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

January 27

Patronage in Renaissance Italy (science)

I am having difficulty determining two things (from authoritative sources):
1.) What distinction (if any) was there between being a patron of an artist, and being a patron of a scientist? There are plenty of sources regarding the patronage of artists, but I am uneasy making the assumption that the same applies to scientists.
2.) How to make the distinction between a formal (contractual?) patronage (per Baxandall, et al) and the informal definition of patronage (Wolf, et al) — or is such a distinction irrelevant or non-existent?

Specifically, how to distinguish among the "patrons" of Galileo; some perhaps, merely being supporters of higher status; other(s) may have formally had specific (expressed or implied?) obligations and responsibilities.
—Any assistance or clarification appreciated; thanks, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There really wasn't the distinction between artists and scientists which exists now. Leonardo da Vinci, for example, was both. The term Renaissance Man reflects this. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Or rather, there wasn't such a thing as a scientist. There were natural philosophers, but there was not seen to be hard divisions between different areas of scholarship. --ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I read in an article in Sciam many years ago that the pope funded much of Galileo's research, and was considered his patron. Among projects that were paid for by the pope were some of his writings on Copernican ideas. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be (future-Pope) Cardinal Barberini (See discussion above) I don't suppose you have a ref for that Sciam article? ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am really sorry but I do not. I made a quick search on Sciam. It might(!) have been

"Galileo and the Specter of Bruno." Scientific American (November 1986)". Also, the one project I thought was paid for by the pope, I looked up now in Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems and it seems the patron here was Ferdinando II de' Medici. So I was wrong there, and may have misremembered the whole thing. 1986 is a long time ago for a memory. But perhaps this references and the article about the book is a place to start searching, anyway. DanielDemaret (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Galileo_affair mentions another patron, Cosimo II de' Medici. DanielDemaret (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

http://galileo.rice.edu/galileo.html has a list of patrons.

Galileo's Patrons: Duke of Mantua, Medici Family, Paolo Sarpi, Urban VIII, Federico Cesi. At least one pope in there. Urban VIII. It may be that I understood Urban VIII as being his patron and extrapolated to that meaning he also paid for the book. It may be that his patronage only extended to his permission to write the book. DanielDemaret (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone!  —  Pope Urban VIII was an early patron, when he was Cardinal Barberini; Duke of Mantua (Vincenzo Gonzaga) failed to come to terms regarding a formal patronage.[1]. As it stands, the newly-added list of patrons for Galileo's infobox seems to be good, but I might request a minor change (after a little more checking).  ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 

[@DanielDemaret: I added commas to your list for readability]

Can IOTV this bulletproof vest through Cadana/US(CA State) customs?

I have an IOTV vest in France.I am going to ship it to Cadana or US first,(Chinese customs won't work on our spring festival...) then ship it to HongKong.Finally,it will be in Chinese mainland. I don't know my plan is or isn't legal in Canada or(and) US law. I checked the Wikipedia,it says:"Is illegal to possess body armour without a licence (unless exempted) issued by the provincial government.",but if I ship it to US first I am worried about can I ship this IOTV made by POINT BLANK out...... Hope you can tell me sth about these laws,or give me any suggest.....Thx.. And,please upload suggest to my talk in Chinese Wikipedia.Thx very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axmaxmaxm3 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Call the appropriate customs authorities. We don't give legal advice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of Criminal Charges in the US that End in a Plea Bargain

I'm looking for a reliable source for the number of criminal cases in the US that end in a plea bargain rather than going to trial. The best I've found so far is this document which contains the line:

During Fiscal Year 2010, a total of 79,260, or 97 percent, of all convicted defendants pled guilty prior to or during trial. This represents a less than one percent increase in the percentage of convicted defendants who pled guilty when compared to the prior year.

Which makes it sound that only 3% of federal cases go to trail. Am I reading that right? --CGPGrey (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I have heard similar figures. I remember a documentary where a lawyer said that he was concerned that the possible penalty for not accepting a plea bargain was so great that there were probably some innocent people accepting the plea bargain. I understand that prosecutors offer better deals where evidence is weaker, exacerbating this possibility. - Q Chris (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There are certainly some who say they were frightening into it. See Tina Resch. There's even the odd phenomenon of the Alford plea, which involves admitting guilt as part of a plea bargain, while continuing to maintain your innocence. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are reading this right. I understand it as that among the convicted (81720) 97% pleaded guilty. That doesn't mean that there were not 100,000 who pleaded innocent, went to trial but didn't get convicted. Besides that, some of the guilty pleas were during trial, so your figure of 3% is also not necessarily true. At least the text snip above doesn't say otherwise. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

From the source, in 2010, 88,369 defendants had their cases terminated (one way or the other). Of those "88,369 defendants terminated during Fiscal Year 2010, 81,934, or 93 percent, either pled guilty or were found guilty" and "79,260, or 97 percent, of all convicted defendants pled guilty prior to or during trial". So it looks like 89.7 percent of all defendants pled guilty prior to or during trial. But also 6,435 (88,369-81,934) did not either pled guilty or were not found guilty. The source also mentions that only "3,056, or three percent" went to trial, so they must have just dropped charges against at least 3,380 of them, because otherwise that doesn't add up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, our article Plea bargain mentions 90% of all case in america and cites Alschuler, Albert W. (1979). Plea Bargaining and Its History. Vol. 79. pp. 1–43. JSTOR 1122051. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help) Plea bargaining in the United States only mentions federal statistics which you have. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was in 1979. this article mentions 97% for federal case and 94% for state cases and this report claims (under the section background) "While there are no exact estimates of the proportion of cases that are resolved through plea bargaining, scholars estimate that about 90 to 95 percent of both federal and state court cases are resolved through this process (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005; Flanagan and Maguire, 1990)." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That BJA article is what I think I'm going to end up relying on. --CGPGrey (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that with most petty crimes for "the 99%", the accused does the sentence first; then he is placed on trial, and as long as he says he did it, they let him go for "time served"; otherwise, they put him in jail for a very long time for saying he's innocent. I wonder what proportion of the cases that makes up? Wnt (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

, I think. Rmhermen (talk)

Well, the lawyers wouldn't say they serve the sentence before the trial, but that they were arrested and in jail awaiting trial. Of course, to the prisoner, this distinction isn't very important. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Conrad Black says "Those who do exercise their constitutional right to a defense receive three times as severe a sentence as those who plead guilty; 95 percent of cases are won by prosecutors, 90 percent of those without trial." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284274/justice-denied-conrad-black μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

starting a company

Request for Legal Advice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
for my company can i give same name of other company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.49.91 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC) That will depend on the laws of your location. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I am not sure what you are asking. Is it: can I name my new company with the name of an existing company? OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC) In the UK, you may *not* register a company with the same name as a company that is already registered (there is an exception for companies that are part of the same group). And "the same name" includes minor variations such as repalcing "AND" by &, adding or removing a final "S", or adding or removing "UK". The relevant legislation is The Company and Business Names (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2009. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this Reference Desk does not give legal advice. Rojomoke (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What do cops do with 2,997 gasoline-soaked Korans???

I suppose this is a question of law ... or literature ... so I'll ask here. In all the coverage of Terry Jones (pastor)'s protest, I never could find an answer to the burning question of just what exactly police do with a trailer loaded with 2,997 Korans soaked in gasoline. I mean, is there somewhere they can legally store that kind of fire hazard? Or ... do they have to dispose of it somehow? And if so... how? Wnt (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no law prohibiting them from just being burned is there? 71.246.148.184 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I know of ... yet it would be an amusing thing to confirm, wouldn't it? Wnt (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, I should point out that Wnt has linked the wrong Terry Jones. I don't think the former Monty Python member has ever threatened to set fire to religious texts, though the Pythons taste in comedy certainly tended towards the sacrilegious on occasion. The would-be incendarist is Terry Jones (pastor). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From what I read of the incident, there isn't anything illegal about the burning of Korans. It's just in bad taste. If the local police were smart, they asked the local imam or other official at the nearest mosque how they would like to deal with gas soaked holy books. That way if there's fallout, the police can just say that they asked the nearest religious figure and did as they were told. Dismas|^(talk) 21:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Muslims destroy Korans all the time. There are many helpful pages out there telling you how to destroy your old or damaged Koran with due respect [2] [3]. There's some discussion of this in Quran desecration. Paul B (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that... but then the police would take flack because they ostensibly seized a trailer as a fire hazard and now they're asking imams how to dispose of it. If there weren't so many ways that any choice they made would cause a problem down the line, it wouldn't be funny. :) Wnt (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's unlikely that there could be a law in America prohibiting the private burning of a specific object. However, many communities have laws against "open burning" of anything, so the torchers would probably have to go through some legal hoops. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that between the Fire Marshals and a local Imam, the authorities could quickly find out how to deal with the fire hazard... while at the same time giving proper respect to the religious nature of that hazard. It may even be that burning is the most appropriate way to dispose of them, given the situation... and that the key is to do so with appropriate ceremony and respect. (in that it would be like dealing with a trailer full of gas soaked American Flags.) Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also to consider is that there is a crime on the books in many U.S. jurisdictions called Disturbing the peace which allows police to stop many actions which either are, or are likely to, cause disruption to the public order. So, while it may not be a crime to "burn a Quran" in the U.S., it may very well be a crime to burn a shitload of Qurans in a public place with the intent to insult or upset a large group of people while doing so. --Jayron32 03:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to get sidetracked on well-worn arguments about the protest, but I'm less interested in hypothetical overreaches than what the cops actually did with the Korans once they had them in their possession. Wnt (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the source cited for this in our article, [4] it isn't entirely clear that Jones ever actually had 2,998 (not 2997) Korans soaked in gasoline in the trailer - he was charged with "unlawful conveyance of fuel", which is less than specific. furthermore, I can't locate a source which states what eventually become of the charges, and whether it actually came to court. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This source [5] says "unlawful conveyance of fuel for pulling a cooker on a trailer filled with kerosene-soaked Qurans" and also that he plead not guilty but was still trying to reach a plea bargain. This source [6] says he told the police he planned to presoak them and they didn't object but now say the presoaked books were a danger. It also includes an image I think of the trailer but not clear the Qurans are presoaked or when the image was taken. I don't see anything in what I think is his official Twitter about the case recently [7] so unless keeping silent was part of the pleabargain (which I'm not sure is allowed), it seems likely the case is unresolved. For some reason his official site [[8] demands a password. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I suppose the issue really starts the moment the police stopped him. Surely they didn't pull the trailer along behind one of their vehicles..... that would be illegal. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm the only one but realise I partly misunderstood the sources. I thought both a cooker and the Qurans were on the trailer seperately. I know realise that the Qurans were actually in the cooker. This is mentioned in this source [9] and is more obvious if you look at some of the other photos [10] [11] [12] [13]. The first source I linked to actually shows it as well albeit before he started driving it and I misunderstood what it was saying. The cooker is various described as a smoker, barbeque grill and other things was according to one of the sources, rented. This source [14] confirms that they may need to keep everything as evidence and plan to consult with local imams if they have to dispose of the Qurans.

While I agree that their problem would start the moment they confiscated the stuff, we perhaps shouldn't overestimate the difficulties faced. Without getting in to the rights and wrongs, while transporting kerosene may be dangerous but it's not like it's something that's never done legally. I mean I'm presuming that in the US, as with much of the rest of the world, there must be many tankers transporting the in many ways more dangerous petrol (gasoline) to petrol stations daily and also for other purposes. (The standards for random people carrying random stuff in their car often differ, according to someone here [15], even carrying a '5 gallon' container of petrol may not be allowed in some cases. I'm not BTW agreeing with anything there in particular but I suspect the container bit can be verified.)

Some minor speculation, I would guess putting them inside a truck certified to carry highly flammable materials with the appropriate markings, driver training etc would be one option. A simpler option since this is a one off emergency may be transporting them under police escort, perhaps with an appropriate fire service escort (according to the sources, one of the state concerns was a collision).

As for long term storage, I'm guessing it's possible. I couldn't find any info on paper soaked with kerosene but there's some info on cotton or rags soaked with kerosene [16] or petrol [17] or solvent or oil [18]. Cotton does I think have a much higher autoignition temperature so it's not totally the same, although I'm not sure how much of a concern that is. The risks are clearly a lot less than while in transport where collisions or perhaps even a spark from the road somehow entering the closed cooker may be a concern.

Anyway from those sources I imagine one option is a closed but vented container away from anything flammable, heat sources or temperatures around 37 degrees C (flash point of kerosene). Over time, the kerosene will evaporate (not sure how long but [19] may provide clues) so while the Qurans may not be usable or totally safe, I suspect they won't be that much of a concern after a while (probably well before now). It's not like we're talking about high halflife nuclear waste here.

The cost may be a bit high but I guess if they win the case or perhaps in the even of a plea bargain, Terry Jones will be the one paying for it. Of course if I were Terry Jones, I would have tried to find out these details, how they were transported, stored etc as it may help in my case (but from below, I'm not sure he's going to think of this). However as dumb as some of the things the police seem to do sometimes, we also shouldn't underestimate them, e.g. I remember in the balloon boy hoax, they did actually check it was theoretically possible from the information provided (which turned out to be wrong and so it wasn't possible).

Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow... if nothing else, you've convinced me that I haven't just missed it. Whatever the police did/are doing with those Korans, they seem to have made sure nobody found out. I wonder if Jones has requested the information and if they're stonewalling him along with everyone else.

I understand about the risks ... there is, however, a big difference between reality and regulation. As Jones discovered, in the 'public eye' just about anything is not merely illegal, but extraordinarily so. As a society we may pointedly ignore the low-income folks who live across from the ever-present smell of the filling station, but in regulatory theory, gasoline contains a substantial fraction of benzene, a carcinogen, and so leaving the container in an impound lot would surely be an unacceptable hazard. Similarly I'm aware that gasoline and diesel are not drying oils with polyunsaturated bonds that slowly react with oxygen at room temperature, and so they do not create the spontaneous ignition hazard that comes up when someone uses tung oil or linseed oil on wooden furniture or in painting, etc.; but most people are simply taught in school that 'oily rags' cause spontaneous combustion, without any discussion of the distinction. Wnt (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(EC) One point of consideration, while I'm not an expert on US law, I suspect that if Terry Jones challenged the seizure, they the Qurans would have had to be kept until any case wound through the court, unless of course they were couldn't be safely kept (which as stated by several, is obviously easily possible). Also, note that as per our article and most sources, the number of Qurans was 2998 no 2997.

This number is an interesting figure as Terry Jones is quoted as saying there was one for every victim. According to Casualties of the September 11 attacks and September 11 attacks, the official immediate death toll is 2996 which includes the 19 hijackers. I guess Terry Jones may consider them the victims of the 'evil religion' as well or something.

Either way why two more? The later article mentions two victims have been added to the death toll in some official sources as their deaths are considered to have been linked to dust exposure. But the former article mentions 3 victims. The last one was added in 2011 (died 2010) well before the 2013 event. So it would seem that there should be 2999 not 2998 if he was following that (presuming the former article is up to date).

Jones could be calculating it another way, but I'm not sure what. According to [20], the number of known 'unborn babies' is 10 or 11. Even if you add the 6 victims of the 1993 attack plus the one missing recently added victim I mentioned earlier, you end up with 18 so, not enough to make up for the missing onehijackers. Now the source doesn't mention the precise phrasing for each one so it's possible one of them implies twins but I'm not convinced.

I suspect the most likely thing is what I suggested earlier i.e. Jones is including the hijackers, probably not intentionally and the 2 extra victims but his source didn't include the 2011 one. I suspect he doesn't even know about the 2 extra victims and just took some number he found somewhere, most quotes of him say he said something like 'one for every victim who died in the attacks' or 'was murdered in the attacks' [21] or similar.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetical Population Scenarios for Various Countries

I have previously found this paper/article/study (see here: http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol4/9/4-9.pdf) which tries to figure out what Russia's population would have been without all of the disturbances which occurred during the 20th and early 21st centuries. Have any similar papers/articles/studies been done for any other countries? I am not talking about population projections here, but rather about papers/articles/studies which try to figure out what a specific/certain country's population would have hypothetically been if certain events had not occurred. Futurist110 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty large stretch, but there was a role-playing game called Cyborg Commando that devoted many pages to how to convert then-current population counts to post-apocalyptic numbers (and was much criticized for it). It might refer to methodologies or have a list of sources. Here is the relevant article: Cyborg_Commando. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

January 28

Actress Lizabeth Scott's Mother's Maiden Name?

This is the actress Lizbeth Scott. Who was her mother?

Can anyone direct us to the actress Lizabeth Scott's mother, Mary Matzo's, maiden name? According to our article, Scott was born Emma Matzo September 29, 1922 in Scranton, Pennsylvania, to John and Mary Matzo. This is in response to an inquiry at the actress's talk page. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is her family census records from 1940. Maybe that's a start for research? --Jayron32 03:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at ancestry.com and couldn't find anything except her married name. It's hard to find usable trees with Lizabeth Scott in them, as she's a living person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If she's alive, why not have someone write to her and ask? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

For personal gratification, that'd probably be fine (i.e. if Medeis just wants to know just because she wants to know). For trying to potentially improve Wikipedia, "I asked them and they said so" is not a reliable source. --Jayron32 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Strictly not. But if the postulated name were known, it could then be possible to find that name turning up in some reliable source, such as an immigration list. It appears that they met and married after they came to the USA. It's also possible that Matzo happened to be the surname of the both of them. But it would be nice to find out. I am inclined to think that writing to her is worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I watch the article, and recently a new editor has been doing some pretty good cleanup and research. I said I would look into the matter given there are conflict reports of her nationality. A letter is fine as a source in any normal scholarship as personal correspondence as long as you're willing to produce it on demand. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not normal scholarship; we rely on others to be the "normal scholarship" for us, and rely on other journalists and scholars to vet things like "personal correspondance". If and only if such researchers have published their "normal scholarship" do we cite them. We don't do normal scholarship here. --Jayron32 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A personal letter might not be a valid source, but it could be a lead to a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It certainly has a lot of value. But one must be careful how one uses it. --Jayron32 04:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So, the suggestion is that I write a letter asking a 90 year-old woman to provide me with a reliable source proving her mother's maiden name? :)

Were I to get such a personal letter, why shouldn't I just upload an image of it? Don't answer. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you do what Bugs suggested, which is use the known name to find her on immigration or census records. --Jayron32 05:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a letter written by a still-living person could cause trouble, as it is technically a copyright violation. But if you are able to obtain such info, let me know and I'll see what I can find. Ancestry.com is a pay site, so I like to put it to use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but I was assuming I had her permission. Knowing the issue, if I were going to pester a 90 year old person for such purposes, I'd make sure she wasn't wasting her time by failing to give permission to reproduce and communicate the letter. That's basically why I said, "don't answer." μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't trust that Twitter account. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Twitter? μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In case someone (not a direct reply to Bugs) Googles it, rather than unpacking the pen and paper. Pretty obviously not her in the top result, but we never know when something that should go without saying doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Suing for ill-gotten gains

Normally, a lawsuit is about getting the money one feels they're owed. But can they be used to take away the money someone earned through illegal (or the legal sort of unethical) means? Not into the plaintiff's own pocket, but just out of the defendant's? I know criminal court could fine them, but those fines rarely (if ever) match the profits.

Can John Doe prove ACME Sludge saved a billion dollars in shipping and storage by dumping expired sludge in the river, and force them to forfeit every penny back into the general economy? Or can he only hope to show the dump somehow cost him a billion in lost river assets/revenue?

Not asking for legal advice, I'm a fan of all things ACME and can't afford to sue anyone. Just a general interest question. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Under UK law (and possibly US law, but I'm less familiar with it), a successful claimant can request an account of profits rather than damages. The effect of this (in laymans terms) is that the claimant is awarded the money that the defendant gained as a result of their actions, rather than the money the claimant lost as a result of the defendants actions. As an equitable remedy, it's entirely at the judge's discretion, and it's normally only pursued if damages are difficult to evaluate, or wholly inadequate (e.g. ACME infriges a patent granted to Joe Bloggs, Mr Bloggs is likely to be much better off seeking an account of ACME's profits on their sales, rather than damages for his own loss of sales).

See also unjust enrichment. I'm not aware of a way that something like an account of profits could be brought in a civil lawsuit to impose what is effectively a fine (with the money going into public funds). I think such action would have to be brought by the state itself, so the best way a person could cause such an action would be by campaigning. Private prosecution may be relevant here, but that's getting excessively far from my area of knowledge. MChesterMC (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In England and Wales, the applicable procedure is the civil recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This can only be sought by a relevant "enforcement authority" (the National Crime Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service or the Serious Fraud Office), not a private citizen. Proteus (Talk) 09:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In South Africa Asset_forfeiture is used. See http://www.npa.gov.za/ReadContent387.aspx Typically the assets are liquidated and the money goes to combating organized crime in that sector. For example, abalone poachers (see Abalone#South_Africa) may have their rubber ducks (inflatable boats) and SCUBA gear seized. These may simply just be used "as is" (maybe re-branded) to combat poaching. The confiscated poached abalone are transported to Cape Town and sold on auction. The proceeds go to the Fisheries Compliance Office. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Great answers, thanks. A few smaller questions left (basically how these concepts work in Canada), but you've given me quite enough to answer myself. Definitely good to know how it works in the other countries. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

The way I read your original question I think standing may be relevant. That is, if your question was about recovering money when the party recovering was not directly harmed by the defendant. Shadowjams (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sort of relevant, thanks. Though that seems to be more about challenging laws themselves, rather than those who break them. And John Doe doesn't want a dime. He's just in a righteous Goofus and Gallant dilemma about all the dimes that should be in millions of pockets, rather than ACME's. He wants a judge to grab Goofus by the ankles and shake him thoroughly over a public coffer, not one who will impose a fine based on damages or maximum limits. When a billion dollar scam is punished by a $100,000 (or $999 million) ticket, crime totally pays. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

The staff of Sun Wukong, the Monkey King

The Anthony Yu translation of Journey to the West translates the text on Sun Wukong's staff as "The Compliant Golden-Hooped Rod. Weight: thirteen thousand five hundred pounds" (Vol. 1, 104). However, the Chinese characters I found for it on line state that it ways 36,000 catties (如意金箍棒重三万六千斤). Is this correct? I've never read the original Chinese version. I realize there is a conversion factor, but it seems like 36,000 catties would equal more than 13,500 lbs. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this can really be answered, because we're talking about a mythical object. From your linked article "When it is not in use, Sun Wukong shrinks it to the size of a sewing needle and keeps it behind his ear" -- I always suspected that the mass changed when the size changed, but maybe he keeps ~13k lbs behind his ear :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

But, for what it's worth, 36,000 catties at ~605g each would be 48,016.7 lbs, so at least your intuition on conversion is correct. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just trying to find out what the original source material says. The fictional elements are not the point of my query. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Several books on Google books cite "一万三千五百斤" (13,500 catties). I think maybe Anthony Yu, the translator, didn't bother to convert the difference between the ancient catty and the modern pound. I looked up weights during the Ming when the story was compiled; the catty was 590 grams, putting the staff's weight around the 18,000 lbs cited in the article. I guess it would have been nice if the statement was originally referenced in the first place. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you've sorted it out then! If you're feeling generous, you could cite those google books in the articles you've linked above. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already started. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

January 29

The International Churches of Christ

How has the International Churches of Christ changed since the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter? Did the ICOC stop it's abusive practices that were mentioned by Henry Kriete in his letters?? Did the ICOC right any wrongs that were mentioned by Henry Kriete in his letters? Or did the ICOC simply expel Kip Mckean and continue on it's merry way without changing anything? What, about the ICOC, if anything, has changed? Qewr4231 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The article International Churches of Christ may provide some insights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately our ICOC article has for a long time been ruled by whitewashers. It looks better now than it did when I last looked at it a few years ago, but it hardly mentions the biggest reason that anybody cares about the ICOC- that they're routinely described as an abusive cult who've caused massive damage to various people's lives. Right now our article's probably not a good place to look for real info, especially about the OP's question. I don't know enough to point to better refs unfortunately. Staecker (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a Christian version of Scientology. What types of abuses are they alleged to have committed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Television (STV) advertisement seeking "SoapBox Scots" to comment on current/future events, e.g. Scotland's Independence from U.K.

Today's date is 29 JAN 14. Within the past week an advertisement (exhortation?) was broadcast, during an evening news programme, on my TV set as I passed through the living room. Capable speakers ("SoapBox Scots") were sought. I lacked notation materials. When I remembered to query my PC, I'd forgotten the precise e-contact (www) address, and have failed to discover it. Will somebody help me, please? TIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.95.100.24 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The URL is https://www.facebook.com/SoapboxScots?ref=hl and it's sponsored by The Sun. Tevildo (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Catholic rites on the unborn

I have read Catholic views on abortion and infant baptism but still have some questions about the Catholic view on the unborn:

• I see that historically there have been discussions about when ensoulment happens. The 2010 text linked there says:

We may say with Tertullian, an ancient Christian writer: “the one who will be a man is one already” (Apologeticum IX, 8), there is no reason not to consider him a person from conception.

• If the Catholic opinion is that the unborn is a person with a soul (at least in the latter period of the pregnancy),
  • doesn't it follows that it has original sin and could (musts?) be baptised before birth? Why wait until birth when there is a recommendation to not wait but a few days after birth? Has some theologian considered this? Are there opinions about it?

Karlsruhe seems to have a cemetery for miscarriages.

• Following on, what is the Catholic criteria on what should be done with the result of a miscarriage, stillbirth or an artificial abortion? Should it be disposed of like an amputated body part or should it be given a Christian burial?

--Error (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The obvious answer to your middle point is that it isn't possible to baptise a child before birth, at least not as Catholics understand baptism as it requires at least some water being sprinkled on the person (or at least something which may be water if you really can't get water). See e.g. this discussion [22] and also [23], [24] and [25].

As for you last question, note that as I understand it, there's no requirement for a Roman Catholic funeral of any particularly form, e.g. no mass is required [26]. (In other words, I don't think it's necessarily a sin for either a Catholic person of their Catholic next of kin to decide against a Catholic funeral provided they don't do it for the wrong reasons.) There are a small number of limitations such as cremating the remains for reasons that go against the Catholic faith [27]. And I think in all cases the remains should be treated with appropriate reverence [28] as far as possible which includes in miscarriages etc [29] [30] [31].

Also nowadays a full Catholic funeral including a mass can be provided even for children who died before baptism [32] [33] (also earlier sources) and I don't think based on current Catholic teaching anyone would suggest it should be different whether it happened before or after birth (see also the last source about reverence) [34] [35]. Although since as I mentioned no specific form of funeral is required, none is going to be expected here either (in other words, it's up to the parents). It may be that a Catholic funeral with a funeral mass is recommended [36] [37] [38] [39], but I'm not sure how strong that recommendation is and it seems even less so for infants. (As mentioned here [40], a funeral mass may not have been allowed for an unbaptised infant in the past.)

Note that current Catholic teaching is that infants who die before baptism (actually any children who die without baptism) are "entrusted to the mercy of god" which is emphasised in the funeral rites where held, as mentioned in earlier sources and also [41]. If you read the last source and some of the earlier ones carefully, what they are more or less saying is that while we believe baptism is essential for salvation, in certain cases like an unbaptised infant, it seems unlikely god will be so harsh as to allow the soul to suffer eternally so it's likely they are saved, although we can't know for sure what god does.

P.S. To avoid confusion, as mentioned in the last and some of the earlier sources, there are actually other forms of baptism namely baptism by desire and baptism by blood [42]. While these don't require water, they aren't particularly relevant here because they generally are taken to require conscious thought. Some may have suggested extending them to cover infants in the past, but even in that case, it's still not something the parent or anyone else can do.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer and the many references. --Error (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a few changes to my response after you reply, you can see them here [43]. Probably the most important change is that while I don't think a Catholic funeral of any form is required, most seem to agree the remains should be treated with appropriate reverence (which includes that from a miscarriage etc). Also some emphasise the need for a Catholic funeral more than others. Cheers. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Logical fallacy question

I know that this article is satire but I'm curious about the logical fallacy involved. That said, the article that I'm referring to is this one where Michelle Bachmann supposedly said that since Stephen Hawking was wrong about black holes that many other things that scientists say cannot be trusted either. Basically, I'm looking for the name of the argument that says "You were wrong about one thing, so you can't be right about anything." It's been a long time since I took my logic class in college but I thought that this had a name. I've been poking about and can't find it on my own. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

From a search may be Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, Association fallacy or False dilemma? Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW in case there's any confusion, she didn't make the statements, [44] is satire. Nil Einne (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Given Bachmann's portrayed speaking into a microphone, surely there's a youtube video? I'd love to hear this. If not, isn't this a BLP issue? μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I pointed out that it was satire in the first sentence. Medeis, you're off your rocker again. A) I said it was satire. B) Nil Einne said it was satire. C) Nobody said anything about Bachmann with any seriousness. D) It is satire. Dismas|^(talk) 02:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh. And in all seriousness, thank you for the links, Nil Einne! Dismas|^(talk) 02:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I was tired and somehow missed that bit when checking what you had said to see if you had mentioned it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

January 30

God, King, and Republic

God is king. But why king? I mean, a republic is a country without a king. Most countries nowadays are republics. Great Time (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What has the one got to do with the other? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is "God, King, and Republic" some recognised expression? If so, Google doesn't know about it. "God, King and Country" is part of the Scout Promise. What exactly are you objecting to? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the question is, why refer to God as a "king", if we no longer believe in kings.

That will vary from believer to believer, but I would venture that the most common answer (or at least, the most common Protestant-in-a-broad-sense answer) would be, we no longer believe in Earthly or human kingship, but it's different for God. Lyrics from My Country 'Tis of Thee:

Our fathers' God, to thee

Author of liberty

To thee we sing

Long may our land be bright

With freedom's holy light

Protect us by thy might

Great God our king

Consider that this is to the tune of God Save the King, and the deliberate contrast should be clear. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of this may be suspect at best, but my impression is that Jesus specifically is taken at least by some to have "despoiled the pricipalities" (expression from [45], I guess) of the world. Start with the Old Testament contention that among all the kings of the world those of Israel are special. Then there was something (I forget what now) where the Jewish priests made it clear that the Romans had some role in proclaiming a king, and there's actually an article Mark 15 about some of the back-and-forth with Pilate, ending in the final mocking "I.N.R.I", which is taken, I suppose, as an inadvertent but meaningful coronation. The theory, then, is that by this means the ancient practice of kingship passed away from the world, as only the still living Jesus possesses valid royal authority. Despite obvious earlier precedents, and the widespread shameful practice of claiming a divine right of kings afterward, there is some argument to be made that the transition to democracy is at least in part a consequence, rather than contradictory, to this theology - after all, democracy has been largely associated with "Western civilization", and San Marino, founded by Christians seeking refuge from persecuting Romans, is the world's oldest extant democracy.

To editorialize a moment, I'd suggest the peculiarities of Christian kingship are illustrated by Emperor Norton I, who madly insisted he was the ruler of North America, and, eventually, exerted some privileges from this role. All very absurd, and yet, he is given credit for appearing before a racist mob that intent on doing harm to local Chinese workers, and stopping them with prayers. Which, to be sure, is a more noble authority than all the Tudors. The royal power was passed on, in a most non-traditional way, to the Widow Norton, and to this day the Imperial Court System somehow makes use of it to do significant amounts of charity. Who (apart from Laozi, that is) would have predicted that nobility, liberated from its power and wealth, would become noble, and thereby the source of meaningful power, or that the irrational respect for kings, liberated from the confines of sanity, would become sane? Wnt (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it has less to do with whether you live in a monarchy or republic and more to do with the Jewish and Christian faith. If you follow either religion, it is implicit that you accept God as your king. See our article Kingship and kingdom of God. Alansplodge (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely correct. The Bible unambiguously speaks of God as king in several of the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 93 and Psalm 97), which both Jews and Christians accept (and in numerous places in the New Testament, so the dispensationalist Christians don't see it as something not relevant to Christianity), so it's rather necessary for both Jews and Christians to accept the concept. Being much less familiar with Islam, I can't say anything beyond what's in the article Alansplodge links. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Great Time -- Unless your religion allows believers to vote to dethrone your god and install a new god, then "republic" may not be the best metaphor for divinity... AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Rich Christian Countries

The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. All the rich countries are Christian. All the Christian countries are rich. Rich Christian countries include America, European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. They are Western, Northern, and First World countries. Britain began and invented the Industrial Revolution and had the world's largest colonial empire. America is the world's only superpower, has the world's largest economy, and is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. Why? What do Christians think about it? Great Time (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Who says so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Japan isn't Christian. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

South Africa isn't particularly rich, isn't first world and is decidedly not Northern. Mingmingla (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking South Africa was First World by the correct original definition, but it's definitely not an MDC (the more acceptable term these days). Sorry, always been nitpicky about that one, especially when some people say the US might become a Second or Third World country.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Shevat 5774 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Which World does Detroit belong to these days? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's quite a few poor Christian countries as well. Look at Haiti (regarded by some as the least fortunate country in the Western Hemisphere) as a good example. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Shevat 5774 13:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation. And instead of saying "all the rich countries are Christian", it would be more accurate to say most (not all, particularly those in East Asia) rich countries are "European", in the sense of having European-derived cultures. The Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution gave Europe a technological lead over the rest of the world that translated into greater wealth. Europe is historically Christian, and since those rich countries have European-derived cultures, those rich countries are consequently majority-Christian. Whether being Christian has anything to do with Europe getting rich in the first place is debatable; some historians have argued so with such theories as the Protestant work ethic, but there are just as many historians critical of such explanations. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 04:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It has much more to do with geopolitics and econoimic systems rather than theology. Per capita, some of the richest and poorest countries are in the middle-east (non-Christian); the main difference being political / economic systems. E.g.: Qatar is #1, Yemen is #150 (per IMF list: List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita) ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Great_Time -- During much of the middle ages, most Christian realms (other than the Byzantine empire and certain Italian cities) were really not too rich. At various times, Muslim and/or Chinese empires were almost certainly richer than any medieval Christian state. For some interesting discussion on possible factors in why this changed, you can see "The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community" by William H. McNeill (a semi-classic book of a type which professional historians aren't really allowed to write anymore...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going out on a limb here to go one step further. For most the the history of christianity, christian countries have been poor relative to China and India. I do not have sources for all that period, only parts of it. The reason the trip Columbus made was to find a shortcut to the wealthy India. China would probably have been good too. Unfortunately for India, once it was easily accessible to Europe, it was up for plunder. If anyone has good sources either verifying or debunking my statement for at least most of this period, I would welcome those. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been quite a few books that have tried to explain why christian Europe in particular, and consequently its descendants in America have became so successful. Some books emphasize the competition and free thought brought on by many small states in proximity of each other. Some emphasize religion, especially Lutheran work etic values. There are almost as many theories here as there are theories on the fall of Rome. My personal favorite is The_Origins_of_Political_Order. I recommend it warmly. I am not going to give the book justice in this single paragraph, but let me just ramble on a bit on what I think may be relevant to your question:

The main parts to the success, according to this book stems from 1) A working Rule of Law in Europe. 2) The first universities. 3) The competition and free thought due to many small states, leading to both social and military innovations. He contrast this to India and China. These three factors took hundreds of years to be entrenched, but finally bore fruit. The author brings up how the Justinian law that the catholic church re-introduces around 1070 or so, which had several consequences. By adding rights to women not to be forced to remarry within her tribe, and other limitations in family law, one consequence was the abolishment of tribal society which the rest of the world is still clinging too in the non-christian areas, and which lessens the role of the Rule of Law, by corruption from loyalty to family and tribe rather than loyalty to the state. Another consequence was that interest in this law was so great that it led to people travelling from all of Europe to the place to Bologna, the place where these old laws were discovered, established the first University ever, the University of Bologna. ( As an interesting side-note, now that women suddenly had the right not to marry, they did not. Within 50 years, half of all land and local political positions in Catalonia (northern Spain) and in southern France belonged to women. This was reversed by the reformation. ) The two main points here are that the Rule of Law became firmly established in Europe and also the first University. The third point was made was that the power that the catholic church got from this was used, during the time it had to power to do so, to make European countries to refrain from wars costly in lives and avoid a pan-European state. By keeping a lot of small states alive, competition in science and technology took off. The author contrasts this in a very interesting way with the history of China and that of India. China was very brutally integrated very early into one huge state, which had its advantages, among them a central learned and state-loyal mandarin bureaucracy, but left China with the disadvantages of lack of competition of ideas and also left it with corruption from latent tribalism. India was only for short periods of time integrated, and therefore lacked an overall Rule of Law. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

United States television networks and the State of the Union

In the United States, every year, the Big Four television networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) all air the State of the Union simultaneously. The program is not profitable for them, since they can't sell any commercial advertising during the speech. Meanwhile, the fifth major network, The CW, instead of airing the State of the Union, airs counterprogramming which is very profitable for them, with the CW consistently, year-after-year, achieving ratings significantly above their norm on that night because none of the other broadcast networks are competing against them with non-State of the Union programming.

I have heard that the Big Four air the State of the Union, despite its unprofitability, because they are mandated to do so by the FCC. Is this true? If so, why doesn't the FCC also mandate the CW to air the speech as well?

—SeekingAnswers (reply) 04:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about any FCC regulations. What I do know is that the major difference is that the CW, as a relatively newer network, does not have any type of national news division. For decades (probably dating back to the late 1940s when TV in the US was beginning to spread accross the country), the news divisions of the three major networks (ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News) have always pre-empted regularly scheduled programing to air live, uninterrupted coverage of significant, breaking news stories. The State of the Union address has always been considered one of them. And although Fox does not usually air news programs, it does air Fox News Sunday and a couple of others in the past, produced by its sister cable network Fox News Channel. Airing live news events, without any commercial advertising, brings credibility to the news divisions. It also showcases their anchors, reporters and pundits. The hope was, for example, a loyal viewer of ABC World News would stay with ABC News' coverage of the event, and then tune in for all of the analysis afterwards, instead of going to another network or news organization. Although the proliferation of the cable news networks have decreased this effect, not everyone in the country has cable and regularly watches CNN and the like. Thus, there is still no incentive for the major networks to stop there practice of pre-empting regularly scheduled programing to air live, uninterrupted coverage of significant, breaking news stories. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is any FCC regulation, it may be related to what the FCC considers to be a "network". The CW currently only airs 20 hours of programming over six days, and it does not offer any national news or sports programming. That may be below the FCC's minimum limit. One of the reasons why Fox stayed afloat and grew in its early years was that it tried to stay below the FCC's limit back then, and thus could do things that the Big Three could not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And report the stories the Big Three dare not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that they realize if they don't show things like the State of The Union address voluntarily, Congress would mandate that they do, so they might as well do it voluntarily, and get some credit for it. StuRat (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

British "grammar school"

From what I understand from reading articles, the British "grammar school" just refers to a higher education with multiple subjects. Why is it referred to as a grammar school when grammar is not what is taught there (I assume proper grammar would be covered in early education!); thanks! -- 140.202.10.134 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a historical usage which persisted while the role of the establishments changed. According to grammar school "The original purpose of mediaeval grammar schools was the teaching of Latin ... The schools were attached to cathedrals and monasteries, teaching Latin – the language of the church – to future priests and monks." Gandalf61 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

... and, of course, it refers to a school for secondary education that selects the most able students. Some comprehensive schools offer more subjects, and teach more subjects per pupil, than many grammar schools. (Higher and further education follow on from secondary education in the UK.) Dbfirs 17:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll just qualify that: grammar schools selected on ability. However, where technical schools existed (parts of the industrial West Midlands, for example), grammar schools selected on ability in arts and humanities, while technical schools selected on ability in sciences. The selection was made by means of the 11-plus exam. Those who did well in arts and humanities were sent to grammar schools: those who excelled in sciences were sent to technical schools: everyone else went to secondary moderns. (I was a product of this system, but the standard of teaching of sciences was so poor and sexist that I went off sciences until after I'd left school.) --TammyMoet (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That might have been true in some regions, but in most areas the 11-plus was just a test of general intelligence, including Mathematics and word usage, but no science, arts or humanities. What was the content of the 11-plus papers that you took? I can still remember the general content of mine (taken well over 50 years ago) but can't quite remember exact questions. I think the early years of the 11-plus in England included some arts and humanities, but these questions were dropped because of the class bias (I would have been less successful on those topics). Papers might have been different elsewhere (I'm not trying to ascertain your age!) Dbfirs 21:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Obituary for John Henry Phillips (born 1876, Sun Prairie Wisconsin)

Can you help me find an Obituary for John Henry Phillips (born 1876, Sun Prairie Wisconsin)?

I am looking for biographical information on this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.224.98 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any information on names of spouse, children, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a little bit of information here. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

After a thorough rummage, the only other thing I could find was a newspaper report of (possibly) his parents' 50th wedding anniversary in 1918, on the "Society" page of the Madison Capital Times: September 14, 1918 in the second column from the left (beware, the preview times-out with a message asking you to buy a subscription, so read it quickly!). Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The John Henry Phillips of Tuckahoe, N.Y. mentioned in that report is probably the architect who designed his own house. That architect seems to have had offices at 681 Fifth Avenue in New York City. I also found a 1903 passport application on ancestry.com for a J.H. Phillips, born Feb. 12, 1875 in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. The application lists his occupation as architect and he was at that time a resident of Chicago.--Cam (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In which cultures do the "man-hug" exist?

In which cultures do the "man-hug" exist? 140.254.227.69 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject comes up to some extent in the Hug article. I wouldn't say it's an excessively rigorous article. But I do like the statement, "Some cultures do not embrace hugging..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Town lines and bodies of water

Since this has more to do, I think, with legal boundaries and not necessarily computer science, I'm putting this question here.

That said, if you do a search for Bristol, Vermont in Google Maps it will outline Bristol with a red dashed line. Through the town there is what appears to be a double dashed line going down the New Haven River. Zooming in, the line can be seen as two lines with one on each side of the river running along the banks. Following this west, if you search again for New Haven, Vermont which is the next town over, it shows the same double line along the river again. Does this mean that the rivers and other waterways are not under town jurisdiction but instead state controlled? I wouldn't think so since I tried the same search with other towns and found another with a river bisecting the town, Waitsfield which has the Mad River running through it, but no similar lines run down the length of that river. What's the deal with the New Haven River? Dismas|^(talk) 23:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How sure are you it's not a glitch in Google Maps? --Jayron32 00:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think it's an error in Google Maps (of which I've found several over the years). I happen to have a DeLorme atlas of Vermont showing town lines, and it does not show town lines along the New Haven River through Bristol or New Haven. I did some searching online and could find no evidence that the river was outside the towns' jurisdiction or under state jurisdiction. I will contact Google Maps and alert them of the possible error. I will try to remember to report their response when I receive it, probably not for a couple of weeks. Marco polo (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. All territory in Vermont is incorporated, except for four grants and gores (and seemingly Lake Champlain); three of the four are in the far northeastern corner, and the exception (Buels Gore) is still some miles away from Bristol. Also see 24 V.S.A. §2, the relevant portion of the Vermont Statutes Annotated: Addison County is composed of Bristol, 21 other towns, the city of Vergennes, and unincorporated bits of Lake Champlain; there aren't any other pieces of unincorporated territory in the county. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In many states (such as Washington): The waters (of Washington State) collectively belong to the public and cannot be owned by any one ...[46]; and in some instances access to such cannot be prohibited. See: Water rights   —Yes, I know we're not talking about Washington, but that was the 1st search response 71.20.250.51 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Presumably, water that flows adjacent to, or thru, a municipality is considered public property, outside of any local jurisdiction.

While collective public property is inconsistent with private ownership, it is not inconsistent with local jurisdiction. Vermont towns are not private bodies. They are public entities. Towns in New England certainly have jurisdiction (again, different from private ownership) over ponds within their boundaries. I am fairly certain that they have jurisdiction over streams as well. Your quote from Washington State doesn't say anything about state jurisdiction over bodies of water. It just prohibits private ownership. Presumably in Washington State, municipalities also have jurisdiction over bodies of water entirely within their boundaries. Marco polo (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

25 V.S.A. § 141 demonstrates that there's public control over streams, and you can't gain ownership of a stream via prescription or by adverse possession. I can't find a specific definition of what's considered un-ownable by private individuals (10 V.S.A. § 1422 defines public waters, but it doesn't specify how far up the riverbank that goes, for example), but what you're looking for is probably findable in 10 V.S.A. Chapter 49. Finally an actual answer to the question. 10 V.S.A. § 1424 (f)(1) notes that the Secretary of something or another may delegate navigable-water-governing authority to "a municipality which is adjacent to or which contains the water". It wouldn't be possible for a municipality to contain navigable waters if the boundaries can't include those waters. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, an important distinction is to be made between the water, and the dirt under the water. Borders are defined by the dirt, not the water... --Jayron32 04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

January 31

Pedophile Movements

I would like to find all possible articles having to do with movements having to do with pedophile rights. I am having a hard time finding this. Thanks. MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

South Park mentioned a NAMBLA. Other than that, you're (hopefully) on your own. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

There was PIE in the UK in the 70's and 80's. Rojomoke (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's also the Dutch pedophilia supporting group MARTIJN which, like NAMBLA, was a member of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association in the 80's and 90's. Associated with MARTIJN was also the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity, a short-lived political party in favor of abolishing age of consent laws, but which did not gain enough signatures to participate in elections, despite the media attention it got. - Lindert (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's an interesting BBC documentary from 2002 called "The Hunt For Britain's Paedophiles", which can be seen on YouTube. It refers to various groups that existed at the time in the UK, including societies that were nominally "fan clubs" for child stars (particularly the "Hazel Ascot Appreciation Society"). Paul B (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Convicted diddlers are usually granted protective custody when they go to prison (in Canada and the US, anyway). More of a privilege than a right, but somewhat relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

secondary sources

I have a published address in a journal of a very prominent theologian giving opinons about Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science. Is that a secondary source or a 3rd source It is about the theologian making comments, assessing what Christian Science is about Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source for the writer's views on Christian Science. Assuming the writer is really a "very prominent theologian", it would be a valid secondary source on Christian Science. As far as WP:RS is concerned, it might be suitable as a source for an expansion of the Christian Science#Classification as cult, sect or denomination section of the article. Tevildo (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source because it was a political speech about the author's involvement in discussions with Christian Science about whether they wanted to join the National Council of Churches (NCC) when he was NCC general secretary (they didn't and he is no longer general secretary). It represents a tiny-minority view.

There's already a mention of his discussions in the Classification as cult, sect or denomination section (final paragraph), based on primary sources because there are no secondary sources for this; that is, no one other than the participants in the discussions have written about it. So it is (arguably) already over-represented in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Largest Roman province

What was the largest Roman province ever? By population and land area? What about in Christian Rome, when the provinces were probably smaller (I remember Gaul as a province, but Wikipedia shows it as a diocese or something split into many provinces). Hey, why is a diocese composed of provinces anyway? This is the reverse of church usage.

During the late republic, the largest province in area was Hispania Ulterior. Hispania Tarraconensis was the largest in area during the early empire, though it was smaller than Hispania Ulterior had been. The largest in population was Aegyptus. Note that Italia (Italy) had a larger population than Aegyptus, but it was not considered a province. Because provinces decreased in size after the reforms of Diocletian, these were the largest provinces ever in size and population. After Diocletian's reform, the reduced province of Hispania Tarraconensis was still the empire's largest in area, since other pre-reform provinces were divided into smaller pieces. Because Egypt was now divided into four provinces, Tarraconensis was probably also the largest in population after the reform. (My sources for areas are the maps and articles in Wikipedia and area figures for corresponding territories today. My source for populations is the Atlas of World Population History, © 1978, edited by Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones.) Marco polo (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Answering the question on "Gaul", Gaul was never an official "unit" of the empire per se. It was a region that roughly corresponded to the area between the Pyrenees and the Rhine-Alps-Rhone line (i.e. France, roughly, plus bits of of other countries). Gaul had, AFAIK, always been multiple provinces, which of course varied over time. Roman Gaul covers the various divisions of the area. Regard to the word "diocese". From the original Greek, it just means "district", and really like any other similar word such as "region", "province", "area", "zone", etc. it doesn't have a predetermined size or hierarchy. In the Roman Empire, a "Roman diocese" was a large collection of provinces, while a Roman Catholic diocese is much smaller in size. It just is what it is. --Jayron32 03:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

February 1

Agency ranking private schools in Mexico

Is there an agency that ranks or gives objective evaluations of private schools in Mexico? In es:Discusión:Liceo_Mexicano_Japonés#Relevancia on the Spanish Wikipedia the editor stated his belief that sources stating the school is known to be the "most prestigious" of a country should only be indicative of notability if a third party organization objectively ranks it as such. However typically private schools aren't put on rankings but public schools are. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a rather subjective term. Something more objective, and easier to verify, would be the most expensive private school in Mexico. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It was the school where President of Mexico Carlos Salinas de Gortari sent his kids, and one source states that in Japan because the Mexican President sent his kids to the school, the Japanese perceived the school to be the best in Mexico. The user said in Spanish: "El que Salinas de Gortari haya tenido a sus hijos en el instituto, tampoco le otorga relevancia a este, véase es:WP:NOHEREDA. Saludos." WhisperToMe (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried http://www.sep.gob.mx/wb2/ ? There is no clear evidence that any mexican private education is superior to mexican public education in general and specific. Seriously! EllenCT (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link! I'm not saying private schools are always better than public schools. I'm just trying to find "objective" rankings/credentials that will satisfy the user on the Spanish Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two similar men?

Here's an intriguing mystery.

We have an article on James Spens (cricketer), who was born 30 March 1853 and died 19 June 1934 (our article says 19 August, but the linked source gives June). It talks entirely about his cricketing career.

Here is a modified copy of the Who's Who entry for James Spens, a British Army general - according to the full one ([http://ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U217420/ paywalled) he was born 30 March 1853 and died 19 June 1934.

Both are listed as educated at Haileybury. Were they the same person? It seems somewhat plausible - army officers frequently had the leisure time to be amateur gentleman cricketers - but I'm reluctant to say so for sure without any specific evidence. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This Wisden obituary suggests they are one and the same. -Karenjc (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)