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 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)

• StuRat is right in that religion played a far more significant role than racism (as we would think of it today). It would more likely be described as some form of "nationalism" rather than "racism". Many pirates were mulattos (a word I strongly dislike but it is historically contextual) and found a place among pirate crews having been rejected by mainstream society (as pirates were anyway). Pirates from particular nations tended to congregate together because of common language and common religion but pirates were, almost by default, pragmatic and democratic (see no purchase, no pay). Proficiency was a highly valued commodity - if you were profitable and reliable, your skin colour was irrelevant. Benerson Little gives a good account of the cultural context in which pirates operated in The Buccaneer’s Realm. Wikipedia's own Piracy WikiProject has links to a range of related articles that might be of interest. Stalwart111 01:03, 30 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 [1] - 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.[2] ←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 [3] 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 [4] 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)

Mr Bugs is being recidivistically naughty. He seemed to finally get the message that referring to anonymous users as if they were murderers is not acceptable (not that anyone knows Bugs' real name, or mine, or that of anyone else who doesn't choose to reveal it here. In fact, we know more about IPs than we typically do about registered users, who can't even be geolocated). Let us hope this is a once-only reversion to type. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Although "murderers" might be characterising it a bit strongly, I like the sentiment of "once-only". In fact, it is conceivable that Bugs has a reason to suspect the person has an existing ID, and edits under an IP when telling others off. However, there can be no proof, I assume. The trouble is always the risk of escalation, so the rest of us have to spend time constantly throwing buckets of cold water everywhere we can. So we definitely appreciate the change. IBE (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with proof. Where is there a law that requires registered users to always and only edit under their usernames? If there is such a law, I plead guilty to having broken it on many occasions. Admittedly, these were from workplace computers, before I retired a couple of years ago; but there's nothing stopping me from doing the same from home, were I so minded. It could be sheer laziness, because I have to reconfirm my login every 30 days. Or a host of other legitimate reasons that are none of anyone else's business. So-called anonymous editors are NOT second-class editors and they have the right to expect to be able to go about their business without being molested by other editors merely because they're not using a made-up user name that tells others precisely nothing. Of course, they can expect the same sanctions as registered users if they break the rules; the only issue there is that it's harder to enforce sanctions as many editors can use the same computer or dynmamic IP; which is part of the reason why registration is recommended and encouraged. But it's not mandatory, and those who for whatever good reasons choose to exercise the choice not to register, or sometimes not to edit under their registered user name, are entitled to the protection of the system. We are, of course, enjoined to assume that their reasons are good. Bugs seriously breaks the rules when he assumes the contrary about IPs as a class. I thought that message had finally got through. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:21, 30 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)

As the linked article says, this applies only to England and Wales. According to Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom, blasphemy is still illegal in Northern Ireland and (possibly) Scotland. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:45, 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" [5]. ---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)

"Point size" refers to hand typesetting -- there are 72 points to an inch (6 picas), and the person setting the type had to know how many inches of type he was setting - to fill out the space one used slivers of "lead" (metal pronunciation) and the term for this was "leading" (pronounced "ledding"). Thus a font was sized so that when no leading was used, that was the space taken up by the type. Careless typesetters would have the "descenders" break off if they gave no leading under the final line. To prevent casual breakage of ascenders, ligatures were used ("ffi" etc.) "Point size" did not refer to "recommended minimum line height" at all, and a great many schoolbooks were printed with 10/12 type - 10 point type with 2 point leading. Six lines per inch - but the type was not "12 point type." Unleaded typesetting was avoided for legibility reasons. There is a subjective "weight" to fonts, which varies even depending on the language being set. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

First off, the definition of a point as 1/72 of an inch is just one among several definitions (and a relatively modern one). In the U.S., a definition of 1/72.27 of an inch prevailed before the introduction of modern computerized typesetting. In any case, your discussion boils down to something exactly equivalent to what I called "minimum line height": i.e. the overall vertical space that a line of type naturally occupies in the context of other lines of type in the same font which are set above and below it. The "recommended" comes in because with computer typesetting it's possible for lines of type to be set more closely than that (i.e. more than 6 lines of type per inch for a 12 point font), which wouldn't be possible in traditional typesetting without shaving metal... AnonMoos (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I fear your 72.27 cavil is not of any importance. The 1866 statute defines a printer's foot to be 864 points or 72 picas. Thus the "72 points per inch" goes back to 1866 at least. The "Johnson pica" is more recent. And the use of leading was essential in typesetting as a rule - which I fear you seem to elide. Collect (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever -- it was 72 points to a printer's inch, but the long-prevailing definition of a printer's inch was not exactly the same as a 25.4mm inch (and there were a number of additional definitions of a "point" besides). And the definition of a 12-point font was one that would naturally be set as six lines of type to the inch without further intervention (as I've been saying all along)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The 25.4 mm = 1 inch was created by treaty in the late 1950s -- and has essentially nothing to do with "printer's inch" at all. The "change" was by 2 parts in a million. And I suggest you ask anyone who has actually set type by hand whether anyone would use cold type for 12/0 spacing <g>. It was not done. Collect (talk) 23:02, 29 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)

Off-topic and inappropriate behavior for the Reference Desk --Bowlhover (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.[6] ←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) "Retarded" replaced "mental defective" when "mental defective" became tainted by eugenics associations after WW2. Already by the late 1960s, "retard" was the favorite insult of ten-year-old boys in some areas... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 30 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)

I hope you weren't majoring in statistics. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:10, 30 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)

One may note that a large percentage of foreign students attend a small minority of American institutions (more than 10% attend 10 schools), just as the large majority of Americans studying abroad head to a small number of specific institutions. At a certain point, an institution becomes an "international" one in that sense, and frequently is chosen for quite specialized reasons. [7] gives the US as attracting 819,644 foreign students in 2012-13. Collect (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the source cited by Clarityfiend does not state that 44% of Americans studied in Europe. The percentage is much lower than that. 67.17.193.162 (talk) 18:28, 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".[8] ←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)

Agreed. There is no term I've ever come across in widespread usage. Also, and this is just my perception, but except for the mildly mentally disabled, I've never noticed anyone even recognizing or noticing that there is any distinction between themselves and other people. My own brother is verbal and can read and do moderately complex tasks. I'm not sure he has ever recognized that he is different or knows who else is different. Perhaps on the very mild disability end of things there is some recognition, but it wouldn't think it would be something they'd spend too much time discussing. And typically those with mild disabilities socialize with people of normal intelligence too, so I'm not sure there would be much use for a term. But that's just my opinion. Bali88 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I provided a comment above before seeing your follow-up. I will paste it here instead. Stalwart111 01:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Occasionally, but I can only provide anecdotal accounts from personal experience (having worked with disabled young people) rather than anything reliably sourced or referenced. In Australia, group homes and supported accommodation have become more popular in the last decade or so (as opposed to institutionalisation). In those instances, young people with disabilities often refer to their housemates in familial terms (my brother, my cousin, my family) as a means of explaining the platonic relationships they have with housemates. There may also be instances where disabled people refer to disabled strangers as "cousins" simply because of the circumstances they share but that's not something I'm particularly familiar with. Stalwart111 01:23, 30 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. [9] --Viennese Waltz 09:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

98.150.129.181 -- If you look on the back cover, or on the page facing the title page, some books have a cover illustration credit in small print... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 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) by 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 which clearly involve (or are identical to) 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)

I believe that the point of the constitutional restrictions is to limit the possibilities for charges labelled "treason", in order to prevent people from being publicly branded as traitors based on loose or vague charges. I don't know that it restricts anything else. AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean Chelsea Manning. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for making that point, I was just about to. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be pedantic... using "Bradley" was correct in this instance... since that is the name that she was charged under. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No one uses my old name when talking about things I did before transitioning. I doubt you would refer to a married person by their maiden name if you were talking about before they were married. It's never correct to refer to a trans person by their old name unless they have specifically said that they are okay with it. Katie R (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The use of maiden names happens all the time when they were famous under that name. I can't prove specific instances where they certifiably did not state whether they were okay with it, but it happens so often that it seems pedantic to worry either way. Try Evonne Goolagong Cawley, for example. I think we would help the question by accepting the choice of the OP in saying "Bradley", although individual respondents could obviously just give a polite aside, and say "Bradley, read: Chelsea", if they feel strongly. However, thanks Katie for at least being relaxed in your way of expressing your disagreement, so it doesn't become a slugfest. IBE (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Ferguson has been referred to by that name (a) before, (2) during and (d) after her marriage to the Duke of York. Kate Middleton, similarly, still gets that moniker despite actually being the much grander sounding Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. The world's media went totally gaga when they got married, but immediately seem to have forgotten that such an event ever took place. Maybe it's an after-effect of being gaga. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so the maiden name analogy was bad. :-P It's not a similar situation, and the problems related to using a trans person's old name have nothing to do with referring to someone by their maiden name... But I've also derailed this thread enough - it's not really the place to get deeper into trans issues. Katie R (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The solution, in either case, is to add "the former", as in "the former Bradley Manning" and "the former Kate Middleton". (I smalled all of this discussion, since it's an aside.) StuRat (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Very big of you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Members of the Armed Forces fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [10] Manning is clearly subject thereto. Collect (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that override the requirements of section 3, article 3? According to our article "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions" ? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose was to avoid the abuses of the British treason laws which made it a capitol offense to insult the King or eat one of his swans, which drew barbaric penalties, and which were obviously not restricted to war against the country itself. Someone more familiar than I with my American perspective will know what article to point to regarding treason in Britain/England before 1789. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant article would probably be High treason in the United Kingdom. Most of the definition of treason in 1789 appears to be from the Treason Act 1351, which made the following things treason:

• Killing or planning to kill the King, his wife, or his heir.
• Having sex with the King's wife, his heir's wife, or his unmarried daughter.
• Rebelling against the King or aiding his enemies.
• Counterfeiting the King's seal.
• Counterfeiting coinage.
• Killing certain of the King's officers.

Various other things have been "high treason" at various times, including "referring to the Sovereign offensively in public writing". --Carnildo (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

People are seldom literally charged with "treason" anymore. Looking at the Timothy McVeigh case, an argument could have been made that he committed an act of treason. However, he committed enough capital crimes to fry him anyway. In the 60s, when Jane Fonda foolishly took a trip to North Vietnam and made a spectacle of herself, there were those who felt a case of treason could have been brought against her. That was never done, for probably any number of reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Fonda was certainly not "making war against the United States", so you would have had to prove that she was "adhering to their Enemies". Given that there was no formal state of war, that might have been constitutionally problematic; I'm curious what any experts here might have to say about that.

Whatever the legalities, we and the Viet Cong actually were shooting at each other, whereas we weren't shooting at Russians when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg did whatever exactly they did. I assume that's why the government stuck to the charge of espionage, which was easier to prove, and did not charge them with treason. --Trovatore (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

For sure. We weren't and still aren't technically at war with Russia. The specific definition of treason in the Constitution almost makes it obsolete, which is probably a good thing. Jane Fonda could be said to have been giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". Jane's behavior was so outrageous that her own father, who was a political liberal himself, felt compelled to ask her if she was a Communist, i.e. if she was now an enemy of America. She said No. And while it's true there was no official declaration of war, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was effectively that. In any case, no formal action was taken against Jane. There's an article called List of people convicted of treason. I don't know if the US portion is exhaustive, but it does seem like charges of treason pretty much stopped around 1960. Obviously, a specific charge such as espionage is more to the point, and provable. "Treason" is slippery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think to stop this practice, the law must define what constitutes treason and specify "this law applies whenever anyone is accused of these activities, regardless of the name given to the charges". "War" is another case where the US Constitution says one thing (that the Senate must declare war), but we just ignore that and have "police actions", etc., instead. "Genocide" is another famous case, where the UN requires that action be taken to stop it, so we just refused to call the Rwandan Genocide by that name. It is a disturbing problem, I agree, even though this practice may also have positive results, like allowing same-sex marriages just by calling them "civil unions", since those aren't forbidden by the law. StuRat (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, political word games. It's the entire Congress that has the power to declare war.[11] The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was not quite a declaration of war, but it did authorize Congress to fund it. Regarding the Korean War, I'm reminded of this comment by satirist Richard Armour, "It started as a police action, but we ran out of police and had to send soldiers." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sedition is also related to treason. StuRat (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Banking hours worldwide

My bank (in Poland) is not processing any orders (e.g. a bank transfer) on weekends (Saturday, Sunday). Is this common worldwide? How about countries which have a different working week (e.g. Arabic countries)? bamse (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the same here in Australia, and, I suspect, other countries. There's been talk of introducing a real-time interbank transfer system for "standard" transfers (essentially Real-time gross settlement as a standard feature), but I suspect that may be years away. No idea how things work in the Islamic banking system, which is pretty much a world of its' own. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To trade stocks, you don't have to call a broker to learn the price (In 1/8ths), buy in lots of 100 ($50K chunks for Apple), and pay him $200 to make two phone calls. Now you pay $7 online, can buy 1 share, and pay $41.43 instead of $41&3/8. Even in 2008, you could buy euros online — 1 or 100K — at $1.XXXXX and pay 2.0 pips to the broker. (a pip is $0.00010/€). Banks are dinosaurs. The future is not here until everyone's bank settles transfers instantly, and computers are fast enough that they boot in 1 second and everyone's interest is compounded Planck-secondly (actually figured out with advancer math, and only when looked at deposited into or withdrawn from). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is also open on Sunday...so I imagine you can send money from Tel Aviv to CairoLihaas (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is more a matter of convenience and profit to the banks than anything else. It used to be typical for a check to take at least a week to clear in the US, and even checks between accounts in the same bank took three days. Local banks that held your employer's payroll account would cash your paycheck the same day if you went to the same physical branch--this was a way to entice customers. The Congress changed the banking rules in the late 80's and required most checks between banks to clear on the third day and many others btween accounts in the same bank to clear the same or the following day. The banks could have done this voluntarily for decades, but guess who was reaping the interest on the funds for the week it took the check to "clear" to your account? See this PDF on US history. I am not sure on the rules on weekend and holiday deposits, but most banks in the US offer weekend banking and even ATM's that will allow you to scan a check into deposit 24 hours. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I recently received a cheque from the USA, in US dollars. I deposited it in my local bank here in Australia, and they converted it immediately into Aussie dollars, but said it takes 28 days for the funds to clear. Is this the standard clearance time for such international transactions, in these days of instantaneous and universal electronic communication? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Was it for a large amount of money? Large transfers into the US can be held up by federal laws on money laundering and terrorism; not sure if it applies to outgoing transfers (or if Australia has their own laws on these matters). OldTimeNESter (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

About $400. I'm sure we do have such laws, but the payer was a fairly major hospital. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of different problems with transacting checks across national borders, in addition to what was previously mentioned about money laundering and terrorism (which are absolutely true). One is that the infrastructure simply isn't there for many banks (even in these days of instantaneous and universal electronic communication). There really isn't an international standard for clearing checks between countries. Large banks have it much easier if they actually operate in the foreign country you're looking at, but mid-sized banks will typically replace that with relationships with banks in a couple of "popular" foreign countries, and a relationship with a larger bank in their own country to assist them with the countries they don't directly cover. For example, the regional bank I work for in the United States has direct relationships with banks in Canada, England, and Germany as well as a relationship with a large multinational bank in the United States. If an Australian check is presented to me, it would have to be processed by my bank's internal infrastructure, then forwarded to the larger American bank, then through to an Australian bank for introduction to the Australian check processing system - and then the credit for that would go all the way back through the chain in reverse.

The other problem is risk of loss to the bank. All things being equal, banks would prefer to hold checks as long as possible so they don't get caught for a loss if the check is returned. In the United States, Congress has done something about that with the Expedited Funds Availability Act, limiting how banks can hold checks. The catch there is that foreign checks aren't considered checks under U.S. law, so those rules don't apply, and since the processing times for foreign checks can be pretty ridiculously long the bank will set a pretty long hold to make sure that the check actually clears. 28 days is not at all uncommon - I've seen holds of 6-8 weeks for larger checks going to less-common countries. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That is most enlightening. Thank you, ElHef. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Stock market valuation

Does anyone know where to get up-to-date data on how much stock markets trade to their intrinsic value?Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean how the market value of a stock compares to its actual value? I don't think there is any agreed upon measure of the actual value (or if it even makes sense to talk about an "actual" value as separate from market value), but there are different metrics that people use. The article Fundamental_Analysis should help (you might want to see Economic_bubble as well). OldTimeNESter (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I meant the stock market indices as a whole. Most are over 6 times over.Lihaas (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Russian Provisional Government's Decision to Remain in WWI Being Influenced by the United States's Decision to Enter WWI?

Does anyone here know if the Russian Provisional Government's decision to remain in World War I was influenced at all by the United States's decision to enter World War I? Does anyone here know of any documents and/or sources which discuss this? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize winner Elihu Root led an American delegation that forced the Russian government to continue its war efforts. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't cards bigger?

Gambling for recreation went through a period of extreme cheating. (In the Wild West, someone was caught with a "pull-card-up-sleeve machine" that gave them back when he squeezed his thigh muscles, they didn't beat him, everyone demanded he tell where to get one and teach them how to use it). Why'd it become usual to not use the top card and have the dealer's neighbor cut the deck but leave them just small enough to use the mechanic's grip, put them up sleeves, and hold them completely covered with a hand? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Just guessing, but if they were any bigger, they'd be hard to hold in one hand, much less shuffle and deal. Being easy to handle makes them easy to cheat with. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

They could hold them in one hand like you'd hold a dish, shuffle and deal them on the table. At least in the 1800s US when the card game of the West (poker) was called "the Cheating Game". Though these things often stick. They also wouldn't have to be as big if they were squarer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The size and shape of cards has changed considerable over the years. I believe our article Playing card has good information that might be helpful to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

May 30

Not a cheese-eating surrender monkey

I am in awe of Henri Giraud, who successfully escaped from the Germans in both world wars, the second time as a general. Does anyone know of other POWs who escaped in more than one war? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Scenic Route, Dalkey to dublin

Assuming a route with trees, lakes, and castles would be the most scenic route from Dalkey to Dublin's international airport, can a local or one familiar with the terrain give a google maps route from Dalkey to Dublin that passes at least two tourist attractions, and name the attractions? Given the proximity, a non-direct route is quite preferable to one with shanties and scrub. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to work out a route for you, but what are your parameters? Would you have your own transport or are you using public transport? Do you want to drive/ride straight there or are stops for sightseeing acceptable? And how long do you have to spare? The drive takes about 30 minutes, and the direct bus about an hour, but if you have 2 hours or more to spare there's plenty to see on or near the route.

I can probably work out a route with a few sights to see, but if you add some more information I might be able to tune it better for what you need. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to add: What time of year (some attractions are season-dependent) and what time of day (the traffic can dramatically lengthen journey times during rush hour)? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here's a suggestion with a mix of coastal scenery, urban architecture and 20th Century Irish history: https://goo.gl/maps/yH3hu. Head north out of Dalkey via Sandycove, passing the James Joyce Tower and Museum - a Martello tower where Joyce spent some time, inspiring part of Ulysses. Then take the coast road through Dún Laoghaire, passing the harbour and enjoying views across Dublin Bay towards Howth. Pass Booterstown marsh nature reserve and then head inland along Merrion Road through Ballsbridge to Merrion Square. This is the heart of Georgian Dublin. A detour can be taken here to St Stephen's Green - Dublin's inner city park, and a key location in the Easter Rising, or the National Museum. Next head around Trinity College (the one-way system takes you round the back, but you can do a full lap to see the famous gates, or stop a while for a tour including the Book of Kells) and then onto the quays. You'll pass by Temple Bar before crossing the river and heading north again through Phibsborough (this part is rather gritty-urban-ish, but stick with it) and into Glasnevin. The Glasnevin Cemetery contains the graves of many of Ireland's most famous names, including Éamon de Valera, Brendan Behan and Michael Collins. From here it's straight up the dual carriageway, then onto the M50 motorway to the airport. Total journey time (without stops) is around 45 minutes, but allow double that during the day. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Process of becoming a church member

When people become church members, do they typically believe in the doctrines first before they apply for membership, or show proof that they believe in the doctrines before they apply for membership, or show proof of Christian behavior? Are they ever allowed to become members before they ever believe in the doctrines? Maybe they may engage in praying the rosary, because they like the discipline it takes to recite the whole thing. Or maybe they may give alms or attend weekly service. And then the behavior may lead them to believe in God? Which comes first - belief or behavior? Do churches require you to believe before you become a member, or are you allowed to act like a Christian, become a Christian, and then believe in the doctrines? 69.174.58.108 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Which denomination? The specifics will, of course, vary, as to what formal membership requires you to do for each specific denomination. Religions generally always expect you to hold their beliefs in earnest before they accept you as one of their own, just in very general terms. Of course, no person is a mind reader, and if you want to be a complete asshole, you can lie to the faces of the people you intend to be worshiping with every day, and just fake that you are genuine. I question your motives for doing so, but ultimately if your goal is to lie to otherwise good-intentioned people into whose community you are seeking acceptance, you do whatever you want. But earnest belief in the core tenets of that religion are generally expected before full acceptance into said community. I'm not sure why you would want to join the community and be accepted by such people, but intend to lie to them. Seems like a strange way to carry on a long-term relationship with people. --Jayron32 18:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just meant by establishing a family religion or raising your future children in a church setting, so that they may grow up to be full-fledged Christians, because they may be partly raised by the church group at birth, while the adults, the said children's parents, are merely converts. 140.254.226.181 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No, almost all Christian denominations (at least the educated and/or unbigoted folks in them) don't see a spiritual difference between those "raised" in the religion and those who convert. Christianity isn't an ethnic religion, so being "born" into it really doesn't matter. Technically, all Christians are converts. Even Catholicism, which practices infant baptism and seems to be gunning for raised-in-the-religion numbers, treats infant baptism as a promise to look after the kid until they're old enough to choose on their own to be confirmed. A new convert might have less familiarity with and practice following the doctrines of their given church, but someone they're still more of a member than an apostate who was raised in and completely understands the religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a small point of clarification there, Ian. The idea that Confirmation (Sacrament) is about the child deciding for themselves to be a Christian is actually Anglican theology, not Catholic theology. While Catholicism absolutely believes that a child has to decide to take responsibility for their own faith and make their own choices as they grow up, the Sacrament of Confirmation is not an act of deciding that: it's part of the Sacraments of Initiation and can be offered at any age, including infancy. It is a Sacrament, not a pivotal declaration, and adults who were Baptised but never Confirmed are considered just as much Catholics as those who were Confirmed. Catholicism tends to take a more gradualist view, rather than a "this is the moment" view, when it come to conversion and things like that: so, a child who grows up in a practicing Catholic household will have lots of little moments of taking on responsibility for their faith, past the age of reason, from Sacraments, to joining in with creeds and affirmations of faith, to contributing to the life of their parish, to assisting at Mass, to prayer or voluntary work, etc. It is a similar process that adult converts go through, although in my experience adult converts take fewer years to pass through it. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That may all be true, but it does bear emphasizing that the Roman Catholic Church, like (nearly) all Christian denominations (and I say nearly as a hedge; as with all of these things, I don't expect to find any disagreement on this point, but neither would I be surprised if some tiny little sect of an insignificant number of people worked differently) requires earnest belief in their core tenets to consider you to be in full communion with them as an individual. Catholics would not recognize a person as a Christian who went through any number of formal sacraments along their life, but openly repudiated a core belief of Catholicism, such as the existence of God or the divinity of Christ. If you don't believe those things, you aren't a valid member of that religion regardless of what ceremonies you have attended. I can think of no religion that would disagree with that, excepting maybe groups like the Unitarian Universalists, which openly reject any core beliefs. --Jayron32 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The United Church of Christ does not require you to believe anything in particular. It describes itself as a "covenant church"; membership is based on a covenant rather than a creed. The version I remember is we covenant one with another, and do bind ourselves in the presence of God, to walk together in all his ways, according as he is pleased to reveal himself.

It has probably been gender-neutralized or something by now. Anyway, while it would be strange to take that covenant if you don't believe, at least, that there is a God, you are not required to believe that, or anything else in particular. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they would. That's what the phrase "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is about. Catholicism teaches that the Sacraments actually do something supernatural, as sources of God's grace: they aren't just symbols, or just a way to think nice thoughts. Catholicism teaches that the Sacraments leave permanent marks in your soul, that if you have been validly Baptised you will never stop being a Christian, because you have been permanently adopted as a child of God. Where this leads to confusion with some Protestant groups is that, despite being a Christian, Catholicism teaches you can still end up in Hell: being a Christian doesn't guarantee you make it to Heaven. I only feel the need to add that, because I know that there are some Protestant groups who use the word "Christian" to essentially mean "a saint who will go to Heaven", and I didn't want to risk confusion. But you're right, they wouldn't be in "full Communion" with the Church if they disagreed with core teachings. But they would still be a member of the Church. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Some "I believe in christian god" religions allow you to go to their church and pray. Some guys of the religion may even call you to go there.

Just to be clear, are you asking about become a member of a particular local church community (that group of people who meet in a particular place), or are you asking about attending and joining in with prayers and worship services and such like, or are you asking about joining a broader denomination which might have lots of little church communities around the world?

As Jayron says, it will vary by group, but it would help if you explained what sort of things you mean. For example, most Christian groups are happy for you to attend services, including prayer services, without formally joining them at all, although many will have some restrictions on which things you can join in with during that service. They also generally encourage you to spend time learning about their faith before you join, although at what point they expect you to join will vary from a few hours to years. These expectations and others will also play a part in how comfortable it is to show up as a curious stranger at that church, and whether you get love bombed. There is also a difference between registering as a member of a church, and going through something like Baptism.

Does this help clarify your questions? 86.146.28.105 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

To avoid love bombing, perhaps it would be safer to join a more mainstream church or churches that are more than 500 years old and thus pretty much settled into the wider society. 140.254.226.181 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many (most?) denominations and congregations will welcome anyone who shows an interest in Christianity to attend and to become part of the community. If you are genuinely seeking answers, then don't be put off by the fact that you may not fully subscribe to doctrines; you will probably be welcomed warmly. I agree with Jayron that formal membership usually requires some form of assent to doctrines, but there are many, many Christians who have become so by following the path you suggest: "act like a Christian, become a Christian, and then believe in the doctrines", and there is at least one denomination that doesn't really have any doctrines. Dbfirs 19:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As others have said, it varies from denomination to denomination. Older denominations are a bit more likely to make you take a couple of classes or something before or as you join, while some newer churches will just go on ahead and sign you up the second you ask even if you completely disagree with every single belief they hold. (Some go a little further: the past two churches I was a member of were both split between the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Southern Baptist Convention. I've sent donations to the CBF and declared myself a member for a while, and there was pretty much no process for me to just lapse back into being an independent Baptist. But when the SBC wants to brag about their numbers, I'm included in the headcount even though I've never given them any of my allegiance, money, or time beyond some rather vehement arguments over women ministers, gay rights, and public school.) Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Surprised no one has mentioned the word "catechism" so far... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Music notation question

Why in 12 tones equal tuning, the symbols are c c# d d# e f f# g g# a a# b, instead of c c# c## c### c#### d e f g a b b# OR c c# d d# e e# f f# g g# a b, OR any other thing?

There are 7 tones in the diatonic scale because that's the fewest consecutive notes in the circle of fifths that, when duplicated into all octaves, have gaps of at most 2 semitones between them. Those gaps occur in the repeating pattern WWHWWWH. -- BenRG (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Does playing chess make you smarter?

Does playing chess make you smarter? Aprilphoenix (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Define your terms. (Specifically, the terms "Does", "playing", "chess", "make", "you", "smarter", and "?".) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe? The article on chess as mental training isn't comprehensive, but mentions a few studies. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Chess was the game played by the Russian aristocracy. Nevertheless, after the revolution of 1917, it became the "way to educate and develop the masses [sic]". (from an on-line article by Cyril Malka: "Chess in USSR - Soviet Rules From 1948 to 1972") 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Majority owner of public company

Can Deutsche Telecom sell (most of) its stake in T-Mobile USA to Sprint without involving public shareholders? This way, it could get Softbank's cash without sharing the rewards with other shareholders. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a request for legal advice. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not unless the OP represents Deutsche Telecom; and if he did we're all screwed that such a high-ranking representative of a major corporation stopped by here for advice. No, this is not a request for legal advice, because there is no advice being sought. Not every question about legal issues is a request for advice. I'm pretty hardline when it comes to shutting down questions requesting legal or medical help for personal problems, but there is no conceivable way the OPs question could be construed as a request for legal help, and as such, it should be answered by anyone who has references to point to. I don't, so I'm not going to, but there's nothing wrong with the question, and it is perfectly within this desk's remit to answer it. --Jayron32 23:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)