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

May 5

The long arm of the victim

Isn't her arm huge ? It's as big as his leg. Was she supposed to be an Amazon, was he a midget, or was Cezanne not good at perspective yet ? StuRat (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Like another famous post-impressionist, Van Gogh, Cezanne deliberately distorted proportion in many of his paintings (perhaps in this case to emphasize something grotesque or monstrous). There's a brief discussion of this technique here [1]. OttawaAC (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to that article. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a different source that will tell you a bit about Cezanne's approach.[2] “The young Cézanne wanted to make people scream,” says French art historian Jean-Claude Lebensztejn. “He attacked on all fronts, drawing, color, technique, proportion, subjects . . . he savagely demolished everything one loves.” OttawaAC (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a deliberate distortion of proportion for artistic effect. My favorite example of this kind of thing, not by an Impressionist and not remotely for the same purpose, is what Mantegna did in Lamentation over the Dead Christ, in which Jesus has very teeny, tiny little feet. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Awww... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at this cold, with no context or formal training, I'm pretty sure that little red woman has the big red guy wrapped around her tiny finger, and has had this gargantuan slain over some minor slight. Meanwhile, her husband stands by, almost featureless, but betraying an ever so faint look of regret, since he had loved the giant, after she had saved him from bandits. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

It appears I was probably mostly wrong. Just skimming through that article, I can't really tell what's going on. I like how it has a character named "Blonde", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

And now I see I may have been misled by the vague term "Die Entführung", and this has probably nothing to do with that. Do we even know for sure that she's a she? Men get abducted sometimes. Still, that's a pretty big arm. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia (sort of) says "Subjects of his paintings from this period are portraits of family members or demonic-erotic content in which resonate own traumatic experiences. Examples are The Abduction and Murder." So maybe she is he himself. Was Cézanne ever abducted? Anyway, thanks for sharing this, Stu. Never heard of the guy, but he's pretty good, in a Night Gallery way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

From The Fitzwilliam Museum, which holds this painting: "The subject of this painting has been much discussed. One theory identifies the figures as Hercules and Alcestis, whom he has rescued from the Underworld. However, it is more generally believed that it represents the abduction of Proserpine by Pluto, as recounted in Ovid’s Metamorphoses." John M Baker (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Die Entführung (formally "The Kidnapping", though the word can also mean Abduction or Elopement) is one of several works depicting naked male and female figures in explicit erotic contact that Paul Cézanne painted in his dark period 1861-1870 including The Rape, The Murder (depicts a man stabbing a woman who is held down by his female accomplice), The Orgy, Afternoon in Naples with Black Servant and later Bacchanal (Der Liebeskampf) (1875-80). When an artist has used such extreme contrast and distorted figures to bring a female hand into stroking range of the male's genitals at the geometrical center of the canvas, peu des innocents, bien évidemment, c'est de donner une branlette! 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that, but yeah, it is just hanging low enough. Not sure I'd call it "explicit" if someone has to point it out, but somewhat "erotic". On that note, I still wouldn't see a woman at all, if Stu hadn't planted that seed in my head. She looks a bit like Gérard Depardieu, who was apparently in Get Out Your Handkerchiefs (written "from the middle") and The Left-Handed Woman (directed by Peter Handke). Or perhaps a great-grandma Roussimoff. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

effect of gold influx,

Hi, during times of pure gold standard, and where gold was the standard "currency", have there been cases of a large 'inflation' or other 'printing of money' simply by virtue of huge stores of gold being discovered and brought into the economy? (Example, maybe columbus pillaged a lot of gold from north america, and that sort of thing). If so, what was the result? Was it very similar to inflation of the money supply as happens by fiat? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would have tended to cause inflation, but there would also be a stabilizing effect due to gold, unlike paper money, being useful in itself. So, if the cost of gold went down, more people would use it for jewelry, utensils, false teeth, etc., and that additional demand would keep the price from dropping too low. So, unlike with fiat money, you wouldn't get an inflationary spiral, just a one time jump to a new level. See Inflation#Gold_standard. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that its value as money was always far above its alternative uses - so the alternatives didn't really matter or help prop it up? Much the same way as dollar bills have an alternative use as pillow stuffing material but this usage is hardly going to prop it up... likewise if the alternative uses have a lower price than gold as money, they aren't going to prop up the price of gold... You mention that there are specific cases of a one-time jump due to gold influx. Could you mention them? Did they happen during the california gold rush, for example? Discovery of the new world? Etc. Thanks. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gold certainly has more intrinsic value than paper money. The goal would of course be to make gold coins worth more than the value of the gold, because otherwise people might just melt down the coins and use the gold directly. However, if the price were to drop rapidly, then it would hit that level.

As far as periods with a large influx of gold into an economy, I'd look at when Spain extracted shiploads of gold from the Americas, using slave labor for mining. They expected it to help their economy to a huge degree, but it didn't seem to help as much as they expected, in part due to inflation, leading them to lose power relative to England and others (the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 didn't help either). StuRat (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See Price revolution for documentation on the effects of Spanish treasure fleets carrying gold (and silver) from the Americas to Europe. As far as intrinsic value, paper money can't really be worth more than the paper it's printed on — the ink doesn't make the paper more useful if people won't take it as a medium of exchange. In fact, it might be worth less than blank paper, simply because you can't really print anything on dollar bills, but you can print useful stuff on blank paper. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon where his pointy-haired boss admired him for taking briefcases full of paperwork home each night, to which he replied "It gives me a warm feeling, sir". Later that night we see him shoveling it into his fireplace. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, it was "181 tons of gold and 16,000 tons of silver Spain got between 1500 and 1650 from the New World. Not a good time to be a Spanish vampire. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you thinking of silver bullets ? Those were the legendary method used to kill werewolves, not vampires. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the best way to kill a vampire is with a werewolf. Vampires would have had it good. IBE (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Some vampires don't like small change, e.g. Blade's nemeses and Truly Bloody ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Silver was traditionally considered "pure" and used to ward off various evils. The whole silver bullet thing was more of a Hollywood addition to the werewolf myth. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

212.96.61.236 -- Over the course of the nineteenth century, economic activity was increasing faster than available gold, so that there was a long-term slight deflationary trend, periodically counteracted by discoveries of gold. For those who think that deflation is a bad thing, the periodic gold-rushes were in fact overall positive (though economically it would have been even better if expansions in the money supply could have been timed appropriately, instead of occurring randomly with respect to cycles of bust and boom). The whole "bimetallism" controversy in the United States during the late 19th century was mainly about those who wanted to pursue non-deflationary debtor-friendly policies vs. those in favor of creditor-friendly policies (even if slightly deflationary) -- see the Cross of Gold speech, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Our article Spanish Empire notes the inflationary impact of the sudden inflow of New World gold and silver:

“During the 16th century, Spain held the equivalent of US$1.5 trillion (1990 terms) in gold and silver received from New Spain. Ultimately, however, these imports diverted investment away from other forms of industry and contributed to inflation in Spain in the last decades of the 16th century: "I learnt a proverb here", said a French traveler in 1603: ‘Everything is dear in Spain except silver’.”

There’s more in Economic history of Spain#Gold and silver from the New World:

” However, the large volumes of precious metals from America led to inflation, which had a negative effect on the poorer part of the population, as goods became overpriced. This also hampered exports, as expensive goods could not compete in international markets.”DOR (HK) (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Gold standard and redeeming the "physical" metal

From what I understand, a gold standard is supposed to create a degree of financial stability, due to the fact that gold, unlike paper money, cannot be printed, thus limiting inflation.

My question is, in those economies which had a gold standard (or a hypothetical but unlikely future one), would the system be able to cope with someone hoarding the currency, then going to the central bank and saying "stand and deliver (the physical metal)"? Or would all hell break loose, of the sort seen on Silver Thursday? The Hunt brothers hoarded silver futures contracts, representing physical silver which in fact did not exist. When they demanded physical delivery, Silver Thursday was the result. What would stop a gold standard economy from developing similar issues (such as a run on the physical metal), other than an Executive Order 6102 style ban on citizens owning physical gold (which was a rather dictatorial measure)? Could a government allow physical redemption by citizens, and still have a gold standard survive? (I'm aware that under the U.S. system, the only ones who could physically redeem were foreign governments, and, as I said, "common citizens" were banned from even owning significant quantities of gold. I'm curious how other gold-standard economies worked, or how they could / would hypothetically work). 124.180.75.84 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem you describe occurs only when the gold standard operates alongside a paper currency, fractional reserve banking, and legal tender rules obliging creditors to accept paper currency in lieu of gold. If, instead, only gold itself is legal tender (perhaps alongside silver, paper, or other media at their market exchange rates to gold), the problem you describe cannot occur. Otherwise, variants of the problem you describe tend to occur, such as the financial crisis of the 1930s, the Panic of 1907, and others. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't a paper currency be literally a gold standard, if the slips represent gold directly? Or does a "gold standard" mean that people actually trade in physical gold and not paper redeemable for gold? (Meaning that if you are in a country with a pure gold standard, by definition your wallet must contain gold coins - if it contains state-backed currency that is not 100% gold - but represents it - then you are not living in a gold standard country??) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, paper currencies can be linked to a gold standard, but unless they are strictly limited to the amount of gold that backs them, they can lead to "runs" that result in the failure of the bank that issues the paper. Marco polo (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Marco polo is right when he says that if only gold is legal tender then problems of the Bunker Hunt variety cannot occur. They also cannot occur if the currency is on a gold standard (i.e. the coins are minted in some base metal, but set at a fixed rate to gold) or on a pure gold exchange standard. However, he has misled you by implying that the Panic of 1907 would have been averted if gold had been the only legal tender. It is almost certainly the case that a gold-based currency was a principal cause of the Panic of '07, and it is likely that if the only currency in use had been gold coins the problems of that time would have been far worse. It is also likely that a rigid adherence to the gold standard was an important contributory factor to other financial crises of the pre-Bretton Woods era, including the problems of the 1930s. The balance of evidence is that use of a gold standard made the Great Depression worse and longer-lasting than it might otherwise have been. RomanSpa (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Heard this podcast from the BBC's show Analysis, which informs very directly upon the questions you are asking, a few years back. Took me more than half an hour to track this bloody thing down again, but I was not to be denied! :) Snow talk 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Now to answer your original question: if a government were to run a gold standard, and be faced with a sudden large delivery of gold with the request that it be turned into money, would the gold standard survive, and what would happen following such an event? Fortunately, we can answer that question directly from history, by considering the California Gold Rush of the late 1840s/early 1850s. At that time the US government did indeed allow deliveries of gold to be paid for directly with paper currency. Many readers will have seen scenes in cowboy films in which a grizzled prospector turns up at a redeeming institution (at first a merchant, later a banking institution, and later still a representative of the San Francisco Mint) with a gold nugget, has it assayed, and walks away with a wallet full of coins or bills. If this money stays in the prospector's wallet, there is no change to the economy at large: all that has happened is that the government has some more gold in a vault somewhere, and there has been no increase in the currency in circulation. The government and the economy can cope with this quite easily. However, money tends not to stay in prospectors' wallets (nor in most other people's!), but ends up getting spent. At this point there is more money in circulation in the economy, but there has been no increase in production or economic activity elsewhere - there are the same number of goods available to buy. With more money chasing the same number of goods, there will be price inflation. This causes problems for the government, which has its economic plans disrupted, and for every citizen, because everything suddenly costs more. As you will see from our article on the gold standard, particularly note 54, "Soaring gold output from the California and Australia gold rushes is linked with a 30 percent increase in wholesale prices from 1850 through 1855". The economic side-effects thereafter become many and complicated, ranging from changes in trade patterns (the USA became more reliant on foreign-produced food as a result of the California Gold Rush) to increased levels on inequality and a years-later decline in wealth based on individual merit (as inherited wealth for the children of the lucky few increases), with concomitant falls in later GDP growth. Mercifully, the world's move away from the gold standard protects us from problems of this kind.

It is important to note that you have been misled about the effects of the gold standard: it does not provide particular financial stability, which is part of the reason why the great majority of professional economists do not support its return. A good simple explanation of this point is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/ . You'll see that the article specifically notes that "exactly zero economists endorsed the idea" in a poll carried out at that time, and the situation has not changed in the intervening two years. It is notable that the two most prominent advocates of a gold standard in the USA are an obstetrician and an ophthalmologist: neither has any economic training. RomanSpa (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any sources on why it's considered acceptable in gold standard economies for there not to be a direct 1:1 correspondence between the paper currency and the precious metal represented? It seems like there would be a solid legal basis for seeing anything else as fraud on the part of the issuing bank. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• The problem that the OP describes actually happened, but at the level of nations rather than individuals. When every nation was on the gold standard, it was essential for a nation to have sufficient gold reserves to back its currency. But starting in the 1920s, as economies expanded, a worldwide gold shortage developed, and nations with weaker economies experienced a steady outflow of gold, until eventually their reserves were insufficient and they were forced, one after another, to abandon the gold standard. Looie496 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How did Ireland become christian before Britain?

It seems to run counter to logic because Ireland is further away from mainland Europe and the Roman Empire from which christianity spread to the rest of Europe. Also Ireland was never conquered by the Roman Empire while Britain was. It seems logical that Britain would become christian first, then spread westward to the Irish isles. ScienceApe (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

On what basis are you assuming that Ireland become Christian before Britain? The late Romano-British were certainly mostly Christians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] In fact, Christianity did reach Britain before it reached Ireland. St. Patrick was British. See Romano-British culture. Unlike Ireland, however, most of Britain experienced conquest by the pagan Anglo-Saxons, who drove the mostly Christian Britons into pockets in Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, and Strathclyde. Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

But it says over here, [[3]] that irish missionaries sent from Iona, converted many Picts. Also I recall reading that the runic alphabet was replaced by the latin alphabet due to the influence of irish missionaries. ScienceApe (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also it says over here, Anglo-Saxon Christianity, "The history of Christianity in England from the Roman departure to the Norman Conquest is often told as one of conflict between the Celtic Christianity spread by the Irish mission, and Roman Christianity brought across by Augustine of Canterbury." ScienceApe (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Briefly: the Romano-British became Christian when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire. The Picts, beyond the frontiers of the empire, did not. Neither did the English, who had not yet settled in Britain. Ireland was converted by Romano-British missions, including that of St Patrick, in late Roman and early post-Roman times. After the Romans left, the English, who were pagan, gradually took control of what's now England over the course of a couple of centuries. The Welsh, the remnant of the Romano-Britons, were in no position to convert them because they were at war with them, so the conversion of pagans in Britain was mostly left to the Irish, until the Pope sent Augustine on a special mission to convert the English. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup - though 'English' is an anachronism in this context. 'Anglo-Saxons' it the preferred term (though even that is a simplification). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Our article Celtic Christianity gives an overview. Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 6

Business speeches

In business/sales presentation, to about 50 people, is it correct to use a casual conversational tone as if you were talking to them? I hear many people exaggerating in these kinds of presentations and they just seem unnatural and too rehearsed, as if they're reading a script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.46.182 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OR and personal opinion here, but the presentations I've attended in the past have left more of an impression on me if the speaker is more conversational than if they are just delivering a script. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Should one sound authoritative or casual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.246.99 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think one should sound authoritative and business-like, while still managing to be conversational. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the most important things in any business speech is to convey the sense that you know what you're talking about; that you have your facts in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That also applies more broadly, e.g., when answering WP ref desk questions. Pity is that some people think all they need to do is to sound authoritative, without being bothered with anything so trivial as references. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How many business meetings have you attended? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Many, btw. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, a good source for how to do speaking (if you can find it) is a book by Charles Osgood. And my old English teachers (can't recall their names just now) consistently made the point that any business communication, be it written or spoken, needs to be crisp and to the point. Also, "knowing your audience" is key. The conversational style that the OP asks about is widely prevalent in the US. It's informing as opposed to preaching. But that approach may not be culturally acceptable in other places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of OR (I do a LOT of public speaking), the following are critical: know your subject; know what your audience already knows or expects to hear (don’t pitch it over their heads or speak down below their level of knowledge); know how much time you’re allocated; and know what you’re going to do with interruptions or questions at the end.

As for the style, to each his/her own. Be yourself, or it will come across as phony.

Much depends on the nature of the meeting and presentation. If one is speaking to colleagues about progress on a project, factual presentation followed by an opinion as to likely next steps or outcomes would be appropriate. If one is educating (e.g., speaking at a conference), it is important to structure the talk into sections that lead the listener from one point to the next and finally to a conclusion.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Refer to any presentations by Steve Jobs (see YouTube), though those were certainly directed at many more than 50 people. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't many sports like accuracy?

Sprinters wear completely useless bling that by my math should make them lose races. Rarely, but still.

Soccer doesn't do the simple thing of making sure that a goal is really a goal and that even cost countries World Cups. And they still almost didn't change it. Tradition!, they cry. With cricket and baseball that I get but how can you complain about ruining the timeless tradition of a bloke just guessing when your goals, net, ball, clothes and boards are made of plastic and covered with Emirates logos? And your boards are HD displays?

They had that stupid ball that they didn't even bother to test so that the footballers found out it moved like a knuckle ball in the middle of competition. Said that it flew like a cheap ball from a third world country's supermarket [paraphrase]

They have the referee pull the amount of time to add out of his a** (in whole minutes) when the winning goal could come in the last seconds (okay, we know it won't happen - ever - ever, ever - like watching a circle of 600 men shoot the center and seeing a ring of 600 fused bullets pop out of thin air and fall, just kidding).

I thought this was ridiculous as a kid but why don't they have people in a booth each watching a small enough number of things that they absolutely can't miss anything visible in real time and blow the whistle accordingly. And have people watch it again in slow-motion with freeze-frame and frame-by-frame capability and fine everything the in-game refs miss? Like basketball, I don't think the refs can humanly catch every elbow, shove, flop, exaggeration and 1cm out-of-bounds plus zone defense (when illegal), slight palming, count the steps since the last dribble and keep several running counts of mississippis for everyone in the key.

I've come to not mind rules like you have to appeal not touching a base but if the 8 year old me way was the only I remember then I wouldn't have a clue that some people thought this was excessive. Top league 2100s sports will probably be refereed like this. Maybe even for the things that aren't even part of the game and hurt no one like baseball coaches slightly exiting the coaches box. Maybe not. The game wouldn't be slow because everyone would be more careful and not try to get away with stuff (like American football holding etc.) They would have to do it with reduced post-game fines first to not slow the game down or punish adjusting players too much. Possibly start with warnings.

Also, why did Test cricket adopt video referee before major league baseball despite Test looking more traditional (to my limited knowledge)? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sports are not sentient beings. They don't like anything. People are sentient beings. Do a google search for "video replay in baseball" and you'll get many people's opinions on why (or why not) video replay should (or should not) be used in baseball. Repeat for any sport you want. --Jayron32 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly, these things are anybody's guess, since there's no precise answer to a "why" question unless the issue was discussed at the time. When they introduced video replays for test cricket, I'm fairly sure consistency with major league baseball wasn't an issue, so there is no reason why the order should be consistent. But, the most likely factor is that test cricket has to compete for spectators, not just with other sports of course, but with everything. Soccer doesn't have to worry about that, and baseball seems fine as well. IBE (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a question of being traditional or not: there is a strong current of thought that sports should be performed by humans and not determined by technology. The referees are human, as are the players, and neither will be perfect all the time. If you cannot accept that at some level, then sports - and team sports especially - may not be for you; there are other pursuits where perfection is the goal. Now, technology has grown by leaps and bounds recently and its application is no longer so intrusive, which is why you see things like baseball adopting instant replay or tennis with the "eagle eye". Video evidence has long been used to determine things like suspensions for players who sneak dirty hits out of the referee's sight (here's a random example [4]), so one of your example is already in place. What tends to raise opposition is introducing technology within a sport that fundamentally changes the way it is played: e.g. football (soccer) is not supposed to have interruptions, so introducing video review changes the nature of the game; not so in American football or baseball where there is a natural pause between each play, or in ice hockey where interruptions are plenty anyway, so adding one more does not change things.

Ah, I get football now, thanks. But they say GOAL!, GOAL!, GOAL!, GOAL!, GOAL!, GOAL! for at least 10 seconds, celebrate, and then have to reset the ball, so that's a stoppage of play. And if by "the players being human" you mean stuff like a player taking one base when they could've taken two or making a mental mistake, then I just see that as just another skill the game tests. Why if everyone could do what their current bodies could do then everyone with sufficient fitness would be better than Pele, we'd literally have at least a million of them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The stoppage is still very brief; they don't take a two-minute commercial break after a score as they would in American football or ice hockey. --Xuxl (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In the Premier League there is technology that says whether it's a goal or not. The ref wears a watch which flashes red if a goal is scored. It takes all of a second. The reason this isn't used else where? All I'll say is Sepp Blatter.Dja1979 (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Lets take baseball as an example. Lets say an onfield umpire calls a ball "foul" when it should have been "fair". If it had been fair, players on base may have tried to advance, but being foul they could not. If replay shows that it should have been "fair" after the fact, how do you simulate the play from the point from where the call was made badly? --Jayron32 13:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. There are provisions for umpires to then place baserunners where they think they would have ended up if the right call had been made, but that's subjective, and in fixing one problem, you introduce another. Technology is not always a panacea. --Xuxl (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind that, at least it's still a fair ball. A World Series could be lost on a fair ball being called foul. At least his team has a chance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, to give a specific example, you're talking about Game 2 of the 2009 ALDS between the Yankees and the Twins [5]. That generated a lot of controversy (along with a couple other doubtful calls that postseason) and was a major step in getting baseball to start moving on the issue of instant replay. --Xuxl (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

With cricket, a driving force was the approach to televising matches taken, first by Kerry Packer's circus, and then by Sky Sports. Both these broadcasters brought in things like stump mics, and more than one camera at each end - hey I'm old enough to remember one camera per match in England! Also the invention of Hawkeye, which was able to give a prediction of how the ball might have continued in its trajectory had it not have hit the batsman's leg first, not to mention super slo-mo cameras that could see whether the catch was cleanly taken or whether it hit the ground first, and then there was Snicko that could tell you whether the ball had hit the outside edge of the bat... Because the broadcasters were replaying incidents and commenting on whether the umpires had got it right - and then if they hadn't got it right, covering it in the print media which they also owned, the administrators were being made to look foolish by not introducing technology to assist the umpires. Even now there are series where there is no (or very little) assistive technology and India seem very reluctant to approve its use for some reason. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The first rule in any "How to Be an Umpire" book is "Get the call right." Unfortunately, that has not always been the prevailing philosophy at the professional level. If the guy who botched the call in that non-perfect game a few years ago had consulted his colleagues, or better yet if they had spoken up, it could have turned out right. In the 2004 ALCS, when A-Rod was called out after umpire consultation when he slapped the ball out of the fielder's glove, I was amazed - for the first time I could recall, at Yankee Stadium, they made the right call instead of cow-towing to the home crowd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Purely as a matter of speculation from someone with no real comprehension of sports' appeal, I'll observe that things that are addictive have the ability to cause pain. Opium withdrawal, gambling losses, hangovers, whatever... there's always the element of pain that seems, somehow, to reinforce the behavior. I wonder if giving sports fans something to bitch about makes them more loyal; whether it makes it a better topic for conversation so that it can seem like a common bond. Wnt (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly something to that. It's particularly in the category of "everyone hates us / us against the world" (where "us" is a sometimes very hazily defined conflation of team and fans) that it would apply. Of course, sometimes it's not merely bitching for the sake of bitching (let me just casually call your attention there to the column labeled "FTA" or free throw attempts, which are what you get when the refs call a foul on your opponent). That example also calls to attention the fact that some sports effectively will never have the kind of objective video replay that sports like baseball can at least hope to aspire to. While baseball umpires can be objectively graded on how well they call balls and strikes from just a few cameras all pointed at the same small volume of air, there's nothing anywhere near so precise for basketball, and won't be as far as we can predict. Obviously at some point the technology will exist to create an accurate 4-dimensional model of an entire 48-minute basketball game and every physical action that happens in it; but until then we're still stuck with human judgment and all its flaws as the best option, with not much objective criticism possible. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your last sentence reminds me of something funny. At age 12 I imagined what Omniscient-Vision would be like. In the last seconds of several basketball games, I followed where the ball was in relation to the court. At 0.0 I imagined time freezing, the ball highlighting, and 10 lines popping into view showing which way the players' penises were pointing. And spinning around this like the Matrix. And the clothing becoming translucent to penises. Vaginas would've been more interesting but 1: I did not care about the WNBA, 2: Most of their players were unattractively unfemenine. I imagined a hypothetical game 0.0 with dunking with lines of crazy angle because books showed that vaginas point diagonally backwards. I liked imagining special effects-type things as a teen. Like my home getting shot up by machine gun-size turbolasers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know this novella/short story?

I am trying to recall the title of a novella or short story I've read a long time ago. It starts with the main character arriving at a train station of a small town after a long rail journey. I seem to remember that the setting was either a wild west or simply an early 20th-century America. And one of the minor characters in the story was a physician. Not too specific, I know, but I would appreciate if anyone could come up with some suggestions so I could dig further from there. Thank you in advance. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like the film Bad Day at Black Rock, which was based on the short story "Bad time at Honda" by Howard Breslin. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that could be it! Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The movie's quite excellent, well acted, directed and written, Spencer Tracy, and technicolor! μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not it, but you reminded me that "The Last Car" existed. Also a bad day and a long journey. Good suggestion, though, I think. Scary stuff. Too much so to link, but it's on YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

St. Leo of the Catholic Church

Who was St. Leo of the Catholic Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:804F:E100:21B:63FF:FEB5:698B (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There were 5 popes named Leo who were made saints, and at least one other St Leo. See "People" at the bottom of Saint Leo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Later on in that list, there is a church and school in California, dedicated to "St Leo the Great" but no indication as to which St Leo that might be. A quick Google search found this page which identifies him as Pope Leo I, who persuaded Attila the Hun to go away and behave nicely. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering how anything could be "later on" from the perspective of an entry "at the bottom" of a list. But I see some good soul has moved People to the top of the list. (You can't trust that damn Wikipedia anymore if things keep changing without warning.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry JackofOz, I was on my way to answer this question when I got distracted by the poor formatting and linkfarming at St. Leo. By the time I had tidied it up you had answered! DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 7

non-profit fundraiser limitations

Can a non-profit organization auction off marijuana to raise moneyin the state of Washington?74.220.246.155 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We can't really answer legal questions like this. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 04:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

But we can give you somebody else's "How to Form and Maintain a Nonprofit Corporation in Washington State". This one's by Washington Attorneys Assisting Community Organizations (aka WAACO) and the King County Bar Association Young Lawyers Division. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the Washington State Liquor Control Board oversees the licensing of retailers and such. So, they would likely be the best people to contact about their own rules. Their web page about I-502 (the law that allowed for the decriminalization of marijuana) has quite a bit of info including rules and, if you need it, contact information. Dismas|^(talk) 06:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be legal under Washington State law... but there would certainly be problems under Federal law... I suspect that the IRS would probably cancel the organization's federal non-profit tax status. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Full Day Kindergarten

Hello,

I found the article on Kindergarten but found it lacking in a great deal of useful information. The article is very generic, does not describe how the classrooms and curriculum have changed in recent years, and does not mention the debate in the united states currently between full day kindergarten and half day kindergarten.

I was hoping to find a complete article, including many citations on the research and statistics involved in kindergarten in the United states documenting the debate and the many 'hot' topics associated with it, (use of worksheets for example and length of a 'full' day, being two major issues). Please see the following links for potential inclusion in a more in depth article on the subject:

http://www.naspcenter.org/assessment/kindergarten_ho.html - National Education Association article on the subject, includes 'what constitutes a good full day program'

http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=134 - Early Childhood Professional Resource for Teachers -

"There are two fundamental problems with worksheets. First, young children do not learn from them what teachers and parents believe they do (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 1993). Second, children's time should be spent in more beneficial endeavors (Willis, 1995).

Many preschools, child care centers, and kindergartens, young children spend their time on worksheet paper and pencil tasks. Teachers who use worksheets believe they are demonstrating children's learning progress to parents. Unfortunately worksheet activities are not developmentally appropriate and can cause many problems. Early childhood education experts agree that the years from birth to age eight are a critical learning time for children (Bee, 1992; Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 1993; Willis, 1995). During these years, children have many cognitive, emotional, physical, and social tasks to accomplish (Katz, 1989). Only later, when they have achieved the necessary finger and hand control, should they be asked to write words or numerals with a pencil. The timing of this accomplishment will vary among children. Some six-year-olds may be just starting this task. If they are encouraged, rather than criticized, they will continue to learn and grow and feel confident. There are many active, and far more interesting, ways for children to begin understanding words and numbers than via worksheets (Mason, 1986). Children are born with a need to move (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 1993). They wiggle, toddle, run, and climb as naturally as they breathe. When we insist that children sit still and do what for them may be a meaningless task, such as completing a workbook page, we force children into a situation incompatible with their developmental needs and abilities

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Recent_Research_All/ - research which backs up national education article, "it is important to remember that what children are doing during the kindergarten day is more important than the length of the school day. Gullo (1990) and Olsen and Zigler (1989) warn educators and parents to resist the pressure to include more didactic academic instruction in all-day kindergarten programs. They contend that this type of instruction is inappropriate for young children."

http://www.macleans.ca/general/why-full-day-kindergarten-is-failing-our-children/- Although this is article is in Ontario, it is backed by research performed in California. "Full-day kindergarten does nothing to permanently improve academic performance. It may stunt the emotional and social development of many kids. Even those gains identified for some kids are likely to be temporary, a phenomenon that’s been identified in numerous other studies." http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/04/us/education-more-and-more-kindergarten-means-a-full-day.html New York Times Article - Curriculum of Kindergarten - 'From birth to age 8, kids learn best through direct experiences and by directly manipulating materials, said Anne Mitchell, associate dean at Bank Street College who is the author of Early Childhood Programs and the Public Schools (Auburn House, 1989). The best thing is to build with blocks, to weigh things, to actually experience the math and not to copy numbers on a work sheet.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/what-happened-kindergarten Scholastic - What Happened to Kindergarten? - Research consistently backs what early elementary teachers know: Imaginative play is the catalyst for social, physical, emotional, and moral development in young children. With guidance from an observant teacher, kindergartners can use imaginative play to make sense of the world around them—and lay the critical groundwork for understanding words and numbers.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/classroom-solutions/2011/11/characteristics-great-kindergarten-classrooms Scholastic Characteristics of great kindergarten classrooms - Teachers can no longer expect healthy 5– or 6-year-old children, with all their energy and enthusiasm, to sit at their desks or to be quiet all day. Kindergarten gives children the opportunity to grow and develop through play — the way children learn best.

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Top_10_Signs_Good/ Top 10 Signs of a Good Kindergarten Classroom - getting kindergarteners ready for elementary school does not mean substituting academics for play time, forcing children to master first grade "skills," or relying on standardized tests to assess children's success Children are playing and are not forced to sit quietly. Children are not all doing the same things at the same time.

http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/2/1/2158244012442677 Formal Sage Study - Full-Day Kindergarten Effects on Later Academic Success - Using all available assessment, there were no significant differences in the scores of students who attended an all-day kindergarten and those who did not

http://angievillaartwork.blogspot.com/2014/04/full-day-kindergarten-is-bad-idea.html A Teachers Perspective - All full day K programs should include an afternoon of napping, snacking, unstructured play, outdoor recess, singing, dress up, toys, blocks, painting at easels, and the classrooms should be set up in this way. That's not happening, and it's a tragedy.

http://pernillesripp.com/2012/01/19/i-know-worksheets-are-bad-and-yet-i-assigned-one/ Teacher Blog - I know Worksheets are Bad

http://www.macleans.ca/general/why-full-day-kindergarten-is-failing-our-children/ Recent Research performed out of State Regarding Full Day programs as a whole - "Although this is article is in Ontario, it is backed by research performed in California. "Full-day kindergarten does nothing to permanently improve academic performance. It may stunt the emotional and social development of many kids. Even those gains identified for some kids are likely to be temporary, a phenomenon that’s been identified in numerous other studies."

A Child's perspective - http://www.activekidsclub.com/fresh-air-living/feature/all-day-kindergarten-a-childs-perspective.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.172.119 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You do not seem to have asked a question. If you want to discuss the article you should use the Talk:Kindergarten page. Remember also that this is not an article on U.S. schools but a worldwide subject. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

These articles may make a good source for Kindergarten in the United States. However, as the OP may not be aware, Wikipedia only exists because people who care write articles. That means since the OP seems to care, they are the best person to write the article. --Jayron32 17:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Pope of royal descent

How many Popes were of royal descent?--170.140.105.16 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that almost every person with any European DNA is probably descended from Charlemagne, the answer is probably "All of the Popes since at least 1600" ... but in each case, the descent is rather tenuous. Popes with a more direct descent? I would guess: None. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Some.For example, Pope_Calixtus_II.

To answer "how many" exactly will depend on what you mean by "of royal descent". If all you mean is that they had some royalty in their family tree, then probably very many Popes will qualify. I'm not sure how reliable a source this is but it suggests a lot of possible royal linkages that fall somewhere between "born a prince" and "descended from Charlemagne, just like everyone else."

If you mean how many were recognized members of royal families at the time they became Pope, then I will have to defer to the expertise of others. (That, or trawl through all 266 of them via List of Popes but I don't have time for that today.)

I'll close by reversing your question and noting that Pope Alexander VI is "an ancestor of virtually all royal houses of Europe." - Eron^Talk 21:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I didn't find any sites giving reliable figures, and sites focusing on royal-papal connections were usually looney-toon conspiracy theory websites, but:

• Pope John XII was the son of Alberic II of Spoleto, but he's self-made royalty.
• Pope Gregory V was the grandson of Otto I the Great
• Pope Benedict VIII was the son of Gregory I, Count of Tusculum

And then I got bored and quit searching further. It was pretty common in the middle ages for noble families to train their oldest son for war and their second oldest for the priesthood. But, almost everyone is descended from some sort of nobility if you go back far enough (what with your ancestors increasing exponentially every generation you go back). Pretty much anyone with a patronymic surname is descended from some sort of royal. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The House of Medici produced four popes. OttawaAC (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I'm equally certain the answer is: at least 5. The earliest example I can find off-hand is Pope Gregory V who was a great-grandson of the emperor Otto V. Popes John XII, Benedict VIII, John XIX and Benedict IX were all closely related to each other and descended from King Hugh of Italy. Additionally, the Antipope Felix V was otherwise Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy, and was a great-grandson of John II of France. Of recent papabili, Christoph Cardinal Graf von Schönborn has the most conventionally illustrious ancestry, but I couldn't tell you off-hand who his most recent royal ancestor was. Of course, any random European, or person of European descent, these days is statistically very likely to be descended from Charlemagne, so the question breaks down a little when very remote descents are allowed. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed a few hereditary dukes and counts in the list of popes. A Borghese, a Chigi, a Fieschi... I'm very ignorant of the ins-and-outs of Italian nobility I have to confess, though.OttawaAC (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of those were not of immediate royal descent - the Medici, for example, were bankers who led Florence/Tuscany as a crowned republic that latterly became hereditary. But yes - you're right that there are lots and lots of those among the popes. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the Medici also were prolific (there's tons of them) and they tended to marry well. Two were wives of the Kings of France, for example; it would not be unreasonable to suspect that some royal daughters were married into the Medici family. --Jayron32 23:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

However, the era of the Medici Popes took place before the family started to marry into royalty. In other words while later royalty were descended from the Medici family... The Medici Popes were not descended from royalty. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 8

"these dark Satanic mills" vs "those dark Satanic mills"

In adapting William Blake's poem into the hymn "Jerusalem," Sir Hubert Parry quite definitely changed the line "these dark Satanic mills" to "those dark Satanic mills," as is noted here. Is anyone sure why? Have any literary critics (or musicologists?) taken a crack at what the rationale behind the change was? I suppose it could have been unintentional. After all, it breaks the poetic parallelism of the verse. Once you change "these" to "those," the only way to preserve the parallelism would be to change "here" to "there," so Parry's full second verse would best read:

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded there,
Among those dark Satanic Mills?

But if it were unintentional it seems as if the change would have been caught early on. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And here is a performance of "Jerusalem" that sounds as if it uses Blake's original "these" rather than Parry's "those." It's the only one I've come across so far. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked up the text in two hymn books: one retains Blake's "these" and the other uses Parry's "those". Perhaps Parry thought that those mills were no longer "Satanic"? Dbfirs 08:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That was my thought as well, and the only plausible reason I can come up with for the change being intentional. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone ever asked Parry this while he was alive, but my speculation is that Parry's milieu (or that of his audience) was the posher parts of London and the South East, and from that perspective, the dark satanic mills of the Midlands and the North were "there" and "those mills", not "here" and "these mills". Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Yeah, I see the logic there. In that case, though, why not go ahead and change "here" to "there?" Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That would rather imply that he believed Jerusalem had been built in the North of England. I don't know that Parry understood Blake to have meant by "mills", but Blake almost certainly wasn't referring to soot-stained factories. BTW, I don't see any conflict between "here" and "those", where "here" includes those things that are (or were) "here", but identified as alien to "Jerusalem" (i.e. the ideal city/nation): essentially the question is: "how can it have been here, among those things". 'These' and 'those' both work. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Blake was absolutely referring to soot-stained factories. Looie496 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So you think saying so makes it so? How silly is that? Have you even read Milton: a Poem? I have. He repeatedly uses the term "mills" in contexts that clearly do not refer to factories at all. Any Blake scholar will tell you that. Paul B (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It may have been purely because he felt it sounded better (see Ma Baker!), or even a simple mistake. The verses were sent to Parry by Robert Bridges, who agreed to set them as a wartime patriotic song. It wasn't Parry's personal choice, and he wrote the music in a single evening, if I remember correctly. The words were not well-known at the time, so it wasn't, as it were, a "canonical" work of literature. It does appear to have been Parry's own decision (or possibly mistake). The lines appear with the original "these" in Bridge's own 1915 publication of French and British "great thoughts" The spirit of man: an anthology in English & French from the philosophers & poets. The line is clearly written as "those" in the original 1916 publication of the sheet music by Curwen & Sons. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the explanation is far more simple. Both these and those are demonstrative pronouns. Just as here' is geographically (or by some other metric) closer to there. Thus those is correct because it refers to the subject over there and not over here. Blake was first and full most an artist that also wrote a little poetry and not a poet that could draw and and paint a little.--Aspro (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody seems to have pointed out yet that "there" and "those" are simply wrong. God's countenance might have shone on the clouded hills, but that isn't where the Dark Satanic mills were built. They were built in the valleys. Looie496 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This comment is beyond ridiculous. Blake had no knowledge of valleys, except those in the vicinity of Felpham, where he lived at the time, and where there were no factories. Paul B (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jakob Lorber

Hi. Still working on Jakob Lorber, and having trouble finding personal info about him. Susan Youens' digression about him is great and answers some questions, especially how he made a living, but is there any record of him getting married, any romances, children, anything like that? The only accounts I can find are very partisan and theosophical.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom, and restored the Reference page formatting you deleted when you asked this question. Rojomoke (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

About the 30-day SSI rule - could I just visit a US diplomatic mission once a month to get around it?

So I can't leave the USA for 30 consecutive days and still receive SSI. There are plenty of safe countries where $721/month would go quite a bit farther and leave me a more comfortable life.

Now, at first, I thought of living in a border town near the US so I could walk over for a brief monthly visit, in order to stay within SSI guidelines. However, I can't live near the border in Canada because their rents are probably too high! I could live near the border in Mexico (what are their home or apartment rents anyway?), but I don't know of a "safe" border town. I could still walk across for a monthly visit as long as I had my passport. However, we know border towns are where the drug cartels conduct a lot of activity to get their products across. I'd hate to get robbed and such, or even have the fear of it, by the drug cartel gangs. Anyone looking American would be deemed an easy target to mug.

That's why I thought of instead, living in Belize. It has that exotic combination of English being the official language, lower suicide indices, higher happiness indices, and a lower cost of living. What say I live close to a US Embassy or Consulate, and pay them a visit once a month in order to not run afoul of SSI's 30-day rule? After all, a US diplomatic mission is considered "sovereign US soil," which makes me assume that as soon as I walk onto US diplomatic mission grounds, it's like walking back into the United States, thereby making good on not staying out of the USA for more than 30 days at a time. --2602:30A:2EE6:8600:44D3:8C1D:83B3:61C5 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You would need to contact a lawyer. Wikipedia cannot give advice in this realm. --Jayron32 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Embassies are not the sovereign territory of the incumbent nation, US or otherwise. See Diplomatic mission#Extraterritoriality. Rojomoke (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So I suppose if Social Security doesn't count setting foot on embassy grounds as "returning to the United States," what say I live in a Mexican border town and revisit the other side of la frontera once a month? --2602:30A:2EE6:8600:F54B:B279:33F6:C1D7 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Does it count as legal advice to remind someone their IP address is permanently attached to their potential plan to milk the government? If it does, I won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:47, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Except for disability claims, SS is basically them giving back money you contributed while working, so it seems like the reverse, that them refusing to return your money because of where you choose to live is them milking you. StuRat (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Aye, both sides milk each other. But one has a lot more milk, and decides most of the rules. This is like the "I'm not touching you" defense, if the kid explained to the world throughout how his finger was only almost in your eye, so you're powerless to resist. In a strict legal sense, he's right. But in another sense, the rulebook goes out the window. Maybe a bit farfetched.

But if they have the rule, they obviously want you shopping domestically. That chocolate bar from the gas station across the river once a month is technically fair, but just a phallic gesture. In the other hand, there's this and these. Again, maybe farfetched. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

A few points related to living inexpensively:

1) Yes, there are cheap places to live abroad, but those are generally not places an American would want to live, and tend to lack the basics, like indoor plumbing, reliable electricity, window screens to keep bugs out, access to medical care, internet, etc. There are also nice places to live abroad, but those are more expensive.

2) There are many cheap places to live in the US. The cost of living here in Detroit is quite low, for example. Many rural areas are also inexpensive. Perhaps you might consider US territories, like Guam, the Marshall Islands, and Puerto Rico. Presumably staying there would satisfy the SS.

3) For $721 a month, you'd probably want a room-mate, or to rent a room, rather than a whole apartment. Cars are also a major expense, so you might want to find a place where you can get around on foot, bicycle, or public transportation. StuRat (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You didn't mention your age, but in many parts of the US, there are subsidized rental units for seniors that set your rent at 25% or so of your income. Often, there is a waiting list of a year or two for such units. You might try moving to a region with low costs that is walkable or has good public transportation. (Though low costs and good public transportation tend not to occur together in the US, so maybe your best bet is a town or small city small enough to be walkable but large or regionally important enough to have a range of services, maybe someplace like New Bern, North Carolina.) Then live there with one or more roommates while you wait for your subsidized unit to become available. I have a relative in this situation, and he supplements his income with part-time work, even though he is 79. That might be something to consider too, if possible. Marco polo (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The OP is asking about Supplemental Security Income, not the actual Social Security (United States) which seems to have no residence requirements. Rmhermen (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Which of those two does your "which" refer to? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

added comma. Rmhermen (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Preferring faith over personal evidence?

Has there ever, in recent history, been any notable cases where a religious person has seen by their own very eyes something that is in conflict with their religion, but still rejected their own personal evidence and continued to believe what their religion says anyway? JIP | Talk 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Believing in a religion, a heliocentric round world, and evolution myself, I'd consider this a matter of "science versus pseudoscience" instead of "science versus religion", but modern flat earthers and geocentrists usually claim quasi-religious grounds for their belief (although even St Augustine would have to say they must be reading the scriptures wrong if they have to argue against mainstream science). I could also bring up evolution (particularly Theistic evolution) versus Young Earth Creationism, but the YECs usually respond that the "evidence" for evoluion is either misunderstood, the devil's lies, or only proof of "microevolution" (YECs being the only people who think that acknowledging that microevolution's 2+2=4 doesn't also acknowledge macroevolution's 2+4=6 or 4+4=8). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The classic example is Galileo's telescope and the moons of Jupiter. Many Catholics refused even to look through it, but of those who did, many decided that they preferred to believe the word of God's chosen leaders rather than the evidence of this instrument whose workings they did not understand. Looie496 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Galileo's telescope was quite lousy, so it took some faith to actually see the moons of Jupiter ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In their defense, if they didn't understand how the telescope worked, it wouldn't make logical sense to just assume that Galileo hadn't rigged the whole thing. Scientists' personal observations also require some faith. The "canals of Mars", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like that was a case of too much faith in one's own imaginations, not too little. --Bowlhover (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is that you must not just "see" the facts with your eyes, you must also have an honest mind. Huge numbers of evangelical christians have the evidence of evolution all around them and have had it explained to them, but they still believe otherwise. For a notable case, pick any currently notorious televangelist. Similar situations hold true with most other religions, many political beliefs, and even amongst sports fans (cf. famous fans of the Chudley Cannons!). Most people lie to themselves most of the time. RomanSpa (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the phenomenon of rejecting facts that conflict with ones firmly held beliefs is not confined to religion. It happens in politics... people often reject a fact that conflicts with their political viewpoint. It even happens in academia, when new facts emerge that causes doubt as to the accuracy of a long accepted theory. There is a natural human tendency to ignore, dismiss and reject "facts" that don't fit one's world view... no matter what field of endeavor you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - you'll see that I specifically mentioned politics above. Academia is slightly different, in my experience. I think every academic has his own view of the world, and will subscribe to a particular set of theories. However, an "honest" academic will change his view if evidence to the contrary arises. This isn't always an easy thing to do, even for the very open-minded. It usually takes me several weeks to change my mind on something, even once I've been shown the evidence, because I hate admitting I was wrong. I can only think of one or two cases where I've changed my mind about something in an instant. The point, though, is that academics do change their minds in the face of evidence against their position - that's kind of the touchstone for being an academic. Indeed, you might make the case that the fact that some "academics" have no meaningful way of identifying whether a proposition is true or false and thus cannot be persuaded from one position to another by rational means is an excellent indicator that they are really charlatans. RomanSpa (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely every time a prayer doesn't work is evidence against religion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Crafter too good, King cripples him.

I am trying to remember where a tale is from. I think it is from Norse Mythology, but I might be wrong. My google-fu has failed me.

A craftsman (a dwarf?) does some amazing craft work for a king (a giant?). The king wants no one else to have this crafter, so the crafter is crippled and forced to work for the king. The crafter eventually builds a new set of legs and escapes.

Any ideas? Tdjewell (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that the opening plot (roughly speaking) of Iron Man? --Jayron32 18:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that the opening plot (roughly speaking) of Genesis? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It sounds familiar to me - also a sculptor blinded by the king comes to mind. I wouldn't know it from Iron Man, pretty sure either Norse or Greek. But, alas, for once my Google-fu has failed me too. DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It was parodied in The Colour of Magic. The craftsman built silver golems for a king, then was blinded. He learned to use his other senses to craft and built a great palace, only to have his right hand cut off. He built a new hand, then after his next project he was hamstrung, so he built a flying machine from bamboo and silk to escape. After completing his next great work he was shot through the chest with an arrow. His last words, after inspecting the tip of the arrow, were "shoddy workmanship." Unfortunately I don't know the original source of the story either. Katie R (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

L-space has a couple of suggestions for the origin, neither of them are quite what I was thinking of. DuncanHill (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's often associated with the architect of St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow. Ivan the Terrible supposedly thought the onion domes were so impressive, that he had Postnik Yakovlev blinded to prevent him from building anything superior. The legend probably predates Ivan, I suspect. OttawaAC (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The crippled craftsman is a fairly common motif in mythology. See, for example, Wayland the Smith (possibly the example you're thinking of) or Hephaestus. --Carnildo (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wayland the Smith is what I was looking for. I remember now it was specifically hamstringing. Tdjewell (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

For another example with blinding: Prague astronomical clock#History dates to 1490 as "legend" but I've read it elaborated by a 20th C. author, probably European.

Funding PhD students

The topic of funding for PhD students arose at the end of a symposium and apparently at my university:

• the majority of science PhD studentships are paid (students gets money)
• the majority of humanities PhD studentships are unpaid (student gives money!)

How are the humanities students funding their studies? What are their motivations? --129.215.47.59 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Which country are you referring to? Paul B (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

IP geolocates to Edinburgh. Don't know how the humanities people are funding themselves, but I would think the reason is that there is far more money for actual research than for humanities studies. Rightly so, of course. Fgf10 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in Canada I got tons of funding for a humanities PhD. I think it was something like $20,000 a year, or a bit less I guess. But of course the school greatly encourages you to win funding from the government or from other scholarships. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to find the answer to that specific question is to check the website for your university. It should provide information about the nature, size, and requirements of the funding packages for its various graduate programs. Better universities guarantee a survivable stipend for their graduate students, but not all schools do. Students that aren't provided a (full or partial) stipend from funds provided by the university, their department, and their supervisor are expected to make ends meet by applying for scholarships, bursaries, and grants, and by teaching (generally undergraduate courses). Students who can't come up with enough funding from those sources are left with the same options they had during their undergraduate years: part-time jobs outside the university, relying on the largesse of relatives, and accumulating personal debt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure someone, somewhere, has done a PhD in "funding models and motivations of doctoral students in the humanities". DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Motivations can be so broad... for a mature student who is mid-career, a humanities PhD can be a good career move and well worth the investment. Remember, humanities encompasses a wide range of fields in addition to the liberal arts.... having said that, I've known people who took out huge student loans to fund liberal arts PhDs, then faced limited job opportunities and ferocious competition. I'm not sure what the allure is in those situations. OttawaAC (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The thrill of the hunt! The thrill of doing pointless research no one will ever read! (I actually do love that second one.) The job search in my field was once compared to dating, which is more terrifying than anything else. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In the United States it is not the case that the majority of PhD studentships are unpaid in the humanities. Most PhD students receive funding with a small stipend guaranteed for a certain number of years, typically requiring teaching, research, or other activities. Anecdotally, of the maybe 50-60 current or former grad students I know well enough to have this information, the only ones that paid their way through a program did so because they were working a separate job at the same time. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 9

Screaming at concerts

I was listening to The Kinks on one of their early live albums (probably Live at Kelvin Hall), and noticed the incessant screaming that was a hallmark of the era. It made me wonder, and not for the first time, about the history of this odd behavior: in particular, when and why did it stop? Did it stop being tolerated by the performers (I know the Beatles hated it, and I'm sure others did too), or was it a fad that just faded away? Have any rock scholars covered this topic? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Do they scream at Justin Bieber concerts? (Or did they before he started accumulating some bad press?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It never stopped. Some bands attract screamers and some don't. Remember that the Kinks were a pop act that attracted young people (who tend to do the most screaming, especially the girls). They are old now. New bands attract the screaming, like One Direction and acts like that. Mingmingla (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• This article from 1993] does a pretty good job of giving the overview of scholarship on girls screaming at concerts. It cites the works of sociologists and psychologists who have looked at the phenomenon. --Jayron32 17:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  More: I've seen a few blogs and discussion forums (like here) that note that Erich Fromm discussed this very phenomenon in his work The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. --Jayron32 18:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another interesting article that traces music concert "mania" back to... Franz Liszt and the Lisztomania of the 1840s.[6] (The young Liszt actually did have a pretty amazing head of hair along with his musical talent...) Charles Lindbergh and Rudolph Valentino had hordes of screaming fans too. OttawaAC (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It still happens on TV singing competitions. As soon as the audience recognise the song, they start screaming (as if to drown it out), then they tend to grow quiet (as if to actually listen to the the performance), until the "climax note", when they all scream again (as if to drown it out once more. Crazy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the manufactured nature of such shows, and the fact that live TV shows often have audience warm-up phases where the producers get the audience into the state desired for the broadcast part of the show, the screaming is presumably a desired behaviour. It doesn't impress me, but then I'm not normal. I wonder who it does impress? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Vince McMahon. His top dog this last decade has been raking in the cash, primarily on his ability to make low-voiced people want to outscream high-pitched ones. It's acoustically impossible, but the resulting cacophony is good for business (and what is pro wrestling, but the concert business with less music?) InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Resting place of Kings of Naples

Where are all the kings of Naples descended from Ferdinand I of Naples and their consorts buried?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the Italian wikipedia they are all buried in the sacristy of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples: "According to tradition, the whole Aragonese dynasty (1442-1503) was buried there and among the bodies was also present that of King Alfonso V of Aragon, called the Magnanimous, who died in 1458, whose remains however were transferred to Spain in 1668 [my translation]." --Cam (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have more details (monarch, burial place):

Ferdinand I, San Domenico Maggiore [7]

Alfonso II, Messina Cathedral [8]

Ferdinand II, San Domenico Maggiore [9]

Frederick, "chiesa dei minimi di Plessis-les-Tours" (Couvent des Minimes de la Place Royale?); in 1562 his tomb was broken into and the bones scattered. [10]

--Cam (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Vice President not Acting President while the President is out of the country?

Why does the American Vice President not become Acting President while the President is out of the country? I ask, because most Lt. Governors become Acting Governor while the Governor's absence from the state. Wouldn't it be more logical the other way around, as federal business is more "important" than the states'? --78.50.240.5 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the Constitution. It states that the Vice President's role is head of the Senate, and only becomes Acting President when the current one is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", according to the 25th Amendment, which I don't think applies when the President is, say, traveling to Serbia or wherever. And plus, the rules vary from state to state because of different constitutions and junk. today too, i don't necessarily think that it's more logical that way in the federal government, because the president and vice president are more and more frequently out of the country and what happens then/? ~Helicopter Llama~ 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only the constitution, which is the correct answer, but also the fact that presidents attend foreign funerals and conferences as heads of state, while governors don't, and the most recent amendment, the 25th, addressing this after Kennedy's assassination, was written in the instant telecommunication age. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Governors attend out-of-state functions too. Every constitution is different, and part of it probably is date, but part is probably the importance of the president: Changing presidents is a big deal (the acting president could start a war), while it generally doesn't matter too much if a LG officially takes over once in a while. Most people won't even be aware that the LG has taken over, but imaging the uproar if Cheney had been acting president. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad example. "If"? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see what you did there...--Jayron32 02:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that until the 20th century it used to be that US presidents never did leave the country. The first to do so was Theodore Roosevelt, who visited Panama in 1906. Then at the end of WW1 Woodrow Wilson spent months in Europe, primarily at the peace talks leading to the Treaty of Versailles. If Roosevelt felt he could leave the country and still be president, and Wilson felt he could do it for a period of months, then the precedent was set and it would take a constitutional amendment to change it.

P.S. In the CAPTCHA that I had to pass to post the external links here, the first word was teddy. Cute! --50.100.193.30 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are SATs and ACTs at like 7 am?

What the hell is wrong with them? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

the brain is more active and efficient in the morning, long tests need plenty of time, and college board simply loves torturing their american teenagers <3 ~Helicopter Llama~ 22:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't mornings usually involve things like being at least 30 minutes after the minimum physically possible full-sleep time (8:30 for teenagers), to allow for travel? Although it'd be possible with prescription medicine. Or flying 1 or 2 thousand miles to the west (if allowed), or traveling slowly to the east spending enough time to acclimate to the local astronomical and horological conditions followed by a mad dash to the test, similar to mountain climbers. I'm serious. I know I'm not exaggerating because I went east by bus at age 15.4. It took me all of 4 hours to notice the 7% faster time. "Why'd it get dark so soon? Oh, local solar time". I didn't notice 2 straight days of 25 hours on the way there. I feel sorry for people who live in my time zone and 10° to the west. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC) (Also, I didn't notice the change to 24 hour days in between (I had 2 1/2 of them) so this is definitely a circadian incompatibility to losing as little as 18 minutes from a 24 hour day. The next 2 days felt short, like slight time traveling — they were 23 hours. I didn't like them.) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, my other question got late morning as the time of peak performance. The test proper starts about the time otherwise known as brushing your teeth or sleep. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The test is administered by people whose biological clocks consider that a decent time to be up and about, instead of taking into consideration that teenagers are naturally more awake a couple hours later. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's good preparation for jobs that demand high level performance over very long and inconvenient hours. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And who's forcing you to choose to work 7-5? Work 9-5, live within 15 minutes, eat in the train or car, and you get a full sleep up 30 minutes later than the minimum you're capable of (midnight) to. So the reverse affirmative action for a group already favored by life (teens physically capable of sleeping b4 11; teens who's parents would find a doctor or buy a few points with medium-haul air tickets thus showing cash, convinceability and helpfulness that'll help them all life) and hour minimum of sleep deprivation is a purposeless prep for something that doesn't have to happen. An infringement of liberty, too. G-d, if any parents would let their Eastern Time kids test in Denver instead of taking the drugs because they heard the hour of medicated sleep is slightly less restorative than natural sleep then those kids won't ever need their diploma.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not if your shift's usually from 3 pm to midnight. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any other English-speaking countries would start tests quite as early as that. Some children must be having to get up and five, and probably not have any breakfast. Is there a logistical reason for it? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

In the US's defense it's actually 8am but no one would arrive that late, and I just could not perform well on the Formula One-like ACT without time to relax first which is why I remember the dreaded 7 (I arrived 7:something). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That's still earlier than any exam I've taken. GCSEs and A-levels generally start at 9am if they're morning exams, with a few exceptions at 11am and things like that. 9am is the time most people expect to start a workday or a schoolday (most schools start roughly half an hour earlier, but in such a way that lessons start at roughly 9): why would you start an exam earlier than that? Does the exam take more than 6 hours to complete? 86.146.28.229 (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It takes some time for the teachers who are administering the test to ensure that everyone has number 2 pencils... then hand out the test material... then read the test instructions out loud, and make sure that everyone understands how to correctly fill in the little ovals ... etc. etc. Only after all these (mandatory) preliminary steps are done, can the actual testing begins... and by then it is a more reasonable hour. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't solve the problem that it's physiologically impossible for some to fall asleep before ~11, except in cases of prescription medicine or much worse preparatory sleep deprivation that I didn't want to do (I might've needed up to 2 hours of undersleep for up to 3 days to achieve 10pm, I don't remember, I tend to not make up sleep on that side). I remember feeling sleep deprived at least an hour after the preliminaries started. The ACT starts with a 45 minute barrage of almost a hundred questions and the SAT has harder questions, that's what you want to do sleep deprived? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ever travelled to a different time zone? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm certain that there's a gender difference here and that boys' brains have been proved to function best later in the morning than girls', but I can't find a reference at this moment (maybe it's too early!). Alansplodge (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Adriano fiorentino

What is this File:Adriano fiorentino, medaglia di ferdinando d'aragona principe di capua.JPG? It is not a coin. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think 'megdalia' translates as 'medal or 'medallion'. Our article on Medals notes that "In Europe, from the late Middle Ages on, it became common for sovereigns, nobles, and later, intellectuals to commission medals to be given simply as gifts to their political allies to either maintain or gain support of an influential person. The medals made be made in a range of metals, such as gold, silver-gilt, silver, bronze, and lead, depending on the status of the recipient. They were typically up to about three inches across, and usually featured the head of the donor on the obverse, surrounded by an inscription with their name and title, and their emblem on the reverse, with a learned motto inscribed round the edges. Such medals were not usually intended to be worn, although they might have been set as pendants on a chain. From the 16th century onward, medals were made, both by rulers for presentation and private enterprise for sale, to commemorate specific events, including military battles and victories, and from this grew the practice of awarding military medals specifically to combatants, though initially only a few of the much higher-ranking officers." Such medals/medallions seem to have been common in Renaissance Italy. Adriano Fiorentino was the sculptor who created the medal. [11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

May 10

Carlist and the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830

Was the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830 created with a mind to the tradition of Spanish male-preference cognatic primogeniture?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

According to our article, yes. The succession of the Bourbon monarchs of Spain was an open question; Spanish tradition allowed daughters of the King to inherit if there was no sons; in fact the various Spanish kingdoms had numerous regnant queens throughout history. The problem came when the Bourbons (a French dynasty) inherited. The French did not allow women to inherit (or even to trace a line of inheritance through a woman). It wasn't a problem until Ferdinand had two daughters and became very sick; he didn't want his brother to inherit, so he made explicit that he would follow Spanish (not French) tradition in the matter. --Jayron32 02:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Kangar paintings

Ok folks, any art experts up for a challange?

Recently, I took another look at File:Shamirpu1.jpg

and found an identical artwork was mentioned here:

http://blog.artoflegendindia.com/2010/12/kangra-paintings-painting-art-of-kangra.html

Is the image a specfic work, if so whose the artist? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll find the details you need here: http://www.artoflegendindia.com/summer-p-4293.html

From the description: "This beautiful Indian painting "Summer"of Kangra style, depicts ... an illustration from a baramasa (the twelve months) series of the month of March-April, which is the first month of the traditional Indian calendar. The verses describe the splendor of the blossoming spring landscape and the sexually exhilarating effect of the season on peacocks and maidens. The painting depicts Krishna standing on a garden terrace with Radha who is trying to persuade the blue skinned lord to stay with her rather then goes traveling during the month. In the background of the painting is a landscape."

You will see that the painting is attributed to a Mr Gopal, and is described as being in the style of Kangra painting. I suspect that it's simply a modern painting in a classical style, rather than an original piece from the 17th-19th century.

RomanSpa (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You will note that the description is wrong, as the picture does not actually contain any peacocks, sexually exhilarated or otherwise. RomanSpa (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

OK Tagged the file above as F7 (given that it's not an old image.), There are presumably public domain examples of Kangara paintings? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)