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

March 25

Halawa, Kohala

Can someone find me a map of Halawa in the Kohala districton the Big Island of Hawaii. NOT the one on Molokai or the one on Oahu.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean something different from the kind of maps available via GeoHack and the coordinates link on the Halawa page? Pfly (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you don't know how to do that, here's the Google map: [1]. StuRat (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is Halawa on that? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I misread the question. Here is Halawa, the populated place, on ACME Mapper's topo maps. Apparently it is also a "civil" area, shown on the topo map about here. I'm not sure what those all-cap civil areas are. Halawa is also the name of the gulch/creek there. The GNIS pages (which also have map links) are U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Halawa (populated place) and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Halawa (civil). That's how I found it, by the way--I searched for "Halawa" in GNIS and looked at the map links they provide. Pfly (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tuareg edits, real or hoax?

With the news about a coup in Mali, the Tuareg article is going to be seeing a lot more eyeballs. But I'm skeptical about some of the information in it. Having uncovered an amusing incident recently where some hoax text about "Glucojasinogen" was introduced into Wikipedia and then published word for word in two scientific publications, I have reason to be wary - but I know nothing about the Tuareg and would be unsurprised if there is some information that never found the Internet until it found us. The editor is a User:Ameno who introduced a series of edits, e.g. [2], which surprise me. For example, he introduces the term "Tasagesaget" for a dwelling in the canopy of acacia trees out of the range of animals, and describes an astronomical use of Venus to determine "the time for milking goats". (The former surprises me as acacia trees are thorny and not very sturdy, the latter because Venus varies from morning to evening star and is often not readily visible) A lot of other terms are introduced. Can someone look this over and figure out - true or false, knowledgeable and highly prized editor or someone pulling our legs? Thanks! Wnt (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't verify very much of it, but a fair few of the terms do appear on Google Books, and they all have the meanings which the editor ascribes to them: for example, "Shet Ahad" for the Pleiades [3], "takoba" for a type of traditional sword [4], and "tafala" for a simple tent [5]. Judging by their talk page, it appears that the editor has some specialist knowledge of the Tuareg people, and may be Tuareg themselves. That said, it will be a lot of work to try to verify most of this, and it's questionable whether these kinds of word lists are encyclopaedic. Have you tried asking the editor whether they can supply any sources for their edits? Warofdreams talk 10:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

He's not a very frequent editor and, to be honest, I was worried that if he was pulling a hoax on me he might come in as someone else... I just wanted a neutral take on this. It is clear from this I should have searched harder! I guess "Once bitten, twice shy" applies. Wnt (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General strikes in Greece

I'm looking for a comprehensive list of the general strikes that have been held in Greece since the start of the current financial crisis. There have been a lot of them, and even though I can find information on many of them by googling '"general strike" greece' and the year, I'm interested in knowing how many strikes there have been as well as all the dates.

I'm also interested in analogous lists of general strikes in other European countries like Portugal and France. Sabbut (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the list is exhaustive, but a fair number of strikes are mentioned in the articles "2008 Greek riots" and "2010–2012 Greek protests". Gabbe (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Excluded middle

Suddenly aware that my knowledge of logic was embarrassingly minuscule, I started to do a bit of reading. I knew that I'd quickly get confused, but I had no idea how quickly. I started (more or less) with the introductory bits of Law of excluded middle. I quote (after markup stripping): It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is.

The article quickly goes on to more abstruse matters, but I was already puzzled.

If, say, (x−3)(x+2)=0, then (A) x=3 or (B) x=−2. Implying to me that "x=3" either is true or is false.

Presumably there's some loophole for disjunction, but I don't see it. What have I missed?

Although I skipped the knotty middle of this article, I did look at the end. There I was most surprised to read:

That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown. A classic example illustrating the difference is the proposition: "It is not safe to cross the railroad tracks when one knows a train is coming". One should not deduce it is safe to cross the tracks if one doesn't know a train is coming.

Well of course one shouldn't. (Indeed, one shouldn't even deduce that it's safe to cross the tracks if one does know that a train isn't coming -- there could be a live rail, or a psychopathic sniper, or whatever.) But anyway this is a truthful proposition -- unless of course the speaker is violating some rule of normal conversation, e.g. that the train one knows is coming is in fact coming hours in the future, allowing plenty of time for a safe crossing -- followed by an invalid argument. Is this garbled (or vandalized), or are my brains scrambled by the cold I'm now suffering? -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no issue in your algebra example. It is still true that x=3 is either true or false. Your algebra has actually shown something more specific- either x=3 (in which case x=3 is true) or x=-2 (in which case x=3 is false). I don't know enough to say anything useful about the other example. Staecker (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two different modes of thought. (x−3)(x+2)=0 is not a proposition of logic, unless you plug a specific value into the variable 'x' (or quantify is as a logical variable, with 'for all' or 'there exists').

When you solve such an equation, you are saying "assuming that this statement is true, deduce another true statement of the form "x = ...or x = ... or ...". You cannot do this by logic, but require a quite different set of tools - algebra. Using algebra, you can deduce that if your equation is true, then the proposition "either x = 3 or x = −2" is true. It doesn't tell you which arm of the conjunction is true - and from a purely logical standpoint, it doesn't rule out the possiblity that the conjunction is true because both arms of it are true. You need arithmetic or algebra in to show that they can't both be true. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Thank you! But how about a different example that does have values that -- well, if they're not specific, at least they are meaningful. Here's the assertion: "One divided by zero equals infinity." Maths is another area where I'm weak, but my hazy understanding is that this would normally be classed as neither true nor false, but instead indeterminable; although such an answer might be criticized, surely it wouldn't be condemned for violating the law of excluded middle. (Again, I'm not challenging the most elementary rules of logic; I'm instead merely wondering where I'm wrong and hoping to get a better understanding.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The truth of the statement "one divided by zero equals infinity" will depend fundamentally on your definition of "divided" and "infinity". There are some contexts, e.g. Real projective line, where this statement is true. In the context of standard high-school level mathematics that statement would be called nonsensical because division by zero is not defined. In that context the statement is not even a mathematical proposition at all- it's just nonsense, and so doesn't count as a counterexample to the law of the excluded middle. You may be interested in undecidable propositions- there are mathematical statements which cannot be proven to be true or false. These do indeed exist, but are not seen as violations of the excluded middle because there is a difference between truth and provability. Staecker (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Forehead-slap -- yes, I'd forgotten about such a basic issue as nonsense. Mathematics aside, it's often hard or impossible to infer a meaningful proposition. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

link to video?

Can someone find a link to a video of Jim Cramer before he was on TV, I think he was at Goldman Sachs at a time, telling an associate about the important of their current game plan to set unrealistic expectations of Apple (in specific), which "apple isn't in a position to deny" (i.e. because it doesn't comment on future products). It was an old video, in the 'candid camera' quality style.

Can anyone find it? Thanks. 188.6.91.46 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

how to not talk so much

my partner says I talk way too much. I'd like resources (or just an easy tip) on how not to talk to so much. It's not the content that bothers them, just the quantity. They like my ideas, for example, just not over and over again. Thanks for any resources. 188.6.91.46 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Set yourself a goal of trying to learn from others. That will require you to listen to them. And they'll marvel at how smart you are. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

this person doesn't like too many questions either, they get on their nerves. do you have any other tips? 188.6.91.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

How can your partner not want you to talk so much? Aren't they your partner in conversation? Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the best tip not to talk so much? I really don't know how else anyone can approach this. It may help to understand the other side, though: in my own case, although I sometimes go on a bit, it is self-limiting, because I can hear myself babbling on, and I resolve to shut up when I regain control of my mouth, and to be more careful next time. When I am the listener, it can be rather harrowing when people repeat a point continually, or give heaps of subpoints when I've already agreed to the conclusion. Your partner may be finding this, so just consider his/her position. Also, if they are blunt, you are equally free to tell them that they are hurting your feelings. They are not the only person allowed to disagree with something the other person does. IBE (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be ironic? If I rattled out the above paragraph, I would get yelled at. It's a prototypical example of me talking too much. 188.6.91.46 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

My partner talks a lot, whereas I don't. If he starts repeating himself I mentally tune him out, and nod/smile in (what I hope are) the right places. I do this because I love him and want to be with him regardless of this character trait. You may wish to consider whether your partner is actually telling you something different. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As a "big talker" myself, finding a partner who could tolerate me was easier than trying to change my own habits. Talking is a large part of how I think and make sense of the world. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, but I would like to find techniques to be a better partner than someone my partner has to tune out! 188.6.91.46 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is personal and the other is interpersonal. There can be virtue using speech sparingly. But I think this largely emerges from self-assessment. Thus we have two different considerations. Is there a compelling argument made by someone else that you expend effort to pare back speech? Does that argument make sense? If not, reject it. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think to fix the problem you first need to analyze why you talk so much. Here are some possibilities and possible solutions:

1) You don't like silence. Here some other form of sound might do, like playing music.

2) You forget what you already said, and end up repeating yourself. If so, you might need to list topics you already discussed with each person, so you can remind yourself not to repeat.

3) You feel the need for more communication with your partner. If so, perhaps you need to draw them out to talk more. The technique of active listening may help here. This could help, for example, if you are both talking but neither is hearing what the other says.

4) You talk when nervous. If so, some other relaxation technique, like meditation, might be in order.

5) You interrupt others while they are speaking. Here a possible solution is a talking stick. This is an object which you pass around, and only the person who holds it may speak. This keeps people from interrupting others and ensures that everybody gets to speak. If one person hogs the stick, then a timer can be used.

6) You miss nonverbal cues that others want their turn to talk. You might want to develop a system so another person can tell you they want to speak (so you should quickly bring your chatter to an end). Raising a hand is one method, but perhaps a single finger will do (not that one !).

7) You like being the center of attention. If so, perhaps you need to join community theater or something like that to get the attention you crave.

8) You always like to get in the last word. If so, try to make it something pleasant, which ends the conversation, like "I love you". StuRat (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I was interested to see how this question panned out. In my view it is not the 'amount' as to the context that causes the comment “you talk too much”. Like TammyMoet, I can tune people out when they’re just voicing the thoughts running through their head. It's more a 'feeling' form of communications where its not the words that's important but the emotion with which they are voiced – if vibes are good or neutral then everything's OK and thus evoke the complimentary response from spouse: ” Yes dear – Oh really – Well I never.....etc., etc., & et cetera ”. What irritates people (in my experiences) is where someone engages tongue without engaging brain – and pontificate on subjects they have not really thought about. The OP states the s/he wants some tips. Get a book on Transactional analysis. Here you will see that repeatedly pontificating is a 'Parent' to 'Child' transaction. Its just like a loop tape of the same thing over and over. Ie. The listener is being “told' but not really being included or invited to contribute on equal terms in the diatribe of verbiage. Hence the response "you talk to much" (ie I don't want to hear you repeating and repeating what who have hear from somebody else - I can get all that from watching Desperate Housewives). Engaging the 'Adult' ego will give a chance to 'listen' and then modify, develop and improve 'what -comes-out-the-mouth' into communication that serves a purpose – even if spouse tunes you out from time to time. --Aspro (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how any of us can presume to know anything about this situation. This is advice column stuff with too little background on which to base advice. I am unsure whether "techniques" are really being asked for here. This almost veers into "medical advice" although I would not seriously call it that. The reason is because normally there is nothing preventing anyone from simply refraining from speaking. Selectively reducing speech could similarly be arrived at simply by giving consideration to each utterance before allowing enunciation of it. Under a controlled environment such as a home situation this should not be so difficult. The question is whether the expenditure of such effort is defensible. One's prior speaking patterns in any such considerations matter and I am hesitant to begin suggesting "solutions" that may not have a basis in a preexisting "problem". It is not inconceivable that a partner is making an unreasonable request. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying that one can just stop from speaking too much is like saying one can just stop from eating too much. Obesity rates indicate it's not that simple for many of us. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a comparison here. Over-eating is just due to the body's genetic programming to attempt to get the right nutrients it needs. People who wander too far from the Paleolithic diet end up never feeling properly sated. So again, its a case of engaging brain before mouth and asking “ is eating this- or-that going to bring me the most benefiting the long time?” It just takes practice of exercising one's questioning awareness, regarding what one eats and disregarding what the adverts 'tell you' what to eat. Think about it. When you take the family to one of those Pitza, or what ever else emporiums, do they suddenly turn in the the smiling, polite Disney kids that the adverts have lead you to believe, or do they remain something a little worse than the Adams family. Its just sales and marketing misdirection. Next time you're looking at that double deluxe half pounder, ask yourself if your just about to bit into a delusion. Of course, this will end up costing a fortune in having to buy a new wardrobe of slimmer cloths, so it not a win-win situation.--Aspro (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We have statistics and other empirical evidence relating to overeating and indulging in the intake of of substances including alcohol and tobacco and other drugs. But do we have objective criteria to call something "talking too much"? Your comparison may have some merit. I have been in the company of someone about whom I was convinced they talked too much. But actually this was an older person and they were beset by serious physical ailments. My point would be that in a normal situation in which calmness prevails and there are no external stimuli, it is questionable whether "over-talking" can really be said to exist. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Figures. Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know. Never so true as asking this here at the Reference Desk - you've just diagonalized the Wikipedia userbase. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Slightly baffled here. Diagonalised? IBE (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just like Those who can, do; those who can't, teach [6]. One might take it to the neurotic conclusion of “ Why should I tell you, because then, what's to stop you from becoming as clever as I am?” Baffle them all with spurious word of wisdom... so keep them in your power.--Aspro (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about your reference, but I've worked out Wnt's. IBE (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good time for a musical interlude:[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This musical interlude could be instructional too. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The lyrics caricatures one of those traits rather well. No doubt he was singing from experience.--Aspro (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

More on auctioneering. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And more. Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

But getting back to the point, a London perspective; "Rabbit" ("Rabbit and Pork" = "talk") Alansplodge (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There's this support group Astronaut (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Austria-Serbian aggression

I realize there was a history of aggression between Austria and Serbia & Russia because of Austria's annexation of Bosnia, but did the nations ever have a history of aggression from the end of the Crimean War to the annexation of Bosnia? Thanks. 64.229.204.143 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not 100% sure what "aggression" means in this context, but some of the general basic frictions were that the Habsburgs saw themselves as the grand leaders of Christian resistance against Muslim/Turkish domination in Europe for many centuries, and the Serbs as petty troublemaking upstarts; while the Serbs saw the Austro-Hungarian empire as a German-Hungarian conspiracy to oppress Slavs and thwart Slavic national aspirations... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There does not seem to have been armed conflict between the nations in question between those two events. See History of Serbia (1804-1918). Marco polo (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

March 26

Surnames derived from country names

I suspect we've had a similar question before, but what the hell.

Is there a list of surnames that are derived (or appear to be derived) from the names of countries or peoples? The ones I know are:

• Brazil
• Britain/Briton (and Britton, Brittan, Britten)
• Cornish
• Deutsch
• England
• English
• Finn
• France
• French (also ffrench)
• German (also Jermyn)
• Holland
• Ireland
• Israel
• Moravia
• Saxon
• Scotland
• Scott
• Wales
• Welsh.

I'm sure there must be some more. Any ideas? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Walsh (surname), Norman (name), Kent (surname)? Astronaut (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And then there's Great Uncle Bulgaria and the rest of The Wombles who were all named after places. And maybe Barrington Womble MBE - presumably named after the Wombles :-). Astronaut (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There's Flanders too. Alansplodge (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okity dokity, neighborino. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Stupid Flanders. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Alamanni/Allemann, Albanese, Bayer, Böhmer, Bošnjak, Catalano, Greco, Horváth, Israels, Italiano, Ladino, Lombardo, Němec, Németh, Nimitz, Österreicher, Polaco, Poland, Pugliese/Puglisi, Romano, Schweizer/Schweitzer, Siciliano, Swede, Tedesco, Türkoğlu, Ungar ... (Ausländer :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 03:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've known someone with "Spain" as a surname. --Jayron32 04:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As you volunteer at the desks, was it Frances Lander Spain? See also Spain (surname). There seem to be a lot. I think we can easily triple the list we have so far. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In Spain the surname España is more or less common. Japón (Japan in Spanish) is concentrated in the south, apparently it has its origins in an expedition of Japanese Christians who established in Spain in the 17th century. Francia, Portugal, Italia and Suecia also exist. You can look for other surnames here. Sabbut (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple more: Ashkenazi and Sarfati. De Vries, Fries, and Friis. Fleming and Flemming. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Also Arnautov, Arnautović, Arnaudov, Arnaudović. --Theurgist (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

I've been interested in the number of non-Egyptians known as al-Masri (not sure that all the famous ones are listed there)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• A good way to research this is to start with an article like List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names and then cross reference it to known surnames. I suspect that the overlap to be less than 100%, but not significantly so. --Jayron32 17:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all very impressive. Clearly, there are many more than I realised. Thanks to all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Angola and Congo are relatively common surnames amongst African descendants in some Latin American countries. In Sweden, you find a few people with the surname 'Svensk' (meaning 'Swedish'). --Soman (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You have Nepal as a surname in Nepal, such as former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal. Bharat is a common name in India. --Soman (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As AnonMoos pointed out above, it is very common in Arab world to have family names indicating the origin of the family, either the name of a town (al-Qudsi, Trablousi, etc.), region or country (such as 'Al-Libi', i.e. 'Libyan' or 'Al-Hindi', i.e. 'Indian'). Then you have the Saud family, but in their case he kingdom is named after them rather than the other way around. --Soman (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We have a list of countries named after people. --Theurgist (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dench is an old English name for someone who was Danish. Snorgle (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Musical D-BeatD-beat Notation

[8]

What is the notation to the left of the eighth notes, and above the "DUPP"?Curb Chain (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an eighth (or quaver) rest. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't eight restseight restseighth rests look like this?Curb Chain (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those are eighth rests to the left of the eighth notes. They look slightly different from that because they are handwritten and placed lower on the staff. The "u-dupp" isn't very well aligned with the notation, but I'd guess the "u" is supposed to go with the eighth rest (and the hi-hat Xs) and the "dupp" with the eighth note bass drums (hmm actually, the second "u-du" is aligned differently from the first; it's unclear what the "u-dupp-u-du" is supposed to mean). Also, the rhythm in the soundfile on the D-beat page, [9], is different. It would be better notated with sixteenth note rests followed by dotted eight notes. Pfly (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if they are handwritten, shouldn't the dot be connected by a curve to the slant?Curb Chain (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if there's a horizontal connecting line that almost exactly coincides with the staff line. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, its right on the staff line. While the modern standard printed eighth rest has a curved line there's a lot of variation in written styles. That said, this example could be improved to various ways. In addition to making the eighth rests clearer, I'd write the bass drum notes with downward stems. Also there should be a quarter rest in the bass drum part at the end. Pfly (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Raining while burning at the stake

If it rained while a person was being burned at the stake did they stop burning the person and consider the person innocent because of God's grace? And has there ever been such an incident of this ever occurring in history?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No (at least not in England anyway). It just made the process a whole lot more drawn out and unpleasant. I'll look for a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go: "As the execution approached, there was a fine supper the night before or a hearty breakfast on the Big Day. Weather forecasting—an issue of pressing concern for the English throughout the centuries—assumed huge importance, for a rainy day meant moist, green faggots (and a slower, more lingering death)." From a review of If God Spare My Life: William Tyndale, the English Bible and Thomas More - A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal. by Brian Moynahan.

A windy day could also make things worse: "William Coberley’s death was prolonged and horrible; because of the wind, the fire did not reach his body, but only his left arm. After a while the arm was burned off, and he leaned over the fire, holding his right arm in the flames, hoping that they would reach his body." (From the source quoted above, but you can read John Foxe's even more lurid account of the same event here). Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What's this music?

Any clue what this music is? The image is at WP:FFD, where it's been suggested that it's a theme from something by Rachmaninoff, but we don't have a positive identification. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I used the musipedia search tool, and it appears to be from "piano concerto No. 2 in Cmi op. 18, 1st movement, 2nd theme" by Rachmaninoff. -- Lindert (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Those five bars can be heard at 02:38. [10] Oda Mari (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jump to page 7, the number on the page on top left says 8 though, and see the bar on the right with "a tempo". Oda Mari (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Funding a Campaign in the United States pre Super PACs

I'm trying to figure out how much an individual could give to help a candidate in one way or another before super PACs came into effect. I've found varous conflicting sources from $30,000 to $117,000 and I would greatly appreciate some (sourced) clarity on this matter. --CGPGrey (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If your question is how much an individual can give to a candidate, then the emergence of super PACs does not affect the answer to your question since, technically, super PACs are supposed to be independent of a candidate's campaign. (I know that in fact there is coordination because the law against it is interpreted so loosely as to make it meaningless.) The limit to an individual's contribution to a specific campaign for federal office is $2,500 for the 2012 election cycle, during which super PACs have been legal. During the previous election cycle, per this source, the limit was $2,400. Before 2002, the limit was $1,000. The higher numbers you cite are limits on an individual's contributions to all campaign funds for a given election, including not only a specific candidate's campaign fund, but also to other candidates and to unspecified party funds, which may be spent on any candidate. As for candidates for state elections, different rules are set by each state. For limits in effect for state campaigns as of 2010, see this document. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but that source lists the very table that is mainly causing me confusion:

	To each candidate1	To national party committee2	To state, district & local party committee2	To any other political committee2	Special Limits
Individual may give	$2,500	$30,800	$10,000	$5,000	$117,000 overall biennial limit; $46,200 to all candidates $70,800 to all PACs and parties
National Party Committee may give	$5,000		No limit	$5,000	$43,100 to Senate candidate per campaign
State, District and Local Party Committee may give	$5,000	No limit		$5,000	No limit
PAC (multicandidate) may give	$5,000	$15,000	$5,000	$5,000	No limit
PAC (not multicandidate) may give	$2,500	$30,800	$10,000	$5,000	No limit
Authorized Campaign Committee may give	$2,000	No limit	No limit	$5,000	No limit

That $70,800 number at the top right makes it sound like individuals' contributions to PACs currently in 2012 are not unlimited as is often reported in the media. Also this paragraph from a 2011 congressional report is confusing but seems to agree with the above statement:

Despite these changes, it should be noted that despite very common reports in the media that these decisions constituted overturning limits on contributions to candidates, parties or PACs, "pre-existing limits on contributions to campaigns, parties, and PACs generally remain in effect. Despite Citizens United's implications for independent expenditures and electioneering communications, the ruling did not affect the prohibition on corporate and union treasury contributions in federal campaigns";

Any help much appreciated. --CGPGrey (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an American but my understanding has always been, supported by Political action committee#Super PAC backlash is that individuals (and most 'ordinary' organisations) can give unlimited amounts to an organisation who campaigns for or against candidates. There are some accepted restrictions on what these organisations can do (e.g. they are nominally supposed to be independent and can't coordinate with candidates and I think some other bodies like a political party or I think real PACs) and the the donations also have to be declared and non US donations are still restricted. While these are commonly called super PAC, the terminology is probably a bit confusing as PAC as I understand it were/are? a variety of specific organisation so named and specifically regulated by US law, whereas a super PAC is simply a media term for any organisation that they consider is set up to campaign. You don't have to be a 'super PAC' to campaign, individuals and organisations can direct campaigns themselves using their own funds provided they don't violate the small number of rules. (Obviously there may be other limits on what organisations can do, e.g. a public listed companies still has a duty to its shareholders.)

About the pre-super PAC thing, it seems there were limits on how much an individual can give to a PAC. I presume in theory there were some restrictions to stop a person setting up multiple PACs to funnel money to a candidate or a single PAC. Otherwise it seems like someone could set up 14 PACs each receiving $5000 from an individual and giving everything minus administration costs to a candidates PAC effectively meaning they gave close to $70k for the use of one candidate. Perhaps the complexity of cost was enough to discourage this, particularly given the ultimately small amount of money. (The other alternative is for each PAC to do their own campaign but you can generally do more with close to $70k then 14 organisations can do with $5k although if you have a lot of individuals wanting to donate a lot, perhaps having 14 PACs with their 'own' campaigns would work.)

Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

what is the annual donatinos for the tory, labout, lib dems?

what is the amount? could it be funded by taxpayers?

who gets the most? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.122.200 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See Political funding in the United Kingdom.

Parties are funded in 3 ways - from membership fees (including, in the case of the Labour party, from Trade Unions), donations, and from the public purse. Individual donations over £5,000 must be recorded by law. Parties in opposition receive money from taxpayers to cover administration costs - see Short Money and Cranborne Money.

You can find numbers for donations in 2009, 2010 and 2011 here, a more detailed breakdown of all funding since 2001 here and comprehensive information on the subject from the Electoral Commission here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The current lead story on the BBC News website, here, has a graph at the bottom showing how much each major party got from each source in 2011 (2011 wasn't an election year, though - I imagine most of the money comes in during election years). --Tango (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(E/C) To answer the last part of your question: In 2011 the Conservative and Unionist Party (the 'proper' name for the Tories) received the most money in donations, and the most money in total, whilst the Labour party received by far the most money from public funds (almost 90% of the total public money given to political parties). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the only reason Labour got so much more than anyone else in public funds is because they are the largest party in opposition. Only opposition parties get public funds - the governing party/parties get(s) to use the civil service so they don't need public funds. See Short money, as linked above. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in this graph: http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/camerons-tories-have-received.html which shows a cumulative total for the Tory Party over the last 6 years of over £150 million. Astounding. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not that astounding when you compare it with US elections. Take a look at Fundraising for the 2012 United States presidential election. Mitt Romney spend $20m (£12.5m) in just the fourth quarter of 2011, and that's just on the primaries. The £150m figure is the entire revenue of the Tory party (excluding public funds, by the look of it, but they aren't particularly substantial) and is for all spending, not just elections. If you look at the total budgets of US parties, including all the spending by individuals on election campaigns, they are several orders of magnitude larger than the entire UK political system combined. --Tango (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I should hope so, because the US is larger than the UK, in all fields, by several orders of magnitude! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

March 27

Banquet of Chestnuts

During the Banquet of Chestnuts, why were chestnuts spread on the floor? What's the point of having everyone pick them up? You want to throw a party? Okay, I get that. You like chestnuts, I can get that too. But why put them on the floor for people to pick up? It seems strange to say the least. Dismas|^(talk) 09:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So they could crawl around naked and pick them up, and grope each other, etc. I suppose it would be like playing a game of naked Twister. Of course, it probably didn't happen anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't most Commonwealth realms abolish the death penalty if the UK has?

Yes I'm completely aware of the fact that Commonwealth realms, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Solomon Islands are not "colonies" of the United Kingdom. They are just independent nations (but former British colonies) that decided to keep the queen and the royal family but call them their own (like Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of Barbados etc.). But I noticed that, most of them (except Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu) have kept the death penalty (although most, except for Saint Kitts and Nevis have not used it in a long time). I know that their governments are independent, and that they are considered independent countries where the Queen is virtually powerless with only a Governor-General representing her, but why haven't they followed the example of their colonizer, of the country where their Queen resides? Don't make the excuse that not all former colonies abolish the death penalty if their original colonizer abolishes it (like the U.S. retains the death penalty although the U.K. has abolished it.), because they do not share the same head of state. Look at Andorra. One of its Co-Princes is the President of France, but both France and Andorra have abolished capital punishment, even if only the former is part of the EU. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? Local political culture I imagine. Past connections would have become pretty irrelevant in most cases. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you've given the answer yourself: they're independent states. The laws of Australia and New Zealand, for example, are based on those of England and Wales and were once almost identical. As time has gone on, the bodies of law have diverged, as is natural. As for the Andorra/France example: both have ratified Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which abolishes the death penalty. It's got nothing to do with the EU.  Omg †  osh  10:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The shared head of state - Elizabeth II - has no control over the politics or judiciary of any of the states of which she is the titular head. As has been said, she accepts the advice of those in each state, and they will come to different views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Australians, for example, had to abolish the death penalty because the government kept killing people. In other common law countries, if the government isn't actually killing people, why spend the effort to abolish a law that is not implemented? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on "... kept killing people": The last executions to be held in Australia, by state, were: 1967 (Victoria), 1964 (SA and WA), 1952 (NT), 1946 (Tasmania), 1940 (NSW), 1913 (Qld). See Capital punishment in Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Longest serving pope

In regards to a question asked here, who is the longest serving pope NOT just limited to the Roman church. (im asking on their behalf)Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

According to our Pope article, the longest serving Roman Pope was Pius XI, at 31 years, 7 months and 23 days.

No, no! It was Pope Pius IX. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

True. That was a typo on my part. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pope Cyril V of Alexandria was Coptic Pope for 52 years and 9 months.

We have a List of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria - can someone figure out from that who held that title longest?

Antipope Benedict XIII of Avignon pretended to the Roman Pontificate for 28 years, 7 months and 25 days.

Gregory XVII of the Apostles of Infinite Love pretended to the papacy for about 43 years.

On the basis of this, it appears that unless there's a truly remarkable record among the Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria, Cyril V is the longest-serving Pope ever, and the only one to serve more than half a century. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is something "truly remarkable". Apparently, Patriarch Joachim of Alexandria served as Greek Patriarch of Alexandria between 1486 and 1567. According to this source, the official web site of Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa, he was elected Patriarch of Alexandria when he was 38, and died at the age of 119. More details here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's an outstanding record, and I think that means we've now identified the longest-serving Popes of every tradition (except for a few like the Palmarian Catholic Church who have had no exceptionally long-serving leaders). AlexTiefling (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Genres of writing

how does the purpose of writing direct genres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.106.99.10 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd take a reception theory approach here. Most writing, with a few specific exceptions in outsider art contexts, has an expected audience. The form of the writing is crafted in relation to the perceived expectations of the audience - to meet them, challenge them, subvert them, exploit them, and so on.

So for example, if you are writing an essay or assignment, your principal audience is your tutor. The tutor's expectation will be that you produce an original work based on your own understanding of the subject, presumably related to what your tutor and their colleagues have lately been teaching you. If, instead, you produce something which has demonstrably been cribbed from the internet, you have not met your audience's expectations. It is unlikely that your audience will regard this as an innovative subversion or internal critique of the genre; it is much more likely that you will be seen to have failed to fit within the existing idea of the essay genre, and instead have produced a work of plagiarism - which may reasonably be viewed as a intrinsically failed genre, much like a shallow parody. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did a lot of people who had the same surname as but were unrelated to Adolf Hilter change their names after WW II?

Did a lot of people who had the same surname as but were unrelated to Adolf Hilter change their names after WW II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.12.200 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The subject has been discussed before at the reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_August_28#Hitler_as_a_Surname. (see also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_June_6#Hitler_-_Not_a_Typical_German_Surmame.3F and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_July_15#2_part_question_about_ADOLF_HITLER). --Soman (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Others positively embraced it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is also Adolf Lu Hitler Marak. --Soman (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

India is a strange country. Indians love the names of dictators. There is M. K. Stalin. Hitler is viewed positively in India. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In a choice betwen Stalin and Dikshit, I'm really not sure which way I'd go. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL, the "c" is missing! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Quit Stalin: make a choice. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

India is full of noble names, like Anil Gupta. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Chinese time zone

I know that China is just one single time zone, but how does this work practically? It's a big country that should have 3-4 of them if the followed the way other large countries do it. In other words, is sunrise and sunset in the far west of the country really that early? I can't imagine them behaving in daily life with a 2 pm sunset in the winter. But maybe they do... that's why I'm asking, I guess. Mingmingla (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

China's time zone is the "natural" time zone for Beijing and eastern China. It is maybe a bit "early" for places in the far northeast, but no more than one hour early. So in northeastern China, if the region had its own time zone, the winter sun might set at 4:00. Since it is on the Beijing time zone, it sets at 3:00. The real distortion is in western China, whose natural time zone is 2 to 3 hours earlier than Beijing's. If farthest west China had its own time zone, the winter sun might set at 4:30 (since it is farther south than northeast China). However, it actually sets at 7:30. In the same region, the winter sun doesn't rise until after 10:00 a.m., and the summer sun sets close to midnight. My understanding is that, in western China, while government offices mostly adhere to standard (Beijing) time, many local businesses operate on a more natural schedule, opening and closing several hours later than their counterparts in eastern China. Marco polo (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In Xinjiang, it can be a political issue, with unofficial Uighur time opposed to official government time... AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

See Time in China. I don't think there's a 2 pm sunset. Roughly speaking, the upper culmination would be about 11 am in Eastern China and about 3 pm in Western China. Oda Mari (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow that last sentence. What is the "upper culmination" ? StuRat (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Culmination (i.e., astronomical noon). Deor (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I see, so just an overly complex way of saying "when the Sun is highest". StuRat (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Which has more syllables? "The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn’t he explain this in simple language.' He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in A Canticle for Leibowitz —Tamfang (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Central European Time is quite similar in that it is commonly used both in Western Europe and Central Europe even though it would only seem "natural" in Central Europe. In the westernmost region of Europe that follows Central European Time together with daylight saving time, which is Galicia (Spain), solar noon may not occur until 2:30 PM or even later (here is an example for the city of A Coruña). Sabbut (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In Urumqi, Xinjiang in far western China, people go to bed at say 1:00 AM (official clock time and Beijing time) which is a true local time of 11:00 PM, then get up at say 9:00AM clock time which is a true local time of 7:00AM; and their work times begin and end two hours later by the clock than they would in Beijing. So they actually do things by true time even while keeping clocks set at Beijing time (though I think that some ethnic Uighurs (I'm not sure how many) keep their clocks set to true time). Duoduoduo (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

american indian

how do i find out if i am an american indain or not?

Please sign you post. See WP:SIGN. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a few methods:

1) Ask your parents, grandparents, etc. They would usually know and usually be truthful. This may not work if you are the child in a closed adoption, however.

2) Have your genealogy done, or do it yourself. This involves scanning public records for birth certificates, death certificates, marriage licenses, etc.

3) Submit a genetic sample of yourself to a lab which can determine if you contain any markers common in native Americans. However, since native Americans are descendants of Asians, it may not be possible to distinguish between the two. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly endorse the genealogy option. If you have a good, reliable idea of who your ancestors were back to 1940, you can subscribe to any of several genealogy websites and start looking up birth and marriage records, and (in particular) the US Census, which has been released, digitised, and transcribed down to 1940. (I think the actual release takes place shortly.) Unless your family's names are highly generic (Joe Smith, etc) you should be able to go back several more generations on the strength of such data. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is supposed to have the 1940 census data available starting this Monday, the 2nd, and I would guess that most everyone else will have it then too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Your first step is to be clear about what you mean be "American Indian". Do you want to know if you have any American Indian ancestors (which is quite likely as long as your family has been in the US for several generations)? Or if you have exclusively American Indian ancestors (which is very unlikely)? Or that you have a particularly percentage American Indian ancestors? --Tango (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It can be hard to be sure in many cases, if there isn't clear genealogical evidence—such as an ancestor officially enrolled as tribal member. In the US it isn't too uncommon for a family to have old stories claiming some Native American ancestry but no strong documentation proving it. A lot of older records have been lost, making it hard to be sure one way or another—even assuming marriages with Native Americans long ago were documented at all. Also, as I understand there are numerous examples of family stories claiming Native American ancestry in order to explain the darker skin of mixed African American ancestry or perhaps some other ethnicity like Turkish. It was (and probably still is) more respectable to claim Cherokee ancestry, say, than African. My own extended family has several stories claiming Cherokee ancestry (sometimes said to be a "Cherokee princess"), but despite the effort of many people nothing has been proven. Most of the stories would place the connection in the late 18th century and family records from that era simply do not exist. Lots of archives were destroyed during the Civil War. Pfly (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My family has a story like this (though the family legend doesn't claim that the Cherokee ancestor was any kind of noble). I have searched genealogical records and could not find the supposed ancestor. That said, it can be impossible to trace female ancestors using just Census records, since they generally don't record maiden names. A Native American woman could have married into the family without leaving much trace in the records of her ancestry. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, from what I understand the term "Cherokee princess" is a hint that the story may be fabricated or at least questionable. The term is not that uncommon despite being historically inaccurate (at best). I thought there might have been a Wikipedia page about it, but it appears not. In my case the circumstantial evidence that does exist suggests some unscrupulous folks might have claimed Cherokee blood in an attempt to swindle the Cherokee out of some land in Oklahoma, sad to say. A second claimed Cherokee link seems to be largely lost in the unrecorded history of female ancestry lines. Pfly (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a "Who is a Jew?" question. Try to enrol with a tribe, or be recognised culturally by people who affirm that they're culturally native american. If you're rejected, you probably won't have access to the legal or cultural benefits (and hindrances) of being native american. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the above is quite correct. Fifelfoo says "This is a "Who is a Jew?" question" but one can convert to Judaism but one cannot convert to being a Native American. Bus stop (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find the name of the author of an antique art print?

I have an antique art print. Framed under glass. I have searched everywhere I know of to find the author of the print. There is no signature and no identifying information. I did a reverse image search and ended up on one of your pages. It was an article about a band named Trapeze. They produced an album in 1970 by the same name. They used a copy of the print I own as the cover image on the album. Here is a link to your article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapeze_%281970_album%29

I have no problem with copyrights or with anybody using this image. All I want to do is find out who the author of the print was and when it was done. I am attaching a link to the photo of my copy of the print so you can tell it is the same print. Your help will be appreciated.

Antique Print Identification

Thank you, Philip DeLoach - PhiliP63 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent question ;) Next lead: the original is in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum according to the sleeve notes of the album - cf. http://bordeldorock.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/trapeze-trapeze-1970.html image 3. Sadly no name. If we can't do better, check out http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/w/word-and-image-department/ for links to the enquiry desks of the Word and-Image-department of the V&A. They might field an identification query: "Staff are also responsible for providing information about our collections and services through the telephone, letter and email enquiry services and website content". --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it The Storm by Pierre Auguste Cot? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A print based on; well done. I think the engraver got a bit fanciful, or else our The Storm is cropped. But that's an excellent lead for a V&A enquiry: what prints of The Storm have you in your collection? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Extended discussion here alleges there were three versions of the original. Our article at The Storm (painting) is silent on this question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One comment from the extended discussion talks of a print marked "By Cot property of the Metropolitan Museum of Art gravure Anderson & Lamb Co, NY Littig & Co. bklyn NY". What little we have on Gravure printing might fill in some of the details of the slightly bumpy surface you talk about on your redbubble page. As you're a USian, it's possible that yours is by Anderson & Lamb and or Littig. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Birmingham Bangla arab somali iranian turk afghani

which part of Birmingham, U.K. does Bangladeshis mostly live in? which part of Birmingham, U.K. does Arabs mostly live in? which part of Birmingham, U.K. does Somalis mostly live in? which part of Birmingham, U.K. does Iranians mostly live in? which part of Birmingham, U.K. does Turks mostly live in? which part of Birmingham, U.K. does Afghanis mostly live in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.132 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a majority of any of those nationalities lives in any one district of Birmingham. There may be concentrations of each in certain districts, but probably not a majority in any one district. Another issue is that, apart from Bangladeshi, the Office for National Statistics does not distinguish any of these national groups in official data. See Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Instead, they would be lumped together as "Other Asian" or perhaps (in the case of some Arabs) "African". If you are very interested in this question, you might spend some time on this site, which lists mosques in Birmingham by district. If you click on the "Read More" button for each mosque, you will find information on the national background of the management (and therefore probably the congregation) of many of these mosques. Mosques are likely to be located in districts where their congregants live. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There are quite well defined districts in Birmingham (suburbs) where ethnic minorities tend to congregate: Lozells, Handsworth, Erdington, Aston, Ladywood, Sparkhill, Small Heath for examples. I'm not sure that different nationalities stay in a particular place, however. Some of the primary schools are multilingual, and I'm talking 70+ different languages spoken by the children who attend. I've tried to find a news story I remember from last year about this with no success. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)You will find some of your questions answered in Demography of Birmingham.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We have an article, Demography of Birmingham, which might be useful, though it only talks about ethnicities not nationalities. The wards of Birmingham with the largest proportions of Bangladeshis are Aston and Lozells and East Handsworth, according to the data on this site, though there are Bangladeshis living all across Birmingham and the West Midlands. Apparently Sparkbrook has a large Somali community too. Smurrayinchester 20:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why'd rank-and-file soldiers in the Syrian army attack fellow Sunnis?

What does it matter that the upper echelons are Alawites? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Because they're likely to get shot for disobeying their officers. Besides, being of the same sect is no guarantee of protection against mayhem from your co-religionists. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably some of those who had the strongest consciously Sunni self-identities or were bothered by taking orders from Alawites decided not to join the army in the first place. However, there have been a number of defections from the Syrian army (and also massacres of attempted defectors)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tribal identity is often more powerful than religious identity. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The question is loaded. Not all Syrian soldiers chose to commit atrocities. Some chose to desert or even join the resistance. You are basically asking "Why do the soldiers who choose to stay and attack fellow Sunnis choose to attack fellow Sunnis?"Anonymous.translator (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a loaded question since they didn't say "all", so that's exactly what they are asking, yes. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From their point of view, they are killing rebels, who have attacked their fellow soldiers and occupied their cities. I am unfamiliar with how Syrian soldiers are trained, but I would imagine they are taught to believe the bond of being in the armed forces to be as strong or stronger than tribal identities. Please do not assume they share the same worldview as Western newspapers. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do Christian police officers in the United States kill fellow Christians? The answer is the same: they think they're doing their job. --140.180.39.146 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Christians have no qualms about killing non-Christians but draw the line at killing fellow Christians? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that Christian police officers do kill fellow Christians, nothing more or less. This is relevant because the OP is asking why Sunni military officers would kill fellow Sunnis, and I was giving an analogy that is presumably more relevant. Would you like to dispute my claim? --140.180.39.146 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." Anyone willing to perpetrate violence on another person cannot seriously consider himself a follower of Christ. Pais (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're claiming that police officers can't be Christians because they don't have the right to use violence to restrain criminals, that's an extreme minority viewpoint that has no relevance to this question. --140.180.39.146 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I always like to distinguish between true Christians, which are rare, and "Christians" (I use air quotes when saying that term). "Christians" are Christian in name only, but actually largely believe in Old Testament values, like killing your enemies, valuing wealth above poverty, the dominance of men over women, and intolerance towards anyone different (religion, nationality, sexuality, etc.). And some even seem to long for a return of another cherished Old Testament value, slavery (although usually a more subtle form of economic slavery). StuRat (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're hanging around the wrong folks, Stu. How's that application for migration to Canada going?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on a method of tying myself to a flock of Canada Geese, so when they fly back north to Canada, they will take me with them. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheapskate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No true Scotsman. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Found a good reason. The Saudis and other countries have now decided to pay rebel fighters. They hope to thereby encourage others to defect. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

March 28

Human Responsibilities

One big and important thing, issue, and matter people often talk and campaign about is human rights.

Rights. What about responsibilities? Human rights. What about human responsibilities?

What are human rights' activists' answer to this question? What are human rights organizations' answer to this question? What are the answer of the people who originally developed and thought up the idea of human rights to this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is discussed at the Wikipedia article titled Moral responsibility, and probably several others. The question of personal responsibility is a major focus of many schools of philosophy; you can find such threads in the article I just linked. --Jayron32 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

One issue where I often think of this is with population control. In areas of the world where there are regular crop failures and periods of starvation, those who choose to have a dozen kids, with no corresponding food security, seem seriously irresponsible, to me. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See Negative and positive rights, Natural and legal rights, Positive liberty, Negative liberty. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Free will and Determinism. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite common complaints that the emphasis is all on rights these days and not on responsibilities, I believe that people across the political spectrum do in fact believe strongly in social and individual responsibility. This is one of those political truisms which is so often said to be 'unspoken' that it is, on the contrary, ubiquitous. StuRat, you might wish to recall that in areas with regular starvation, people may have more children in order to ensure that at least some survive to the next generation, and that there will be enough hands to work the land. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That logic only applies if they aren't able to cultivate all the land due to labor shortages. If they currently have enough people, and had fewer children, then the death rate from starvation and disease and war would go down, and they would still have plenty of people to work the land. And, if for some reason the population ever fell below the level needed to cultivate, they could always import people from many of the overpopulated areas nearby. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "responsibility" mean depends of philosophy. VHEMT believes it is the responsibility of an individual not to have child and save the Earth from the disruptive creatures (as they put it) called Homo sapiens, social conservatives believe in social responsibility to prevent moral decay and social harm, liberals believe in social responsibility to redistribute wealth, libertarians believe in individual responsibility, Marxist-Leninists believe in class responsibility to protect oppressed class from oppressor class, religious fundamentalists believe it is the responsibility of every person to follow their religious codes and promote their religion, etc. etc. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with nearly all those things is that they all have to do with what they want someone else to do. The libertarian view has to do with individuals taking personal responsibility for their own actions, rather than trying to blame someone else, as happens all too often. In Richad Armour's It All Started With Columbus, a satirical history of the US, he has quizzes at various points. His final quiz question has the ring of seriousness: "How can you become a better citizen? What's stopping you?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Duty to rescue and Good samaritan law are also interesting; countries like France have laws enforcing responsibilities to each other, whereas in the US you don't have to help a child who gets trapped in into your machinery (see Duty to rescue) and have no responsibility to brake if a blind man steps out in front of your car[11]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Driving laws are different in each state. Some states (New Hampshire, for one) require cars to yield to pedestrians at all times. In general, trying to help someone who's seriously injured can result in screwing things up worse and/or lawsuits. That's why the advice usually is "call 911" and let the experts take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As BB has hinted at, your statement doesn't seem to be supported by your source. Your source discusses whether or not you have a duty to stop a blind man stepping in front of a car. Unless I missed it, it doesn't discuss whether or not you have a duty to stop (if you safely can) if it's your car. That's a fairly different thing because it may be you have some resposibility as a driver to attempt to avoid of collision, perhaps even if other parties have sole responsibility for the initial risk of collision. In other words, in the case when you're driving, it's not about a 'duty to rescue'. Instead it's about your responsibilities/duties as a driver, which may include avoiding collisions and avoiding running over people (and also to pay enough attention that you become aware of any risks of such in a resonable amount of time), regardless of whether you caused the initial risk. Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Every right implies a dual responsibility to respect others' claims to the same right. For some of the more sophisticated rights in, e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, upholding such rights often involves fairly expensive duties which comprise unfunded mandates in many signatory countries. 70.59.24.75 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides that, every right is tied to a responsibility. And indeed human rights activities do campaign for obligations towards certain responsibilities. XPPaul (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

French cities with significant population Muslim African francophonie arab

Which cities of France have significant population of Arab Muslims from Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, Mauritania and Muslims of Africa from Mali, Chad, Niger, Djibouti, Comoros, Senegal, Guinea and Burkina Faso? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.48 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Define 'significant'. And unless geography has undergone a complete revision since I last looked at an atlas, Algeria, Morocco,Tunisia and Mauritania are in Africa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Arab world is generally considered to consider the North African countries of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania (and Egypt). See Arab Africa - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All major French cities have non-trivial immigrant populations from the countries you list. --Xuxl (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To quote our Marseilles article: "Because of its pre-eminence as a Mediterranean port, Marseille has always been one of the main gateways into France. This has attracted many immigrants and made Marseille a cosmopolitan melting pot." The breakdown of population by religion gives: "Major religious communities in Marseille include Roman Catholic (600,000), Muslim (between 150,000 and 200,000), Armenian Apostolic (80,000), Jewish (80,000), Protestant (20,000), Eastern Orthodox (10,000) and Buddhist (3,000)." Alansplodge (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this Eton College statement mean?

An excerpt from Eton College's statement of Spiritual Values: "College Chapel dominates the Eton landscape both physically and spiritually. ... And so the school requires boys to experience it, whatever their persuasion..." What do they mean by "requires boys to experience it"? Is there some thing they do there with required attendance, or (and I get the feeling this is it, but am asking because I'm not sure) are they just saying every person has to see the building there and know its religious significance, whether or not that means anything to them? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds as though attendance of certain religious services are mandatory for the school's students to me, no matter their religious persuasion.  Omg †  osh  13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The college's Religious Provision page goes into a little more detail on the requirements. In particular it says "As well as the regular chapel services, there are numerous optional opportunities for worship.", suggesting that the regular chapel services are not optional. I get the feeling that students are required to attend services on a regular basis, although not necessarily required to believe what is said there. Maybe one of our Old Etonians will see this and be able to give some more information - I sense that the school's own website expresses the subject in slightly unclear language. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Th+e "Guide to Independent Schools" website (page here) says "Compulsory chapel attendance unless parents request otherwise"; at a guess, that's a relatively modern opt-out. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yoenis Céspedes travel documents

The Oakland Athletics and the Seattle Mariners played a regular-season Major League Baseball game in Tokyo this morning. One of the Oakland players is Yoenis Céspedes, who defected from Cuba. What sort of international travel documents would someone like him be able to use to travel overseas, to Japan and then later in the season, to Toronto? I would imagine the Cuban government would have revoked any Cuban-issued travel documents he might have had. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. State Department may, in cases like this, expedite the proper residency papers for being a legal permanent resident of the U.S. Once those papers are established, whatever Cuba has to say on the matter is moot; the U.S. State Department can issue the relevent passports/visas whatever (such documents essentially mean the U.S. is "vouching" for him); it doesn't really matter where he was born. The article Asylum in the United States may be relevent for you to read through. In the section titled "Application for resettlement by refugees abroad" has a bit on Cuba. --Jayron32 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cuba could always claim he committed some crime, and try to extradite him. However, I doubt if many nations regularly visited by US baseball players have extradition treaties with Cuba. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Canada? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the link at Extradition Treaties the US has a treaty with Cuba so they could have asked for him back. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks StuRat. See this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

According to [12] [13] [14] [15] the treaty was pre-1959 and has never been used since the communist takeover. As per the Guantánamo Bay case, I presume the US considers it still in force but it doesn't sound like Cuba does (although they may be willing to sign a new treaty). I didn't check the US-Cuba treaty, but many treaties have exemptions for political offences and even in the absence of that a number of treaties and similar such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights impose limitations on countries extraditing people [16], Luis Posada Carriles. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see the CNN link says there is a Cuba/US treaty. But I doubt there much chance of it being enforced and the US/Cuba one in Article VI does exempt political people. Article V is interesting as well if they were to make Yoenis Céspedes a citizen quickly. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. and Cuba signed a new agreement in the early 1970s promising to either return or prosecute airplane hijackers from the other country; not sure if anyone was actually returned... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

March 29

watch trials in florida online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17544660 IT looks like this trial was filmed Where can i watch the whole thing online?? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.118 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a specific legal term

Let's say that I go out and commit a horrific crime, and then I write a book about it that becomes a massive bestseller; when I'm released from prison, I'm instantly a millionaire, and I live happily ever after on the royalties. In much of the world, this would be impossible: many jurisdictions have laws prohibiting one from profiting from illegal activities, so I wouldn't be able to take possession of the royalties. What's the standard term for this kind of law? It runs in my mind that it's Latin, but I don't have any better idea than that. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually its called a Son of Sam law.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, not quite what I was looking for. The context is copyright — I've seen such a law used as an argument against the idea of photos of graffiti being potential copyvios: the argument was that this kind of law prevents graffiti vandals from benefiting from rights over the image they created (and thus wouldn't have grounds to sue the photographers) because the graffiti was illegal. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Various countries have laws stopping criminals being able to receive what they call "the proceeds of crime".

We have 2 articles on such laws: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (UK), Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (Ireland). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What happens to your royalties, if you're a writer before you commit the horrific crime?
Sleigh (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

They're unaffected (though you might be a little hard pressed to spend them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I found Ex turpi causa non oritur actio which fits the graffiti copyright example, but doesn't fit the mass murderer's autobiography. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess there could be an equity principle that would apply... not allowing someone to benefit from crime, or to use the courts for that purpose. That certainly exists in the contract law context as a matter of law (I think) and also in an equitable sense. I'm not saying it wouldn't, but I'm unfamiliar with it in the copryight context. Now there is a provision of the U.S. Copyright Act that prohibits infringing works from gaining copyright themselves... as in infringing derivative works. But as far as a a classic latin term to apply, I don't know of one that's not associated with the broader concept of Equity (law). Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The maxim in Equity that you refer to is the maxim of "clean hands": "equity must come with clean hands", or "those who seek equity must do equity". It applies only in the context of equitable remedies, and is not directly relevant to criminal law.

As JackOfOz said, the law depriving criminals from enjoying the proceeds of their crime is usually called a "proceeds of crime" law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about criminal law? Unclean hands is one of those... there are others too. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

humor production under Marx

in the transition toward Communism, during the Socialist period things are mostly state-run. Under this system what is the supposed means of production of humor - a National Joke Institute?

(This is a theoretical question, of course - in practice every government agency was a joke institute) 188.6.83.253 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure Marx was too concerned with idle entertainment of the masses. --Jayron32 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends... are we talking Karl... or Groucho? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See "The humour of Karl Marx". [17] I'd also recommend The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte for an excellent insight into the part played by the garlic sausage in the history of france:

The “Society of December 10” was to remain the private army of Bonaparte until he should have succeeded in converting the public Army into a “Society of December 10.” Bonaparte made the first attempt in this direction shortly after the adjournment of the National Assembly, and he did so with the money which he had just wrung from it. As a fatalist, he lives devoted to the conviction that there are certain Higher Powers, whom man, particularly the soldier, cannot resist. First among these Powers he numbers cigars and champagne, cold poultry and garlic-sausage. Accordingly, in the apartments of the Elysée, he treated first the officers and under-officers to cigars and champagne, to cold poultry and garlic-sausage. On October 3, he repeats this manoeuvre with the rank and file of the troops by the review of St. Maur; and, on October 10, the same manoeuvre again, upon a larger scale, at the army parade of Satory. The Uncle bore in remembrance the campaigns of Alexander in Asia; the Nephew bore in remembrance the triumphal marches of Bacchus in the same country. Alexander was, indeed, a demi-god; but Bacchus was a full-fledged god, and the patron deity, at that, of the “Society of December 10.” [18]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In market economies, humorous books are produced by privately owned publishers, comedy plays are produced by privately-owned theaters, comedy films are produced by privately-owned movie studios, etc. In command economies, humorous books are produced by state-owned publishers, comedy plays are produced by state-owned theaters, and comedy films are produced by state-owned movie studios. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In the Soviet Union, literature was never state run - there was always room for freelancers, although there were censors and it was very hard to get published if you didn't write in the Socialist realist style. Nevertheless, comedy writers did get published - the most famous being Ilf and Petrov. The film studios, which were government run, also produced lots of comedies. Indeed, Stalin's favourite film was supposedly the musical comedy Volga-Volga. Soviet TV also produced comedies, such as Yeralash and Fitil (and jokes could also travel by word of mouth, of course - see Russian humour). In other words, humour was produced in the exact same way it was in America, it's just that the people telling the jokes worked for the state, not private companies. See Soviet film, Soviet literature. Smurrayinchester 14:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube

I understand one could possibly earn money off one's YouTube videos. How does that work? Is there a good chunk to be made with so many views?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See YouTube's partner program also see the YouTube creator page, the section near the bottom titled "Monetize your content". --Jayron32 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya but, does anyone REALLY make any money with their videos? How much? How much does it pay for how many thousands of views? Need some simple answers for an airhead blond. Thanks guys.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This was asked and answered before, but here's a Telegraph article listing the top 10 for 2010, with 22-year-old Californian Shane Dawson as the top earner, making $315,000 for nearly 432 million views. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So that's roughly 7 cents for every 100 views. In my experience though it does vary quite a bit with ad programs as they usually pay you differently for "click through" and things of that nature (e.g. does anyone actually interact with the ads, much less buy anything). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That may be hard to research since the advertisers may not be very forthcoming with actual numbers. I know I never look at the ads on YouTube videos. Though I've been conditioned to move the mouse over to the right side of the video to click the "X" to get rid of them as soon as they pop up about 30 seconds in. Dismas|^(talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Beryl Cicely Cholmeley Tyacke

I recently bought something from the South African Painter Beryl Cicely Cholmeley Tyacke. If I google him, I can see some info on artfact.com, but nothing more than the birthdate; 22 februari 1929. How can I find more info on this painter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.133.55 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Both the given names Beryl (a decorative mineral) and Cicely (a flower) suggest this person is a woman. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes: from the name, I'd think the painter is a 'her' rather than a 'him', but otherwise, if Google draws a blank, you are unlikely to find much more online - though this looks likely to be a genealogy of close relatives: [19]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

all planets shine, right?

so the Greeks, who named them Venus, and Jupiter and so on, and Mars, though I guess these are Roman, not Greek, because the Greek names are Aphrodite, Jove, and Ares. So anyway the Greeks or Romans or whoever named these planets - to them they were just bright stars, right? I mean during the day you don't see rock there or gas or whateve,r do you, just like the moon never looks like a rock, it always shines or is totally dark (crescent, to the point that superstition attached significance to a star inside the horn of the crescent moon - an obvious impossibility). So, did the Ancients think these were the same thing as a star, just a God? what were the Stars then? Smaller Gods? Or, did the Ancients know that these are astronomical things ('planets') by calculating their movements (like in the copernican view of the solar system) with Earth at the center, and just as mnemonics give them the name of Gods - in fact having quite distinct ideas of who the Gods were and what these planets were. (i.e. the same as naming them after the seven dwarves, but still knowing they have nothing to do with the seven dwarves and are kept totally separate in the mental landscape). To the ancients, what was the connection between the planets and the Gods bearing their names? Were more Gods thought to have planets that came with them, but just couldn't be observed yet? Or maybe were thought to only come out during the day, when they were too faint to be seen? Thanks for any (historic) insight you have onthis subject. I'm mostly interestedd in past attitudes and how we come to have plaents with the names of Greek or Roman Gods and Deities. 149.200.72.244 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical planet has a partial answer. They were a little bit confused to the nature of planets, but not so far to confuse them with any star, since they certainly noted that they moved differentlyXPPaul (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Greek word Πλανητης literally means "a wanderer"; in the broadest sense, anything which moved relative to the the background of fixed stars could be a "planet" (including comets, etc.). However, persistent entities whose recurrent motions could be partially predicted mathematically were perhaps considered most deserving of the name, eventually resulting in the meaning of the modern word "Planet"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Greek astronomy is probably your most useful article. A few things to take away:

1. There isn't one classical Greek understanding of the planets. There were lots of different ideas about them floating about. It's hard today to say which was most popular at the time because we don't have tons of sources on that. But one shouldn't necessarily search for one "classical Greek" model — there isn't one.

2. The reason the names of the planets in English are based on Roman rather than Greek gods is because the Romans picked up the Greek system and renamed it, and they were, on account of their empire-building efforts, fairly influential.

3. You seem to be thinking of this is strictly mythological terms, but this is fairly misleading. Their astronomical and philosophical discourse on the cosmos was a lot more sophisticated than thinking they were literal gods or anything like that. There is also astrology, though, which was not distinct from astronomy until relatively recently.

Hope that helps. Again, the Greek astronomy article is useful both in describing the various currents of thought, but also making it clear that you're talking about literally centuries of highly sophisticated thinking when you say "ancient Greek understanding" — and unsurprisingly there is a lot of variety there. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

wait - let's get something clear. Did Greeks believe their Gods existed? Did they think the planets were these Gods? 188.156.249.197 (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As Mr 98 said, "ancient Greece" is a long period involving many people. Some clearly believed in their mythology, others clearly did not. Pfly (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well we all shine on, like the moon, the stars and the sun John made no mention of planets, however!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have been kind of hard to work "and the planets" into that rhyme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Some ancient Greeks believed that "the classical gods" existed. Indeed, they often also believed that many other gods of other places and people existed, sometimes identifying them with Greek gods and goddesses, and sometimes accepting them as independent neighbours. Many of the more enlightened Greeks did not share this view, but believed in no gods or very abstract concepts like that of a prime mover. Socrates was convicted for propagating some kind of atheism ("not believing in the gods of the state" - that phrase has something positively 1984esque to me), and Plato suggested a perfect abstract being emanating lower gods (this entered early Christendom as part of gnosticism, where the god of the Old Testament is one of the lower gods, and Jesus is send by the original perfect being to reclaim the splinters of it that formed the souls of some humans). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

completely not answering: did they equate the points of light with the Gods? like, for weekdays obviously "NO"

You guys are completely not answering whether the Greeks equated the points of light with the Gods. (OP here). The linked WP article says that the days of the week were NAMED AFTER the Gods. Nobody thinks saturday (latinate form) actually IS the God Saturn. So as for the Planet SATURN did they look at it and say "Look, there's the God Saturn!", in a way they would not point to a calendar and say "Look, there's the God Saturn!" pointing at Saturday. Or, was it exactly the same as Saturday: Look, there's the point of light called Saturn!! (And not "Look, there's the God Saturn!"). WHich was it? "Named after" or "Look, there's the God!" 188.6.83.253 (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Mr 98 precisely answered. If you are expecting somebody to give you a simple "yes" or "no", then you will not be satisfied. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 98 did not so much as HINT at whether the planets were considered TO BE the God's (by ANYONE, even a single adult). Obviously NOT ONE SINGLE ADULT IN ANTIQUITY CONSIDERED ANY WEEKDAY TO ACTUALLY BE THE GOD UNDER QUESTION.

Let me do it line by line: "1. There isn't one classical Greek understanding of the planets." -- okay. Did anyone consider the planet to BE a God?

"There were lots of different ideas about them floating about." Any evidence that ANY of these views is that the God is himself/herself the planet in the sky?

"It's hard today to say which was most popular at the time because we don't have tons of sources on that. But one shouldn't necessarily search for one "classical Greek" model — there isn't one." Not popularity question. Did ANYONE consider the bright 'star' e.g. Jupiter to BE the God himself?

"The reason the names of the planets in English are based on Roman rather than Greek gods is because the Romans picked up the Greek system and renamed it, and they were, on account of their empire-building efforts, fairly influential." Here you hint at: "the reason the NAMES of the Planets". So are you saying that we are talking about stars that were NAMED AFTER Gods, as opposed to having (by anyone at all) being formerly considered to BE Gods?

" You seem to be thinking of this is strictly mythological terms, but this is fairly misleading. Their astronomical and philosophical discourse on the cosmos was a lot more sophisticated than thinking they were literal gods or anything like that." So NOBODY at ANY point thought that they were Literal Gods? (Like they see the bright Saturn in the night sky and think that it is literally the God Saturn in the night sky. I'm not asking about sophisitcated understanding, but rather the man in the street - or rather ANYONE AT ALL.

"There is also astrology, though, which was not distinct from astronomy until relatively recently. Hope that helps. Again, the Greek astronomy article is useful both in describing the various currents of thought, but also making it clear that you're talking about literally centuries of highly sophisticated thinking when you say "ancient Greek understanding" — and unsurprisingly there is a lot of variety there."

Fine. Astrology developed into astronomy. In the past 2000+ years that Saturn has been named after a God, did anyone in any culture think that they saw Saturn-the-God when they looked at Saturn?

To make an example. Obviously no one at any point said: "Every seventh day Saturn turns from his usual shape into the shape of a day. That's why you can never see Saturn on the night sky on a Saturday." because nobody EVER thought that Saturday was literally a God, Saturn. Everyone always knew it was a question of naming. Now, as for the PLANE T Saturn, did anyone ever think it was LITERALLY the God Saturn, and if you saw him up there ,he couldn't be anywhere else?

I'm asking about the time since the planet has been called Saturn. Not asking about ancient egypt or mesopotamia or whatever.

my question is super-simple and you are not addressing it in the slightest.

my question is literally as simple as the question "We TALK ABOUT the sun moving across the sky - but did anyone ever think the Sun moves across the sky? Until it dips under the horizon in the west, whereupon it changes direction, travels all the way to the east under us during nighttime, - west to east - and reaching the eastern edge of the world rises up, changing direction again, and once more goes east to west?" The answer to that question is, Yes, yes some people used to think that, even adults.

I don't care if it's a few people.

Did anyone ever think "That bright point is Saturn, the God himself. If you can see it, that's where he is at the moment." Super-simple question here. I don't care how many people thought that way, I'm asking if anyone did. (Just like the question "every seventh day the God saturn turns into the form of a day, and can't be in any other shape for the duration of Saturday, since he's a day" has the answer No, not one adult ever thought that, maybe a confused five year old.--188.6.83.253 (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. People think all sorts of things even now, but without extant sources it is all just hypothetical. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shame nobody has deciphered ancient Greek or Latin. Like some runic mystery, perhaps the world will never know what those people thought or wrote. --188.6.83.253 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was made quite clear to you above that none of the extant sources contain any specific evidence of that kind. By the way, good work on the arrogant attitude, I am sure it has made all the ref deskers eager to answer all your questions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking, "are there any writings preserved of Latin/Greek scholars which indicate that any of them believed that literally the planet called Jupiter/Zeus was indeed the same as the god Jupiter/Zeus?", the answer, so far I know, is "no." (I could be wrong — I'm no expert on ancient history. But this was certainly not the common view and the vast output of ancient astronomical writings did not believe in this.) They didn't believe they were the planets. At their most literal, the believed the planets were sacred to these gods (which is similar to the days of the week issue). But not that they were the gods. See also Planet#Mythology_and_naming which describes how the naming system of the Greeks is actually borrowed from earlier cultures as well. Now it's a very different situation between the planets and the sun/moon, for example, which had more literal mythological importance. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The practice of naming planets after gods was actually borrowed by the Greeks from the Mesopotamian civilizations and ultimately from Sumer. For example, Venus was known as Ishtar in Babylon. The planets were associated with these gods and perhaps considered sacred to them, not identified with them. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

THank you for taking the time to read my frustration, sorry for the tone, and thanks for finally answering the question. I would have liked it to be a bit more broad than what the scholars thought, i.e. if anything points to the population thought, but I will take this answer. Thank you. 188.6.83.253 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

March 30

Pleading "not guilty"

This past weekend, a local woman, Melissa Jenkins, was killed. The police caught a couple of suspects, <names removed as claim does not appear supported by source and for BLP reasons I'm not sure if they should be mentioned anyway Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)>. They both filed a plea of not guilty though the man has also admitted to the crime. So, why plead not guilty but also admit to the crime?

Note: I'm looking for information as to why someone would admit to the crime but plead not guilty. I am not related to the case at all. It's simply a local murder case. We don't get too many murders per year around here, so it's a big deal around here. I'm not looking for legal advice because, as I said, I'm unrelated to the entire case. Please do not delete this question. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, without having read your link at all, I'd just point out that "not guilty" doesn't always mean you dispute the overt facts. For example, the prosecution might have charged murder, but you think it was manslaughter. In general "not guilty" just means you insist that the prosecution prove its case. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean 'admit to the crime' since unless I missed it the source doesn't seem to mention anything like that. But speaking in general terms, presuming you mean someone confessed to the crime but later plead not guilty then it would seem there are many possible reasons. It may be the original confession is being withdrawn claiming it's a false confession perhaps given under duress or similar circumstances, or they confessed because they wanted to protect the real killer. It may be they're not denying they killed the person but claiming they are not guilty of the specific crime they're being charged with (this may seem unlikely in this case since the victim was strangled and the charge was second degree murder but there may still be possibilities, e.g. insanity or the person who confessed was forced to kill the victim by someone else). And remember that a not guilty plea can generally be fairly easily changed to a guilty one whereas it's more difficult to withdraw a guilty plea, so it may be they're trying to reach a plea bargain or even simply that their lawyer has advised them to plead not guilty for now while they familiarise themselves with the case. It may also be that the person who confessed is somewhat psychotic (many killers probably are to some degrees) and so wants to fight the case even if they have no hope of winning and have already confessed; remember a lawyer can't force someone to listen to their or plead guilty advice and ultimately has to follow what their client wants provided they aren't doing stuff which would violate their professional ethics or the law (like Subornation of perjury). You could basically ask the same thing in other cases without a confession. Why do people fight a case even when all parties likely including their lawyer would agree they have no hope of winning? Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

N.B. Given what I mentioned about the admission of guilty not seemingly being supported by the source, I've removed them. Even if you provide a source supporting the claim, I suggest they stay out for WP:BLP reasons as they don't seem to matter to the question Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says "But <male suspect's name>, 30, told investigators he and his wife committed the crime, according to the detective." There is, of course, more than one news story about this. I supplied the link to provide some background and so that people may read at least something about the case even though it may not back up every bit of what I said. The affidavit is online somewhere as well. Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• One thing one should note in a situation like this: admiting to committing an act is not the same thing as admitting to committing a crime. For example: Killing a person is an act, and even if I fully admit to killing someone, I may still claim to be not guilty of the crime of murder (for example, if the act was an accident, or in self-defense, or if I claim insanity, or some such thing). --Jayron32 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Zimmerman-Martin case in Florida is a stark example. That Zimmerman shot Martin is not at issue in any way, shape or form. The issue is whether a crime was committed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament

In this article, there is no mention of when the book was written? If we don't know then someone should have written briefly in the article that we don't know. I'm sure some scholars have some kind of estimated guesses for when it was written. Hope someone would add that info into the article. I'm also curious about it too!65.128.165.20 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not just one book; it's lots of books, and they were written at different times. Read the article more carefully and you'll see at least some discussion of that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Authorship of the Bible probably provides a clearer summary of the information. It's disappointing that we don't have a timeline. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are times given at Old_Testament#Composition_of_the_Hebrew_scriptures. For the Pentateuch, there are also Documentary hypothesis and Mosaic authorship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also note that many of the writings may be based on much older fictional or real events. For example, the Black Sea deluge hypothesis is one possible source of the Great Flood myth. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Japanese strike

What is a Japanese strike? (Note that the link is a redirect to strike and thus not very helpful). I'm gessing it doesn´t have anything to do with huelga a la japonesa. 85.55.197.138 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Labour law says "Strikes may be pursued by people continuing to work, as in Japanese strike actions which increase productivity to disrupt schedules, or in hospitals". That sounds a bit like a work-in. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like it is indeed huelga a la japonesa - the only place I've found a reference to it, apart from mirrors of our article, is a blog post that seems to have been translated from Spanish. The idea seems closer to work-to-rule, where workers stick to over-rigid rules that are normally ignored, than a work-in: the idea is to do the absolute maximum for a short period, but to cause problems with storage and distribution rather than to demonstrate the abilities of the workers. I can't find any evidence that a Japanese strike has ever actually happened, though. Japanese industrial action seems to be a bit feeble by European or American standards (generally consisting of short disruptions and brief pickets rather than drawn-out shutdowns), but otherwise ordinary. Smurrayinchester 18:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Journey audiobook

Is the Audiobook of The Journey by Tony Blair actually read by Tony? It seems to suggest it is but I can't imagine it. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it says "Read by the Author" on the front cover.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Purely for curiosity, AJP, why couldn't you imagine it was Tony Blair, given that as a professional politician he is by default a trained and experienced public speaker. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

None of us was in the recording studio to be able to see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears who did the actual reading. We're told Blair did it himself. Like virtually all historical events, we have to trust what we're being told, unless there's some good reason to doubt the veracity of that statement (e.g. the voice sounds more like that of Sharon Stone ...). Are you suggesting they used a voice double? What's your evidence? (Btw, distrust of anything a politician says does not count as evidence.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone else reading Uncle Tony's deathless prose FreeMorpheme (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If it says "read by the author" on the front and it wasn't read by the author, then that's fraud. It seems unlikely they would commit fraud over something like that... --Tango (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A man called Jesus

Where in the Gospels does it say specifically that Jesus is physically a man?--LordGorval (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to what? A fish? A mushroom? A two-week holiday in Benidorm? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it says he had a human mother, and they didn't record anything unusual physically about him. Of course, the supposed fatherhood of God and his ability to do miracles would imply that he was at least part god, right ? StuRat (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because Jesus had a human mother does not confirm a human man. Looking where it actually confirms a human man. To imply is NOT what I am looking for.--LordGorval (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the New Testament: Matthew 1:1 "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."[20]Anonymous.translator (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "son" has a meaning of "offspring" - so it could be the offspring of David, etc. It hasn't actually confirmed a physical human (blood and guts).--LordGorval (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hebrew word for son used in that passage, υιου, is generally used for the male offspring of men. Although it does carry the "offspring" meaning as you mentioned, that usage is very rare. Of course you can argue this is not a strong enough evidence, but the people who believe he was a human male generally do not require strong evidence per se.Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Jesus had a human mother, and there are many indications that his appearance was undistinctive. However, his exact nature was a central issue in Christianity for centuries; you can start with our Christology article. John M Baker (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As suggested, reading over Christology it says the "tender image of Jesus" as a friend and a source of love and comfort was developed. It also says Jesus as a loving figure "who is always there to harbor and nurture those who turn to him for help and take delight in his presence". Does NOT say anything of a physical human being. --LordGorval (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A counter question could be where in the Bible it is attested that Abraham was a human being or that Jonah was or the disciples or any other Biblical person. Jesus is commonly assumed to be a human man because he had a human mother, he's described as appearing physically human (or at least had a beard, hands, feet, legs, blood, flesh, etc.), and there's no direct evidence to the contrary. However, I suppose you are correct in that there is no particular verse I can think of that specifically discusses Jesus' genetics or whether there was anything about him physically different from any other person. Certain variants of Christianity might believe he wasn't actually a man, but the predominant assumption, at least among most Protestant groups, is that he was physically a human. 151.163.2.8 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Stepping away from those who believe, since that sounds religious to me, I am looking for some phrase that specifically says he was human or a physical man. Why couldn't "Jesus" be something else. Why couldn't Abraham" be something else? Why couldn't "Jonah" be something else besides human or a blood and guts man?--LordGorval (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why couldn't Barack Obama be a lizard? Why couldn't Cyril Nutter of Guatemala (1738 - 2011) have written all of "Shakespeare"'s plays and his wife Dyspepsia have written his sonnets. Such questions verge on trolling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate said "Ecce homo", meaning "Behold the man" or "Behold, a man". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Verse?--LordGorval (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

John 19:5, as Ecce Homo states. That's from the Vulgate; as I'm not a Greek scholar, I can't assist you in comparing it with the original Greek. 151.163.2.8 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Homo" in Latin means both "human being" (e.g. Homo sapien) and "male human being".Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you answer Andy's question - a man as opposed to what? The word "man" has a lot of meanings, what are you suggesting Jesus might have been if he weren't a man? --Tango (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Costs for the government to defend itself in cases regarding the Establishment Clause

I need some sources that mention the amount of money it would cost for a local or state government to litigate defend itself in a case involving the separation of church and state. I am not in need of a general study but rather specific instances. For example, the Cranston, Rhode Island school committee said that the city's attorney fees would push upwards of $500000 if their case (Ahlquist v. Cranston) went to the Supreme Court. Can I also get some sources that report the success rate of local/state governments have in defending themselves in such cases? This is to back up a bill in a mock legislature program. --Melab±1 ☎ 20:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)