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 24

London to Toronto and Toronto to London trips and Toronto to Birmingham

Which airlines often does flights between Toronto to London, U.K. and which airlines often does flights between London, U.K. to Toronto? Thanks. Also, which airlines does flights between Toronto to Birmingham, U.K.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.115 (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you try a travel site like Travelocity or Orbitz. They will give you this info and far more. StuRat (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not responsive to your question, but I'll be "that guy": In English, we say "between x and y" or "from x to y". "Between x to y" is not a pattern used by native English speakers. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This type of error is becoming surprisingly common amongst native speakers who confuse the two constructions. Dbfirs 08:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help that transport companies - eg railways - refer to their trains (sorry, 'services') as arriving to or into, rather than at, a place, and 'terminating at X via Y', neither of which makes much sense in conventional terms, although it's sufficiently clear not to be obscure. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally, airlines which fly from A to B will also fly from B to A, otherwise all their planes will end up in one airport! British Airways and Air Canada appear to be the only airlines that fly direct between London Heathrow and Toronto Pearson daily (you may get quotes for Lufthansa also, but they code-share with Air Canada); there are of course many other airlines which you can use by changing planes once en route, e.g. travelling via JFK, Chicago O'Hare, Amsterdam Schiphol, Geneva, Frankfurt, or Paris CDG. Air Transat flies between Toronto and London Gatwick, and they also appear to have one flight a week between Toronto and Birmingham. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You can end up with a situation where an airline flies directly from C to A, but for whatever reason doesn't fly directly from A to C, so does A to B to C, instead (perhaps the jet streams are in the right direction to do C to A directly, but they would run out of fuel going the other way). You therefore end up with flights from A to B and none from B to A, without airplanes accumulating anywhere. StuRat (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

identity of a portrait

Does anybody know who the true identity of this person in this portrait? I've contacted Bishop Museum but I still wanted other opinions. Smithsonian Institute says Timoteo Haalilio while this postcard says it is Kamehameha III. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese phrase

What is the history of this phrase: 粉身碎骨都無怨 留得清白在人間?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this reference [1], the quote is from an allegorical poem written by a Ming dynasty minister Yu Qian in his youth. --108.16.202.209 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

America, Capitalism and Christianity

America is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. What do Christians think about that? Xylocode (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Protestant work ethic and in particular The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. EllenCT (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Christianity is a very large and varied religion. If there is an opinion to be had of any type, there is likely a Christian that holds it. Mingmingla (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister who was also a socialist. Dorothy Day was a communist, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was a democratic socialist. There's actually a Christian left in America, but they're unfortunately not as large or as loud as the religious right. As a member of the Christian left, I can at least state that I'm continually disappointed by our nation's Mammon-worship, and have seen opinions ranging from "US capitalism has a few problems but can be fixed" to "the United States economic system is the Beast of Revelation, those who defend it are antichrists, and we should topple this corrupt system as soon as can be done without harming anyone." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of any prominent practicing Christian who also advocated Communism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I recommend researching Dorothy Day, then. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Christian communism. Not a particularly good article, but a place to start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. They're using "communism" in their own way. I remember long ago hearing this "Jesus was a communist" stuff. And the counter to that was that the right term would be "communalist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Followers of a huge range of political theories have arguments as to why Jesus would have supported them, but Jesus was resolutely nonpolitical. His attitude towards the state seemed to be, just stay out of its way, you have bigger fish to fry. I can't recall a single saying that makes me think he countenanced the idea of his followers working with government, much less in it. Government was just there, a fact of life, but not a very important one. Pay your taxes because the money is Caesar's anyway, who really cares? Your job is to love God and your neighbor, do what you can personally for your neighbor, and get ready for the end times, which are just around the corner. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are politically neutral.

• Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Maintain Political Neutrality? | FAQ

—Wavelength (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Environment, Capitalism and the Christian Right

The big issue about the environment is mainly capitalism. Capitalism has to produce a lot of goods and services and has a big impact on the environment. We have to chose between a good economy and a good environment. What does the Christian Right think about that?

Xylocode (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for opinion, and I can't find an article on "Christian Right" opinion except for the article that you have edited yourself (it's an American concept, so I don't know much about it anyway -- British Christians often have a "Left" leaning). I don't see a dichotomy between the two choices. Why can't we have a bit of both? Dbfirs 08:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Christian right" always seemed like an oxymoron, to me. They have perverted the teachings of Jesus to support everything he opposed, such as greed, hostility/violence towards outsiders and the lower classes, etc. It therefore wouldn't surprise me if they find some way to argue that Jesus wants us to pollute the Earth, too. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

for everything in your 2nd sentence.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

On support for the death penalty: [2]. On opposition to immigration: [3]. On economics :Christian_right#Economics. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Please compare and contrast Liberation theology with Prosperity theology. EllenCT (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to remember your previous usernames, Xylocode. But you do seem awfully familiar. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sustainability is also worth a look. The thing is, everything that happens on earth impacts the environment. It's natural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• The OP's premise is simply nonsense. Laissez-faire capitalism means allowing consenting adults to trade freely without government interference except in the case of theft or fraud. It has nothing to do with raping the environment, if that's not what people want, or the owners of the resources will consent to. Marxism, with its industrial goals and five-year plans and central planning and planned cities and Chernobyls and plowing of privately owned homes to build stare (i.e., oligarch) owned factories with its resultant smog and displacement is all about raping the people and the environment. The Greens will do better.μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am always amazed by the fact that people are willing to go through crazy mental gymnastics just to write paragraphs that say little more than "I haven't read a word of Marx".

If I understand OP correctly, I would reckon that they're not saying that the goal of capitalism is to "rape the environment". The goal of capitalism is to enrich the owners of capital, and structuring the economy in such a way causes capitalists to act in a way that tends to "rape the people and the environment". Artificial scarcity, for example, definitely tends to "rape the people and the environment". If the means of production were controlled democratically by workers for use rather than exchange, we may be in a better position to make rational choices about the way we treat the planet. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Who hasn't read the Communist Manifesto? Short and simple enough to finish in a week if you leave it in the loo. Again, you speak of laissez-faire capitalism trending to degrade the environment, and the OP assumes it. In a real laiisez-faire system acts that damage the property of others (or the commons, as managed in trust by the local jurisdiction would be torts or crimes. and prosecutable as such. You seem to be thinking of capitalism as some sort of anarchy, or crony system like they have in China where the state and it's employees, immune for the most part from prosecution unless they fall out of favor, control state businesses and state owned or seized lands.

Rather than continue the sill commentary on whether John Locke should have been a conservationist due to his Christianity, can the OP change from this longstanding habit of asking why God's not a moderate Labourite and ask what various sects of Islam preach over the Sudanese bride who is set to be hanged, once she has given birth? Or should we not be debating? μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You may want to reread the Manifesto, then. Nowhere in any of his writings does Marx make any mention of central planning by a bureaucracy disconnected from the working class.

Capitalism is a mode of production, a method of producing things, not some idealistic moral code revolving around property rights and voluntary exchange. But that said, it still stands that capitalists produce things if it helps increase their capital. And as they battered down all Chinese walls and introduced what they called "civilisation" into their midst, as they treated barbarians as another resource to exploit for their own ends, why would the environment be any different? →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE: Christian environmentalist. For some WP:OR, my church, which happens to be firmly in the category of "the Christian right" (which Stu so cavalierly dismisses and grossly mis-characterizes above), teaches that mankind are stewards of, and therefore responsible for the maintenance of, the earth which belongs ultimately to God. And, as Medeis point out, the OP's question is posed in the form a false dichotomy. A "good economy" and a "good environment" are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've heard a lot of good things about environmentalism on the Christian right lately. Although firmly of the left myself, I've a lot of time for people who are prepared to take the idea of stewardship seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this answer your question?

• Why Ecocide Is 'Good News' for the GOP—Alternet (May 4, 2003)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

How to get archives of French newspapers?

How do I request archives of newspaper articles from French newspapers? There are some subjects I want to look up for Wikipedia reasons:

• École française internationale de Philadelphie
• International School of Paris

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The French national library has an online newspaper archive called Gallica. [4]. Most of the major 19c and early 20c dailies are there. OttawaAC (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Stone Mountain in Georgia

Who owned Stone Mountain after the state of Georgia took it from the Native Americans? I believe the property was part of the Georgia Land Lottery. 2606:A000:B943:6A00:7123:BCC:E980:DF95 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Stone Mountain has a fairly detailed history of the place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 25

List of wali called upon in tawassul?

I've been trying to find a list or resource of wali (Islamic saints) called upon tawassul (the Islamic intercession of saints). I've found this article, but they seem to be regional. I've also found one (assumably Shia) site call on Ali and Fatimah to intercede for them that I could start to pick through, but I'm wondering if there's just a nice list that has the name of the wali, the dates of their lives, sect and school (e.g. Sunni Hanafi), and notable features. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is more a feature of "folk Islam" (or esoteric Islam) than of centrally-defined scholarly or "official" Islam; and insofar as the practice is associated with tombs of holy men, it depends on which tombs are found in which areas. So the regional component is probably unavoidable... AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Racism in pirate times?

Was there a presence of racism on pirate ships or in days of pirates (not modern pirates)? I would assume there would be a bit of racism for slaves, but there were black pirates, such as Black Caesar. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 04:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not directly involving pirates, but the story of Inkle and Yarico was well-known in English-language literary circles... AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 10:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not justs murderers and thieves, but racists too? Arrr! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Racism would have been widespread then, yes. However, pirates would have been forced by their circumstances to be rather pragmatic, and deal with whoever they needed to deal with, whether to buy weapons, sell their stolen goods, etc. This doesn't mean they had any respect for the other races, but the smart ones learned to keep their mouths shut long enough to complete the deal and move out of range. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sturat, can you say where you got that info? I would like to read more. What you say is opposite to the way I imagined it would be which would be that any feelings of European superiority would have been based on religion rather than "race" and that pirates would have been unlikely to be religious. 184.147.147.85 (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Contemporaneous attitudes to race would be found in Robinson Crusoe which, although not involving piracy, involves a person of colour (Man Friday). 86.181.158.204 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good example. As for religion, I think that was rather an excuse to treat other races poorly, not the real reason. For example, look at the Trail of Tears, where native Americans were "ethnically cleansed", without regard for whether they had adopted Christianity. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there such a graph that displays different regions of political views that correspond to two variables: economic and personal freedom?

Curious here about if a graph that is intersected by two main variables, economic and personal freedom, and graphs all political views is existent. I've seen many Nolan charts, but none of which have been completely graphed with all political views. 76.107.253.105 (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not going to find any infographics along those lines, at least not constructed by genuine economic or political scholars and not employing genuine empirical data, owing to the fact that "personal freedom" is rather a subjective and open-ended term and ill-suited to any kind of quantifiable utilization against another variable. For that matter, "economic" is rather an unrefined factor as well. If you are inquiring about the influence of open markets or the freedoms afforded to individual buyers to purchase particular goods within a given economic system, we can probably point you in the direction of appropriate materials, but you're going to have to be a lot more specific. Snow talk 22:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No. The Nolan chart reduces all human political actions to two normative categories drawn from the enlightenment. A number of other views of political science or society draw different divisions, and, Nolan's chart cannot adequately represent the politics present in these viewpoints. Reducing all social interaction to two instrumentalist categories is almost guaranteed to exclude elements of social reality. Finally, even if you were to modify your question to, "Has someone graphed a large variety of modern political views onto a Nolan chart," that individual someone would almost certainly assign different values to political views than any other particular someone. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No chart can explicitly list all political views, but you might find something useful at Political spectrum – or, more likely, in its links. —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Jerusalem" in Catholic churches

(Apparently I only use the reference desk to ask questions about William Blake now. Anyway...) I attended Mass at a Catholic church earlier today, and I am almost certain that I heard the tune to the hymn "Jerusalem" played on the organ immediately before (or possibly during; my memory is fuzzy, but I know everyone was kneeling) the Communion rite. I took note of that primarily since, while "Jerusalem" is routinely used in Anglican churches, I've never known it to be used in a Catholic church of any sort, and I wouldn't expect most Catholics to even know the tune.

I can't be 100% sure, but I was forced against my will into listening to dozens of renditions of "Jerusalem" earlier this month, so I know the song fairly well at this point. What I'm wondering is whether there's a similar tune I may have mistaken for "Jerusalem," perhaps one Parry based his setting upon. Thanks in advance. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the modern Catholic Church isn't quite as stuffy as it used to be when it comes to good church music being written by a Catholic or Protestant. The last "Catholic" I dated (who was less of a Catholic than I am but still living with her devout parents) knew the words to the hymns at my (granted eclectically traditional) Baptist church, and I had to put up with her church's praise band. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I take it we are speaking in a British context here? If so, Jerusalem is well-known and adored enough that I shouldn't be surprised that it would be included in a mass, even though historically it played a role in protestant evangelizing. Aside from this, there is the possibility that this was a reference chosen by the church or organist to reflect the fact that the pope is in Jerusalem at present. Snow talk 22:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, should have specified: I'm in North Carolina. And the geographical reference I had not considered; I rather like that theory, actually! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it's purely speculative, but I shouldn't be surprised if that was the case, given the non-British context; given the national preoccupation with the song in Britain, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it during any form of Christian services there, but I imagine it's a relative rarity in the Catholic context elsewhere. As to addressing your actual question more directly -- needless to say, it difficult to rule out the possibility that you heard another, similar piece (and I'm not particularly well-versed in hymns that anything jumps to mind for me personally), but this reference does seem to strongly imply that the work was a thoroughly original composition from Parry. Snow talk 22:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This hymnal [5] - or rather an earlier edition of the same work - was widely used in Catholic churches and schools in the UK when I was growing up (the 1980s). If you expand the contents you'll see that it includes "And did those feet" (i.e. Jerusalem), and to the best of my recollection also did so in the volume in use in my childhood. We certainly did sing Jerusalem occasionally. In a British context, the tune is well-known regardless of religious affiliation, and as the previous poster mentioned is as much a patriotic song as a hymn. Valiantis (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The RC church is more open to traditionally "Protestant" hymns nowadays than it was decades ago. "Amazing Grace" can now be heard in Canadian RC churches, even though its a traditional Protestant hymn from the U.S. A lot of other traditional Protestant hymns can now be found in the current hymnals of Catholic churches. Music is more ecumenical these days, I guess. OttawaAC (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazing Grace is most certainly not a 'Protestant hymn from the US' - the words are by an Englishman. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the tune "New Britain" is American, words and music being first published together in Southern Harmony in 1835. The hymn had fallen out of use in the UK and was reintroduced from the USA in the 20th century. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought we won it in 1812, though. :P Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm missing the necessary cultural context here. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No border changes resulted from the War of 1812. It was more of a cultural victory for the Americans (well, except for the Native Americans) than anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It rather depends on your perspective - over here it's viewed as an attempted land-grab in Canada while we were pre-occupied with Napoleon. I think we can safely call it a draw. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the US got some songs from the war, ranging from "The Star-Spangled Banner" to "The Battle of New Orleans". Did the British get anything for their efforts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We got to keep Canada, and we made you paint the White House white. Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We're collecting Canada, one talented citizen at a time: William Shatner, Justin Bieber, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber? Bugs, I'm dubious your fellow Americans view that as a sign of victory. Citation please? ;) Snow talk 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The Mormons seem to have collected Jesus Christ as well. 86.181.158.204 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I directed my Catholic church choir ten years ago and can say that in my parish a good hymn was a good hymn, regardless of source. We even used Lean On Me as the Recessional hymn once. Mingmingla (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps your organist wasn't playing the tune 'Jerusalem', he was instead playing the theme of Holst's 'Jupiter'. 86.181.158.204 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's 'I Vow to Thee, My Country', not 'Jerusalem', that is sung to a theme from Holst's 'Jupiter'. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I know the bit of "Jupiter" you're referring to. That's a distinct possibility, though I will say that I think what I heard sounded more like "Jerusalem" than Holst's theme. I'll have to check out some organ renditions of both and compare, though. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Jupiter" sounds quite a bit like "Jerusalem," but I'm still pretty certain what I heard was "Jerusalem." Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

May 26

René Gillotin, Portrait of Marquesan chiefs

Does anyone know the original title of this portrait File:René Gillotin, Portrait of Marquesan chiefs.jpg? Also who are the people on it? Can anyone make out the names. If deciphered correctly they should show up in 19th century French sources. I know Temoana is on there and Pakoto (although oddly spelled, can anyone make out unusual spelling. And then the two mystery persons. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The portrait in aquarelle features printed in this book, the subject of which are the paintings and drawings of René Gillotin. Unfortunately it is not entirely described. It seems to be titled "Chiefs of tribes of ..? Nuku-Hiva ?", but there is no indication that this was the original title. René Gillotin was a ship captain in the French Navy (see last available page of the preview), which makes a simple descriptive title probable nonetheless. The fourth person on the drawing is high priest Veketou, described p.103. --Askedonty (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC) -- If p.104 is presented blank try gain, the scope of available display seems to be variable

what is the meaning of "fructus est fullonius"

what is the meaning of "fructus est fullonius" (Plautus Pseudolus 781). thanks, --84.108.213.48 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Fruit of the washer"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Some can explain it?--84.108.213.48 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You might have more luck on the Language Desk. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Lewis and Short seem to interpret "fructus fullonius" = "the fuller's fruit" as "ink" (though I don't follow the reasoning for that interpretation). The "est" is part of the gerundive phrase "potandus est" = "is to be drunk". --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a footnote further down the page that explains that "the fuller's fruit" is a euphemism for kicks and bruises, because fullers work by beating cloth. "Fruit" basically means "product" here. The full phrase is a slangy way of saying "I will have to absorb some kicks and bruises". Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Company debt collections

Why do many companies seem to use private debt collectors rather than just go directly to courts to get their debts back?Clover345 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Most likely they have a better track record of success. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of saying the first thing that comes into your head, how about a reference or two? Collection agency may be helpful to the OP. --Viennese Waltz 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of attacking a fellow editor, as you love to do, how about you just provide the supporting evidence, and otherwise shut up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A key point in that article is that debt collectors are motivated to get the job done because they get a cut of the proceeds. That gives them an edge over the court system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, many debt collectors are also "debt buyers". Why would you, for example, want to go directly through the lengthy court system to get your debt back from your original customer, when there is someone else instead willing to "purchase" that debt from you? Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. The bottom line is that the company wants to get its money as soon as possible. And the court system ain't the way to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Debt collectors have higher collection rates, so if your business puts you in the position where you have a lot of indigent debtors, it makes sense to streamline the process. Attorneys are notoriously bad at that (although there are collections attorneys who make their living on being good at that... markets in everything). Many businesses simply sell off the debt and take the write-off. That said, court processes do work. Few people ultimately escape debts completely. They usually have wages or refunds garnished, or social security payments. But, somewhat surprisingly to some, many people pay their debts eventually, often at lower rates. In fact there's a growing industry in people paying debts that are (for whatever reason) no longer legally enforceable. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it has to do with protecting the reputation of the company. The debt collectors often resort to harassment, and if a recognizable company was engaged in harassing some poor widowed grandmother, and the media found out about it, that would reflect badly on the company, especially if the debt isn't really owed. (I once had the phone company try to bill me $500 because I happened to inherit the phone number from a bankrupt company that bought a full page ad in the phone book.) If it's a debt collection agency doing the harassment, the original company has some level of protection for their public image. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Did Elliot Rodger have a mental illness

On the social media, everyone is saying that Elliot Rodger is "mentally ill" but I could not find any official text on the media that actually says that Elliot Rodger is suffering from a mental illness. It was said that he had Asperger Syndrome but I don't think that is classified as a mental illness. 220.239.51.150 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen that he was ever formally diagnosed. It does seem that various warning signs were there, and as too often happens, insufficient attention was paid. As to whether he was merely grossly narcissistic or something more than that, read and judge for yourself.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome is a form of autism, which is a neurological difference rather than a mental illness. However, it's emerged that Elliot Rodger had never been diagnosed with that, either. I think we need to take seriously the idea that he committed this massacre on the basis of views that he had arrived at without the distracting factor of any clearly specified mental or neurological condition. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As often (and understandably) occurs in these cases, the distinction between those two concepts -- the confused actions of a "diseased" mind and the cognizant, but evil, actions of a healthy one -- are becoming blurred. As much personal philosophy goes into such distinctions as does clinical psychopathology, and it's not entirely hard to see why, given the ambiguity of such assessments (even in cases where the facts are relatively well known, as they aren't here); after-all, there are those, including no shortage amongst practitioners of psychology, who would say that the mere fact that he committed such violent acts defines him as having some form of mental pathology in the form of an antisocial personality disorder even if aware of his actions. That's an important distinction as the dichotomy you've referenced here (and the one I think the OP was inquiring upon) is the one most commonly seen in the context of whether one is responsible for their actions (typically in the context of psychological assessment for legal purposes) based upon clear understanding of the nature and consequences of their actions and a mental state that would qualify them as possessing diminished capacity as a result of not being able to appreciate those factors. But that's a purely pragmatic distinction and it's entirely possible for a person to be found culpable, or to borrow upon your wording, non-distracted and still be suffering from any number of mental or neurological disorders. Snow talk 23:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

On the CBS Evening News tonight, they reported that he had been medicated for medical problems when he was young, but that stopped eventually. And since he was never committed, he was legaly allowed to purchase guns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Officially, they're not called "illnesses" anymore, but "disorders". Not something you physically have, but a label you get from a shrink when you meet certain behavioural criteria. For instance, if your perfectly healthy child throws tantrums, he may now get "Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder", but that's not what's causing the tantrums. So no, not technically.

But colloquially, anyone who kills random people because he's lonely is naturally going to be called some form of "crazy". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure if Elliot Rodger was alive today, he would dispute the characterization of his victims as "random". He clearly wrote that (in his twisted worldview) he was after specific people - sexually successful men, and women whom he saw responsible for as depriving him of sex (in this case, sorority girls). Of course, that's not to suggest either of those categories of people bore any responsibility for his mental state.

Also, I, personally, would characterize Aspergers syndrome as a mental disorder, inasmuch as it can potentially cause significant distress and dysfunction to its' "sufferers". Until recently it was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Few people with aspergers become mass killers, but my understanding is that levels of depression and mental distress can be quite high. Ironically, whilst people with the more severe forms of autism can be blissfully oblivious of their disorder, those with mild forms like aspergers can be painfully aware of their differences (such as the lack of partners). That said, I'm sure many would disagree.

And I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions that Elliot Rodger had aspergers, or even if he did, what other things were going on in his brain. 60.230.121.215 (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No murder's totally random, and that word does get tossed around too much. But narrowing the focus to Calfornia girls a 22-year-old virgin wants to touch and the men who've kissed a girl isn't exactly narrowing, either.

Whatever they would (or did) call him and prescribe him, there are millions out there who meet the same criteria and don't kill anyone. Even those we used to call "pyschopaths" are a generally peaceful lot. It's the exceptions to the rule that get attention, same as with "mentally healthy" people who kill. Best to not jump to conclusions at all, rather than with caution. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say psychopaths tend to be a very damaging if not destructive lot - it's just that the destruction they wreak doesn't necessarily involve physical violence. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that sweeping generalisation? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Only meant "peaceful" in a "live and let live" way, not "loving harmony". It stands to reason that trying to build an emotional relationship with an emotionally detached person will be rockier than with someone who cares. But even then, aren't the emotions the painful things? Aren't those what get projected, expected and rejected? It's like someone banging their head on a wall. The wall doesn't feel it, but that doesn't mean it wants to hurt the other. It just has no incentives to ever stop being a wall, least of all love or hate. Sometimes, it's fair to blame the victim. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

What we have, in this case, is a guy who decided it was the rest of the world's fault that he couldn't get laid; that somehow the women of the world owed it to him. What kind of label do you put on that mentality? Narcissism? Entitlementism? Terms like that seem inadequate. It's not necessarily a new idea, though. I'm reminded of this bit of dialogue from the first Dragnet episode of the 1960s: Serial killer (Vic Perrin): "I killed those girls because they asked me to." Sgt. Joe Friday (Jack Webb): "They asked you to?" Killer: "Yes. They said they'd rather be dead than be with me." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a handy guide to pinning down a somewhat authoritative disorder label. By that chart and the few minutes of his life I know about, I'd call him (and probably Perrin's guy) "covetous antisocial". Doesn't mean he didn't have a lot of of other ingredients in his brain stew. "Spineless sadist", "elitist narcissist" and "discontented negativist" seem to fit, too. Depends how you look at it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

While this is largely just my own opinion (based on my own experiences as someone with Asperger's), I'd be surprised if he didn't have Asperger's. From what I've read online, it was suggested several times by various sources that he was diagnosed with it, but whether that is just a parallel some reporters drew to the Sandy Hook massacre where the perpetrator was confirmed to have Asperger's or not, I am uncertain.

But by watching his videos and reading his autobiography, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of his mental process. While he seemed intelligent, he also seemed very awkward and incapable of completely controlling his thoughts and actions, which is typical of people on the autistic spectrum.

Admittedly, the connection made to him and the Sandy Hook killer are somewhat unsettling because I am concerned people will think that Asperger's equates to violent tendencies, which is completely baseless.

While I couldn't tell you precisely how he settled upon the idea that "retribution" was the final solution to his problems, I can tell you that having Asperger's makes social interactions with other people challenging. I think Elliot's was mild enough that he could have overcome them if he had had the right help at the right time. I think it was a combination of factors that caused him to snap and Asperger's was just one piece which contributed towards it (Asperger's doesn't give one any preconceived notions about the inherent inferiority/superiority between race and gender which plagued his thinking...I wonder where he picked up that idea).

Furthermore, I'd like to add that people with Asperger's also have a higher incidence of other mental problems. Schizophrenia is more common in people with Asperger's than in "normal" people, for instance, and something along these lines could have been a contributing factor as well--we may never know.

But as with all mental illness, I don't believe it's binary. I think everyone has some shade of mental issues and "normalcy" is probably best defined as the set of mental issues that most other people have and can identify with. Even among people with Asperger's, there are many varying grades of it. Adam Lanza's was probably much more severe than Elliot's was. I felt like I could identify to some degree with Elliot's frustrations. Adam Lanza just seemed alien to me.

I fear Elliot just became hyper-focused upon the idea that to qualify his life, he needed a girl on his arm and since he found such trouble making this happen, he decided he wasn't going to let himself be beaten and go quietly. And this obsession was a combination of many factors which led to an eventual breaking point. Given time to mature and the right kind of therapy, I strongly believe that Elliot could have lived a normal, productive, and healthy life and could have found happiness and I think he even could have found a nice girl once he got his priorities straight.

It's a damn sad story. -Amordea (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that according to some sources, Elliot's mother who as I guess most here know, were out looking for him at the time, contacted one of? Elliot's therapists after hearing about the shootings, and the therapist said it probably? wasn't him because he's said he planned to do it tomorrow [7] and he tended to stick to such details. It's difficult to say how much of this is genuine professional opinion and how much of it may be recognition that if it wasn't him, it was still vitally important Elliot's mother remains calm (and probably even if it was). Also also that most therapists are probably going to hope a mass shooter is not their patient. Still, it's likely it's at least partially the therapists professional opinion. Point being, even someone who has potentially been treating them for a long while likely still has trouble understanding parts of their psyche and rationality and there's a fair chance it doesn't have that much to do with competence. (Okay the fact that he killed a lot of people is another sign, but that's more complicated.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Unanimous consent vs. 100-0

I still don't understand the difference, if someone is voted by unanimous consent or voted by a vote margin of 100-0 by US Senate. 112.198.90.178 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a vote of 95-0 could be unanimous, by merit of members abstaining or being absent. Unanimous consent merely means that no one present objects, not that everyone said yes. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The other thing to keep in mind is that there are different types of voting procedures used in the US Senate, and different terms are used in describing them. For example, on some matters a voice vote is used, and the general sense of the "ayes" and "no" are recorded. In this case you're not actually counting individual votes, so you don't know exactly how many people voted "aye", just that no one voted "no". Contrast this with a recorded vote, where they actually tally the number in favor and against. Our article says that a roll call vote (where each member is called by name to give their response) is the only type of recorded vote in the US Senate, but other bodies have different procedures, which may be submitting their votes electronically, or by some sort of anonymous ballot where you get a number of people voting on each side, but not information on how each member voted.-- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just at this point of time I can't remember the exact terms, but there are differing forms of unanimity in voting: one is where everyone votes one way or the other, and another is where nobody dissents, either by voting or by abstention. One is technically declared "unanimous" and the other is technically declared "nem con", which is sort for the Latin for "nobody against". --TammyMoet (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Largest bank

What is the largest bank in every state, and in each US territory (excepting territories without a civilian population)? I want to make a map and put it on Commons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have started a list here: User:Magog the Ogre/largest bank by state. Feel free to update. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I answered my own question. The data is here: http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about the growth of Wikipedia

I wasn't sure where to place this question; I settled on this Reference Desk. Is there any sense (or statistics) on the growth of Wikipedia? For example, Wikipedia grows at a rate of x % per day. Or, x % per year. I am not referring to the number of active editors; I am referring to the amount of information contained within the encyclopedia. I assume that each day, thousands upon thousands of new edits are made; thousands and thousands of new facts and pieces of information are added. So, is there any statistical description of this constant growth? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Statistics and Category:Wikipedia statistics might be pertinent as might be File:Entwicklung der Artikelanzahlen der acht größten Wikipedias.png. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hesse-Philippsthal and Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld

Why were Hesse-Philippsthal and Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld annexed by Prussia in 1866? Did they side with Austria in the Austro-Prussian War like Hesse-Kassel? Or were they merely caught between the crossfire?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hesse-Philippsthal and Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld were not sovereign states, but dependencies of the Electorate of Hesse. The annexation of the Electorate of Hessse brought only a change of the sovereign for the princes and no financial loss, for they continued to receive their appanages and kept their possessions Rotenburg castle and Schönfeld castle. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

They refused, however, the Elector's request to be recognized as "King of the Chatti" (Koenig der Katten), a request which was again rejected in 1818 at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle.

I can't find anything about Elector William I's attempt to make his nation a kingdom except on wikiepdia and Encyclopædia Britannica. Is there anything other source discussing this? Even searching "Koenig der Katten" gets me nothing. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This under Wonderful Copenhagen!, even though yet one other and different story. --Askedonty (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"King of the Chatti" would mean ″king of the Hessians″, i.e. "König der Hessen". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If I understand well the reference in EB, although restored in his title of Elector and with the reenactment of his country's constitution, there is an opinion that the statute of Elector had become meaningless following the Great Powers' arrangements. --Askedonty (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There is mention of William's claim in A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, Volume 1, by Ernest Satow; it is refered when searching for Congress of Vienna. --Askedonty (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Also in Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism it seems to be colloquially called a kingdom. From a principalty become electorate, when several electorates had been made to kingdoms by Napoleon, or does the author mean Prussia? That's not clear. --Askedonty (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The text is incoherent presumably due to the author's copy-pasting the sentence from somewhere. It should be read as "By now (1850) the kingdom (of Prussia) was following a policy of its own with the aim of a German union (see Erfurt Union) under Prussian leadership. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

May 27

Ranavalo Manjaka

What does the last two lines of this document read?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The last three lines are "Hoy Ranavalo Manjaka / Mpanjakany Madagascar / &c, &c, &c" which I think means "says Ranavalo Manjaka / King of Madagascar / etc. etc. etc." There is a letter with a similar closing here.--Cam (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about Chinese references to Indian monument

Are there any sources from dynastic China that make reference to the Iron pillar of Delhi? I know Faxian visited northern India during the reign of Chandragupta II, the person who originally erected the pillar, but I don't think he mentions the monument. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Literal gold diggers

A conversation with a friend led to a very goofy question: how many literal gold-diggers (meaning female gold miners) are there in the world? For that matter, how many male gold miners are there? Thanks! --140.180.253.60 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Meaning male and female miners working in gold mines ? (There's also gold panning.) StuRat (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that any answer is going to be very approximate, given that much small-scale mining in less developed countries is illegal. There are certainly many women involved in such activities, as a mine collapse in Ghana in 2009 illustrated - 13 of the 15 people killed according to this BBC report [8] were women. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Since a figurative gold-digger wants the "gold" for herself, does the literal digger need to, too? If she worked long hours in unsafe and disrespectable conditions to make the boss rich instead, wouldn't she be a literal "prostitute" (definition 2)? I don't know the numbers, but if you also see it this way, there are far fewer "gold-diggers" than "whores". 99 to 1, perhaps.

If you count the "pimps" as "diggers", here's a list of 10 major players. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Do we need these references, Hulk? I find them off-topic, and not entirely palatable. IBE (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the prostitute references, no need, but thought it might help answer the question to distinguish between those who dig wholly for their own benefit, and those who dig for others. In this context, I figured the analogy was appropriate. Sorry to any who took it another way.

If you mean the link reference, those women don't all mine gold, but about half of them (at least indirectly). Mostly on-topic. It might have suggested some names and companies to Google, I thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. But in any case, the premise of the question is flawed. If we're being literal, the noun 'digger' isn't gendered, and so the number of gold diggers is the number of gold miners, subject to any quibbles about methods of extracting gold. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. But since we now know the purport of the question, we can try to answer it as intended. It did completely throw me at first. I actually thought the OP had no idea at all about the meaning of the word "literally". IBE (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

How about deleting your comments now you know they were mistaken? 184.147.147.85 (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

How about editing under your real ID instead of hiding behind a drive-by IP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

For 184, nobody else uses the term "drive-by IP". Whatever I think of your comment (which I don't really understand), your id is not a legitimate basis for an opinion. All of us are hidden, except insofar as we disclose ourselves on our user pages. I have elected to say very little on mine, mostly stuff like gender so people know which pronoun to use. So I am also hidden. IBE (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

140.180.253.60, I haven't yet found a figure for all gold mining, but here are two numbers that may help.
1. According to the United Nations, speaking of artisanal gold mining, "This sector produces about 12-15% of the world's gold. An estimated 10-15 million miners, including 4-5 million women and children, are involved in the sector."
2. According to the International Council on Mining and Metals, speaking of non-artisanal mining, "2.5 million people working in the sector worldwide" - here, "the sector" refers to all metals mining, not just gold.
Since it seems by far the bulk of actual gold miners are therefore in the artisanal sector, you could take the UN numbers as a lowish-but-not-far-off estimate. 184.147.147.85 (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

American Legal System

How is the American legal system different from other legal systems in other countries? What makes the American legal system unique? I am specifically talking about the Trial by Jury system of the American legal system. 140.254.226.181 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Law of the United States. You can also find similarly titled articles, such as Law of France or Law of the People's Republic of China, for just about any country in the world. After reading each article in turn, and then comparing what you find, you can arrive at your own answers to your questions. --Jayron32 21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

But you should also be aware that each state of the US has its own legal system. This is briefly covered in the article Jayron linked. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have any specific questions let me know. One thing that is very unusual about the US penal system is that it is unusually punitive compared to the rest of the western world. The US has much higher rates of incarceration compared to other countries, longer sentences, in many cases, harsher prison conditions. Plea bargains are often sought by prosecutors--there's a current debate about the practice of overcharging a defendant so they can plead down to what the prosecutor actually wants. Social aspects: I don't know how this compares to other countries, but the US often figuratively tries cases in the media and court cases serve as a source of entertainment. There is debate over the way in which criminal defense is paid for. You have to pay privately unless you are indigent.

The interesting thing about the US system is that it is seen by many as fair and great lenient compared to other countries, but there really are a lot of ways in which the US system has more flaws is much more rigid (edited for clarity). When you look at the way the murder of Meredith Kercher was handled in Italy, it really highlights the differences between the two systems. In America, it's almost impossible to get an appeal, in Italy, it's considered a normal part of the process. In America, if you're convicted, you are taken straight to prison, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Despite being convicted, Solleciato is still walking around free, posting on facebook. I'm not sure the intricacies of that situation, but it highlights a distinct difference between the concept of a conviction in America vs. Italy. When you look at the way people describe the treatment of the defendants in that case, it's very clear they have an overly rosy view of America. People are adamant that Knox wouldn't have ever been charged in America, but I've seen it a hundred times here. Also, Rudy Guede is serving less than 30 years. He would've been facing the death penalty in America and definitely wouldn't have gotten less than life in prison.

An interesting thing that I learned recently is that in France, you can be charged criminally for things that would only qualify for civil charges in America. I think I heard that civil suits don't even exist in France. An example of this is the death of 12 year old mountain climber Tito Traversa. He died in a rock climbing accident because a piece of his equipment was incorrectly assembled by his 12 year old girlfriend. Manslaughter charges were filed against the owner of the company that manufactured the part (even though there was nothing wrong with it), the owner of the retail store that sold them, the manager of the club that organized the trip Traversa was on, and the two instructors that were present during the accident of manslaughter. A relative of the girl to whom the draws belonged is also being “currently evaluated.” There may be some charges you could file in a similar situation, but unless the owner of the shop or company knew the products were dangerous and continued to make them, criminal charges are a no-go and even then it's unlikely. Anyway, these are a few differences between the American court system and other court systems around the world. Bali88 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. legal system has numerous ignominious episodes (as any other legal system must which has applied to millions of people over wide geographical areas for more than two centuries), but I really don't see how you bolster your case by referring to the Amanda Knox case. Prosecutors with a dogged adherence to one theory (no matter how implausible it comes to seem in the light of later events) can happen in any legal system, but if the case had happened in the U.S. -- with Knox's family able to afford good lawyers from the very beginning and no real substantive evidence implicating her left standing -- then it would have almost certainly been thrown out by now. And why shouldn't Guede get more than 30 years?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

When I brought up that example, I was actually just attempting to show the differences between the various justice systems as opposed to arguing a POV. I wasn't attempting to bolster any case. Clearly Italy's system has some flaws as well. The only point I did try to make was the that people are generally unaware of the flaws within the American system as well as how strict it is in comparison to other countries, and that is clear in many of the criticisms of the Italian system. You're not the first person who has said "this would never happen in America!!!", when there are plenty of defendants who were charged and convicted on crappy evidence and misbehaving prosecutors. Although, yeah, Knox specifically probably wouldn't have been charged. But if she was black or a man with a criminal record, they would've been executed already. I'm not arguing that Guede should have any specific sentence, just that it's an interesting comparison. Bali88 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that Amanda Knox would not have been charged in the first place in the U.S., since prosecutors with pet theories or idées fixes impervious to subsequent facts can occur in any system. However, if Knox had been aggressively and competently defended from the beginning, then with the evidence against her in its current state, her case would have almost certainly been dismissed by now in the U.S. Since the Italian prosecutors can apparently drag her case back for indefinite retrials at the trial court level (despite the fact that she was acquitted at the appellate level), and are uninhibited by the fact that they've changed their story about Knox's alleged "motivation" several times, I really don't see how the Knox case casts a positive light on the Italian justice system... AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they can really go back indefinitely to the level of the original trial court. The history is a bit complicated.

The thing to keep in mind is, the Italian appello is not the same thing as the Anglo-American "appeal". The appello is, as we would see it, more of a second trial — all the evidence can be re-examined from the beginning. That might seem like a step in the direction of protection for the accused, except that both sides can "appeal".

The equivalent of our "appeal" is the court of last resort, the Corte di Cassazione. That's where the evidence is not (theoretically) supposed to be re-examined, but the argument is over technical errors made at the lower level(s).

In the Knox/Sollecito case, the defendants were found guilty in the court of first instance. Then they were found innocent on "appeal" (per non aver commesso il fatto — the court explicitly said they didn't do it). That verdict was overturned in cassation, so it went back to the court of appeal, and this time they were found guilty. However they retain the presumption of innocence for now pending another trip to the Court of Cassation.

Comparing all this with the American system is a mixed bag. Bali88 is correct that you (almost?) automatically get an appeal, but the problem is, so does the prosecution. (I've never quite understood, given that, why they bother with the first trial.) For Knox and Sollecito, that meant four years in prison before they were acquitted on their first appeal (though to be fair, three of Amanda's years wound up being for her false accusation against Patrick Lumumba). Hmm — my logic was a bit off here. They did spend four years in prison before being acquitted, but it wasn't because of a prosecutorial appeal.

In the American system, this exact sequence can't happen, but plenty of other Kafkaesque things can happen, what with the many levels of possible appeals. --Trovatore (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The US Constitution's prohibition of double jeopardy was written precisely to avoid the kind of abuse that Italy has visited upon Amanda Knox. However, the American way also puts a lot of weight on the original decision of the jury, and getting a re-trial can be very difficult. As to allegedly excessive penalties, there's a prevailing assumption that the criminal chooses to commit the crime, of his own free will and in full knowledge of the potential penalties. Compare this with the perp in the 2011 Norway attacks who, if he plays his cards right, can get out of jail after just 21 years despite having murdered 77 citizens. In America, there's no chance he would be allowed outside prison walls, ever. Every country's legal system is "unique". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think in some situations there are ways to keep a convict imprisoned past the length of their sentence if there is concern that they could be a danger to society. I don't know about Norway though, but in many countries he would definitely qualify. Certainly there is an argument that some convicts deserve to spend life in prison and others are simply too dangerous to have out on the streets. I'm definitely sympathetic to that POV. However, America is a shocking departure from the way other first world countries view the criminal justice system. Obviously correlation =/= causation, but other countries manage to have far less crime despite having dramatically shorter sentences and in many cases better conditions for prisoners. To me, it's worth looking at whether there is some link. The American system, in theory at least, is a really great system and I firmly believe in the majority of its principles. However, there are a number of ways in which it's abused and the rights we are guaranteed as citizens are not granted. There are almost never penalties for prosecutors who commit brady violations or witness tampering. I think if there was some accountability, it would dramatically bring the system back to the ideals that it's based on. Bali88 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"I really don't see how the Knox case casts a positive light on the Italian justice system"...No, no, that definitely wasn't where I was going with it. Clearly there are problems and this case highlights them. I simply mean that a lot of people look at what's going on in the case and they're all "the Italian system is crap!" when they are completely oblivious to the numerous ways in which people are screwed, and in more severe ways, in the American system (the trouble with getting an appeal, the length of sentences). While they are able to go after Knox and Solleciato in a way they wouldn't be able to in the American system, the amount of damage they can do is diminished by the other elements of the system. Even if they were convicted, they still have numerous chances to be acquitted. And even if they end up serving a sentence, their sentence is way shorter than it would be in the American system. But seriously, don't look at my feelings and bias on this as something super important. I feel strongly about the justice system and sometimes when I talk about it I turn into a frothing-at-the-mouth beast and don't get my point across all that well, but really, I was just trying to point out the ways in which the system vary greatly.

I think another issue that happens in the American system is the way in which the media is used to help win convictions. Prosecutors leak evidence and...sometimes evidence they don't even have and then fight to prevent cases from getting a change of venue. The David Camm case was a good example of that. The prosecutors would do interview after interview where they'd say there was all this evidence, then when it would come time for the evidentiary hearing, they didn't have half of it and the rest of it was shaky. They told the public there was evidence of insurance fraud--forged documents. This didn't exist. They told the public there was evidence of the daughter's vaginal fluid on the master bedroom bedspread. It came out later that the DNA analyst filed a complaint that the prosecutor tried to get her to testify that it was vaginal fluid despite the fact that no such test exists. He also tried to get her fired because she wouldn't say that the real killer's DNA was actually Camm's. That was another piece of "evidence" they leaked to the media. People don't realize how widespread this is. From what I understand, Knox has been presented by the media as the victim in American and a criminal in the UK. The way in which the media treats the case plays a huge role in how the public views the case and can also impact the jury. Jurors don't always follow the "no media" rule. I don't know how this compares to other court systems around the world. Maybe some non-Americans can weigh in on this.

The topic of double jeopardy is an interesting one. The upside of the Italian system is that the convictions are not seen as final the way they are in the American system. The downside is that neither are the acquittals. Canada is one country that the prosecution can appeal a not-guilty verdict in certain circumstances. Occasionally they try in America, such as Robert Angleton or Esteban MartinezBali88 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't take long to get into the.... "let me tell you what's wrong...." line... or after that into the random tangent based on a case that's not even relevant to the U.S. legal system. Two short, correct, concise answers. First, common law versus civil law systems. The British based systems are common law (U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia... I'm not sure how India works in there, etc.), versus France and maybe Germany, which are civil law systems. Second, perhaps the biggest difference between British and American legal systems is the concept of a "Constituion". In American systems the Constitution is a discrete document; in British systems it is essentially the cannon of law in place, including both statutes and "common law" (similar but not exactly the same as the link above). It's a complicated question. I suppose another glaring difference you could point to is the American rule when it comes to attorney's fees. Shadowjams (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there Jewish or Christian equivalents to Islamic sharia law?

I was looking at this Common law page, and that got me thinking. Are there Jewish or Christian equivalents to Islamic law or sharia law? A quick Google search brought me to a page on Jewish law, but when I typed in "Christian law", all I got was some sort of Christian Legal Society, which was made up of lawyers who professed to be Christians and practice the law. Am I looking in the right direction? Is Christian law called Christian law? 140.254.226.181 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The Christian equivalent of Sharia law is called Canon law. --Jayron32 21:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's a very good analogy. Canon law regulates matters specifically within certain Christian denominations. It doesn't in general overlap with civil law; at least, not insofar as civil law applies to non-members of the church. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not in secular, post-Christian societies of the 21st century. However, in past societies in Western Europe, canon law applied to all people. While it was adjudicated in seperate court systems, the parallel system of canon law was enforceable by the power of the state, and carried real penalties against real people, up to and including death. See Ecclesiastical court which explains how such a legal system operated within Christian nations. Canon law may no longer hold the force of "law" within modern states, but it used to... --Jayron32 01:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

So, if you were Jewish in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, then you were constantly under Christian rule? Hmmm... the Jews seem to be ruled over by Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, and then the Christians. I wonder whether the Jewish people ever try to free themselves from their Christian political authorities. 69.174.58.108 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

After the Jewish diaspora the Jewish people had no homeland; nowhere they could go to get away from authorities (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever) who had it in their minds to persecute them. In a pre-secular society, every state essentially had a state religion, and stateless peoples like the Jewish people were at the whim of the authorities. The ONLY post-diaspora Jewish state I know of prior to the formation of the State of Israel in the 20th century was the Khazar Khanate, and that's more of an historical curiosity than any grander trend among global Judaism. --Jayron32 22:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

So I agree you have a point when talking about the medieval Catholic Church (I don't think it ever worked that way with Anglicanism; couldn't say about Orthodoxy). But at latest, that ended with the Enlightenment; not exactly a 21st-century novelty. I submit that that makes your first response a bit misleading. --Trovatore (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A fresh separation of church and state law was one of Henry VIII's innovations as soon as he had nationalised the CofE. One example that comes to mind is that buggery, previously an ecclesiastical offence, became a capital crime in civil law for the first time. So I think you're right - the CofE as a distinct entity has never had a body of law that extended into civil life. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hell no regarding Henry VIII and seperation of Church and State. Henry VIII actually closed the gap between Church and State. Prior to Henry VIII in England, there was at least some semblance of an independent (and international) church legal system and church polity; certainly the individual Christian states had some control over such matters as appointment of bishops and the like, but Henry VIII took direct personal control over the English Church and made the church a direct creature of the state, especially through men like Cromwell and Cranmer. The idea that the English state would take a more hands-off approach to church matters really didn't shake out till after the Glorious Revolution. But Henry had the OPPOSITE effect of separation of Church and State. He made the church and state connection more direct and overt, and persecuted dissent and heresy far more directly than ANY of his predecessors. He didn't work for religious freedom; he worked for religious uniformity under his own personal vision of what Christianity should be. --Jayron32 23:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies! I think you've responded to something I didn't mean to say; but what I meant to say was wrong too. What I was driving at was that from Henry VIII onward people in England would not be brought before church courts for secular matters. This was - as you rightly observe - because Henry had basically rolled it all into one big ball of state law. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

An interesting side-bar here: Blasphemy stopped being a criminal offense in the U.K. in 2008. Though it was rarely invoked in the 20th century, the civil authorities in the U.K. had the legal right to prosecute a religious crime like Blasphemy up until about 6 years ago. --Jayron32 00:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevant references may be: Two kingdoms doctrine and Unam sanctam (both relating to Christianity). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Canon law would be Catholic and Orthodox, and similarly leaning Protestant groups. Other Protestant groups would range from Dominion Theology (holding that their personal understanding of the Bible at any given moment is "God's law" plain and simple) to Antinomianism, with most falling somewhere inbetween (usually holding to ideas such as the Great Commandment, the Ten Commandments, or some vague notion resembling Noahide law, viewing other "rules" as divinely recommended guidelines to fulfilling or following those big ones).

Jewish law would be Halakha. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that unlike Muslims, early Christians were in no position to make or enforce laws, aside from church discipline within their own communities. In Islam, politics and religion were intertwined from the very beginning because Muhammad was both a political and a religious leader. Sharia law is based on how Muhammad and his early followers organized society. There's no Christian equivalent to this because it took centuries before Christians gained any political power. See also Christianity and politics. - Lindert (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There may be a difference in the historical background and in the amount of time from their respective religions' founding the systems took to develop, but I don't see how Canon law, at least as it was applied in Medieval courts, and as part of the various Inquisitions, doesn't qualify as an equivalent system to Sharia. For more on Jewish topics, see Oral Torah, Posek, and (for the sorts of Jewish practices that are decidedly not "Law") Minhag. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Quds Force called the Quds Force

See title. Why the reference to Jerusalem? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I get the impression from this that their initial purpose was to prepare for an open conflict with Israel by giving Iran an advantage ahead of time, "in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran" in particular. Seems they've either gone beyond that initial purpose or are digging in to prepare for World War Three to be between them and Israel. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a direct reference, but I suspect it has to do with the national-religious duty of "liberating" Jerusalem (see for example Quds Day). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's one reference in a footnote from a 2012 Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report: "The name refers to the 'liberation' of Jerusalem (Al-Quds in Arabic), the Qods Force's stated goal" [9]. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as unsettling a rationale as I had expected! Thanks for the refs. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Quds in Quds Force has any specific significance. Quds is like a sacred name in Islamic Republic. Many cities in Iran have Quds Squares, Quds may be the name of a company, a school, a rocket, a street, a supermarket, anything. Omidinist (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And I suppose that "Suleiman Khater" in "Suleiman Khater Street" doesn't refer to Suleiman Khater? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a different case. We don't have a Suleiman Khater company, school, supermarket, hospital, bank, etc. Omidinist (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

May 28

Matching point sizes of different typefaces for visual size equivalence

At the same "point size", different typefaces generally don't look the same size. Is there a standard approach to determining what point size in one typeface will visually have the same size as another typeface at a given point size? Is the x-height the correct measure to use for determining visual size equivalence? Thanks. --173.49.79.20 (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There could be many ways to compare. For example, bold text might seem bigger, in that it's darker and easier to read, just as larger text is. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

173.49.79.2 -- There's a long and complex typographic history, but basically point size is supposed to represent the recommended minimum line height. I.e. if a given size of a given typeface is supposed to take up six lines of type per inch, then the point size is 12 points (or very close to 12 points, depending on the exact definition used). If one typeface has very short ascenders and descenders relative to x-height, while another typeface has very long ascenders and descenders, or one is "compressed" while the other is "extended", there may not be any meaningful "visual size equivalence"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Henry Adams

For a man known for his travels how come I can't seem to find any photograph of Henry Adams abroad in Europe, Japan or the Hawaii or Tahiti?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, photography was a pretty arduous process in those days. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Depends which days you have in mind. The first small, easily portable, and indeed inexpensive cameras date from the 1880s and 1890s. Even then, most travellers failed to see the possibilities of them until the early 20th century. Moonraker (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Term for a fellow disabled person

Do people with disabilities use the term "cousin" to refer to other people with disabilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.162 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Haven't heard that one. A retarded man I know calls the other retarded men in his group home his "brothers", so brothers and sisters seems more common. StuRat (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, StuRat, the term "retarded" is now considered to be offensive. --Viennese Waltz 12:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Since we stopped calling them by that kind of name, their situation in life has gotten much better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That looks sarcastic, but I for one would rather have my disability and not be abused for it, than still have the disability and also be abused for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a "RE-tard" is offensive. The term "retarded" is basically old-fashioned or out of date. So tell us, please, what the current politically correct term or terms would be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, "retarded" is offensive. As for the term to use if (unlike you and Stu, it seems) you are sensitive to the need to avoid giving offence, see the original post. --Viennese Waltz 13:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Person with disabilities" is too general. Do you have an actual answer to my question, or are you just here for harassment purposes, as per usual? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't ask me, you ask them (see below). That's kind of the point. --Viennese Waltz 13:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

So you don't have an answer, and your visit here was solely for harassment. Nice going, Viennerschitzel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's twice now you've baselessly accused Viennese Waltz of harassment. At the very least you could get the username right. I'd urge you to reconsider your position in this thread, which you joined in order to defend discriminatory language. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's actually his idea of a joke. --Viennese Waltz 15:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I dare say. I'm not laughing, and I'd guess you aren't either. And now there's the new thread below. At what point does behaviour become so hostile that someone actually takes action? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right. At what point does VW's hostility become too much to take? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, the correct term is Wienerschnitzel. "Viennerschitzel" is deeply incorrect and may cause profound distress. Moonraker (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may never have heard of the Tom Lehrer song.[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mystified by this, Baseball Bugs. What Tom Lehrer sings is Wienerschnitzel. Moonraker (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Something like a pun, and a twist on how W's can sound like V's in places. Lowbrow, but I chuckled. Reminded me of the Hansel issue in Bewitched Bunny. Not nice to pick on people, though according to Maclean's, "Bugs can come off as a jerk if you write him the way he was written in most films, but if you make him a loser, he just doesn’t seem like the character." InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

When was the euphemism retarded coined, and when was it superseded by the next euphemism? —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Stu, maybe you should address this: How does your friend feel about the term "retarded"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't call him that, but then I don't call him "mentally disabled", "special", or any other euphemism, either. I just call him "Jimmy". It's the condition itself that is embarrassing, not the factually correct term "mentally retarded". No matter what PC name you come up with for it, it's never going to be a good thing. I also know people who are ugly, and rather than come up with euphemisms for that when I talk with them, I just avoid referring to their level of attractiveness, just as I avoid referring to Jimmy's IQ. Now, if I had to describe their looks, say to somebody who only knew them online and was interested in dating them, that's when I'd have to be honest, but would also try to be diplomatic. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

European peoples who attend school in America

In history, I learned that Americans initially attended school in Great Britain and other European countries. Nowadays, there is Emma Watson, an English girl, who attends university in America. Since when did this shift happen? When did Europeans start seeing educational value in America? 69.174.58.108 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

One example hardly constitutes a "shift". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that for obvious economic reasons, the proportion of people who are residents/nationals of one country but receive an education in another country on another continent will always be an insignificant minority, right? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There were schools in Virginia and New England from their very beginnings. And long before anyone was called an American (and indeed before there were Thirteen Colonies) Harvard was founded in New England precisely because of the trouble and expense of travelling to Europe for a higher education. You also need to bear in mind that in the 17th century transatlantic migration was far from irreversible: it was surprisingly common for English migrants to North America and the West Indies to return to England, especially after the English Civil War changed so much there. Moonraker (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ms Watson notwithstanding, the flow of students is probably still from America to Britain rather than the other way around. "The number of US students attending universities in the UK was 16,233 last year (2013)", but "the Fulbright Commission said a record 9,186 British students took university courses in the US in 2011/12". Sorry I couldn't find any more recent source for the US statistics, but it's unlikely that the UK->US numbers will have increased >70% in the last two years. 123.121.222.250 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Of note is that the population of the two nations is significantly different. Given that the U.S. is 5 times as populous as the U.K., that means an equivalent cross-pond exchange should feature 5 times as many Americans going to British schools. That there are less than twice as many U.S. students studying in the U.K. means that roughly, the average U.K. students is 2.5 times more likely to study in America than the other way around (very rough approximation). So, it is MORE likely that any individual British student will come to the US than the other way around. --Jayron32 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My thought exactly. The gigantic continent has more people on it right now than the British Isles. Shadowjams (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I went to college with a few British kids. They were kind of jerks, so my theory on the whole thing is that England kicked them out. But I'm not seeing any sort of real trend here. Bali88 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Those numbers are so low that it looks like studying abroad in each other's countries isn't something Yanks and Brits much do at all. As mentioned above, studying abroad is typically only done by the affluent. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In 2011-12, a lot more students came to America to study (764,495 vs. 283,332), but no European country is in top 10, while 44% or more of Americans studied in Europe. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias against people with disabilities?

Is the Wikipedia community biased against people with disabilities? I just asked a simple question about a term in disability communities. Why do you give such insulting responses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.149 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

keep the bickering off this page. --Jayron32 22:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not exactly. There's this nannyistic user named Vienna-something who often comes waltzing in here for the sole purpose of harassing other users. In this case, he went after StuRat (the only user who actually tried to answer your question), and things went downhill from there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC) And since no one would answer the question I raised (maybe because they don't know the answer themselves), according to the U.S. Supreme Court it's "intellectually disabled".[11] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC) The Supreme Court? Who on earth made them the arbiter of language?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Nobody. They choose that term now because it squares with what doctors use nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Hello there! I can assure you that Wikipedia as a whole, and the vast majority of our members will have no bias against people with disabilities. You just had the misfortune of having a user come to your question that had a personal axe to grind (the esteemed member above me), and used your question to do it. Unfortunately it happens on here sometimes. Do not worry, it is currently the subject of an ongoing possible disciplinary action. Please don't let this put you off the Refdesk or Wikipedia in general. Fgf10 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC) It is VW that has the axe to grind. I never did anything to him except to stand up to his harassment and nannying from time to time. Regardless, I think most users here can safely be regarded as being sensitive to the plights of those less fortunate than themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Sigh, can we leave this to talk pages please, and not pollute the refdesk with such nonsense? Fgf10 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC) You began the pollution. Delete your comments, and I'll delete mine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• FYI WikiProject Disability happens to have a current initiative to develop a style guide for Wikipedians writing about disability and related topics. Editors with a good faith interest in the topic are invited to contribute. The initial proposal and discussion is at WT:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide and the draft (complete with it's own Talk page) is at WP:WikiProject Disability/Style guide (draft). You don't need to be a language, style, or disability expert to participate - even posing questions that you would like the guide to answer would be a valued contribution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a 24 year old son with moderate learning disabilities who has many friends and associates with a variety of such conditions. I have never heard him or his friends use the term "cousin" in this way. We live in Northern California. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

May 29

Serhiy Tihipko

Why did Serhiy Tihipko and his Strong Ukraine party split with the Party of Regions? And was his strong showing in the Ukrainian east in the Ukrainian presidential election, 2014 (compared to the 2010 election) a repudiation of a stronger pro-Kremlin stance? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

RICHARD WRIGHT

WHAT IS THE PICTURE OF ON THE COVER OF RICHARD WRIGHT'S "BLACK BOY"? 98.150.129.181 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to say which edition you mean, as there have been many. [12] --Viennese Waltz 09:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Treason by another name, and the U.S. constitution

Section 3 of Article Three of the United States Constitution places clear limits on both what constitutes treason, and how it must be proven.

My question is, can the U.S. government simply circumvent these restrictions by naming the offence by a label other than "treason" - even if the elements of the offence involve "levying War against (the U.S.), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort?

For example, Bradley Manning was charged with "aiding the enemy" - clearly involving "giving them aid" referred to in the constitution. Yet he was tried (and acquitted of that particular charge) my a military tribunal - clearly forbidden in treason trials. I believe other individuals have been likewise tried under laws which, whilst not labelled "treason" in the relevant statute, nonetheless contain elements clearly involve the constitutional definition referred to above.

IF the relevant requirements of the constitution can indeed be circumvented simply by calling the offence by another name, wouldn't this make Section 3, Article 3, entirely meaningless?

(PLEASE let's not get distracted by discussions of Manning's guilt or innocence, it's irrelevant to the question). 203.45.95.236 (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)