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

August 22

Murugan vs The Morrígan

Murugan

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Mythology changes over time; the real question here is whether "Moro-rīganī-s" = "Murugan" (perhaps once Murukan? [1]) . (see netsam) Maybe someone on the Language desk could help? Wnt (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 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) 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) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

Phobia as "irrational fear, horror, aversion" - not really much difference between those three.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)'

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- Karenjc 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Arthur Conan Doyle

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

Executive Platinum, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing good showing up for 80 years, but for 90, plutonium might be an option... MChesterMC (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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"[3] 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[4]. 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)

(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)

Yes, the only ceremonies attending the Accession are some old blokes in fancy dress reading out a "proclamation" at various points around the Empire.[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 [6] also apply? Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

Without having researched if any of this is true, it's not a question of if it's in the Constitution or not.... if it's a statutory bar that is easily enough. Congress still has wide discretion to to define the confines of ambiguous Constitutional provisions. Shadowjams (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the OP AFAICT, never specified they were only interested in constitutional prohibitions. Speaking as a non-US American and non lawyer, I don't see any reason to assume they are only interested in constitutional prohibitions. While it's true it's far easier to modify statutory prohibitions (I presume everyone here knows that) and does not require anyone but the US Congress, and there's also the possibility the prohibitions will be held to violate the constitution (but as people have already said, the constitutional prohibitions are often ambigious anyway and it doesn't sound to me like people are actually suggesting those laws are invalid), ultimately if the current valid law of the land prohibits some people then it prohibits some people. These laws (whether statutory or constiutional) may change so people who are currently forbidden may be allowed and people who are not forbidden may be forbidden in the future, but that's an obvious fact and is largely seperate from what the current law is. While it may seem unlikely certain people will be nominated or confirmed, that is fairly airy-fairy unless perhaps it rises to the level of commonly held constitutional convention (political custom) which AFAIK are a lot less common in the US anyway. It's not like it's even exactly the same people, as I understand it and stated by others above, only the US Senate confirms the Secretary of State whereas you will need both houses (in reality by convention probably a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate) to change the law (and if the law does more than allow the nominee, it seems possible the president will veto it so you will either need an acceptable law or a veto breaking majority). In other words, we can go a lot in to what-ifs, but that doesn't seem to answer the OPs actual question of what the current law is which if you consider statutory prohibitions (which it seems to me you should) may be difficult to answer but still seems a valid question. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding cabinet member qualifications, note of course that John Kennedy appointed Robert Kennedy as United States Attorney General.Hayttom 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please identify Christian denomination with these beliefs:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instructions. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of a Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. . . . . .

It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man's spirit by God's Holy Spirit means the birth of love for others. Missionary effort on the part of all rests thus upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life, and is expressly and repeatedly commanded in the teachings of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ. 140.254.226.197 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your question, Ohio State, is: the Southern Baptist Convention. I just did a Google search on the first paragraph (limited automatically to 32 words by Google) and it took me to several Southern Baptist websites. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

The two earlier cases of opening Hedwig's (Jadwiga's) tomb were in the 17th and 19th centuries (not exhumations really: in the first case, no part of Hedwig's skeleton was removed from the tomb; in the other one – only her skull). From a cursory glance at some online articles, it seems that historical sources did not mention Elizabeth Bonifacia's remains in the context of those earlier openings. Most probably, the baby's cartilaginous skeleton had already decomposed by then. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As an answer to the OP, no, there's no minimum, in fact a surprising number of orders issue from the Supreme Court without any opinion at all. Opinions are the exception. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Shadowjams, but aren't you mostly talking about refusals to hear cases and other clerical issues? μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking mostly about per curiam orders, cert denials, and the occasional short opinion. That's a good point you raise though; I've never watched the SCOTUS docket closely enough to see the bulk of the non-substantial opinions. Shadowjams (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court is supreme, so nobody can tell the supreme judges what to do. Supposing they did uphold a conviction with the words 'just because we want to' there isn't much the appellant can do about it. Options would be congressionally overturn it, persuade the judges to change their minds in a few years, impeach the judges or a constitutional amendment. That has only ever happened four times in the USA.

In real life, that is quite simply never going to happen for a case heard and argued. Judges don't make stupid decisions, politicians do - for example, the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska (funded by Congress then signed by the President) or Illinois' infamous attempt in approx 1850 at setting the value of Pi by law (fortunately, a maths professor was in town and talked enough state Senators round to common sense overnight). The American Bar Association rates supreme judicial nominations on how well qualified they are. (Almost) without exception they make it to 'very well qualified' or excellent. By ironic contrast there are no constitutional qualifications. President and Congress can put anyone they wish on the Supreme Court. For another matter lawyers know they get paid by how much they say and write. The justice industry quite simply has no incentive to keep it concise. If they do, that's less business. --92.25.229.123 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Blimey, I've never heard it before, but it's all over the internet! However, the only Google Books result for that exact phrase is a parenting book published in 2012. Alansplodge (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

DAVIS' ANTHOLOGY OF NEWSPAPER VERSE for 1938. The poem "Whetstone", sent by E. H. Clements to the Boston Post, has these lines. Now can someone find out who E.H. Clements was, and the exact issue of the newspaper! 184.147.116.153 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"The book will also include the 'Poem of Vinland', delivered at Watertown by Mr. E. H. Clements of the Boston Transcript." appears in The Literary World: Volume 20 (1889) page 488.

Sadakichi Hartmann: Critical Modernist : Collected Art Writings edited by Jane Calhoun Weaver says "But I must not forget the veteran art critic Downes, and Hurd, a genuine book reviewer of the old school, both on the Boston Evening Transcript, which was presided over by E. H. Clements, probably the most popular and influential newspaper about town" referring to Boston in the late 1880s. Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Our article on the newspaper mentions Edward Henry Clement, editor-in-chief (1881–1906). Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Booker T. Washington Papers: 1899-1900 by Booker T. Washington gives Clements' dates as 1843 - 1920. Apparently he campaigned for black civil rights. Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, especially Alansplodge, I think this solves it. Thou this isn't a definite that poem would most likely be the first published. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost enough for an article - some biographical details in The Correspondence of W. E. B. Du Bois: Selections, 1877-1934, by William Edward Burghardt Du Bois; "he was also a playwright and poet". Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And this is what he looked like. Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Although the castrato sings in the same range as some female choir members (Counter-Tenor and Alto, respectively), they are by no means interchangeable. It may be likened to a large brass instrument that resonates throughout a church, yet has the delicately floating (leggiero) sound of a flute. The castrato is an entirely different "instrument." I am not condoning the practice. It is definitely a horrendous means to create a thing of beauty. As to your second question, singing has been associated with Christian preaching and teaching (or praise) for a very long time; Psalms is the biggest book of The Bible. Also, when under persecution, The Apostle Paul and his comrades sang through the night (Acts 16:25). Finally, perhaps it was so popular in that particular time period because music was itself at a crossroads; music historians say The Baroque Period lasted from 1600-1760, yet The Classical Period lasted from 1730-1820. Mozart himself was born in the next-to-last year of Benedict XIV's reign, whereas J. S. Bach died only 6 years earlier, during the same Pope's lifetime. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 04:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

On the pronunciation: Castrati is usually pronounced "kah-STRAHT-ee", approximating the Italian pronunciation. The most frequent pronunciation of cacti is "kak-ty" (the last vowel like that in "my"), but "kak-tee" is an acceptable alternative pronunciation. (Information from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.) Deor (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The treble or boy soprano voice has traditionally been used to sing the melody or descant in church music, however just a boy's voice gets towards producing any power, and the owner learns the skills necessary to use it, it's gone for ever. I suspect that castration would have originally been a way of keeping the best trebles after puberty, but it was then found that castrati had qualities of their own, as Schyler says. Note that castrati were only used in churches in Italy; elsewhere they were viewed with some disgust (I'm struggling to find a reference for that). Women were allowed to sing in religious communities, and Antonio Vivaldi famously wrote music for a girls orphanage, which was within a convent. Some information in Historical Dictionary of Opera By Scott L. Balthazar. Note that a girl's voice was widely believed to be inferior to a boy's, a myth that wasn't disproved until the late 20th century. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide some context for that last sentence? Matt Deres (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Anglican choral tradition (which is distinct from, but has its roots in the Catholic tradition) it was men and boys only in English cathedrals until 1991 when Salisbury Cathedral founded a girls' choir. This article says;boys and girls sound quite different, says Flood (the choirmaster). 'A boy's voice in the year or so before it breaks has a particularly magical quality,' he explains. 'It is more powerful than a girl's.' Female voices do not reach their peak until much later, according to Flood."

This article says; "And yet, surprisingly perhaps, research has cast doubt on listeners' ability to tell boy and girl singers apart. A number of studies have been done in the 15 years since girls' cathedral choirs began, with varying results. The most thorough and up-to-date is from Professor David M Howard of York University. He recorded 20 snippets of the boys' and girls' choirs of Wells Cathedral performing with adult accompaniment. 'So long as they are singing the same material with the same acoustics and have had the same training, people simply can't tell the difference,' he says. 'It does depend upon the material though. If they are singing something that includes the notes from the C above middle C to the F above that, those can give the game away.'" Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I stand corrected on castrati not being employed in churches outside Italy; "The church castrati survived much longer, in the Catholic electorates, principalities and kingdoms in Germany; and, in the country of their origin, Italy." [7] Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Totalitarianism and authoritarianism

Is there a real difference between these two terms? It seems to me that "totalitarianism" is a very specific phenomenon, like capitalism or socialism, while "authoritarianism" is a reference to the amount of control a government wields. — Melab±1 ☎ 05:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the articles "Authoritarianism" and "Totalitarianism"? Gabbe (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think that totalitarian usually refers to the type of government that exhibits total control over the state whereas authoritarian usually refers to the type of personality that exhibits bossiness over other people. An authoritarian government is one that has the people in unquestionable servitude of the government. Basically, you can think of authoritarianism and totalitarianism as describing the same thing but on two different sides. For totalitarianism, it is describing the government side. For authoritarianism, it is describing the people's side. Sneazy (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote a famous essay on this, "Dictatorships and Double Standards" see our article Kirkpatrick Doctrine. Basically, authoritarians are concerned with maintaining power, and may be pragmatic, (e.g., Qaddafi, Francisco Franco) while totalitarians are concerned with an ideology (Nazism, communism) which they will enforce even to their own and their country's ruin (Hitler, Pol Pot). μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it shouldn't be attributed to her, since she was just popularizing a distinction often made in the technical literature, and of course she framed it to fit American interests. Franco was well, authoritarian, though the 27 point doctrine of the Falange, and many other writings of the period, explicitly defined the Spain he wished to create as 'totalitarian'. One could just as well call such ccases like Span 1938-46 'inept totalitarianism' as much as 'authoritarianism' :) Totalitarian powers subordinate every imaginable thing to a state interest, 'inept totalitarianisms' are just bungled versions, based on backward bureaucracies and the like, which never quite manage to permeate every corner of the ramshackle states they inhabit. Which means, totalitarianism have a developmental state drive that classic 'authoritarian' states lack, being conservative rather than revolutionary.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither Cuba, nor Spain, nor Russia, nor Germany, was ramshackle before their statist regimes of the left or right took power, although they were corrupt or in crisis, or both. Kirkpatrick gives a definition and makes an argument. As an historical accident, after the destruction of Nazism, the expansive totalitarian states were mostly on the left. I don't think that was at all relevant to Kirkpatrick, who'd have preferred an alliance with leftist welfare states to rightist totalitarian ones (Japan, Germany) given the chance. Even then, the insistence on distinguishing left from right (National Socialist) is pretty pointless in such a context. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the distinguishing between left and right totalitarian ideologies isn't pointless when you consider what each instance is about. The one thing they certainly have in common is subordinating some group of people to a master goal and then implementing total control to bring each person into line with said goal. Beyond that, it differs. Fascism is hierarchical and communism is egalitarian. Fascism [tries to] unite everyone and communism makes everyone into a worker. In Japan, everyone was to submit to Hirohito (supposedly it was really the military calling the shots). In Soviet Russia, everyone had to work together for themselves. Who is to blame for totalitarianism? Well, I've heard both Rousseau (though I don't understand why) and Hegel. — Melab±1 ☎ 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am democratic, you are authoritarian, she is a totalitarian. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What? — Melab±1 ☎ 23:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a standard form of English expression used to indicate that the words used is a matter of bias or politeness, rather than differentiating fundamental differences. Each of the people mentioned is actually exactly the same. "I am eccentric, you're weird, he's a loon." (We are all actually insane.) "I am bohemian, you're dirty, he is filthy." (We all actually need a bath.) In this expression: I represent myself as the best, you are kind of iffy, and a third person not part of this conversation is reviled. I'm using the expression to indicate that the words are meaninglessly decontextualised with no theoretical value. This is one common interpretation amongst scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't that Twain? μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Irregular Emotions according to Bertie according to here. If we don't we should probably have an article. But of course we do Emotive conjugation Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See the episode of Yes Prime Minister called "The Bishop's Gambit", about 28 mins in. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Contextualizing quotations placed above poems

Not uncommonly when a poem is written on a narrow but fairly unfamiliar topic (such as a minor current or historical event), the poet places above the poem a short quotation, typically from a newspaper report, to provide the reader with some context. Is there a term of art for this practice? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Epigraph (literature)? Deor (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm… I hadn't thought of that. I suppose this is a particular type of epigraph. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

discrepenacy

Theres a discrepency between the rank of Wiki Commons used on this page (156), to the one on the list page where Fox News is ranked at 156. Why is that? Pass a Method talk 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This website may shed some light. It looks like Wikimedia is really a multilingual corporation. FoxNews, on the other hand, is an American-based company. Sneazy (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

They use different time periods. The mouseover on '?' at your first link says "The rank is calculated using a combination of average daily visitors to this site and pageviews on this site over the past 3 months." For your second link it says "The sites in the top sites lists are ordered by their 1 month alexa traffic rank. The 1 month rank is calculated using a combination of average daily visitors and pageviews over the past month." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

How many Bitcoins have been permanently destroyed/lost?

How many Bitcoins have been permanently destroyed or lost? Also, is there a point at which the avg number of bitcoins being created will be overtaken by the average number of bitcoins lost per rate of time? If so, when is that point likely to be? 216.114.215.239 (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For readers who (like me) have no idea what this is about - see Bitcoin. I'm not much wiser after reading it. Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. "Blog" took a minute to comprehend. "Facebook" about a day. "Too big to fail" a week or so. "Bitcoin" is six months and counting. Is the singularity near? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoins represent an attempt by a group of programmers to create a new kind of currency, a virtual currency that is supposed to be completely invulnerable to manipulation, and therefore totally reliable. Each "coin" is associated with a very large number, which is assigned and transferred using crytographic techniques. The goal was to create the most stable currency in history -- like gold on steroids. The actual result so far has been to create one of the least stable currencies in history. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Add to it that nobody really know what's going on with it: scams, illegal business, terrorism? Who can guarantee me that they are not going on? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I can guarantee that Bitcoin is being used for illegal business: the Silk Road drug marketplace deals exclusively in Bitcoin. --Carnildo (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find any source with an answer. There is no way of knowing if a bitcoin wallet has been permanently lost unless you're told by the person who owned it, and there's no reason for most people to report the loss of their wallet. Jessica Ryan (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There'd be no way of telling if a bitcoin wallet was lost, per se (unless the owner reports it), but does anyone keep track of the number of inactive wallets (untouched for many months), which would give the OP some indication? (By the way, you might get a better answer to this question on the Computers and IT reference desk, rather than here). 203.45.95.236 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr Marten boots history

Why isn't there anything mentioned on the Wikipedia page about the History of Dr Martens boots, saying the very first boots were made for disabled kids to give them good ankle support ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanna6573 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've heard this story claimed to be true before, but then I've heard all kinds of false things claimed to be true too. The reason Wikipedia doesn't repeat this claim is because there isn't a reliable source which confirms it. Do you know of one? If not, you should probably believe the reliable sources about the footwear which Wikipedia does cite, not some urban legend. 146.90.107.75 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Dr Martens website says; "Munich-based Dr Maertens and his university friend Dr Funck were also different. Inventors, mavericks, free-thinkers, ditto. In response to a foot injury on a ski-ing trip, they'd invented an air-cushioned sole...". And they should know, if anybody does. They missed a bit of a trick by not calling them "Dr Funck Boots" - how cool would that have been? Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

August 26

Germany selling weapons to Israel

Does Germany have any obligation or special deal to provide weapons to Israel or is it just business as usual? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This Huffington Post article, "Germany's Arms Sales and the Middle East" states "Germany's Nazi past led it to self-impose restrictions on international arms sales, the purpose of which was to avoid the transfer of weapons into the hands of governments in conflict zones or those that disrespected human rights." It then goes on to say it changed its policy and began making large sales to Saudi Arabia, with Israel's approval. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Germany is the third largest arms exporter, see Arms industry#World's largest arms exporters. 193.197.171.98 (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I expect Israel gets most of its arms imports from the US. This article supports that, stating, "Israel is so devoted to U.S. military hardware that it has the world's largest fleet of F-16s outside the U.S." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

France has historically been a source too - the Isreali IAI Kfir fighter-bomber is a licence-built version of the Dassault Mirage 5. I don't think the UK has supplied any major systems since the Centurion tank. I can't think of anything that the Germans might have sold them. Alansplodge (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The dreaded panzerkampfcuckooclocken mit der laser kannone? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Very interesting - but stupid!" (You'll get the reference if you're over 50). Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Germany is and has been providing arms to Israel. Contracts or 'deals' usually imply an obligation. 193.197.171.98 (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the Germans are selling second-hand submarines to Israel.[8] Sorry, that escaped my notice on a previous Google search. Alansplodge (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you put Germany as a supplier and Israel as a reciepent in this website http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php it will produce a list of all exports since 1950, it includes aircraft, helicopters, submarines, tanks, missiles and vehicles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Chicken theft

Are there any Dutch old master depictions of soldiers (or others) in pursuit of (or making off with) chickens? I had thought Bruegel's Proverbs might include In war, chickens are always the first casualties - but not so. Any other suggestions? Thanks, --catslash (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Rembrandt's The Night Watch features a dead chicken (though no one's pursuing it) and our article has a lot to say about its symbolism. It might also be worth looking through paintings by David Teniers the Younger. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Night Watch has the required military and poultry elements, and so is a pretty good answer even if it is somewhat lacking in the spirit of pillage, plunder or looting. So thank you. Thank you also for drawing my attention to David Teniers. --catslash (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad it helped even if not right on the money :) 184.147.119.141 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Pederasty as opposed to pedophilia

Are there any federal or state laws prohibiting the distribution of written child pornography, specifically stories about pederasty and pedophilia? In Canada and Australia, the distribution of written child pornography, or stories about children having sex with one another, is against the Criminal Code of Canada. People are given one year or more sentences in prison for distributing any written materials on child pornography describing children under the age of 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloiseabelard (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In 1993, Kim Campbell was the Minister of Justice in the Conservative Party elected Canadian government. She passed child pornography laws relating to both possession and distribution of child pornography images and photographs. Amendment number two added, "and any written materials". By the simple stroke of a pen, without any public debate, written child pornography became a federal crime in Canada. The United States does not have a law forbidding written child pornography and/or pederasty, for this would be a direct violation of the First Amendment under the Constitution of the United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloiseabelard (talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems you answered your own question. Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What's your source for the claim that this is protected by the first amendment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In a 1982 case the Supreme Court found there was not a blanket 1st Amendment protection of child pornography, but in 2002 it found broad prohibitions of seeming child pornography (like computer generated images John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition) could not be banned wholesale. See here. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's got to do with imagery. What did they have to say about writing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See Phillip Greaves (covered under Amazon.com after some folks on Wikipedia forbade development of an article, but here's an old version) Wnt (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Layout terminology: A photograph displaying an atmosphere (Atmosphere (architecture and spatial design)) or a synoptic view

In an exhibition catalogue, images of single art works are displayed. Some images however show a larger area of the exhibition space, maybe comprising spectators. This is sometimes termed "atmo" in analogy to Ambience (sound recording).

Is there another specific term for this kind of creative element? Thanks, 193.197.171.98 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

BigMac index for the Czech Republic and Hungary

Could you please help provide me the BigMac Index for the Cuech Republic and Hungary as well? Could you please tell me how much time is needed to gather enough money for a BigMac in the two above entioned countries? Thank you for your help in advance. --Ksanyi (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Big Mac index for Hungary: Price: $3.76 (Forint 860.00); Adjusted index: overvalued by 20.2%; Actual exchange rate: 228.46. Czech Republic: Price: $3.49 (Koruna 70.45); Raw index: undervalued by 23.4%; Actual exchange rate: 20.18; Implied exchange rate*: 15.46 (http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index). 193.197.171.98 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Big Mac Index, fyi. In 2009 (see page 11), it was 38 minutes for Prague-dwellers and 59 minutes for Budapest-dwellers. For 2013, I can only find the basic cost of a burger, not the times to earn. Here it is, with Hungary at 860 Forint and Czech Republic at 70.45 Koruna. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Measuring the availability of credit

When I hear the term credit crunch used, such as during the global financial crisis, it raises an interesting question in my mind: Are there any standardized indicators or indices to measure the availability of credit (as opposed to the cost)? When it comes to the "cost" side of credit, there are rates such as Libor and its' overseas counterparts. What measures would an economist use to rate the variation in the "availability" side of things? Are there any standardized formulas or scales? (I imagine one indicator might be "percentage of loan / credit card applications approved", but are there others, such as in the non-bank finance sector?). Also, is there any site where I can find such data? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The two main measures would be change in the money supply and levels of bank lending. The first shows the availability of funds, the second the ability of lender and borrower to come to an agreement on the risk / reward trade-off. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Trying to validate a quote

Anybody have a copy of or have access to a book by Bernice Rose called "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published in 1987 by the Museum of Modern Art? Links for purpose of identifying the book:[9], [10].

The reason I ask is because I would like to validate a quote supposedly from that book. I encountered the quote at this web site. The quote is:

"Copying from another’s artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such 'unartistic' models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

Thanks for any help anyone can offer in this. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I only have access to the German translation of that book, so I could only check content wise (and that just if the translation is fine). 193.197.171.98 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted this question here as well, and page 17 seems to be approximately where it would be found. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

193.197.171.98—can you tell me if the last sentence—"In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time", is essentially the same in German? I'm especially interested in determining that the source confirms in essence that he challenged the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time, as that is what I wish to assert in an article. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OP, you could also ask at WP:REX. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JackofOz, I should have used WP:REX, and I still may, though I hesitate to start too many threads, as I have already started two threads concerning this question. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz—thanks for the suggestion. I have inquired here too. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

From the German translation: Werke anderer Künstler zu kopieren war im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert bereits seit geraumer Zeit aus der Mode gekommen; die Avantgarde hatte sich zunehmend der Originalität der Erfindung verschrieben. Als Lichtenstein sich dem altmodischen Kopieren (und zwar derart "unkünstlerischer" Vorlagen) zuwandte, tat er es auf charakteristische Weise: er kopierte so offensichtlich, dass es jeder merkte. Im Grunde hatte er damit den Fehdehandschuh geworfen, da er den damals herrschenden Originalitätsbegriff in Frage stellte. (p. 15) – This is a pretty fair translation of what you have given. Specifically, it is indeed stated that he questioned the then prevailing notion of originality. (Mind that in the quote given by you, it should be "score" instead of "store", and shouldn't it also be "another artist's" instead of "another's artist's"? 193.197.171.98 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi 193.197.171.98—thank you for the German translation and thank you for confirming its approximate equivalency to the English. As concerns certain wording you are right that "another’s" is incorrect. It should read "another". But as concerns "store", that is the correct word. Another editor, in this thread has managed to find this source. It shows that the phrase used is "set store by". I think that may be a somewhat idiomatic phrase. This dictionary defines it as "to value or reckon as important." Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the meaning of "to set store"! 193.197.171.98 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Top 10 industries

What are the top 10 biggest industries in the world?

I mean like, petroleum industry, arms industry, entertainment industry, etc...

--YB ^✍ 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Define "biggest". I would think food production is the biggest, simply because it's the most essential to survival. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The biggest in term of income.--YB ^✍ 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation, turn-over, profit, wages disbursed per year, mass volume of physically embodied use-values, hour volume of service use-values? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You can get started at Outline of industry. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you but these articles don't talk about the world ranking of their respective industry.--YB ^✍ 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently these are difficult figures to find, because so much depends on how you classify companies into industries and how you can count - or estimate - "underground" market activity. For example, our article Petroleum industry claims (uncited) that "The production, distribution, refining, and retailing of petroleum taken as a whole represents the world's largest industry in terms of dollar value." On the other hand, Forbes claims the biggest is the food industry. And this list by CNN in 2009 puts communications equipment at the top, with petroleum at 7th and food at 14th - but it clearly has broken up the petroleum industry into more categories than our article did. You're going to find different lists depending on how people did the counting. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of religion in the United Kingdom

I was reading an article on Freedom of religion in the United Kingdom. I am still not entirely sure how freedom of religion operates in the U.K., since the U.K. is known to have various state churches and state-funded religious schools. Does the state church in any way limit the propagation of minority faiths? In the United States, I have spoken with a person (now atheist) who was raised Presbyterian but was allowed to enter a Catholic high school, because he perceived that the high school had excellent academics. Is this type of situation allowed in the U.K. or do the U.K. schools require a background check of the religious affiliation of the applicant, making sure that the applicant is by faith affiliated with one of the state churches? 140.254.170.40 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In Britain they have public schools, then the other schools are free to discriminate if they want however they must fill up otherwise the remainder free places - this is requested by law - are then to be kept open to all. This is what it says if you look into the article Education in the United Kingdom and select the link related. A really funny good idea, although the U.K., they are also a small country. So does the state church limit the propagation of minority faiths ? Do they encourage it ? Your question may be considered ambiguous if they are to indoctrinate people of minority faiths or otherwise encourage them to proselytism inside their own ranks ? --AhnguoverT'day (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In Britain, anybody can believe anything and call themselves whatever they like. The national Census has asked for self-description of religious belief for some time, and this has led to people describing themselves as Jedi Knights, or even Aesthetic Hedonists. Our article Religion in the United Kingdom is quite informative. As to the question of background checks, this varies between schools. Some C of E schools allow adherents of other religions to attend because of their desire for a non-secular education. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "State Church" (Church of England) has open admission to most of its Primary schools (4 to 11 years). In many areas, the local state-funded Primary school bears the "Church of England" label in its name for historical reasons (the church often owns the building), but has little more connection with the "State Church" than secular schools (though the church will have some input through the Governing Body). Church of England Secondary schools (11 to 16) in the UK often have a policy of requiring evidence of religious commitment where there is competition for places, but they often admit pupils from other denominations (both Protestant and Catholic) and also from other faiths (Muslims, Sikhs etc.) The policy of the Church of England is to encourage tolerance and understanding between denominations and faiths. Almost all church schools in the UK are state funded for the education of pupils, but those that bear the words "Voluntary Aided" in their title contribute towards building costs. Sixth Forms (16 to 18) usually have open admission with no check on religion. See the article on Faith schools for more information. Dbfirs 21:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See also Faith schools turning away from religious selection highlighted. Alansplodge (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The only lack of religious freedom there seems to be (and it is disappearing) is for the members of the CoE themselves. Until recently, the Church's members were highly regulated by the state. For example, the Church could appoint you a female vicar, or forbid your sovereign from marrying a Catholic. The CoE isn't even actually subsidized by the state any more, just "legitimized". It seems that since Catholics were emancipated in Britain in the 19th Century, the least free religious believers have been the holdouts for the Anglican Church. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, bishops in the Church of England are appointed by the Prime Minister (who might not be an Anglican or even a Christian), although in the real world, the PM can't actually block the appointment - Mrs Thatcher tried and failed to stop David Jenkins becoming Bishop of Durham. Alansplodge (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Re education, just to clarify that public schools are irrelevant to this discussion. Like all other fee-paying schools outside the state system, they set their own admission criteria. State schools have recently gained more control over their admissions if they have converted to academy status. "Faith schools" tend to give preference to applicants with an appropriate religious affiliation for the majority of their intake, although they are usually obliged to retain a small quota for selection by other criteria and to place certain special circumstances (such as being in local authority care) ahead of the religious requirements. Popular faith schools certainly do check religious credentials and there is plenty of evidence of parents trying to game the system in order to get their children into such schools (see here, for example). Lastly, bear in mind that you can't generalise about education in the UK as a whole, because the systems are very different in the four constituent countries. Most of what has been written in this thread is applicable to England but not necessarily elsewhere, particularly Scotland, which has a very different system indeed. - Karenjc 09:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my comments above were about schools in England. See Scottish Episcopal Church and Church of Scotland for established churches in Scotland, and Church in Wales for the Welsh equivalent. In Northern Ireland (as in Liverpool and some other areas of England), the Catholic Church has more schools than the Anglican Church (see Roman Catholicism in Ireland, Church of Ireland and Education in Northern Ireland). Selection on faith grounds by Faith Schools in England is rare outside the 11 to 16 age range. Admissions panels are often wise to the tricks of parents who try to cheat the system, though some probably succeed in their subterfuge. Dbfirs 20:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In England, "Around 34 per cent of maintained schools in England are schools with a religious character... Around 68 per cent of maintained faith schools have a Church of England religious character and 30 per cent have a Roman Catholic religious character. The first minority faith schools to open in the state sector were Jewish. The first Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh state schools have all opened since 1998, and the first non-Christian faith academy (a Sikh school in Hillingdon) opened earlier this year." Department of Education - Voluntary and faith schools Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It might help our US readers to clarify that the term "Public School" has different (opposite) meanings in the UK and the US.

UK "Public School" = US "Private School".

UK "State School" = US "Public School".

Just so everyone is in sync with the terms being tossed around. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Communism and nationalism

Hi,
I thought that according the communist ideology all men are totally equal, therefore national is irrelevant.
Then I remembered that during the cold war there were many Communist countries.
My question is why haven't they all unified to the Soviet Union like Russia and Kazakhstan etc...Exx8 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Partly UN votes, partly independent communist parties (Yugoslavian and Chinese to begin with), partly the Poles were untrustworthy (there was a debate inside the Polish and Soviet parties about Poland becoming an SSR at the end of WWII), partly because the Eastern European Countries had to have their right wing and social democratic parties eliminated, and their peasants parties destroyed (Salami tactics). Real-politik. Also the suggestion that the Soviet Union was communist is extremely controversial amongst scholars, (State capitalism, degenerated workers state, new class, etc.) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

China and Russia didn't much care for each other during the Cold War. They basically didn't think the other was the right kind of communist. Mingmingla (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because communism was a minority ideology which was given as the justification to millennia-old cultures for them to accept their domination by the Russians or Chinese. Whatever a Slovak thought of socialism, there was no need for him to submit himself to the pretensions of a Russo-Leninist rump. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Few, if any, leaders actually seemed to believe in the tenets of communism. Instead they used it to fool the masses into thinking they were something other than the dictators they truly were. I suggest you read Animal Farm for a detailed explanation of the mechanics. StuRat (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

George Orwell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. Should we quote the punch line of the book, or should we let the OP read that for himself? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

While all Wikipedia Ref Desk questions are equally good, some are more equal than others. :-) StuRat (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest Soviet leaders were fooling themselves as much as they were (or as a means of) trying to fool the people. Anecdotally (perhaps apocryphally), the beginning of Khrushchev's downfall was a speech he gave to the Politburo in late 1963 or early 1964, which he began with the line, "Comrades, I have excellent news! In less than two decades, the Soviet Union will be living according to true communism!" ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. In his book, The Way of the Weasel, Scott Adams said that the ones we are most weaselly with are ourselves. I would say that especially applies to "leaders". Before they can sell the lie, they have to believe the lie as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Few, if any, leaders actually seemed to believe in the tenets of communism."!!! Kolakowski's chief criticism of Trotsky is his lack of self-reflective awareness that his Marxism wasn't; and the same with Stalin. Kolakowski's criticism, a strong and well put variant on the substitutionalist criticism of Lenin that we had seen put since 1905 holds that all of these men believed in a kind of scientistic teleology of being; that state ownership was "sufficient" for "socialism"; and that the actions of the party, as necessarily correct, were the only ones that could produce either "socialism" or a further moment of teleology. As detestable as this is, this was their actual and genuine belief. The formation of two lines in the political committee of the USSR over Hungary 1956 shows this, and I believe it to be in Granville's work for the CWIHP at Wilson, is that white some reformists like Mikoyan lined up behind the actual workers councils, that the majority line backed oh so strongly by the soon to be "anti-party bloc" genuinely believed that armed workers councils leading the party and the state by the nose towards further socialisation was "fascism." Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Who says they were mistaken? "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". — Melab±1 ☎ 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In the post-1989 world, or even in the pre-1989 world amongst people who read Marx, it was commonly agreed that Marx recognised the self-comprehending proletariat as the subject of history. Even Bakunin in his attack on Marx on this point recognised, while abhoring, it. Even Kolakowski above is finely aware of this, while believing Marx's views were vacilating and utopian. Any power differential would break down the claim of a communist society; and the substitution of a party for the class would break down the claim to being socialist. "Who says they were mistaken?" their own ideology. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And "power differentials" would soon build up again. But, besides that, a revolution would need leaders or such, and that's wherevthe problem lies. It's best to leave everyone to themselves. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's some truly hot speculation, but it is a long way from representing a singular academic consensus. In particular, you'd need a theory for why power differentials build up for anyone to be interested in your opinion. 19th century reactionary fatalism has been discredited for some time, and claims about eternal human nature seem to have been thoroughly rejected over the 20th century. Let me suggest the powerful connection between the level of social productivity, the form of ownership and economic control relationships in a society, and the foundations of fundamental differences in power in any society. Some German wrote a fair bit on this in the 1860s. A fair number of people have applied his theories specifically to the soviet-style societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

...to get back to the original question: The Soviet Union was certainly modeled to become a federation of socialists republics well beyond the boundaries of the old Russian empire. At the time of Comintern communist parties used slogans such as 'Soviet Germany', 'Soviet America', etc.. It was (probably) never explicitly stated, but the implicit notion was that once Soviet republics were established they would join the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mongolia did however remain outside of the Soviet Union, but it was not considered to have a full-fledged communist party at its helm. However, the Second World War dramatically changed Soviet policy: Comintern was unilaterally closed down, communist parties were encouraged to seek broad alliances against fascism, the discourse of communist parties was increasingly adapted to national or regional contexts, domestically inside the Soviet Union more emphasis on Russian/Slavic national identity was used in the war discourse. Notably, the new approach was much more in line with popular opinions and became cemented in the practice of the World Communist Movement. There were discussions on forming a federation (parallel to the USSR) of the Eastern European states (which, according to Stalin, should have included Greece) after the Second World War, but in the end the Soviets decided not to back it. --Soman (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Istvan Bibo proposed a "Central European Commonwealth" on socialist lines in 1956, from a teletype, in a parliament house being attacked by Soviet Tanks. This was to be a federal arrangement amongst Hungary and Poland (at a minimum) that was to respect cultural self expression including national self-expression while maintaining and further developing workers councils. The Soviet Union was fairly opposed to this idea, but it seems more on the "workers councils" being abhorrent than the threat of a Polish-Hungarian trade union. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

August 27

Konrad Knoll, German Sculptor, Statue of Sappho

The only information I can find about Konrad Knoll's sculpture of Sappho is found on Wikipedia, stating that a model was made and then later was sculpted in marble for King Ludwig II. Is there any more information out there about this piece, perhaps a picture of it? Do we know where King Ludwig displayed it? Do we know where it is now? Thank you for any insight you can provide.68.5.2.141 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Deutsches Museum, Volume 9, edited by Robert Eduard Prutz, Wilhelm Wolfsohn, Karl Wilhelm Theodor Frenzel has some information in German, and in proper Gothic script too! Sorry, I can't help with the translation. Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a great deal there, I'm afraid. While showing a highly expressive head, Konrad Knoll's "Sappho" suffers from a laboured plethora of forms:. Nothing else "about" the statue except for that opinion from a letter written in 1858 (yet "Sappho" was first modeled in 1860 according to our article on Konrad Knoll).

Another snippet from Volume 8 of Deutsches Kunstblatt Stuttgart: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, Baukunst und Kunsthandwerk: Organ der deutschen Kunstvereine, Ebner u. Seubert, 1857 (!), has [...] and a statuette depicting Sappho, lost in some poetic thought or perhaps pondering over the last deed of her life, by Konrad Knoll. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The ADB biography of Konrad Knoll [11] describes the pose "just about jumping off the Leucadian cliffs". These two [12], [13] agree that the statue was brought to Hohenschwangau in 1869. It was marble and half life-sized. Comparing File:Johann Philipp Palm-Denkmal von Konrad Knoll in Braunau am Inn.jpg, could it perhaps be this statue? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do drama series have often have different writers and directors for each episode of a season?

The obvious answer is to save time and money, but that can't be the case, given writing isn't on a strict timeline, and the direct works the exact same hors as the cast (plus more). Is this a kind of nepotism? Any clues? This is not easy to search given the lack of focused search terms. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Workload and time constraints basically. Also, the director works a lot more than any individual cast member. This makes sense given that sitcoms (whose production is simpler) generally have just one director. Writers are still subject to deadlines and having more of them increases diversity. I doubt there is any nepotism going on - it's a competitive industry so the creator of any series would want the best people working there. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did all the Spaniards go?

Ciudad Real Central Airport

I recently saw an episode of Top Gear where the presenters went to Spain in some high priced cars. While there, they commented about the Spanish economy and the global financial crisis and such. During the trip, they found a large airport that was deserted and they took the opportunity to play around on the runways with the cars. After that, they went closer to Madrid (I was led to believe that they were in the outskirts of Madrid) where they found blocks and blocks of empty homes. There was nobody there with the exception of a bum that happened to be sitting on a bench. In addition to that, there were apartment buildings that they were driving by with weeds growing through the sidewalks. They seemed completely vacant.

I watch the show regularly, so I'm aware that some of the stunts and such are set up before hand and what not but this housing area actually seemed deserted. It was like something out of a plague or zombie movie. So, my question is where did everyone go? Would this have just been a block or two of homes and a single apartment building and the editing just made it seem more widespread? I would have thought that at least some people would have been able to keep their homes or at least keep an apartment. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• This happens when financial bubbles burst. Interest rates are low and the money supply is high when economies are inflated due to the actions of central banks causing 'quantitative easing' or the like. Any fool can borrow money, and does, to build his dream whatever. When the bubble bursts, it turns out the investments like the airport don't even make enough money to maintain their own maintenance costs, let alone return a profit. They are abandoned. When this happened to Rome, the Dark Ages followed. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We have an article Spanish property bubble... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

...and more generally on 2008–13 Spanish financial crisis. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The airport is Ciudad Real Central Airport; "In April 2012, the airport was closed after just three years in operation, its management company having gone into receivership. It had not received scheduled flights since December 2011". Alansplodge (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't you think they could find something to do with those houses rather than just let them decay ? Give them to homeless people, who never would be able to afford homes anyway, so it won't affect the market. Some of them might let the houses decay, and others might keep them up. That's better than having 100% decay.

As for the airport, let's see, you could use the runways for model airplanes, Kart racing, etc. And the terminals could be used for school classrooms, just put up some dividing walls. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That would affect the market if these homeless people start subletting these properties. Besides that, even if a property is empty, you still can use it as collateral to get a credit, so, you are not totally at loss here. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The same thing (pretty much) happened here in Ireland. There are an estimated 300,000 new homes lying empty in so-called Ghost estates. That article seems to make a reasonable stab at explaining how such a situation came about - I imagine the essentials would apply to Spain as well. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a case of "where did all the Spaniards go." Contrary to Detroit, for example, where the population indeed emigrated away, Spain and Ireland seem to have more or less the same population as before the crisis. They simply built too much housing and now they are empty. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with giving away abandoned assets like houses is that the new owners have no investment, so they have little incentive to improve the residence or maintain it. My German-shepherd mix had beautiful puppies when I was a grade-schooler. My father said we would give them away. But he placed an ad advertising them for $50 each. I asked him why. He said people who seriously wanted the responsibility of raising a dog would pay he $50. People who would take them for free and abandon them the next week wouldn't spend the nominal sum. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, SOME people might very well not maintain the homes. But compare this to the current situation where NONE of the abandoned homes are being maintained. And, assuming they won't be offered a free home again anytime soon, some people will choose to do at least basic maintenance, like replacing broken windows. Comparing with dogs, presumably some people who get free pets take good care of them. (All my pets were strays, and I took good care of them.) StuRat (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Spain is about to set off to 'grow' its economy by launching an unprecedented counter-homebuilding campaign, one in which the housing excesses of the last 'growth' campaign will be literally demolished. And thanks to the magic of modern Keynesian math, both construction and destruction will result in growth for Spain." [14] Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't to search too long to see many places where building work has been abandoned in Spain. Google Maps shows many, many places with streets laid out with either buildings abandoned during construction or no buildings at all. Astronaut (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

who said "never stop wondering. never stop wandering."?

hey, i just found that nice quote and did not find an author. does anybody have any idea who has said that, perhaps with reference? thanks, --87.169.97.82 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase gets a large number of Google hits, but as far as I can tell it's not ascribed to anyone in particular. It sounds like one of those "inspirational" quotes you get on internet macros, and as such it's impossible to tell who first thought of it. --Viennese Waltz 11:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a song called "I Wonder as I Wander", which was apparently an oral tradition before it was written down 80 years ago. It's a pretty obvious play on words to make up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

High Middle Ages contracts

Were there written contracts between businessmen for large items like grain supplies, building projects, and ship construction during the High Middle Ages? Or was all "agreements" done verbally? If written, what type of pen did they use for writing? Do we have a picture of the type of pens used then (if they used pens in England then)?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hildegard von Bingen with pen stylus

To your last question, here's an 1151 image from the Scivias showing Hildegard of Bingen with a pen. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Our article History of English contract law may offer some avenues of investigation; it begins thusly:

The history of English contract law traces back to its roots in civil law, the lex mercatoria and the industrial revolution. Modern English contract law is composed primarily of case law decided by the English courts following the Judicature Acts and supplemented by statutory reform. However, a significant number of legal principles were inherited from recording decisions reaching back to the aftermath of the Norman Invasion.

☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what sort of pen Hildegard is using, but I suspect that she is using a stylus, which our article says was "widely used until the late Middle Ages" in Western Europe. For writing on vellum or later on, paper, a pen would be cut from a quill, usually a goose's wing feather, or a reed. You can see a medieval picture of Saint Peter writing with a quill or reed here - note that the "barbs" (feathery bits) were often stripped off the quill to make it easier to manage. The knife was used to sharpen the quill, to mark out lines and margins on the page and to scratch-out (on vellum) any mistakes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for correcting. My bad - it was the only writing image I found from the time period and I assumed it was a pen. Thanks. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything that you wanted to know about medieval writing in England can be found at Medieval Writing: History, heritage and data source. Although it doesn't go into great detail about contracts in particular, it does say; "Forms of Manuscripts - Most manuscripts from the medieval period survive in one of three basic forms; the single sheet, the codex or the roll. The three forms tend to form different, although overlapping, functions. Single sheets were used for many kinds of legal documents, such as charters, indentures or deeds. They were also used for personal letters." It also discusses literacy levels and says that early legal documents were a way of recording a verbal agreement, usually written by a professional scribes or scriveners, who were often priests. It's hard to imagine anybody going to that sort of trouble over a minor contract. I can't link to individual pages, so you'll have to read it yourself. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I find that "The quill fueled most written communication from the 6th to the 19th century. Quills were made of hollow bird feathers, most commonly goose feathers, though feathers from swans, crows, eagles and other types of birds were also used. To make marks on paper, quills were dipped into ink."[15] (Click on the thing concerning pencils.) Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• From memory to written record : England 1066-1307 (by Michael Clanchy) is a very good survey of how this sort of thing worked in the late medieval period. It looks dry, but definitely rewards reading. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that there are thousands and thousands of surviving legal documents like this from all throughout the medieval world, and who knows how many countless more haven't survived. Yes, people had contracts drawn up for all sorts of things, it wasn't at all unusual, and being a notary who could write such contracts was a pretty lucrative job. People went to the trouble of having a written contract for exactly the same reasons you would have a written contract today. This isn't just a medieval thing either, it goes back at least as far as ancient Rome - Roman law (and through it, medieval and modern law) has a lot to say about contracts, written or otherwise. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

tentacles?

What monster do the tentacles attacking Hildegard of Bingen from above in the picture to the right belong to? μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The translation of the (German) description of that image is "Hildegard of Bingen receives a divine inspiration". So I think they're God's tentacles. Otherwise, it looks to me like a flumph. Rojomoke (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an attempt at Pentecostal flames? "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." (Acts 2:1–6). Roll on the Renaissance when people learned how to draw properly. Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like just a decorative cloth to me. Honi soit qui tentacule y pense. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That was my first thought, but why would the artist draw it dangling in her face? I think it's an attempt to show divine intervention which is lost on us 21st century folks. Alansplodge (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

God is an octopus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster. RNealK (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect Alansplodge's Pentecostal interpretation is the best. But I do love the modified Anglo-Norman curse. As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, back in the 80's I used to suggest to theists who ask me to prove God doesn't exist to prove The Giant Fish-Head isn't directing our lives from the other side of the moon. So I don't know if I am the creator, but I think I can at least claim unpublished priority. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How did The Big Giant Fish-Head hide from the Apollo astronauts? Maybe by disguising itself as a crater? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's the Invisible Pink Unicorn behind the Moon, which explains why they didn't see it. They are just lucky they didn't slam into it. :-) StuRat (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Man, I tossed you a softball and you whiffed. You were supposed to say, "Yes, hence the expression 'God the Crater'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

He's a Mackerel, for obvious reasons, and I didn't think it was necessary to mention he's as invisible as all gods are. The Pink Unicorn is his profit. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

But seriously, what an untalented artist that was. I'd expect something like that out of an elementary school art class. StuRat (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that's cartoonish, have you ever seen the Bayeux tapestry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect theme and color are the driving values behind the image, not realism. Quite a shiny effect from the gold leafing. Logically, one would have painted the background and used the gold only for the flames of inspiration nowadays. This artist isn't so much applying skill as he is throwing money (gold) at it. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a banner. For an example of a 13th century place of worship that features a replica of a 17th century banner, visit the Altneuschule, which is remarkable for many things. --Dweller (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think flames are more likely. In Scivias, Hildegard describes her first vision, at 42, with the words "[...] maximae coruscationis igneum lumen aperto caelo veniens totum cerebrum meum transfudit et totum cor totumque pectus meum velut flamma non tamen ardens sed calens ita inflammavit, ut sol rem aliquam calefacit super quam radios suos ponit." [16] (my emphasis). I couldn't find a free English translation of Scivias, but with the help of a German translation (and my own crappy Latin skills) it is clear that she is talking about a great flash of light transfusing her brain, and her entire heart and chest being lit by a flame that is more warming than burning. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm with the banner faction, though I'm far from confident! I don't think I've seen a flame depicted in that way in medieval art before, but it's quite common to depict banners with multiple hanging "strips". My guess is that it's a clumsy way of showing that Hilkdegard is living a secluded life, and that her male amanuensis is physically separated from her. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Some more "tentacles" here - admittedly not identical but this one actually is Pentecost. Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And some more - these ones look like the little forks that you get in chip shops. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

According to this, they depict "her visions, emanating like flames from above" (also search for other mentions of "flame" in that piece). And here (click on More), "Hildegard Von Bingen is frequently represented receiving divine flames". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Where can I find a blueprint for depicting a cyberstalker as a character?

I'm attempting to write a short story that centers around a cyberstalker, and I want to make the cyberstalker seem real. The problem is that I have no idea what cyberstalker messages are like, beyond a vague idea. I understand why this is; privacy laws undoubtedly prevent the release of these kinds of messages. However, I was wondering if there was some kind of reference point I can use so the cyberstalker character appears real, and consequently dangerous. Thanks in advance for any help. 76.78.226.24 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For the more humorous side of it, see www.encyclopediadramatica.se (Encyclopedia Dramatica); for Wikipedia's more annoyance version, see Wikipediocracy. Or search "doxed", "d0x" etc. on your favorite social media, search "suicide" and "cyberbullying" on Wikipedia. The main rule is, just keep following the links until you get to the goods - few people ever link to them directly. You're probably better off reading the news articles though - real cyberstalking tends not to look like much, and always has a crew of folks in tow who blame the victim; it's easier to tot up the worst outrages (real or exaggerated) from a dozen articles and have your perp do them all. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Go to a victims' forum and see the details of what they went through. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Afterwards

Whats hapens when a child in an orhpahage reaches the age of 18? Do they get kicked out onto the streets? Pass a Method talk 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What country are you asking about?184.147.119.141 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, being "kicked out onto the streets" seems totally inimical to the ethos of an orphanage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

They don't get kicked out, they get aged out. If you want to learn American ethics you've got to start with semantics. Wnt (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If he's able to work, then it doesn't sound that dramatic. Otherwise, many countries have some form of social benefits. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If the child is not self-supporting he gets section-eight housing, food stamps, lifeline/Obamaphone phone service, HEAP for his heating bill, and cash benefits, among other things, in the US. In Britain he learns to pick pockets. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in the UK there are a number of governmental and charitable schemes aimed at helping children in care to make an adult life for themselves. Here is the page for the scheme run by Barnardo's, the largest charity in the field. I suspect that there is similar provision in other developed countries. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Medeis, leave the politics out of it. RNealK (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's maybe the first time I heard that the UK has less social benefits than the US. Indeed, I have the impression you can live a comfy gov-subsidized life in the UK. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It rather depends on your definition of "comfy". Those with disabilities and/or children benefit most, probably rightly. However there is not so much money to go around at the moment, so even those benefits are under pressure. [17] Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Does having friends cost us money or bring us money?

I wonder whether economists study such stuff. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain any possible connection between the two things? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, friendship implies going out, giving gifts, traveling, and so on. However, it also implies getting connections, job offers, and so on. I wonder whether friendships implies an economical advantage of disadvantage. What makes you think money and friendship are not related? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Life is just a slow road to dying - but having friends make it a bit more bearable, so why not ignore any monetary loss or gains and enjoy the friendship? That said, a real friend shouldn't expect you to give gifts or travel when you can't afford to, so it's mostly a moot point anyhow. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Food costs money. But who would forgo food? Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to enter into the discussion whether friendship is important or what I should do. Think about the statistics that claim that a child costs between $150,000 to $250,000. I want a similar thing for friends. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There are inescapable expenses connected with children, assuming one is trying to be a good parent. There is not necessarily any expense connected with friendship, as any such expense is a voluntary activity. What have you found on Google so far, about this subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found any slightly academic link so far. Obviously, with children you are at an economic loss (unless you sell them or force them into child labor). But with friends that's not that clear. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the children thing is demonstrably an economic loss. But it's certainly reasonable to measure the costs. I would be surprised if much study has been done on the friends question, but there are countless studies on countless subjects, so anything is possible. Did you google something like [how much does a friend cost?] or something more detailed/specific? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

When my kids reached the age of majority, I sent each of them a bill for $1 million to partly defray the costs of their existence. The interest alone is worth having, but I can wait. I've given instructions to have the debt deducted from their inheritance. Wait .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You had to eat anyway, and if you're giving gifts you're probably receiving gifts also, so that should net out. Having good friends can be good for your health, so you might save on medical costs. Tangible benefits are not the whole story. But it might do you good to read How to Win Friends and Influence People, and see if you can discern where the benefits can be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Read Marcel Mauss, Essai sur le Don (On gift-giving (1923-24), a fundamental treatise on the circulation of ostensibly non-economic goods within societies (The Gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Routledge, 1990). That mastered, read any of several books by Jon Elster. That's a starting point.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

personal criticisms more suited for the talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks Nishidani, for the only useful answer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I wonder if someone could measure the cost of putting up with snippy questioners. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC) It's the same as the cost of putting up with snippy respondents. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC) When you start paying for your answers here, you can start criticising reasonable attempts to answer your questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I couldn't agree more with Osman. Let's stick to the actual rules. IBE (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Do you have any useful information for Osman, or are you just being a nanny? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC) It's amazing that you accuse others of being a nanny, but ask them to provide me useful information in the same sentence. Add to that that you did not provide any useful information on the thread, but just that whiny soap-boxing. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I and a few others at least tried to give you information. The other editor came here strictly to lecture us and provided nothing useful at all. (I thought that was VW's schtick - maybe he outsourced it.) Lacking the ability to read your mind, we couldn't know ahead of time if what we said was useful to you. But your snippy comment carries with it the idea that somehow we owe you exactly whatever it is you're looking for. When you start paying us, then you can consider imposing such expectations. Until then, keep your trap shut. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Yikes! Let's be civil, people. 105.236.206.120 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC) This sniping has been hatted by two users, I can't imagine who thinks it is so important for us to scream across the alley in public like this. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• The bizarre unstated premise here is that money is more real or important than the joy/spiritual value or whatever you want to call it of friendship. Money is just paper or coin, things with no intrinsic value at all. Its only value in the end is the joy it brings its holder. Wondering about whether friendship costs you money or not is like responding to the question, "Did the deceased live a happy life?" with, "Who knows? But he left a big carbon footprint." μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You win my "Inspired Comment of the Day" award. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No, there is no bizarre premise there. With money out of the equation, people have little incentive to improve or maintain something. My German-shepherd mix had beautiful puppies when I was a grade-schooler. My father said we would give them away. But he placed an ad advertising them for $50 each. I asked him why. He said people who seriously wanted the responsibility of raising a dog would pay he $50. Let's not pretend money does not exist, or it's not important. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Can I use that award to officially convert OR to RS? The comment is based on the teachings of Aristotle and Epictetus, among others. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's probably a side effect of certain cultural threads. It's just one of those curious things that was brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Call it materialism, economism, or rationalization, it's just one of those quirks of capitalism that you get with broken down social stratification abpnd increased social mobility. Right or left, I think you can find this sort of atavistic narrative. — Melab±1 ☎ 04:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• The only unstated assumption that's indicated here is that economists might have studied this topic. That's no great leap. Academics study all sorts of weird-but-interesting topics. APL (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends. (Proverbs 14:20)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're asking and I'm not going to prattle on about friends being more important than worldly goods. What I would suggest is looking for something from the guys at Freakonomics. This seems like it would be right up their alley. Dismas|^(talk) 03:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with most of the above about this not being a valid question - the value one gets from companionship may not be quantifiable but the monetary cost of friends can be calculated. Personally, I'd like to know how much less I'd spend if I chose not to have any friends (I'd definitely drink a lot less - so I'd save quite a bit!).

  Unfortunately I don’t think any research has (or even “can”) be done to answer this question usefully – people are just too different when it comes to this stuff. Some people may spend more because they have friends and others may spend more if they don’t. 163.202.48.126 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

They used to be much more expensive when "going to the movies with friends" involved tickets, popcorn gouging and gasoline. Even renting a movie is free now. You don't pay postage to talk to distant friends anymore. Physical recreation is about the same price as it would be alone, but with the added value of someone to play with. On top of all that, you can borrow or have a variety of stuff (including cold cash) from friends easier than you could from non-friends.

So no exact numbers, but friends are a sound investment. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:13, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Renting a movie is free? And plenty of people still go the movies with friends which is rarely free in most countries, however you travel to there and whether or not you choose to buy popcorn (people may also go to their friends house or invite their friends over to watch a movie but I'm not aware many would call that "going to the movies with friends"). Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If one's neighbors are also some of one's friends, then a neighborhood watch program can save one money.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Very true. But that is only a possibility and it would be hard to assign a general probability. Obviously the amount of potential loss would differ according to circumstance, the chance of being burgled or robbed according to location, the chance of saving dependent on the diligence of friends. Not to mention personal factors such as alarms and locks, where the level of friendship is irrelevant.

The question is clear enough, but the variables multiply further when considering the monetary value of friendship. Circumstances, lifestyle, location, culture... Perhaps a wild extrovert will lavish thousands upon their friends in parties and junkets - a cost, but one of those friends being lavished would view the relationship as a profit source, saving money that might otherwise be spent on entertainment. Depends.

In a wider sense, the question is moot. The true value of friendship is not an economic one. Money can't buy you love, we are told, and is not friendship love? Not necessarily romantic love, though friends may also be lovers, but love in the sense of affection bringing happiness. All the wise people I know or know of rate love as more important than money. Love lifts us up in a way that money cannot. Across the centuries, philosophers rarely talk of money as having any true value, but they ever remind us of the benefits of good company.

At heart, friends - and lovers - bring us riches beyond calculation. Their insights into our life, our thoughts, our emotions, allow us to see ourselves more truly. Our faces reveal our fleeting emotions without our knowledge or control - but our friends can see the secrets we reveal in the flicker of an eyelid or the momentary curve of a smile. They know us in a way that we do not. True friends share our heart, and we theirs. --Pete (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

August 28

writing by Ann Freedman

could you link an example of a blurb or any other writing on a piece that Ann Freedman wrote. reference

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/exclusive-interview-with-ann-freedman.html

The article says "She was so convincing", and I'd like to see a sample of the writing. It seems incredible for me that someone can write a story that convinces real museums of out-of-the-blue fakes being genuine. What did she write? Like, "art criticism" (deep analysis), or, I would like to see the writing. It just seems too incredible to believe that museums would fall for whatever it was, just because it was "so convincing". can anyone find a sample? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why writing? as a salesperson, the story implies she was convincing in speaking to people. “My enthusiasm for the art was contagious and won people over." However, she did write a book, The Collector as Patron in the 20th Century which you could request from your library ([18]). 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I really mean any quotation that I could access. Per the article she prepared catalogues, didn't she? Isn't at least one paragraph from a catalogue text that she wrote available somewhere online where I could read it now? (Perhaps quoted in some article)? Or, indeed, couldnt some article from that time have quoted her verbatim speaking about the merits of the works?

I would just like to get a sense of her writing style (e.g. very factual, "twice on the weekend of April 12-13 of 1967 and again, by way of Pittsburg, on January 15 of 1968" or very visual "dripping mango flavor over the crisp starch of dry cleaned Tuxedo"). Can you find anything at all that I could look at now? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, running the search string catalogue "by ann freedman" through google and google books and just plain "ann freedman" through google news archive brings up a number of items [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] but nothing readable online; that’s why I suggested the library. Of course there’s also her website, but no way of knowing if she wrote the copy on it herself. But don’t give up – there are better searchers than me around here and there’s still a chance one of them will turn up something for you. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

writing a letter to the pope

sorry if this is already covered somewhere, but I don't know what search terms to use - it's for an spistolary story set in the present day, from an Australian cardinal; so the question is, how would he address the Pope? - what pleasantries would the letter open with? Does anyone know of any actual examples i could look at?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the start of Ted Kennedy's letter to him, in which he addresses him as "Most Holy Father". This letter from Pio of Pietrelcina to Pope Paul VI uses "Your Holiness", as does David Cameron's. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Clarity - just what I needed. Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Forms of address from Debrett's. Hack (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Second succession to the presidency by Gerald Ford

President Gerald Ford would have been term-limited in 1980 had he won the election of 1976. As he loosed, he was mentioned as Ronald Reagan's running mate in 1980. Had Ford became vice president again instead of GHW Bush and as such succeded the presidency a second time in 1981 (for example had Reagan not survived the attack in March), had Ford been able to run for the presidency in 1984?- Or is that impossible because he became head of state twice? It would bring his total time in the White House to a little more than 10 years (2 1/2 years from 1974 to 1977 + almost 8 years from 1981 to 1989).

And the following scenario is also possible: VP Ford succeeds Reagan in mid-1983 after more than two years of the term passed. In this case, Ford would have been allowed to run in 1984 and 1988 (just as President Johnson two decades earlier). Or would his "first" term (1974-77) prevent him from running in 1988? That would made him president for 12 years.

I know it might be impossible or difficult to answer, perhaps in real life the Supreme Court would have to answer it. Thanks in advance anyway. --84.160.174.180 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This kind of question has come up more than once on the ref desks, and the stock answer is that we don't really know until or if such a scenario arises, and it is likely the Supreme Court would have to decide. Such a scenario would hardly go unnoticed, as the media have historically been all over the question of a given candidate's eligibility, even before the presidential term-limits amendment was passed. This would all be rendered moot if the term-limits amendment were repealed, but that would require bipartisan support, which is unlikely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant part of the US Constitution is Section 1, sentence 1 of the 22nd Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

That's all it prohibits. So since Ford served more than two years of Nixon's term, he could only subsequently get elected once, whether in 1976 or whenever. If he had been elected president in 1976 and then was vice president while Reagan was president and Reagan was assassinated, Ford would have succeeded to the presidency since it would not involve getting elected. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's one other thing at issue, however. The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes the following provision:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

We don't need much speculation to agree that controversy over the application of this clause would arise if a term-limited former president sought the vice presidency. Presumably some would say that the 22nd Amendment only addresses election and not eligibility for getting the office another way, while presumably others would say that the point of the 12th Amendment is to set equal standards for election to the two offices. 2001:18E8:2:1020:81D0:BA98:6347:210A (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

While I don't see any harm noting this under the wider discussion, note however this doesn't seem to matter to either of the OPs scenarios as they only seemed interested under what scenarios Ford could or could not be President, not under what scenarios he could or could not be VP. Now obviously Ford could not succeed Reagan to the Presidency if he was not VP but the OP didn't seem to mention any scenarios where it could come up. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

US presidential schedules

Found this document while researching Adriaan Pieter Roetert Jacobovits de Szeged, who appears on the first page. I was surprised by the sentence beginning with "The following list...", because apparently different parts of the president's schedule were announced in different places. Is there anywhere in which GPO or the Executive Office of the President prints a complete public schedule (i.e. his complete schedule minus whatever doesn't get published at all) of the president's actions? 2001:18E8:2:1020:81D0:BA98:6347:210A (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's The White House: President's Schedule - is that the kind of thing you mean? 184.147.119.141 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Rush and bankruptcy

In 1994 "Time" magazine stated that by 1994 Rush Limbaugh had declared 7 bankruptcy by that time, is this accurate?Tap1960 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you mean Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and not seven bankruptcies. Neither is true per google. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they meant he was morally bankrupt by that time. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean he was unable to pay his moral creditors? What form of moral currency would he use if he had any? Do they take EFTPOS? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To see what they actually (may have) said, you can search Time magazine's archives here [25], though not all the content is freely available. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Can monks and nuns still perform experiments within monasteries?

Can monks and nuns still perform experiments within monasteries, like Gregor Mendel? 140.254.45.34 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The rules of what the participants can and cannot do tends to vary by monastery, or maybe more to the point, by Monastic order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of anything that would stop them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If they were conducting experiments on aborted human embryos, I think the church authorities would have something to say about it. But if it's about gardening, I'd be surprised if there were rules against it - assuming the given monastery has a garden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario: assailant deliberately causes a woman's miscarriage - is that murder?

If an assailant deliberately causes the miscarriage of a pregnant woman, could this be found to be murder? Is the length of pregnancy relevant? Is the country in which it occurs relevant? (this isn't a request for legal advice; just a scenario that arose while discussing ethics of abortion) --89.241.229.123 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That would vary from place to place. The perp of the Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight pleaded guilty to most of the nearly-1000 charges. The charges included murder for beating up one of the women and making her miscarry - on multiple occasions yet. I don't know if that was among the charges he pleaded guilty to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published a list of related links at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=Exodus%2021%3A22%2C%2023.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wavelength, I do not see how your suggestion of the Jehovah's Witness viewpoint on this matter is relevant to this topic. It appears that the questioner is looking for laws and legal opinions, not religious or moral opinions and positions. Sneazy (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We have an article Fetal homicide... AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I guess "Fetal homicide" should link to Feticide, but it doesn't do so currently. AnonMoos (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I asked a similar question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. Sneazy (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

20,000 Francs to USD

I know that France doesn't use francs as currency anymore, but roughly how much would 20,000 francs in 1881 be worth today in USD? 63.95.64.254 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

INSEE has a calculator where you can convert French Francs from any year of the 20th century to Euros of a chosen year up until 2012. According to that calculator, 20,000 French Francs of 1981 equal 7,233.84 Euros in 2012 (in terms of purchasing power, taking monetary erosion due to inflation into account). [26]. I'll let others convert that into today's USD... ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

1881? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Zooming in the screen; it's that time of night. No luck at INSEE. The calculator starts at 1901 (giving 76,297.10 Euros for what it's worth :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)