Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:03, 5 June 2014

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

May 31

Inquiry into the conviction of David Eastman

A judicial inquiry into the trial and conviction of David Eastman has concluded in the last couple of days. The inquiry was chaired by Justice Brian Martin. Was that Brian Frank Martin or Brian Ross Martin? Dolphin (t) 07:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ross Martin.[1] Thincat (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Judaism

Is it true that one must pay a fee, like a dowry, to convert to the Jewish faith? Who does one give the money to, the rabbi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronypants (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but as I understand it, technically no, there's no "entry fee". BUT, 1) The rabbis and Jewish court which oversee the conversion may be entitled to charge for their time, and to cover their expenses, and 2) the studies and tutoring involved in learning about Judaism and its' obligations can cost the convert a fair sum of money. Remember, Jews, or at least Orthodox ones, don't go out seeking converts. They presumably only convert people who have become fully versed in the requirements of Jewish observance, and whom the Rabbi believes will faithfully fulfil their religious obligations. Does anyone else know more? 124.181.239.69 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I considered converting to Judaism a number of years ago. I spoke to a Rabbi and a girl who converted and attended services at a synagogue for a year or so before deciding that it was going to be too complicated considering I was marrying a Catholic from a very Catholic family. Now, this was a reform congregation, so things may be different if you convert into an orthodox community. Fees were never mentioned to me at all, however I didn't get terribly far into the process. So I googled this and it appears that this is a question other people have looked up as well. It appears that there are costs associated with converting, however, it's not analogous to what a dowry would be. The costs go toward paying people for their services. This site details what you would likely find when converting to Orthodox Judaism. The costs are over $1000. This site, which includes an interview with a conservative rabbi, doesn't list specific costs, but makes it sound like the costs are reasonable and financial assistance can be provided for persons in need. I would imagine the fee distinction between orthodox conversion and conservative is because orthodox congregations follow much stricter laws than conservative Jews do. I did find this link which states that

"In ancient times, conversion candidates brought sacrifices or offerings to the Temple in Jerusalem. After the Temple was destroyed, this ceremony disappeared. Jewish law therefore does not require such an offering. However, some rabbis, especially among the Orthodox, mention it as an opportunity to engage in an act of donating money to the poor or another act of charity to make a symbolic offering. This step can voluntarily be added to the conversion process."

It's possible this is the fee that you're referring to. :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the subtext in the word "fee" is a cynical one; the idea is that the money's main purpose is to generate profit for someone, merely to enrich themselves above and beyond their basic needs, as opposed to other legitimate purposes. As noted, there can be lots of reasons why someone may give money for religious reasons, and the leaders of that religion are not necessarily asking for money just because they think the followers are rubes to be milked for their cash. Leaders have earnest reasons to ask people for money, and charitable donations are not entrance fees. --Jayron32 15:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with any situation in which the people in power ask others for money, it is not unreasonable to assume that some people may feel some kind of pressure, even if the leaders are entirely altruistic in their requests. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a given synagogue will have periodic "dues", which are really no different from church members being expected to contribute to their church. Religious organizations are supposed to be non-profit, so they depend on their membership for support. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I converted to Judaism many years ago through a Conservative bet din, and there was no fee for the actual conversion procedure, except a small fee for use of the mikveh. My wife and I were already members of a synagogue, and I was not charged any extra fees for studies and consultations with the rabbi. My experience is my own, and may not be typical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Little Lee

Where is William Little Lee buried?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this find a grave website, but it does have a picture with the correct names and dates. William Little Lee, Union Cemetery, Fort Edward, NY You could contact the actual cemetery to confirm? A phone number here.184.147.127.96 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave.com is a good resource for locations and (especially) pictures of gravesites. It's all user-input, so the written content is not necessarily gospel. Often it's taken from obituaries or from Wikipedia. (I'll let the audience ponder which of those sources is more likely to be accurate.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian toilets

According to www.poo2loo.com 594 million Indians defecate openly in the public streets every day. Is there a verifiable source for this claim? Astidlimpa (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

poo2loo is a legitimate source; it's a UNICEF campaign. This is the original UNICEF press release explaning; note it has a 620 million figure. 184.147.127.96 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the OP is not legitimate. It's yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And alas, in America, women are attacked in public with sockfuls of crap.

As for veracity, the amount of people crapping in any street on any day is going to fluctuate wildly. No one number is the right one, but 620 million per day is very wrong. The report says that was in 2011. So 1.7 million dumps a day is more in the ballpark. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Did the majority of the Chinese and Soviet populations endure Axis occupation during WW2?

Maps seem to underplay just how deep the Axis penetration of China and USSR was, since only a relatively small percentage of the national territory was occupied. But given the population center of gravity, it would be much deeper than the map suggests. I would think that the majority of the USSR population lived west of Moscow, while that of China, East of Hunan. And nearly all of this territory was occupied by the Axis. Thus while the USSR and China, never surrendered, and were ultimately victorious Allies, they were in a sense occupied nations, during WW2, at least for most of their citizens.

IDK if its possible to give any accurate proportions of the populations during WW2. Perhaps it could be based on 2014. The main shifts since 1945, would probably be more towards Central Asian Russia and Coastal China.

I would like to know what proportion of the USSR and ROC populations were occupied by the Axis, and if this was the majority?

--Gary123 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that large percentages of the USSR's population were no longer in the occupied zones by the time the Germans et al arrived there. Some had been forcibly removed, essentially as a form of punishment for various nationalities; see Deportation of the Crimean Tatars and the history of the Volga Germans. Others, industrial workers, were moved because they were highly valued: the government began a program to mass-move industrial resources east of the Urals, to make them less vulnerable to capture, and their workers of course were moved with the factories. Moreover, Effect of the Siege of Leningrad on the city says that 2.6 million Leningrad residents were evacuated from or died in the city, and there were of course many who survived and never left; I can't find a pre-war national population figure, but of course the Leningrad residents would be a measurable percentage of the national population, and they weren't occupied. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but what it means is that there are two interesting questions here. What percentage of the population lived, pre-war, in zones that would be occupied; and what percentage were still living there during the occupation? --69.158.92.137 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's occupation of China was largely confined to areas near Eastern cities. While these were (and are) large population centers, they certainly did not constitute the majority of the Chinese people. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romans

Were the Romans as intelligent as modern humans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainohi (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on the definition of intelligence. Intelligence as measured in standard tests is influenced by education, so the wider availability of quality education may mean that people today are more intelligent. If you're asking however about the inherent ability to learn or comprehend things, there's no indication that the Romans were any less smart than we are, nor is there a known credible mechanism by which humans could have developed significantly higher inherent intelligence in just 2000 years. (I'm assuming you're asking about people living in the ancient Roman civilization, not simply inhabitants of Rome) - Lindert (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Average intelligence certainly could have been increased significantly since ancient Roman times, by use of eugenics. Of course, that could also have side effects, such as making people more prone to mental instability. And we already developed the intelligence to destroy the world before the wisdom to avoid doing so, therefore more intelligent people might mean we would have all nuked ourselves into extinction long ago. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it this way... in the modern day, humans have more knowledge, not more intelligence. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how one defines these many nebulous terms, one could consider any large enough population of either Anatomically modern humans or behaviorally modern humans to have equivalent intelligence. While I don't know of a single reliable way to actually quantify it, hypothetically intelligence should be some sort of innate biological capacity to learn (all purported "intelligence" tests are ultimately tests of your training, i.e. what you have already learned, and not what your capacity is.) Under that definition, all human populations should be broadly similar in intelligence. Since Romans peoples are far more recent than either anatomical modernity or behavioral modernity, I wouldn't expect any significant significant difference in innate intelligence. --Jayron32 15:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should all populations be equivalent in intelligence? Are they all equivalent in, say, height? --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence is not in populations, it's in individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Height is also in individuals. Nevertheless, the distribution of height is different in different populations. --Trovatore (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the average height of a given population, as with the average IQ, has nothing to do with the height or IQ of individuals. To suppose that it does is one of the pseudo-scientific bases for alleged racial superiority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has something to do with the height or IQ of individuals. Namely, it's the average of them. Bugs, are you sure you're responding to what I actually said? Maybe you should go back and check. --Trovatore (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would continue this fine-tuning except that the OP is now blocked as a sock, and its question was not sincere, but was intended to foment an argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most attempts to compare the effects of anything on "intelligence" rely on the use of IQ tests. IQ tests do not give an 'objective' measure of intelligence: they give a subjective IQ score relative to a given population. A foundational principle of IQ test scores is that every population averages out to 100: that is how they are made, and how the scores are calculated. That is why an average American and an average Norwegian should both score 100 if they take tests designed and administered in their own countries, even if it is entirely feasible that they would get different numbers of questions right on the same test. It is why if a man and a woman take the same test, the woman has to get more questions right to get the same score as the man: for men and women, as populations, to both have an average IQ of 100 on the same tests requires that women's scores get adjusted down, or men's scores adjusted up, however you want to look at it. This is because IQ tests are really about identifying how individuals perform relative to the population they belong to. We don't really have tools, even dodgy tools, for comparing the average intelligence of populations, no matter how you define "intelligence". 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, that's a nontrivial answer, but to a slightly different question. Jayron's claim was that the intelligence of any two populations "should" be "broadly the same". I asked why. Your response is not about the underlying thing being measured, but about whether we have reliable tools to measure it.

However, I am not convinced your last sentence is correct. There are intelligence tests that are not in any obvious way culturally biased; for example, Raven's Progressive Matrices. Certainly, a cultural effect cannot be ruled out a priori, but there does not seem to be any reason to assume it until such an effect is identified, explained, and supported. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THEY JUST ARE, OK?! Asmrulz (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is the Greco-Roman upper classes and intellectuals were far smarter than ours. Read Suetonius or the novel I, Claudius, based on it or the works of Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Plato and Lucretius as examples. Look at the works of Archimedes. Classic Greek sculpture compared to, say, the painting of Francis Bacon. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several environmental poisons are known to affect intelligence. In various eras -lead pipes and drinking vessels, mercury poisoning from medicines, arsenic poisoning from hair powder, - also malnutrition and some parasites affect intelligence. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget The Learning Channel, The Daily Mirror or Facebook warnings leaking through the walls. We've fewer ticks, but all that coffee and electric light breeds new tics (and so many spiders). Not such widely-proven deadly poisons in our drugs today, but much has been written about even the known unknowns in the new stuff. We'll always be smart enough to fuck ourselves for progress' sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Romans were modern Homo sapiens, but they used lead vessels despite knowing their effects. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of Soviet infrastructure east of the Urals during the GPW

Scroll up for my response to the "Did the majority of the Chinese and Soviet..." section regarding the movement of Soviet infrastructure east of the Urals during the Great Patriotic War. Do we have an article on this process? I planned on giving a link to it, but I couldn't find anything. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be an article but it's mentioned in Soviet Union in World War II#Homefront. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homework

Why do many internet communities, including Wikipedia, frown on helping children with their homework? Where does the misconception that helping someone with a task means they don't lean anything from it? Arknado3 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question includes a false assumption. See the top of the page, where it says "We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point." The reference desk doesn't do people's homework for them, but we do provide help. If someone asked us to explain the themes in Macbeth, we wouldn't do it -- but if they asked if there are sources discussing the theme of witchcraft in Macbeth, we would provide them with sources and maybe even summaries of those sources.

The purpose of such homework assignments is not to regurgitate an answer but develop the ability to examine sources for oneself and come up with their own conclusions. To have someone else do it would miss the point of the assignment completely, regardless of how "good" the answer is. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between helping, and simply giving the answer. It is the latter which is frowned upon. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, AOL had a homework helper page specifically for asking homework questions. Despite the apparent contrast with the Ref Desk, the reality was exactly the same. In both cases the goal was to help the student learn how to solve the problem, not to do it for them. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody's looking for help with a two-hour homework job to build a sock monster, Ms. Patchett has you covered. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Longest tenure in a US House district

What's the longest time that anyone has represented the same US House district, and who was it? It's not John Dingell, currently the most senior Representative (he had "only" 38 years from Michigan's 16th congressional district), as he and the two next most senior representatives have had their district numbers changed multiple times over the years. Among current Representatives, it's Don Young (Alaska, having just one seat, can't change the district number on him), but I wonder if his 41 years might be shorter than someone no longer in the House. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Rayburn served as the representative for Texas's 4th congressional district from March 4, 1913 - November 16, 1961, or over 48 years. According to List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service, that would be the absolute record for a single district. --Jayron32 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen that list; thanks! Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Structure of Shakespearean Tragedy

Hi. I want to read some good books on Shakespeare's tragedies, how they're structured, how the various plots are interwoven to create maximum catharsis, etc. I've read "Shakespeare After All," but I'm wondering if there are any other books on the subject.

- Thanks! ~~SketchesbyBoze — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.131.210 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are just what I can find, and my initial impressions of skimming through them on Google books:

The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy, edited by Claire McEachern, Cambridge University Press, 31 Aug 2013 - It's from Cambridge, so it can't be too bad. Includes a variety of essays covering diverse topics such as religion, political authority, gender, and family in the tragedies.
Shakespearean Tragedy, by A.C. Bradley, Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 1905 - Written before New Criticism became popular, the book still discusses Shakespeare's works in isolation (which can be good if you want to focus only on his works, but bad if you want historical context).
Patterns in Shakespearian Tragedy, by Irving Ribner, Psychology Press, 23 Dec 2004 (reprint of 1960) - focuses on different patterns within types of tragedies.
Shakespearean Tragedy and Its Double: The Rhythms of Audience Response, by Kent Cartwright, Penn State Press, 1 Nov 2010 - Focuses on audience response, so would be the most likely to focus on catharsis.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare The Invention of the Human, by Harold Bloom, Riverhead Books (Penguin Putnam) 1998. From the dustjacket blurb: Bloom leads us through a comprehensive reading of every one of Shakespeare's plays... He charts each breakthrough in human characterization... As we are made aware of the distinctive features of Shakespeare's fully realized characters...we come to sense Shakespeare's own obsessions, and an insightful and deeply moving portrait emerges of the enigmatic playwright who, Bloom maintains, created us. 745 pages. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

difference between a large zit and a carbuncle

What's the difference between a large zit and a carbuncle? They would appear to be the same in appearance CFLtoday (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the articles Carbuncle, Boil and Acne vulgaris for some useful if not necessarily appetizing insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And will this allow them to pustulate on the differences ? StuRat (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Ugh. Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double ugh. There's a sock company called Acne Studios. "Only" $32 a pair. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

WHAAOE. ACNE = Ambition to Create Novel Expressions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America in the war

In both world wars, America was the last major power to pick a side and fight. Was there ever a strong leaning in American opinion towards picking the Axis powers side? 12:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VLtonepioio (talk • contribs)

Not really. There were groups like the German American Bund who supported Germany ... but they were never very large. Prior to the US entering both wars, the majority of Americans were split between isolationism and support for the Franco-UK alliance (or some mix of the two). Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lindbergh's public statements supportive of Nazi Germany caused him significant trouble here. His theory was that it would be better to have a Nazi Europe than a Communist Europe. That was, at the time, not a widely held view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For more on American isolation during the wars, see United States non-interventionism. Matt Deres (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Roth's novel The Plot Against America is an interesting fictional take on some of these issues, positing an alternative history in which the US takes a much more pro-German stance with Lindbergh as president. --Daniel (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody famous (was it Churchill ?) said (paraphrased) "The most important fact in determining the fate of the world is that Americans speak English". The implication being that if Americans spoke German, they would relate more to the Nazis and, at the very least, remain neutral. As it happened, Nazi propaganda was rather ineffective in the US, being in German. Perhaps if Hitler had learned English, he would have been able to convince more Americans to stay out of it. Yes, I'm sure English translations were available, but most people aren't likely to read such translations unless they are already convinced. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a semi-notorious German propaganda publication aimed at U.S. English speakers, "Facts in Review" (oddly not mentioned on the George Sylvester Viereck article, though a case concerning his editorship of it went to the U.S. Supreme Court). AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Facts in Review, 2 Nr. 30 of July 22, 1940 before Germany declared war on the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It is interesting first as an official German account of the French campaign, and also as a summary of Nazi arguments against the Treaty of Versailles. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 Germans starved to death after WW1 ?
The above "Facts in Review" contains this quote:
"The blockade was finally lifted 9 months after the Armistice and 2 months after the signing of Versailles. During that period alone more that 100,000 Germans, mostly aged people, women and children died of malnutrition and starvation. They had managed to survive the war. They could not endure the war after the war."
1) Is this true ?
2) Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found WW1#Health_effects, which lists a number more like 250,000. I think that might include before the Armistice, as well. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is Blockade of Germany#Blockade after armistice, or hunger blockade 1919. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. StuRat (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy in Ancient Greece
The Ancient Greeks are credited with inventing democracy, but I've been told that the Ancient Greek version of democracy was almost unrecognizable from todays concept of democracy. Is that true? Krnl386 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read Greek democracy and its spinoff links for more info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Athenian democracy is a bit more detailed, but in brief: Greek democracies were direct democracies, where decisions were taken on a vote of the assembled citizens, whereas modern democracies are representative democracies, where the citizens elect representatives who form the decision-making body. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the Ancient Greeks wore matted animal hair on their feet for warmth. Wouldn't fare well in the "free market" today, but that's more to do with nylon than Philon or Cylon. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Greek city-state (polis) democracy was less inclusive than modern democracy (since only free male citizens played a political role) but far more participatory (since a free male citizen of a democratic polis was far more likely to play a direct role in government than the average citizen of any modern large country). AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If "modern democracy" means the current American system (not necessarily in the United States), that's a corporatocracy. Yes, it's an awkward word. But it fits more comfortably. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, June 2, 2014 (UTC)
What is the world's biggest museum?
What is the world's biggest museum? Novla Bolan (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking about the largest "by area" (floor space), or "by pieces" (number of items on exhibit)? I don't know, but our wikipedia article on The Louvre claims it to be one of the world's largest museums. P.S. if you do visit it, please don't go blindly running past centuries of amazing art without a glance, in order to see the Mona Lisa. People who do that are IMHO most disrespectful.

Actually, having googled the question brings up this. According to them, depending on your definition, Hermitage Museum in Russia, and the Smithsonian Institution in the U.S.A. vie for the title. Hermitage being the largest in one building, and Smithsonian being the largest when the entire complex of 19 museums is considered. 124.181.239.69 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends how you define museum. The Black Country Living Museum covers 26 acres (10.5 hectares).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greenfield Village covers 240 acres. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theological significance of evolution-versus-creation
Something has puzzled me for a while: People seem to discuss the evolution versus creation debate as if it has some deep theological significance. I must be seriously missing something, because I just can't see it this way.
Imagine, for arguments' sake, that there is indeed a god or other higher power. Why would there be any theological or philosophical reason to assume that "he" would have created a "static" (non-evolving) world, as opposed to a "fluid" (evolving) one? If evolutionary theory and belief in god are seen to clash in any way, why should this be so? How does evolutionary theory in any way contradict the possibility of a higher power of some description?
I'm not arguing for or against evolutionary theory here - I'm simply asking what theological dilemmas or problems it supposedly poses for "believers".
For that matter do non-abrahamaic religions (i.e. those outside judaism, christianity and islam) view evolutionary theory as inherently clashing with their beliefs? Or is this solely an abrahamaic-religion phenomenon?
I'm happy to hear peoples' theories, but given that this is a refdesk, sourced answers, from theologians or philosophers (or their secular equivalents), would be even better.
(please lets' not get into an evolution versus creation debate here - stick to answering the question about the apparent theological significance of the debate). 124.181.239.69 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theistic evolution has a bit on it. Mingmingla (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006323.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The renaissance had a comparable conflict with geocentrism and heliocentrism:

Under geocentrism, creation has a firm and comparatively static role in existence, and our world as it is is the broader axis mundi for all existence. This was comforting to its adherents to believe that they were the divinely chosen center of the universe. Most geocentrists still believed our world is affected by the stars and planets, but they were (at most) mere intermediaries between God's will and our lives -- cosmic sheriffs, knights, and ministers instead of usurpers. Heliocentrism was a threat to this view, giving one of the gears of the universal machine primary importance and making us little more than an accident; turning the sun into a second master of the universe.

Many early heliocentrists, such as Giordano Bruno, argued that as the body is ruled by intelligence, and the universe by God, it is only natural that the earth (tied to the body, and the universe) would be ruled by the sun (tied to intelligence, and God). This was not a threat to humanity's importance, but highlighted it: the universe has the same divine structure we inherit from God. The sun was not a second God, but a first among intermediaries, comparable to kings and popes. And as we change in every season of our lives, do to does the earth change in its seasons. Some Christians would've taken this further, pointing out the solar symbolism of Christ, and how winter (the "death" of the seasons) turns to spring as the world comes "back" to the sun. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, the Christian doctrine of original sin is intimately connected with the Fall of Adam, i.e. the consequences of Adam's sin coming over all his descendants is difficult to maintain without an actual person Adam who is the forefather of all people. The core issue however is simply divine revelation. It's not so much that evolution, or more specifically universal common descent, is incompatible with the existence of a creator god, but rather that it contradicts what that creator has supposedly revealed about himself. And if what has been revealed about the creator cannot be trusted, the entire theological system (though not theism itself) collapses, because all three Abrahamic religions rely on divine revelation. Without it people are just left with generalities and speculation. (Note: I don't mean to assert whether or not Judaism, Christianity and Islam are compatible with evolution, obviously various interpretations exist.) - Lindert (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A core belief in just about every religion is that people are somehow "special", and "placed above all the animals and plants". Evolution means humans are just another animal which happened to have evolved more intelligence than the rest. And humans having existed for only a tiny fraction of the age of the universe also calls into question the idea that the universe was created just for people (although I suppose God could just be very patient and willing to wait 14 billion years to get started). StuRat (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One theory is that God exists outside of time, so He's not in any rush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea argues that (among other things) Darwinism damages the Platonic notion that each "kind" of living thing has an ideal form, from which each specimen deviates to a lesser or greater degree. —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's my impression that only monotheists are hung up on the creation; the creator-gods of polytheists are not the top gods. Zeus, for example, is a grandchild of the creators. (Brahmā is honored less as the creator than as the source of sacred speech (brah).) —Tamfang (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments shown below by the current Dalai Lama represent Buddhist opinion, see also Religious cosmology#Buddhism and the long article on Buddhist cosmology.

What is the refutation of the appearance of a new moment of consciousness?

DALAI LAMA: Then there would be a beginning to a continuum of the consciousness.

Why could there not be one?

DALA LAMA: In general, of course, we speak of the universe as being without beginning. Between the two positions, that things arose without any particular cause at all and that consciousness has a beginningless continuity, although the latter one may not solve each and every question, it definitely has fewer logical inconsistencies than the former.

Well, the scientists take the view that consciousness arises from a material cause.

DALAI LAMA: Buddhists cannot accept this. You have to divide the cause into two: the main or substantial cause and the cooperative cause. Matter can only be a cooperative cause, never the main or substantial cause for consciousness. This is very much related to cosmology. According to the Buddhist view of evolution, there is an infinite universe. In Buddhist cosmology, any world system will go through phases. Sometimes it is destroyed, sometimes it arises, sometimes there will be gross matter, sometimes no gross matter, but really there is no beginning or end to it. And there is always subtle consciousness.

So what is a sentient being? A sentient being is an entity designated upon the basis of a body and mind, and fundamentally what is referred to by the mind here is the extremely subtle mind.

Which is continuous through all the cycles?

DALAI LAMA: That is correct.
- Gentle Bridges - Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind, Shambala, 1992. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Teleological Arguments for God's Existence. The perception that organisms and their physical structures and behaviours have purposive functions has historically served as evidence that these organisms were designed by an intelligent being. Evolutionary theory relatively successfully explains these structures and behaviours as they are understood today without a theistic account, and so any theology which depends on any such argument is considered undermined by most thinkers today. Many theologies have used such arguments. For example see the Qurʾān 31:20, "Have you not seen how that God has subjected to you whatsoever is in the heavens and earth, and He has lavished on you His blessings, outward and inward?" --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in The Creationists by Ronald L Numbers. My short summary of everything I've read and heard: it is neither a theological nor a historical necessity, and the existence of so much diversity of opinion, and the historical course of biblical fundamentalism, underscore this. IBE (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may also be interested in books like Rocks of Ages and The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox by Stephen Jay Gould. Gould posits in these books that conflicts between the scientific worldview and the religious worldview are not necessarily in conflict; the conflict arises from a misunderstanding between what people ask a realm of thought to do. "How does this work" and "How should I live my life" and "What do I find beautiful" are questions that cannot be answered by all thought systems. Science does a real good job of answering the first, not so much the second or third; at least that's Gould's thesis in these books. --Jayron32 04:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
124.181.239.69 -- For some people, anything that contradicts the Bible is automatically suspect. Other people feel that connecting humans and apes is an attempt to show that people are "just animals", and to undermine ethics and morality... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the Bible contradicts the Bible, quite often. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To literalists, any apparent contradictions are usually officially labeled as "mysteries". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mysterious symbols

Does any of you have any idea what these symbols might mean? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC and inferring from the following numbers, those are probably measurements. I'd have to do a little bit of digging to locate more specific meanings, but I know I've seen them before. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "Apothecaries' system".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The world needs more apothecaries, alchemists and wizards. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Within every "druggist" there is an "apothecary" just waiting to come out Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate a bit. The ℥ means "ounce", and the iiij means "four". Before "j" became a letter in the Latin alphabet, it was used as a terminal i in roman numerals. See J#History which explains this a bit. So ℥ij would be "two ounces", ℥iiij would be "four ounces" ℥vi would be "six ounces" --Jayron32 03:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the last circled quantity is "j lb", one pound. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Saunders (1613 - 1692) has no article yet was an astrologer/physician in 17th century England. The image is from his book The Astrological Judgment & Practice of Physick 1677. It shows prescriptions (the R_x symbols)) based in the pre-scientific theory of temperaments or Humorism. Saunders also wrote books about chiromancy (palm reading). 84.209.89.214 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ss or the German ß was used for one-half. Therefore, ℥jß means 1½ ounces. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
June 2
Stores in Northampton, United Kingdom
Is there a website that shows the list of stores available in Northampton, United Kingdom like ASDA, Morrison's, Sainsbury's, ALDI, W.H. Smith, Costa, Poundland and etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.12 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our Northampton article suggests the following link.[2] --Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sabbath in Tahiti
"This was our Sunday but their Monday; if the case had been reversed we should not have received a single visit, for the injunction not to launch a canoe on the Sabbath is rigidly obeyed." Charles Darwin mentions this discrepancy in 1835. It was corrected by the French in November, 1846, much to the disastification of the LMS missionaries and islanders, as observed by Henry Byam Martin in his diary. How did this discrepancy started? Were the missionaries and islanders using the time and dates of Britain while the ships were using a time calculated to different time zones?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Time zones in the modern sense (i.e. nominal 15° longitude slices) didn't yet exist at that time, nor did a formal International Date Line. Presumably the discrepancy is due to day-counts kept on ships sailing west from Europe vs. day-counts kept on ships sailing east from Europe. For a long time, Chinese-Americans in the west of the United States observed dates on the Chinese calendar based on the day-counts aboard ships sailing east from China (since the international date line, to the degree that it even existed in those days, was completely irrelevant to their purposes)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't that just explain ships sailing via the Strait of Magellan such as the Beagle? Captain Martin seems to indicate that it was a discrepancy in all visiting ships and certainly many took the other route sailing west past the Cape of Good Hope including the LMS missionaries in 1797.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does Darwin mean with "our Sunday" ? As the Beagle is sailing from the East she will be crossing the IDL with a one day-forward jump, thus achieving a 6-days' week subjective experience, and corresponding entries in the log-books. Isn't Darwin simply remarking that the people at that remote end of a continuously populated world, are not yet isolated from their neighbours to the West, by a math-and-sextant imposed jump in their dates, and social dates, like they later will be, with the universal and official settings of the datation line ? --Askedonty (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether it was at all common then for ships to reset their shipboard calendars merely because they had crossed an abstract meridian... AnonMoos (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Circumnavigation was certainly not very much common in the 1820's. However what we're talking about is the Second_voyage_of_HMS_Beagle. --Askedonty (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was Livia Drusilla wife of Roman emperor Augustus a mass murder and did she led her army into Rome to kill people?
Venustar84 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What source do you have for supposing she might have done? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the tv Xena Warrior Princess in high school Livia was Xena's daughter who slaughtered people so that is/was not information guide to mythology or history:http://hercxena.wikia.com/wiki/Livia Venustar84 (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article titled Livia. If you have any questions after reading that, please feel free to ask. Also, if you have sources for information which are not included in the article, feel free to present links to those so we can assess them, if you wish. --Jayron32 00:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OP decided to visit my user talk page to reveal that their only source was an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
June 3
Personal income in the United States
Is the income figure is based on one month or annual? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those figures appear to be annual. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
early humans
Did early humans and dinosaurs ever come into contract? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.25.10 (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what you mean by "dinosaurs". Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs, and they've certainly come into contact with humans. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No they didn't. Coming into contact with descendants of dinosaurs is not the same as coming into contact with dinosaurs, any more than meeting an Italian is coming into contact with an ancient Roman. Paul B (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were separated by more than 60 million years. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first public exposure to dinosaurs can be dated to the exhibition in 1852 of the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs which, being sculptures, were both tangible and dead. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, I imagine early humans did occasionally find dinosaur fossils, although they wouldn't have known what to make of them. When humans started mining, they might have discovered more fossils, as fossils often can be found with certain mined resources, such as coal (although, in the case of coal, I believe they tend to be plant fossils). StuRat (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is currently no scientific evidence to suggest this, however, there are many Christians who believe that the earth is far younger than scientists contend and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. See the young earth creationism article. The creation museum in Kentucky has exhibits of dinosaurs and humans hanging out together (there is a pic in the article). Again, no scientific evidence for this, but the belief in dinosaurs and humans coexisting is common enough to be relevant to this discussion. Bali88 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I again raise the issue of definition. I mentioned birds above, but that was waved away. Well, look at our very own article Dinosaur, from which I quote: Dinosaurs are a varied group of animals from taxonomic, morphological and ecological standpoints. Birds, at over 10,000 living species, are the most diverse group of vertebrates besides perciform fish. Using fossil evidence, paleontologists have identified over 500 distinct genera and more than 1,000 different species of non-avian dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are represented on every continent by both extant species and fossil remains.

I assume that any extant species of dinosaur did not come into existence only after the arrival of early humans. So, before we can really answer this question, we need to know whether the "dinosaurs" you have in your head are restricted to stereotypical monsters like T. Rex, Brontosaurus etc, or extend to what scientists call "dinosaurs", which include birds and many other living creatures. If this had been raised on the Science desk, I'm sure these points would have been covered by respondents. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Defining the word "Dinosaur" to mean any member of clade "Dinosauria" is a very new definition, unheard any more than two decades ago, that has not really entered the public understanding of the word yet. Outside of academia, that definition is mostly used by people trying to nitpick starting with the phrase "...well, technically". It is absolutely not some time-honored definition that uneducated people insist on getting wrong. It's a new definition that hasn't been widely adopted yet.

For example, Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary do not include that definition at all. Even Wiktionary, home of science-minded nitpickers, hedges by saying "especially those which existed during the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods".

I appreciate the point of trying to teach (and preach) evolution using language, but it's a bit tiresome when it's done in such a condescending manner, since technically it's not only 100% correct to use "Dinosaur" to refer to only to the extinct mesozoic creatures, it's the most common usage, and was completely unambiguously the definition being used in the question! APL (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with almost every word of your post, APL.

The very first response was from me, seeking to get some clarity about the OP's meaning. The OP has not come back, so we have nothing from the horse's mouth about this. Given that uncertainty, how can you claim the defn in the OP's mind was "completely unambiguous"? Answer: You can't. If what you say about the most common usage of the word "dinosaur" being the one that refers only to extinct mesozoic creatures, why is that mentioned nowhere in our highly detailed article?

I am not a scientist, and my response proceeded from that article, not from what I assume must have been what the OP was thinking. More to the point, even though I am a layman on science matters, I have been reading about the relationship between birds and big lizards since the late 1970s (I remember exactly where I first came across it, in an early issue of Omni magazine), so from my uneducated/lay perspective I assume this is now pretty widely known. It's certainly been canvassed on many very popular TV natural world programs hosted by David Attenborough and similar, over the past 35-odd years. Check the Ref Desk Archives and you'll find squillions of mentions of the bird-dinosaur story (and not only in one direction, either), and that is further evidence of its common knowledge. I'd say close to 100% of those hits are from the Science desk, and that is why I mentioned that desk as the natural home of a question like this. There was no element of preachitude.

I'm sorry if you felt my post was condescending; that certainly was not in MY mind (and I challenge you to know better), so I must learn to express myself without allowing such impressions to arise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OP won't be back for at least 3 months, at least not under that IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early humans have far too much contact with annoying purple ones IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Song name/artist
I heard a song on Youtube a while back with the lyrics 'Olivia/the world is better with you in it'
It was kind of a rock song with a black and white music video, I've searched for it a large number of times since and can't find it! Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Olivia Somerlyn - Official Better With You Lyric Video. Do you know that YouTube has a search engine that finds this sort of thing? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it sometimes gives the wrong answer. The correct answer is :"Olivia" by Stand. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the Vikings set up a colony in America?
What was the purpose of the Norse colonization of the Americas? It seems an awfully long way to go for raw materials at a time when raw materials were in abundance in Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.25.10 (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were looking for more places to live and farm, rather than to harvest raw materials to take back east. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Settlements in continental North America aimed to exploit natural resources such as furs and in particular lumber, which was in short supply in Greenland. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense - Greenland being much nearer to Vinland, and much shorter of resources. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exact end of presidential terms before 1937
Before 1937, U.S. presidents were inaugurated on March 4 instead of January 20. When exactly expired the term of the old president? At 12 o'clock on March 4 or on March 3? Some information claim the old term ends on March 3. Rutherford Hayes for example took the oath on March 3, 1877. How could he take the oath with President Grant still in office for 24 hours? I read the transcript of the original constitution, but it said nothing about the inauguartion date of the chief executive. Thanks in advance. --85.179.53.133 (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congress enacted in 1792 that "the term of four years for which a President and Vice President shall be elected shall in all cases commence on the fourth day of March". Since it didn't specify a time, that means the presidency changed hands at 12 midnight on the night of March 3–4 (otherwise known as 00:00 on March 4 or 24:00 on March 3). Back then, of course, it wasn't considered a problem for the new president to wait until daytime to take his oath of office; he wasn't going to be responding to a nuclear attack or something overnight. (Famously, some presidents waited until March 5 if March 4 was a Sunday.) --69.158.92.137 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution merely says that before assuming his duties, the new president must take the oath of office. It doesn't say when he must take the oath. In theory, he could take the oath the day after the election, or the day the electoral ballots are counted... or the day before the official turnover of the presidency. That way, when midnight rolled around, he might be asleep, but having already taken the oath, he could wake up in the middle of the night and do something presidential if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Article II requires the president to take the oath. When Hayes took the oath on March 3, that meant Grant; Hayes was still the president-elect. (Well, officially, anyway.) That was one of the points the original poster made, and I think it's reasonable to say that that oath didn't count. Fortunately Hayes took the oath again on March 5 and that one certainly counts. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term ended at 12 o'clock at noon on March 4: Andrew Johnson signed legislation on the morning of March 4, 1869 [3]. He couldn't have done this without being (still) president. --92.226.199.15 (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Life time appointments of judges in higher courts only in the US
Is it only in the US that the justices in the higher court (at least) are appointed for life or are there other countries, who have such generous ruling? 112.198.79.190 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are appointed for life. --Jayron32 16:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about being "generous", it's about trying to dissuade political pressure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, without that, you could be sure that Supreme Court Justices would rule in favor if some large corporation or lobbing group, just in time to retire and take a high paying job at that corporation or lobby, as our Congressmen and regulatory agency execs do now. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" doesn't place any restrictions on retirement or on their post-retirement employment. If anything legal restricts that kind of thing, it's statute law. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but since they can, they usually hold the job until they die or are too old to hold another job, hence there's little chance to work elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right; but you could get the same kind of political and financial independence by having a fixed retirement date and giving retired justices a generous life pension (as is done e.g. for all German non-Supreme Court justices, or in Australia as mentioned below). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Judges of the High Court of Australia were appointed for life, from its inception in 1903 until 1977. That year, a referendum was passed to amend the Constitution of Australia to require HC judges appointed after that time to retire at age 70. I'd have to do some research for info about judges of lower federal courts and the state/territory supreme courts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tagline/slogan without a trademark
If a tagline/slogan does not have a trademark, what happens to the tagline/slogan once it goes global? Since there is no trademark, should the tagline/slogan stay in English or can it be translated into all target markets/languages? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora florian (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In what context? --Jayron32 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume there is a slogan like "It’s your world. Go with it!" developed for the US market, and there is no trademark. The product goes international. Since there is no trademark, should the slogan stay in English? or can it be freely translated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora florian (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every country's laws about copyright and trademarks are likely to be different. Start with trademark and it may take you to some international links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History of the # character
I recently saw a picture on Facebook showing that someone had found a telephone from the 1990s with the # character, and wondered how it was even possible, because Twitter was only invented in the 21st century. We all know that the # character predates Twitter. In fact, it predates the Internet, and even predates computers. But how far back does its history go? Does it even predate print? JIP | Talk 19:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Number sign may have some clues. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/2011/05/the-octothorpe-part-1-of-2/.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also octothorpe, so-named by an engineer because it had 8 terminal points, and the engineer was a fan of Jim Thorpe. this 1960s usage is probably on the earlier side of technical usage of the symbol. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comment in the number sign article, "...in the United States the term pound sign is catching on", is pretty funny. As I recall, it's been called the pound sign for about as long as it's been on touchtone phones, i.e. decades. It's with twitter that "hash", formerly a Britishism, has been catching on in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great-great-grandparents?
I have only one living grandparent left any more, my father's mother, who is well over 90 years old now. Her eldest great-grandchild is now over 18 years old. I figure that if my grandmother lives for another decade or so (which I find highly unlikely), she will become a great-great-grandmother. How common is it these days for people to live long enough to become great-great-grandparents? JIP | Talk 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the age which people attain is only half the equation; how quickly they start to breed at each generation is just as important. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The older most people are, the younger they tended to marry and have kids (though the shorter they tend to live). But, conversely, the younger people are, the older they tend to be before getting married. Still, since one could easily become a parent between the ages 18 to 26 for most of the 20th century (maybe starting at 18 and going up 2 years every generation), the real issue becomes life expectancy (since one could become a great-grand at at least 72, probably at least 84). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several examples recently of girls having babies at 15, just like their mothers, who are obviously grandmothers at 30. Do the maths. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Abbott must be proud. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not crazy unusual. I can list half a dozen off the top of my head. My kids had a great-great grandmother until she passed last year. I'm not sure how old the ggg was when she became a mother, but my husband's grandmother was 16 when she gave birth and that child went on to give birth at 18. That child (my husband) had a child at 24. I also have a friend who became a grandmother at the age of 31. Her kids have a great great grandmother and I'd say she stands a chance herself. Bali88 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stu has a good point, age of mother at first birth varies widely across cultures and time periods (as do life expectancies). One of the biggest factors controlling great-great-grandparenthood is the fact that age of woman at first birth is strongly correlated with years of education she has received. Thus, as more women get more education, they tend to have children older, and generally decrease the likelihood of surviving to nth-grandparenthood. The correlation is well known. This (freely accessible) paper gives plenty of references for the correlation, and discusses the possibility of a causal relationship [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That view is complicated by the fact that the 15 year olds I spoke of above had their education effectively terminated through becoming pregnant. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's just a general trend, and we can expect exceptions. Some 15 year olds might choose to adopt, or abort the pregnancy, or have family members able to care for the the infant. Certainly not all young mothers must quit stop their education upon pregnancy (if we're trading anecdotes, my sister started and completed her MS degree as a rather young single mother - albeit with lots of family support). Also consider that in many parts of the world (and times in the past), the ~10 years of formal education that your 15 year-old acquaintance got is on the high end for girls/women. It really is a well-supported correlation, though, with lots of evidence from different places and times. I haven't yet fully read the paper I linked claiming a causal connection, but of course that is a much stronger claim. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any statistics, but it's common enough to often be reported in newspapers - which is of course also means it's rare enough to be of interest to newspapers. Here is a sample story with a great-great-great-grandmother. The record is apparently seven living generations at once. 142.150.38.155 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see the statistics for having four living generations in a family now versus in the past. I Googled "frequency of great grandparents" but oddly it mostly offered up information of grandparents' visitation rights with their grandchildren. This is anecdotal, but a quick look at my family tree shows that someone having one or more living greatgrandparents has been an occurrence many times in the past 200 years, and not just in modern times. Some hardy people lived to 90 or 100, even if born in the 18th century or early 19th century. In olden times a farm family would have perhaps ten children per generation starting when the wife was old enough to bear children, so there were enough survivals among the descendants for such overlap, so long as an ancestor lived to a ripe old age . There were many overlaps of a child and a great grandparent. In the present time, it is not that uncommon to see a "five generation photograph" such as the collection seen at Google: [5]. You can also Google "five generations under one roof" and learn of families with that living arrangement. From the mid-20th century, Americans at least seem to have married later an had fewer children, which works against the occurrence of 4 generation overlaps, despite supposedly better medical care for the elderly these days. Edison (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
June 4
Family Tree of Abrahamic Religions
I'm trying to find a flow chart/family tree style graphic of all of the branches of the Abrahamic religions and which denominations spawned which others. I guess Judaism is the oldest ancestor and the countless Protestant denominations are the youngest but I'd like to see graphically which sects begot which. Ig a graphic doesn't exist, some sort of text database would be fine. Making a graphic seems like a fun project. 99.42.165.162 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bahá'í is always an interesting one to try to fit in, since it was influenced by both Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How detailed of a chart are you seeking? Bear in mind that the Protestant denominations really are countless — for example, File:Presbyterian Family Connections.jpg provides information only about the larger Presbyterian denominations in the USA, totally ignoring micro-Presbyterians and non-American denominations, and Presbyterianism is just a fragment of Protestant Christianity. Plus, you may have to deal with the innumerable non-denominational churches, each of which is functionally its own denomination. Judaism and Islam are likely to be simpler, as in many cases they don't have the firm boundaries characteristic of Protestant groups. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually, the view's changing somewhat among academics. Rabbinical Judaism is a post-temple religion. While it has roots in the temple-era Israelite religion (that also happened to be called Judaism), and have the most right to claim to being closest to the temple-era Israelite religion than any other religion, not having a temple makes Rabbinical Judaism a distinct phase. Then there's some consideration that as Rabbinical Judaism can be seen as a post-temple development of Phariseeism while Christianity was just the most successful of the various messianic semi-Hellenistic quasi-Essene, partly Zealous movements that were popping up. In effect, Christianity and Judaism are developments of earlier splits in an older religion (see Split of early Christianity and Judaism), rather than Christianity being a branch of the religion we now know as Judaism.

Samaritanism would just be it's own line, so far as I can tell, though it'd always be located next to Judaism on the chart (if with a much thinner line over time). Judaism includes Rabbinical and Karaite Judaism, the latter sometimes claiming or claimed to have descent from the Sadducees. Probably the oldest group of Rabbinical Judaism would be Orthodox Judaism, with Reform Judaism and then Conservative Judaism popping up during the 19th century; Reform generally saying that the Law changes with history, Conservative half-way agreeing on the condition that things shouldn't be changed unless necessary.

We do have a graphic depicting the different Christian denominations. From there, it's a matter of looking at a specific denomination and trying to work backwards.

Santería, Spiritual Baptists, and other Afro-American religions would start appearing Colonial era and into the modern era as a number of mergers between Christianity, different African religions, and reforms of both. The Rastafari movement would branch off from Christianity in the 1930s.

In the later 20th century, we get a variety of Asian new religious movements adopting varying amounts of Christianity, such as the Unification Church. We also have The Process Church of The Final Judgment resulting from a combination of Christianity and Scientology. Scientology is in no way an Abrahamic religion, but its founder L. Ron Hubbard was taught by Aleister Crowley. Crowley's religion Thelema usually isn't included in the Abrahamic religions despite admitted influence, inversion, and adaption of a lot of ideas from the Abrahamic religions, because (like theosophists before him), they tried to combine every religion.

Islam raises all kinds of issues. Some western scholars would want it branching off of both Judaism and Christianity with some outside influence, or even just branching off Christianity, while on the other end some devout Muslims would argue that Judaism and Christianity should be branching off from Islam. Generally, though, it's almost entirely uncontroversial to say that the form of Islam as is known today as revealed by Muhammad dates to the 7th century. Within Islam, the split between Sunni and Shia happens pretty quickly after Muhammad's death, with different non-competing schools appearing within the next couple of centuries in both groups.

Druze and Bábism would branch off from Islam in the 11th and 19th centuries (respectively), and the Bahá'í Faith from Bábism in the 19th century as well. If we include Black Islam on the chart (which we'd kind of have to) in the 20th century, we'd have to include the Moorish Science Temple of America (which split from Christianity as much as Islam, and which Black Islam split from) and probably the Nuwaubian Nation (which combines elements of Black Islam and Moorish Science).

The Mandeans and Yazidis present some serious problems with a chart. There's evidence that they were influenced by Christianity (and in the Yazidi's case, Islam as well), but that they hold older beliefs too (way, way, older, the Sumerian Dingir sign is featured in some depictions of Melek Taus).

Then there's the issue of whether or not to include Sikhism, which resulted from Islam sitting on top of Hinduism for a few centuries. It's the result of a merging branch of Islam and Hinduism to the early 16th century. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be interested in this project. Going back earlier than what Ian.thomson has covered, you would eventually reach a branching point between Temple Judaism and Samaritanism some time in the second millennium BC - although the split was really finalised by the fall of the kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians. Before that, we get into the murky region of the relation between the early Hebrew religion and Canaanite polytheism. Inscriptions to 'El Elyon' (God Most High) have been found at Canaanite sites. In scriptural terms, this corresponds to the story of Abraham - abandoning his family's idol worship and eventually going to Salem to meet Melchizedek, priest of El Elyon. But it's hard to say how much, if any, of that is literally true. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an incredibly detailed attempt for all world religions. Don't know the accuracy but I am blown away by the effort. The Abrahamic religions take up the right-hand two-thirds of the tree. 142.150.38.155 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears mostly accurate, although it neglects a lot of overlap and makes a few mistakes. Kabbalah isn't exactly it's own denomination, and Sephardic and Haredi Judaism have elements that amount to "everyday Kabbalah for the masses.". It makes a ton of mistakes with the Hermeticism branch. Rosicrucianism started off as what we'd now call "fan fiction," and was deeply Protestant in its outlook. It influenced a lot of Freemasonry but Masonry isn't exactly a religion. There are a lot of religious or quasi-religious groups claiming Rosicrucian descent, but many of these groups also claim stuff like "Freemasonry started in Atlantis!" It almost doesn't seem to show Bahai as branching off from Babism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's mostly what I had in mind. It has a few problems: it appears to treat Confucianism as an offshoot of Shinto, although that's poor design, not the intention; it shows Shaivism and Zoroastrianism as offshoots of the ancient Brahmanic tradition, whereas scholars believe Shaivism may well have pre-existed in India before the Aryan invasion, and the links between Zoroastrianism and other early Aryan religions are obscure; it treats Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry as a direct extension of Hermeticism; and it's shaky on Unitarianism, which it treats as initially Universalist, and a revival of Arianism (note spelling). It also conceptually conflates Roman Catholic monastic orders with denominations. It's very confused on Anglicanism, showing 'Anglicanism' and 'Church of England' as two different branches after Henry VIII's reform, and a distinct proto-Methodist branch going off at the same spot. Further, it shows Mormonism diverging from later Methodism, when Mormonism in fact has its roots in the Restorationist movement and the Second Great Awakening. I also looked for Rastafarianism and couldn't find it. (I'd put it as an offshoot of Black Evangelical churches, with a dotted line from Ethiopian Orthodoxy, myself.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
whose ablli occupied, were ous positions of life
What does the bolded words even mean? I found the news obituary | here
Judge Kapena, the last rites to whose
memory, have just been performed, was a
man whose character stood unblemished in
this nation, and whose ablli occupied, were
ous positions of life, by him and social relati-
conspicious. In his official ties, in the vari-
tion he was admired and beloved by the
Hawaiian people. and his good name will
be cherished not only by his family, but by
a large circle of friends.
--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text has got a bit garbled, and in particular some lines have been transposed (you've omitted a line in your transcript): "abili" [sic] should be joined to "ties" to make "abilities", and "vari-" to "ous". I can't make a completely coherent paragraph out of it, though, so some words may also have been lost. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, are you aware that your user page says you're retired from Wikipedia? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he's editing in his free time, but now simply on an unpaid volunteer basis, unlike the rest of us active editors, who get ... paid ... handsomely .... trails off ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, my income here in dollars is always enough to go round ... IBE (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I've changed it to look like the original newspaper if anyone else is able to make sense of it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got it. It appears as if the ur-text was

this nation, and whose abili ties, in the vari-

ous positions of life, by him occupied, were

conspicuous. In his official and social rela-
and the right part of these three lines somehow rotated up one step:

this nation, and whose abili occupied, were

ous positions of life, by him and social rela-

conspicuous. In his official ties, in the vari-
(The commata after memory and life are better omitted.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speech from the throne
The Queen's speech has some rather unusual traditions, i.e. the searching of the cellars for gunpowder and the idea of the hostage MP. Is there any protocol for if gunpowder is found, or if somebody were to kill off the queen during her time in parliament? What would happen to the hostage MP then? --Andrew 09:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ritual of searching for gunpowder dates to the time of the gunpowder plot; and the tradition is today just that: A tradition devoid of practical purpose that exists for purely symbolic reasons. Not unlike many such traditions in many places around the world. --Jayron32 10:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that but there's always a possibility, however remote, that they might one day find some. Just wondered if they had a plan --Andrew 10:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, the Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod, who are the security chiefs for the respective houses, would call off the ritual and work with the mainstream security services to control the situation just as if such a crisis had arisen elsewhere. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After years of terrorism associated with The Troubles and more recent Islamist threats, I imagine that the Palace of Westminster is one of the most secure buildings on earth. The primary protection of the building rests with the Metropolitan Police who have their own Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit. I would imagine (they don't publicise their actual operations) that every part of the building has been searched by trained personnel with sniffer dogs and electronic detectors and that the old gheezers with lamps are purely ceremonial. The BBC say "Today, officers from the Metropolitan police join the Yeomen in their search." [6] Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't familiar with the tradition of the hostage MP. Our article doesn't say much about it. When and how did the tradition originate?

In the event of an actual attack of some kind, I assume that it would have nothing to do with the hostage MP and that he or she would simply be released. At this point in history, it isn't even the token that the search for gunpowder is.

I am reminded of the American tradition of keeping one of the members of the Cabinet away from a State of the Union speech. In case of a devastating attack on the Capitol, that Cabinet member would then become acting President. Usually it's one of the less important Cabinet posts, leading to the possibility that, say, the Secretary of Urban Development could suddenly become acting President. John M Baker (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that it is nothing to do with that, although I have had a great deal of difficulty in finding any information at all about the "hostage". It is generally an MP who holds the post of Vice-Chamberlain of the Household that is sent to the palace. Our article on that post says in rather curious English: "Continuing a custom from the sentiments of the 1660s of the English Restoration with Royal suspicion of the holders before, who helped to execute Charles I the duty to stay (officially "be held captive") at Buckingham Palace when the Sovereign drives in procession to Westminster for the State opening of Parliament". This makes sense as the parliament that invited Charles II back from Holland contained several MPs who had been involved in the arrest, trial and execution of his father, Charles I. I expect the new king was keen to have insurance against any repetition. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
French Polynesia
Why did the French historically administered French Polynesia as a single body instead of smaller groups like Marquesas Islands, Society Islands, Gambier Islands, Austral Islands, Tuamotu? Each island groups had its own distinct history and traditions and were separate pretty far from each other.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See colonialism. It's pretty much how every European country has administered every colony it ran during the 19th century. Look at the Scramble for Africa for some comparisons. Do you think that a polity like French West Africa was created with even the slightest care for existing history and traditions? Even modern states created out of these colonies had their borders drawn with no real care for local cultural realities; which is why we have such major issues of sectarian and ethnic violence in such places. --Jayron32 10:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's one potential cause of violence, but it's a myth to think that if only the borders were drawn in the right place, there would be peace. For one thing, the sectarian and ethnic groups overlap, so 100% separation is impossible, but even if you could completely separate them, this would not guarantee peace. Japan, for example, is rather monolithic in religion and ethnicity, yet that didn't prevent them from invading all their neighbors in WW2. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Japan was not colonized by Europe. They rather famously put a stop to all that in the 1600s. And part of the problem with the artificial way that states were laid out in colonized lands like Africa is that it subverted the natural process by which nation states develop. Which is not to say that that process is peaceful. In Europe, the process took from about 1000 to 1945 to work itself out, and featured centuries of horrific ethnic and sectarian wars, genocides, and constantly shifting political landscape. Africa went through none of that necessary process on its own, and as a result, the states of Africa have not necessarily developed on cohesive cultural-ethnic lines as in Europe. --Jayron32 14:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that Japan had been colonized. I just used them as an example of how a monolithic population does not always mean a peaceful one. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Ethiopia is just about the only country approximating a nation state in the whole of Africa, but even they had a civil war which resulted in a split when Eritrea was formed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does South Africa not look like a nation state to you? Or Egypt? What do you mean here? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means it in a technical sense, where ethnic nationality boundaries more or less correspond to state borders (surprisingly rare in Africa). South Africa has many ethnic nationalities. Egypt is predominantly Arab, but most Arabs live outside Egypt. Ethiopia contains a number of ethnic nationalities, but it has a strong Amhara-Christian core with a distinctive identity dating from before the colonialist period. Ironically, one of the best fits of ethnicity to state boundaries in Africa is the case of Somalia... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is to be made between nations, states, and nation-states. A nation is probably best defined as a group of people who share a common linguistic, cultural, and social heritage. A Sovereign state is probably best understood as a patch of land unambiguously controlled by a government which has supreme control over said patch of land (i.e. they have no higher authority they answer to). Not all nations are states, and not all sovereign states are nations. A "nation state" exists where the two concepts overlap to a significant degree. There are nations without states of their own (the Basque, the Romani, the Kurds). There are states that have little to no connection to historical cultural differences (much of Africa, as already noted) Of course, a perfect "one to one" correspondence of nation-to-state exists nowhere in the world, but nation states are those polities that, to some arbitrary level, come the closest to such a correspondence. The process of nation-state formation is long, arduous, and complex and arises from centuries of processes of both assimilation (the loss of a formerly independent culture to the dominant culture) and population migration (the movement of peoples from an area where they are oppressed to one where they are accepted). The process in Europe really only reached its completion during the 20th century (arguably as late as the 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia) and in some ways is still going on (see Ukraine-Russia issues today). Perhaps its a bit Eurocentric to state it, but ultimately the process moved along quicker in Europe than in other places, allowing European culture to either obliterate local culture after it arrived (the Americas, esp. North America) or to short-circuit the nation-state formation process before it reached its natural conclusion (Africa and parts of Asia). There's lots of theories as to why Europe was in such a position to do these things (Guns, Germs, and Steel is perhaps the best known) but ultimately there's an argument to be made that had Europe not interfered in these places via colonialism, they would have (albeit later) gone through the same (bloody, violent) evolution as Europe itself did, and eventually arrived at more natural nation-states than exist today, and while the growing pains would have been as bad as they were in Europe, the end result would have been a more peaceful world... --Jayron32 02:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fate of liquor companies during prohibition in the US
What happened to the existing companies, farms, factories, etc. involved in the production, distribution and marketing of alcoholic beverages which were suddenly shut down when prohibition was enforced? A huge amount of capital property, infrastructure, and equipment became worthless overnight and a large number of people lost their jobs too. Has anyone done an analysis of the socio-economic impact of the abrupt closure of the entire industry? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts:
1) There were exceptions to prohibition, so some were allowed to keep up their old practices. Others just violated the law.
2) At the farming end, most of the crops used to produce alcohol, like barley, can also be used for other purposes, such as bread. So, it could be grown for that purpose, instead. If that resulted in a glut of those crops for non-alcoholic purposes, then they could switch over to another crop.
3) Some of the distilleries and distribution systems were repurposed for other uses, such as Stroh's Ice Cream. Soft drinks were a more obvious choice for many others. StuRat (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a systematic survey, by any means, but see mentalfloss.com/article/55157/how-breweries-kept-busy-during-prohibition. 'Worthless overnight' isn't by any means correct. Anheuser-Busch used their fleet of refrigerated trucks to enter the ice cream business. Coors' glassworks (originally dedicated to beer bottles) moved into home and military ceramics. Pabst and others sold dry, non-alcoholic malt extract as a 'cooking product' for home-baked bread—with the winking knowledge that it would be used to make (still-illegal, but much more easily concealed) home-brew beer. A number of breweries moved into the commercial production of dyes; there are many industrial chemical processes that require large vats, temperature control, and lots of liquid handling.

Meanwhile, crops used as feedstock for breweries and distilleries could be redirected to other food and beverage applications. Land could be replanted with different crops the following season. Don't get me wrong, there was certainly a major socioeconomic dislocation—but one shouldn't jump to the assumption that all of the infrastructure, real estate, and job skills were rendered completely useless. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As well, six distilleries were able to keep their doors open under the "medicinal" exception: as whiskey was typically seen as not only an enjoyable beverage but also a drug or tonic, it was legal to buy even during Prohibition with a doctor's prescription, at a rate of one pint every ten days. Those distilleries also wound up buying up other distilleries' existing stock for rebottling under their own labels - enabling the original producers to save up for the day of repeal they hoped would come soon. And the increased popularity of hard liquor (due to its bigger punch, and greater ease of smuggling compared to wine and beer), and people's willingness to ignore the law (due to its idiocy and its "affront to the whole history of mankind" - W. Churchill) meant that anyone with previous distilling experience would be able to make a living - whether in the hills or in the basement - even if the previously extant commercial infrastructure was repurposed or destroyed. Albeit an illegal and dangerous living. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 15:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "clean little secret" of Prohibition is that most people were inclined to obey the law even if they didn't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting off topic, but worth pointing out: it's safe to say a lot of that obedience depended on who you were. According to our article, enforcement fell disproportionately on the lower classes (sounds familiar). An ordinary family getting caught with a bottle would be in trouble; but one bootlegger claimed to supply a majority of the United States Congress with illegal alcohol, and corruption of law enforcement officers was rampant (a state of affairs impossible without money changing hands). The speakeasy wouldn't have the semi-glamorous reputation it has today without a marked degree of patronage by the relatively well-off. It's clear that someone who stands to lose more (rather, lose anything at all by way of not having spare cash to bribe an officer) is going to be more likely to obey even the worst laws. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Print referencing for a London business, circa 1801-1810.
Does somebody have access to a London business directory? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Didier and Tebbett needs some references, and the best would be to use a London business directory circa 1801. According to the draft, "Peter Didier and William Tebbett operated children's book and board game shop Juvenile Repository of English, French, and Italian books and Repository of Instructive Games, 75 St. James's Street, Pall Mall, London." That seems correct based on Project Gutenberg frontspieces, but we could use a good source or two. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 1803 Kent’s Directory appears to be on google books: [7] but I don’t see either name. My library has an 1816 Kent’s, nothing in there either. You could try asking at WP:RX as well as here.142.150.38.155 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A dichotomy in basic attitudes about laws and legality
I vaguely remember reading something many years ago that broadly/roughly explained a difference in mindset or attitudes about legality between "pioneer" versus "settled" cultures.
The concept (as I remember it) is that "pioneer" cultures tend to regard an activity or thing to be acceptable unless it is explicitly prohibited wheras "settled" cultures tend to presume that the same or similar thing or activity is not acceptable unless it is explicitly permitted by law, rule or regulation. It broadly explains things such as difference in gun ownership between Europe and America and even some of the differences between Democrats and Republicans or East coast US (original 13 states) versus the rest of the country (Wild West).
Has anyone else heard of this concept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it argued, but it isn't true. The 'permissive' construction of the law - usually common in common law jurisdictions - certainly applies here in the UK, where we've had more or less continuous government for 1200 years, and we have laws still on the books going back about 800 years. I don't think we can be considered 'pioneer', and we have extensive gun control - but we meticulously legislated it, because the presumption is that people can do as they please - subject to normal common law principles about tort etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The US Bill of Rights, specifically amendments 9 and 10 directly contradict this premise. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014
Some background: So a lot of people in my area are concerned about the Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014 (SB 212). Its a law that just passed in Maryland that grants transgender folks non-discrimination rights. [8] A lot of the conservatives in the area though are pointing to it and calling it the "bathroom bill" and saying that it will allow child predators to use the other gender's bathrooms to prey on children. They have even tried to bring the bill to referendum, unsuccessfully. [9] Now as far as I have been able to see this sort of thing has happened pretty much every time that a bill like this has passed or come up to vote [10] (My research tells me this last source is very partisan and sometimes unreliable because of that bias).
Anyhow, I've read SB 212, and I can't actually find any provision that discusses bathrooms at all. Can anyone point me to a provision in the law that would even make the predatory thing remotely possible? As far as I can see the bill only talks about employement, access to restruants and other public shops, housing, and credit. NOTE: I am not trying to start any sort of war about whether or not this bill should or shouldn't have been passed. I'm just looking for a straight answer or non-discriminatory discussion of the facts. I know this can be a heated subject. Zell Faze (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No point looking for reason in reactionary bigotry. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No point at all. When I was 13, I used to travel back home by train each week because we didn't own a car. That never was of no concern for Maryland. --Askedonty (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard procedure for conservatives, bigots and idiots. In my country a conservative politician managed to describe one of our most respected High Court judges, who has been openly gay for decades, as a paedophile. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same. In past generations, that accusation would have been almost certainly accurate. Society was non-permissive and frustrations high in proportion. Those who dared easily tended to proselytism. The different situation in present days may give the impression that those reluctant families and citizens in Maryland are only ^retarded. However safety is a legitimate concern. --Askedonty (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it hard to follow you here; I don't think you're trying to be offensive; but you've used 'retarded' to describe a large number of people, and you've rather implied that you think trans people are a threat to children. Can you clarify, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a better a translation of "idiots". Regarding your other question, I'm only commenting the score ? --Askedonty (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by many of these phrases. For example 'commenting the score'? What score? 'reluctant families and citizens' - reluctant to do what? And what has you taking the train when you were 13 got to do with anything? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to return the compliment; Askedonty (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want you to explain what you mean. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was using "reluctant" as a synonym for "unwilling" (to agree). I'm not taking side that's why I wrote "commenting the score". Regarding the experience of travelling by train, commerce and their hygienic commodities are organized in a rather similar fashion. I thought anyone knew it's an area of possible psychological danger, for children, young adults, etc. --Askedonty (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of your train anecdote is certainly unclear. Are you saying that trains typically have unisex toilets, but that people don't get too concerned about 13 year olds using them? Yes, but such toilets are for one person at a time. The "fears" here concern larger toilet blocks which accommodate several people. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo is mischaracterizing the argument. (That's not to say it's a good argument, but one should at least understand it before attempting to refute it.) The argument is not "transgenders are probably pedophiles"; it's "pedophiles will masquerade as transgender to get into the restroom they want to get into". --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that's the argument. I also think HiLo is onto something in that this is a standard anti-queer dogwhistle - a matter of guilt by association. But as I've said below - the act is drafted in such a way as to preclude casual masquerading. And besides - actually molesting someone is as illegal as ever. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. But this "dogwhistle" argument is dangerous, in general. If you can claim that an argument is "code" for something else, it gets you off the hook from addressing the argument itself. --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, quite. "I think this argument is disreputable" is true, but gets me nowhere. As it happens - as outlined below - the facts are against the objectors. I've limited myself to the facts in the act; actual figures on how much more at risk trans people are themselves of being assaulted, etc, would be persuasive but not definitive here. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The act requires substantial evidence that the gender identity a person espouses is sincerely held, either by living full-time as that identity, or by other means (not specified in the act, but more than trivial). It also allows providers of changing rooms and other facilities where people undress in sight of each other to provide both 'non-trans' and 'trans-inclusive' facilities if it suits them. So I don't think it's going to enable anyone to pose as trans on a casual basis in order to gain the rights outlined in the act for the adopted gender identity, and the only facilities where nudity is an issue have an exemption. So I think the scaremongering is simply false. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Japheth at time of death
Does anyone know of a traditional source (possibly apocryphal) that specifies the age of Japheth, son of Noah, at the time of his death? Because the Genesis lineage goes through Shem, Genesis specifies the (legendary) ages of Noah and Shem at the time of their deaths, but not Japheth. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The EU
Could the EU make it illegal for the UK to leave the EU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.66.93 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless the UK had first allowed it to, which it so far has not. There are no credible proposals that it should. Such a move would only make sense if the EU were to reconstitute itself as a nation, which it really isn't. After all, what sanctions could it levy? A nation which leaves might expect less favourable trade with the EU anyway. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is as yet no precedent for a member nation withdrawing from the EU. In that event, the EU as a Legal personality could sue a defaulting nation to claim compensation for any alleged specific breach of agreement(s). The Court of Justice of the European Union could find in favour of itself(!) which would give the EU executive arm, nominally Commission President Barroso, grounds for enforcing sanctions by all EU nations against the defaulting nation. Nothing more concrete than symbolic economic measures by the EU against the UK are conceivable because of its semi-dominant rôle as a nuclear power in the military alliance NATO to which 22 EU member countries also belong. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the article "Withdrawal from the European Union". Gabbe (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
June 5
Last Spanish monarch to wear a crown
No monarch of Spain has been crowned as such since John I of Castile (1379), Ferdinand I of Aragon (1414), and Eleanor of Navarre (1479). But who was the last to wear a crown (no tiaras) on their head minus a coronation ceremony?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more specific. We really can't know which ones once tried a crown on in private, so do you mean which monarchs made a public appearance in a crown, were painted or photographed in one, etc. ? StuRat (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Physically worn a crown and is known to have done so. If they did privately and there are sources stating that then it would count.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blog I cite below implies (but does not state) that the last Spanish monarch to wear a crown (as oppose to being coronated) was Ferdinand VII of Spain in the early 19th century. The actual practice of coronation (which is known as "being crowned") (that is, having the crown invested to the monarch by a religious authority) started to die out during the 16th-17th century. The Holy Roman Emperor, arguably the monarch with the closest historical ties to the pope, stopped being officially coronated in the middle 16th century, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was the last such Emperor to be so crowned; his successors simply stopped doing so. Napoleon famously crowned himself, a rather symbolic statement of humanism in the face of what had historically been a solemn religious event. I'm not sure when other monarchies dispensed with formal coronations (some still do so, the UK does, for example) but as you note unified Spain has never had a coronation. That doesn't mean that kings did not adorn themselves with crowns, just that they didn't go through the ceremony of being crowned. --Jayron32 03:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's such a thing as 'being coronated' distinct from 'being crowned'. If you have a reliable source for this claim, please share. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish Royal Crown
Does the Spanish monarchy own any crowns older than the one commissioned by Charles III that were used by the medieval monarchs of Leon, Castile, Galicia, Aragon and Navarre?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a bit bloggy, but presents several historic crowns of Spain (pictures too!) and their stories. --Jayron32 03:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Sterling suing the NBA
I have read this a few times in the past few weeks: "Donald Sterling sued the NBA in federal court last week alleging the NBA violated his constitutional rights by relying on information from an "illegal" recording that publicized racist remarks he made to a girlfriend." The NBA is certainly not a governmental agency; the US Constitution only restricts the conduct of government (not private parties). So, what am I missing? How can Sterling possibly make a constitutional claim against a private party like the NBA? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even private entities can be bound by due process to a certain extent. I have no idea what the NBA's bylaws are, but it would not be unusual for guarantees of due process to be explicitly written into such organizations. While private businesses can be protected to a certain degree from laws regarding privacy, freedom of speech, collection of evidence, etc., the courts can (and do) enforce an organization's own bylaws under something akin to contract law (as all parties agreed to the bylaws, they are enforceable as a contract would be, and when violated the aggrieved party may be due damages). Furthermore, the U.S. government has, in the past, expressly established the right to regulate private businesses (for example, enforcing civil rights laws on private individuals who discriminate in certain business transactions, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which made it illegal to refuse to sell or rent a home to someone because of their race, nationality, etc. Which is not to say that Sterling's case does or does not have merit. I'm no legal expert; however it isn't plain that it wouldn't have merit; there could be any number of reasons why Sterling could have a case against the NBA and "not being a government agency" is not necessarily relevant in deciding whether he does, or does not, have a case. --Jayron32 04:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The US government (federal) can – indeed, often does – regulate private businesses. But that is through federal statute; it has nothing to do with the US Constitution. If Sterling contends that the NBA is violating its own bylaws, that would be some type of contract claim. Perhaps the contract has a provision for "due process". (That would be some contractual obligation to provide due process; it would not be the "due process" guaranteed in the US Constitution.) I still don't see how the US Constitution could possibly be involved here. Anyone? I am not saying that Sterling's lawsuit does or does not have merit. It is the constitutional claim that I am questioning. I can't imagine any circumstance where the US Constitution is invoked here such that the NBA is violating Sterling's constitutional rights. Other rights? Possibly? But constitutional rights? Impossible. No? There can't be any claim that the NBA is operating as an arm of the federal government. What am I missing here? Perhaps sloppy journalism? Even that would be hard to screw up, though, from a reporter's stance. The NBA "not being a government agency" is not a defense to the entire lawsuit; but it is a defense to the constitutional claim in the lawsuit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latest story is that he has dropped the suit, so it could all have been a bluff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smoking in 1918
"When the queen was eighty- years-old [sic], she was advised to smoke one cigar a day, however, she didn’t. Only smoked a small part of it. She was told to take a little wine, or to smoke, but she preferred a small cigar. She would smoke a small part of it and then put it out and the next day start on a new one." - This was from an interview of Lydia Aholo, the adoptive daughter of Queen Liliuokalani at the end of her life. Did doctors in 1918 seriously prescribe smoking as a health benefit? I thought it was only a social excuse to smoke not that doctors believed it was beneficial for a person's health, especially an elderly person. Was smoking a recommended thing for doctors to prescribe and what kind of illness was it usually prescribed for?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have an article on health benefits of smoking, if it's any help. --NellieBly (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
千家诗
Does 千家诗 have an official English translation? Like how 三字经 is known as Three Character Classic? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page, it was first translated into English by Tsai Tingkan in 1932, and there have been six other English translations since then. --Canley (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bonkers meant the title, not the whole text. But should this be on the language desk? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is somewhat under literature... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 628: / Line 628: @@
 :According to [http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical_angydxxb-shkxb201305029.aspx this page], it was first translated into English by [[Tsai Tingkan]] in 1932, and there have been six other English translations since then. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] ([[User talk:Canley|talk]]) 11:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 ::I think Bonkers meant the title, not the whole text. But should this be on [[WP:RD/L|the language desk]]? [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 11:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
+:::Well, this is somewhat under literature... ☯ [[User:Bonkers The Clown|<font color = "Jade" face="Arial">'''Bonkers''' ''The Clown''</font>]] '''\(^_^)/''' '''[[User talk:Bonkers The Clown| Nonsensical Babble]]'''  ☯ 12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)