea bargaining. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not plea bargaining. The driver hid the gun and cooperated with police.
Sleigh (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bentley was an extreme case (in the UK) of the application of the common purpose principle. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the two afro-americans were charged with murder and the white kid only with being accessory. And they were all together in it. What conclusion do you draw from it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.250.193 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Reference Desk. We do not draw any conclusions. We are only supposed to provide references. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nirad C Chaudhuri, Saul Bellow, Bertrand Russell

Did Nirad C Chaudhuri ever meet with Saul Bellow and Bertrand Russell? When and How? What were their points of talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.37.187 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. If you can get a copy of A Passage to England at your library, one of the talks mentions someone meeting Russell (according to google search results). But since the book is not viewable online, you’ll have to check the actual book to confirm that the person meeting Russell was Chaudhuri. 184.147.116.153 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't meet in person, they may have corresponded - Russell kept up a voluminous correspondence. McMaster University has a great deal of his letters (~30,000 of them) and maintains this website, which has links you may find helpful. Russell and his work are also studied there as part of the archives, so you may also get a better answer to your question by emailing someone at the university. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phobias: Fear, Dislike and/or Hatred.‏

Hi, I was looking up definitions of phobias, particularly religious ones. I'm puzzled that phobia isn't more defined i.e Islamophobia and Christianophobia. I can fear Muslims and Catholics without disliking or hating them. Would your volunteers consider redefining them similar to Theophobia (The fear of God) which hasn't the Dislike and/or Hatred definition. Maybe you could define the dislike and/or hatred the same as Antisemitism and Antihinduism? Thanks for the Great site. All the best,

James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.177.109 (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term Islamaphobia is commonly used to describe a hate or dislike, not a fear, and that is what the article covers. Islamophobia#Debate on the term and its limitations explains the arguments for and against the term. Talk:Islamophobia has lots of back and forth on the subject too - that is where you would go to discuss having Wikipedia change the definition on the site. Jessica Ryan (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An English term that goes with the same basic rules in Islamaphobia is homophobia. Literally, it means "fear of homosexuals". Actually, it means "dislike of, hatred of, discrimination against, hostility towards persons with homoerotic tendencies". If I remember correctly, I did read a Wikipedia article on the word, homophobia, and its own criticisms. One suggestion is that the word homophobia is really referring to homoerotophobia. Another suggestion is that the word homophobia is really referring to heterosexism. 164.107.103.191 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that the "fear of God" is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather, fearing God can be a good thing, as "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction," (Proverbs 1:7) Hatred of God or the gods will probably be anti-theism. 164.107.103.191 (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather ironic quote, as Christian fundamentalists typically suffer from "science-phobia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, language is evolving. See etymological fallacy. Many even common words have a different meaning now than in the past. A computer used to be a person, not a piece of silicon. Amateur used to be a term of praise, not derision. A people's democracy often isn't democratic. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's well and good, but homophobia and islamophobia are loaded terms that never had an original fear meaning. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Homophobia" seems to evoke the legal outrage of "acute homosexual panic", a defense used by murderers in which they argued they were in mortal terror over the existence of gays. I would speculate "Islamophobia" simply followed this model out of fashion, at the time when it became an issue. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're using "fear" in the broadest sense, as "aversion". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest reference to "homophobia" that the OED lists is from TIME Friday, Oct. 31, 1969, "Behavior: The Homosexual: Newly Visible, Newly Understood":

Most straight Americans still regard the invert with a mixture of revulsion and apprehension, to which some authorities have given the special diagnostic name of homosexual panic. A Louis Harris poll released last week reported that 63% of the nation consider homosexuals "harmful to American life," and even the most tolerant parents nervously watch their children for real or imagined signs of homosexuality, breathing sighs of relief when their boy or girl finally begins dating the opposite sex.

Such homophobia is based on understandable instincts among straight people, but it also involves innumerable misconceptions and oversimplifications. The worst of these may well be that all homosexuals are alike. In fact, recent research has uncovered a large variation among homosexual types.

It then lists the different types of homosexual, including the Blatant (like the "catty hairdresser or the lisping, limp-wristed interior decorator."), the Secret Lifer (" most are extremely skilled at camouflage"), and the the Desperate ("are likely to haunt public toilets"). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop obfuscating here. A phobia (just that word on its own, and SOME of the words containing the suffix phobia) is an irrational fear of something, such as spiders, flying, open spaces and, in one weird case I've seen, electric hand dryers. Such phobias can create a state of terror in the victims. But that doesn't mean that every word with "phobia" in it is an irrational fear. It's obvious that homophobia is a dislike or perhaps a hatred of homosexual people and a willingness to discriminate against them. Note that that definition doesn't include the word irrational, because it is too judgemental. Islamophobia is a similar word. The latter two and others like them are usually based on dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phobia as "irrational fear, horror, aversion" - not really much difference between those three.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not so. However reputable the cited "Etymonline" may be, the MS Encarta Dictionary thesaurus for aversion associates it with: dislike, hatred, loathing, repugnance, distaste, hate, antipathy, abhorrence, detestation, repulsion, disgust. Note that "fear and horror" are not among them. I believe "aversion" and its synonyms are descriptive of typical "homophobia" as in homophobic attitudes > behaviors > discriminatory practices including legislation. If defining "phobia" requires a fear element: homosexuality and homosexuals pose a threat to the homophobe's restrictive (and prescriptive) world view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

If I'm an arachnophobe, it's pretty obvious. I am terrified of all spiders. On sight. Simple. But a homophobe isn't frightened of a homosexual person until he is told that the person is homosexual. I've seen some fascinating about-faces in my life where a respected person suddenly becomes reviled once some others discover he is homosexual. It's not like that with spiders, or flying. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other phobias work like that, too. Let's say you have a fear of heights. You could feel just fine on the top floor of a skyscraper, so long as you don't go near a window. Even though you know on an intellectual level that you're up high, it doesn't elicit the fear response until it becomes visually obvious. StuRat (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48: yes, it is like you said. I'm usually indifferent regarding people who are homosexual but explicitly and visibly so, or who occasionally may have such relations but are otherwise not defining themselves as homosexuals. On the contrary, the confrontation with a socialite homosexual has on me the same repulsive effect that I do have on others when they suddenly realize that I'm not a Latin-Mediterranean but that I "think like a teuton", as one of my - friends put it one day (English is a teutonic language ). --188.7.28.40 (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia is a very unsatisfactory word, etymologically speaking - it "should" mean "irrational fear of things that are the same". But where languge is concerned, "should" doesn't come into it. A word means what it is used to mean, in this case "hatred of/prejudice against gay people". It's not up to Wikipedia to go against usage. Nicknack009 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, you people are all awesome. I've dealt with the argument over transphobia far too many times. People like to claim they're not trans-/homo-/islamo- phobic because "technically that's not what phobia means", as if it justifies their behavior. I was worried that the same nitpicking would happen here, but instead everyone here makes the point that it is how the word is used that matters. You make me smile. Jessica Ryan (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proper response to such a silly argument is to call them something far ruder instead... Or just bigoted if you want to keep it relatively civil. MChesterMC (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, name-calling is not an argument nor is it effective in convincing people. When someone criticizes Islam, the best way to avoid a reasonable discussion about it is calling him/her an islamophobe. - Lindert (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with jargon like "phobia" is that it falsely makes "dislike, hatred, loathing, repugnance, distaste, hate, antipathy, abhorrence, detestation, repulsion, disgust" of homosexuality seem like a medical condition, when in truth it is the default norm shared by the overwhelming majority in the world, and is not a medical condition, or even an inconvenience, at all. 71.246.144.189 (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} - Ka renjc 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The issue I have isn't really with people's responses to being called *phobic - like you say, it doesn't make sense in a reasonable argument. It still comes up when you describe something that happened or a particular behavior/belief as *phobic, or complain about *phobia in general, and then people jump in to start nitpicking etymology in order to explain how even though they support or believe in something *phobic, they're not one of those *phobes. This happens even though you're arguing about the behavior or belief, so etymology argument is just a meaningless sidetrack. Jessica Ryan (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we should just use a word like "bigot" and stop trying to mask our language. Call hateful bigoted people hateful and bigoted, and stop trying to find less severe words to describe their disgusting hate. Bigot works just fine. --Jayron32 00:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. To me, "homophobic" is a politically-invented and misleading term. There is no such ambiguity about "bigoted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, bigot may be accurate but it's also rather imprecise. Some homophobes may express other forms of bigotry, some may be primarily homophobes. There are definitely valid reasons why someone may be interested in knowing how someone is a bigot and while in some cases a detailed explaination may be useful, in some cases a more precise term is enough. In terms of the etymology issue, I'm with HiLo48 here, ultimately a word means what it means whatever the etymology of the underlying words or word, and however people may complain. We don't stop using the word gay just because some people think it should only mean happy (historically people may have a fair comment that the use of the word can be ambigious or confusing but for modern discussions this is rarely a problem), we accept it's nonsense if someone says they're not antisemitic because they only hate Jewish people and we similarly we accept the word homophobia. Anyone who tries to argue something by disputing a commonly accepted word has already lost the argument. Not to mention the whole argument is nonsense since you could just as well say there's no reason phobia has to mean phobia and homophobia has to refer to hatred of LGB people or homosexuality or when you get down to it, any word has to mean anything (the further back you go, the more arguments you can make about it meaning something else). When a homophobe buys a oleophobic cover for their smartphone they don't complain to the seller that the cover doesn't have a psychological condition. And of course nor do many homophobes with photophobia for physical reasons, most of who probably don't complain about biologists referring to photophobia (biology) in a variety of organisms either. Well maybe except for the sort of people who decide to use automated stuff to the extent they talk about Tyson Homosexual. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

Merchant Marine Act of 1936

Our question:

Is the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and specifically the part quoted below, still in force?

"The United States shall have a merchant marine...[to] serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency...[and] should be operated by highly trained and efficient citizens of the United States and that the United States Navy and the Merchant Marine of the United States should work closely together to promote the maximum integration of the total seapower forces of the United States...

Has the Act been rescinded in part or in full?

Thanks for your help! 2601:3:8C0:53:F076:8760:4803:35CC (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Merchant Marine doesn't say it was ever rescinded. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in force, it should be included in the United States Code, isn't it? This website allows searches of the code, which gives five results for "Merchant Marine Act of 1936" (in quotes). Not being a lawyer, the results are Greek to me, but seem to refer to pieces of legislation that used to be in that act. You can also use the browse functions below the search box to look at Title 46-Shipping and Subtitle V-Merchant Marine. 184.147.116.153 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, in fact most, laws are not codified in the U.S. Code, however most of them understood as "statutes" in a colloquial way (I may be overstating that some) are codified into the code. So the relevant parts you're talking about are probably in the Code, if they're still in force. However, the organization will be very different. Some laws are referred to by their code section (e.g., 26 USC 503) while others are referred to by their public law organization (e.g., Title 9; SEC Rule 10b-5; etc.). I don't know how which gets chosen.

It's likely the law's been amended in part over the years. The organization of the public laws, and finding out which is still in effect is more complicated than you might expect. Our articles on United States Statutes at Large, United States Code, and some related articles give some overview of how these fit together. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Conan Doyle

What locations in Australia did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle visit? 114.75.62.191 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question. I had no idea Doyle had ever been here.

This is a useful 10-minute conversation about the trip. They mention Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne.

They also discuss Doyle's book about his trip to the Antipodes, The Wanderings of a Spiritualist. You can read it here. I've had a quick skim, and learnt that his Down Under itinerary went something like this:

Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Geelong, Bendigo, Sydney, New Zealand, Melbourne, Blue Mountains, Brisbane, Sydney, Medlow Bath, Jenolan Caves, Melbourne, Adelaide, Fremantle, Perth. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Film based on a Book: "The Book Thief."

I see this film is getting a lot of advance buzz. What is this about? I see that it's based on a relatively well received book, "The Book Thief." But what is the movie really about? Is it all about Nazis or what? It seems like the book is just about some little girl that steals books and hangs out at home, how could that be a good movie? Herzlicheboy (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the articles The Book Thief and The Book Thief (film)? The book article describes the plot, which seems to have plenty of detail for transfer to the screen. Rojomoke (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read the articles here, and on IMDB. However, I just don't see how that book could make a decent film. Can you give me some insight please? Herzlicheboy (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The insight you need is to no longer take a brief description of what a story is about, and immediately conclude it couldn't make a good film. Hell, Kubrick could take a pair of flies crawling up a wall and make a two-hour epic out of it, and you'd be transfixed. Conversely, people have taken the world's greatest stories and made utterly disastrous and appalling films out of them. It's all down to the skills of the film maker and has very little to do with "what it's about". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of them chases the other up the wall with an itty, bitty axe. It'll be titled The Climbing. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Complete with lots of converging-perspective shots, and point-of-view-of-the-flies shots. And don't forget the music score by Wendy Carlos. And, as an inside joke, cameo appearances by David Hedison and Jeff Goldblum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider Schindler's List, and also something to do with some Dutch girl who stayed hidden for a long time and then died. Also anything to do with teen vampires. The U.S. public isn't fussy - it will pay for what it's told to pay for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk contraception procurement

The last page of http://www.who.int/entity/3by5/en/HIVtestkit.pdf describes the World Health Organization for bulk procurement of HIV tests. Where is the corresponding process for bulk procurement of contraception? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHO: Reproductive Health Essential Medicines: Procurement. There appear to be different documents for different contraceptives and different countries. 184.147.116.153 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. I copied your answer to WT:MED where I had originally asked. 192.81.0.147 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

provided she's still alive, when will Elizabeth celebrate her next jubilee, after 65 years or 70. Will there be plans to celebrate the occasion when she succeeds Victoria as longest reigning monarch? My guess would be the next jubilee milestone would be 70 years --Andrew 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The same question was asked here and I'll give the same advice - there are probably people around the Queen who have given it some thought, but we don't know what those thoughts are and it's unlikely we (her "loyal" subjects) will know anything until a year or two in advance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At her age, they are likely to take things one year at a time. The next milestone would be to surpass Victoria's record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy is well on track to surpass Vicky's record, as well as the longest-reigning female monarch in world history. This milestone is only a little over 2 years away. See List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign#Current monarch. She'll still be in her (late) 80s, a spring chicken by comparison to her mother, who made 101. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we have an article about this: see Platinum Jubilee. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything come after platinum? --Andrew 23:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone come close to needing to have someone decide? --Jayron32 00:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, List of longest-reigning monarchs has two who surpassed 80 years. And after platinum is ... oak? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan King, who liked to talk about stuff like anniversaries, would have said "Iron", as you need to be made of iron to last that long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can only hope that if and when there is another commemoration for Liz, the timing and naming make more sense than last time. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Please explain". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, Liz became queen on 6 February 1952. Most of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations seemed to happen in June 2012. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They decided to hold events right throughout the Jubilee Year, not just on one day. The climax was the 4-day June long weekend, which was deemed the most suitable time for the Thames Pageant, both weather-wise and also because the people are always in holiday mode at that time, and it also fell on the 59th anniversary of her Coronation in June 1953, which was a WAY bigger deal, public-celebration-wise, than her accession, which was also by definition the anniversary of her father's death. February in Britain is freezing cold and hopeless for outdoor mass public events. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - see 6 February 2012: Schools and roads affected by ice as cold week forecast. Alansplodge (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but as Jack said, the coronation wan't having a diamond jubilee. It was all very unclear to me precisely what was being commemorated. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think Jack's right. It was 60 years since the accession, but it was celebrated with a Jubilee Year with the highest profile events on a "Central Weekend"[10] which 1) coincided with the Coronation anniversary 2) Could give folks in the UK an extra holiday weekend avoiding existing Public Holidays and school breaks, 3) avoided Trooping the Colour on the second Saturday in June and 4) there was a reasonable chance that the weather would be reasonable (as it turned out it was rubbish, but this is Britain after all). This also follows the precedents set for previous Jubilees - the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria was also celebrated in June, but a little later. The 60th Anniversary of the Coronation was celebrated in more muted style in June this year[11]. Note that the Coronation itself is timed to catch the summer weather, although it pissed down in 1953. William the Conqueror was crowned on Christmas Day - he wasn't known as "William the Bastard" for nothing ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2) Well, all the hoop-la was about the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. As I said, the precise date was 6 February, but they had a year-long celebration, and the signature event just happened to coincide with the anniversary of the Coronation in June. I agree there is scope for confusion there, particularly as many people erroneously believe a UK monarch only becomes the monarch when they're crowned. (In fact, they accede the very instant the incumbent monarch dies, and there is never a moment when there is no monarch, hence the expressions "The king never dies" and "The King is dead. Long live the Queen".) This confusion is perhaps understandable given the huge amount of pageantry and ritual that attends a coronation, while the actual accession was a sombre affair marked by mourning a dead king as much as celebrating a new queen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only ceremonies attending the Accession are some old blokes in fancy dress reading out a "proclamation" at various points around the Empire.[12]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is eligible to be Secretary of State USA

Other questions have discussed whether or not the Secretary of State will be eligible to succeed the President. However, what are the eligibility criteria for becoming Secretary of State? Clearly Henry Kissinger was/is not a natural born US citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 23:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there are no qualifications to be Secretary of state beyond Presidential nomination followed by Senatorial confirmation. That is, the President has no restrictions on who he can nominate, and the Senate is free to confirm or not as they wish. There have been at least two Secretaries of State who were not qualified to be President; both Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of qualifications for members of the Cabinet; only for President, VP, Senator, and Representatives. --Jayron32 23:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Gallatin was a prominent early cabinet secretary who was frequently attacked for being "foreign"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of succession or presidential eligibility have long been understood as an ongoing ambiguity in the Constitution. The 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in part to remedy this problem, and even it didn't solve everything. Because the Supreme Court has not ruled on it specifically, it's not certain, although plenty of law review articles have been written. As to your immediate question though, I think Jayron and AnonMoos bring up examples that demonstrate that it is not a bar. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say those are the only eligibility criteria. There may be others in statute, or otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually our Cabinet of the United States suggests immediate family members cannot be nominated so I think you may be right. I also wonder if there is some requirement somewhere that you be a citizen or at least hold a green card or at least be legally allowed to work in the US. E.g. do these requirements [13] also apply? Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is it written anywhere that the Nominee must be a citizen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions on family members holding posts in a cabinet are based on civil-service laws, not a constitutional prohibition. Congress can amend that law or grant citizenship to a nominee if it comes down to mattering. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the U.S. constitution; no where does it require citizenship for anyone serving as a member of the Cabinet or as the head of an Executive Department. As noted by Medeis above, further restrictions could be (and may have been) placed on who can hold certain offices by Congress (and such restrictions can also be summarily removed or changed by a simple vote of Congress) but there is no Constitutional restrictions, merely statutory ones. --Jayron32 17:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Exhuming of Elizabeth Bonifacia of Poland

In the article it mentioned her bones had deteriorated by 1949, but her mother Jadwiga of Poland's article mention two earlier exhumations. How was the state of Elizabeth Bonifacia's remain during those earlier exhumations.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown English royal burials

The above question has me wondering about something. There are legal proceedings ongoing about the ultimate destination of Richard III's remains, in which the judge said "The archaeological discovery of the mortal remains of a former King of England after 500 years is without precedent." How many royal bodies don't have a known resting place? This article from the BBC states that "a Saxon king" may be about to be dug up at Lincoln Castle, and Edward V's body is notoriously absent. Who else might benefit from the precedent that Richard III is about to create? Tevildo (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article from the BBC website with some comments that are helpful. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Harold II's last resting place is disputed. Although contemporary accounts suggest a hurried coastal burial, later accounts quoting eye witnesses, claim that he was interred at Waltham Abbey Church where a tomb certainly existed, but was destroyed at the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Alansplodge (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible remains of Alfred the Great may be tested soon (if it hasn't already happened). His (and his Queen's) original tomb in Winchester Cathedral was well known; they were moved to nearby Hyde Abbey which, after the Dissolution, was ruined and their exact location lost. Their bones may have been dug up and scattered in the 18th century, but when the Abbey was excavated a century or so ago, some possible bones were found and reburied in a nearby church in an unnamed and unpublicised, though not wholly secret, grave (which I guessed from extant references and visited some years ago). These were recently exhumed for potential testing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.246.168 (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between nerd and a hipster.

Help me to fuly understand what a hipster is by telling me the differences (if any) between a nerd and a hispter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.210.70 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipsters are people who believe they are cooler than everyone else because they stay ahead of the "trends". That is, they used to be fans of all of the cool stuff "before it was cool", and now they aren't into that stuff anymore because it is cool. Hipsters deliberately and intentionally have tastes that run "against" the mainstream; that is if everyone else is doing it, they deliberately do something different; at least until everyone starts doing what they are doing. Nerds are people who are interested in intellectual pursuits primarily, and also tend to be uninterested in fashion in any sense; they also tend to be somewhat socially inept and awkward whereas hipsters are highly socially conscious. Nerds are not deliberately against the mainstream the way hipsters are, they just aren't overly concerned one way or the other. I'd say overall that it isn't hard to tell the difference between nerds and hipsters because in every conceivable way, they are essentially exactly opposite. You can read Wikipedia articles on nerds and hipsters respectively for more information. --Jayron32 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's nothing left to add to Jayron's response. --Immerhin (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But nerds stay away from the trends, not only that but they do stuff that never became a trend until now or problbaly will never become one. Also some nerds think they are cooler than others, assuming cool = better/good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.155.13 (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you're using "nerd" different from every single person who used it before you. You are, of course, free to invent your own language where words mean different things. But please don't expect the rest of us to catch on right away. In the meantime, the rest of us will use the words as they existed before you came along and changed all of them. --Jayron32 18:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This video has a nice explanation why many people dislike hipsters, and the differences between other subcultures thereof. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the UK have two houses of Parliament?

Why did the English Parliament split into two houses (the Commons and the Lords) in the fourteenth century under Edward III? --superioridad ^(discusión) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be a political archetype, in a way. It's the classic dislike of the overreach of the monarch. House of Commons of England explains that although "the burgesses were almost entirely powerless... the right to representation of each English county quickly became indisputable." However, "the monarch could enfranchise or disfranchise boroughs at pleasure. Any show of independence by burgesses would thus be likely to lead to the exclusion of their towns from Parliament." Also, Edward III of England brings out that "Stratford claimed that Edward had violated the laws of the land by arresting royal officers..." I would take a look at Plato's five regimes as a deductive approach. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superiority -- The English parliament developed from the English version of the old medieval "estates of the realm" which occurred in a number of European countries and regions. These were assemblies or royal councils usually organized into three parts -- one for the clergy/church, one for the nobility, and the third for prominent non-clergy non-noble city-dwellers and merchants. They weren't at all democratic by modern standards (the peasants, who were the majority of the population, weren't represented), but they provided a mechanism for rulers to consult with a range of important persons. Many of the continental European estates decayed during the 17th-century era of royal absolutism, while England went in a different direction. Against that background, the question is more why the clergy and nobility were consolidated into a single chamber... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bicameralism has the answer as to why it is an advantage. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Supreme court majority opinions- how detailed do they have to be?

Are there any minimums on what majority opinions of US Supreme Court justices has to contain? For example, in a case which is obviously going to be split on party lines (abortion?), can the majority party simply write "'Cuz" in its opinion, knowing that it will pass regardless of their arguement? Or is there some law against that? Buggie111 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the Constitution about it, and since the High Court rules on constitutional matters anyway, they would be at liberty to strike down any such law as being a violation of the Separation of Powers. As a practical matter... when's the last time you ran across a lawyer and/or a judge who didn't love to expound at length? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The law in the US works by legal precedent. So, while in certain cases, a signed statement by a majority of justices might imaginably be sufficient, if the justices want their reasoning to have weight in future decisions they have to explain it. There are also various types of decisions, civil suits between parties, criminal appeals, challenges of laws; and such cases can be decided or remanded to the lower court. In most of these cases there will be prior decisions which have brought up specific issues which the court will be expected to address. For example, the court might remand an appeals court decision, saying that lower decision hadn't taken into account the Supreme Court's decision in some prior precedent-setting case, and might order the lower court to redeliberate based on that decision. There would be little point in a decision which said "A majority remands this case to the appeals court. Signed A, B, C, D, E". Of course the court could be arbitrary and not provide reasoning. At that point one would hope the responsible parties would be impeached. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "party lines" and "majority party", Buggie. Political parties take positions on issues, but I thought Supreme Court justices were supposed to be above all that and make their decisions based on legal principles and precedents. Or am I being very naive here? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, in my less-than-stellar education and news watching, I've seen some justices go out and chant the GOP/Democratic line.

If you want to simplify my hypothetical situation, let's say there are 8 pro-life and 1 pro-choice justice arguing over the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you mean by these "pro" positions? Obviously they have their private political opinions about all sorts of things, but don't they leave their private politics at the door the moment they step into the court room? If not, are you saying the US Supreme Court is an international joke? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, they tend to support different doctrines of "Judicial interpretation": Originalism (Republicans) and Living Constitution (Democrats)... Thus they can probably say that they do ignore their political opinions, while still voting in accordance with them... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's often rather political and judges are usually appointed based on political expectations of them. See for example Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States#Judicial leanings, Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices. Presidents largely nominate judges based on an expectation that they share the political views of the President and will vote accordingly. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1854 Maps

Can anyone tell me who made these maps Hawaiian Islands,2 Georgian and Society Islands) located in this book? There are some addresses and names. Are they the map makers or printers?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name on the maps is Snyder Black & Sturn, 897 Fulton St. N.Y. about whom I can find precisely nothing. My guess is that they are the engravers. Alansplodge (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Hotter the fire, the stronger the steel?

Trying to find who or how this saying originated and used all the usual suspects of google news, etc. I did manage to find a much earlier term about "the hotter the forge, the stronger the sword". Would love to know if the the "steel" saying can be attributed to someone in particular or if there is any evidence that it is for sure just a folk saying. Thanks in advance!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Castrato in the choir

I was reading the article on Castrato, and this caught my attention:

The Catholic Church's involvement in the castrato phenomenon has long been controversial, and there have recently been calls for it to issue an official apology for its role. As early as 1748, Pope Benedict XIV tried to ban castrati from churches, but such was their popularity at the time that he realised that doing so might result in a drastic decline in church attendance.

Women were banned by the Pauline dictum mulieres in ecclesiis taceant ("let women keep silent in church"; see I Corinthians, ch 14, v 34).

Why were Castrati used in the first place, when the Roman Catholic Church could have used women and girls to sing? Why was singing lumped with preaching and teaching? Why were castrati popular during Pope Benedict XIV's time? What is the correct pronunciation of 'Castrati'? How is the 'i' pronounced - long i sound or short i sound? Similarly, how is 'cacti' pronounced - long i sound or short i sound? Sneazy (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]