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

November 11

Indirect consequentialism and general human irrationality

Selfish gene theory, combined with the number, strength, scope and prevalence of the various biases at List of cognitive biases, strongly suggests to me that non-calculative human behaviour is in general a very poor approximation of what is optimal, and therefore cannot maximize utility even within human computational limits, contra indirect-consequentialist theories such as two-level utilitarianism. Does this objection have a name, and what are the usual answers to it? NeonMerlin 05:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Optimal for what and what would be optimal? Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What objection? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that objection can be described as a manifestation of sesquipedalianism. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You bet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bounded rationality might be what you are looking for -- see also our article on satisficing. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am fairly certain this is the source and concern of NM's post. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. For a person associated with a Department of English at a prominent university, he seems to use precious little of it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Divorce in Ireland

I know it was not legal a while ago, but when it started to be officially legal? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Would this be the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland? Tommy Pinball (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not that it wasn't legal before. It wasn't even possible before. Now it is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not even on grounds of adultery and/or abandonment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Until that amendment, the constitution said, "No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Man who battled the sea

Xerxes attending the lashing and "chaining" of the Hellespont (Illustration from 1909)

I'm trying to think of a name and recall the tale of a man, possibly a king. He was said to have gone down to the sea to fight with it. He stood in the water and beat at it with his sword, or something to that effect. He's often used as an allegory of someone trying to fight a hopeless fight. Anyone know who this is? Dismas|^(talk) 20:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

King Canute --Viennese Waltz 20:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just coming back here to say that I finally hit upon the right words to get Google to tell me that. Thanks again! Dismas|^(talk) 20:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also Xerxes I — Herodotus reports that when the bridge Xerxes was constructing across the Hellespont was ruined he order the body of water to be lashed and put into chains. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I might have been conflating the two stories but Cnut was definitely the one I was trying to use in an example elsewhere. Dismas|^(talk) 21:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Mind you, he did it not to (try to) exercise any power over the waves, but to demonstrate that he had no such power, his kingship notwithstanding. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, thanks Jack. I re-read the pertinent parts of the article and confirmed I was using the correct person as an example in what I was writing. Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• There's also Obama on his own election to president and control over the oceans, yatta, yatta, yatta. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Roman Emperor Caligula, at least in a recent TV series, somehow attacked and thought he had conquered the sea of the Sea God and had his soldiers collect trunks full of sea shells which he exhibited in his Triumph. no one had the guts to tell him he was bonkers. Did Suetonius or others write of this battle? Edison (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, Suetonius mentions it. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, forgot about that one, although it's in I, Claudius. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Although Caligula was a looney, there was kind of a logic to his notion that seashells were the spoils of his Poseidon adventure. That story might have inspired Steven Wright to talk about his vast seashell collection, which he displays on beaches all over the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 12

help me identify this (traditional?) melody.

Tom Waits performs a song based on Jack Kerouac's famous book On The Road. The melody of the chorus of this song provokes a strong nostalgic and emotional reaction in me, but I'm unable to determine exactly what it reminds me of:

(see 1:07, 2:15, 3:02, in this youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgE9fqMTvTk

I almost think it relates to a campfire song we used to sing in Boy Scouts when I was a child, or perhaps it is a frequently used melody in certain kinds of American folk music.

Can anyone help identify this melody, or perhaps tell me what traditional song(s) it is similar to?

--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it sort of reminded me of In My Time of Dying, the Led Zeppelin version. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The song is "Home I'll never be" from the album Orphans: Brawlers, Bawlers & Bastards. The melody is an original but could quite reasonably be described as traditional without referring to any specific song.2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:6061:C42A:B70E:EF09 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I listened to the Orphans version just now, and it's quite different! The one I linked to was performed with Waits and Primus (band) and features Les Claypool's distinctive fretless banjo-bass (which has been made famous for being frequently used in South Park). But both versions are very moving to me, thought the Waits+Primus version makes stronger use of that melody I'm trying to find out about. I was able to recollect at least one song that employs a vaguely similar melody. It's a racist minstrelsy song called "Darkie Sunday School" or "Young Folks Old Folks" which is about silly, modernized versions of Bible stories as told by ignorant Negroes. (Here's a version that doesn't quite use the melody I had in mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fipZz0yhjRI and here's an amatuer, non-racist version where the melody is more similar to what I had in mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQJu_8Nb6N0 and here are amusing and interminable lyrics: http://www.whitetreeaz.com/yfof/yfofword.htm) But the question is still driving me crazy because now I really want to know the origin of this melody....--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The song itself is really - like so many others - a very basic I-IV-V blues progression in C; the specific arrangement you link to makes very effective use of slide banjo to give a very nice although slightly anachronistic dust bowl feel which accords well with the lyrics.

The thing about blues melodies though is that there really aren't that many of them, so whilst it's not at all impossible that this song is using the same melody as a song you know, it's also quite certainly using the same melody as a lot of other songs.

Keep looking for your tune; you never know what you might find along the way. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:3042:25DE:E5B4:D8E8 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what Akrit Jaswal does now?

There's nothing on him since 2005, on this article. I wished to find updates about him. Maybe you can for us? Thanks. --2602:30A:2EE6:8600:D59D:C79F:6214:1B7 (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

He was on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show in 2010; the show materials say “Akrit is now 17 years old and working on a master's degree in applied chemistry.” I can’t find that he’s published any academic articles yet. See what others turn up. Taknaran (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

emily warren paintings

i have a painting of hers 7 x 10 parliment ottawa. who do i contact about this painting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.203.121 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean you want to have it valued? I would take it to an auction house, they have art specialists there who would probably be willing to give you an approximate valuation. They could also probably tell you how much other similar paintings by her have fetched recently at auction, which would give you a good idea of its current value. --Viennese Waltz 03:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Auction prices for various of her paintings range from $3(?) up to $1663. [1] YMMV. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fatimah

In the article Fatimah these two edits were made and then reverted. They are related to File:Muhammad 19.jpg which was obtained from here. If the caption of the external link is correct then the woman in the foreground is Fatimah and the woman to the left of Muhammad is Aisha. Further up the page is another image of Fatimah, File:Siyer-i Nebi - Muhammad gibt Fatimas Hand Imam Ali.jpg, where she is standing to the left of Muhammad and being married to Ali. Now given that the marriage image shows both Muhammad and Aisha with their faces hidden by holy fire is it likely that the second one would show her face but hide the others? Can anyone find a reference that would indicate if in the first picture the woman is really Aisha or is someone else such as a servant. For anyone unsure as to why the faces are hidden in flame see depictions of Muhammad. I'll also post at the language desk to see if someone can read the Arabic in the images. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know how one is supposed to tell that it's a woman, but in File:Muhammad 19.jpg, the red-clothed person does appear to have "Fatimah" written above... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure File:Muhammad 19 is in Ottoman Turkish ("وودلر" is presumably "daughters"? I also see "turanlar" which is obviously Turkish), but the first couple of names at the top are Umm al-Mu'mineen (i.e. Aisha) and Umm Salama...there is another Umm in there but I can't make out who that is. The three women with the Holy Fire are labelled, right to left, Fatima, Umm al-Mu'mineen, and Umm Salama, but I'm not sure who the girl is. Fatima is mentioned in the text at the bottom as well. File:Siyer-i Nebi - Muhammad gibt Fatimas Hand Imam Ali.jpg is also not in Arabic except for various names and titles, but the woman is labelled Fatima. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks. It's possible if the third one has Umm as well it could be Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad. CambridgeBayWeather (talk)

I was thinking that too but that's not what the inscription says...it looks like "Umm al-abmun"? I don't know, I must be missing something. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

After staring at it some more, I think it must be "Umm al-Ayman", Muhammad's nursemaid and later wife of Zayd ibn Harithah. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd

Just inquiring about who is the author/s of the following article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd

Thankyou Muchly, Alex McKnight-Rhodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVince05 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Like all Wikipedia articles, it's a collaborative work of many editors, some of whom have registered usernames, some of whom choose to edit anonymously. You can see the full list of editors who have made changes to the article here. --Viennese Waltz 09:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, on Wikipedia some (much!) editors' work is "reverted", i.e. undone by someone else, and more may be substantially rewritten, so when you read the list keep in mind that not all of them actually created text you see in the article. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The tool Wikipedia:WikiBlame allows you to see who added some particular bit of text in the article and when. You clock on "View History" and then "Revision history search." Edison (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What does Muslim proselytism look like?

I have seen several Christians proselytizing on street corners, to selected houses in neighborhoods, and generally promoting their organization in a big courtyard. I have seen one Buddhist monk-to-be promoting Buddhism. But I have never encountered a single Muslim proselytize. I don't even know what a Muslim proselytism look like. Do they even proselytize openly? 140.254.229.115 (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here in Germany, they look just like evangelical Christians (though often with Better Beards (tm)). They have a table (often side-by side with other groups - Christians, Animal Liberation, Pirate Party, Free Energy are favorites ;-) in the pedestrian area of the town, and hand out flyers and copies of the Qur'an. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. They must be inured to seeing people toss them in the trash... :) Wnt (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

All proselytisers have this to deal with. And much worse. Because they know in advance what they're up against, they have my respect for having the courage of their convictions. So I'm always polite when declining to accept their material or their message. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there. I have a lot more respect for them now, since I've engaged in proselytism before. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Just like Christian proselytizers don't throw Bibles at passers-by, the Muslim proselytizers I have seen don't just press a Qur'an onto random people. They offer them in case someone shows signs of genuine interest. That said, as far as I know, only the original Arab language version of the Qur'an is strictly holy. So while throwing away a German-language or English language copy may cause offense, and would be in bad taste, it won't necessary be considered blasphemous (at least not by the more reasonable fraction - the unreasonable fringe of any religion will be much easier to anger). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do well-educated American Black people lose their African American Vernacular Accent?

Do well-educated American Black people lose their African American Vernacular Accent, or is the accent slightly milder or less pronounced? 140.254.229.115 (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of them have control over several linguistic registers (as many others also do), and can tone it down or turn it up depending on their comfort level and the context of the situation... AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos is referring to code switching. The OP's question implies a lot of false premises, such as that all American blacks talk one way, or that having a certain accent implies a lack of education, or that there's something particular about blacks that differentiates their ability to intentionally change their speech habits from the ability of other groups to do so. If anything, there's a certain prestigious "urban" speech you'll see in certain music videos that a lot of adolescent black and white males invest a lot of time in becoming fluent in. The OP may simply have the question backwards. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not just African-Americans. Comedian Jeff Foxworthy said about the white Southern accent "...nobody wants to hear their brain surgeon say, 'Al’ight now what we're gonna do is, saw the top of your head off, root around in there with a stick and see if we can't find that dad burn clot.’ [2] Rmhermen (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What Foxworthy is referring to is sociolect as well as dialect. The four most impressive speakers of English I have ever met were a black highschool dropout from Harlem, who sounded like an upper-middle-class John Facenda, and three Southern women: a philosophy professor from Atlanta, whose old-style Southern accent would put any East Anglian to shame, and a white woman and a Cherokee from the Virginia/North Carolina border, whose untutored Southern dialects would have been perfect for any Shakespearean noblewoman. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Medeis -- Code switching is mixing elements from different languages or dialects together in one's speech. Register control is changing one's style of speech appropriately according to different social situations. They're almost opposites... AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if someone is "toning it down or turning it up according to their comfort level," I take that to mean they are mixing elements of formal and vernacular dialect, like RP and Geordie, or Brooklynese and American Broadcast Standard. You'll also notice I didn't say AnonMoos was entirely wrong, and he didn't mean to say linguistic register. I know you love to nitpick and point out others' blunders, but you'll forgive me if I'm not going to add caveats and footnotes to my comments to avoid you finding something to complain about. Readers here will profit by checking out code switching. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Register control could mean using formal standard English in situations where this is appropriate, and using one's most casual (or "basilectal") form of speech with close family and friends, without much mixing of the two. Someone who tries to approximate standard speech by mixing some features of standard English in with his non-standard dialect (i.e. code-switching) isn't doing as good a job of register control as someone who simply speaks full standard English, without mixing of diverse speech styles. As a practical matter, code-switching does often occur in the speech of many who try to adjust their registers, but code-switching is not a necessary part of register adjustment, and the two things are really not the same... AnonMoos (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the "African American Vernacular Accent"? I'm not asking in a sarcastic way, I' actually not aware of what is being referred to here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I took it as meaning the traditional Black American English (He be speakin') with a mixture of what used to be called Jive, i.e., African American Vernacular English, on top "Word, nigga, you ain't frontin'". μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so this is just racism dressed up in fancy sounding phrases. Thanks (though I'm a bit sadder having the answer...)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Racism is the direct or indirect attribution of moral attributes based on ultimately physiological characteristics: e.g., "Orientals are sneaky", "Blacks are lazy." The mere recognition of fact, if it is fact, "There are varieties of English associated largely with black Americans", "There are a lot of nail salons in California owned by Vietnamese", is not in itself racist per se. That's not to say people who make such observations don't sometimes immediately follow them up with racist conclusions. But linguists are perfectly capable of describing real and existing language phenomenawithout casting moral aspersions. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see where it would look like I was saying the linguistics topic was racist, but what I meant was that the question is racist, just hiding behind fancy terms- specifically the assumptions about education, speech pattern, and race. I don't find anything problematic with observing and classifying speech patterns. --though, on reflection, I can imagine that this isn't so much a racist question, but that you could read it as a question that involves some bad assumptions. My initial, albeit sleepy, reading of the question was as "Do blacks speak correctly once they're taught better?". By the way, thanks for McWhorter link, I'll check that out:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, my first fear on reading the question was that it was more baiting from the Toronto IP. The question implies a certain lack of sophistication in such matters, but the attitude is common enough that I don't think we have to assume any active racist intent.

John McWhorter is a "black" linguist who has written a lot on these issues if you are interested. Most libraries carry his books. We have a good article on him. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: to my knowledge, "African American Vernacular English" is the term preferred by linguists who study such things -- the term itself is intended to be scientific an neutral. As to the OP, I assume good faith. The issue is somewhat racially charged, but I think it can be interpreted as an honest question without racist undertones. The above answers have already pointed out the key concepts and links, so I think we've done decently well here. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

African Americans cannot be reliably distinguished from white Americans by their speech. I'm not denying that there is such a thing as African American Vernacular English. However, I deny that it is exclusive to African Americans and that all African Americans can speak that variety of English. Some young white people, especially in urban environments, often adopt features of AAVE. Many (especially middle class) black people speak more or less standard English as their native language. Anecdotally, I remember sitting in a bus in San Francisco once listening to a woman who spoke just like my (white) grandmother. I turned around to see that it was an elderly black woman. My grandmother grew up in poverty in rural Texas in the early 20th century. During the mid-20th century, many poor rural black Texans migrated to California. Speech in America often has more to do with geography and class than with race. Marco polo (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Black Americans can often be recognized by their speech, although certainly some sound "white" just as some whites sound "black," such as young urban male white who cultivate black speech, "Yo?" The judge in the OJ Simpson trial interrupted a witness who said she had heard an African-American man shouting to announce that it was impossible to distinguish race from speech, and his declaration was ridiculed by some. Listeners to a phone call can typically tell when a Black person is calling. I often speak to people on the phone before I meet them in person, and the impression over the phone is usually verified. And it is typically distinguishable from Southern White speech though southern white speech sounds more like typical black speech than does northern white speech. . I expect it is a cultural thing preserved over the generations from speech patterns in African countries of origin. But African Americans raised in the North, if their parents are educated professionals, often speak with accent, voice quality, and phrasing which is indistinguishable (to me) from that of their Northern white peers. Edison (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of black Americans have very interesting and sometimes disturbing stories relating to this question. Howard Stern co-host Robin Quivers grew up in a tough part of Baltimore with abusive, yet educated parents. When she speaks, you won't detect the slightest trace of AAVE. This is because, as a child, if she came home speaking or using slang like her friends her parents would beat her. They wanted her to speak "like a white person" so she would have better opportunities in life--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC).

Black towns and cities in North Africa

Is Tawergha, Libya the only place in Libya and Maghreb that had a black population due to history of slavery or other historical reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.195 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The North American concept of "black" (and the slightly different European and Australian concepts of "black") do not correspond to a category used by people in North Africa, so your question can't really be answered. In fact, there are people indigenous to every North African country except maybe Tunisia who would be classified as "black" by many people of European origin. Marco polo (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We have articles on Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, Arab slave trade, Islam and Slavery which may be helpful. Rmhermen (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Crossing the Bering Strait

Did humans, before the European colonization of America, crossed the Bering Straight more than once at different times? Is there any evidence that the Yupik people, who populates both sides of the Straight knew of the other side in ancient times? Did they have anything like legends, myths and such? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there were at least three separate major waves into America from Asia, the Amerind peoples (controversial with some linguists as not unitary), Na-Dene peoples, and Eskimo-Aleut peoples. The Yupik in Asia originated in North America. The name Alaska derives from the Aleut alaxsxaq which means "the other side" (from the point of view of the Aleutian islands looking across the water to the mainland). Local people are always aware of their local geology, so of course the Yupik knew there were two large land masses separated by what we call the Bering. That doesn't mean they knew they were on the border between the Americas and Eurasia any more than Celts in Spain knew they were on the western edge of Eurasia or the Egyptians knew they were on the third planet orbiting Sol. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of them crossed gayly, especially when it wasn't so Straight and narrow. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of them got too close to the edge of the ice, and found themselves in Serious Straits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As Craig Ferguson would say, Cf, Yer a racist. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to roll the 'r', Scottish style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't. I just don't know how one spells that. μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I believe it's "Ye⟨r⟩" SemanticMantis (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 13

Volcanism

This question has been moved to the science desk. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Good book on the development of the canon

I would like to read a good book on the development of the Christian canon. I'm most interested in the Roman Catholic and Protestant canons, though I suspect at least some exploration of the Jewish and Eastern Orthodox ones will be necessary for context. I'd like a thorough one that is accessible to an educated reader but not overtechnical. Scholarly articles that provide a good overview would work too. Does the RD have any to recommend? ÷seresin 03:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article on the subject at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000880.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bruce M. Metzger is a great example of the liberal/critical perspective, and as his article notes, he won respect from people of all shades of belief; see his work at the top of the "Further reading" section of our article on the Muratorian fragment. I can't give you anything from the conservative/biblical inerrancy perspective with equal confidence, so instead I'll offer two suggestions. J. Gresham Machen is a great representative of that position overall, so you might want to check the last book in his article's "Works" section. I'm not familiar with F. F. Bruce, but statements in his article seem to suggest that he's often considered a leading author in the conservative/biblical inerrancy perspective; you may well want to check his book that's cited at Muratorian fragment. Note that all three of these guys come from Protestant perspectives, so you may end up needing to find some Catholic, Orthodox, or Jewish authors. I don't know whom to suggest there, while two of my three suggestions are Presbyterians; as a Presbyterian myself, I know more about the Presbyterian writers because I've not read as much from other Protestant denominational families or from non-Protestant writers. Nyttend (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Volume 1 of The Cambridge History of the Bible has the chapters "Canonical and Non-Canonical" and "The New Testament Canon" that deal with canon formation with regard to the Old Testament and the New Testament, respectively. Deor (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Robin Lane Fox, a classicist with no particular axe to grind, wrote The Unauthorized Version, which discusses the developments of canons of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.--Wetman (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

For the New Testament, Bart Ehrman lists his two favourites [3]: a more basic account: Harry Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) and the major scholarly account: Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) You can buy an audio or video copy of Bart Ehrman's set of lectures on the topic as well: [4]

For the Old Testament and Hebrew Bible, the only suggestion I have (this may be a bad suggestion) is Trebolle, Julio, "Canon of the Old Testament" in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1 (Abingdon, 2006), pp. 548–63. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Anglican Latin and Byzantine Church Bazaars

Both the Byzantine Catholic church I was baptized in, and the local Roman Catholic church where I grew up held annual Bazaars. I see watching Downton Abbey this is also an Anglican tradition. They are all even called the same thing in English. Can anyone suggest if this is a common inheritance from before the Anglican-Roman split? Or is it a modern innovation? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

While I couldn't really find anything useful for you I did find Trinity Church (Arendal)#Today's Church (last paragraph). I had trouble understanding it until I saw the picture below with a permanent bazaar, File:Arendal Kirkebasaren.JPG. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

An anecdote from down here, where they tend to be called fetes. Bill Hayden was known for dreading being asked to attend what he referred to as "fetes worse than death". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you had to go pretty far to get there, Jack, but the puncline was worth it. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This probably goes back to at least the Middle Ages where the bazaar would be neverending. There would constantly be people and animals in and around the church and going there for an actual religious service would be difficult and distracting. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@JackofOz:, I would have thought a fete somewhat different to a church bazaar even though they could have both been held by churches. I would think of a bazaar as more like a jumble sale where only goods are sold and it just starts at a certain time. On the other hand I would expect a fete to sell goods but that there would be other forms of entertainment held, as it points out in the article, and while starting at a certain time is usually opened by someone notable. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OED records the word since 1340 with the meaning “An Oriental [sic, apologies] market-place or permanent market”. However, your meaning, “A fancy fair in imitation of the Eastern bazaar; esp. a sale of useful and ornamental articles, in behalf of some charitable or religious object” appears only since 1807. Here are the first few entries:

1807 R. Southey Lett. from Eng. I. vii. 82 My way..took me through a place called Exeter Change, which is precisely a Bazar, a sort of street under cover, or large long room, with a row of shops on either hand, and a thoroughfare between them; the shops being furnished with such articles as might..remind a passenger of his wants.

1816 Soho Bazaar.

1829 R. Southey Sir T. More II. 216 No Vanity Fair opened in aid of the funds, under the title of a Ladies' Bazaar.

It’s surprising we don’t have an article on the Soho Bazaar which opened in 1815 and ran for 70 years; here is a blog post about it. <OR> It definitely seems a candidate for the origin of this particular use of the word.</OR> Taknaran (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think the interpretation I will accept based on the above comments is that churches from at least the Middle Ages tended to have standing fairs, and that they became called bazaars in the 1800's when town commerce took over as the regular market, and bazaars became special events. Thanks for the responses. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

6¼¢ in 1815

According to one of the sources I just used to write Wabash County Courthouse (Illinois), the county commissioners paid 6¼¢ to rent a building as the courthouse in 1815. I'm familiar with the Half cent (United States coin), but not with anything smaller, and I note that the article says no coin lesser than ½¢ was ever minted. How were the commissioners to pay 6¼ cents? Just assume that they'd still be there a year later and make change? Nyttend (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Mill (currency); there were also tax tokens that had various mill values to deal with fractional sales tax (this was in the depression era, more so, though), see: [5], [6], and [7].Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a problem if they rented it for four years and paid in a lump sum. I don't know if they'd do that but it would mean 25 cents every four years which is sort of round. Or a dollar for a 16 years lease. A nominal $1 value is pretty common so that might explain it, except for wondering why 16 years. RJFJR (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The amount was "1/2 bit" ( Medio real) ... the Spanish silver dollar was legal tender until 1857. Not all that incredible a value -- there were letters with postage due of 18 3/4 cents. Collect (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, we still have just about every gas station in the US charging something and 9/10 of a cent for each gallon of gasoline. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do Roman Catholics have a higher tendency to engage in social justice than other types of Christians?

Do practicing Roman Catholics have a higher tendency to engage in social justice than other types of Christians? 140.254.227.70 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "engage in social justice"? --Viennese Waltz 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Engage in social justice work. Engage in social work. Engage in charitable/philanthropic/humanitarian causes. Help people. Defend the weak, the sick, the lame, the homeless, the social outcasts that are oppressed by everyone else in society. 140.254.227.70 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It sounded like you wanted to know if I carried a sword and meted out justice on the street. (I do.) μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This has no easy answer, you'll have to read a lot and sort out various statistics, figure out whose you trust, etc. I googled /catholic protestant comparison charity philanthropy/, here's the most relevant and authoritative info I found:

“ For rural respondents, type of religious affiliation itself (Protestant, Catholic, other Christian, Other religion) had no significant effect on the probability of being a donor. However, increasing frequency of religious attendance had a statistically significant effect on being a donor. That is, for every increase in the frequency of religious service attendance, there was a 0.5 percent increase in the probability of being a donor for rural residents (p<0.001).

For urban respondents, being Protestants or engaging in an “other” religion had a positive marginal effect on the probability of being a donor. However, being Catholic did not predict the probability of being a donor. Frequency of religious attendance is an important determinant to estimate the probability of being a donor for urban respondents (p<0.001), but the marginal effect size (0.002) was smaller than the effect size from rural respondents (0.005) .

”

-- from here [8] Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if you need a rough translation, that says that (for that study), being Protestant made one slightly more likely to donate to charities, but being Catholic did not. However, in both groups, more church attendance is correlated with more donation. Confusing the issue, donations to ones own church are often considered "charitable", though some studies try to separate that part out. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Note however that the survey linked above relates to the U.S. - things may be entirely different elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the OP's question, which actually asked about social justice, rather than donating money. As you can see, we have an article about it, telling us that it exists in "a society...based upon the principles of equality and solidarity". Given the extremely heirarchical nature of the Catholic Church and the wealth concentrated in The Vatican, social justice would hardly seem to fit that organisation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

During some periods of U.S. history (don't know about elsewhere), when prominent and vocal Protestant voices often seemed to be focusing mainly on questions of individual vice, sin, and salvation, prominent Catholics sometimes took a broader view (Rerum Novarum, etc.). However, see also Social gospel etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is too broad to be a meaningful questions. "Other types of Christians" in include some groups like Quakers who are very high on social justice and others that are not. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sir Sandford Fleming (surveyer) & Ian Fleming (James Bond & British Intelligence Officer)

Is there a family relationship between Sir Sandford Fleming - inventor of Standard Time in the 1800s and Ian Fleming who was both a British author (James Bond) and a British Intelligence Officer during WWII.

It would appear that the two may be related through Robert Fleming (a British financier) who founded the financial firm that bears his name. <wikipedia>

Ongar1 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)ongar1

I've just checked on Ancestry.com to see if any of the family trees there contain both names - and none do. Not definitive, obviously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Can a non-Black person who is adopted into a Black family at a young age be considered part of the "African American" culture and thus ethnically "African American"?

Can a non-Black person who is adopted into a Black family at a young age be considered part of the "African American" culture and thus ethnically "African American"? Would such a person still be considered a "minority" due to family background rather than by personal appearance or by the color of their skin and facial structure and hair texture? 140.254.227.70 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well for starters, no-one can be considered part of any group on the basis of the colour of their skin, their "facial structure" or their "hair texture". FFS. --Viennese Waltz 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I am asking whether or not it's possible for a person to be "African American" by being adopted into an African American family, even though the biological parents may look different racially. 140.254.227.70 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that you can't categorize people on the basis of how they look, so the premise of your question is flawed. --Viennese Waltz 17:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not categorizing people on the basis of how they look. If you don't believe me, REAL people do self-identify as being "African American". I am just wondering if an authority figure (academic researcher or a government official) can come in and deny the self-identification simply because they look differently or not align to the social group. 140.254.227.70 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"African American" is an undefined euphemistic neologism. People aren't cultures, or parts of cultures (like traditions, which are memes), they are physical entities, living organisms. This question, in so far as it is coherent, amounts, with its "be considered", to a mere request for opinion. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, what's got into this desk today. African American is not "undefined", it's an ethnicity. Read African American and come back to me if you have any questions. --Viennese Waltz 17:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

My statement was perfectly clear, there's not a bit of it you failed to understand, yet you pull one word out of context (you tell me definitively whether Barack Obama, for example, is African-American), and hold up to me our article as if it is a reference? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not adopted, but a similar example was Johnny Otis, son of Greek immigrants, who said: "As a kid I decided that if our society dictated that one had to be black or white, I would be black." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A caucasian raised in a black family in the US would be like a Octaroon raised in a black family. Octaroons have theoretically 1/8 African ancestry and generally look about the same as their caucasian second cousins. The public would assume he had some African ancestry if he spoke with the same language patterns as his adoptive siblings and his parents. In the old Jim Crow laws of the Deep South in the late 19th and mid 20th century, "one drop" of African blood made the person as much a black person as 100% African ancestry. If he were blond/blue, then present-day Americans might assume he was adopted. In the worst case, they might assume he was kidnapped, like the two recent European cases involving children of Romas. Of course genetics is what it is, and there was a recent case of fraternal twins where one looked very white and the other was dark. The parents each had a black father and a white mother. If the parents were 50% African ancestry then each of the twins is also 50% African. We can't give legal advice as to whether some special scholarship or special admissions to some program which provides a preference for "African Americans" would be available to a caucasian raised in a black family. Edison (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The one-drop rule has become especially ironic given the increasing acceptance of the Recent African origin of modern humans model. If one, as an exercise, accepts both that and the one-drop rule, one is forced to conclude that everybody should have been classified as black under those Jim Crow laws which adopted the one-drop rule. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 15:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you might think that an academic researcher is an authority figure. She isn't. Just tell her what your ethnic identity is, and if she doesn't respect it, then decline to take part in the research. If she does have a legitimate reason to ask about race, e.g. in a study of sickle cell trait, then participation in the research is still optional. I don't think government officials have much cause to define you by ethnicity or race either, in most countries. You might be asked for equalities monitoring, but that's confidential. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's a case in point. I have 2 sons. The younger is my biological child. The elder was my (then) wife's son from her first marriage, and I adopted him after we married. My ex-wife is a first-generation Australian of Russian origin; elder son's father was born in China to a Russian family and migrated here at a young age (he died a couple of years ago). I'm a 5th generation Australian but consider myself an Irish Australian because of the preponderance of my heritage (there's also Scottish and English in there, but I choose the ethnicity I most closely identify with). My younger son usually thinks of himself as a Russian Australian, mainly because he had his maternal grandparents (until their death) and his mother close at hand all his life to teach him the Russian language and the ways of Russian culture. But he is also of half-Irish heritage, and it is open to him to also identify himself as Irish Australian (or also Scottish or English, but that is much less likely). But my elder son has no such option, not really. Now, this case doesn't have the skin colour factor, and if Son No. 1 told people he was of Irish heritage, nobody could readily gainsay him. But if I were Masai and Son No. 1 claimed African ethnicity on the basis of being my adopted son, people would probably assume his parents were white South Africans or Zimbabweans or something. If he then informed them his Dad is an 8-foot tall Masai warrior, they'd do a double take and questions would start getting asked. Now, if it had been my parents who lived close by, and not the Russian grandparents, I'm sure the Irish factor would have been emphasised more strongly than it was, and maybe my kids would be calling themselves Irish, as at least one of them would be perfectly entitled to do. So, it's never a simple matter when it comes to which group(s) we identify with, and that's why people generally get to choose for themselves. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is not true that grandparents each contribute exactly 25% of a child's genome. Due to chromosomal crossover, a parent can pass along anywhere from 0 to 23 of a grandparent's chromosomes, and usually some mixture that varies from 25% of the total inheritance. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Johnny Otis used to be famous in Los Angeles, though he was not adopted... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

See above. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the only valid question would be: Is there a known person that regularly fills-in official forms in America by ticking "African American", (maybe because s/he was adopted by parents who fill-in "African American" on those forms), although both her/his biological parents fill in "white/Caucasian". --Lgriot (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The flaw with the question is that it conflates culture with ethnicity. While there is often some degree of overlap, I don't think it is correct to assume that these two concepts are identical. Certainly anyone raised in a particular culture will self-identify with that culture to some extent, even if the other members of that culture are predominantly of a different ethnicity. Consider an Japanese boy adopted by Italian parents and raised in Italy. Unless his Italian parents make a point of teaching him about his Japanese "ethnic heritage", he would grow up Italian. Culturally he would be Italian... even though ethnically he would remain oriental. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I wonder how many non-blacks have been adopted by black families? I suspect it's not very many. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The term ethnicity is being stretched to the breaking point when it is applied to both uncontacted peoples and Americans. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Would that we were at the point where ethnicity was reduced to such mundane traits as hair color or shoe size. It's better than it was 50 years ago, but it's a long, slow process. Maybe by the year 3000 or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Are churches racially segregated?

You know how in surveys there would be like Black Protestant Americans, Mainline Protestant Americans, Catholic Americans, Evangelical Americans, Unaffiliated and Other? Well, is this to imply that American churches are racially segregated? Are non-Black people allowed to become members at Black churches? Also, some Hispanic people may look black, but really they do not self-identify as "black" or "colored" and may have Caribbean heritage and are Catholic. Where do these people fit in in terms of how they identify themselves? 140.254.136.168 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any churches in the US which refuse entry to those of "the wrong race". I'm not sure if that would be legal, either. However, some people might feel less welcome than others (and yes, this is rather non-Christian behavior). Also, since populations often self-segregate in where they live, this also naturally results in unbalanced church membership. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's about time we blocked these bullshit race and otherwise baiting questions from colleges in Ohio. You'd think this person (a term I use lightly) would have better to do than troll these desks. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Every question on the Ref Desks should be considered on its merits. Nobody except the OP can ever know what their real, underlying motives for asking questions are, and whether these differ from the face value appearance, which is all the rest of us ever know. Without strong evidence, we can't be impugning OPs' motives. This is a perfectly reasonable question. I myself have often wondered about this very issue. We see movies like The Blues Brothers, where in the church scene Jake and Elwood stand out like sore thumbs by being the only white people there, and they only went there because they were sent by the Cab Calloway character, not because they had a sudden urge to go to church. The very strong impression I as an outsider have gained is that there is very real segregation in some southern churches, but whether this is enforced in any official way, or maintained by people simply choosing to flock together in accordance with the colour of their plumage, is the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Jake and Elwood were raising money for the Catholic orphanage in that movie, though. Different churches have very different worship styles (as well as theology). Certain traditions like call and response and spirituals are most associated with African Americans while many "high church" elements are rare in those churches. People tend to group by their family background, neighborhood and learned theology - all of which tend to keep races in the churches they were brought up in and in racially separated Sunday mornings.[9] Rmhermen (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You are letting your animosities show through, JackofOz. For once Medeis actually has a point. These are obvious trolling questions and to bring up WP:NOTCENSORED is somewhat facetious considering the similar nature of the sanctions imposed on a lot of other similar ref desk trolls. Anyway this is a discussion for the ref desk talk page not here. The less feeding the better and all that (although it seems to me the train has left the station long ago regarding that one). --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure there are "churches" in the US (and worldwide) who do indeed refuse entry to people of the wrong race (their version). See Christian Identity. Of course these are fringe groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion would make so much more sense if there was a meaningful definition of race that everyone agreed upon. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In America, which race is which is pretty obvious. Maybe it's different down under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Australians tend not to care about race anywhere near as much as Americans. The way it's used by the masses most places seems to be an unscientific concept anyway. And given the persistent arguments and vandalism at Barack Obama, it's apparent that Americans don't always agree. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That "comparison" conveniently leaves out that Australians are 75% of descent from the British isles, 94% European overall, 4.5% Asian, and 1% aboriginal by population. You haven't any real issues at this point to have issues over. (Australian Gov figures, as of 1988.) μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Obama is roughly half-white and half-black. I say roughly because research has determined he had a black ancestor on his "white" side. In the old days, the racists in America would have called him black, end of story. Since 2009, the descendants of those racists have been arguing that he can't be called black because he's roughly half-white. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Those terrible Democrats, just imagine what posters like Bugs are gonna write on this board about you voting for Obama in the years to come. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding self-segregation... There is a phenomenon in the African-American community where the negative racial segregation of the past has morphed into a positive cultural self-segregation of the present. "Negro churches" (as they were once called) may have started because, in the days of segregation, African-Americans were not welcome in mainstream (white) churches, but the "Negro churches" also played a key role in the fight for racial equality during the era of segregation. And they became central to the cultural history of the black community. The modern African-American community is justifiably proud of that heritage... so some African-Americans continue to self-segregate by maintaining their churches. The motivation is a positive one... it is one way African-Americans affirm their own cultural history and identity. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

November 14

Orthodox Jewish women wearing sandals

What does Judaism, regardless Haredi, Conservative and Reform denomination, says about women wearing sandals? I notice that all Haredi women don't wear sandals when it is very hot outside in the summer season but I did notice some of them did wear slide-in sandals but not flip-flop sandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.240 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless they're at the beach or pool, what reason would they possibly have to wear sandals or flip-flops? Were your observations near water used recreationally? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What a stupid response Nricardo. Don't bother responding if that's the best you have to offer. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they just don't want to get the tops of their feet sunburned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Tzeniut#Dress has some (mostly unreferenced) information: "Some insist on closed-toe shoes and always wear stockings, the thickness of which varies by community. [...] Sandals without socks, while generally not worn in a synagogue, are usually accepted in Modern Orthodox and Religious Zionist Communities in Israel for daily dress. Haredi Ashkenazi practice discourages sandals without socks both in and out of the synagogue. Haredi Sefardic communities tend to accept sandals at least outside of synagogue and sometimes in synagogue as well." ---Sluzzelin talk 12:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav leader/politician actually offering independence to Slovenes and Croats in 1920s?

Hello,

I remember reading many years ago that right before some reforms in interbellum-Yugoslavia, a leader of Yugoslavia, possibly the king himself, tried to counter demands for independence or autonomy of Slovenia and Croatia by actually offering just that (possibly in parliament in Belgrade). The response to this was negative, which the book attributed to a fear of domination by neighbouring states such as Italy and Hungary.

However, I cannot find any reference for this anymore. I had a discussion with a Croat on this today, and she said the story is new to her, so I'm quite curious now.

Many thanks! Evilbu (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Ante Trumbić's opposition to the Vidovdan Constitution in 1921? Or maybe Alexander I of Yugoslavia abolishing the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and renaming the land Yugoslavia in 1929? Astronaut (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that it was Alexander I who did this, right before those reforms. But as I said, I cannot find references.Evilbu (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Translations of the Missale Romanum

Is there a list of approved translations of the current Roman Missal (i.e. to which languages has it been translated "officially")? --MF-W 23:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

On the Holy See website I found this list but five languages seems awfully short. Will keep looking.174.88.8.190 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

November 15

Speaking in the House of Lords

The article on the House of Lords says "The Lord Speaker or Deputy Speaker cannot determine which members may speak, or discipline members for violating the rules of the House; these measures may be taken only by the House itself."

How does the House as a whole decide on speakers? If two speakers stand up to talk at the same time, how is it decided which will speak? Is it a case of 'oh no, old boy, you go ahead', by one of them, or do other lords take part in the decision? 92.30.205.40 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The prohibition doesn't seem to say "cannot determine the order" of speakers, but you probably want a Brit who actually knows what he's talking about. I just wish we had such an adversarial system in the US. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for the good old days, when the members of Congress would threaten each other with bodily harm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Did more than just threaten didn't they? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

At least once, yes.. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a provision in the Constitution which basically exempts congressmen from libel suits for things they talk about on the floor. Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn't allow for the possibility of attempted murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

We have nothing like the HoC's Question Period. If we did, there's no way Jimmy Carter, or, especially, Either Bush, or Barack Obama would have become president. None of the could speak on their feet or speak spontaneously when challenged. Our House only allows uninterrupted sequential speeches; i.e., blather and non sequiturs. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

JFK spoiled us. He was quick on his feet. Hardly anyone before or since has been that good. In Ike's day, the press conferences the public saw had been filmed and edited. JFK switched to live press conferences, and administrations since have followed suit, often to their eventual regret. (If Nixon's press conferences had been time-delayed, it's unlikely the world-famous quote "I am not a crook" would have made the cut.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Adversity might require political differentiation. To this end I propose that the USLP and US Greens replace the parties now current as the new party system. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as that passage implies, since 2005 the House of Lords has been self-regulating. I guess I would describe the role of the Lord Speaker as that of a minute-taker (although I believe they can end debates going over time on advice from the Table, i.e. the Clerks). Breaches of regulation and conduct would be dealt with by the House, under advice from officers of the parliament or the cabinet:

• The Leader of the House of Lords advises the house on procedure and order, assisted by the Clerk of the Parliaments and other Clerks
• The Government Chief Whip advises the House on speaking times in debates, and their office would issue a speakers list which outlines the list of speakers for most debates
• When two or more members rise to speak, the House determines who is to speak. This may, if necessary, be decided upon a motion that one of the members "be now heard". It is customary for speakers from different parties or parts of the House to take turns.

--Canley (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not just since 2005 - since ever. The post of Lord Speaker was only created in 2005; before then the Lord Chancellor sat Speaker, but also with no powers to regulate behaviour. On major debates there are speakers lists for which peers put themselves down, and then speak in order; they're actually public and you can read them here. When debating legislation, there are few speakers and no strict time limit, so the order does not much matter.

Where it is critical is during the half hour question time at the beginning of each day's sitting, because the time limit is strict. What actually happens, if two or more Peers stand up and want to ask a supplementary question, is normally that one gives way to the other (if they have particular expertise in the subject, for instance). If they don't give way and there's a stalemate, a Government whip will intervene and say "My Lords, I think it is the turn of the X party benches", to indicate who should go ahead.

Some recent examples may help. Here, two Labour peers both wanted to ask a question, and neither would give way, so the Leader of the Labour Peers intervened to decide which of them got in. Here the Leader of the House indicates which party gets preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Also sometimes peers will call out the name of the peer they think should speak. So if Lord Smith and Lord Brown stand up, and most people want to hear Lord Smith, you may hear a chorus of peers saying "Smith". Neljack (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaker of the House - power over introducing bills

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act passed the Senate recently, and there has been a lot of talk about John Boehner stating that he won't introduce it to the House. I don't understand why he has the power to unilaterally block a bill like that - are there any provisions for allowing a vote on this bill even if he doesn't want to let it happen? Katie R (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the dilemma of the current schizoid status of the Republican Party, which is really two parties now and he's basically managing a "coalition", or trying to. It's within his power as Speaker to decide whether something comes to the floor or not - and if he doesn't have enough Republican votes to pass something, he won't try. What he could do is abandon the tea party and form a coalition with moderate Democrats. But he probably wants to get elected again in 2014, so he won't do that. There, in a nutshell (which seems an apt metaphor) is the cause of the deadlock in Congress. And as for the Democrats unilaterally introducing a bill, I expect House rules would prevent it. For one thing, nothing gets voted on until it comes out of committee. And since Republicans run the committees, it can't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What clause of the constitution would empower the congress to pass such an act, Bugs? Regardless of whether your answer points out the Houses are equal and autonomous so far as bills, except that the Senate can't originate a spending bill? μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. What act are you talking about? The House and Senate can create their own rules. I think that's established in the Constitution, but if it isn't, it happened anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See: Hastert Rule for more on this. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In principle, if there are 218 votes to pass it, then those representatives could bring it to the floor via a discharge petition. It's a longshot, but yes, such a mechanism does exist. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A very long shot. Has it been attempted at any point since the tea party took over the Congress in 2011? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Leave Bug's political proclivities to the side, and your own, for that matter. Each house of the legislative branch can set its own rules within the bounds of the Constitution. Those rules give almost exclusive rights to them to set their own rules, so long as they don't violate the Constitution. Lest you forget, these branches, the house more than any other, are democratically elected. So, if they don't have a quorum, or majority, or filibuster super majority, or sorta-super-majority 60/100 (I'm convinced some early senators just didn't know how to do division) then look to the Constitution. That's the thing about rule of law. It relies on rules. If they're bad change them. Shadowjams (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the dilemma: For a given proposal, there could be a majority of House votes that would support it. But Boehner won't bring it up for a vote unless the Republicans as a whole would support it - and due to the "civil war" within the GOP, that is increasingly not the case. That kind of thing has probably happened in the past, but not to this extreme. That's not democracy at all - it's tyranny of the minority, i.e. the tea party. And if you don't think this is the case, google the subject online and you'll see I didn't make this up. As to the general point, yes, the members of the House and the Senate, respectively, set their own rules. "If they're bad, change them" doesn't work, because again the tea party will block anything they don't like, so any such rule change will never come to a vote. And the houses have to be careful about making radical changes to the rules anyway, as the next time another party gets control, those changes could come back to haunt the ones who made them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Telephone manners

Do people still say, "Hello. You have reached 123 Alphabet Court. This is Amelia Jones speaking," when they pick up their telephone, or is this what people used to do back in the '80s and earlier? I seem to remember a similar sort of thing occurred in The Babysitter's Club books, where people, even kids, would answer the phone like this, even when they are not answering a call for a business. Is this behavior of telephone ethics true? 140.254.227.50 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope... back in the day, most people answered their personal phones with a simple "Hello...?" without identifying themselves (ie they answered the phone the same way they do today). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That was a fairly common practice at one time, a courtesy to the caller; but thanks to all the bad guys out there nowadays, a plain "Hello" is one of the safest responses because the only thing it tells the telemarketer or scammer is that someone's at home at the number they called. The other safest alternative is to let the answering machine kick in for all calls unless you recognize the caller ID and want to pick it up. And your answering machine message need not present any personal information either. In a business setting, of course, you're most likely going to identify yourself both live and on Memorex. But that's a different situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, perhaps things were different where you lived, but that's definitely not my experience of how we answered the phone back in the 60s, 70s and 80s. We simply picked up the phone and said "Hello" (with a slight questioning tone). The assumption was that the caller would recognize the voice of the person he/she was calling... and if they didn't, it was up to them to ask "Um... Is so-and-so there?"

In my experience, the only time you got more than just a blunt "Hello" was if the person you were calling had an answering machine ("Hello, this is Blueboar... I'm not home right now, so please leave a message at the sound of the beep".) Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And you were giving out too much personal information on that answering machine. A bare-bones "leave your message after the tone" is sufficient. Some folks will also state their phone number, as in "you have reached 123-456-7890", although that's somewhat risky also. In my day, kids were sometimes trained to answer the phone "Smith residence, Johnny speaking" or whatever. That's way too risky nowadays. They should be taught to simply say "Hello", and as soon as somewhat starts asking questions, turn it over to a parent. Two cardinal rules: (1) never tell the caller anything until or if the caller identifies himself; and (2) don't answer any probing questions. It was amazing sometimes to get a wrong number, and the caller would say, "Who is this?" and my answer was "Who's calling, please?" or "What number are you calling?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

My mother almost always answers the phone by saying "London 123456" or whatever. My grandmother, a professional telephone operator, always said something similar but sometimes used the old London exchange names that were in use before the introduction of All-figure dialing. I once asked her about this and she said something about her training as an operator. Anyway, I stopped when I realized it was giving away too much information to the caller. Now, if the caller is lucky, they might get a "Hello" from me. Astronaut (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A 1960s British telephone with letters allowing you dial a particular exchange (the dial is upside-down for some reason, but you get the idea).

Agreed; in 1960s London, we were taught to answer the telephone by reciting our number, starting with the name of the exchange - ours was Leytonstone which you dialled by using the letters "LEY". Wrong numbers were commonplace and not always the fault of the person dialling as "trunk calls" (ie from outside the local area) had to be routed by the operator. Because phone calls were relatively expensive, the caller could say "sorry, wrong number" and hang up, without the time and money consuming business of establishing if they had been connected to the right person. As selling (or swindling) was done door-to-door and not over the telephone in those days, nobody saw any harm in disclosing your number to an unknown caller. I don't think that I stopped doing that until the 1990s. I then took to using my first name, as my number was quite close to that of a mini-cab firm and it saved a lot of confusion with people wanting to order a taxi. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Something's out of whack with that illustration. Not just that the dial is rotated 180, but also that the cord for the handset is on the wrong side. In any case, yes, we used to use 2-letter exchanges plus some digits. I recall in one TV show where they referred to an exchange as "Quincy"-something. That was kind of a joke, like having a 555 prefix, being as how the letters Q and Z were absent from phones in those days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This looks more like it.[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the baby. Ours had the numbers and letters inside the circular finger holes, but it was the same principle. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that even though it's reversed and upside down, the phone in the picture has the letter O where it belongs, on 0. Once it became possible to dial directly to foreigners who put their O in the wrong place we had to give up using letters. --ColinFine (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well maybe, but when they introduced numeric STD codes, it made sense to make the whole sequence numeric too. "LEY" became "539" without any need for change. They also had to work quite hard to make the alphabetic codes match a geographical area without duplication. The Walthamstow exchange had to be called "Coppermill", after a locality within Walthamstow that few people had heard of and doesn't appear on most maps. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See BUtterfield 8 @ Title. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" and "Pennsylvania 6-5000 (song)". —Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See Call Northside 777. —Kevin Myers 09:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Even today I find it useful, the moment I think someone had a wrong number, to say what my number is. Otherwise the idiot is almost sure to call back in a few minutes. Wnt (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Then you could mess with him. Tell him, "OK, sir, the cab is on its way." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Better to get them to tell you what number they thought they dialled. Usually it's not yours, and you just say "No, you've misdialled, as that is not this number", which you have not disclosed. If they tell you your own number, get them to check, and if it's still correct, tell them they must have written it down wrongly as there's nobody at this number with that name. Either way, the ball's back in their court, and if they keep on misdialling/harassing you, it's a reportable offence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Affirmative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Second most painted person in history

I assume the person who appears in most paintings in history is Jesus. Any guess who could be the second?--90.165.118.106 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Mary. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Category:Paintings of people would suggest Mary, but there may be some bias in our selection of which paintings have their own articles, unless you are talking about Western art exclusively in which case Jesus and Mary are probably the top two. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's safe to assume Muhammad is not high on that list. But do Hindu gods count? Or is the OP asking strictly about real persons? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Off topic. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see our article Aniconism in Islam which is "a proscription in Islam against the creation of images of sentient living beings. The most absolute proscription is of images of God in Islam, followed by depictions of Muhammad, and then Islamic prophets and the relatives of Muhammad, but the depiction of all humans and animals is discouraged". Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC) They wouldn't be keen on the Sistine Chapel, then. I wonder what their doctors use for anatomy diagrams? Unless those don't count because they're not of any specific individual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC) This chap dates from 1390 - I suppose that there are exemptions if the cause is worthwhile. But we digress. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

For "paintings" I suspect there is no way to know -- most images of Jesus etc. are prints, and the number of separate "paintings" is not all that huge -- the person who has been on the most "prints" is almost certainly George Washington courtesy of many billions of postage stamps and dollar bills. Collect (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What about Chairman Mao? HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

International trade in the 17th century

Why did Europeans and American colonists in the 17th century believe international trade was a zero-sum game?134.250.136.97 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you believe that they believed that? I don't think they did. Many of them believed that trade primarily benefits the people who ship it, and so they wanted to carry as much of the trade as possible using their own ships -- but I don't believe they thought trade harmed one party to the extent that it benefited the other (which is the definition of a zero sum game). Looie496 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Homework question? HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Looie496 -- see Mercantilism. "Mercantilists viewed the economic system as a zero-sum game, in which any gain by one party required a loss by another." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack's got the best link here. Mercantalism, the predominant economic theory of the day, is an article that pretty much explains all the OP needs to know. It's a fruitless to explain "why" more than to direct people to the facts of the theory. These questions lead no further than "at the time, the people were working with the best they had, and they did as good as they could." In the past, all sorts of stuff people "knew" in the past is known to be very wrong today: geocentrism, phlogiston, humorism. If the question is "Why did people believe things in the past since we know today it doesn't work that way", it's because they were doing the best they could do. 200 years from know, something we know to be true today will be laughed at as completely stupid by people who live then. It's called "progress". It's not helpful to try to explain the worldview of people who lived at a time where they don't have the knowledge we have today as though they should have, and thus mustn't have been that bright for not knowing it. Why did they believe it? Because it kinda worked, and they were really trying to get it right. That's why they believed it. --Jayron32 21:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of that can be covered by the old expression, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations is worth studying; he pretty much invented modern economics, which chimed the death knell for mercantilism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The history of ideas, the history of economics and the history and philosophy of science are "fruitless"? That sounds falsifiable. As far as theories for the reasons for the adoption of ideologies Foucault is quite popular at the moment and I've seen practicing historians of ideas in the field of economics and business usefully use Foucault to explain why people believed economic ideologies that they did. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, those are useful studies. The chauvinistic notion that the past is to be viewed through modern glasses and that people who lived in such times should be questioned "why?!?" for their stupidity is a fruitless endeavor. It is, of course, an excellent thing to understand what leads others, of any time, place, or culture to believe what they do. It isn't fruitful to ask why others don't know what we know, as though they should have, when they don't have access to the information we do. It's the assumption inherent in the subtext of the question that the people of the past should have known that is objectionable. --Jayron32 00:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

At your postulated point in time 200 years from now, they might well be asking why so many fell for the "trickle down theory" scam. As Will Rogers pointed out, money doesn't trickle down, it trickles up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

November 16

Who is an "officer" of a corporation? Is there a formal definition?

Who is an "officer" of a corporation, as opposed to merely an employee? Is there a formal definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.16.216 (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It depends a bit on which context you're asking the question in. Many public corporations traded in the U.S. are incorporated in Delaware, so Delaware corporate law applies to that designation. There's also a definition of officer that applies for the SEC and most federal laws (I hopefully assume most of these laws coincide...). There are very specific definitions of what an "officer" is depending on the context, so I won't even attempt to specify what that is. In other countries than the U.S. you may find very different answers. The definition that may be more relevant to what you're actually interested in is the definition between an "exempt" and a "non-exempt" employee, which have very different treatment under U.S. labor laws. It's the legal codification of the distinction between blue and whitecollar jobs. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant Delaware code is DEL CODE § 3303(14). Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You may also be interested in our article Articles of Incorporation and the other links found there such as Corporate law in the United States--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth and the United States

Has the United States ever been invited to join the Commonwealth of Nations. It did used to be a part of the British Empire, after all. --82.46.142.98 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)