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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_DeWine

The page says he has 3 children.

I understand he has three children with Karen, his ex-wife. (He divorced her while she was pregnant with their third child.)

I also read he has at least one child with Betty Hull, his former campaign manager and the women he shacked up with either before or after his divorce. The timing is a bit dicey.

He is currently married to Rhonda Dayton DeWine, and, therefore, has at least two step children.

His parental issues could surely be included. Particularly, how many children he has, including steps, when, and with whom. Seems some of his children have been lost in the shuffle.

A better researcher then I is need to verify and corroborate the details.

71.66.99.175 (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)P`tar

References

I urge you to read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons if you have not already. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". The blog you linked to mentions an Enquirer article (dead link). That screams "tabloid" to me. I understand you want help with verification and research but this seems like "contentious material". Other editors may have a different view. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

His own website says "Judge DeWine and his wife Rhonda live in Cincinnati where they are the proud parents of five children. Michael (18), Matthew (17), Jacob (16), Grace (14) and Brian (13)." http://www.patdewine.com/about/ I don't think details of marriage and children is in any way contentious - it just isn't always easy to get right because some people in the public limelight prefer to keep some things quiet. Wymspen (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Kudos. Did not even occur to me to look at the primary source. "Complicated issue". User a.k.a. 192.213.35.146 41.13.254.30 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the title "First Lady" or "First Gentleman" used when the spouse is of the same sex as the leader?

Apokrif (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there any existing examples? Otherwise, like with "First Gentleman", it's likely they'll invent something if and when the need arises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It has never happened. It should be pointed out that first lady and the like are generally used only to refer to the spouse of the head of state, and not to the spouse of the head of government (in many nations these are not the same position). From a look at List of the first LGBT holders of political offices, there has never been an openly gay national head of state. A few countries have had openly gay heads of government, but as I said, that would not invoke the use of the term "first _____", and it happened in countries that never use those terms anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily "openly" so, but see James Buchanan and William R. King. Also, during earlier centuries the term Favourite could be used euphemistically for the same-sex lover of a king or queen. Sometimes the relationship wasn't sexual, and sometimes it was. I.e. Anne de Joyeuse for Henry III of France, Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall for Edward II of England. --Jayron32 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinous and Hadrian of Hadrian's Wall fame. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

In Buchanan's situation, his friend King died four years before Buchanan was elected president. In any event, same-sex marriage was not recognized by the law at that time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

However at least in the US, the first lady doesn't have to be the married spouse (as List of First Ladies of the United States notes for examples) so nominally there's no reason why someone couldn't be a first lady or first gentleman despite not being married to the president. The social situation in the US at the time makes it unlikely it would have happened then. But there's a slight chance it may happen somewhere where there is some legal recognition short of marriage. (The big barrier would likely be for person in such a situation to be elected in the first place.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Iceland's Jónína Leósdóttir has definitely been called "First Lady" by mainstream media: [1]

Googling "Jörn Kubicki" (partner of a governor-mayor of Berlin) with "First Gentleman" finds a few hits, mostly in German. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As a former president Bill Clinton retains the title for life. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Search "First Gentleman" (with quotes) in the Ref Desk Archives will bring up a number of discussions on that exact topic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Or just read First Lady (to which First Gentleman redirects). Apokrif (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Surely in the case of a same-sex couple, use of the title 'first lady' or 'first gentleman' for the head of state's spouse would be wrong, because the head of state would 'outrank' their spouse for that gender.

For example, if hypothetical Senator Jane Doe became U.S. president, her spouse Janet Doe technically wouldn't be first lady because Jane Doe is already the seniormost female in the U.S. Then it becomes a question of terminology. 114.32.8.123 (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that same - sex marriages are legal in some countries (but not here) what happens to the role of the bridesmaids and the best man? I don't think "First Gentleman" is likely to catch on - in local government the wife of the mayor is the Lady Mayoress but if the mayor is a lady her husband gets no title. The British prime minister is First Lord of the Treasury and I don't think that's changed for Theresa. The husband of a monarch is no higher than Prince Consort, and husbands of peeresses get no title at all. The Queen does, however, give titles to the husbands of princesses. 213.107.114.104 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't Sarah Palin's husband called the "First Man" or "First Dude". They're probably more laid back in Alaska than in Washington, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What's 'here'? Are referring to the situation in Northern Ireland? Because your IP looks up to the UK and your question seems to refer to the situation in the UK, but same sex marriage has been legal in most of the UK since 2014 Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom. As for the question of terminology, it depends of course on the couple. See e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5]. Also I don't get what you mean by "likely to catch on". AFAIK as per our article first gentleman is what's been used when it's arisen, in the US, Ireland and the Philippines. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We're well into how-many-pinheads-can-dance-on-an-angel territory here, but that's no more a problem than the fact that the "First Officer" is second in command, and (usually) the second-highest ranking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

August 23

If you plant tree(s) 1 inch from a someone's land and they don't want trees over it what happens?

(inspired by seeing a line of trees who's centers are in one property and who's trunks (or at least branches) extend into another)

Who owns the tree(s)? If they just cut off the parts over their property the trunk centered on someone else's property would die. What if the neighbor was okay with it but his replacement wasn't? (let's say he died right after his neighbor planted tree seed(s) and the place was sold to an 18 year old who wanted to sunbathe there for decades and didn't know about the tree planting) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Laws vary in different jurisdictions. I did find all of the following with a simple Google search for "tree growing into neighbor's yard."  : Conflicts Involving Trees and Neighbors, Responsibility for an Overhanging Tree, Is a property owner obligated to trim trees that hang onto my property?. Most of these appear to pertain to US law, and I'm sure laws vary from state to state. Also be aware that MANY jurisdictions have what are called "setbacks" which require a certain minimum distance from property lines for planting of trees, building fences, paving driveways, or constructing outbuildings or additions, etc. These setbacks in most jurisdictions would not allow you to plant a tree so close to a neighbor's yard in the first place. --Jayron32 01:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a similar situation in England, except that we have the additional concept of right to light, so that if a neighbour's tree or fence puts the windows of your house in the shade, depriving you of "sufficient light according to the ordinary notions of mankind", a court can order its removal. Alansplodge (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Manhattan has no setback requirement until a certain height, a right to build a 2,000 foot tall slab on 25% of the lot, and a right to buy enough unused "building allowance" from churches, train stations etc. to completely ignore that 25% rule. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hence the statement "Laws vary in different jurisdictions." What the setback requirements are in Manhattan is not necessarily what they are in Peoria, Houston, or Rancho Cucamonga. --Jayron32 11:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

And I believed they would vary before I even asked. The England rule would actually be pretty nice for slower growing areas. I wonder if any of the thousands of non-British jurisdictions have it (no need to answer that, that'd be too much work) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Some more research on the situation in England reveals that Section 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 allows local authorities to act when a "hedge is adversely affecting the complainant’s reasonable enjoyment of their property” but applies only to evergreen hedges more than 2 metres high and not to individual trees. [6] This was prompted by the popularity of screens of fast-growing Leyland Cypresses (curiously known here by their Latin name of Leylandii), which can plunge a neighbour's garden into perpetual darkness. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'll have to ask my dad, since my parents happen to have the same issue with both their neighbors. The neighbors to the west have an-ill kept yard, with a huge dead fig that is lowering the value when they want to sell, and although their larch is on their side of the fence, it overhangs my parents' back yard, and I routinely prune the dead branches that overhang our yard. (Mom sneaks onto their property and does pruning, weed-removal, and has pulled half dead shrubs from the ground. I have warned her not to expect me to bail her out when she gets arrested for trespass.)

On the other side, there is a huge oak which straddles the eastern property line. That neighbour's house is very well kept, at least on the streetfront. My understanding is that both owners have to agree on cutting it down, since my father wants it to stay, but the neighbor has offered to pay for its removal, yet it is still there after 5 years or so since the offer.

Things like these are civil law matters in common law countries, and it's best to ask a lawyer, if your local librarian can't find you the relevant statutes. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a recent news story about a guy who cut down a neighbor's tree and it fell on his own building.[7] The story says the guy was complaining about tree sap falling on his car. The reader can decide who the real sap is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

See [8] [9] [10] [11] (maybe also [12] [13] [14]) for info on the situation in New Zealand. As those sources note, one big issue is whether the tree is protected. If it is, then both neighbours are limited on what they can do with it without permission. If it's not protected, then generally any overhanging branches and roots edit: can be cut/trimmed. (Note however per the refs any fruit etc still belong to the owner.) If part of the trunk is really overhanging I guess this can but cut too although it's likely not something to do without legal advice, especially due to the risk of the tree damaging something if it dies. If there's no overhang, it's possible a court may order for the tree to be trimmed or removed in certain circumstances outlined in those refs (including light and other factors) or see [15] for what the law says. Note that local government does have some flexibility in some areas. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. My father, who's been on the town council, various planning boards, consulted various lawyers, and discussed the issue with neighbours over 42 years of residence, confirms that, in his 50,000 pop. jurisdiction in NJ, if the trunk was planted on one side of the property and later overgrows the property line, the tree becomes joint property, and cannot be cut down without the agreement of both parties. This first happened in th 70's, when my parents had to get formal permission to cut down a willow on the property line whose roots were growing into our water mains.

The catch is that any mere branch which overhangs your property can be trimmed to the property line without permission of the person upon whose yard the trunk grows. My neighbours had a spruce whose trunk was on their property, but whose branches overhang my parents. (They had the full right to remove it, which they did, as long as they restored a normal law, leaving no obvious scar, which they did.) However, the subsequent lowering of property value to the neighbour who did not consent to the pruning (imagine 51% a Christmas tree on the property line) is subject to being sued for having damaged the neighbour's property value.

This has happened often in his town, where neighbours trying to sell their properties have gone to court trying to get a writ demanding the neighbouring properties maintain their front yards, with a demand that if they do not so within a certain time they will be compelled to do so or be liable for the costs of doing so, if they do not do it themselves.

This is anecdotal material regarding a NJ municipality, and not general legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In Britain, a "party wall" is the wall within the building which separates adjoining houses. It belongs to both titles, and there is a Party Wall Act which regulates matters concerning it. We don't have a procedure where a neighbour can sue because something in the adjoining property is detrimental to his resale value (apart from Right to Light). There is no privacy law, for example. There is, however, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher under which a landowner is liable, if he brings and keeps on his property something which is liable to cause damage if it escapes, for what happens if it does escape. There is the general law of nuisance, and also a possible liability under the Public Health Act if a property becomes run down. A landowner must comply with any restrictive covenants and any planning permission (e.g. must not build closer to the boundary line than stated). Also there is a duty of care to trespassers. 213.107.114.104 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the duty of care applies under the attractive nuisance doctrine, where having an unfenced yard might attract small children to drown in your pool. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cases where a part of a U.S. state constitution was struck down as being unconstitutional

Other than Reynolds v. Sims and Romer v. Evans, are there any other cases where a part of a U.S. state constitution was struck down as being unconstitutional? Futurist110 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This may help your research perhaps? Just a quick search of that list (which is somewhat broader than your requirements) turns up at least 3 more cases: Coombes v. Getz, Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, and McDaniel v. Paty. There may be more on that list, but that's what a quick scan from me turned up. --Jayron32 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Futurist110 and Jayron32: In addition to those identified above, three cases immediately come to mind: Torcaso v. Watkins (U.S. Supreme Court struck down Maryland Constitution's religious requirement for public office as violating the No Religious Test Clause); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (U.S. Supreme Court struck down Arkansas state constitutional amendment essentially mandating term limits for federal officials struck down as inconsistent with federal constitution); Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona (Arizona Supreme Court struck down "English Only" provision in state constitution as a violation of federal Constitution, specifically First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause). Neutrality^talk 04:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

August 24

Force Majeure - means what in the village?

If a simple and understandable definition of the legal term 'force majeure' reads: "an event that no human foresight could anticipate or which, if anticipated, is too strong to be controlled. Depending on the legal system, such an event may relieve a party of an obligation to perform a contract" (or any similar definition) ... I'm searching for a metaphor (a picture worth a thousand words) that could be used to illustrate the concept for people unaccustomed to legalese or contractual written language. If there were an African metaphor, all the better. Suggestions? Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.155.173 (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In legal questions, metaphors tend to confuse rather than clarify. Better to give examples - and there are plenty in the Force majeure article. Wymspen (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also see "act of God".--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as the OP, I appreciate the link to the Force Majeure article, which I've read. But in reference desk questions, well meaning opinions or advice that doesn't actually directly address the exact inquiry ... tends to frustrate the OP (at least when its me). Better to give specific references or direct links that accord with the advice/information that is asked for, when possible. It's my pet peeve with Wikipedia - that I think 50% or more of the time I try to craft a specific, concrete question asking for help finding specific information - someone here thinks that if I ask for a picture of a hammer, I really want to be using some other tool. In my 25 years training and teaching in African townships and villages - an appropriate metaphor, or sometimes an African fable, is invaluable in working with people to understand legal or other abstract concepts. Thanks if you understand my point (small rant...). Cheers. I mainly post this so that readers might not assume the discussion is closed, as I'm still interested in any useful metaphors (or African fables!)...that would help illustrate the basic concept of a Force Majeure (which, in this case, was the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.155.173 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The links provided by the first two responders do include two suggestions: rain on a picnic in Force majeure and a tornado in Act of God. Some other suggestions via google: The sea. A sandstorm. Being mugged. Some of Aesop's Fables, including this one. Another European fable ("He will make you believe that hares lay eggs"). European fairy tales Jack and the Beanstalk or Goldilocks. [16] (Natural forces in general). Heroes chosen by fate to save others (such as King Arthur) (is there a mythological king in the culture you're working with?). A new government regulation.

Another approach you could try is to look for the wikipedia article on "specific country you're working in" mythology (see collapsible table at the end of African mythology), to see if you can turn up any fables, then see if the fables apply. Our coverage of this area is poor, though.184.147.128.95 (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

1967 Milwaukee riot

I did a good deal of expansion on this article over the past week or so. Unfortunately, although multiple sources say that riot lasted more than a week, following 1 Aug I haven't been able to find much at all. Any help would be appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, this source says the Milwaukee riot lasted three days. 184.147.128.95 (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What is a "barn-door-fowl flight of learning"

Oliver Wendell Holmes in "The Autocrat of the breakfast table" (1891 collected works) wrote (p67) "Ponder thereon, ye small antiquaries who make barn-door-fowl flights of learning in 'Notes and Queries!' — ye Historical Societies, in one of whose venerable triremes I, too, ascend the stream of time, while other hands tug at the oars !" This was quoted by Temperance and suffragette figure Frances Willard in 1891 (p62) to describe her teaching science to young women: "I led the young women in what Oliver Wendell Holmes called 'barn-door flights' of natural science." What would someone in 1891 have meant by a "barn door flight" or a "barn-door fowl flight?" One educated and seemingly rational person fluent in English wrote it and the second thought it made sense and quoted it. Edison (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I speculate. A barndoor fowl is a chicken [17] and chickens are pretty useless at flying. So the phrase is disparaging and reads to me as education or learning which does not amount to very much. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Similar but different speculation:fowl flush when startled, i.e. take off as quickly as possible, in a fairly random direction. Chickens are not so much poor flyers as flyers who are best equipped for short bursts of speed. So, the later quoter might have meant that she led her students on short, rapid flights of inquiry, not that such learning was poor in quality. We don't have that sense "flush" covered at our DAB page, but it is implicitly used at flushing dog. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think SemanticMantis may be close. Alfred Herbert Palmer also used the phrase in 1891 in The Life and Letters of Samuel Palmer, Painter and Etcher in a letter dated 1872: My Dear Herbert. Independently of their divine pathos, the 13th to the 16th verse of Sunday morning's second lesson seem to me, in our version, to be a flawless gem of narrative English. From this brief, barn-door-fowl flight I drop at once to lower but not base matters. In this context, it seems to mean a short flight. In another context the phrase might imply superficiality, but not necessarily. older ≠ wiser 01:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

To simplify the above, I interpret the expression as denoting a cursory attempt at something (chickens may attempt to fly, but don't try very hard, and give up easily). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1821:CD59:E35A:CB68 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've known a lot of barnyard chickens. Typically, when startled they squawk loud and fast and flap their wings rapidly, while rising just a few feet and travelling just a few feet along the ground.Only a few chickens I knew could fly over a fence 6 feet high.Those high flyers would get the flight feathers on one wing trimmed with shears, so when they took off they quickly came down in a ground loop. A "real bird" would take off swiftly and with little vocalization and rise quickly to a high and distant safe tree limb. At first I suspected Willard's "barn door flight" referred to a child swinging on a barn door, through a small arc, an exciting event that doesn't get you very far, but then I found the source of the Holmes phrase she imperfectly cited and thought it might refer to a fowl flying through the barn door, with unclear implication. Thanks. Edison (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 25

What is the difference? Kingdom, Empire, Dynasty, emirate, sultanate

What is the difference between the words empire, kingdom, dynasty, emirate, and sultanate? Please and thanks.Donmust90 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You could start with Kingdom, Empire, Dynasty, Emirate, Sultanate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC

There is an odd one out in your question: Kingdoms, empires, emirates, and sultanates are all monarchies, forms of government, and they all can also mean the corresponding realm. Dynasty is a sequence of rulers or leaders from the same family, not necessarily limited to monarch families. (And of course, see the articles Baseball Bugs linked to). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There was a similar question asked a while back (regarding the difference between a king/kingdom and an emperor/empire - I'm afraid I can't find a link). I think the main conclusion was that an empire/emperor is powerful enough (or otherwise well-respected enough) to get away with calling itself that. (Because calling yourself an Emperor implies you are better that all the mere kings, and possible should rule them. And that you are as good as the other emperors, and so should not be ruled by them. So you'd better be able to back up your claim, or else the other kings and emperors will take you down).

The reverse can also happen - someone takes a less prestigious title, either to avoid antagonizing a higher-ranked ruler, explicitly declare their allegiance to them, or to maintain the pretense that they are and that the emperor isn't just their puppet. See for example Odoacer (conquered Italy, declared himself "King of Italy" and pledged allegiance to the Eastern Roman Emperor; Timur (effectively an emperor, but merely called himself "Amir" (general), and kept a descendent of Ghengis Khan as a puppet emperor to give himself legitimacy); or the Shoguns - again, de-facto rulers calling themselves "generals" to imply that the emperor is still in charge).

Also bear in mind that a lot of these terms may once have had specific meanings but have become fuzzier over time, as rulers decide to adopt the title used by a notable previous ruler (or their name, like "Caesar"), or when they get used as translations or equivalents of foreign rulers. Iapetus (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I found the previous question - 2015 August 15#King and Emperor. Well remembered Iapetus. Alansplodge (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• An important thing to remember to is that these words often have multiple definitions as well. When one speaks of an Empire, do we mean "a monarchy ruled by an Emperor" or do we mean "A multinational state formed by continuous expansion of territory and subjugation of peoples" Because, both are correct. But there have been states that are the both (like the Roman Empire) states that are the first but not the second (The Empire of Trebizond) and states that are the second but not the first (the Timurid Empire). --Jayron32 18:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Kingdom, Empire and Dynasty have all been the titles of TV dramas.... As far as I know, Emirate and Sultanate have not. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The British Empire grew under Victoria, probably to it's greatest extent, because there was decolonisation. Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India in 1876, which suggests it was considered an empire on its own. 213.107.114.104 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see British Raj: "The resulting political union [of British India and the Princely States] was also called the Indian Empire and after 1876 issued passports under that name". BTW, the British Empire actually reached its fullest extent after 1919 with the addition of the League of Nations Mandates, some of which (especially Mandatory Palestine) turned out to be a lot more trouble than they were worth. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What I was getting at was places like Australia, which became independent in 1901, so they weren't ruled by an emperor. 213.107.114.104 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no it didn't. 1901 was when the 6 colonies federated into a single national entity (in which the former colonies became States). But all that meant, as far as our relationship with the UK was concerned, was that we went from 6 smaller colonies to 1 large colony. The 6 colonial governors remained, now as governors of the states; and we gained a governor-general. Look all you like, but you won't find any reliable source worthy of the name that gives an unequivocal answer to the question of when Australia became independent. Some suggest it was in 1920, when Australia was accepted as a member of the League of Nations. Some suggest it was 1939, from when our acceptance of the Statute of Westminster became effective (although it wasn't actually accepted until 1941). Others suggest it was as late as 1986, when the Australia Acts came into force. Sources all agree it was not an overnight thing, to which a specific date can be ascribed, but a gradual process. Nobody denies we're independent now, but when that status was actually achieved is an extremely fuzzy thing. But on one point, all sources agree: it was definitely later than 1901. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Joint Chiefs of Staff memo October, 10 1947

Hi, I'm looking for a memorandum issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 10, 1947 entitled "The Problem of Palestine". Would any of you know where to find it? 130.195.253.15 (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Dunno about online, but it at least is here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No luck with finding it online either, but the memo does get a brief mention in: Israel: The Will to Prevail by Danny Danon, Sorry, no page number because it's and e-book, but hopefully Google Books will be in a good mood and show you my link. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The National Archives Catalog claims only one paper copy at College Park. You may be able to order copies.—eric 14:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Risk averse nature of public sector organisations

Are most public sector organisations and organisations providing services to the public risk averse by nature? 82.132.220.29 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, so I typed /risk aversion public sector organization/ into google scholar [18]. The first three hits look relevant, and have freely accessible PDF copies. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the Marco Polo in the TV commercial historically accurate?

Besides him speaking modern English of course. What era clothing is that? [19]. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not too dissimilar to this mosaic portrait which is all over the internet. Apparently it's at the Palazzo Doria Tursi in Genoa, but I haven't been able to pin down any more details, except here it is in situ. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that the Marco Polo in the commercial does notspeak English (that is part of the gag)... However, I think he might be speaking modern Italian (which the real Polo would not). I also note that the commercial shows a pack llama standing near the pool. That isn't accurate for Polo. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he's speaking modern Italian (quite clearly and simply; a first-year Italian student should be able to understand him).

On the other hand Italian hasn't changed nearly as much as English in the same time frame. Reading Dante is about as hard as reading Shakespeare. For the very simple things the character says, I'm not sure it would have changed at all. Pronunciation is another matter of course. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, just occurred to me, though — I suppose Polo would have been speaking Venetian. Right, that's quite different. Dante wrote in Florentine, which is the dialect that by-and-large won out in modern Italian. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw that ad many times during the Olympics, and it made no sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The kids in the pool are shouting out his name, and Polo is confused because, despite his answers, he's being ignored. Then he realizes what the point of the game is and joins in. clpo13_(talk) 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, now it makes sense. So what's up with the llama? Is that a new Geico icon? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Per AdWeek:

...But the ad's true highlight is its llama—apparently Polo's ride to the party (which is in itself a bit of a surprise—it made it to South America sometime in the past 700 years, too). ("It's not surprising" is the theme) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1821:CD59:E35A:CB68 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

...Which I found surprising, but a little fact-checking finds (see llama): ...camelids spread to South America as part of the Great American Interchange (significantly more than 700 years ago) 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1821:CD59:E35A:CB68 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Who's the actor, by the way? Or maybe I should ask: what more prominent actor does he resemble? —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Mazzeo is the actor, but I don't know which more prominent actor he reminds you of. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks vaguely like Judd Hirsch. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Ron Silver. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 26

A Theory of Justice

I gather that John Rawls' A Theory of Justice has been through several different editions, with the work being revised since its original printing. How greatly does the revised version differ from the original, and is this something the reader should care about? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently significant enough that they have recently reissues the 1971 edition. See here in Google Books, which has an ebooks version of the reissue. For comparison, here is the 1999 edition. You'd have to check them both yourself, but there they are. --Jayron32 14:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Jayron's link to the 1999 edition, it includes "a new Preface in which Rawls reflects on his presentation of his thesis and explains how and why he has revised it". HUP's presentation of the book quotes a Choice review: "It contains a new preface that helpfully outlines the major revisions, and a ‘conversion table’ that correlates the pagination of this edition with the original, which will be useful to students and scholars working with this edition and the extensive secondary literature on Rawls’s work." ---Sluzzelin talk 15:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just a note that Rawls has been dead for 14 years. The works of political figures with followings often get reworked by their followers/heirs after their deaths. Look up Nietzsche, for example, whose sister imposed her anti-Semitic views on his work after his death. Ayn Rand's "Q&A" book has her "corrected" to say the exact opposite in print of what she actually said in recorded voice transcript. I have only read of Rawls what I was assigned, decades ago, so I can't say whether the actual text of the work has been altered. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  Just a note that 1999 was 17 years ago, and Rawls was very much alive at the time... --Jayron32 02:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I know it's off-topic, but I'm curious about the Rand thing — can you elaborate? --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember the exact issue, @Trovatore:, but it had to do with the posthumous Q&A book being editted to fit the "party line" or being "politically correct" rather than what she actually said. At one point she was asked about the perfect society, and she responded that it would be horrific if everyone were in lockstep with her own beliefs, and that diversity of thought (e.g. people being Jewish, Catholic, Atheist, Marxist) would make a much better world. Her cult is terribly divisive; and if you want to look at them as the Stalinists versus the Trotskyites, I am an Orwellian.

In the edited, published version, this point is entirely glossed over. The point is covered in the top review at Amazon here and is based on comments by someone who has the actual tapes of those lectures. I am not a good source, given I only heard of her after she was dead. Of course, I could say the same for Nietzsche, Spinoza, Epictetus and Aristotle. (smiley). μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I just re-read that review, @Trovatore:, and the essential pont is how the word "dreadful" is used in Rand's actual speech, and in the editted version. The meanings are unrelated, but the editted version serves the cultist interpretation. I see Orwell is also mentioned, ha! μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ohio River lock tolls

Can someone find a table of tolls by lock-and-dam (or a single statement giving the toll for all of them, if they're uniform) on the Ohio River? I'm finding stuff about tolls on the Ohio and Erie Canal, road tolls for the Ohio River Bridges Project, and other things that sound similar to Google but obviously aren't related. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We have List of locks and dams of the Ohio River, which I don't think has tolls but at least has locations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I was reading just recently, I forget where, about the Soo locks, which are free (or more accurately subsidized) for all traffic through the locks. It may be similar for the Ohio River locks. Might also want to compare locks of the Mississippi and Illinois rivers. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Anthropology/Sociology/Psychology

Hi everyone. I would like to seek out clear-cut definitions amidst these social sciences without overlapping, if they can exist. It is possible? And if so, which are? Cordially, --217.57.195.210 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology. Anthropology is the study of people. Sociology and psychology could be thought of as subsets of anthropology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also psychosociology, social psychology, and social psychology (sociology). Loraof (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure one CAN define them without overlapping. Anthropology studies culture, sociology studies social interactions, and psychology studies behavior and thought processes. I don't know how one could study any one of them with a complete ignorance of the other two... --Jayron32 18:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And social anthropology and Sociology#Sociology and the other academic disciplines. Loraof (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Were any Republicans elected to statewide office during the Solid South era?

From the end of Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Movement, roughly 1877-1964, were there any Republicans elected to statewide office in the former states of the Confederacy? --Gary123 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Solid South says "In the Deep South (South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas), Democrat dominance was overwhelming, with 80%–90% of the vote, and only a tiny number of Republican state legislators or local offficials. In the Upper South (Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia), Republicans retained a significant presence, even winning occasional governorships and often drawing over 40% in presidential votes." So there were some. Rojomoke (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

For example North Carolinian governor Daniel Lindsay Russell, Tennesseean governors Alvin Hawkins, Ben W. Hooper, and Alfred A. Taylor. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Building on that, are you interested in Kentucky? Compared to most southern states, its politics were fuzzy during the time, occasionally becoming highly contentious (in particular, see Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899), and List of Governors of Kentucky will show you that Republicans were several times successful in reaching the Kentucky Governor's Mansion. Also, note that Tennessee is an anomaly, with the exceptionally strong Republican presence in the Eastern Grand Division; the last Democrat elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from this region was Robert Love Taylor, who left office in 1881. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Appalachia has always had distinctly different politics from the rest of the South. --Jayron32 01:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

August 27

Theories of justification/Philosophy

I'm trying to find an article I lost track of. I know my description is rather obscure but stick with me. I can't remember what most of it was about however at the bottom of the article it had bodies of thought and showed how they opposed one another for example:

Idealism · Realism Subjectivity · Objectivity

etc. Does anyone know where I can find this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.117.134 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The general topic is Epistemology, and we have articles on the specific topics you mention (Idealism, Realism, Subjectivity, Objectivity), although the links don't appear in exactly that format in the main article. Tevildo (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It isn't Theory of justification that you're looking for, is it? Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine. Impossible trinity. Hryvna depreciation

According the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity if a country sets own interest rate lower than global (e.g. IMF's), then the national currency must depreciate. But during 2014-2016 we saw interest rates in Ukraine much higher of global:

http://www.bank.gov.ua/files/Inter_r_ref_e.xls

Lengthy list:  Interest rates of banks' refinancing by the National Bank of Ukraine

Interest rates of banks' refinancing by the National Bank of Ukraine (% annual) Period NBU discount rate 1 2014 14.0 January 6.5 February 6.5 March 6.5 April 9.5 May 9.5 June 9.5 July 12.5 August 12.5 September 12.5 October 12.5 November 14.0 December 14.0 2015 22.0 January 14.0 February 19.5 March 30.0 April 30.0 May 30.0 June 30.0 July 30.0 August 27.0 September 22.0 October 22.0 November 22.0 December 22.0 2016 January 22.0 February 22.0 March 22.0 April 19.0 May 18.0 June 16.5 July 15.5

Also we saw the exchange rate went up from 8 UAH/USD in 2014 to 25 UAH/USD in 2016 (in 02.2014 fixed exchange rate was canceled). https://bank.gov.ua/control/en/curmetal/currency/search?formType=searchPeriodForm&time_step=daily&currency=169&periodStartTime=01.01.2014&periodEndTime=27.08.2016&outer=table&execute=Search

Also according GDP by PPP or Big Mac index correct exchange rate must be 8 UAH/USD. So Ukraine has not free capital flow.

So my questions are: 1) Why while interest rates were higher of global Hryvna didn't appreciate? 2) Ukraine has neither fixed exchange rate nor free capital flow. How is it possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.52.45.254 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)