Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:47, 22 August 2013

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

August 17

Historical exchange rates for the old Turkmenistani manat (TMM)

I am trying to find out what the US dollar (USD) to the old Turkmenistani manat exchange rate was in 1998. Are there any websites which have historical exchange rate data going back this far? Most of the conversion websites I checked don't list the old manat (TMM as opposed to TMT), and those that do don't have data for 1998.

In general, can anyone point me to a good source for historical exchange rates for discontinued currencies? Lots of articles here give expenditure figures in obsolete currencies, so it would be great if there was some way of putting them into context. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at your talk page. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how is 'childlore' like cooties passed on?

how is 'childlore' like cooties passed on? how does it get from city to city? If it's really used ages 6-10 (as in the rhymes in the cooties article) how does it not die out very quickly. Instead it's apparently common in every child generation in every city all over america. what gives?

Do TV, school, and parents give you cooties? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kids get cooties (and other cultural artifacts) from other children, not from adults. It is passed on from child to child and spreads geographically with the movement of families. Take a look at this - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 June 25#Traditional children's rhymes and songs - where I asked a related question some time ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I heard "eenie, meenie, miney, mo" might be a remnant of an ancient dead language's "1,2,3,4". Chrisrus (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reference in our Article suggests the Opies thought it might be from Cornish. I don't myself speak it, but Kernowec's simple numbers "1,2,3,4" do not differ so radically from those of the more northerly Brythonic one(s) that gave rise to Yan, tan, tethera, pethera, so maybe it was a similar concept with differing words, as "first, second, third, fourth" is in English. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.246.168 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although "eenie" is not far off "one" in a number of Celtic languages, the rest bears little relation - see List_of_numbers_in_various_languages#Celtic_languages. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim as I recall was that it was thought to have been pre-Celtic, which would make it very old indeed. Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help that the myth is fairly frequently "confirmed" by real cooties showing up in the classroom. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooties, for anyone who, like me, had not the faintest idea what this thread was about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My wife and I were recently wondering about a similar thing to this. We were wondering how "hot lava" gets passed along. For those who might have missed it in their childhoods, hot lava is where you imagine that the floor is covered in hot lava and you have to move around the house by climbing from one piece of furniture to another without touching the floor. Dismas|^(talk) 22:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this all actually passed on by adults who remember it from childhood? I am always telling my son stuff like that, that I remember my parents telling me. They also get it from teachers (certainly the case for "hot lava"). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question here about building "forts" which seems almost spontaneous, although the word is obviously passed on in the US, and the structures are called other things in other countries. This book is quite good on the topic, especially if you were a kid in the 70's and 80's in the US. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iona and Peter Opie were anthropologists who studied this very question; their book The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren will repay careful study. Marnanel (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or try One Potato, Two Potato, The Folklore of American Children by Mary and Herbert Knapp.

Peekaboo, hide-and-go-seek, and tag (game) and other such games are cultural universals, I think. That would make them either traceable to the mother culture of us all, or more likely, instinctive. Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staline's radio speech on 3 july 1941

Hello Learned Ones ! I am looking for some refs about Staline's speech, 3 july 1941 (maybe the equivalent of de Charles de Gaulle's and Winston Churchill's speeches) but didn't find anything on WP en. There was a phrase in the article Timeline of World War II (1941) , about Staline broadcasting on the 3 July his second radio speech ever, but it has been erased, & I can't find it back. Can you ? And do you have some refs about that speech ? Thanks a lot beforehand, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia is useless for anything involving Russia or Russian history. See ru:Выступление Сталина по радио 3 июля 1941 года. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A translation of the speech into English can be found here: [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staline? That sounds like a Ru-Paul show contestant from Georgia in the Caucasus. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See fr:Joseph Staline. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, quel dommage. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not as unfortunate as fr:Vladimir Poutine. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love the fun that can be had with transliterations of surnames. German requires 13 letters for Chruschtschow. English needs 10 (Khrushchev). Russian requires only 6 (Хрущёв). What a smart language. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I suspect Chinese requires only two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Letters? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can just go to our article on Khruschev, look at the left under "Languages", go to the Chinese article, and see exactly how long the Chinese name is. Khruschev is transliterated as 赫鲁晓夫, so 4 characters. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aow, well, yes, I wrote "Staline" , french way, because in my youth (end of the '40), we used to see "Vive Staline !" painted across so many walls (along also with "US GO HOME" , & we nearly ended in a "democratic" republic, East Germany way : commies nearly landslided in the first post-war general elections)- & because in french "Stalin" 'd be pronounced "Stalein", which wouldn't do. Going back to Stalin's speech, it looks that (apart from AndytheGrump) , its memory seems to have been lost...Too bad, such a fine piece of oratory art, and so nicely mouthed out, too... Thanks a lot to all PS : discovered RuPaul , interesting & courageous person, I think. Rather not the Stalin's type, though (see JPG)... Arapaima (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ru-Paul certainly has better music videos and movie cameos. See my favorite, http://www.spokeo.com/Barack+Obama+1/Dec+01+2008+Other+Photos. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arapaima -- I doubt whether many English-speakers would treasure Stalin's rousing oratory on this occasion, for such reasons as that Stalin had significantly weakened the Soviet military beforehand by decimating the officer corps with multiple secret-police purges; Stalin refused to take steps to minimize the impact of a possible German invasion, despite receiving warnings from multiple independent credible sources that a German invasion might be imminent; and when the German invasion did occur, Stalin underwent a kind of mini-nervous-breakdown or ineffectually dithering state for several days. Of course, many others suffered as a result of Stalin's massive failures, but Stalin himself did not personally suffer. This guarantees that any Stalin speech in early July 1941 would be regarded as pretty much a hollow mockery of empty rhetoric by many well-informed people... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined, AnonMoos, to accept that account--can you suggest who might have been acting behind the scenes to keep things together while Stalin was freaking out, or was there no such person at the time? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was any one individual - though Molotov may have been a significant player. At that stage though, 'keeping things together' probably consisted largely of issuing orders to the army that they were in no position to carry out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And though, today's 3 most beloved heroes in USSR are Vladimir Vysotsky , Lenin, & Stalin ! Thanks a lot for the second helping, Learned Ones, and, Ghirla, thanks for your pointing the WP ruarticle. Though Stalin's speech seems only a paraphrase of Molotov's speech (22 june 1941), could someone edit a small article about it in WP en , for History's sake (as I said supra , Stalin has been such a fixture for us continental Europeans : I remember having heard his dismal voice several times in my youth, while listening to the radio in the '50, apparently they liked it on our station FranceInter) ? . Thanks a lot again to all.

Arapaima (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources for Operation Himmler

According to our articles, Operation Himmler was a series of false flag operations, most notably the Gleiwitz incident, designed to manufacture a pretext for Germany to invade Poland, thus starting World War II. Apart from the written testimony of Alfred Naujocks, are there any primary sources confirming that the Nazi government planned and carried out these operations? That is, did the government itself leave extant any written plans, or did any of the government or military officials tried at Nuremberg or elsewhere admit to staging these operations? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American state funeral

Can an American state funeral be declared by a state or territorial government? Or can only the federal government recognize/declare a state funeral? Can Georgia declare a state funeral for Jimmy Carter in Atlanta? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A funeral in state has nothing to do with one of the fifty states as such. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confusing the word state in state funeral and a US state, if that is what you are talking about and I saw that article already and that is why I am raising this question. According to this a state funeral is a "a ceremonial funeral for a head of state, or other very important person". So no state government can declare a state funeral and have one in their state capital and only the federal government can and it has be in Washington DC to be considered a state funeral?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not confused, then you will not need advice on how to use Google or this website to search for such things as "Pennsylvania" or "Massachusetts state funeral" and come to your own conclusions. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow aren't you just hostile?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, if you don't like a question, don't answer it. --Lgriot (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The army's official how-to on US state funerals is here. This article, prompted by Reagan's death, reviews previous presidential state funerals, reiterates the point that the honour is reserved for presidents, former presidents and people chosen by a president, and notes that this has been the case in practice since the death of William Henry Harrison. There doesn't seem to be any precedent, or any mechanism by which a US state, independent of the President, could stage something officially recognised as a "state funeral" for a person. - Ka renjc 09:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That last NBC sentence is a bit vague. Are state funerals reserved for those chosen by the president to have a state funeral or chosen by him to serve in a prominent state position (Supreme Court justices, for instance)? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mechanism — they could pass a law providing for a "state funeral" at the state level, and then do it. Isn't that a mechanism? States have secretaries of state; I don't know why they can't have state funerals, maybe for particularly honored governors. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan's only feeling poorly, a bad, but not fatal case of the "Detroits". All rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated. Honest. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

> Voynich manuscripts

hi there i wanted to ask everyone for a huge favor, witch is if you can any information pictures etc related to the Voynich manuscripts please

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.35.160 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of Oz suggests you read the link he's provided. (Or maybe he was just kidding?) μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

any idea why "May you live in interesting times" is trending this week?

The article May you live in interesting times got 368,673 views this week. And I can't find a reason why. I thought maybe I might try asking here. Any ideas? Serendi ^pod ous 10:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Often, this kind of thing can happen when something is mentioned in a popular news source. Searching news.google, this is the only recent hit with that exact phrase: [2]. Not exactly convincing for generating >350k views on it's own though. You could also try searching facebook or twitter. If e.g. George Takei said this phrase on his facebook, that alone could account for the pageviews. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only had 9,712 in the previous month. Since you've posted the question, it's gotten 25,252 more. Interesting times (and numbers) indeed, but no idea why. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be this. I don't understand why xkcd is popular on the Internet, but it is. Doesn't contain the exact phrase, but shows up as 7th result for a This Week exact-phrase Google search. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 3rd result from August 16 is also a strong (probably stronger) candidate. Astrology is wildly popular, as well, for some reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall hearing it in an American TV show I watched this week, although since I am already familiar with the saying and barely took notice of it, I don't remember which show. It may have been NCIS Los Angeles but that's just a guess based on what I've watched this week. Maybe that has caused the surge in searches.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 04:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between Presidents Johnson and Reagan

I wrote a longer report upon the political differences of the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. I found out that while Reagan was in the White House, Johnson was long dead, but Reagan became Governor of California while Johnson was president. So Reagan was chief executive of a very imporanant state with the highest population. It would be interesting now to analyze their relationship during those years. What did they say about each other? Did they critize each other publicly and privately? How was their relationship? --78.51.75.169 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Reagan didn't support Johnson's presidency in relation to the conduct of the Vietnam war at least. - Ka renjc 22:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gisela of Hungary at coronation of Saint Stephen

Was Gisela of Hungary in attendance during coronation of Stephen I of Hungary? I don't think she was crowned but was she allowed to watch the ceremony.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Mandarin-only sign outside Louvre

This article claims that "Outside the Louvre in Paris, there’s a sign in Mandarin which tells visitors not to defecate in the surrounding grounds. This sign is only written in Mandarin Chinese." A few other websites repeat this claim, but I can't find a photo of this sign anywhere. Can someone point me to a photo, or failing that, to a reliable source confirming the sign's existence? --Bowlhover (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this previous thread; Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_July_3#Reports_of_signs_specially_written_in_Chinese_that_relates_to_impolite_behaviour_of_Chinese.3F. The gist of it is that it seems to be a myth. Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be just an anti-Chinese myth. Really odd if you don't show a picture of the sign when referencing it. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a myth, but it's not anti-Chinese, considering that it was a Chinese person (Zhang, supposedly a tour guide) who claimed to see the sign. --Bowlhover (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as simple as that. Suppose a Chinese tourist (or tour guide) claims the French are bigoted and stereotype the Chinese. He may want to claim he saw this sign depicting the Chinese as a dirty or unhygienic people. I don't see any logical reason for it but there certainly are attention seekers out there. Not to mention that he could get a lot of media attention for something like this. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video cost

How did the Scream/Childhood end up costing 7 million dollars? As far as i know a video recorder, a venue and hiring a developer shouldn't cost that much. Pass a Method talk 11:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is it possible that the bill includes the cost of Michael buying many of the animals in the video for his zoo?...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I confused that with his video in Africa (What about us?)...Maybe Scream was actually filmed in space then? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos are filmed on broadcast quality video cameras, not on video recorders. Doesn't the record label pay for the music video?
Sleigh (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also have to factor in what they paid Jackson to act in the thing. Even if that's accounted for in his record contract, you still have to consider the other Jackson. She's not cheap, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were some special effects, including "zero-g" shots, which would have required quite a bit of technical work. Plus, there are several shots where anime is playing on screens, which requires royalty payments to the various rights-holders. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a literary reference

In which of Jerome K Jerome's works does he talk about work, or more specifically - and humourously - his collecting of work, and inability to part with the work which has been assigned to him? 114.75.53.118 (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Three Men in a Boat he famously remarked: 'I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours.' I don't know off-hand of anything that answers the question more specifically, but this might give you a start. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "I like work" quote is from Chapter 15 of Three Men in a Boat, and is followed by some text that may be what you want, e.g. 'Why, some of the work that I have by me now has been in my possession for years and years, and there isn’t a finger-mark on it.' Full text here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's what I was looking for, just didn't know where to find it.114.75.48.12 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reason for having children

I am looking for a source which proves that in the past women were giving birth children for a livelihood84.108.6.126 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you clarify at all? What period/s do you mean by "in the past" and by "for a livelihood" do you mean that women were paid to have babies? --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have the articles Child-selling and Surrogacy, which include some information on the payment of women in return for babies they have borne. - Ka renjc 16:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was in the Middle ages but I don't find proof. And no I mean that one of reasons for birthchild was a subsistence. thx --84.108.6.126 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wetnurse? 75.41.109.190 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant childbirth84.108.6.126 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have a specific idea in mind, and are just looking for confirmation of it. If so, could you give more details of what you mean? Things like who is providing this livelihood, what happens to the children and so on? With that kind of information we may be able to see if there is a name for what you're thinking of and articles about it. Jessica Ryan (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My teacher told us that in the past (don't remember when, pretty sure Middle ages) - women birth child for reason - the children help to processing field etc. This was one reason for the q. why were large families in the past. My mother told me it's known so I look for it on the Internet and didn't find anything about it. But I also didn't find about child so I ask here, hope that someone could help me.84.108.6.126 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things to consider here. Before modern medicine, child birth was very dangerous for women; see chapter 4 of Birth, Death, and Motherhood in Classical Greece by Nancy Demand for one discussion of this. Unless you are enslaving a child into adulthood, raising a child in a pre-industrial setting is not going to give you a net economic benefit. Karen Kramer discusses the present-day Maya of Xculoc in Maya Children: Helpers at the Farm (Harvard University Press, 2005). On pp. 168-169 she writes conclusively: although, the children do contribute, they are still a net economic cost. And this is in the modern day with better technology and medicine which allow people to be more productive. Neither is this considering the risks of child birth: It's talking about the net cost of a child that is already born and goes on to reach adulthood, not the expected cost of the combined act of conceiving, having and raising a child, which would be higher.

There are many ways of looking at things though. Many women today and in the past are and were disenfranchised. Such a woman does not necessarily have the right to earn money independently, and in some cases may be completely dependent on a husband for her livelihood. If the husband has the only source of external income between the two of them, the woman must convince the husband to supply her with goods or money if she is to have any, and she may not be able to do this unless she gives him what he wants. This may mean unprotected sex which indirectly leads to children, or he may specifically demand that she bears and raises children. For such a woman, having children becomes a necessity in order to maintain an income at all. Some of this is covered in Simmons, Making Marriage Modern: Women's Sexuality from the Progressive Era to World War II (Oxford University Press, 2009). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of exactly one such source, and it was written as satire instead of as a serious advocacy. Read our article on A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick, which was written by Jonathan Swift, a famous satirist. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally unfair, I was just going to post the same source as Nyttend. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got lost.You say that one of the reason for birth is trade sex for income? thank, 84.108.6.126 (talk)`

That might be just one of the reasons for a woman agreeing to bear many children. The main reason in the past was the lack of contraception, and the social norms that required a woman to fulfill the expectations of her husband. In evolutionary terms, it has usually been an advantage to have many offspring because of the high infant death rate. Within my memory, it was "expected" that children contribute to family income, and parents believed (perhaps wrongly?) that their children would provide for them in their old age. Sorry I haven't references for these thoughts. Perhaps someone else can provide some. Dbfirs 21:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll try to summarize what I said above. First: In pre-industrial settings, children would generally be a net cost to parents; so it would not make sense in most cases to have children in order to gain productivity. So a farmer would not have a child merely in order for the child to help around the farm, because the child would require more care and food than the child could pay back by working in the field. The child may help around the farm, but the farmer would still need more of a cause than that to justify having a child (e.g., instinct, love, religious belief, and maybe too often: indifference, social pressure).

Second: In some cases however (not all), a woman may face pressure to have sex or to have children in order to maintain her livelihood. This is not because the child itself is productive or makes money, but because there is external pressure (rewards and punishment) on her to meet expectations of sexual behavior and child rearing. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read Karen Kramer's research on Maya society, so I'm not able to challenge her conclusions, but the OP asked for a reference to support the theory that parents had many children to help them in the fields etc. Here is one such reference [3] and here is a link to another study [4] (I don't know its conclusion). Dbfirs 19:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Flags hanging style

Seychelles
Cape Verde
NATO

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

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

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

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

Traditional American hiding places for valuables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Konrad von Hochstaden

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

Apparently the article was vandalized, and the offending image has since been removed: [5]. StuRat (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Samarong

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

I haven't found the answer but it certainly cannot be Semarang. [6] says: "Palmyra Island and Samarong Island were proclaimed Hawaiian territory by L. Kamchamech, Minister of the Interior, on June 18, 1862."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Round World vs Flat World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your doubts are easily dispelled by historical facts. The Chinese believed the world was flat and square until Europeans educated them in the 17th century: [8]. Even then, many Chinese continued to cling to old beliefs, refusing to accept that their kingdom was small and had no central position in the world. Unlike Greece, which is extremely mountainous, China is relatively flat (especially along the river valleys where civilization first developed).

Also note that "non-flat" and "spherical" are not synonymous. You can have an ellipsoid or a curved sheet that doesn't close on itself, like a bent piece of paper. Aristotle made very impressive arguments for Earth's sphericity (see [9], which also directly answers the OP's question):

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

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

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

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

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

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

English mixed indep private schools

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

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

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

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

Chinese and poi

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

Question about Philadelphia history

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

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

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

August 21

Why did the Pope REALLY resign?

see WP:BLP

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

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

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

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

Of course, the Pope himself has given two different explanations: (1) his strength waning, he was no longer up to the job, and (2) God, during a mystical experience, told him to quit. [10]. - Nunh-huh 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per capita income

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age of baptism and circumcision

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

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

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

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

French deputy foreign ministers

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

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

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

Name of USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A line from a poem

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

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

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

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

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

August 22

Murugan vs The Morrígan

Is there any connection between the Hindu and Irish deities?

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

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

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

Is that some TV character? No.

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

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

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

Mythology changes over time; the real question here is whether "Moro-rīganī-s" = "Murugan" (perhaps once Murukan? [11]) . (see netsam) Maybe someone on the Language desk could help? Wnt (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why were two people charged with murdering Christopher Lane

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

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

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

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

Nirad C Chaudhuri, Saul Bellow, Bertrand Russell

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

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

Phobias: Fear, Dislike and/or Hatred.‏

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ Line 232: / Line 232: @@
 :::It seems to be just coincidence that these two deities have similar names and are war deities.  Our article on [[The Morrígan]] states that her name comes from an Old Irish compound meaning "phantom queen".  This may of course have been an epithet for an earlier deity with an unrelated name. Meanwhile, Murugan is a male deity that almost certainly originated in South India.  In South India, [[Dravidian languages]] are spoken.  These languages have no proven relationship to Celtic or other Indo-European languages.  If there is a relationship, it is a very distant one, such that etymologically related words almost certainly would not be so similar after thousands of years of divergence. Moreover, according to [http://karkanirka.org/2008/05/11/murugan2/ this site], of uncertain reliability, Murugan's name derives from a Dravidian root meaning "the destroyer".  This is very different in meaning from "phantom queen".  So the apparent resemblance of the two deities' names is almost certainly a coincidence.  [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] ([[User talk:Marco polo|talk]]) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
+::::Exactly, it is a coincidence. [http://www.ulakaththamizh.org/JOTSpdf/009001022.pdf Here] is a scholarly reference for some etymologies of the Tamil name Murugan. Note, OP, that the original form of the word had a K not a G. In addition, the paper discusses how the attributes of the North Indian warlike Skanda were fused with the South Indian youthful lover Murugan. [[Special:Contributions/184.147.116.153|184.147.116.153]] ([[User talk:184.147.116.153|talk]]) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 == Why were two people charged with murdering Christopher Lane ==