: Google "What is Li Ching-Yuen holding". Appears to be a [[Ginseng]] root. [[Special:Contributions/196.213.35.146|196.213.35.146]] ([[User talk:196.213.35.146|talk]]) 14:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
: Google "What is Li Ching-Yuen holding". Appears to be a [[Ginseng]] root. [[Special:Contributions/196.213.35.146|196.213.35.146]] ([[User talk:196.213.35.146|talk]]) 14:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks, I suppose I deserve a [[WP:trout]]ing for not googling first, though I will still be interested in any other info on the matter. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks, I suppose I deserve a [[WP:trout]]ing for not googling first, though I will still be interested in any other info on the matter. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
== History of the motto of the Royal Society ==
I was wondering if anyone happened to know the answers to a few questions I have about the motto of the Royal Society: "Nullius in Verba". As well as being generally curious I'm thinking of getting this as a tattoo, but I want to do it properly, so I'm interested in early written records of it that I can reference for typeface etc.
# In what year was the motto first used?
# How and by whom was it chosen and was it ever formally ratified e.g. by a vote of the fellows?
# In what document did the motto first appear in print?
# Did the motto ever appear in the pages of the Philosophical Transactions, if so, where? (I can't seem to find it in the online archive, but it's possible that some of the front matter etc. was not digitized)
I realise that the best course of action may be to write to the Royal Society and enquire directly, but I thought I'd give the reference desk a go first. Thanks in advance. [[User:Equisetum|Equisetum]]<small> ([[User talk:Equisetum|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Equisetum|contributions]])</small> 17:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:03, 20 October 2014
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
Back in the late 90s, I found a paperback book, probably published circa the 1970s (but I really don't know) that was a compilation of gothic short stories. I started reading one, and all I remember is a dark castle in which a woman who I believe was dressed in white, was walking around, all alone. I think there was wind. I remember reading quite a bit, but not much happening other than maybe just this: her walking around...? The story, if I remember some of the language, seemed like it was written in the mid to late 19th century. This is vague and a long-shot, but maybe someone here knows what story it might be. If I can find the story, then I can probably locate the book at a library as well. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you though. Too many people in that story. Maybe the lady I'm thinking of wasn't dressed in white. I hate to be so vague (I once worked at a bookstore and a lady asked me to find a book on alternative medicine with a green cover). It's definitely a ghost story or a gothic story (maybe no ghosts), but a massive castle or abbey type setting in the dark with moonlight. I just recall her wandering about, and a wind blowing through. Very romantic, eerie stuff. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! You got those as well, did you? Our best was an old lady, well known to us, who wanted another copy of a book she once owned "with a red cover." She didn't remember the subject matter, or if it was paperback, hardback, fiction or non-fiction, however.
Re your query, your description sounds to me so archetypal of the Victorian Gothic genre that it would be impossible to identify without more distinctive details. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you web-search for sites devoted to Gothic literature, where you might be able to both examine lists and descriptions of possibilities, and ask dedicated Gothic fans on any fora. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A woman does appear in "The Fall of the House of Usher", though I don't recall if she's described as wearing white or not. There is definitely a lot of wind toward the end of the story, but in any event it seems unclear whether the woman would be more likely to be categorised by modern audiences as a ghost or something closer to a zombie. Evan(talk|contribs) 15:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The White Lady is a ridiculously common ghost, like kids in bedsheets with eyeholes. Castles, wind and moonlight are even more common in Gothic stories. All I can suggest is skimming that article. InedibleHulk(talk) 06:42, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
Pluralism and distribution of power.
Does Pluralism accurately describe the distribution of power in a complex society, or are there more appropriate, rivalling theories? --Plannerton (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have an idea as to which "Museum of Berlin" the author of this paper is referring to on page 134, #40,41? (CTRL+F: in the Museum of Berlin.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For years people who remarried without the church's permission were barred from Holy Communion, perhaps the church's most sacred rite. Have there been any other groups, such as murderers, who were under a similar ban? --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think most would agree that murderers do not belong in church, but in prison. But the real issue here is that you seem to confuse categories. A murderer is someone who unlawfully killed a person. That is of course a mortal sin in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. Mortal sins need to be repented of. Once the sin is confessed and repented of, and the priest has absolved the person of his/her sin, that past sin is no longer a barrier to receive communion. The issue with (unlawfully) remarried people is that, in the eyes of the church, that person is living in continual sin. When someone continually sins by living as if married with a person who is not really ones spouse (according to the church), then manifestly that person is unwilling to repent and therefore unqualified to receive communion. This applies not just to remarriage but to also to people who habitually commit other sins such as drunkenness, fornication, idolatry etc., and obviously to a person who habitually murders people, such as an abortionist. As long as he/she is unwilling to repent of the sin, he/she cannot receive communion. - Lindert (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'not ...in church but in prison' - they have chapels, and chaplains, in prisons, you know. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a distinction made here, as abortion may be murder in the eyes of the church, but in the eyes of the law (in the US, at least), it is not. The likelihood of an abortionist also being a devout Catholic is another matter. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. I don't think ref desk responders should say things like "a person who habitually murders people, such as an abortionist" - that is WP:SOAP in my opinion. The WP:NEUTRAL phrasing would be something along the lines of "abortion is considered a sin by the Catholic church" (if that's even true...). Of course OP doesn't even mention Catholicism per se, and other churches give communion, and some churches even support a woman's right to abortion access. At a quick skim, I see from Christianity and abortion that "Saint Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder." So even among Catholics there is not full agreement on the issue. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just answering the OP's question, which was clearly in the context of the Roman Catholic Church (so the laws of the USA or other countries are irrelevant here). He/she was specifically asking about refusing communion to murderers (obviously as viewed by the church), so I think my comment was directly relevant to the question, and not WP:SOAP. I was responding from the perspective of the Roman Catholic legal system, though I am not myself a Roman Catholic, and hence do not agree with all their policies. WP:NEUTRAL (like WP:OR etc.), is a content policy, and hence only applies to articles, not to editors' comments on talk pages or the reference desk. Augustine was of course not a Roman Catholic, nor does anyone believe he was infallible. The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reflects the current authoritative position of the Roman Catholic Church, states that an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, whose rights as a human being must be respected. I did not intend to make this a discussion about abortion, I just hope my response is somewhat helpful to the OP. - Lindert (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't want to make this discussion about abortion, then going out of your way to equate someone who has performed an abortion with a murderer is a funny way to go about it. I'm sure you know that abortion is a highly contentious issue. Additionally, "abortionist" is not the name of any profession, and use of the term is sort of a "dog whistle" that implies certain things (e.g. that anyone who would perform or receive an abortion is scum). Taking these things together, I inferred that your comments contained a needless, pointed aside, that denigrates people who perform or receive abortions. I apologize if I misconstrued your words, but that's how I initially read them. Inserting "according the the catholic church" with your later-provided link would have drawn no comment from me. On the topic of policies, if you search through the ref desk archives and talk pages, you will find plenty of users being admonished for ref desk content that is too OR,SOAP, or not NEUTRAL, though I agree that the standards should be a bit different here than for article space. This is far off topic, so if you (or anyone else) would like to discuss the matter further, please use the ref desk talk page or my talk page to do so. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Mention "abortion is murder" (which, btw, happens to be a valid opinion held by millions of people outside of Wikipedia) and everybody comes out of the woodwork to shout down the person while the edits like this and this (just to name a few recent ones) are simply glossed over and allowed to continue without reprimand. Is it any wonder that this once grand project is increasingly seen as being dominated by those of a particular political persuasion and losing it's claimed neutrality?--William ThweattTalkContribs 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion, but not necessarily a valid opinion. It's a misunderstanding of what murder is. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. In places where abortion is legal, it is by definition not murder, no matter who might wish it were so. And the same applies to capital punishment, which is also often erroneously labeled murder. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that taken in the context of this question and answer, ("other sins such as drunkenness, fornication, idolatry etc.,") I don't think the reference to abortion was particularly SOAPy. - EronTalk 22:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "everybody", I'm one person. And I didn't come out of the woodwork, I'm a highly prolific respondent here, with a long history of civil tone and providing scientific references. Bugs' comment above is a simple and polite clarification, I'm the only one making an issue of it. My comments above are perfectly WP:CIVIL, and I think you're making a straw man. I did not "shout down" anyone. It says right at the top of the page that this is not a forum for debate. Saying things like "abortion is murder" is inviting a debate, no matter who might believe that - it's a highly contentious issue, and weighing in on one side or another is not something we should do at a reference desk. Saying "abortion is murder" is certainly not WP:NEUTRAL, as I said above. It is not a fact, it is an opinion, and we aren't supposed to offer opinions here either. It is a fact that the catholic church considers abortion to be murder, and Lindert has now given clarification and references to that effect. I am amused that you interpret my request for neutral language as itself a violation of neutrality. Throwing up comments from Bugs as evidence that I'm doing something wrong is also a complete red herring. If you see a problem WP:SOFIXIT; nobody stopped you from commenting on the posts that you cited. Like I said, If you want to discuss the matter further, please take it to the talk page, this really isn't the appropriate venue. (post EC: Eron, all I asked for originally was better clarification that this was the opinion of the church. "Sin" inherently draws upon some religious doctrine in a way that "murder" does not. Stating contentious opinion as fact without qualification is clearly SOAP in my book) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any reputable statement from Catholic authorities that suggests Freemasons are no longer excommunicated. As far as I know, it's still considered Grave matter, it just doesn't come up as often because hardly anyone bothers with the Masons anymore. 31.54.195.38 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gay refused communion gets 813,000 hits. The sub-plot there is that gays have sometimes attended Mass in groups wearing prominent rainbow sashes, which is like a person standing up in the congregation and shouting "I'm gay and proud of it and you wouldn't want to know what my boyfriend and I get up to in bed at night, and I dare you to refuse me Communion". Priests usually happily take the dare, then get bad press for "refusing gays Communion". They don't refuse it to gays who don't make an issue of it, but just turn up and behave like ... well, "normal" people. In some cases, the sash-wearing was preceded by some actual inappropriate discrimination and the wearers felt sufficiently provoked to take a stance. There are no doubt rights and wrongs on both sides. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 19:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Halcatalyst -- I know nothing about communion, but a number of notorious mobsters have been denied Catholic funeral rites... AnonMoos (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction that needs to be made is that between Crime and Sin. Sin and Crime overlap, but are not the same... Some crimes are sins, while others are not... and some sins are crimes, while others are not. The Church is concerned with Sin. There are actually quite a few sins that are considered serious enough that the Church will withhold sacraments (at least until the sinner repents and is absolved).
That said... see our article on Interdict for a more direct answer to the OPs question. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for groups or classes of people. The Freemason example is a good one, though it's two centuries old. It's true that gays were condemned in the past, but now the church regards homosexuality as an "objective disorder" which is a sin only if it's practiced, and the teaching extends to individuals, not groups. (same citation as above. I'm sorry I mentioned murder; I was just thinking unclearly. --Halcatalyst (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helpful to read Canon 915 for the general concept.
Anyway obviously you can define your own criteria, but I don't think it's so simple to rule our something like the Rainbow Sash Movement. Although our article suggests it's worn by LGBT, from what I can tell (and I don't think surprisingly) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], it's also worn by supporters who aren't LGBT themselves. In this case, it's not so much that the wearing the sash is a mortal sin (although it could be). In fact, as per the sources, I suspect in many cases even if a person wearing such a sash doesn't wear it next time but is still recognised or even takes it off there and goes to take communion, they'll probably be allowed (which obviously wouldn't work if it were a mortal sin unless it's confessed and repented although perhaps it could be said it's not "obstinately persevered in", so while they shouldn't receive, they can't be denied). But rather that wearing the sash is seen an unacceptable act of protest scandalising a sacrament. So IMO it's fair to say that rainbow sash wearers are a group generally denied communion.
BTW, it's perhaps helpful to differentiate between 2 things here. As per canon 915 and canon 916, there's a difference between people who shouldn't receive communion and those who should be denied. Anyone who's isn't in a state of grace by having committed a mortal sin and not having gone through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation shouldn't receive communion except in an emergency. But you need to meet additional criteria to be denied. The sin must be manifest i.e. known to a resonable section of the public and "obstinately persevered in".
This would potentially apply to anyone who is openly gay. Although I'm a bit confused by the sources used in our article, which seem to suggest the size of the church is relevant, as I would have thought even if it's known to people outside the Catholic Church it would be equally a problem. Perhaps one factor is that even if plenty of people outside the church know, it's seen as problematic to deny communion as it will reveal something not already known to people in the church, that's what this hints at [8]. (I also got that idea from earlier searchers, see later.)
Either way, to clarify Jack's point, you don't need to wear a rainbow sash to qualify. E.g. this case where the couple were married [9][10]. The details from the first link seem to suggest the priest feels living together is a big enough problem. I suspect if you're on a gay dating site or similar you may equally have problems.
An interesting point on murderers, if someone is a serial killer yet somehow has managed to evade detecting so no one even know's there's a killer except for the priest perhaps informed through confession, it seems hard to say they would fall under canon 915 unless they qualify for excommunication. (Of course nothing only known via confession would ever come in to play anyway and it's difficult to imagine how the priest would know were it not through confession, at least without them having told anyone.) So even if the priest is fairly confident they're still killing people, they could counsel them not to receive communion, but may not be able to deny it.
Generally though, it's complicated and is obviously going to depend a lot on the priest. As hinted in Canon 915 and I've mentioned before with sources that to avoid scandal or defaming people, often the priest may quitely approaching anyone they feel falls under Canon 915 after mass to remind them of Canon 916 or the requirements for communion and ask them to refrain, probably I suspect going as far as to warn them if they continue before they physically deny the person Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 August 30#How do people receive communion at a megachurch?.
And I'm fairly sure some priests who don't entirely agree with the churchs teachings (or whatever) may simply ignore the info, no matter how clear a violation of 915 it seems to be. You'd note in some of the earlier sources, the the person responding seemed to imply it would be okay to receive communion without the sash, without mentioning the churches teachings on the requirements on communion or on homosexual acts at all, unlike with George Pell per our Rainbow Stash article. And some have openly welcomed rainbow sash wearers to receive the communion regardless of why they're wearing them [11][12]. In fact, I suspect some more conservative ones, if informed of stuff which suggest the person isn't in a state of grace but which may not fall under 915 will still approach the person to counsel them both about their sin and about canon 916/requirement for communion.
P.S. I noticed the Zenit source mentions another group, those who appear visibly drunk or otherwise intoxicated may be denied which isn't particularly surprising.
P.P.S. Interdict was already linked by someone else, which is an interesting read since it does include several things you could resonably call groups (like the National Executive of the Malta Labour Party or older, places like Rome, Norway and England). It's probably helpful to also look at Latae sententiae as anyone who's excommunicated should also be denied communion per 915 (and automatic is where you're likely to find groups).
What about Vatican City? What about Monaco? There are several states listed at microstate which are urbanized enough to be called city-state. The article city-state includes those three as "most certainly city-states" and then also lists several edge-cases including several microstates whose territory is solely a single urban area and its hinterlands. --Jayron32 17:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
State could mean an independent country or a part of a federation (like the US states or the German "Bundesländer"=federal states). While afaik the US does not have any states that consist of just a single city - Washington is a Federal District - in Germany there are three: Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. 31.54.21.99 (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I may be small, but I've got a big heart! and a giant birthmark of a transistor radio" A quick Google search pulls out this list of 5 city-states, though, and though Singapore is at the top it doesn't seem to be alone. ~HelicopterLlama~ 16:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the lists already cited mentioned Djibouti, which is really as much a city-state as Brunei or Luxembourg. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although Luxembourg is a little city surrounded by a lot of very pleasant countryside and several charming small towns like Wiltz for example, so I'm not sure that it would qualify as a "city state" per se. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what you mean by "territory". Sparta, at times, exerted hegemony over much of the southern three "fingers" of the Peloponnese (AKA Laconia), but formally it only had administrative control over a thin strip of arable land in the narrow valley of the Eurotas River. It also had a small port at the mouth of the river at Gytheio. Eyeballing some maps, the territory likely wasn't much larger than 200 square miles or so, if that. Luxembourg, while by no means large, is 5 times bigger than that. --Jayron32 11:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
October 16
possessives
I wonder if there is some meaning when a poet, in ancient rome, used a possessives for their lovers\friends\prostitute. --79.183.124.99 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what OP is thinking, but I thought of phrases like "My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;" [13]. Of course that has two possessive words, "My" and "mistress'". SemanticMantis (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many poets such as Catullus called mea Lesbia, - and to some of if his friends - --79.183.124.99 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See e.g. Catullus_5. It opens with "My sweetest Lesbia, let us live and love" - I'm no classicist, but I think in Latin phrases like "My Lesbia", "My love" etc are just using possessive pronouns as a term of endearment, in a similar manner to many English speakers, poets and songwriters. Compare e.g. Oh_My_Darling,_Clementine. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's Keeping Up Appearances where Daisy is always referring to "Our Rose" or "Our Hyacinth" when no American would say such a hing. It's obviously a form of endearment. This seems to be some sort of (at least) Midlands idiosyncrasy of English. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Common in the North as well. --ColinFine (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question about WW1 and WW2.
Which of the two world wars did more to effect social change in Britain? --Plannerton (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Britain's existence was threatened, unlike in WW1.
2) Rationing was required until well after WW2, and that puts a spotlight on class differences.
3) The colonial system largely collapsed following WW2.
4) Britain was supplanted as the strongest military power by the US.
5) The emergence of the Soviet Union as a major threat meant cooperation with the rest of Western Europe and the US was essential, thus NATO and the EU was formed. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat -- A lot of those are geopolitical changes. On the social level, I think WW1 was more decisive (in Western countries as a whole, not just Britain), since it had the effect of permanently destroying Victorian restrictiveness. Just compare the women's clothing of ten years before the war (1904) with that of ten years after the war (1928) -- the corset was gone, and if a woman had stepped out onto the streets of a city in 1904 wearing a 1928 "flapper" outfit, she might have been arrested. The one-couple "date" did not exist as a recognized and accepted social institution in 1904, but was well established in 1928. World War 2 had many severe economic and geo-political effects, but it was not an unexpected and surprising shock to an apparently smoothly-functioning system the way that World War 1 was, and it did not up-end and transform social mores and ideas of social morality in the same way that World War 1 did. AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the demolition of Victorianism was not confined to the British. American soldiers came back a lot more worldly-wise and relatively liberated. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the Second World War completely reshaped Britain's infrastructure. Many parts of many towns were utterly destroyed, particularly the south-east of the country near London and the many airfields that defended the nation. Years of bombings from Germany, especially from V1/V2 rockets completely reshaped the way that most British people lived during that time, every day was a bonus. Rations and colonialism etc are all fascinating but the day-to-day life of the average Brit was changed irreversibly. The good ol' US, while they came in after the cheque arrived, don't have any clue as to the impact of the routine bombing of their livelihood, neighbourhood, etc. Claim "Pearl Harbour" but actually, try living every day of your life for years thinking that you'd be bombed to death... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)To answer Baseball Bugs's question first: our article World War I casualties says that British deaths in WWI totalled 1,012,075 (highest estimate) including about 124,000 civilians, of whom, 16,829 were killed by direct military action, the remainder were mainly the result of the 1918 flu pandemic. Our World War II casualties article says that British deaths totalled 450,900 including 67,100 civilian deaths by direct military action (chiefly air raids). So the first caused more than double the mortality of the second.
The original question is rather more a matter of conjecture. The World Wars seem to have accelerated existing trends. Thus we have the "Great Unrest", a wave of strikes and industrial action before and even during the First World War [14], but the 1926 General Strike and the Jarrow March after it. The final part of the sequence could be seen as the public appetite for nationalisation in the post WWII period. The Suffragette movement pre WWI translated to universal suffrage in 1928. The provision of state pensions in 1907, followed eventually by the National Health Service after World War II. The writing was arguably already on the wall for the aristocracy before 1914, but decline was certainly accelerated greatly by both wars. Arguably, the biggest impact on the UK as a whole was the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not British, but I think it's clear historically that WWI was a modern turning point of which WWII was just a continuation. In addition to the million casualties, there was the Lost Generation the rise of the Labour Party, Female suffrage and the Irish Republic, the rise of Fascism, Nazism and Russian Communism. Almost all of Tolkien's classmates dies or were destroyed in the war, his depiction of Mordor and the lands surrounding it evoke the trenches and mood of the Western Front. Imagine what was potentially lost with the loss of so many of his generation. Consider the terrible settlement of the first war, the carving up of the Middle East, the legitimate complaints of Germany that it had agreed to a ceasefire, not surrender. The only thing comparable in its effects would be the Seven Years' War through the Napoleonic Wars. We tend to look at WWII and Napoleon as they are more recent, but their causes are just as significant. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is Jane Eyre a Quaker, or is she Quaker-like?
Is Jane Eyre a Quaker, or is she merely like a Quaker but not really a professing Quaker? Could it be that her self-described plain dress is due to her relative poverty than to her religion? By the way, what kind of religion is that Rochester guy? As far as I know, his religion prohibits bigamy. Is he Anglican or Catholic or Anglo-Catholic? 140.254.226.224 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A great majority of the country gentry in England were (and probably still are) members of the AnglicanChurch of England for historical and social as well as religious reasons. I'm not sure that the Reverend Rivers, an Anglican clergyman, would have considered a Non-Conformist or (even less likely) a Roman Catholic as a wife either. There were no Anglo-Catholics as such at that time; they were a product of the Oxford Movement a few decades later, however many of the gentry supported the High Church party within the Church of England. Although the term "High Church" is nowadays linked to Anglo-Catholicism, in the early 19th century: "High Church clergy and laity were often termed "high and dry", in reference to their traditional "high" attitude with regard to political position of the Church in England, and "dry" faith, which was accompanied by an austere but decorous mode of worship, as reflective of their idea of an orderly and dignified churchmanship", to quote our article. As far as I can remember, none of this is explained in the book, it is assumed that the readers will understand the nuances of the religious situation of the time, with out the need to have it spelled out. Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the book that says she was a Quaker, as I recall. Her deceased parents' religion is not mentioned, and I don't believe the Reeds' was either (they definitely weren't Quakers in any case). I think Mr. Brocklehurst gave the orphans a weekly religious lecture, but of course Jane despised him, so she wouldn't have paid him any mind. She was poverty-stricken, so she could only afford plain clothing. Her self-perceived unattractiveness and station in life pre-Mr. Rochester would have made this her preference as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the text of the novel is available online, and the word "Quaker" (or variant) occurs four times, none of which seem to indicate that Jane herself is a Quaker; they are mostly references to the Quakers' plain style of dress. In Chapter VII Jane describes how they all go to church from Lowood school: "Sundays were dreary days in that wintry season. We had to walk two miles to Brocklebridge Church, where our patron officiated." I think it's safe to assume that this would be an Anglican church. Likewise in Chapter XXVI her wedding to Mr Rochester is described as being at the "church", with no further qualification, so again it would be the local Anglican church. As Alansplodge says, it would be unusual, and worthy of mention, for someone in Mr Rochester's position not to be an Anglican. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Marriage Act 1836, Christian marriages in England were only recognized as valid under English law if they took place in the Church of England. (None of the very limited exceptions -- that Quakers were not counted as Christians, and that sometimes foreigners could get around the restriction by marrying in chapels attached to foreign embassies in London -- would have applied to Jane Eyre.) AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are Jewish converts who happen to be transmen circumcised?
Are Jewish converts who happen to be transmen circumcised, or are they treated as female upon conversion? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that they'll wait until such a thing ever happens, before anybody needs to decide. A quick look at Google didn't bring any historic examples to light. Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming they are accepted as men with a medical problem, a pinprick or even no procedure is necessary for a bar mitzvah, see Robinson, previously referenced. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nekros Kidemonas is a machine translation for "dead guardian," but Nekros Kidemonas has more of the sense "dead people the guardians" rather than "guardian of the dead" (fylakas to̱n nekron) or "(a/the) guardian (that is dead)" (nekro kidemona). A case of Romanes eunt domus.
The only other places I'm seeing it are a few online RPGs.
In other words, completely made up and not a part of Wicca or ancient Greek religion. Not that that won't stop a Chaos magician, but what will? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further at Wikibin, I trust that site only as far as I can throw something heavy or sharp at that site's owners. They're hijacking our brand to spread misinformation under the guise of "free speech." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't hijacking any brand. Wikipedia did not create or invent the term Wiki, it existed long before Wikipedia. --Jayron32 23:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the difference between Wiki software and Wikipedia, but they're presenting themselves as a Wiki-based source of knowledge, using a puzzle piece as their logo. They even declare themselves to be "The Recycle Bin of Wikipedia!" Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibin appears to be a repository of deleted WP articles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nekros Kidemonas. I particularly like the note at the bottom of the Wikibin page: "There was more to this document, but the text was unreadable." They forgot to say that the part that they did include was unreadable, too. Deor (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Wicca is a practice grounded in the British Isles, it's unlikely a Greek deity would feature in it, and I must say I've never come across this entity in my readings around Wicca. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Wicca has become a sort of Wikibin of pagan deities, and Greek ones frequently surface. It wouldn't surprise me if Nekros where's the bloody verb? Kidemonas turned up in a wiccan context, one can only be prepared to laugh. Ian Thomson is perfectly correct, and googling "νεκρός κηδεμων" gets no results at all. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
October 17
Why are horoscopes drawn backwards?
Why is it northern ecliptic down? If you search for one that's not rising sign right that is Which is also backwards (the upper chart is below the horizon).
I know where the Sun and evening sky is because of the date. That's more information and less indirect than forcing me to find one of the circa 8 sign symbols I know or the Sun so I know how much to turn the chart. Then the planet symbols are upside down, Pluto's looks more like Uranus's than Pluto's and Uranus's looks like an asteroid's, the asteroid(s)'s confuse further till I finally memorized the idiosyncratic Uranus/Pluto symbols just to know every object I want by sight. They have too much stuff cluttering everything (asteroid(s) and aspects thereof, aspects with points of the lunar orbit, aspects like 5/12ths circle, 1.5 right angle for more than moon phases, 1/5th circle or worse (who cares!), angles so crooked they don't resemble what they're supposed to be anymore (too much latitude for offness)). Sometimes I want to see if the planets are making any interesting shapes and this annoys me. Astrology charts put lines though, making any aesthetic and very easy to see. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am understanding your question. Celestial maps are drawn looking upward at the sky from below. If you hold the map above your head the cardinal points will match reality, but if you put the map on a table and look down on it, if N & S are properly oriented, E & W will appear reversed. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That confused me till middle school. What I meant is why is Aries to the left and therefore the southern celestial hemisphere up? See www.chaosastrology.net/astroform/chartwheel.cfm (put none under house), planetwatcher.com, the Astrological Charts app or Aquarius2go app (turn house off) (I thought that the rising sign was on the right where it shouldn't be. Oops. Astrologers did get that right.) Why Aries is Cancer down, Capricorn/Sagittarius up, and Libra/Virgo right on more useful (to non -astrologers) sign-based charts? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't get any good answers here (and given the subject matter I suspect you won't), I can recommend an astrologer who is very good at answering questions like this, if you want to put a message on my Talk page and we'll take it from there. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is a nurse allowed to date a (former) patient's child?
No law against it. Don't know if it violates professional ethics standards (but it probably depends on the specific situation.) Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policies about dating between professionals (including medical professionals, educators, lawyers, etc.) and their clients are subject usually to the policies of the employer in question. The nurse would need to refer to their specific employer's policy on the matter. There are no universal rules, and it is under the realm of employee conduct rules (developed by the employer, professional organization, union, or other similar body) and is not a matter of civil law. Literally, the only people who can answer this question are the employers of the nurse. If the nurse in question is concerned, they need to speak to their employer, or look through their employer's conduct policy for the relevant guidelines. --Jayron32 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, professions such as attorneys have codes of conduct which specify the limits of professional and personal relationship overlap, which have the force of law, and government employees are often subject to anti-nepotism rules. The US medical profession in general has no specific codes of conduct which would prevent a caregiver from dating the child of a patient, and I have personal experience that such situations are rare but not generally a source of concern for former patients at all. 76.88.167.15 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Pearse
I am trying to research a missionary in Raiatea by the name of Albert Pearse. This mentions that all LMS missionaries left the Leeward Islands by 1890, but it doesn't really speak of Pearse own personal fate. Also can anybody help me find other names of missionaries who preached in the Leeward Islands during this waning decade of the 1880s. Just to specify I am not interested in missionaries in Tahiti or before this period. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Pearse's 1911 obituary with a short biography.--Cam (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison: Movie '300' with 'Da vinchi code' Book
Who watched the movie '300'. Is this movie similar to 'Da vincihi code', e.g., in the movie '300', they assume that the viewer will have the basic understanding of the past histories, about the 'Gods' and 'oracles', they just go through with the primary story/topic through the 'Gods' and 'oracles' e.g., Sparta guy and so on... I have not read the 'Da vinchi code' I have a basic understanding... Q: Does the 'Da vinchi code' and '300' possess a similar layout?
Also, How much can you lie in a fictional story? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Spend your thinking time in understanding the real world and not allow fiction writers who can wast your time, to wast your time. Nor question their motives (they want to sell book, not illuminate the reader). Why discuss this? Others may just love the 'Da vincihi code', but they can discuss this this on blogs. WP is not the right place. Who cares about the layout or lies that authors use to draw in their readership? --Aspro (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can lie as much as you want in a story which you state to be fiction. If you claim it's a true story and then lie, that could get you in trouble. They usually get around this by saying it's "(fiction) based on a true story". Unfortunately, mixing truth and fiction goes back at least to Homer. Do'oh ! StuRat (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calling "bullshit" on "If you claim it's a true story and then lie, that could get you in trouble" There are lots of works of fiction which claim "This is based on a true story" which are actually not at all. See Fargo (film), which states, unequivocally at the beginning "This is a true story, these events happened in Minnesota in 1987" While the Coen brothers had a few disparate murder cases that they borrowed some ideas from (and really, every work of fiction borrows "ideas" from real life at some point), Fargo's opening disclaimer of truth is completely not true. And no one got in trouble for that. --Jayron32 01:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't get the Coen Brothers in trouble, but it "could" get you in trouble. Like, for instance, if I were to publish my book "CJK5H" with a "this really happened" claim in the front, in some countries I could be sued (successfully) for libel. 75.140.88.172 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there was a real person so libeled. You can't be sued for libel if no real person is told falsehoods about. --Jayron32 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. Thinks to myself.... How can politicians speak lies whilst claiming it to be the truth and get away with it? (you may well ask how I know them to be lying … simple, I can see their lips moving). (think you're contributing Do'oh to the wrong Homer - Ho! Ho!) --Aspro (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the quote attributed to Mark Twain, "The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." So there you are. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hush, don't clue him in. Wasn't it Daniel Burnham who said "Make no small lies"? That 1943 Titanic sounds pretty funny. Propaganda media usually do, after some passage of time. The funniest thing is Goebbels having second thoughts about it, as it might give the German public ideas. What's the German equivalent of "D'oh!"? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously guys, has anyone seen the movie and or read the book or not? I need to know whether the layouts are similar or not, because I only seen ‘300’ and I read a bit of ‘Da vinchi code’ from Wikipedia…
Clarify the following as well please,
Lie Test 01: Can I get away with, by saying 'Alien' or 'Predator' was the 'Messiah' of 'UFO' Religion and the other was the 'False Messiah'? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Absolutely not (to both questions). They kill people, and neither even pretends to be doing it for our own good. Big Lies need Big Loudspeakers! Little people have those now, with Twitter and whatnot, but when everyone's speaking, they become relatively quiet. You're certainly free to try, though. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:57, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
You're funny InedibleHulk..lol. I won't try it if you think its a risk. I have to come up with something else... Thanks a lot! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
No, they don't have the same 'layout'. 300 is presented as an exaggerated account given by a storyteller, and explores how events become myths. The Da Vinci Code presents itself as being a fictional story included purportedly true facts about history and society, which are fairly universally hilariously wrong. 31.54.195.38 (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that make you sad? It demonstrates that you can lie as much as you want, as blatantly as you want, as long as what you're lying about is outside most people's everyday lives and would require a basic google search for them to check, and people will still take your fictional story as an accurate guide to just about anything, with no negative consequences for you. Just don't lie about real people with access to more expensive lawyers than you. 31.54.195.38 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This cheered me up a bit. I kind of don't lie, I don't like lying... As long as I can get away by saying fictional and follow your and InedibleHulk guideline, I guess, I'll be okay.
Another thing, I know this is suppose to be 'logic' but still asking for assurance: I can get away by saying it was a 'fictional' story to God after death right? Fairy tale stuff and so on? He won't say that I was giving false hopes/dreams/beliefs and so on, right? I know you are not God, I'm just wondering. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
You know what would cheer you up? Googling "bs viral site:cracked.com". Once you get past the first couple pages of results, you'll see bullshit extends to every corner of the known universe, not just Facebook and movies (but mostly there). InedibleHulk(talk) 18:41, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
I'll check it up once I become free. I assume it not required/related to the fictional topic. In regards to corners of the universe. Do you mean 'multiverses' or the 'Big Bang' theory (starting point to the end ever ending point)? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
No, it's just a series of list articles about the sorts of stories that catch on because people don't factcheck. As for the corners of the universe, you'll have to see them. Can't be explained in words or diagrams. InedibleHulk(talk) 16:13, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
October 18
Cavalry
I have just been watching a WW1 film about cavalry, and I was wondering, is there an army in the world which still uses troops mounted on horses? I know they were still used in WW2 (the German army actually had more horses than tanks, despite the image of Blitzkrieg that we have). When (if) were horses 'phased out' in western armies for front-line combat? To repeat my main question, does anyone still use them? KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those "proving a negative" type questions that's difficult to answer with certainty, but the answer is ALMOST certainly not. I know most about the Australian Light Horse. Regiments with the name still exist, but they became mechanised and did away with the last of their horses (apart from for ceremonial purposes) around the time of WWII. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Household Cavalry, Royal Horse Artillery. The British army is supposed to have more horses than tanks or helicopters, and reputed to be the last army in the world that is trained to perform a full cavalry charge at the gallop. The Hyde Park bomb (1982) was the last time British cavalrymen died in full armour since the Battle of Waterloo. 86.182.224.136 (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article about everything - try Cavalry#Post–World War II to present day which cites several recent examples. A bit further up the page it says that the British Army has been fully mechanised since 1942 - (excluding ceremonial use referred to above); the last British horsed cavalry regiment was operating in the hills of Palestine I believe. Alansplodge (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although to qualify that a little, these are really mounted infantry rather than cavalry in the traditional sense, but they do qualify as "troops mounted on horses" mentioned in KageTora's original question. Alansplodge (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I purposefully didn't make a distinction between mounted infantry and actual cavalry. Thanks for the responses. Coincidentally, and quite bizarrely, the first answer mentioned the Australian Light Horse. That was actually the film I had been watching (bit of a B-movie, but anyway).
Until a few years ago the South African Army had a light infantry battalion (12 South African Infantry Battalion) that used a mix of horses and motorcycles for mobility. They were however mounted infantry rather than cavalry as they dismounted when in contact with the enemy and fought on foot. Although the battalion has been disbanded the mounted infantry capability has been retained in the form of the "SA Army Specialised Infantry Capability" unit which also provides and trains dogs and their handlers for the Army. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Historical name
What is the origin of the name of the city Manassas in the state of Virginia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayle clay (talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One mountain gap, where Interstate 66 crosses the Blue Ridge, bears an Indian name -- Manassas. A historical marker at the gap notes that it might have been named for "a local Jewish innkeeper" with the biblical name Manasseh. But there would have been no one to come to the inn when the name Manassas first appeared -- on surveyor John Warner's 1737 area map. The area was not settled until a decade later.
I tend to believe that the name Manassas relates to Massanutten Mountain, the prominent range of the Appalachians to the west, quite visible from Manassas Gap. Massanutten may, in an Indian language, mean peaked mountain, locally pronounced in two syllables, "peak-id."
Other Indian lore says Massanutten stands for three tops, as the mountain has three distinct summits; old field, a reference to former fields on its slopes; or basket, as the Fort Valley separating the mountain from the Blue Ridge might be construed as having a basket-like shape.
(ec) :This site has some background regarding the name, mostly towards the bottom of the page. In short, it's not known for certain, but the writer seems o think it's most likely a corruption of a local Indian name. But then there's this explanation as well, though I think the first reference is a better researched. We should probably update our article. Matt Deres (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a map showing the Shenandoah Valley/Blue Ridge area of Virginia. Massanutten Mountain is the long ridge that lies between the two main forks of the Shenandoah. East of Massanutten (and the eastern of the two forks) lies the taller "Main Ridge" of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Manassas Gap, mentioned above, is the gap in the smaller Bull Run Mountains that lies much closer to Manassas, along the border of Prince William County and Fauquier County. The Bull Run Mountains (and that gap) serve as the origin of Bull Run, the creek that ends up at Manassas I'm having a hard time swallowing the idea that Manassas is named for Massanutten; whether they share a coincidental linguistic connection is one thing (and I'm not even sure of that), but other than both being in Virginia, I'm not entirely sure one can see much of Massanutten Mountain all the way from Manassas. Massanutten Mountain is an impressively long mountain, running about 50 miles from north to south. However, Manassas is some 50 miles east of it; and there's several ridges between Manassas and Masanutten itself, notably the Bull Run Mountains (closest to Manassas) and the main ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountains, behind which Massanutten lies. You can see on the map I linked. One may be able to make out the very northern end of Massanutten through some of the gaps of the closer ridges, but it wouldn't be the most striking geographic feature from Manassas. Seems like a folk etymology to me, no better than the (obviously wrong) Jewish innkeeper story. --Jayron32 00:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did segregation in the 1950s America affect Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants?
Did racial segregation in the 1950s of America affect Asian-Americans and then-recent Asian immigrants? If so, in what ways? Did Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants have to use the "colored" restrictions too? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Poor people (in 1st world countries) are poor because they are not aspirational"
Is this statement true? I read a blocked sockpuppet say "In first world countries such as the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, etc, we generally have well funded schools, support networks, and public support for colleges and further education with loans and grants. So really there should be no excuse for people not to succeed unless they are lazy, inspirational or terrible at making life choices." Is this a valid argument? What about "When we see a 45 year old man working at the Telcos/Walmart check out counter for the past 15 years, he failed at life"? In 1st world countries, should money not be a barrier? InedibleHulk(talk) 20:29, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
At least in the US, many of those things are lacking for the poor. For example, local funding of school districts ensures that schools in poor areas are perpetually underfunded, since those communities lack the resources to pay for their own schools. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone "succeeded", nobody would be left to work. If you see anyone at WalMart, be glad they're serving you. There's only so much money to go around, and no amount of aspiration is going to change that. If you want super-rich people, you need more who are relatively super-poor. InedibleHulk(talk) 16:49, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this theory is that, even if everyone succeeds, some will succeed more than others, and then those who have succeeded less can be labelled as "lazy, indigent..." by those who have succeeded more. So such an attitude is at best patronising and at worst incendiary. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Incendiary sounds nice. I used to work at Behemart, behind both a register and a customer service desk, training other cashiers, pushing carts, and I even tested for management (would've gotten it if the positions I wanted ever opened up). My experience there (though anecdotal) has only cemented the idea in my head that wealth is inversely related to common sense and good work ethic. Most of the "dumb cashier" stories I heard (and still hear) are usually the (far more financially comfortable) customer not having a damn clue how the real world works. Stuff like how a functioning store working for a greedy corporation keeps prices low, that "per lb" has meant "per pound" for Americans since Plymouth fecking Rock, how a near minimum wage employee staring at numbers all day might take two seconds longer to get your change than you'd like, that four items costing $3.99 will come closer to $12 than $9, or that customers breaking all the electric wheelchairs is not the same as me or the store discriminating against the handicapped.</rant>
Wealth and stupidity may not be genetic, but both are inherited, usually together. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia and Germany, university places are limited. Only the best students can get a place. Sleigh (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some places in Australian universities are open to people willing and able to pay up front. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the poor in First World countries are ignorant and lazy, it follows that the rich must be intelligent and hard-working. A few minutes' observation in a place where only rich people congregate, such as an expensive tea room, will rapidly disprove the proposition. While the accumulators of material wealth may have used brainpower and effort to amass it, their dependants and heirs need neither. And if money has become the sole measure of someone's success in life, perhaps the First World is not worth living in? --Clifford Mill (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I asked her if she thought it was a good idea to have sex with a man who had repeatedly beaten her up, and from whom she said she wished to separate.
"It's complicated, doctor. That's the way life goes sometimes."
What had she known of this man before she took up with him? She met him in a club; he moved in at once, because he had nowhere else to stay. He had a child by another woman, neither of whom he supported. He had been in prison for burglary. He took drugs. He had never worked, except for cash on the side. Of course he never gave her any of his money, instead running up her telephone bills vertiginously. (...)
What had her experience taught her?
"I don't want to think about it. The Housing'll charge me for the damage, and I ain't got the money. I'm depressed, doctor; I'm not happy. I want to move away, to get away from him."
Later in the day, feeling a little lonely, she telephoned her ex-boyfriend, and he visited her.
I discussed the case with the doctor who had recently arrived from Madras, and who felt he had entered an insane world. (...) He asked me what would happen next to the happy couple.
"They'll find her a new flat. They'll buy her new furniture, television, and refrigerator, because it's unacceptable poverty in this day and age to live without them. They'll charge her nothing for the damage to her old flat, because she can't pay anyway, and it wasn't she who did it. He will get away scot-free. Once she's installed in her new flat to escape from him, she'll invite him there, he'll smash it up again, and then they'll find her somewhere else to live. There is, in fact, nothing she can do that will deprive her of the state's obligation to house, feed, and entertain her." (...)
I asked the doctor from Madras if poverty was the word he would use to describe this woman's situation. He said it was not: that her problem was that she accepted no limits to her own behavior, that she did not fear the possibility of hunger, the condemnation of her own parents or neighbors, or God. In other words, the squalor of England was not economic but spiritual, moral, and cultural. "
"By the end of three months my doctors have, without exception, reversed their original opinion that the welfare state, as exemplified by England, represents the acme of civilization. (...) They come to realise that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgements in allocating economic rewards promotes anti-social egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their home countries. (...) 'On the whole', said one Filipino doctor to me, 'life is preferable in the slums of Manila.' He said it without any illusions as to the quality of life in Manila."http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_oh_to_be.html
In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaint, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.
Listening as I do every day to the accounts people give of their lives, I am struck by the very small part in them which they ascribe to their own efforts, choices, and actions. (...)
It is instructive to listen to the language they use to describe their lives. The language of prisoners in particular teaches much about the dishonest fatalism with which people seek to explain themselves to others, especially when those others are in a position to help them in some way. As a doctor who sees patients in a prison once or twice a week, I am fascinated by prisoners’ use of the passive mood and other modes of speech that are supposed to indicate their helplessness. They describe themselves as the marionettes of happenstance.
(...)
Another burglar demanded to know from me why he repeatedly broke into houses and stole VCRs. He asked the question aggressively, as if “the system” had so far let him down in not supplying him with the answer; as if it were my duty as a doctor to provide him with the buried psychological secret which, once revealed, would in and of itself lead him unfailingly on the path of virtue. Until then, he would continue to break into houses and steal VCRs (when at liberty to do so), and the blame would be mine.
When I refused to examine his past, he exclaimed, “But something must make me do it!”“How about greed, laziness, and a thirst for excitement?” I suggested.“What about my childhood?” he asked.“Nothing to do with it,” I replied firmly.
He looked at me as if I had assaulted him. Actually, I thought the matter more complex than I was admitting, but I did not want him to misunderstand my main message: that he was the author of his own deeds.
Another prisoner claimed to be under so strong a compulsion to steal cars that it was irresistible—an addiction, he called it. He stole up to forty vehicles a week, but nevertheless considered himself a fundamentally good person because he was never violent towards anyone (...)
Now the generally prevalent conception of an addiction is of an illness, characterized by an irresistible urge (mediated neurochemically and possibly hereditary in nature) to consume a drug or other substance, or to behave in a repetitively self-destructive or antisocial way. An addict can’t help himself, and because his behavior is a manifestation of illness, it has no more moral content than the weather.
So in effect what my car thief was telling me was that his compulsive car-stealing was not merely not his fault, but that the responsibility for stopping him from behaving thus was mine, since I was the doctor treating him. And until such time as the medical profession found the behavioral equivalent of an antibiotic in the treatment of pneumonia, he could continue to cause untold misery and inconvenience to the owners of cars and yet consider himself fundamentally a decent person.http://www.city-journal.org/story.php?id=1371Asmrulz (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh, Lord," sighs the Junior Apostle (the Senior Apostle is away in Jerusalem), "many are widout jobs, many are widout mudders and farders, many are widout homes. We pray thee, Lord, to find dem work, to find dem homes, to bring comfort to dem dat are widout mudders and farders."
The shootings were much on the mind of the congregation, for the victims and perpetrators alike could have been the sons, brothers, or consorts (I hardly dare speak of husbands anymore, for fear of being thought implicitly intolerant) of the women who now sobbed their impromptu prayers facedown on their pews. (...)
"We thank Thee, Lord! We thank Thee, Lord! We thank Thee, Lord!"
(...)
"But we are all sinners, Lord. Therefore we pray for forgiveness. We do not always follow Your ways, Lord; we are proud, we are stubborn, we want to go our own way. We think only of ourselves. That is why there is so much sin, so much robbery, so much violence, on our streets."
I recalled the faces of the young men in the prison now accused of murder: their hard, glittering, expressionless eyes—young men who recognized no law but their own desire of the moment. The old lady described (and explained) their radical egotism in a religious way.
Murmurs of assent were heard everywhere. It wasn't the police's fault, or racism's, or the system's, or capitalism's; it was the failure of sinners to acknowledge any moral authority higher than their personal whim. And in asserting this, the congregation was asserting its own freedom and dignity: poor and despised as its members might be, they were still human enough to decide for themselves between right and wrong. And they offered hope to others, too: for if a man chose to do evil, he could later elect, by an act of will, to do good. No one had to wait until there was perfect justice in the world, or all the circumstances were right, before he himself did good.http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_3_oh_to_be.html
Interesting testimony, though dated and overlong, but totally invalidated by the writer's obvious ideological bias (or do I mean blindness?). Though London has its problems, they are minor compared with the massive disparities in the United States. --Clifford Mill (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Rabindranath Tagore
I want to know how do the public at large in the western world (USA,Western and Eastern Europe ,Russia ,Australias and also the African countries perceive Rabindranath Tagore ,what is the level of popularity is he viewed as a superhuman entity or is he seen as one of the greatest exponents of world literature.In Bengal he is worshipped like a God.It is said that YB Yeats played a key role in translating The Gitanjali. Was Bernard Shaw critical about Tagore. What was his opinion regarding this man and his creations in public and private.How does the British and American public seen and sees Tagore and his work.I am a Bengali and find his works and songs not at all appealing. I find most of them artificial and arousing morbid emotions.Most of the Bengali people will frown upon me and mock me as uncultured and that i am imbecile lacking the mental capability to relish such great creation. I want to know the global assessment and how did the men in the British government appraised him in private .Were those men his fans.pardon for reposting i initially posted this question in language section but there volunteers say that this page is more appropriate.Did Tagore really deserve the Nobel prize in literature or it was out of wartime poltical consideration.Thanks.117.194.236.113 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that the majority of people in the U.S. don't know who he is, and that some of those who have vaguely heard of him might not distinguish him from Ram Mohan Roy. I don't remember having read anything by him, but he's probably not any less meritorious than the mostly obscure Scandinavians who dominated the Nobel literature prize during its first decades... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just listened to Amar Shonar Bangla, and I think I speak for Canada when I say once is enough. Monotonous, but worse, because there are two voices. The lyrics are probably a little better in Bangla, but they're almost as boring as the tune in English. No offense to your the nation, just the anthem. I like your the flag. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:43, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
That he is Bengali does not necessarily mean that he is Bangladeshi -- West Bengal has almost two-thirds the population of Bangladesh... AnonMoos (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
West Bengal is a state in India and so shares the same flag as the other states and India as a whole
Cool, thanks. Sometimes states or provinces have their own. Not a big fan of tricoloured flags. InedibleHulk(talk) 13:18, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
I love his poetry and I've had his collected verse in my library for many years. I don't know his plays. I can't speak for Australians in general, though my suspicion is that he'd be regarded as a minor footnote who's best known - if he's known at all - for returning his knighthood after the Amritsar massacre. I don't remember ever hearing anyone quote him or even refer to him Down Here. Except, I did patronise an Indian restaurant in Canberra a couple of times, named Geetanjali. It's been there for at least 25 years, and I can't imagine the staff have never been asked what Geetanjali means. Whether this has played any role in bringing Tagore and his works to the consciousness of the effete diners of the national capital, I could not say. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 20:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This question was also raised at the Language Ref Desk, where the OP was advised to raise it here. There are some other replies over there. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is virtually unknown in Russia. I recall that Vladimir Nabokov referred to "a person called Tagore" as one of "the formidable mediocrities" from the early 20th century, alongside John Galsworthy and Romain Rolland. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In French, a couple of his books - the novel Gora and some poetry collections - are available in popular paperback editions, making them accessible without having to frequent a university library or a specialized bookshop. That's better than for most authors whose heyday was a century ago, but that's still a long way from being considered a universal classic like Dostoevski or Ibsen, and even further from being thought of a super-human entity. --Xuxl (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a translation of Gitanjali, which I must say I found insufferably dull. But it was just a translation. He is supposed to have got the Nobel because of the recommendation of Yeats. He's one of those people that most 'educated' persons have heard of, but I don't think he's widely read in the West. Since he won the Nobel prize in 1913 I don't know what "wartime political consideration" would have been relevant. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original idea was an attempted monetary valuation of the reputation and established contacts and business relationships of a firm, considered as intangible assets, but it appears to have become more complicated... AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I heard a story recently that illustrates the importance of goodwill nicely. During the Great Depression the manager of a Ford Dealership refused to repo cars from people who couldn't pay. The owner fired him for this and repossessed the cars, ignoring the importance of goodwill. After the Depression ended, the customers were able to buy cars again, but wanted nothing to do with that Ford dealership, which went bankrupt. The fired manager went to work for a new Buick dealership, and all the customers followed him there. (Of course, the Ford and Buick dealers might be reversed in another town.)
Unfortunately, these days big companies seem to screw the customer over any way they can, like banks that find ways to charge you extra bounced check fees by changing the order they try to cash them. I have to think that the ethical companies will win all their customers in the long run. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With that story you hit the interesting ethical question of whether our putative manager used company funds to buy the goodwill of the customers, then unfairly took that goodwill with him when he left. 75.140.88.172 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No funds were required to not repo the cars. Of course, the company would have rather had the payments, but repossessing cars during the Great Depression would have been rather pointless anyway, as there wouldn't be customers to sell them to. We recently had a similar issue in the US housing market, where banks repossessed houses, which had the effect of depressing property values, including other homes owned by the bank, and may well have decreased the bank's profits. Economic upheaval alters the normal rules, and doing "business as usual" isn't always the best option. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, I know you're trying to help by guessing, but what you're talking about is not what goodwill accounting is about. The article is poorly written, but fairly clear on this: it refers to the overpayment (over the nominal value of the place) done during a corporate acquisition. Matt Deres (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually very simple, although frequently explained badly. Say you buy a company. You will almost certainly have to buy it at a premium to its actual market value. That premium is the 'goodwill' element. 86.176.124.43 (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "actual market value," .43 means the market value of the company's underlying assets. The classic example is the purchase of a retail store. Let's say you pay $500,000 for a store. The inventory is worth $300,000, and the equipment and fixtures are worth $75,000; the lease is at a market rate, so it doesn't have a value. What is the other $125,000? That's considered "goodwill," a name that derives from the theory that the additional value of the store is due to the favorable opinion of customers. The formal definition under generally accepted accounting principles is "[a]n asset representing the future economic benefits arising from other assets acquired in a business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit entity that are not individually acquired and separately recognized"; see the master glossary (free registration required) to the Accounting Standards Codification. John M Baker (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did Chisso executives really go to jail?
This article[15] claims that two Chisso executives were sentenced to prison terms for their role in the Minamata disease disaster. However I can't find find any mention of this in both English and Japanese versions of the Minamata disease article. Did this really happen? WinterWall (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the ja:WP article with citation. See 1988年. They were sentenced to two years in prison with three years' suspension of sentence. So they didn't go to jail. Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read a story a while back somewhere. Apparently it was a true story about - I believe - a WW1 battle in Africa, probably in German East Africa between British forces and German forces, who were both suddenly attacked by a native tribe in the middle of the battle. The British and Germans temporarily halted fighting each other and joined forces to fight the natives, after which they resumed the battle. Does anyone know which battle this was? KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 21:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Australian and Turkish troops joined forces against a feared attack by Arab irregulars on one occasion towards the end of the Palestine Campaign: [16] I'm not sure if any fighting actually occurred though. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Living on air' fairy tale
I KNOW this is stupid. I'm pretty good at reaserching things on the internet. Can't find the answer to this.
I KNOW it's stupid but it's a challenge if you're up to it.
My wife made a comment about how she 'can't live on air'. It sparked a memory of what is most probably a fairy tale. Grimms or whatever. As badly as my memory serves me, the image it conjures up is that of a woman trying to scam a rich old man who makes him believe that she can eat air and survive on that. Seriously this is from my childhood and I'm 60 years old now but the neural connections brought up this image of a woman outside of a window pretending to eat air.
I know it's not that important but it would prove to my wife that I haven't completely lost it by making this claim.
I don't know if you can help me but if you can I would be very grateful.
Never heard of any fairy tale in the Western tradition (there are plenty of Asian ones), although to this day there are people who make a living through this claim, Ellen Greve being the most famous. We have quite an extensive page on the topic at Inedia. Mogism (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Inedia - also known as breatharianism. It is of course utter nonsense, though enough people have taken it seriously for a few to have starved themselves to death. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it might be possible to live on air (and the micro-organisms in it), provided you had the machinery to process huge quantities of air, filter out the toxic items, and collect the nutrients. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Here's a discussion of his long period of imprisonment without food:[17]. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
October 19
Does Confucianism fall under Secular Humanism?
The Wikipedia article on Secular Humanism does not mention Confucianism, yet the article on Confucianism argues that it is "humanistic". That makes sense, since Confucianism does not really appeal to deities and the supernatural, even though the Confucian people may be a bit devotional. However, the devotional aspects seem to be tied to a religion, not really Confucianism. So, does Confucianism fall under Secular Humanism, or is Secular Humanism a Western European concept? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Two different senses of the word. Confucius is only "humanistic" in that it doesn't involve a deity. It did involve ancestor worship, which ends any similarity it has with secular humanism. — Melab±1☎ 06:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "ancestor worship" is a mistranslation. Also, the rituals are not necessarily confined to Confucianism, as it is part of the indigenous Chinese religion. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on which form of Confucianism we're talking about. Some Confucian authors wrote or interpreted from a purely political perspective, treating ancestor worship as a civil ceremony. Others wrote under the assumption that worshiping ancestors was necessary to maintain the approval of Heaven. Due to the latter form (Confucianism as a definite religion), there is only and at most potential overlap with secular humanism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mediatrix of All Graces
I have attempted FIVE times to edit [5} [6] because of a dead link.
I have read ALL there is to do to edit the page and it will not allow me to do so.
Please edit both [5] [6] to read : The True Story of Fatima by John de Marchi, I.M.C. page 87 "the third blasphemy"
I am weary. aged 60 with RA and cannot stay up past the 11:19 MST where I have attempted to do this for over an hour and 1/2.
I FINALLY created an account (which was holding me back) but I do NOT know how to code at all ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitojoy (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To help us out, could you provide a link to the article you are trying to edit? Go to the article, copy what is in the address bar (the URL, which will have "en.wikipedia.org/wiki" in it), and paste it here. You can turn it into a link by putting [ and ] around it, or just paste it here and I'll fix that.
In the mean time, WP:TEAHOUSE is a really excellent place to ask questions about how to get started on Wikipedia. 31.54.195.38 (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case it isn't obvious, you can reply to this by clicking the blue 'edit' next to your section title. Can you tell me what I.M.C. means in this context? Also, assuming you're trying to edit Mediatrix of all graces, why does reference number 6 need to be replaced? 31.54.195.38 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read several, several, several news stories which used a source "who declined to be named", or sources, most frequently in news reports about security issues, but also in sports articles, and sometimes, even relatively "harmless" articles. I've even seen news reports where spokespeople decline to be named. I've askedquestions about anonymous sources here before on the Reference Desk. But recently, I've been reading codes of ethics of various Journalism organizations. Basically, one aspect that is common to most of these codes of ethics is that anonymous sources should be used with care, as misusing them or even inventing them can damage reputations (see Janet Cooke). In the cases where a person who wishes to be anonymous is quoted in a news report, many of these codes of ethics state that the reason(s) for anonymity should be mentioned. For example, the Associated Press has a page on their values and principles, which states that "we must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity". Not all codes of ethics mention this (for example, Thomson Reuters' code of ethics does not require reasons for anonymity to be disclosed), but a significant number of codes of ethics do. However, most of the news articles I've read which quote anonymous sources do not explicitly mention any reason for anonymity. While my previous questions here have said that the reasons are obvious anyway, or that giving a reason for anonymity could give a clue to the source's identity, the fact that many codes of ethics mention the requirement for disclosing reasons of anonymity (to the point that it is suggested that the source not be used at all if the reason for anonymity is weak or suspicious) suggests that this is not considered a significant issue; in fact, these codes of ethics suggest almost the opposite: describe the source as closely and accurately as possible without explicitly naming the person.
I'm aware that codes of ethics are not binding, and there is usually no penalty for breaching them (except for serious cases), but it nevertheless makes me wonder: how come several news reports continue to exclude reasons for anonymity of anonymous sources even if codes of ethics (which are probably taught to journalists) frequently state that reasons for anonymity must be included to "give the reader full confidence for the source"? Before anyone asks, I've read Journalism ethics and standards and Source (journalism)#Anonymity, but they don't answer my question. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One reason: When you consistently pop up in the top Google results or have a name like "The Most Trusted Name in News", you can do without worrying if poor sourcing is going to hurt the reader's confidence, by that point. The line between news and entertainment is blurrier than ever, and if you can get the eyeballs with a headline like "ISIS 'too extreme' for al-Qaeda", it doesn't really matter who said it. The important thing is whether people hear it. Like you say, there's no or little punishment for unethically increasing business. Same reason people cheat at many jobs. InedibleHulk(talk) 13:34, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
(Edit Conflicts) If I've interpreted you correctly, your essential question is:
". . . how come several news reports continue to exclude reasons for anonymity of anonymous sources even if codes of ethics (which are probably taught to journalists) frequently state that reasons for anonymity must be included to "give the reader full confidence for the source"?"
There could be various (not mutually exclusive) reasons for this:
The particular news agency concerned might not subscribe officially or in reality (Fox News, anyone?) to a particular set of ethics that requires it;
They might be omitted for the sake of brevity, particularly in a broadcast story where only seconds are available;
The journalists involved might not be working to their highest standards – we all have off days at work;
One or more journalists involved might not be fully competent in this respect;
The journalists might be under pressure from higher management to get the story out and fill the column or broadcast, even though they themselves do not have full confidence in it;
One or more of the journalists involved might actually be breaching guidelines deliberately, using illegal sources, obtaining information via bribery or blackmail, or making some things up, and is using the anonymity as cover;
Inclusion of the reasons might give to much of a clue to the source's identity, leading to that source being reprimanded, fired, arrested or assassinated, depending upon circumstances. (You mentioned this yourself, but I include it for completeness.)
I'm sure others can add further possibilities. Long story short: we live in an imperfect world, and there can be any number of innocent or non-innocent reasons why something doesn't measure up to an ideal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.80.169 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to have an organization whose sole purpose is to confirm the existence of anonymous sources. The news org and source could agree to have that org confirm the source, and they would then meet them, with the same promise to keep the source hidden. This org should be located in a nation with strong protections for anon sources, and could be run on donations, as a charity, so no money is taken from the news org. In time, only news orgs with this type of confirmation on anon sources would be taken seriously. StuRat (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to echo the above reqeust for examples. In particular, it sounds to me like your evidence doesn't support your conclusion. When you have two of the major news agencies not agreeing on whether it's necessary to give the reasons why, this would suggest it's hardly something settled among major proponents of journalism ethics. The fact that you found a significant number who do recommend it, only means it's something which a significant number do recommend, it doesn't mean it's had widespread consensus. (And I would note, at least to me significant can still be far from a majority, particularly in something with so many participants as this.)
Perhaps journalism ethics courses will consider giving the reasons the safer bet and so may be more likely to recommend this, perhaps not.
The more relevant question which you don't seem to have touched is whether people are violating the code of ethics they're supposed to be following. For example, are you finding many stories from AP or other sources where the code of ethics do suggest it, where the stories are not reporting the reason for anonymity? If you're primarily seeing stories from Reuters and other sources which don't recommend it, it seem again all you've got evidence for is that this isn't something with anything close to consensus and that journalists are following the code of ethic they're supposed to be following, but not necessarily following other ones which recommend different stuff.
On my part, I commonly hear or read a source saying something like "who asked to remain anonymous because she/he didn't have permission to speak to the media".
In both politics and in the business world, information is often leaked "strategically". This gives a false sense of empowerment to the media, the employees, etc. A way of getting the real story out there to kind of "prepare" the audience for what's coming. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Ed McGarrity. I'm doing some research on historical low temperatures for Easter Island. I've run into some data from other sources that conflicts with the numbers posted on Wikipedia.
Can anyone tell me what the source was for Wikipedia's numbers? If I can validate those figures, it will be very helpful. Please refer any helpful information to: (deleted)
Thanks,
Ed -- 00:24, 20 October 2014 199.17.232.4
Hi, Ed. Thanks for the question, but please (1) don't indent and double-space your text; it breaks the normal wiki formatting; I've edited your message to change it. (2) Pleas don't post your email address here; I've deleted it. And (3) please don't post the same question to more than one reference desk.
If people want to answer, I suggest they post on the other desk, as there's already been a response there. --174.88.135.88 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old Chinese object
What is he holding?
I recently came across our article on Li_Ching-Yuen. Interesting stuff, right? Anyway, simple question: what is he holding in his hands in this photo? Some sort of incense, talisman or charm perhaps? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google "What is Li Ching-Yuen holding". Appears to be a Ginseng root. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I suppose I deserve a WP:trouting for not googling first, though I will still be interested in any other info on the matter. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History of the motto of the Royal Society
I was wondering if anyone happened to know the answers to a few questions I have about the motto of the Royal Society: "Nullius in Verba". As well as being generally curious I'm thinking of getting this as a tattoo, but I want to do it properly, so I'm interested in early written records of it that I can reference for typeface etc.
In what year was the motto first used?
How and by whom was it chosen and was it ever formally ratified e.g. by a vote of the fellows?
In what document did the motto first appear in print?
Did the motto ever appear in the pages of the Philosophical Transactions, if so, where? (I can't seem to find it in the online archive, but it's possible that some of the front matter etc. was not digitized)
I realise that the best course of action may be to write to the Royal Society and enquire directly, but I thought I'd give the reference desk a go first. Thanks in advance. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 17:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks StuRat.
-- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC))
Resolved
