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

July 17

Looking for a reference for the article on Lyn Duff

In Lyn Duff appears the statement, "She was one of a handful of children who divorced their parents that year;[16] an issue that gained national attention when reporters revealed that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had completed her master's thesis on the legal right of children to divorce their parents.[17][dead link]". The dead link is to an article that, once I found it in a web archive, has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or her thesis. Indeed, Hillary Clinton never wrote a master's thesis so far as I am aware, and this may be intended as a reference to her senior thesis, which got much media attention when it was finally publicized in 2007 (the same year the dead linked article was written). But that doesn't help me find a source for the fact that Clinton's thesis had anything to do with children divorcing their parents, or that it brought national attention to child emancipation. I find reference here, to scholarly articles written by Clinton on the subject, but I'm not sure that even qualifies as a reliable source, and certainly not for the precise claim made in the article. I suspect we have multiple factual errors as well as bad sourcing, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Hoping someone here can help me :) Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's an Associated Press article from Sept 1992: [1]. It says "some people" credit Clinton for a general move towards allowing children to have independent legal counsel. The next paragraph says she "wrote influential law journal articles in the 1970s about children's rights" and then attributes a statement that "her views were mildly radical at the time, but have since become standard legal doctrine in more than 100 countries" to "Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association's Centre on Children and the Law". He is not directly quoted, so I don't know how strong you feel this is. But it may be where the confusion started. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Was Roscoe Filburn ordered to destroy his crop?

In our article on Wickard v. Filburn, we say, "Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops". However, reviewing the Supreme Court decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=111), and the decision below at the District Court (http://thefilburnfoundation.com/pdf/FilburnHelke), I see no record of Filburn being ordered to destroy his crops. All I find is a fine, which Filburn had the option of avoiding by storing or delivering the excess wheat. The internet is littered with claims that Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops, but I can't find a primary source for this. Can anyone point me to one? Thank you. Sancho 06:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Suppose it's possible that happened in 1941 after his harvest and before the two court cases (which came down in March and Nov 1942, respectively). However, searching the google news archive only brings up articles from 1942 reporting on the court cases, and nothing from earlier.

• If you are a NYTimes subscriber (I'm not, sorry, so can't read these for you) the contemporary reports are March 1942, federal court ruling, November 1942, supreme court ruling and November 1942, editorial.
• The other hits for contemporary reports are: July 1941, Nov 1942, Nov 1942 and June 1943.

None mention anything other than the fine. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Smiling cobras

Are there any references to "smiling cobras" or something similar in the Hebrew bible or the Talmud? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The cobra gets mentioned 6 times in the Old Testament, but none of them seem to be smiling. I'm not sure how to search the Talmud, but I'll give it a go. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google hasn't shed any more light, but the Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics (p.540) has some information about snakes and Judaism. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no word in Biblical Hebrew for "smiling".

Also note that the translation of the various biblical names of snakes and serpents is sometimes arbitrary and varies between the many Bible translations. (Older translations prefer "basilisks" and "dragons", for example.)

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you referring to this pattern? μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. No, I wasn't referring to anything concrete, just to the phrase itself. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Etruscan tombs

What is the date for some of the Etruscan tumulii and tombs outside the town of Chiusi in Tuscany?74.199.32.167 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the articles on each of the tombs listed in the Italian Wikipedia's article on Chiusi, the tombs date from the beginning of the 6th century (i.e., 600) B.C.E. to the 2nd century (i.e., the 100s) B.C.E. Marco polo (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Russian patronymic

Why were the empresses Maria Alexandrovna (Marie of Hesse), Elizabeth Alexeievna (Louise of Baden), Catherine Alekseyevna (Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst) given their specific patronymics? Empresses who were given the name Feodorovna honored the Romanov patron icon Theotokos Fyodorovskaya [2], but why did these three choose or were given their specific patronymics?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, there was a great push among Russian nobility to "Russify" themselves, especially as many of them were not, strictly speaking, of Russian families. Even the more modern House of Romanov was really the House of Holstein-Gottorp which assumed the name matrilinially so as to keep a "Russian" name to the family. In all three cases above, the women in question did not have a father whose name has a Russian cognate. Names like Louis (Ludwig), Charles (Karl) and Christian don't, as far as I know, have common Russian equivalents. Perhaps the patronymics were chosen as typically Russian (Both Alexei and Alexander are fairly common Russian personal names). That would be my speculation. --Jayron32 01:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Russian patronymic were pretty universal amongst the Russian population at the time including the nobility. The foreign princesses were merely adopting the cultural trend of their new country. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If Jayron32 is right, note also that all three had significant Alexanders/Alexeis in the families they were marrying into:

Marie's husband Alexander II of Russia and his grandmother, the current Empress Alexandra Feodorovna

Louise's husband Alexander I of Russia

Sophie - at the time of her marriage, Alexey Razumovsky was the (wed within the last couple of years) current husband of the current Empress

The Russian Wikipedia articles don't explain any of the name choices either. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 18

Is the American government listening in on phone calls?

I'm a little confused on the stuff Edward Snowden revealed and to what extent the US government is spying on American citizens. Are they listening in on phone calls without a warrant? Both cellphones and landlines. ScienceApe (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not listening to the actual phone calls. (Though they probably can if you make them over Skype since MS is their best friend) They collect the phone meta-data, so they can find out who you called, when you called and how long for. ★★RetroLord★★ 01:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And they have a court order to do so. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. Maybe. Although probably not. --Jayron32 01:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Legally, they're only supposed to really spy on foreigners. Which sounds reassuring to Americans, if they don't acknowledge that other US-friendly countries also have spy agencies, and Americans aren't domestic to them. There's absolutely nothing wrong (legally) with a US official asking CSIS, Mossad or the Xbox One to send them Johnny Someone's dossier. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, there's the fact that people in power don't care about breaking rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And I have some more news. Governments of all kinds have been spying on basically whoever they like almost forever. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In case ScienceApe does not know what the meta data is, they record and keep for up to 5 years:

- Who you have been talking to (they have the receiver and caller's phone numbers).

- Where you were when you talked to them

- How long did you talk to them

They have claimed that they are not storing the content of any phone conversation involving Americans, or people on American land, as this would be a against a supreme court decision about the 4th amendment. --Lgriot (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Though if Americans happen to be having a conversation with non-Americans, the NSA can listen to everything the non-American says. Of course, in that case, it's hard not to overhear the American. No matter what your nationality, you have to assume that any international conversation (and perhaps domestic ones) could be tapped and taped by a third party. Marco polo (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, Snowden is seeking asylum in a country (Russia) which routinely spies on its own people, or at least enough to where they knew the Tsarnaev brothers were trouble, and as usual we didn't pay heed to their warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian government is intercepting all landline calls in the U.S. using NSA supplied ECHELON hardware to do keyword searches. I don't know if ECHELON has the capability to intercept cell phone calls.
Sleigh (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No doubt, the NSA performs a similar "service" on Canadians and shares notes with the Canadian authorities. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing to realize... the average internet search engine collects more meta-data on you than the NSA is collecting. The modern world simply does not run without the collection of meta-data. Every time you search for the latest viral you-tube video, you are generating meta-data that someone collects. When you check your e-mail, your e-mail provider collects meta-data on you. Heck... even Wikipedia collects meta-data (what do you think your edit history is). Should people be aware of what meta-data is collected?... yes. Do we need to be paranoid about the fact that meta-data is being collected? Probably not. The NSA probably isn't interested in looking at your data. Unless you are a terrorist... then I sure hope they are looking at it closely. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Or a potential terrorist. That is, pretty much anyone, especially activists. Or potential activists. That is, anyone who "liked" or shared an Occupy Wall Street or Idle No More thing (to name just two). Part of me is afraid to Wikilink those. The system works! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the irony of the brouhaha about Snowden. If anything, I trust the US government far more than I trust the rogues of the internet (spammers, virus creators, identity thieves, etc.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Bruce Schneier says "We don’t know what is being collected exactly, but a safe assumption is that approximately everything is being collected."[3]. I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the yottabyte capacity of the Utah Data Center is designed to be filled with, uh data. And rather more than the internet search engines and internet rogues have access to. And according to Russ Tice, "It's not just metadata".[4] . On terrorism? - well sse Schneier's Mission Creep: When Everything Is Terrorism & this "special need", to guard against "terrorism", overrides that relic 4th amendment.In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of N.S.A. Jimmy Carter speaking of Snowden & Prism, thus opines that "America has no functioning democracy" [5]. A federal judge's ruling observes "the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws", while describing her own ruling for the government by "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement".[6]John Z (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So, when Skynet wakes up, we can rest assured the first people it will kill after digesting the "yadda-byte" will be the spooks and the bureaucrats? At least the latter will not have been able to introduce it as evidence against us in court. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

UN classification of South Sudan

The article on Sub-Saharan Africa states that Sudan is in North Africa by portraying it in light green on that map. It also portrays South Sudan as being in North Africa. I always believed South Sudan was in Sub-Saharan Africa. How does the UN classify it? If the article needs to be changed, how should I change it? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the UNSD, Sudan is in northern Africa, whereas South Sudan is in Eastern Africa. You could change the article by editing the relevant text passages, but you'd also need to correct the map or find someone who could correct it. Maybe other RD editors or someone at the Help Desk could help you find someone able to correct maps. Marco polo (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-introductory book on European history

I'm looking for a book about European history that focuses on the pre-modern period (before the 20th century). It should be less than 500 pages, and geared towards people who have taken a course on the subject but are not history majors. It shouldn't be too dry or technical. Does anyone have a good recommendation? --50.125.67.165 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

History of Europe might be a good place to start; it's shorter than 500 pages and seems to cover most of the basics - and contains lots of links to further reading. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm specifically looking for a physical book to read on the road. --50.125.164.242 (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's specifically about medieval history, but A World Lit Only by Fire is written for non-specialists and is well regarded. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bible and surgery?

I've recently read the Wikipedia article about why Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions, apparently based on Biblical verses like Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29--which, for the record, seem to talk more about consuming blood than injecting it. And I now wonder, are there any Biblical verses that could be interpreted to say that surgery, dissection, or organ transplants are immoral/sinful/should not be performed on human bodies? (perhaps due to the fact that we are "God's children and our bodies are gifts that should not be tampered with/mutilated," like with tattoos in Islam?) I've searched with little success. Thanks! 64.229.155.218 (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There actually is an anti-tattoo (in the context of mourning only) verse; it also forbids cutting the body as a form of mourning: Leviticus 19:28. I also found one translation (Weymouth New Testament) inserts the word surgeons in 1 Corinthians 7:18 - although, really all that verse does is remind you that cutting the body for circumcision is fine in the Bible. Also found these collections of quotes, though most sound very tenuous: [7] [8]. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Another verse in Leviticus 21:5 forbids cuttings for the Aaronic priesthood. Yet in some verses, ear piercing and nose piercing are mentioned and allowed by the Bible in certain situations. The argument that the Bible forbids surgery is not very common among Bible followers. Also widely overlooked, but relevant to Christians, is the decision of James the brother of Jesus and first Bishop of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where the early Church decided that Christians are no longer required to follow most of the Israelite laws in Leviticus, such as not eating shellfish or having to be circumcised - with the three exceptions being the sexual taboos, not eating meat with the blood, and not eating food known to be sacrificed to false gods. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So a full English breakfast with bacon and black pudding is sacreligious? 91.208.124.126 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not kosher. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"not eating food known to be sacrificed to false gods" - What does that actually mean? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It was the practice in those days for Romans and other cultures to sacrifice animals and cook their flesh on the altars of their gods (such as Mars or Jupiter, or the lares and penates), and for this meat to be shared around the community. That's what that prohibition means - don't touch meat which has been sacrificed to any god other than the Christian one. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It was evidently a major concern when the NT was written. St. Paul even makes a point of saying that if you don't know whether the food was sacrificed to other gods or not, not to worry about it. (1st Corinthians 10:25-28). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about surgery online, accessible via http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200275612.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall it's about being whole & complete when you are resurrected at the rapture, but I'm willing to be corrected on this. JWs are allowed Intraoperative blood salvage if they are bleeding out through an abdominal injury. CS Miller (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

We have an article Religious views on organ donation which only really covers controversy over the definition of death probably because that's the primary area of controversy. While tattoos weren't really your question, this is covered on tattoo, and plenty of easily searchable pages, e.g. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] many of which discuss it in the context of the bible. There are similarly plenty of easily searchable discussions pages discussing cosmetic surgery again sometimes with reference to the bible. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nunc dimittis at funerals

I didn't see anything in the Nunc dimittis article (except a single literary reference) that mentioned the song being used for requiem purposes. I also tried Google, but didn't get anything much. Does anyone know if it's been used for funerary purposes by liturgical churches, and if not, why not? All I found was something about how it's occasionally sung in Presbyterian funerals. Perhaps I wasn't searching for the right thing? 2001:18E8:2:1020:35A4:D38E:2905:3D45 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As a Church of England example, it was sung after the final Blessing at Margaret Thatcher's funeral, and it's listed on this official-looking page under "Canticles for Use at Funeral and Memorial Services". For what it's worth it was also sung at my mother's (Scottish Episcopal) funeral, to a chant that I wrote for the occasion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, your "official looking page" is the online version of Common Worship, the current successor to the Book of Common Prayer in the CofE. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now added a sentence to our article, using AndrewWTaylor's references. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity - which translation is the first version on the Common Worship page from? The NEB or something equally repulsive? Tevildo (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Common Worship uses a variety of sources including original translations made by CW's own compilers. This page of Psalms includes "the Common Worship translation", "The ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) translation" and "the CEV (Contemporary English Version of the Bible)". This page shows the Bible translations that the CofE has "judged suitable for reading in church during the course of public worship". It doesn't include the NEB, which if I recall correctly, was a very conservative re-working of the KJV. Note that the BCP translation is not an exact match with the KJV. Alansplodge (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

To interpose, you may be thinking of the NKJV. The NEB's main goal was precision in translation, and to hell with the aesthetics, so we had to endure the Word of God expressed in the language of the Circle Report for some years. Life of Brian used the NEB translation of the Sermon on the Mount, to (I'm sure deliberate) humourous effect. [We don't have an article on the Circle Report? Google seems to deny its existence, as well. I'm sure that it's remembered somewhere, though]. Tevildo (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It was the Serpell Report, and we do have an article on it. Excessive indulgence in alcoholic beverages is not consistent with meaningful posts to the reference desks. Root 178*. Time for bed? Tevildo (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I must admit I'm not very familiar with the CEV, but it's not the source of the CW text (the CEV text). Some none-too-fruitful searching is starting to converge on (of all things) the TJB, which is still in copyright, or it may be a CW-specific translation. Not that one should be obsessive about such matters. Tevildo (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A look at the copyrights pages for the relevant volume (i.e. [17], I believe) attributes it to the English Language Liturgical Consultation. Their text is on their website in a pdf of their book/report Praying Together, and does look rather similar. Straightontillmorning (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That would explain why when I Googled the exact text, I got lots of results from US Lutheran churches and one blog quoting the Catholic Missal. Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sociology and anti-realism

It seems to me that the field of sociology is in part filled with people who are anti-realists or irrealists and that the field has a tendency for post-modern buggery. Why is this the case? Is there one person or several people in particular that this can be traced back to? — Melab±1 ☎ 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In effect you have made a very vague assertion about the history of philosophy and a certain (pseudo-)science, asked us why it might be the case that you believe it, and then asked for the names of people who are associated with such ideas. Their names are in the articles you linked to. I suggest, if you can, restate your question with a much more concrete example. It might then be possible to give a more detailed response. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That was the 1990s. Realism and materialism are back now, big time. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I highly recommend Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science for a summary of how postmodern buggery had taken over the humanities. Keep in mind, however, that the book was written in the 1990s. Scholars are much more epistemologically conservative now, especially in the humanities and social sciences, so treat the book as a historical document rather than a contemporary one. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

More epistemologically sophisticated now, we like to think. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Duh, yup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how expansive this was among the so-called left. How far did this phenomenon reach into politics? — Melab±1 ☎ 02:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If post-modernism interests you, you may want to read Stephen Hick's Explaining Postmodernism, (Amazon, with reviews) which is a very engaging and surprisingly both sympathetic and highly critical work. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

When I did some undergraduate political science courses in the height of the 1990s, back during the New Times and when post-modern Feminists roamed the internet, the curriculum was entirely traditional as were the research programmes of the scholars. I suspect that due discipline specific characteristics in political science that it did not suffer overly much from post-structuralism. As far as "the left" goes this conversation could readily lead to definitional antics. I haven't seen much hermeneutics being deployed by Naxalites to overcome the epistemological gap through a transvaluation of values or a leap of faith. I've not seen many bodies without organs deterritorialised into lines of flight: I've seen Turkish social protestors running from riot cops. And if Gender is a Performance, then it is the traditional one, played out in households and queer ghettos, in the poverty and fear we've known well since Engels followed up parliamentary papers in the 1840s or Wollstonecraft defended the capacity of women to reason. I'd like to ask a follow-up question: Where's all the buggery? Would post-modernism be less offensive to some people without the suggested, but yet to be delivered, sodomy? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 19

Sumner's Island, Honolulu Harbor

Does anybody know where Sumner's Island in Honolulu Harbor is on a map? Is was by Sand Island (Hawaii)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a small island labeled "Sumner's" shown in the first map on this page. From the description there, it sounds as though when the harbor was dredged to make it more accessible to shipping, the dredged-up material was piled up to form what is today Sand Island, which absorbed Quarantine Island and Sumner's Island and perhaps other small islands. Deor (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about internet law

In the United States, is there such a thing as "virtual trespassing"? That is, if you have a website, and you ask someone not to post on it, yet they continue to do so, can you obtain a restraining order against them? I'm specifically interested in being pointed to actual statutes, if they exist. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Without getting into legal specifics (which we don't do here), a quick search for "internet restraining order" reveals that such injunctions against online interaction are common in the US (remember, "freedom of speech" is not "freedom from consequence"). You should consult with a qualified legal professional in your jurisdiction for particulars about what is likely to be covered by such an order. — Lomn 13:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Supposing such a restraining order were obtained by Wikipedia, how would it be enforced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the same as any other court order. The experience of being served with an order should be traumatic enough for most people. If a person is especially hardy, the court's powers are normally backed up by coercive powers, such as arresting and imprisoning someone for contempt of court, or (if there is a financial penalty) using officials or (in some jurisdictions) barely disguised hired thugs to confiscate the perosn's property. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you serve a court order to an IP-hopping anonymous user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You serve them by getting their information from the ISP that provided the IP address. This is how, for example, the RIAA gets real-world name and address information from an IP address. 18:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.239.32.14 (talk)

Wouldn't they need a search warrant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If a court is willing to issue a restraining order, the selfsame court would very likely also be amenable to issuing the proper warrants necessary to discover the identity of the person being restrained. I've heard of such issues surrounding Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking, and courts are often willing to do what is necessary to allow enforcement of their own rulings. --Jayron32 01:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think such bullying and stalking would have to reach some critical mass or threshold before the courts would go to such trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think that in most jurisdictions they would expect you to have set up some sort of moderation system so that the poster could be banned or at least their problematic comments would be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk)

That would be my expectation. The judge's first question would probably be, "What defenses do you already have in place?" If the answer is "None", the judge would probably say, "OK, move along now. Next!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Statutes are one thing but actual court precedence is what may be the most helpful. Knowing that there are several differences in what all 50 state laws have and federal laws have you may be helped most by A Google Scholar legal case search, just choose your jurisdiction (including federal) and search terms. Best of luck! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Bednall Green

As an American from Michigan, I am not familiar with ancient English territories. My understanding is that Bednall Green is part of what is called today Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green. Is that correct?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A better link is Bethnal Green, "Bednall Green" appears to be an erroneous spelling sometimes used for the Tudor ballad; The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green [18]. The link that you posted is the name of the former local government; since 1965 it has been part of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The ballad (or its associated legend - not sure which came first) is commemorated by the Blind Beggar public house, which is notorious for a gangland killing in the 1960s but was actually fairly civilised when I last had a pint in there. I've just read that William Booth preached his first sermon there, which is regarded as the founding event of the Salvation Army. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for setting me straight. Interesting history!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: "Bednall Green" seems to have been the correct spelling for the place in the 16th to 18th centuries. Bowles's Map of Middlesex of 1733 shows "Bednall Green" [19] and I found a 1578 reference to "Bednall Greene". [20] (note for p.166). Bethnal Green - A village outside the City walls says "by the fourteenth century it was referred to by John Stow in his survey as Bethen Hall Green. Another hundred years and Samuel Pepys recorded his journey to Bednall Green, and on it went until it came to be known by its present name." Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy in the 1964 presidential election

G'day; I know it's a little specualtion, but I found out that there was an enormous applause for RFK at the 1964 Democratic National Convention. So had RFK sought the nomination for the presidency, is it likely that he could have beaten President Johnson for the nomination, or was the President simply not to beat by anyone in the primaries as well as the election in that year? RFK was much more charismatic, but I also know that Lyndon Johnson had high political skills. --78.52.56.118 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Barry Goldwater wished someone else had run, as Johnson smoked him like Texas barbecue. I've seen political experts speculate that even in 1968, RFK's charisma exceeded his political savvy, and that he was probably doomed to defeat had he not been killed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Being a political science and American history double major Nixon was extremely concerned about RFK in '68 prior to his death but some have argued that Nixon was paranoid of the Kennedys period, maybe correctly or maybe incorrectly. To my knowledge RFK did have a very good chance at winning the general in '68 but the party conventions back then were still somewhat "closed door, back room deal" types.

As far as 1964 from remembering my studies RFK was locked into being Johnson's US Attorney General and because he was technically in the "Johnson cabinet" and in an era where party loyalty and loyalty to the office of the president was put above all else, probably calculated that 1964 was not going to be his year. Add to this the well documented depression/melancholy/withdrawal that RFK went through for a few years after the death of his brother and I doubt he felt up to the task of a major national campaign against a folksy incumbent that would necessitate a fight within the Democratic party that may brand RFK as not a "team player" for decades.

I did catch the C-SPAN "Contenders" series at the Goldwater Center where they spoke with both the curator and a beat writer that followed Goldwater for decades and it was telling that Goldwater later confided to friends on his landslide loss to LBJ something to the effect that the nation was not going to vote itself a 3rd president in 3 years in 1964. Although Goldwater rationalized his defeat with that sentiment RFK most likely concluded the same about 1964, it wasn't so much a vote FOR Johnson but a vote for stability and holding onto something when a massive loss was suffered by the nation. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Market timing by mutual funds

For purposes of clarity, consider a retirement account that prohibits "market timing" by its customers, enacting trades somewhere within a 24-hour interval. (I think this is pretty typical) You hold $100 in a hypothetical mutual fund with all its stock in one company "Inc.". The stock price of Inc. on Friday is $10/share. You call or write them on Friday with an order to cash out your $100 or to put it in another fund.

Now the way I understand it, if the company thinks the stock price of Inc. is going to fall to $9/share on Monday, there is nothing that could stop them from selling some of their own holding of Inc. stock on Friday, then waiting to process your order on Monday, purchasing the shares you sell (via selling the mutual fund shares) on Monday for $9 and returning $90 to you.

Question: suppose they wait until Monday, and the price surprisingly shoots up to $120 a share. Are they permitted to "get back word to you that they sold your shares for $100 on Friday" (i.e. the shares they sold from their own holding) and thereby save themselves $20?

Now suppose the shares are sold from one fund and reinvested in the other. Do the two have to occur simultaneously, and if so, how much discretion do they have to pick when it occurs?

In other words, before they actually send the report to you, does the transaction exist in some tangible, auditable sense, or can they fill in the details as they like?

Lastly: if any of this happens, I assume it is reflected neither in the data about the rate of return for the fund overall, nor in any reporting of its administrative costs, right? You just don't make what they say. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Without providing investment or legal advice, I note that pretending to execute market trades without actually executing a purchase or sale in a timely way at market price sounds a bit like Bucket shop (stock market). A bucketeer could pretend to buy and sell and pay out your "profit" or "loss" but the if the trades were not backed by actual stock and you made a fortune, they would fly by night since they did not really buy and sell the stocks for their customers. US retirement investment companies I have dealt with accept buy or sell orders during the day and execute them at the closing price for the day, not at a random time that day or the next day which they choose to their advantage. See also Front running, where they take advantage of your large order which would affect market price, and execute their own trade before executing yours, a form of Self-dealing. Edison (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Units in mutual funds are generally priced and traded once on each business day. The fund administrator calculates the net asset value of the fund based on market prices at a set time, divides this by the units issued to get a price per unit and fills orders received since the last cut-off time at that price (this assumes the fund is open-ended; the process for a closed-ended fund is a little different). There is no market timing involved here. If your place your order before the cut-off time it will be executed on the same day; if after the cut-off time it will be executed on the next business day. Trading in fund units is quite distinct from trading in the underlying assets of the fund, which is done by the fund manager. Just because you sell units in the fund, this does not necessarily mean the fund manager will sell any of the fund's assets. If there are more purchasers than sellers of units on that day, the fund manager may be buying more assets to invest the net inflow of cash. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In the US, the public can get information on a mutual funds profits and losses and its holdings at the end of each quarter. But some funds make unwise or illtimed market moves and lose asset value, then to avoid looking foolish before the end of the quarter they can sell the poorly chosen stocks which cost them value, and buy good stocks, so you can't see how they lost so much money. This is called "window dressing." Various websites and books discuss it, but Wikipedia has no article on it as a stock market term. Edison (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Church attendance in medieval Europe

What was the degree of church attendance in a city in medieval Europe?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a particular city in mind, and a rough time period? Not that I am trying to avoid answering, but it really depends on when and where... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally just an average figure over a period. But if you want to specific maybe Paris (pretty iconic city in my mind) from the 9th century to 1399. I just want to know when the hiatus of church attendance was in the Middle Ages, was there a period when it was complete attendance and if not what was the closest. Also Jews, and other non-Christians who don't attend Church don't count.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well first of all I can definitely say that according to the church itself, attendance was mandatory, but from the amount of proclamations that people should be attending church more often, it's pretty clear that people did not go regularly. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 even said that priests should go to church more often, since nobody else went and the priests didn't bother to go talk to an empty church. In rural areas, church attendance was certainly very low. Maybe they went and received communion a couple of times a year, on special occasions. If the church was far away, people weren't going to spend all day getting there, and even if their village had a church there was no way to make them attend. But on the other hand religion was much more pervasive in daily life, so "going to church" now for example is just something people do on Sundays even if they don't really think about it the other six days. In a medieval village religion would have been everywhere all the time anyway.

For a city like Paris, it is helpful to remember that it would be full of priests, monks, nuns, and other ecclesiastics. There were churches and monasteries everywhere. The medieval French city I am most familiar with, Nantes, which was much smaller than Paris but still a major city, had a cathedral and six or seven churches within the city walls that I can think of, and several more outside the walls, plus three or four monasteries/convents inside the walls (an area of only about 2 square kilometres). Paris would have been similar, but with even more since it was bigger. That would raise the rate of attendance since all those clerics and monks would be doing ecclesiastical duties. In Paris there were also university students, who were all technically clerics as well. But assuming you mean the rate of attendance for laypeople in a big city full of churches, for example 13th-century Paris, then it probably still would have been relatively low. I'm still looking for statistics, but I don't think attendance was ever very high. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Apart from a sermon in the vernacular, the entire service was in Latin and uneducated lay people would not understand a word of what was going on. While the priest was mumbling private prayers in the sanctuary, they would not even be able to hear him. Apart from occasional communion, attendance at church was for private devotion, which you could do just as well at home or at work. And didn’t celebrants normally offer up prayers and praise on behalf of the whole parish or community, to whom the spiritual benefit would accrue whether they attended or not? --Hors-la-loi 07:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the chancel and sanctuary were separated from the nave by a rood screen, which was often a solid stone wall pierced by a single door through which the priest would appear at the Consecration and to distribute Communion. The nobility and gentry might be able to afford a stall in the chancel. At the back of the nave was an area called the narthex which could be used as a secular meeting place when there wasn't a service going on. Alansplodge (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The many days when you were meant to attend church should be distinguished from special occasions when there would be great pomp and ceremony and large attendance. Corpus Christi would be one of those, when there might be mystery plays, and the various trades and guilds would show off their products. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Going off topic a shade; my favourite medieval church story concerns St Helen's Bishopsgate. It was a parish church which subsequently had a nunnery built alongside it. The nuns and the parishioners shared the nave for public worship. After several complaints about members of the public getting too friendly with the nuns during services, a second nave was added for the parishioners and a wooden screen erected so that the two couldn't mix. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Allowing that any generalisation about European city churches throughout the medieval period 500 - 1500 CE runs the risk of creating questionable stereotypes, some significant features emerge. Church authorities imposed fines for non-attendance and Puritan settlers in New England (google "early puritan lifestyle") continued this practice into the 1600s. Responsibility for attendance lay with families rather than individuals, and families would be expected to show up in their allotted seats. An absence would be questioned and need an explanation which might range from the acceptable (died, in the throes of dying, away on crusade) to unacceptable (trying to get out of paying tithe, jewish, rumoured to be doing something impious, etc.). The feudal political power of a bishopric lay in the number of baptised souls from which an army could be raised. The population's degree of attendance that the OP seeks may not have been calculable in an age when Infant mortality was high and there were no census except baptismal records. In largely illiterate societies church congregations were the venue for official declarations and news of the world, uncomplicated by any independant media access to the latest Papal bull. Missing a session might cost one dearly, for example in 13th century Italy when Pope Gregory IX started the Inquisition by ordering that all copies of the Jewish Talmud be confiscated (1239) and tried more than once to excommunicate the militarily superior Emperor Frederick II. One did not want to be caught on the wrong side of such burning issues. Today there still exist a few places where church non-attendance is penalised but at least one can rant about it. DreadRed (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Our Recusancy article says that fines for non-attendance in England were introduced in the "Act for restraining Popish recusants" of 1593 and aimed to force Catholics to attend the new Protestant services, although they were later used against Non-conformists. I can't find a reference for penalties in the late medieval period, although I suppose it's possible. Alansplodge (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In 1523 in Crediton, "the majority of the people were scarcely present four times a year at the principal Sunday mass". The Late Medieval English Church by G.W. Bernard. The author concludes that we don't really know how many people regularly attended Sunday worship. Alansplodge (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

July 20

Alfred Richard Gurrey, Jr or Sr.

Was A. R. Gurrey, Jr the son of Alfred Richard Gurrey, Sr.? Jr. was known for taking photographs especially of early surfing while Sr. was known for painting. The article we have on Sr. has an image of a surfer on a logo for Gurrey art supply business. Was it really for Sr's art supply business or was it for Jr's photo studio business since he was known for taking photographs of surfers?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ustaše torture methods

Which torture methods did the Ustaše generally use? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Finger and toe nails were pulled out with metal instruments, eyes were dug out with specially constructed hooks, people were blinded by having needles stuck in their eyes, flesh was cut and then salted."

"People were also flayed, had their noses, ears and tongues cut off with wire cutters, and had awls stuck in their hearts. Daughters were raped in front of their mothers, sons were tortured in front of their fathers."

"The prisoners and all those who ended up in Jasenovac had their throats cut by the Ustaša with specially designed knives, or they were killed with axes, mallets and hammers; they were also shot, or they were hung from trees or light poles. Some were burned alive in hot furnaces, boiled in cauldrons, or drowned in the River Sava."

Whatever they figured would hurt, it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Who was it used to like these Nazi-themed questions? μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Many people still do, if History is any indication. Apparently, it's helped many students not speak German. But no idea which specific person you're thinking of. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

He's referring to some particular indef'd ref desk troll. It could be TimothyHere, but that would need to be investigated, as I'm not sure that's the right one. It's hard to keep track of them unless you document it (which I don't). And talking about them too much just memorializes them. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 21

the skeptical-empirical postclassical school of medicine in the eastern mediterranean

In the book Antifragile the author mentions the skeptical-empirical postclassical school of medicine in the Eastern Mediterranean rediscovered by the French a century ago. Can anyone identify this school at all? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This means (roughly) the Empiric school. See also Sextus Empiricus though for the issues of dividing skepticism as it relates to medicine from the empirical school and defining the Methodic school. Really, I think the author wants to generally refer to (some) ancient skepticism, since his point is not about medicine in particular. I'm not sure which Frenchmen were responsible for rediscovering it. Charles Victor Daremberg translated a lot of ancient medical texts, including Galen, and Galen is a major source for knowledge of the Empirical school. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Differences between Spock and Data

In one of the Star Trek movies Mr. Spock and Cmdr. Data meet, and they notice various differences between them, and list them. Does anyone have that list? Could they enumerate them here? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This is also posted at WP:RD/E. And is being responded to there. Dismas|^(talk) 04:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

On Serving People !

I have always had this doubt - Why is that people become social entrepreneurs and why do donors support them? What is the whole point ?

You may wish to define "social entrepreneurs", my guess is that you are referring to non-profits or non-government organizations (NGOs) in which case a passion for that area and charity may motivate many, however it would assist our answers if you gave some specifics. Thanks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes NGOs / Non -Profits would fall under the category of social entrepreneurs.

I too am having trouble understanding the question. My answer to what I currently guess is the meaning is that some people like to help others. Is that a mystery? HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Many people find that the act of helping other people is very rewarding in itself, plus (some might say, looking at it rather cynically) it can increase your standing with the rest of society. Some people see it as a religious duty, but I suspect most do it for pleasure. Alansplodge (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See altruism for some scientific and religious explanations of why we help others. I do it mostly because I think it's the right thing to do. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dang, I thought that this was going to be about a different topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You may find this page useful in answering some of the questions. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Science in Europe

It's no secret that per capita, the US has far more scientists, more funding of science, and more scientific research/industry positions than the first-world countries of western Europe. Why is this the case? Naively, it seems that Europe has a longer scientific tradition, better average education level, and higher public perception of science. Yet despite rare exceptions like Planck or the LHC in cosmology/physics respectively, every scientific field is dominated by the US. I'm certainly not complaining, but I'm curious to know why this is the case. --50.125.164.23 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that true on raw numbers or on percentage of the population? Remember that the U.S. has a population of 316ish million; it is the third most populous country in the world. In western Europe (which is your stipulation) the most populous country is Germany at 80ish million. So, just on raw numbers, the U.S. would have approximately 4 times as many scientists as Germany even if Germany and the U.S. had the exact same proportion of scientists among their general population. So, make sure you're making apples-to-apples comparisons. It would be helpful, before we try to answer your question, where you are getting your data from. Link us to a study we can critique or find rationales for, otherwise we've got nothing to work with. --Jayron32 22:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The premise is indeed flawed. Four pieces of evidence against:

• According to this study of scientific innovation, the US is sixth in the world in R&D investment after one western European nation (Switzerland) and two other European nations (Sweden and Finland). (Also after Israel and Japan.) In terms of scientists per capita, the US came seventh, after Finland, Sweden, Japan, Singapore, Denmark and Norway. The US was top only in patents per capita.
• According to the World Bank's tally of Researchers in R&D per million people, (and going back to 2007, the last year there is US data for), the US has fewer researchers per capita than all five Scandanavian countries, plus Singapore and Japan.
• Switzerland leads on scientific publications and citations per capita, according to Thomson-Reuters data, followed by Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, the UK and finally the US in seventh. (The US leads on sheer number of papers, due to its much larger overall population.)
• In our article List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita, looking at the section for science prizes only, the US ranks after many countries, including the Western European countries Iceland, the UK, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Money. You answered your own question. There is a brain drain from the rest of the the world to the U.S.
Sleigh (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Games/Sports/Fraternisation During Wartime

I think most people know about the Christmas truce of 1914, where British and German soldiers played football together in no-man's land all across the front. Are there any other instances of similar things happening in other wars? Instances of this in any war of any era is of interest to me here. Cheers! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There's an article titled "Wartime Truces in History" by Lito Apostolakou at a blacklisted site (Suite 101). Don't know how accurate it is, but it looks plausible. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fraternisation was a lot more common than often thought (and certainly wasn't confined to Christmas 1914). Meetings in No-Man's Land: Christmas 1914 and Fraternization in the Great War (2007) discusses fraternisation in general in WWI, and is worthwhile reading; it discusses both the Western and Eastern fronts. I think there may be a general historic introduction with some further pointers, but I can't find my copy immediately to check. This sort of fraternisation evolved from tacit trucing behaviour, which was widespread in some areas/periods; Tony Ashworth's book on the live and let-live system (published as Trench Warfare 1914-1918) is very informative on this. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly happened in the US Civil War. I should be able to access a book tomorrow which describes pickets on either side of a river establishing a local truce and each side sending soldier across to the other side to swap things (liquor, tobacco, pocket knives), to talk, and to exchange names and addresses. In some cases, those contacts proved useful when someone was in a POW camp and after the war. They agreed that when officers came around and ordered them to start shooting, the first shots would be high as warning shots before they fired with lethal intent. Edison (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I know of a number of stories of Germans on the Eastern Front in WW2 exchanging rations for coffee and other goods with the Russians (Stalingrad springs to mind, as well as numerous occasions in Poland) - apparently a regular thing. Both sides would fire off artillery behind the enemy lines as a warning that they were having an inspection and would be expected to shoot at the enemy trenches, so it was basically 'keep your heads down'. The top brass would see this, and think they are doing their jobs. I've heard of some stories of the ACW where troops from both sides helped each other, and even kept in contact after the war, as well as the American War of Independence, where British and Colonials became friends, but these are individual contacts (or, at most, on a small unit level). My cousin was in the 1 KINGS stationed in Basra in the Iraq War, and played football against the Iraqi Army and some civilians (and lost 9-2!), but this was after GWB got his flight jacket on and a big banner saying "Mission Accomplished" on that aircraft carrier. However, is there anything as 'unprecedented' as the Christmas Truce of 1914 (per percentage of troops involved, and not numbers, because hundreds of thousands of troops does not make sense in a more historical context)? Any information would be very welcome. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ashworth makes a case (IIRC) that trench or position warfare is more likely to lead to fraternisation because it has the same people in very close contact day after day, as opposed to more fluid campaigns where units are moving around and those bonds don't have time to form. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-Sunday Catholic masses

Catholic churches with Saturday evening Masses are quite common in the Great Lakes region of the USA, and I'd guess that they're common elsewhere in the country and perhaps elsewhere in the world — but I can't remember seeing any signs mentioning Masses on other days, except for the occasional church with Masses every day. Why Saturday but not other non-Sunday days? One would think that the presence of a Saturday Mass means that they're not doctrinally tied to Sundays as most Protestants are. If you go to Mass on Saturday so you have more time on Sunday, it would seem that you'd also be interested in Mass after work so that you can fulfill your religious obligations and have a completely free weekend. N.B. I'm a Protestant and not intimately familiar with contemporary Catholic practices, so maybe there's some reason that's well known to your average Mass-hearer in the pew. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Vigil masses are fine, see also [21]. My father says the notion is based on the Sabbath lasting from sundown the prior day till sundown Sunday. Jesus is cool like that. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Here in Ireland I'm told the Saturday evening masses are quite popular. If you are going to be busy on Sunday, you can go to mass on Saturday so that you don't miss out. I believe that many churches hold masses at varying times throughout the week. For instance, the Archdiocese of Dublin website has a 'mass finder' - for nearly every time and day combination you can pick there is a church with mass at that time. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You can have Mass every day, technically. (Although only once per day). It is only absolutely necessary on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, but the only day it can't be celebrated is Good Friday. If you go on some other day during the week, that does not free you from your obligation to go on Sunday (except for the Saturday night Mass, since that counts as Sunday, as mentioned). See our own Mass (Catholic Church). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not just about Saturday masses; it's about fulfilling the obligation to attend mass on Sunday by attending on the previous day; similarly a Catholic can fulfill the obligation to attend a Christmas mass by attending on Christmas eve (and similarly for other holy days of obligation). I think in the '60s after the Second Vatican Council, the pope decided to delegate to bishops the question of whether to allow this, and most of them in turn delegated it to parish priests, and they in turn let their congregations vote on it. So the rules may vary with the locality. That obligatory public worship has been on Sundays rather than, for example, Wednesdays, has never been considered infallible dogma in the Catholic church, but rather is a rule of discipline subject to mutation by church authorities. There is a neighborhood in Minneapolis, about four miles from where I live, where _five_ Catholic churches are within about three blocks of each other, and I think two of those are eastern-rite churches. One of those last is a Maronite church, meaning it's largely for Arab Catholics. That means it's not subject to the local archdiocese, but ultimately reports to the Maronite patriarch in Lebanon, and follows "eastern" disciplines that, for example, allow ordination of married men to the priesthood. And while riding my bike around that neighborhood a few weeks ago, I observed that a liturgy was just ending, and people leaving the building, on a Saturday evening. Since they follow rules issued from Lebanon, I have to think that this is not just local. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How would the UK choose a President?

At the outset, let me make it clear that this isn't intended as advocacy either of a monarchist or a republican stance. Responses simply advocating either one without approaching an answer to my question are not welcome. It is a hypothetical question – please don't bother answering with "constitutionally that couldn't happen" answers either. The assumption in the question is that it has happened.

My question is this: In the event of Elizabeth II of the UK abdicating and furthermore signing documents which irrevocably ended the UK's monarchy, how would the UK choose a President? Firstly who would be eligible for the position? Secondly (if it were down to a referendum) how would this work? Tonywalton ^Talk 22:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This can't be answered, since there is no legislation in place to elect a President. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming she were to end the monarchy, though, how might it work? How might the legislation look? Text voting on Britain's got President?Tonywalton ^Talk 23:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". You are asking for a prediction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair answer. Further answers would be interesting, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at presidential system? This should indicate some of the options as far as the role of a hypothetical president goes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead of Republicanism in the United Kingdom is unsourced but says what I would expect: "The method by which the head of state should be chosen is not agreed upon". And that's about the supporters of republicanism. I guess most opponents would refuse to even give an opinion, especially politicians as long as the monarchy is popular. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See also Tony Benn's 1991 Commonwealth of Britain Bill. Not that it ever got far... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on past precedent (and the fact that precedents and traditions are important in the UK), I would say that whoever managed to have Elizabeth II's head chopped off would be eligible to become president. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, after consulting with knowledgable American experts, she'd have a 2,000 page Affordble Presidentcare Act of 2014 written up, which you'd have to pass, so you could then read and find out what's in it. Unfortunately, UKIP already has a secret plan to squash all that. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While this is an almost completely unanswerable question, we can consider two possible models of a presidency, with different approaches -

• The monarchy is replaced by an equally figurehead president (think Germany). It is unlikely there would be a direct election for such a post - it would be appointed by the government of the day or otherwise selected in an indirect fashion. Politics would continue mostly as normal. It is possible that the president could be almost completely apolitical - if they are merely a figurehead, there is no reason they could not be selected by some external system.
• The monarch is replaced by an active president in potential tension with an active Prime Minister (think France). It is likely they would be directly elected in some fashion. Politics would become more complex.

The third option, which seems less likely, is that the monarch is replaced by an active president who absorbs most of the powers of the existing Prime Minister (think the United States), and the post of chief member of parliament becomes much less significant - we are still left with one powerful leader not two. In this circumstance, either system might emerge; they could be directly elected (as in the US) or chosen by the leading parliamentary party. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the third option is probably most likely. You might want to read through the article Westminster system. It states that one of its features is a "a sovereign or head of state who is the nominal or legal and constitutional holder of executive power, and holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties mainly consist of performing ceremonial functions. Examples include Queen Elizabeth II, the Governor-General in independent Commonwealth countries, or the presidents of many countries and state/provincial governors in republican federal systems." Lots of people are quite traditional in that way and despite the massive change a president would bring as head of state, many would still wish to keep the Westminster system (that so many are so proud of) intact. Since you mentioned Germany: I live in Germany and I am often struck by the similarites between the German and English systems. The German Bundespräsident is more or less a carbon copy of Queen Elizabeth when comparing their duties and actvities. This option would certainly involve the least upheaval. Cameron* 16:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 22

Breaking a tie in the US House

In the event of a tie vote in the House of Representatives of the United States, is there someone who gets to cast the tiebreaking vote? In the Senate, the vice president gets to vote to break a tie, but what about in the House? I know there are an odd number of members, but you could still have a tie if someone abstaned, or was absent, or the seat was unfilled for some reason (such as death). I looked in the article but didn't see it. RudolfRed (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am probably incorrect in saying this but i'll say it anyway. Its my understanding the speaker doesn't usually vote, and if it was a tie, he would? And if they had a tie they could probably argue for a day, a few people would change their mind, and the vote would be settled. Atleast thats my understanding. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives#Passage of legislation says: "Presiding officers may vote like other members. They may not, however, vote twice in the event of a tie. Instead, motions are decided in the negative when ties arise." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Government

Hi! So here in Australia, we have 150 reps and 76 senators. In america they have 435 reps? and 100 senators. In the UK, the lower house has 650 seats and the upper house has 754 seats. So my question is this, what country has the highest number of elected reps/senators in their highest level of government?

(And for the purposes of the question, the Chinese people's congress or whatever its called doesn't count). Thanks guys, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There is the article "List of legislatures by country", whose tables have a column called "Population per seat". You can click on the column's title to sort the table accordingly. Gabbe (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Going by that list it looks like France or Italy have the highest, remembering that The House of Lords is appointed and peerage - not elected - and therefore doesn't meet your criteria of elected. Having said that, investigation as to how the members are selected is required, some states have indirect elections, where by the states send representatives to the Upper House but these aren't directly elected by the constituency of those states (see Bundesrat of Germany) While others have other methods of indirect selection (See Senate (France), although it could be argued that the French Senate is more representational). Liamdavies (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there an ERISA equivilent for public pensions?

Looking at the articles for ERISA and PBGC, it appears that these United States laws for pension protections only apply to private industry. Is there an equivilent law or program in the United States for protecting public (government) pensions? RudolfRed (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Converting British/Commonwealth knighthood

When an honorary knight of a British/Commonwealth order of chivalry becomes a citizen of Britain or a Commonwealth realm that recognises knighthoods, is conversion to a substantive knighthood automatic? Hack (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything between Victory and Constitution?

HMS Victory is the oldest commissioned ship, USS Constitution the oldest commissioned ship still afloat. Is there any commissioned ship with an age in between? Or is it assured knowledge that the Constitution is the 2nd oldest commissioned ship? --KnightMove (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

{{Surviving ocean going ships}}, at the foot of the Victory article, probably gives your answer; the only military ship intermediate in age between the two is USS Philadelphia, which was raised from the bottom of a lake and is now in a museum. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can titles of nobility be inherited by children born out of wedlock,

In Britain can a child inherit a title of nobility even if they were born out of wedlock, if the child's parents subsequently married? Thanks very much for your answers,--91.49.21.105 (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question, and here's a followup while you're at it: Have any wars ever been fought over the answer? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The famous case is Katherine Swynford, mistress of John of Gaunt. He married her, but had to get his children legitimated by act of parliament. The Tudor monarchs and all their descendents got their claim from this late-in-the-day legitimation. Of course the king could also just make up new titles for his or his relatives' illegitimate children. Charles II did it all the time. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as Charles II was brought up, just out of interest, when Prince Charles becomes King, will he be known as Charles III? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is rumoured he'll call himself George, which is one of his names (if he ever gets the chance, that is). The "royal" name does not have to be the same as the king's actual given name. The last king Edward was known to his mates as David. Supposedly there is a superstition in the Royal family that the regnal name Charles is unlucky. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)He can choose any regnal name he likes (but not regnal number). There's talk (it was unsourced in his article at some point, and I think it's been removed) that he'd choose George VII. It would be logical (but not mandatory) for him to choose one of his given names, Charles Philip Arthur George. It's my understanding (we used to have an article, I can't find it offhand) that there's an agreement between the King of Arms, the Lord Lyon, and Churchill specifying that the regnal number of future British monarchs would be the higher of whatever that name would be in England or Scotland, but not of subnational kingdoms preceding either. So if my memory is right, it's Charles III, Philip I, Arthur I, George VII (Philip II of Spain having been a king consort and King Arthur not being king of England but just some questionably-historical bit of it). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

King Arthur I sounds like a mighty fine name. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

He would (probably) be plain King Philip or King Arthur if he chose one of those, as regnal number I is usually only used retrospectively when number II comes along; cf Queen Victoria and King John. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine that "King Arthur" could ever be "plain", given the existing significance of the name. And the ridicule it would produce would probably be enough reason to avoid it. Of course we nearly did have a king "Arthur I" in Arthur, Prince of Wales, older brother of the wife-decapitating fat one. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)