Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 9

The disease of kings

Gout. The old adage is that gout is the disease of kings. I have always wondered....what kings do we know of that actually had gout?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England was believed to have suffered from gout, and the term "disease of kings" is probably related to him. --Canley (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor ([1]). --Canley (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Asa of Judah's "foot disease" is often said to have been gout (see here, for example), though our article doesn't mention it. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be spelled "the disease of Kings", then. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Queen Anne too. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Jacques Necker - French Finance Minister

The article for Necker gives two different dates (29 June 1777 AND October 1776) for his commencement as Director-General.

Could someone please clarify?

Thanks 120.148.242.185 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can figure out from the German version, Necker was made contrôleur général des finances in October 1776 and then formally became directeur général des finances in June 1777. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History

How can I prove that everything before I was born (1991) wasn't a hoax? I mean, I was not alive before then, so I can not verify that all these things happened . They could be forgeries. Same could be said before you were born. --Sammen Salmonord (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not brave enough to try and answer that! However, solipsism is the area of philosophy concerned with that kind of thought. Thincat (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

See also epistemology (and ontology and metaphysics or perhaps Occam's razor). Even I think therefore I am doesn't really establish that the past is not a hoax or shared hallucination. Short answer: you can't, not based on axiomatic reasoning, logic, or direct observation and experimentation, no matter how rigorous. -- and you can never definitively disprove any manner of trickster gods. (Mostly non-philosophers just ignore that problem and lead our normal lives ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the past before your birth could be a hoax. The whole world (and universe) could have been created last Thursday and none of us could prove otherwise, let alone way back in 1991. Philip Henry Gosse figured that out back in 1857 in his book Omphalos. Edison (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't even prove you were born; at least, born on a particular date in a particular place. Can you honestly say you remember it? How do you know you weren't adopted? Why should you trust your parents or the Registrar of Births, any more than those shoddy books that allege people like Lincoln and Gandhi and Henry VIII existed? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a hoax. You got me. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And an old one at that. From Horse Feathers (1934):

Prosecutor: Chicolini, when were you born?

Chicolini: I don't remember. I was just a little-a baby.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

First..prove you exist then worry about everything before that.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Only the Glaroon knows for sure. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Descartes had doubts about everything in his Meditations. Doubt can be a fruitful exercise. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also consider the many-worlds interpretation and Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics... Suppose you have a sentience (whatever that is) newly created, which has never interacted with the world except by the sole information it is created. Then the rest of the world is like Schroedinger's cat in a box - it doesn't know whether it is alive or dead, or what it is. Then it makes an observation, and another, and another, and the rest of the world becomes resolved into more and more specific quantum states... (the two hypotheses differ in that for one there is a different consciousness branching for every possible outcome of these observations, the other that there is only one "real" one) Wnt (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Could a medieval monk leave the monastery?

If a medieval monk ever decided that he no longer wanted to live a life of poverty, chastity and obedience could he leave the monastery and live an average but moral life? What was the process he'd have to go through to be released from the monastery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You are speaking of a thousand-year period spread over at least a continent, and not defining "average" or "moral". You might want to ask a more specific claim. You can look at Category:Monastic rules, but this doesn't cover every Catholic monastic order. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also didn't specify Catholic. The bhikku vows are for life. Of course, if people can escape prison and live a new life, they can escape anything. Actually, reading my own link, it seems you can give up and retake your vows, but only seven times. Seems fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Here are 227 other rules, if anyone's interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Medeis makes a valid point (and one I always mention when someone asks about "the Middle Ages" in general, but nevertheless, the answer is still "yes"...generally speaking. A monk would need the permission of the abbot to be dispensed from his monastic vows, just like a priest would have to get permission from the bishop to dispense with his priestly vows. They weren't slaves, so as long as they had a good reason, they could certainly do so. If they thought they just couldn't hack it as a monk, that might not be the greatest reason, and they would probably have a kind of remedial monastic training to prepare them better. But some people just aren't suited for that kind of life, so they could leave if they really wanted to. Some monks were the stereotypical "younger sons" who were sent to the monastery by their well-off family as children, so they would have somewhere to go and someone to support them if they left, but that wouldn't be true for all monks. For many of them, the monastery was their best means of support, whether they wanted to be there or not. I'm trying to think of some "former monks" to give as examples, but none are springing to mind, although I am sure I will think of some... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Some monks didn't live a life of chastity and obedience. Some monks got married secretly and had children. Some monks had illegitimate children. That's where new monks and nuns came from.
Sleigh (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the monks and nuns ran away together! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Was exclaustration practiced in "the Middle Ages"? I wasn't quick in finding anything conclusive. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Adam Bishop and Sleigh, you've given me some really interesting information. I was specifically wondering about European monks other than Catholic. And by average and moral I meant a life in which the individual doesn't deprive himself of most or all worldly pleasures but he isn't a decidedly sinful or villainous person either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean eastern Orthodox monks? That could be a bit different. They certainly have monasteries like in the west but there was also a stronger tradition of individual monks living alone in a cave or wherever (in fact, "monk" comes from the Greek "monakhos", meaning a sole person). I'm sure the ones in monasteries could leave, but honestly I'm not sure. I think there are examples of Byzantine emperors entering a monastery, then leaving to attempt a coup or re-enter polutics somehow...but that's not quite what you mean. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If there were no European monks other than Catholic then your answer about Catholic monks answers my question completely. Thanks for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancient obscene embroidery?

There is an internet meme which I saw on Facebook, consisting of what looks like an old piece of embroidery, with a picture of people near a building by a field, and old style letters spelling out "Behold! The field in which I grow my fucks. Lay thine eyes upon it and thou shalt see that it is barren." I wondered if it is some old Bible verse or old motto and the "fucks" is supposed to be "flax" or somesuch, but a Google search for the rest of the phrase only turned up recent blogs and twitter feeds laughing about it, dating back a few weeks. What's up with it? Edison (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be something photoshopped from the Bayeux tapestry. In a more authentic example of the same phenomenon, the word "sucks" is sometimes hilariously transformed into "fucks" with genuine "old style letters", as you call it, by use of the long s. Hence "where the bee ſucks, there ſuck I" [2]. Paul B (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's just a joke. It is generated in the style of the Bayeux Tapestry, which is why you think it looks like embroidery. The language and spelling used is completely inconsistent with the era, and it doesn't refer to any Bible verse. It is written in the style of the King James Bible (17th century English), and then an image has been created to look like it was embroidered in the 11th century. Because it's all "old", right? I would assume the sort of geek who put in the time to edit the letters so nicely onto the picture considered writing the motto in realistic abbreviated Latin, with a translation provided, but then concluded funny was more important than creating a convincing forgery. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a product of this website, which allows you to "redesign" the Bayeux tapestry [3]. Paul B (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Genuine ancient obscene embroidery.

Although the original shows a couple of random naked chaps in the lower margin for no apparent reason - those nuns were not as innocent as you'd think. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious to some, this is based on the expression "I don't give a fuck." Which is probably relatively old. Much more recently, internet jokes were made of the form "...and not a single fuck was given that day" [4] or "look at all the fucks I give (implication of "none") [5]. But thanks OP; unlike most iterations, I do find this one humorous! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 10

Cryonic

I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. "However, the idea of cryonics also includes preservation of people after longer post-mortem delays because of the possibility that brain structures encoding memory and personality may still persist or be inferable." I need someone to explain it to me. Thanks!75.168.125.23 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous sentence is "Cryonics procedures ideally begin within minutes of cardiac arrest, and use cryoprotectants to prevent ice formation during cryopreservation." The important part for the context of the next sentence is "within minutes". I'm not sure which part you have problems with but here is a longer version: It's considered best to freeze the body very quickly after death (to avoid deterioration before the freezing starts). But freezing may also be attempted in cases where more time has passed since death ("post-mortem"), in the hope that brain parts responsible for memory and personality have not deteriorated yet or may still be recovered in the future. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This part is confusing "after longer post-mortem delays". What is being delayed here? I think it should be "after longer post-mortem 'decay'". Perhaps, there is a subject-verb confusion in the sentence. Or perhaps to keep it simple so that people can understand it easier, it should be "after being dead for a while". I'm sure not many people would be familiar with the post-mortem term. 75.168.125.23 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The delay is whatever holds up the beginning of cryo procedure. —Tamfang (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The wording is not very good, pretty redundant. The word delay itself implies it would take place a while later, not within the ideal "within minutes". I don't see any reason to put in longer. Plus, in the sentence, "delays" is used as a verb not as a noun such as "the delay"; this is exactly what I suspected subject-verb confusion before. I guess this problem is resolved.75.168.125.23 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And there is actually a grammar problem. The delay is supposedly to implicate whatever that delays the cryonics procedure. However, due to the placement of the word delay within the sentence, it simply doesn't make sense. The delay in the sentence would modify post-mortem (death). Death has nothing to do with what delays the cryonics procedure. This is misplaced modifier. The sentence is redundant and contain a couple grammatical errors.75.168.125.23 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You're mistaken on multiple counts. There is no the (definite article) before delays (plural noun) because it is an indefinite noun; that doesn't make it a verb. delays does not modify the adjective post-mortem but is modified by it, indicating that the delays in question occur after death which is what post-mortem means; the wording in no way suggests a causal link between the deaths and the delays. I refrain from criticizing your grammar. —Tamfang (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the responses above answer this adequately. Here is the basic point: If you wanted to be able to thaw a person and revive them without extensive repair, then the freezing would have to take place very soon after death, otherwise the brain and other tissues would deteriorate. But the more repair you are able to do, the longer you might be able to wait. Neuroscientists believe that a person's memories are stored by altering the strength of synaptic connections between brain cells. If the brain deteriorates too much, those structures will basically dissolve into goo and there won't be any hope of reconstructing the memories. But as long as the deterioration is small enough for the strength of synapses to be measured, they hold a record of the person's memories and all the things the person knows. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, and the difference is between trying to bring that body (or head) back to life, which requires minimal damage, or scanning it with some future atomic level CAT scan equivalent, then transferring that intelligence into another device. Personally I think too much damage occurs during the freezing process and minutes between death and freezing to ever allow the first option, but the 2nd option seems possible, to me. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Patriarchs

I am but dust and ashes. Please help me to understand the patriarchs. And their story. I am but inquirer. Bless all wikipedians who are true and honest in the search for insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.41.201 (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure as to which definition of patriarch you mean. Commonly it can refer to the Three Patriarchs in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim tradition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But it can also refer to a high-ranking church official in some Christian churches. Or it can more generally mean "the rule of fathers", which refers to a male-dominated society where men hold all positions of leadership. So, perhaps those will give some idea of what you want to know. If you have a more specific question, perhaps we can help. --Jayron32 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Last week, I'd've guessed this was related to Ash Wednesday, but he could be quoting Simcha Bunim of Peshischa's reference to Genesis. Either way, The articles on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would probably be most appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"I am but dust and ashes" in Genesis is actually said by Abraham, one of the patriarchs. There is no need to invoke the Rebbe of Pshischa... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Portents after traumatic events

I'm looking for historical evidence of 'collective PTSD', i.e. avoidance or hyperarousal (the two main symptoms of individual PTSD). Following catastrophes in the past (plagues, earthquakes etc.), are there accounts of people behaving either individually or en masse in either of these two ways? I seem to remember accounts of people seeing 'portents in the sky' after such events and displaying these symptoms, but the only accounts I can find refer to portents seen before. 78.146.33.172 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Does Mass hysteria help? --Jayron32 15:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The question is sort of disconnected. Collective PTSD is common after earthquakes, in the sense that for a long time afterward people are nervous about being indoors and suffer from nightmares and generalized anxiety. But PTSD doesn't really have anything to do with portents. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but in a general sense, "portent", in the sense of "A sense of anticipation of an event" is a symptom of PTSD. People with PTSD can experience the sense that something bad is about to happen; that often causes them to respond in anticipation of such bad events; even if they are entirely psychological in nature. I believe that is what the OP means by "portent". --Jayron32 16:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Portents in the sky" historically might have referred to an eclipse early on (before astronomers could predict them) or a comet later (until astronomers could predict, or at least explain, those). Note that the population might have been stressed out just by these events, without any actual disaster. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds kind of like the acronym FEAR = Future Events Appearing Real. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that symptoms of trauma have been observed after modern events, eg. in New Orleans. What I was looking for was historical accounts, but it looks like I'll have to do the research myself! Thanks for the help. 78.146.33.172 (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction of Western dress in Greece

When did the upper classes in Ottoman Greece start to wear the Western fashion? Alexandra Mavrokordatou had a salon, so could it perhaps be as early as in the 17th-century? Or did it not happen until Greek independence? I have no idea at all. --Aciram (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How did they measure long-distance travel in the past?

I recently learned that miles, as a way of measuring length/distance, came into use quite late, around 1500, and the Kilometer only around 1800. Obviously, the mile have been defined in different ways so maybe it could be argued exactly when and where it began.

But my questions are two;

1) What way of measuring long travel-distances did they use in the high middle ages?

2) What way of measuring long travel-distances did they use in the Roman empire? (yes I know it stretches over a long time, but they probably used the same method throughout this era, I should think.)

Krikkert7 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Maps were not unknown in the ancient world. You'd be surprised how accurate they were, without GPS nor any form of satellite. History of cartography will give you an outline. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course they knew their measurements back then also, and could no doubt make accurate maps. I'm not at all saying they were idiots. I'm just asking what methods/unit of measure they used :) Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it now. Krikkert7 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article provies some units used at various times, such as travelling time via various means and Li (unit) which links to League (unit) (both of which are generally related to travelling time anyway) which you may have heard of from Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. It doesn't seem to mention what the Romans used, nor does the articles it links to Pomponius Mela nor Tabula Peutingeriana. The later mentions distances but not the unit. But these sources [6] [7] mention that either Roman mile or leuga gallica was used, depending on the area. If you follow the links on the league page, you should end up at Ancient Roman units of measurement which also mention these units (although doesn't explain when the different units were used). Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

From mile: "The Romans, when marching their armies through Europe, were the first to use the unit of long distance mille passuum (literally a thousand paces)." However, when people travelled on foot or horseback, distance measurements were of limited use because the type of terrain traversed made a huge difference. It was far more useful to describe distances in terms of so many days march, or so many weeks at sea, etc.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for answers. ;) Krikkert7 (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks measured distances in stades or stadia, one stadium being 600 feet (but the length of the foot varied in different places). See Stadion (unit of length). rossb (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for bible code

Did you know that in the Torah (Old Testament) every 666th letter spells out the phrase "Satan the accuser". This happens exactly 7 times.

Can you show the evidence of this to me please.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/biblecode.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest reading up on the article covering Bible code, in particular the section on criticism of it. You might also find the article on confirmation bias relevant. There is also some relevant information in the answers given when you asked a similar question a little over a week ago. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the equivalent of the "Old Testament" is the Tanach. The equivalent of Torah is Books of Moses. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Satan the accuser"? He's more like the accused than the accuser. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Both. See Revelation 12 verse 10. Dbfirs 21:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this claim, virtually word for word, in many websites, without clarification of which text they're using, or whether they mean Torah or Old Testament. Unusually for such claims, it doesn't even specify what Hebrew phrase it's based on. I'd like to verify it, but can't be bothered to count 666 letters, and, more to the point, am concerned that human error could lead to me missing one or two, rendering the exercise pointless. Anyone know of an online tool for this kind of thing? I'm fairly skilled at reading Hebrew, so that's no problem. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't know of a simple tool, but you can get the bare consonantal text of any book of the Tanach (Leningrad Codex) from www.tanach.us, so if you take e.g. the text of Genesis, copy it into a text editor and replace all spaces, just go to a specific column to find the letter you want. I used Notepad++ for this, and found that if I start at the beginning, the 666th, 1332nd, 1998th and 2664th letters form "עורז", so I don't see how that is going to work. Maybe they didn't start at the beginning, but without more information, it's really hard to verify. - Lindert (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My tech skills are definitely insufficient! What if you start from the first shin/sin, which would be the one in the very first word? --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The fourth letter is a shin, so taking letters 4, 670, 1336, 2002, 2668 you get "שׁואאג", which doesn't look very useful. - Lindert (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Busted? --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Major General Sir Herbert Stewart.jpg

OK Reference Desk tricky one for you, Who is the R. Taylor named as the engraver responsible for this work?

In order to satisfy Commons licensing policy, a date of death of the R. Taylor concerned is needed.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Taylor (active 1871-1901). His date of death is not known. He was a professional wood-engraver employed by the ILN. There were many of them. I think we can assume that he died before 1944. Paul B (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is my life a fake?

How do I know that everyone involved in my life isn't an actor? What if God or another power has set up my life for his own observation, and everyone around mgr8e is scripted? Every bird flying in the sky, every plane crash, every car on the road could all be preplanned for my life, could it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppingalten (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you'll never know. Go listen to some jazz or something but don't waste any more of your (or our) time by asking unanswerable questions here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The condition you set implies that you'll never know. Try to enjoy life anyway. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't a fake life be subject to tropes? Hcobb (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My sophomore honors English professor got angry at our class one day (for vehemently denying that he could know without knowing us personally that we were racists due to structural racism), and ended up screaming at us that we couldn't even prove we existed. A student who eventually became a housemate of mine then pulled out a penknife and tossed it at the professor's head, and it stuck in the wall next to him with a thwang. The student then asked whether the knife existed, and the professor said, "Class dismissed." μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You're not making that up are you? Joepnl (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I wish I were, User:Joepnl. It is perhaps the best anecdote of my entire life, and I wish I had done the act. In fact, were I making it up, I would have said it was I who had done it. As far as I can see, the person who threw the knife still lives in Alexandria, Virginia, and the "victim" is now an associate professor. For BLP reasons, and to avoid outing myself, you'll have to wait for my memoirs for more details. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You wish you were making up the best anecdote of your life? I like it anyway. Joepnl (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot even know that You didn't set it up and plant false memories in yourself. See http://www.last-thursday.org/questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Starting with the assumption that everything is potentially a scripted apparition, you then focus on what would be doing the scripting. If that doesn't straighten you out, nothing will. 71.246.154.18 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Are all of the above answers choreographed? Are all of you designated actors that can't answer my question? The condition you set implies that you'll never know', ' Go listen to some jazz or something but don't waste any more of your (or our) time by asking unanswerable questions here.. all of these answers are avoidance answers. You must all be actors in my life. --Hoppingalten (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See solipsism and follow more links from that article. See where it leads you. --Jayron32 23:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me give a serious try at answering the question:

How do I know that everyone involved in my life isn't an actor?

You don't.

What if God or another power has set up my life for his own observation, and everyone around mgr8e is scripted?

Unless the scripting is imperfect, or the higher power intends to let you know the truth, you'd never tell the difference.

...could all be preplanned for my life, could it not?

It could.

What answers did you expect? If you imagine a scenario that can't be refuted, then by definition, it can't be refuted. That's about as mind-blowing as saying "a man is a man" or "a dog is a dog". See brain in a vat.--140.180.247.129 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would an omniscient being script someone's life for the observation of the omniscient being? There are two reasons here why that omniscient being would not have to do this: 1) The omniscient being is the one doing the scripting, and therefore would know the outcome; 2) The omniscient being is omniscient, and would therefore know the outcome. I know infinity is a long time, but the omniscient being cannot be that bored, being also omnipotent as part of the job description. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect I'm not the only one who wants to know if your life is a fake as well.... Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about omniscience or omnipotence? Most gods in most cultures have been very far from either. This includes the Old Testament god, who never claims omniscience. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Gods don't go around claiming things for themselves. That's what their adherents do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

See also falsifiability, and the question further up the page, titled "History". (Are these questions choreographed? It's hard for me to imagine that we'd need to discuss "last thursday-ism" and solipsism twice in as many days!) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If your life was an elaborate ruse, indistinguishable in all aspects from a "real" life, then it makes no difference in terms of what you experience and your reactions to it; otherwise, you would be able to distinguish the ruse from reality OldTimeNESter (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

See also here: "The Boltzmann brain paradox is that any observers (self-aware brains with memories like we have, which includes our brains) are therefore far more likely to be Boltzmann brains than evolved brains, thereby at the same time also refuting the selection-bias argument. If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which only creates stand-alone self-aware entities. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enormous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. In an infinite universe, the number of self-aware brains that spontaneously randomly form out of the chaos, complete with false memories of a life like ours, should vastly outnumber the real brains evolved from an inconceivably rare local fluctuation the size of the observable universe." Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Conflict between Buddhism and bourgeois life

I am a young bourgeois Buddhist and feel a conflict between my religion and my life. There is even incompatibility between the noble eightfold path and bourgeois life? In what? And why? Malandrinho (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a question more suited to your specific teachers you are working with within Buddhism. Buddhism is a very diverse religion, and you are likely to get a VERY wide array of answers to this question. This sounds like a conversation to be had with a more experienced Buddhist such as a monk or nun that you have a relationship with, who will be well equipped to answer the theological and ethical questions you have regarding your religious life. --Jayron32 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The unease experienced by a bourgeois property-owning person is discussed by the Buddha in the Hatthaka sutta. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Push notes

What is the name for a note that comes just very slightly earlier than you would expect it to? I'm not talking about a grace note, but rather a full note that gets the downbeat, and happens just slightly early. There's a very prominent example in Ray Charles' Rockhouse.

Someone told me it was called a push note, but we don't seem to have an article on that. --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's sometimes called "pushed note" or "push". The most functional name commonly used is probably "anticipation" (e.g. "8th note anticipation" or "16th note anticipation", etc). Our article section on off-beat syncopation mentions "anticipated bass", giving the example of the tumbao in Cuban music. The "big four" (something Wynton Marsalis likes referring to in his educational programs) is another example, this time from early jazz, as explained in our article on tresillo, which mentions other examples in music of the 19th and 20th century too. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin. I wish we had more coverage of it. The one in "Rockhouse" is the whole reason I like the song :-) --Trovatore (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

March 11

God, Mary, and Adultery

I have a genuinely serious question--wouldn't God allegedly impregnating Jesus's mother Mary be considered an alleged example of adultery? Or would it not count due to the fact that there was allegedly no sexual intercourse between them at all? Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough, it appears from the text that Mary and Joseph were engaged, rather than married, at the time of Jesus' conception. Hence why, in Matthew's Gospel, Joseph is having second thoughts until he has a dream telling him to marry Mary after all. But I also think most people who take this narrative seriously would accept your second suggestion - that as Jesus was incarnate of Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit, rather than by intercourse with a physical person, it wouldn't count as any kind of sexual sin whatever. After all, Mary was supposedly chosen precisely because of her goodness and purity. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Under the laws of the old Testament, much of the heavy lifting of forming an alliance between two families was done at the time of betrothal, and betrothals were legally binding, and a betrothed woman who had sex with another man was basically regarded as guilty of adultery (not fornication) -- see Deuteronomy 22:23... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get that Mary was chosen because of her goodness/purity? - Lindert (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

At least in the Catholic tradition, Imaculate conception plays a part in that MChesterMC (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The Immaculate Conception is actually sort-of the opposite of Mary being chosen for her purity: it rather says that, because Mary was chosen and said yes, therefore God applied Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross to her at the point of her conception, thus preserving her from being tainted with the stain of Original Sin. So she was pure because she was chosen (and said yes). All very timey-wimey. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Did Joseph say Yes to this as well, though? Futurist110 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You could just read the first few chapters of Luke, you know. Joseph did not give prior consent, but decided of his own free will (once an angel had explained the matter) to marry Mary anyway, well aware that she was pregnant with a child that he did not conceive. The Gospel tells us he was a "good man" who was otherwise planning to put her quietly aside, without making a public scandal about the adultery. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- There was a kind of minor medieval motif of Joseph as the "divine cuckold"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Even assuming non-physical seeding of an unconsumated fiancee was adultery, consider Mary's choices, given the other Commandments. God is her Lord, and she shall have no other before Him. He is also her Father (in a way), and shall not be dishonoured. If she were to argue, citing the tablets, she'd be bowing to and serving a graven image. If Gabriel told her on the Sabbath, protesting would be work. She did the right thing, by that law. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Is this intended to be a joke, or are you really under the impression that following the ten commandments counted as bowing down to graven images, and that arguing would count as work? If a joke, perhaps small tags to indicate that it is not actually an answer to the question? 86.157.148.65 (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm no theologian, so I guess it's fair to laugh it off if you'd like. But yeah, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them". "They" are Tablets of Stone, engraved/inscribed with a "likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" (the Will of God). Not so much a problem till you place them before the jealous God when the two clash. The toiling on the Sabbath part is more of a stretch, but if arguing isn't work, why do we pay lawyers, politicians, pundits and scholars? Not intended as a joke or an answer, just a consideration. The question was already answered as near as possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

I assume that the real Mary managed to get pregnant while unmarried, with an intact hymen. Otherwise she would have been stoned to death or whatever they did in such situations then. While it's possible for a woman to become pregnant with an intact hymen (as there's a small hole for menstruation in all but an imperforate hymen), they may not have known about this possibility at the time, so assumed she was impregnated without sex, by God. So, the sexless part of the story is absolutely key. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Bradford riots against Ahmadis

How come there are no articles about a riot that happened in Bradford in the 1970s against the Ahmadis? Is there a news article about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.114 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There have been many race riots in West Yorkshire over the years; Wikipedia has articles on the 1975 Chapeltown riot; it's a very short article right now. Perhaps that's the one you are thinking of? Otherwise Wikipedia does have a pretty extensive article on the much later 2001 Bradford riots. --Jayron32 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Although Chapeltown is in Leeds. If anybody can find a reference supporting this, it could be added to our Persecution of Ahmadis article. I could only find MUSLIMS IN BRADFORD, UK: Background Paper for COMPAS, University Of Oxford by Dr Simon Ross Valentine, which says; "The mid 1980s witnessed anti-Ahmadi riots in Bradford which received national press coverage" (p. 21). Apparently this was not a "race riot" but sectarian violence between different traditions within Islam. Alansplodge (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Does Mahabharata refer to any advanced technologies?

It seems to be a prominent notion on internet that some weapons in Mahabharata (Brahmastra) refers to nuclear weapon and I am pretty confused.--Peewhite (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Something at User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's an idea primarily put forward by Ancient Aliens, which can be easily debunked. People have to make a living somehow - even ex-footballers who are subsequently sacked from their TV job. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no limit to people's imagination, either that of the people in the past who made these stories, or that of the people who are trying to 'decipher' them. I can imagine that in 10,000 years, pseudohistorians will be pointing out passages from Harry Potter, saying, "Look! They MUST have had them in those far off days, too! Cleaning equipment that you can ride in the air with no visible propulsion system, and guided only by the (unmentioned) wi-fi connected chip in your brain - SAME AS US!" KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

From a quick search I found [8] - it sounds like this show was just out and out lying, which pisses me off. Even if your chosen field of study is nuclear interpretations of the Mahabharata, there is still an honest way to do it and a dishonest way to do it. We have an article on Brahmastra, incidentally. What's interesting is that "Drona Parva" does seem to be full of battle with various super-weapons. While I highly doubt that these are memories of nukes, it doesn't seem impossible that someone could have been inspired by some sort of meteorite impact or volcanic activity, or by lesser excesses of war technology from ancient times. What is interesting is that they could have had ideas of advanced, fiery weapons and of the moral issues that come with them. Wnt (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thou hast got to be shitting me. You just realized that shows like this are lying? Really? Really? And you realized this because they repeated a claim about the Mahabharata without checking it? It wasn't the claim that aliens built the pyramids, or that ancient people had nuclear weapons, or that Egyptians flew around in airplanes that set off alarm bells? --Bowlhover (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This dates back to Dayananda Sarasvati, who claimed to have found evidence of aircraft, steamships and modern weaponry in the Vedas. Of course, such claims are quite distinct from the real possibility that ancient cultures had technologies that were subsequently lost. That's quite common in human history. Paul B (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Are there any scientific evidences about nukes before human civilisation? I think one of the site I visited says there are some strange crystals, which can be found in nuclear expolsion sites, in an ancient city ruin--though the wording is very vague and I guess meteorite can have similar effects.--Peewhite (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Such crystals can be found in places where pottery was made. High temperatures 'melt' the sand into a glass-like texture, that's all. You can find them all over the world. The lack of a crater many miles wide, lack of radioactivity, and no sign of any destruction whatsoever, added to the presence of pottery shards and ancient human habitation are generally good indicators that it was not a site of a nuclear explosion (take a look at Wnt's first link above). Also, the biggest tell-tale sign that none of this happened, is the fact that physical evidence for their existence is 100% lacking. If someone had these bombs in the distant past, where are they now? If they disposed of them, they would still have left traces. If they have hidden them, somebody would know where they were, and then they would have been used sooner or later by some unscrupulous warlord. Helicopters, spaceships, death rays, etc., - WHY is there no physical evidence of any of this stuff? People have had imaginations for as long as they have been people. Just because the ancients said they believed in Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, YHWH, etc., does that MEAN they actually exist(-ed)? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I remember this from a misspent youth of reading crank books :-). The claim is that fused glass in the Sahara (and elsewhere, but mostly the Sahara) is the residue of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, as well as pottery, these can easily be caused by lightning strikes - see fulgurite. These do actually shine a light on mysterious ancient history of the region, but not in the same way; the appearance of lightning-strike effects in areas not currently seeing many thunderstorms tells us something about the ancient climate of those areas, which is summarised in the Paleolightning article. (Long story short: not nuclear weapons, but probably prehistoric monsoons). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Presidential primaries in 1964

Why received incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 only 17 percent of the primary votes and Gov. Pat Brown, who did not challenge the president for the nomination, far more votes? Isn't 17 percent a real bad record for a sitting president? I know that many states did not have primary elections in 1964, but why was LBJ nominated without opposition, despite he didn't win most of the primaries? Thanks. --92.227.81.98 (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The first, and most important, thing is that only 16 states had primary elections for the Democratic party. The rest of the states chose their representatives to the Democratic National Convention (where the actual nomination of the party's candidate occurs) via some form of caucus, which in many states amounts to "a bunch of old guys in a smoke filled room". Pat Brown's high popular vote in the primary elections can be explained by noting that a) Pat Brown was from California and b) Johnson was not even on the ballot in the California primary. Texas, the other really large state by population, and Johnson's home state didn't hold a Democratic Party primary election. Look, the easiest way to explain it is this: The modern Presidential Primary system didn't really exist nationwide in 1964, it only existed in a few states and even in those states, it didn't run the same way it does today. States had a mishmash of methods to select delegates to the Democratic National Convention, and most states didn't have widespread, formal primary elections whereby the general party voters got to have a say in who the delegates would be pledged to. I won't say such primaries were entirely meaningless in 1964. Just that they didn't have the formalized place in the election process they do today. --Jayron32 12:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1964. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Medieval Cavalry

Hey, I have three questions regarding cavalry in the middle ages. The first question I have asked once before here on wiki, two years ago or so, but I didn't get much answers, and despite my attempts I have found very little info about it myself. So I try again, hoping for more response.

1. Cavalry tactics obviously varied a bit depending on the time-period and from region to region, but generally, what we hear or read about is the Wedge-formation and cavalry being used vs infantry - then about how pikemen would counter the threat posed from cavalry. What I'm trying to find out about is Mounted knights vs mounted knights / Cavalry vs Cavalry. What formations would they adopt? If it was heavy vs light cavalry, then the light cav. would probably flee... but in a fair fight, then what? If, say 20 light vs 20 light or 20 heavy vs 20 heavy would clash, then how would they organize themselves, and would they adopt any formation at all? Whether they used a wedge or another tactic, one should think that they would basically cancel each other out, unless one of the sides knew a formation that the other didn't, one that was particularly effective. I guess the main reason why info is hard to come by on this subject is that battles with mounted vs mounted probably didn't occur so often.

2. Can you define the meaning of medium and heavy cavalry? Was it just that a horse was clad in armor and that the rider was also wearing heavy armor that made it 'heavy cavalry', or did it also depend on what type of horse (destrier, courser, rouncey...) it was and how the horse had been bred, trained and fed? As for what the horse was wearing; I occasionally see pictures and drawings of what is supposedly heavy cavalry horses, even when it has no armour. It might simply be dressed in cloth that covers its head and torso. Obviously, light Cavalry is easier to define; light armor, little weight, fast horse used for skirmishes/guerrilla warfare and scouting, or chasing. But where does that leave medium cavalry? Were most mounted units considered medium cavalry? The term 'medium cavalry' is perhaps less used than the other two, but when reading about these things the term is used relatively often anyhow, but it never seem to explain what makes a mounted unit medium cavalry. Same with heavy cavalry, which is why I hope someone can help define it for me?

3. The "cape" or "clothes for horses" that I mentioned above, covering its head and torso, what is it called? I once saw it referred to as a "baucant", but googling it or searching in various search engines provide nothing. All I have learned is that this word means "spotted horse" or something of the like, coming from old French; "bauçant". I'm sure there must be a word for it.

If it makes it easier, let's narrow it down to a shorter period rather than the entire middle ages - 1100 to 1250. Let's also mainly stay in Europe, especially France when it comes to heavy cavalry. France were famous for it. Let's also throw in Saracens and Moors, which were more known for their light cavalry and which were often enemies of Europeans. So that should give you an idea of where in the world I want to focus. Krikkert7 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Original miniature of a cavalry fight at Battle of Mohács in 1256. --hu:Rodrigo (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Although trained as a medievalist, I'm more of a literary guy than a military guy, so I don't think I can help much with questions 1 and 2. With regard to number 3, however, see the article Caparison (and see Barding for equine armor). Deor (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The medieval period ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Pikemen were very rare during the medieval period. The Swiss and their allies were the only users of medieval pikemen. Landsknechts adopted the pike in 1487 and the Scots after 1512. The pike and the sword and buckler were weapons of the early modern period.

1. Wedge was a relatively rare tactic as knights were not trained in it. Most knights attacked in line. Knights regarded infantry as beneath them and many knights would charge enemy knights on sight and without orders.

2. Light cavalry fought in loose formation or as skirmishers. Medium cavalry fought in close formation. Medium cavalry could be light cavalry in close formation. Heavy cavalry and knights fought in close formation. Most European cavalry would be heavy cavalry or knights, especially in the second half of the medieval period.
Sleigh (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

2. No, heavy cavalry wearing barding with knights in full armour are knights. Heavy cavalry is unbarded. Fully armoured knights on unbarded horses are heavy cavalry. The monks who drew the pictures of knights were in their monasteries during battles. The pictures drawn by monks are artist impressions.
Sleigh (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Like Deor, I'm a medievalist but not a military historian...my area is the crusades, which fall in exactly the period you mentioned, and they always involve a bit of military history of course!

Cavalry vs. cavalry battles did happen, but generally mounted knights were used to break a mass of foot soldiers. My impression is that cavalry would just charge directly at other cavalry in a line, rather than in a specific formation, but I'm not sure. I recall that it was hard to train a horse to do that - the horse wassn't as happy about certain death as a knight was.

Heavy cavalry could be an armoured knight on a horse (armoured or not), but it could also depend on the weapons he was carrying. Also, Byzantine armies had cataphracts, which were super-heavy. (Byzantine tactics were quite different from France, though.) The Turks were famous for their light cavalry, where unarmoured riders harassed heavier and slower cavalry with their bows and arrows. They were very destructive during the crusades. They often tricked western cavalry into charging at them, into abandoning any formation they may have had so that they would charge into an ambush. This is why my impression is that cavalry charges were random and had no particular tactic.

An example of a battle with mixed cavalry and infantry in the period you are asking about is the Battle of Bouvines. it seems evident that there was no real cavalry strategy there, just knights charging at each other. Probably what typically happened.

Fortunately there is some great literature about this subject, better than anything we can give you here:

David Nicolle, European Medieval Tactics: The Fall and Rise of Cavalry, 450-1260 probably has all the answers you're looking for. Nicolle is a military historian and lately he has been involved with writing a series of books aimed at non-professional readers, all published by Osprey.

There are also two books called Medieval Warfare, one by Maurice Keen and the other by Helen Nicholson, which you should also check out. I would also suggest Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades" by John France.

Adam Bishop (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I see two of you claim to be 'medievalists', which means you probably have a lot of knowledge about the middle ages, and insight into how certain things worked back then. Which could have proved helpful to me on several subjects. I thought I should try and write to you. I always thought that was possible, using the "talk" link next to a wiki-user's name, but I don't quite figure it out. Never done it before. If at all possible, it doesn't seem to be as straight forward as I thought. Krikkert7 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well leaving a message on a user talk page is basically the same as asking a question here. But if you would rather ask medieval history questions on the Reference Desk, there are always several people here who can help you out. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Not for Federal Use" Drivers License and Form I - 9

I am to start a new job tomorrow. I gave my drivers license to the HR person and was told that because my drivers license says "Not for Federal Use" and the I-9 Form was a federal document, I had to either provide my passport (which I don't have) or go to the DMV and pay the fee for a new drivers license that can be used federally. I believe, he was wrong and told him so. He said he was doing this for a long time and what he was telling me was correct. I told him that other forms of state ID were permitted and that his facility was a private company, not a federal building, and that I believe that clause was in reference to flying. How can we get the I-9 for changed to better convey this message to HR for dummies? Or is he totally right? Anxiously awaiting reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.80.103 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a request for legal advice. You should contact someone who knows what the law is in your jurisdiction, and not ask for dubious advice from random strangers on the internet. --Jayron32 19:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We cannot give legal advice. But I can direct you to the information given by the govt here [9], and recommend you look at the form carefully here [10], including List B item 1. Beyond that you'll have to sort it out with your own HR or legal counsel. Good luck, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal advice or not, I would like to know what "Not for Federal Use" means here! Maybe you're not allowed to drive a car on Federal property. —Tamfang (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that there's some controversy over how different states and organizations handle undocumented immigrants (dubbed "illegals" by racists). On the one hand, some people find that making sure that all drivers of vehicles are properly trained and certified by the state to be legal drivers is useful for the general welfare and well being of society as a whole, other people want to make sure that anyone who has come to the U.S. because life in their home country is a never-ending spiral of poverty and drug wars are plainly labeled so that we can deny them access to any hope of being integrated into American society. So West Virginia (not heretofore known as a bastion of progressive thinking) has decided that we solve this by clearly labeling the drivers licenses of such people so they know who they can discriminate against, and who they can treat with decency and respect. --Jayron32 11:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I thought that might be it. (I like to describe Those People as having failed to wait politely at the door marked CLOSED.) —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would note Jayron32's claims don't seem to really be supported by the sources provided by DOR below which suggest it's a matter of the federal government introducing REAL ID requirements for ID which they do and will require for various things. The federal government has tried to force states to ensure their ID comply via various means but not all agree. West Virginia appears to have taken a middle ground. They will introduce compliant IDs for those that want them but will keep the non compliant ones for those that don't. This is one of the issues that crosses the spectrum somewhat. In particular I expect there are plenty of genuinely racist anti immigration people who do in fact have 'not for federal use' WV IDs and hate the REAL ID ones with a passion.

I'm not saying WV is "a bastion of progressive thinking". From what I can tell, it will be difficult for an undocumented immigrant to obtain a licence in WV of whichever type despite WV being on the list of evil states from some sites opposed to such ideas. If I understand correctly, it may be possible for a documented WV immigrant to obtain such a licence and keep the non federal variety even after they no longer have proper documentation if they continually renew it. But does seems to be about it.

And there are states with such special licences e.g. [11], it's just that WV is even yet that 'generous'.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

See REAL ID Act and this example of how West Virginia explains it: http://www.transportation.wv.gov/dmv/drivers-licenses/Pages/default.aspx. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Did King Leonidas really kick a Persian emissary down a well?

As seen in famous "THIS IS SPARTA!" scene from the movie "300". Is this an actuall historical fact? Just wondering, thanks. --146.90.104.103 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. 300 isn't based on history, it's based on Frank Miller's hazy recollection of a movie he saw decades ago that was based on romanticized novels based on legends based on accounts written well after the war. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And then there's the consideration that dropping a body in the well is pretty much poisoning the local water supply. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reportedly. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Safer to kick someone into an abandoned well. Not that I know if they did. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's true or whether it was Leonidas personally but the Persian emissary down a well is an old claim. See Battle of Thermopylae#Background which references a translation of Herodotus at [12]. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Aye. What I meant was I didn't know whether it was a functional well. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

If they had experience with how far bodies go within the well's height when kicked off cliffs (to make sure he doesn't hit his head and is too injured do this), they could then throw him the bucket which he could then grab on to prevent drowning or starving to death (I'm not sure if you can sleep in water) and they could then decapitate him outside. Why would they stop using a well? Couldn't a dead body contaminate wells near the dirty well, too? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by near. Most modern North American places say you can't bury a body within 100 feet of a water supply. The actual safe limit, as with most official rules, is likely much lower. Considering just how routine and widespread dying in drinking water is (especially for fish), it's probably mostly an "eww" and "better safe than sorry" issue. When a woman was recently found rotting in a hotel cistern, a guest called the water taste "horrible" and "disgusting", but also "sweety" and "very funny". Flavour aside, he drank it for a week and didn't get sick. Nobody did, after 19 days. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Could always tie the bucket rope to the guy first, if you really don't want him staying there. Seems easier than having him survive and cooperate back up. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

But that would take all the artisticness out of it... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Basically, according to the best historical records we have, Persia sent an ambassador demanding submission, which at the time was in the form of "earth and water". (If you give earth and water then you have submitted to the greater power.) The Spartans, according to an Athenian account, said, "ok, we have some of each", and threw the ambassadors down a well. Herodotus does not mention kicks or any shouting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether Harold Godwinson knew that story when he offered Harald Hardrada "seven feet of English soil." —Tamfang (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, my recollection from a long-ago school lesson was that the ambassador/s was/were kicked into a ditch, rather than a well. I suspect the story has been repeatedly re-told and reworded. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you get a proper account already? If you can't think of a name, User:The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 appears to be available. —Tamfang (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For reasons of personal psychology which I explained at length around a year ago when someone else asked me the same thing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the story has been re-told and reworded over the years, because we have a near-contemporaneous source, i.e. Herodotus. Although he wouldn't have been in Sparta at the time, he would have had no difficulty getting in contact with people who had been. The ancient Greeks were quite diligent about keeping note of how different people were done away with, because it could have significant importance for those responsible and their descendants. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There are problems with the Herodotus account, which is not unusual for most accounts by Herodotus. At best it tells us that there was a story to that effect doing the rounds in his time. --Dweller (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me just note that the picture that comes into most people's head when they think of a "well" is not an accurate picture of most wells in ancient times. Most wells were large structures, perhaps 20 feet across or more, with stairs leading down into them. (That's because the only way to dig a well was to climb down into it and use a pick and shovel.) So getting a body out of a well would have been a pretty straightforward operation. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Sometimes I forget ancient aliens weren't actually lending their tools. Stupid TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

March 12

why does canada allow its ice hockey skaters to be so unprofessional as to fight?

why does canada allow its ice hockey skaters to be so unprofessional as to physically fight? This is not sanctioned in any other sport and is ridiculous. Aren't these people professionals? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They are not "allowed to fight". Fighting leads to penalties of various kinds, depending on the severity of it, just as in any other sport. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tradition. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's part of the game, although this is not official. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You do realize, that merely because you speak of something in a derisive tone, it doesn't actually change the nature of the thing of which you are speaking? If you want to know more about fighting in ice hockey, you can read the Wikipedia article titled fighting in ice hockey. We aren't really here to affirm your feelings, or to argue with you over their validity. We can provide historical and traditional context for the existence of fighting, but that's about it. --Jayron32 23:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Players from other countries fight too... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as noted in the Wikipedia article cited above, when they do, they are ejected from the game immediately, and face multi-game suspensions for doing so. In most North American professional leagues, they usually get a 5-minute penalty then can return to the ice. The difference in how professional leagues in other nations deal with fighting in hockey is real. Does that mean that there are never any fights in DEL or Elitserien or leagues like that? No, it doesn't. However, fights are much rarer; probably on par with fights in leagues like the NBA where the penalty for fighting is severe enough to deter it. The difference in fighting between European leagues and North American leagues is real, and the OP is right for noting such a difference. The only objection to make is that we should not make normative judgments one way or the other. --Jayron32 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fighting is, sadly, all too common in Australian rules football. While there are penalties, as often as not they're not imposed. By no means is it certain that the participants will be "ejected from the game immediately, and face multi-game suspensions". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I mean...I mean the NHL is not made up solely of Canadians. A Russian or an American gets five for fighting just like a Canadian. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And on reflection, it's not about what Canada does or doesn't "allow". It's what the National Hockey League "allows", i.e. what its rules are. The rules are not written by the country, but rather by the leagues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The national government could certainly stop it if they wanted. For example, announcing that "anyone who starts a fight during a game will be arrested immediately for assault" would put an end to it right quickly. Or they could give the league some time to stop the fighting by threatening to take action if they don't. I believe an approach similar to this was taken to end steroid use in US baseball (where the leagues similarly turned a blind eye to increase profits). StuRat (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If our government (especially this one) so much as hinted at banning hockey, they'd almost certainly be lynched for treason. Even fiddling with it is political suicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Most hockey fights are actually pretty tame. There are occasional injuries, as with other sports. Far as I know, there's no serious discussion about the government "banning" hockey or trying to nanny the sport in some way. And comparing to steroids is not really propr, as the steroids the athletes have used are illegal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Assault is illegal, too, especially assault with intent to cause great bodily harm. It's only the state and local governments deciding not to prosecute assaults that happen during hockey which allows it to continue. StuRat (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Blame Rob Ray for the tameness. They want to hurt each other, but like hopelessly tangled moose. Still a few slobberknockers, but they're much rarer. Not legally assault if two people consent. Not even disorderly conduct, because it's not public space. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

As for not being sanctioned in any other sport, were Georges St. Pierre and Razor Ruddock not professionals? Anyway, without fighting in hockey, huge defenseman could rough up tiny star scorers without fear of retribution. If that happens, scoring drops. If scoring and fighting drops, ratings and attendance drop.InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

It's about what the fans want to see. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was edit conflicted there. Sorry for making it seem like you repeated or affirmed me. You were first. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if the leagues set penalties low enough or don't enforce them, then they are not only allowing fights, but encouraging them. Note that the fights are televised, but wouldn't be if they didn't think it would garner more viewers.

So then, why do North American hockey fans want to watch players fighting ? One reason might be the blue-collar appeal of hockey in NA. "Gentlemen's sports" like golf, tennis, and cricket, presumably are less tolerant of fighting players. Is hockey more of a gentleman's sport outside NA ? StuRat (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. Is this a gentleman? Jim Cornette, maybe? This guy?InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't want to see all players fighting. Only the fighters. There's definite entertainment value in skating, puckhandling and shooting, too, and that shouldn't be screwed up by swollen eyes and broken hands. As to why, it's also why I watch UFC. 30% bloodlust, 70% investment in characters juxtaposed in one-on-one competition, legally and naturally fueled by adrenaline boosts. When things like cordiality and team reliance go out the window, it's a purer athletic contest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

The tradition of fighting in hockey is strong enough for Rodney Dangerfield to have noted "I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out." Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hockey players reach 30mph, right? Even Usain Bolt can only reach 28mph. That's faster than football. And on hard ice. Do they even wear pads (besides the goalies)? So fistfighting keeps huge, low hockey-skill players from bodyslamming Wayne Gretsky at the speed of a subway train. Of course they could actually start calling fouls, but they'd rather have a chivalrous gang-like solution (no sticks, no kicks, no helmets, no gloves, no sucker punches, no unwilling opponents). I believe I once read that if they made the rinks wider (to the width of a non-North American rink) the fighters would be out of a job due to insufficient playing ability. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are penalties, including for charging. The last few years, headshots are excessively frowned upon. Skaters wear a variety of protective ice hockey equipment. And there are many goons quite good at the other stuff. Gordie Howe has a hat trick named after him. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

The protective gear typically worn by players is discussed in Ice hockey equipment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The fighting will start to disappear when mothers start sending their sons to "less violent" sports. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Even minor league ballet audiences love a scrap. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, the penalties aren't real penalties (read: a joke) because you still need fighting to do some of their job. Whether running into players at full-speed is sufficiently discouraged by the penalties or not (I didn't know there were different kinds of body-checks, not all legal, I just thought rhe threat of fighting had kept the speed in check) there would clearly be an unacceptable level of roughness if the fighting punishment was strengthened (multi-game suspensions and large fines) but the other penalties were not, ergo the other penalties are too weak. Also, your article and it's comments almost agrees with me. The gist of the article I poorly remember might've just been that widening the rink would stack the deck against enforcers' existance, not eliminate them entirely. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of ways to hit someone illegally, with various consequences. See Section 6 of the rulebook. Whether they're too strict or too loose is a matter of preference, I suppose. But a penalty or fine is never going to send the same message a good punching will.

And yeah, I didn't mean to imply there aren't pure toothless aggression guys. Many of those, too. But it's not black-and-white. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

• They fight because no one ever charges them with assault or other criminal charges. Fighting would stop almost entirely if it led to a jail sentence. Ex-convict ex-hockey players don't have much in the way of prospects. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I take it you missed it when I said the exact same thing above. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

March 13

Other Countries With Equal Legislative Representation for Each State/Province/Et Cetera

The United States Senate has two Senators for each U.S. state regardless of the population of the states. Are and/or were there any other national (as opposed to local) legislative branches in any other countries which also have/had a similar principle/rule (each state/province/et cetera having the same number of seats in this national legislative branch regardless of the population of these states/provinces/et cetera)?

For the record, I know why the U.S. Senate has this provision--I simply want to know if any other countries have and/or had something similar to this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the first few entries in Federal Republic, Argentina and Brazil both have three senators per state, while Austria relates the number to population. Maybe it's a New World thing. Rojomoke (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In Canada each region of the country (comprising one or more provinces) has a set number of senators, with smaller provinces ending up with more representation than larger ones. It's not as strictly egalitarian as the U.S., Argentina or Brasil though: originally, it was 24 seats for Ontario, 24 for Quebec and 24 for the three maritime provinces; the five provinces that joined later were given 6 seats each (even though their population differs vastly) and each territory has one senator. See Senate of Canada for details. --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Australia has ten Senators from each of its six states, and two each from two internal territories. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It used to be 10, until it was increased to 12 in 1984. There are 76 senators. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, the Swiss Council of States (Switzerland's constitution was actually directly inspired by the United States Constitution). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Was there no earlier body where the half-cantons were half-represented? —Tamfang (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the body was/is the same, those six cantons (AI, AR, BL, BS, NW, and OW) still only have one representative instead of two. They're just no longer called half cantons officially, though the former "halves" still remain grouped next to each other in the constitution's first article, separated by the word "and" rather than a comma (see link). (Bad analogy, but imagine if the Dakotas, the Carolinas, and Virginia and West Virginia only got one senator per state. Then again, I'd also have to imagine the city of Bern having no representation in the Council of States). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you go right back to De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265 you can - unexpectedly - see this; the knights of each county sent two representatives, and the burgesses and aldermen of each borough selected two representatives. Neither was adjusted for population. The Model Parliament of 1295, seen as setting the standard for subsequent parliaments, again raised two seats from each county/borough/city - whether that was Yorkshire or Rutland. It wasn't until a lot longer that representation was clearly linked to population. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The way in which seats in Commons were apportioned is what led to the issue of rotton boroughs, whereby the population of a borough would shrink over the years to the point where the franchise in that borough was so small as to be silly. One example in that article had a voting population of 7 voters, and still got 2 MPs. --Jayron32 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your answers here. Futurist110 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

President of the US for a day

There's a legend that so-and-so, President Pro Tempore of the Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives, was president for a day because inauguration day was a Sunday and the president-elect preferred to wait until Monday. Who was it, and when? I thought it was George M. Dallas, but apparently not. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:BA27 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

David Rice Atchison. --Jayron32 15:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

St. Therese Statue search: Is there another one exactly like this in the world?

• 

This Statue depicts St. Therese the Little Flower “without the Crucifix and or the bouquet of Flowers”, as she is usually seen in a Statue Image as St. Therese the Little Flower. In my research on this question I have not found another Statue like this one. Might it be the only one still in existence? I have contacted the manufacturer of this Statue and other Statue manufacturers and suppliers from the Netherlands, United States and Australia and neither knows of any exact duplicate as this one. I am working to do a Genealogy study of this rare Statue and need your reference and help to determine if there is another like it in the (entire world). Most likely would be found in a Chapel or Church named in Honor of Saint Therese the Little Flower. I appreciate your help in my search for another Statue exactly as this one. Thank you for your help.Polkateer (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Where was your photo taken? The statue marking the spot in Lisieux cemetery where Therese was buried 1910-1923 (from [13]) does not have a cross or flowers. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the top leadership at Wegmans religious?

A friend who works there told me all the worker staff like stockers and cashiers get time and a half for all hours worked on Sundays, whether or not they've reached overtime. Does the top ownership of Wegmans openly profess religious reasons for this? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Wegmans, it's a family-owned business, and it might be their opinion that having to work on a Sunday is a burden. This would seem to be a more flexible alternative to a place like Chick-fil-a, which is closed on Sundays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just curious if the multimillion-dollar business decision was driven by a rational cost/benefit analysis or mythology. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bible says not to work at all on the sabbath, not to get time-and-a-half for doing so. As far as a cost/benefit analysis, a significant portion of the staff won't want to work on Sundays, for religious reasons or just wanting to be with their families on weekends, so offering them extra pay is a way to offset that. Not doing so is likely to lower morale, and/or cause resentment by those forced to work Sundays, and poor morale can lead to lower profits. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Here in the UK (thus not necessarily a good answer to your question), evidence seems to support StuRat's answer. A form I can fill out has at least a dozen different overtime rates, including higher rate for Sunday than Saturday, higher rate for before 6am on Sunday than after, markedly even higher rates on Christmas Day, and so on and so forth. (There's also matching rates for being on call across various times, and more rates yet again if you actually get called while being on call on particular days.) This is not for religious reasons, it's either because people expect it (as Stu says) or because some EU/UK rule demands it. Obviously in the USA it's not the latter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the main thrust of the question here is "whether or not they've reached overtime". This is a meaningless concept to me, and perhaps even to some in the USA. I didn't get paid extra for being on call until I had completed certain requirements to do that job. But if I'd come into the office at a weekend, even to do more basic tasks, I would've expected the weekend uplift for working outside my normal contracted hours.

Work in the EU, you will like it! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Little-"o" office of the Vice President

Is there a named, or otherwise well known, office of the Vice President of the United States? I mean the veep's version of the Oval Office, not the veep's version of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:BA27 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Before 1961, there were two offices: A formal office in the United States Capitol, and a working office in the Russell Senate Office Building. Since then, the formal, or "ceremonial" office is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building while the "working" office is in the West Wing of the White House. This is all in the article Vice President of the United States in the section titled "Growth of the Office" but it took some digging to find. You can see on this map here the location of the Veep's working office in the White House. --Jayron32 18:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Life on the Canals in 1800's

Please can you help me.. I know that my grandmother's parents were living/working in a barge on the West London Canal (Brentford)...as I cannot find any birth record for Nan on the UK Births/Deaths/Marriage records..was it possible she was not registered....was it maybe not mandatory to register births in the 1800's???..her siblings were all registered...but by then they were living in a house....I did obtain a marriage certificate for my great grandparents 1885...but my Nan born in that year is nowhere on the register...Thank you for your assistance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.63.47 (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

According to our article General Register Office and other sources, it became compulsory to register births in 1875 in England and Wales. In that year, a fine of £2 (more than £100 at present-day values) was imposed for non-registration. However, it isn't clear how the authorities discovered and penalized unregistered births. It's possible that your grandmother was registered but that she was registered under a different name than you know. It's possible that her registered given name, for example, was different than the one she was known by, or that there was a misspelling. Marco polo (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And, since you said she was born the same year they were married, if it was less than 9 month later, they might have not wanted an official record of that, as it was a big deal then. So, they might have given a later date for the birth or not have registered it at all. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Longest incarceration

I was quite surprised to see that the perpetrator in the Murder of Kitty Genovese is still alive, is still in prison, and has been in prison since 1964 (a total of 50 years). I never gave it much thought, but I guess I had always assumed that Charles Manson and his crew have maintained the longest incarceration (in the United States), since those crimes were in 1969. So, is there any way of knowing who is the longest-incarcerated prisoner in the USA? And the longest-incarcerated prisoner anywhere else? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Sirhan Sirhan just came to mind. His crime pre-dated the Manson murders by a year or so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about living prisoners, but we have articles on Paul Geidel and William Heirens, who spent over 68 and 65 years respectively in custody. The latter article seems to be wrong in describing Heirens as "reputedly the world's longest serving prisoner", though I suppose he could be reputedly, if not actually; and to confuse matters Geidel spent much of his time in a "Hospital for the Criminal Insane", and the last six years inside were by his own choice as he didn't want to leave despite being granted parole. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

When I read the William Heirens article, I took that statement to mean that he was the longest-serving prisoner at that time. In other words, his incarceration was the longest currently being served, despite others having (historically) served longer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This CNN article supports Heirens as the longest incarcerated prisoner, at least as of October 2009. --Jayron32 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"reputedly the longest serving prisoner" The sources say "is", very deliberate present tense. They claimed only that at the time of publication, he was the longest serving prisoner still in prison, and not that he was the longest serving prisoner ever. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, who served longer? --Jayron32 01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

More evidence for Heirens: Richard Honeck once held the record for the longest prison term, and his article notes the date that Heirens broke his record. --Jayron32 01:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's still accurate, I just could not find a source that stated it so definitely. I do not personally believe that Geidel counts - if his final years in prison were voluntary, I would not consider that "incarceration". Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it is a misnomer that he remained in prison "voluntarily". People probably get the impression that his sentence was finished; the warden said "OK, you can leave now"; and the prisoner said "I don't want to leave, may I please stay?"; and the warden said "OK, fine, you can stay. We won't kick you out." I doubt that is what happened; in fact, I doubt that that is even legal. What probably happened is: his sentence was not done; he still had some time remaining to serve; they offered him parole; he refused the parole offer. That's what I suspect. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has a list of the longest ever incarceration terms. Geidel is first, but if you want to throw that one out, then the winner according to that list is Johnson Van Dyke Grigsby, followed by Heirens. The article is updated as of Oct 2013, as Heirens died in Dec. 2012, that means that Grigsby would still hold the record (if you discount Geidel). --Jayron32 01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The longest serving prisoner in Britain ever is John Straffen, who was in custody from 9 August 1951 until his death on 19 November 2007, with the tragic exception of three hours on the morning of 29 April 1952. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 14

Does Dhritarashtra in Mahabharata relate to Dhṛtarāṣṭra in Buddhist mythology, or they just share a name?

--58.251.146.130 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know directly, but it would not be surprising, as Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. In much the same way that Christianity was founded on the teachings of a Jewish figure, Jesus Christ, and as a result incorporates elements of Judaism in its teachings and scriptures, Buddhism was founded on the teachings of a Hindu figure, Siddhartha Gautama, and also incorporates older elements of Hindu teachings in places (compare, for example concepts such as Dharma and Nirvana appear in both Hinduism and Buddhism, and there is a lot of crossover in mythological figures between the faiths. Which is not to say that the Mahabharata king Dhritarashtra is the same person as the Heavenly King Dhṛtarāṣṭra, I don't know enough to say that it is or is not; except to say that it would make sense if they were the same figure. --Jayron32 04:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Monier Monier-Williams lists eight people from the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures with this name, and states that some lexicographers identify one with another. But in the end, nobody really knows.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange: No interwiki link to "Vollzugslockerung"

Vollzugslockerung (literally: loosening the conditions of the prison term) means all "favors" which a prisoner can earn, if he/she behaves in a way which might indicate that (s)he is really making an effort to change his/her life and behaviour. These privileges - e.g. working and being trained at a factory outside of the prison, being allowed to spent an unsupervised weekend out of prison with his/her family, attending a family event etc. - are defined and executed regionally. They are supposed to help the prisoner - while serving his/her term - to reintegrate into society after (s)he is released.

Question: Is there an American or British expression for this term? What do I have to search for? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

D'OOOOH! Found it: Open prison. Case closed. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, we also have Home Detention Curfew or "electronic tagging" and Release on Temporary Licence but there doesn't seem to be an umbrella term that unites the three. See the rather wonderfully named firsttimeinprison.co.uk - isn't the internet a splendid thing? Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And also of course "day release" and "probation" but I have no idea how either of those relate to any of the other concepts mentioned. I think there's a third that I've forgotten. Also "conjugal visits" which are controversial sometimes. Or did I imagine that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Banana producer logo

I remember seeing a banana sticker logo featuring a girl with a wreath or a flower on the head (not Chiquita), but can't find the producer's name (perhaps from Ecuador, but not sure). The girl looked downwards and was depicted at chest level or so. Brandmeister^talk 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember such a logo. She had a flower with maybe 5 petals in her hair, as I recall. Not sure if it was on bananas though. StuRat (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this bible code accidential or from God?

Similar question already asked and answered above. This is not a forum for speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quote from what I need "One cited example is that by taking every 50th letter of the Book of Genesis starting with the first taw, the Hebrew word "torah" is spelled out. The same happens in the Book of Exodus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC) See Texas sharpshooter fallacy, especially the second example of the "Examples" section. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Hi! There's a third possibility! For example, acrostics are not accidental, and they don't come from God. They're just written that way. (On purpose). Someone could have written it that way on purpose. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC) The question makes too many assumptions about what defines an accident and what defines God's will, and therefore any attempts to answer it merely reflect one's own definition for each rather than the actual question. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you show the text hilighting every 50th letter in bold?

Where is torah spelt out in the hebrew bible code in (Leviticus), (Numbers), and (Deuteronomy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No we can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean, to pick every 50th letter of the Bible? It seems to be a task for the computing RD. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've always been intrigued by the idea of a sneaky, tricky, puzzler god. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Greeks had one: Hermes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Loki was always in the center of trickery, although a bit eccentric. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Senator for two states?

Inspired by rumors of Scott Brown running in New Hampshire: has anyone ever served as a US senator for more than one state over their career? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

James Shields is the only one to have served as Senator for three states. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm the Biological Father.

I am a 25 year old man, living in texas with no children. In january 2014. I impregnanted a woman, She told me I was the biological father. She has been married since may of 2013, she separated in december 2013 but has not yet filed for divroce. She has recently started filing the paperwork and got a notary between her and her husband, saying that she is NOT pregnant(When they both know that she is pregnant because I Told the husband that she was.) In texas, If you are getting a divorce you have to clarify that you are not pregnant, because if you are married and have a child, the husband is legally the father. Now, since she is willing to lie to the court, she is willing to lie to anyone. On march 12, 2014 she broke up with me saying that it is not my child and that I need to leave her alone because she is getting back with her husband because he loves her. Im not sure if they are still getting the divorce, or if they are actually staying married. I need to know if there is anything I need to do ( such as get a attorney) regarding Paternity of the child. Because I do not want any Surprises in the Future.