Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 23

Conversion to Christianity in the 1700s - Robinson Crusoe

I am currently reading a novel, Robinson Crusoe, leisurely. I noticed that Xury could be freed in ten years, if he turned Christian. Were there any barriers to religious conversion back then to keep people in servitude? How could one prove oneself to be a convert? Were there consequences for lying? If one did convert, who would be able to solemnize the baptism? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Even in the 1700s, it would depend on the strain of Christianity. Everyone from Anglicans to Roman Catholics to Anabaptists would have had different requirements for conversion to Christianity. --Jayron32 02:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Narrow it to Daniel Defoe's Presbyterianism then. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Presbyterianism#Sacraments indicates that baptism by sprinkling or pouring is all that is required. One cannot prove earnestness, however, as the concept of a mind-reading device had not been invented in the 1700s. I'm not sure one exists today even... --Jayron32 02:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So, basically, Xury will just have to get people to trust him. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends who the people. Testimony of faith comes with religious observance: convert. --Askedonty (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Read all about it: a reliable source for the theological background assumed by Daniel Defoe for the several religious conversions recounted in Robinson Crusoe is:

Greif, Martin J. (Summer 1966). "The Conversion of Robinson Crusoe". Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. 6 (3): 551–574.

"Libraries and institutions offering access".. JSTOR's "Register & Read". offers free read-only access.

Paulscrawl (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Are price tags in a store legally binding?

So, say I walk into a supermarket (in the USA), and an item (let's just say a can of corn) is marked with a price of 2 cents. When I go to the cash register, the clerk says: "that can costs 99 cents". Is there any legally binding reason to sell me the can for 2 cents? Does that sign on the item (the price mark) constitute any type of oral/written contract? 2602:252:D13:6D70:21BC:1B64:824C:5D8F (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not in Canada, according to this [1]. I suspect this powerpoint [2] file says the same thing for the USA. Also not a contract in the UK according to this [3]. Also not a contract in NZ according to here [4]. The key legal concept seems to be that price tag is considered an Invitation to treat, not a binding legal contract. Contract#Invitation_to_treat has a nice short summary. (Don't bother looking at Price_Tag that's entirely unrelated, and I don't see a decent disambiguation page for the concept.) SemanticMantis (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends on your jurisdiction. What your hypothetical clerk did is explicitly against the law in California per section 12024.2 of the California Business and Professions Code. I have no idea what the law is in other states, or whether investigators actually look into these sorts of violations, or what case law has to say about the limitations of this law's application. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec)This will depend on the state, or even the municipality. A sale price is typically honored in NY & NJ if it is displayed on the shelf but not rung at the counter. (I.e, this has happened to me dozens of times, and the clerk has always honored the price at the shelf if lower than the price at the register.) The NYC consumer protection guide says "Any PRICE QUOTED in an ad must match the actual purchase price" but it also says "Watch out for FOOTNOTES AND ASTERISKS (“*”). The “fine print” in an advertisement sometimes changes an offer made in the large print." You do see adds with the very fineprint boilerplate that misprinted prices will not be honored, which has happened with lottery tickets, (a recent example from New Mexico). For how NYC law addresses the seeming above contradiction in the guide (which is not a copy of the very confusing law) I will refer you to a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A sale price is typically honored in NY & NJ if it is displayed on the shelf but not rung at the counter. Yes, it is often "honored". But are they (the store owners) doing that out of goodwill or legal obligation? 2602:252:D13:6D70:21BC:1B64:824C:5D8F (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The New York law is far less clear than the California law, and is not at neatly contained in one section. It sounds like there are civil penalties imposed by state officials if more than 2% of items in the store are incorrectly priced, as far as I can read from the New York Agriculture and Markets law section 197b. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately I did take some time looking into this, but there was nothing outright I could quote that said plainly that they must honor the advertised price. Sorry. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Specifically with collectibles, the fact a comic book has "10 cents" in the corner (for example) does not obligate a seller to honor that price <g>. Collect (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. If a comic book has the notation "ten cents" on the cover (placed there by the publishers), that is not the "price tag" that has been placed there by the seller of the item. Two very different things. If a seller places a price tag, it is (presumably) the price that they are charging for the item. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Capital of Denmark

Which cities were the capitals of Denmark before Copenhagen? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Roskilde. I think that's pretty much it. Before Roskilde was capital (C11th) there wasn't really a Danish state. Ever since the capital moved to Copenhagen in 1443 (but note our Copenhagen article says 'by about 1416') Copenhagen has been the capital, whether of the Kalmar Union, of Denmark-Norway or of modern Denmark. If you're making a list, though, be sure to add Gainsborough, Lincolnshire to it! - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-21386473 - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily add Gainsborough. It is true that it served as tcenter of the administration of Danish-controlled England for a time, and that Sweyn Forkbeard used it as his base of operations, but I don't know that much formal administration of the Danish state occurred there. The North Sea Empire of Sweyn and Cnut really should be thought of as multiple states under the same ruler, each with it's own institutions. Both practically, and officially, England's capital was still Winchester, and Denmark's was Roskilde (after all, Cnut returned to Roskilde to get the crown of Denmark) and laws of Denmark were not in force in England and visa-versa. Likewise, when he took over Norway, Cnut was crowned at Nidaros and Norway, and Norway retained it's institutions as a separate country from there. --Jayron32 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Another to add to the list Jelling was the capital of Gorm the Old, the first historically verifiable King of Denmark, as well as his son Harald Bluetooth. Harald moved the capital to the newly created Roskilde in the 980s, and then it was moved to Copenhagen in 1416, as the seat of Eric of Pomerania, first king of the Kalmar Union. Thus, the Danish capitals can be considered to be:

• Jelling c. 936- c. 980
• Roskilde c. 980 - 1416
• Copenhagen 1416-present

Prior to Gorm the Old, there was no historically verifiable Danish state... --Jayron32 16:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The List of former national capitals contains only Roskilde. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, part of the issue is defining when "Denmark" started, what a capital is, etc. etc. There are not universally agreed upon definitions for those ideas. --Jayron32 16:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Also consider Fredericia ca. 1650 [5] originally intended as a capital city in Jutland by Christian IV due to its strategic location. Unfortunately, the Swedes also considered it to hold a strategic position. Collect (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Stylised Dublin map/diagram

I want to represent some areas of County Dublin on a map or diagram. The areas are mainly, but not exclusively, within the M50, and cover all or parts of Dublin City Council, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown. I want to be able to draw areas onto the map to show that, for instance, Tallaght is in one area and Clondalkin in another

I would like the map/diagram to:

• Cover the above areas (outlying areas may be covered as well if necessary).
• Show the approximate course of the River Liffey and M50. Phoenix Park is an optional extra.
• Not have too much (any?) extra information/labels.
• Be accurate enough that major areas of the city can be pinpointed (e.g. Tallaght, Finglas, Ballyfermot etc), but not so accurate that viewers can get hung up on exact geography - e.g. is the boundary between areas on this side of the road or the other?
• Be a reasonable quality for viewing at 1024x768 and above.
• Be available on a free-ish license including for modification and commercial purposes.

I'm ok with Photoshop and Illustrator, so if I had a basic blank map I can fill in the gaps.

Something like this would be perfect, but I don't want the junction blobs and road names, and it doesn't quite cover all the way down to Dun Laoghaire.

I've looked around on the internet but drawn a blank so far. Can anyone help find what I'm looking for? Many thanks - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You can extract this kind of thing from OpenStreetMap. There's a basic map here which you can copy under the Creative Commons licence, but if you want to make it more advanced (eg. to chose which roads to show) you'd need to use a tool like QGIS, which has a very steep learning curve. Smurrayinchester 14:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(However, if you click on the "Layers" symbol there are a few pre-set map types you can look at. "Transport" or "MapQuest Open" might be good.) Smurrayinchester 14:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That might actually work. I see there's an option to export as SVG. I'm not able to test it at the moment - do you know if I would be able to select roads and other features as elements (I think that's what they're called - shapes/paths) within an image editor? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Alternatively, if you want I can try extracting it in QGIS to separate the roads, river and boundary data when I'm back at my desktop. Smurrayinchester 14:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, perfect. In that case, I'll have a bash at exporting it and fiddling around at home later and let you know if I get stuck, if that's ok? I've got a few weeks to get it together, so no rush. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

Is it true that some Americans believe the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was karma for Pearl Harbor? 62.37.237.16 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That question assumes that Americans believe in karma. Or that most Americans either do not know about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or somehow think that those weren't enough -- Overall the question is inherently flawed.

Of course, if you want to ask "Is it true that some Americans believe (any random idea)," it is possible to find at least one or two who might think that idea is plausible. Are those few Americans representative or even noteworthy? No. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be more than "one or two"; see Earthquake Was “Payback” for Pearl Harbor, Japanese Earthquake, Tsunami reveal American Stupidity, Insensitivity and Facebook Meme: Pearl Harbor Payback is a Bitch!. There's pages of stuff on Google. I'm not sure if it proves that the US has more morons on social media than anybody else, but certainly "some Americans believe". Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably not as many morons as the ones who think we didn't land on the Moon.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The sites given would fail WP:RS, the first two as blogs, the last as a forum. The first two are engaging the sort of sensationalism that lead a number of news sources to claim that Bagel head was popular in Japan. The last is questioning whether it really is a significant number or just a few random idiots. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

In one of the sites above some of the opinions seemed to lead to questioning the influence of Hollywood on the fragile minds of some of the related people. I googled "dire effects of Hollywood" and I found this: The-Effect-of-Hollywood-on-Historical-Perspective. However regarding hate culture itself I see its roots rather in a ( frustrated ) cult of the automobile than in that of the cinema. --Askedonty (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Police asking "You OK? You seem very irritated" when giving out a ticket: purpose?

What could be the purpose of police in the US asking you (or telling you) "you seem very irritated" when giving you a ticket? I assume there is a pattern to the questions police are trained to ask. I mean how they go about giving you that ticket and what they tell you is scripted in advance and part of their training, isn't it? I could see how, for example, some questions could serve the purpose of trying to find out if there's something else going on (e.g. trying to see if there's drugs in the car, if a crime has taken place or is about to take place, etc), for example by getting you to unwittingly spill the beans or incriminate yourself to give them an excuse to dig a bit deeper. But in this particular case, as far as I can tell, there is only one thing that question can achieve, and that is to irritate that person even more. Any clues? If you know anything about how police are trained to act when giving out a ticket maybe you can help with this one. Contact Basemetal here 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Depending on the size of the town/department, there may be little to no training. Even the most populous county in a state can have inadequate or improper training. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Are police departments funded exclusively by local taxes? Contact Basemetal here 18:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: I meant to include state police in my question. Contact Basemetal here 18:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Police departments, like schools, are mostly locally funded by the county or state they answer to, with some help from the federal government (like the army handing some small-town departments leftover tanks, machine guns, and grenade launchers; or Obama funding body cameras)

(edit conflict)Even the sixth most populous county in the nation has inadequate training, and many departments that have "adequate" training focus more on dealing with violence encouraged by said training, instead of helping people (perhaps suffering from mental ailments or handicaps) going through terrible crises. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: I made my posts as someone who is largely ignored by the police, even when going 20 mph over the speed limit with busted tail lights because I needed Little Debbie cakes and orange soda at 3 am. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OTH, if there isn't enough money to properly train police, has anyone seen any proposals to spend some federal, state or local money on educating citizens and disseminating information (especially among the sections of the population that seem to be more "noticed" by police, e.g. those "driving while Black") on how to deal with police and especially poorly trained police? Maybe along the lines of this page or this page. But I mean a large scale effort funded with real money by the authorities. Can something like that ever be politically acceptable? On the one hand it would look like the authorities are warning citizens against their own police, i.e. their own employees. On the other there's been so many people hurt or losing their lives in encounters with law enforcement that it looks this would be a much better way to spend money. Contact Basemetal here 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Educating the populace on how to avoid police brutality and racism instead of educating the police to not engage in said brutality and racism would probably come across as victim blaming and skewed priorities to most Americans (by those who acknowledge the problems, at any rate... The NRA blames shootings on everything but guns and acts as though any shooting that makes the news would have occurred without guns, and yet they still have members; so victim blaming and skewed priorities appears to be normal thinking for an unfortunate number of Americans.) Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Then as long as no one has the common sense of trying something else, people will continue to die in their encounters with police. Sometimes pragmatic solutions look bad but do the job better than "ideal" ones. Warning citizens is such another pragmatic approach. It is just saying "be very very careful when you deal with those guys". In a small way this is already being done, as you can see on the net. But obviously it does not reach everyone. I thought maybe a massive educational campaign, in schools, on mass media, social media, the net, etc would be money well spent. Unfortunately in politics symbolic trumps pragmatic in very many cases, even though to keep doing the same thing and expect different results is the essence of insanity, as people say. Look at the war on drugs. Well, at least some have proposed other approaches to the problem of illegal drugs. But, from what you're saying, I conclude no one has ever even suggested an approach to police brutality like the one I asked about here. Contact Basemetal here 15:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

But in this particular case, as far as I can tell, there is only one thing that question can achieve, and that is to irritate that person even more. I'm not sure I agree with that, Basemetal. It may cause the person to reveal why they're irritated, but I can't see how having that feedback would be irritating in itself, thus exacerbating their state. Giving feedback about a person's apparent emotional state is a common technique among counsellors etc, and it's designed to show empathy and create a bit of rapport, a window of trust where the other has the opportunity to open up. Now, if the apprehendee already has a distrust of police, that would admittedly complicate the picture. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Upset" would be a better term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Well, you see officer... here I was, just driving along, minding my own business... when suddenly this policeman pulls me over... and now i am about to be given a damned ticket... So yeah... I guess you could say I'm a bit upset.

Imagine how the Police would react if civilians were to turn the question back on them... "I'm fine, officer... Are you OK?... you too seem a little irritated. I sure hope it's not something I said or did." Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well Jack my thinking may have been influenced by one particular video, that of the arrest of Sandra Bland. I tried to figure out what on earth the state trooper was trying to achieve with that question. That prompted my asking this general question here, just in case this was some kind of general question they were trained to ask for some reason. But you may be right that, in general, such a question may produce different results, depending on circumstances, the way it is asked, etc. However I'm fairly sure that in this particular instance you will agree with me that it only irritated Sandra Bland more. But maybe that was the purpose: listen next to the state trooper "asking" her to put out her cigarette, and especially his tone of voice. Contact Basemetal here 15:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but ... it wasn't going to take "much" to get her "irritated". It was quite obvious that she was "itching for a fight". In my opinion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I would partially agree with your statement joseph spadaro. While it seems true that she had an immediate bias against the officer and even if she was 'itching for a (verbal) fight" that still doesn't excuse the fact that the officer is a total buffoon and can't behave appropriately. He went from ASKING (not demanding) that she put out the cigarette (which is dumb to begin with) to blowing up on her 'get out of the car' 'get out of the car' yelling and hollering. Void burn (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but ... (1) the request to put out the cigarette was not "dumb"; it was legal, appropriate, and standard police protocol; and (2) the police stop has absolutely nothing to do with her death, three days later. Everyone may want to armchair quarterback how good/bad the police acted during the traffic stop. And all of that has zero relevance to the jail death. In my opinion. Thirdly, a great way to get respect is to give respect; in other words, it's a two-way street. Some people simply want to be respected (to not be "dissed"), yet feel entitled that they themselves can exhibit all sorts of disrespect to the other party. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The officer may be within his legal authority to demand that she put out the cigarette, but it very much seems when observed in context (and listening to the quality of the officer's tone and emphasis) that the officer issued that order specifically as a result of Ms. Bland's accusatory tone. The emphasis certainly seems to suggest to me that it was a tit-for-tat response to her own short temper. On the other hand, it is not outside the realm of possibility that he simply issued that order because he foresaw the possibility that the stop may become more complicated than it at first seemed, and didn't want it to be a factor, and that the stress he puts on the command is simply a result of his own raised state of tension. Really it is impossible to say with any certainty. Certainly there's a point within a couple of minutes later where he clearly loses any consistency with prescribed protocol; "I will light you up!" is just not something that is supposed to come out of any officer's mouth outside an 80's buddy cop flick. However, as to the specific question of the OP... (see bellow)Snow ^{let's rap} 23:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he asked the same manner of "You ok?" question of the person he stopped immediately previous. It may very well have been a part of his training or otherwise a standard part of his approach. However, his use of the phrase is slightly contextually different, and the (phonetic) emphasis in the second case strikes me as more confrontational than the first, which is accompanied by a disarming little laugh. It's difficult to parse and to understand what he hoped to gain from asking the question (and the follow-up) if his motivation for asking was that he already could sense that she was irritated. But note that this is not a reaction that is utilized just by people who want to make someone back down from their display of irritation; people of all stripes have a natural inclination to ask that sort of question when the sense unspoken hostility. Most people will be very uncomfortable in the presence of unspoken antipathy and will seek to clarify it, regardless of whether they just want to know the other party's state mind or have already guessed it and want it to be verbally acknowledged so that they can respond to it in a way that assets their control or perspective on the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Tokyo green belt

Does Tokyo have a green belt? I can't find a single map showing one. 176.250.110.177 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a direct answer to your question, but This document seems to be useful in determining general urban land-use policies in Japan. --Jayron32 21:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That very useful link refers to zones called "urbanization control areas" (UCAs), which appear to be broadly comparable with green belts (as the term is understood in the UK - nothing to do with public parks, etc.). There is some more information about what is allowable within urbanization control areas here, here, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

...and this document may give you the information you need about Tokyo specifically. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A look at Google Maps shows a sprinkling of small isolated parks, nothing comparable, say, to Manhattan's Central Park. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Green belt, eh? No answers here, just linking. May as well do Green belt (United Kingdom), too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Ueno Park, the largest park in Tokyo, is 54 ha (according to WP). (Central Park is 341 ha). For other parks see Parks and gardens in Tokyo. There's a lot of green around the imperial palace. About the same size as Central Park. But I don't think that is accessible to the public. Not far from there you've got Hibiya Park, about 16 ha. Incidentally, can a park in the middle of the city (like Central Park) really be what is meant by a "green belt"? I thought a green belt was supposed to be something that surrounds a city. Contact Basemetal here 16:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed: a "green belt" is a protected rural zone surrounding a conurbation to prevent urban sprawl - see the articles linked by InedibleHulk above. Thus the question is about green space around Tokyo, rather than green space within Tokyo. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

NYC does have such parks, as Pelham Bay Park and Van Courtland Park as well as Forest Park (Queens) and Highland Park (Brooklyn). Although they may not necessarily fall on the current outside borders of NYC itself, when parks like Central Park were designed they were indeed on the outskirts of inhabited areas. Unless Mayor DeBlasio bombs Yonkers, a contemporary greenbelt is unlikely. Nevertheless, NYC is much greener than Tokyo. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A greenbelt is not a park or a series of parks, but any rural land (agricultural, forestry etc) which is protected from urban development by planning legislation. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... we do have to be careful with terminology here... it may be helpful to note the subtle distinction between a Green belt and a Greenway... as has already been pointed out, New York City has the Brooklyn–Queens Greenway (a series of interconnected parks)... but that is not a Green Belt. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

July 24

US copyright formalities, pre-craziness

Before the Copyright Act of 1976, were registration and deposit mandatory? I'm holding a 1940-published book that's in the public domain (it doesn't appear in the renewals database), but I'm wondering if it were ever copyrighted. "All rights reserved; copyright 1940" are given in the normal place, along with the author's name, but I can't find evidence that it was registered. In such a case, did it pass into the public domain in 1940 or in 1968? Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

My reading of Cornell's excellent copyright table would suggest that a work first published in the United States with a copyright notice did not require registration to be protected, at least after 1923. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wire transfer with different beneficiary bank and receiving bank

For some incoming wire transfer instruction (e.g. [7]) I see the recipient listing a "beneficiary bank" and a separate "receiving bank" where the two banks are completely different entities and could even be in separate countries. Is this common around the world? Or is this just a North American thing? Most banks can't seem to hand this type of situation.

For the "normal" case where there's only one bank listed in the wire transfer instruction, would that bank be considered the "beneficiary bank" or the "receiving bank"? My other car is a cadr (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This one[8] is even crazier with three different banks, two in Canada and one in the US. My other car is a cadr (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

See Correspondent account - it's not at all uncommon to have multiple institutions involved in international transfers (both of your examples involve the US and Canada). In your "normal" case, the answer is both - since there's no other insitution involved, then the insitution receiving the funds is also the beneficiary of the funds. Most wire forms will probably label that bank as the beneficiary in this situation, but both terms would apply. Also, I disagree with your characterization that most banks can't handle these situations. It may be uncommon for most staff in a typical retail bank branch to encounter, but the vast majority of banks have the capability of handling complex wires like this. I manage a retail branch for a regional American bank - such a wire landing on my desk would involve a phone call to the wire department and reading up on some procedures, but it could definitely be done. 12.71.77.125 (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethiopia: a landlocked nation

Does Ethiopia regard its lack of harbors, ports and coastline to be an issue similar to Bolivia? None of its border disputes with Eritrea are related to coastline territory. Is the nation perfectly fine without a coastline? --68.116.114.141 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is "perfectly fine" without a coastline. At least judging by this or this. If you Google "Ethiopia landlocked problem" you'll get more stuff. Here you can see for example views expressed in a forum. Contact Basemetal here 17:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Even before Eritrea achieved independence, Djibouti was the main cargo port for Ethiopia. So the issue is not solely linked to bilateral difficulties with Eritrea. --Xuxl (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

By-election results

Are there any online sources for UK Parliamentary by-election results?

JASpencer (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Also List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–present). There are a lot of resources available at www.parliament.uk By-elections, of which UK Election Statistics: 1918-2012 seems to be the most pertinent. Alansplodge (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. The issue I'm having is that I'm writing articles about by-elections and there are a lot of by-election results that are uncited which I'd like to confirm and cite. So are there any sites that have these results? 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Does this provide you with what you're looking for?--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but I'm looking for individual breakdowns like this wayback page. JASpencer (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've created a list from 1945 to 79 here and here for 79 to 97. JASpencer (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

At What Point Does a Treaty Become Invalid or Void Because It's Terms Are Secret or Unwritten?

I had always assumed that the Law of Treaties was a body of international law containing well-understood and clearly-defined requirements for the formation of valid treaties. Recent controversy over the treaty negotiated between the United States of America and its allies with the Islamic Republic of Iran have led me to ask:

1.) Is it possible for a treaty to be valid if it contains provisions not fully disclosed or understood by all parties to the treaty? 2.) Is it fundamentally necessary that all portions of a treaty be in writing?Honeyman2010 (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(1) First, a point of clarification: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is not a treaty in the U.S. law sense of the word. Not all international agreements are treaties in the U.S. constitutional law sense. The JCPOA is an executive agreement. (See testimony of David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)).

(2) See our (woefully unreferenced) article on secret treaty. Prior to the First World War, such treaties were relatively common. (Indeed, such treaties were one of the causes of World War I).

One of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points (1918) was the abolition of secret treaties, and generally the institution of public, open diplomacy. This eventually came to pass with Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which required members of the League to register agreements with the League secretariat: "Every treaty or international engagement entered into hereafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered."

This rule is preserved in the present day via the United Nations - see Article 102 of the United Nations Charter: 1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it. 2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties also entrenches the registration/depository system.

(3) As to whether an oral agreement can be formed and be as binding as a written agreement: theoretically, yes, see Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: The fact that the present Convention does not apply to international agreements concluded between States and other subjects of international law or between such other subjects of international law, or to international agreements not in written form, shall not affect: (a) the legal force of such agreements... So foreign minister X could make a binding oral agreement with foreign minister Y. In reality, all serious agreements intended to be binding will be reduced to a formal writing, pored over by diplomats. Even a preliminary agreement is reduced to writing (see Modus vivendi).

(4) As to situations when a treaty might become void or invalid: see Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties articles 46-53, which outline such situations. Article 48, on error, might be what you're thinking of. Neutrality^talk 03:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Who will step up to improve the "woefully unreferenced" article on secret treaty? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent answer from Neutrality. But we do have an article on the Ihlen Declaration, where the World Court ruled that foreign minister X did make a binding oral agreement with foreign minister Y.John Z (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 25

When did The Adventures of Rupert Bear run?

Hi all, I'm having a dickens of a time tracking down information on The Adventures of Rupert Bear, a British children's television series that may have run circa 1967-1977. The article is unsourced, I think at the very least knowing when the series started would be of tremendous help, but any other info that could be corroborated, for instance the network it ran on and number of episodes would be fantastic. Don't mean to dump this on the Ref Desk, but I'm not sure how else to get this info. Danke! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

IMDB (which is not a fully reliable source for the purposes of citing for Wikipedia articles, but may be a good starting point for your research) says that it ran in first run episodes from 1970-1972. It also appears there was a revival called just Rupert Bear that ran from 2006-2007. Hope that helps! --Jayron32 18:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

h2g2 ok for a source? [9]. —eric 18:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel Shahak quotes?

It has been shown at times that Israel Shahak was not averse to fabricating his quotes (see the WP article), so I wonder if anyone can verify the following two alleged quotes he inserted in two books of his.

1. This article by Robert Fisk from the English Independant (Wednesday 03 December 1997) has the following: He [Shahak] quotes from an official exhortation to religious Jewish soldiers about Gentiles, published by the Israeli army's Central Region Command in which the chief chaplain writes: "When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah (the legal system of classical Judaism) they may and even should be killed ... In no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilised ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good." Robert Fisk is quoting from Shahak's book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years: Pluto Press, London, 1994. Can anyone verify that quote in Shahak's book and see if he gives any reference to any actual document?
2. This article on web site Loonwatch.com by someone writing under the name of "Danios" has the following: Prof. Israel Shahak, an Israeli human rights activist, documented the background for this racist religious dogma in his book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. For example, he quotes Rabbi Abraham Kook, largely considered “the ultimate father figure” of Religious Zionism, who stated that “the difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews ... is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.” As you can see the quotation is referred to Shahak's book (co-authored with Norton Mezvinsky) Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel: Pluto Press, London (there are two editions, 1999 and 2004, but the guy doesn't say which one he is citing). Again, can anyone verify that quote in Shahak's book and see if he refers to any place in Abraham Isaac Kook's work where this quote is supposed to be from?

Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 19:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Was this Israeli soldier quoting the Bible?

This Google book preview won't let me see the footnote (footnote 31) to the following quote (line 6): It's not clear to me what a Hebrew soldier is doing so far from home. I have the feeling the what a Hebrew soldier is doing so far from home part echoes some passage in the Bible. Do you recognize such a passage in the Bible? Can you read footnote 31? If yes, what does it say? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The footnotes are viewable on this Amazon preview (p. 246) and says: 31. Sandro Contento, "Israel Bans TV Crews from Filming Army Raids", Toronto Star, 24 March 2002. So just an attribution. It's not a well-known Biblical quote as far as I know. Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

About a scene in Eisenstein "Ivan the Terrible" Part 2?

I have a couple of questions about this scene (direct link to the scene 32 minutes 42 seconds into the movie) in Sergei Eisenstein's movie Ivan the Terrible Part 2 (it's the first scene in the cathedral, with the song in the fiery furnace, after the book of Daniel; the greatest in the whole movie but we're not supposed to express opinions here; no wonder Stalin didn't like this movie; if the time offset doesn't work you can try this alternate link or if neither time offset format works it's 32 minutes 42 seconds into the movie).

1. Is the music of this particular scene (more particularly the song that the children are singing in the fiery furnace) a traditional Orthodox church melody or is it an original composition by Sergei Prokofiev?
2. Do these kinds of religious plays still take place in Russian Orthodox churches? If yes, for what feast(s)?
3. Does the kind of clowns who play the Chaldeans in that religious play have a name in Russian?

Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 20:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: Slightly better audio here or here (or, manually, 34 minutes 22 seconds into the movie). Contact Basemetal here 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This article says "[t]he Furnace Play is an ancient Russian liturgical drama which was performed in the Uspensky (Dormition) cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin on the Sunday of the Holy Fathers, a week before Christmas", and also that the music is original to the film. Admittedly that doesn't exactly answer your first two questions, since it may not still be performed and the music may be based on a traditional tune. -- BenRG (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ben. This is already valuable. Since the words of the song were written by Eisenstein I'd be willing to bet it is not based on a traditional tune because it would be an amazing coincidence if the prosody of the words written by Eisenstein matched that of some traditional Orthodox song. This said it is clear Prokofiev made it sound like a traditional Orthodox hymn. Nitpicking: The Pravda says the Sunday of the Fathers falls in the week before Christmas but that's only if you take weeks to start on Mondays. Maybe that's how it works in Russia but that's not the traditional Jewish and Christian position. (Or if Christmas falls on Sunday) Contact Basemetal here 15:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

We have ru:Пещное действо about the "furnace play". It was practised in the Russian church before Peter the Great's reform. In 1909, the Moscow Institute of Archaeology commissioned A. D. Kastalsky to reconstruct the chant. His reconstruction was based on ru:невменная нотация (znamenny chant notation). Narratologically, the scene was intended by Eisenstein as a parallel to "the Mousetrap" in Hamlet. The music for this scene was composed by Prokofiev; it is partly based on an 18th-century choral concerto by Dmitry Bortniansky rather than on Kastalsky's reconstructions. P.S. Britten's The Burning Fiery Furnace has the same name in Russian: действо пещное. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The UK-Parliment is a perfect o imperfect bicameral?

Sorry, i anticipe i'm italian. I don't understand if the parliment of the United Kingdom is perfect or imperfect bicameral. The maine problem is about house of lords, i don't understand if it can fall down the govern or not, and how this house is elected. Because i know what the ereditariety of the seats, but other? How are they elected or nominated? How time do they stay at them position? I see the colors of the political parties on the page, so there is a partitic domination in this house. What is the derivation of this partitic control in this house. Thank you anticipatly. --79.54.130.144 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As a rule, nothing in the UK political system is "perfect" - it's not designed, but slowly evolved, with plenty of quaint and not-so-quaint quirks. Our article is at House of Lords. Members are appointed by the Queen, but she follows the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The influence of the House of Lords is limited nowadays. It cannot topple the government, and it can only delay bills. Strictly the government does not depend on the House of Commons, either, but again tradition dictates that it resigns if it loses support there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to fill in a couple of details for the OP: The House of Lords can't veto a Government bill, under the Parliament Act 1911. There is no upper age limit or fixed term of service - members of the house can stay there until they die, resign, or are expelled. The distribution between the parties was set up by the House of Lords Act 1999 (which removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House), and is maintained by the Appointments Commission. Before 1999, the Conservative party had a very large majority, mainly made up of hereditary peers. Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Reform of the House of Lords. Nearly everyone thinks it should be replaced by something better but nobody knows what. Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not just get rid of it then? Contact Basemetal here 21:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the UK. They never give up anything for good. You never know when a trained group of longbow men might come in handy! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite right - see Royal Company of Archers. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Some people support that idea (including 22% of Britons in a 2010 poll and 163 MPs in a 2007 vote). Neutrality^talk 22:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Because of the principle of Supremacy of Parliament, many think it's sensible to retain a second chamber as some sort of filter for poor legislation that might be rushed through the Commons. Exactly what form that should take is debated; there is little enthusiasm for another elected body. Alansplodge (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I know some have floated the idea of a reformed House of Lords as a "House of Experts" - basically, making it all-crossbenchers, all appointed in nonpartisan fashion. That sounds like a reasonably sensible idea. Neutrality^talk 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Meritocracy and technocracy are variants on this idea. --Jayron32 02:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Perfect" means something specific in this context. We don't have an entry for it, but the article on the Italian Parliament defines a perfect bicameral system as one where both chambers have identical rights and powers. By this definition, the British system is very definitely "imperfect". Rojomoke (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See also [10] Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Um -- such a "perfect bicameral" legislature would be odd -- if the two parts are identical in "rights and powers" then there is no reason for the second body. In most places with bicameral legislatures, the second body is one for deliberation more than for initiating legislation. "Bicameral" just means "having two chambers" - that is all it means. A "perfect" one would be one that has precisely two chambers, no matter what any Wikipedia article in Italy states <g>. Collect (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As distinct from approximately two chambers, maybe? How does rounding work in the case of two and a half chambers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Identical in rights and powers does not mean identical in all respects: the two chambers may be elected by different rules (e.g. by district vs at large), so a majority party in one house may not control the other. A veto power for each can prevent a fluke majority from going too wild. —Tamfang (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

When a person dies, are you supposed to notify the credit reporting agencies?

When a person dies, are you supposed to notify the credit reporting agencies? This is for the USA. Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:A597:AD3E:4899:DD6D (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Probate laws of each state can vary, but in general this is likely to be one of the tasks handled by the Executor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a good idea to do so, if you are the surviving spouse of the decedent or the personal representative of the estate, in order to minimize the risk of identity theft. See here (from Experian) and here (a guide from the Illinois law firm of Meyer Capel). Neutrality^talk 21:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. But, I am missing something here. In all honesty, who would really (practically) care if the deceased person had their identity stolen? 32.209.54.215 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If an identity thief gets control of a decedent's identity, it (1) the beneficiaries would care - because the thief might incur debts that the estate might have to pay (this is complicated and context-dependent), thus diminishing the amount that the beneficiaries of the estate can collect; (2) the personal representative (and the estate's attorney, if there is one) would care - because it can cause a big headache for the settlement of the estate's affairs; (3) the government would care - if the identity thief fraudulently collects benefits using the decedent's identity; (4) a pension fund would care - for the same reason; and (5) lenders and creditors would care - because identity theft is a cost to them.

See also Ghosting (identity theft). Neutrality^talk 01:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why all those people would "theoretically" care. But, it will be easy to ascertain with definitive proof that the person in question died (or did not die). Once the death is "proven", aren't all those "identity theft" issues resolved and returned to status quo? In other words, any "impact" on the estate is negated/neutralized; any pension payments would be stopped; any debts would be written off; etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure the debts would be written off? The money is still owed, and depending on exactly how a given state's laws work, I would expect it to be paid by the estate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I don't understand your post/your question. Am I not correct to assume that a person is not liable for a debt that was obtained by fraud? If a person (through identity theft) ran up a huge credit card bill with the credit card of a deceased person, I cannot imagine that the deceased person (or his estate) is liable for a debt that is 100% proven to be fraudulent (i.e., there is no dispute that the decedent is, in fact, dead; and could not have possibly charged those debts on the credit card). I assumed that the credit card/bank writes that off, when the fraud is discovered. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A good reference:

Credit Bureaus

To head off identify theft, experts recommend reporting the death to major credit-reporting agencies. Once a “deceased alert” is placed in the file, any requests for credit will be recognized as fraudulent and rejected. The big three agencies are Equifax (www.equifax.com, 800-525-6285), Transunion (www.transunion.com, 800-680-7289), and Experian (www.experiancom,888-397-3742).

Randolph, Mary (2008). The Executor's Guide: Settling a Loved One's Estate or Trust (3rd. ed.). Berkeley, CA: Nolo. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-4133-0655-2.

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 26

history of the current european immigration laws.

Please do not publicize my Ip. I am a contributor to Wikipedia and probably have an account. My questions is this: how do I go about finding info in Wikipedia as to the history of the current European countries immigration laws?

Thank you,

Ilona Proska

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:1:9385:6040:9d25:aaed:dc37 (talk • contribs)

To clarify the message you were shown before posting without logging in:

"You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits."

If you have an account but post without logging in, your IP address is automatically logged. See WP:IP.

If ypu need help to recover your password &/or username, check Help:Reset_password

On your question, try Immigration law. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia English or American?

I know the language of Wikipedia is supposed to be British-English, not American-English. My question is not about language, it is about, how should I put it, which mentality, which way of thinking, which standards. Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Confusingly and irritatingly, it is both, depending on the article subject and/or who originally wrote it. See WP:ENGVAR. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Who says "the language of Wikipedia is supposed to be British-English, not American-English"....? "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

... and the fundamental standards of Wikipedia are the five pillars. I don't think these are particularly British or American. How could you tell ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Canadian English exists too, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, July 28, 2015 (UTC)

In some respects, it's actually French. The "Wikipedia mentality" (openness, collaboration, pursuit of knowledge, objectivism, the view that the common people can contribute, etc.) derives in large part from Enlightenment philosophy, which comes from all across Western Europe, but it often identified most closely with French thinkers. More directly, it stems from similar views as the open-source movement and free software movement (both worldwide, but associated with American "founders") - but applied to knowledge, rather than software. Even more directly, Wikipedia was created in America by Americans (Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger), but with the intent of a global reach. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

American neutrality or common mistake?

Thank you all for your useful comments and links. As I said, my question was not about the language and British-English (thanks again for the links). I have a question about the article July 24, and in general, about the way we should handle notable people's place of birth, nationality, and appurtenance (where people belong, where people feel they belong). In such article as the July 24 article, I can find many examples of what I would call a typically American way of thinking people's nationality, people's appurtenance. My question is, is it just a mistake by one random contributor, or is it more about an American logics of assigning nationalities and appurtenances?

There would then be a subsidiary question about the choice of forgetting "West-" and keeping only "German", for people whose notability exists only within the cold war period when there were two distinct Germanies. Makes me recall also the Yugoslavian example, which is sometimes wrongly replaced by "Slovenian" or "Serbian" or such.

Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Akseli9, I don't understand the question. Specifically: I don't know what you mean by "American" or "British" mentalities or standards. What is a "typically American way of thinking people's nationality, people's appurtenance", and which ones do you think might be "mistakes"? Iapetus (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being so unable to make myself clearer. With the help of your focussed questions we shall eventually reach the point. I think a "typically American way of thinking people's nationality, people's appurtenance", is to view it the way they view it in American countries (especially the US but I'm thinking also of Brasil). In such article as the July 24 article, you find a list of people who sometimes are just "American", and sometimes can be "South-African American", or "Polish-American", etc. You find also some Germans who according to precedent contributor was not German but "West-German". You find also that interesting case of a French who was born in French Algeria (before 1962, thus not in Algeria), who according to some contributors, becomes an "Algerian-French" or an "Algerian-born". My focussing on American logics comes from the fact that American culture is so omnipresent in our very lives and indeed thoughts, I was wondering if this way of assigning nationalities to people, was perhaps coming from this constant americanization of ours? One obvious mistake in the July 24 article or in her own article, was to consider French alpinist Catherine Destivelle as an "Algerian-born" or as an "Algerian-French", but I'm wondering whether there could be a lot of similar mistakes in the entire encyclopedy? Akseli9 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please give an example or two of where someone is described as "American" and you think it is a mistake. Regarding your example, it is not a "mistake" to describe someone as French-Algerian rather than French. This is a matter of opinion and Wikipedia style, and it is not as clear-cut as you seem to believe it is. Furthermore, you seem to think that describing someone's nationality in a particular way is somehow a distinctively American thing to do, which is also incorrect. --Viennese Waltz 12:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In the July 24 article, Robert Graves is described as an English-Spanish. In the same article, Ed Mirvish is considered an American-Canadian. These two examples are just two quick picks I could pick at first glance. Please tell me (no irony here I just would like to understand) how is it not a mistake? What makes Robert Graves a Spaniard? The fact that he spent his last years and died in Spain? What makes Ed Mirvish an American? Just because he was born in the US? But more on topic of my original questions, how can it be that unimportant to misassign a nationality to someone? Akseli9 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Graves, but Ed Mirvish states that he was born in the US, the son of Jewish immigrants from Lithuania and Austria, and moved to Canada when he was nine. So what do you think that makes him? He could be described as American, Canadian, Lithuanian-Austrian or any combination of those, and (this is the point) they would all be correct. Calling him "American-Canadian" is not "misassigning his nationality". You seem to think this stuff is black-and-white, when it clearly is not. --Viennese Waltz 13:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your point, now please try to understand my question: Isn't it so American to think this stuff can be left loose and to think it can so easily cope with mistakes and approximations? Akseli9 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your question proceeds from a misapprehension, that describing someone's nationality in a particular way is a mistake, loose or approximate. As to whether describing someone's nationality in a particular way is a distinctively American thing, no it is not. Going back to your original point about the supposed cultural bias of Wikipedia on this matter, bear in mind that the description of people's nationalities in these articles is the result of an edit made by a single contributor, which can always be amended or reverted by another contributor. Those contributors come from all over the world, and there is no evidence that nationalities are described in response to any particular cultural viewpoint. --Viennese Waltz 14:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly all you said, you wouldn't mind if someone corrected Robert Graves' line and took away his qualification as a Spaniard, making him a mere English author, poet, and scholar, not Spanish anymore? You would think that the matter is not as clear-cut as you would need to revert such edit, right? Akseli9 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

But things may work differently if the revert is by another user. You should be able to build upon this nonetheless if you want to argue Graves as a British expatriate rather than as an dual citizen, the former is how he's viewed regarding that matter, by The Guardian. Not a one-off either regarding Graves, from the Guardian [11]. --Askedonty (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia's article describes Graves as English or English/Spanish is a matter for debate on that article's talk page and by reference to any policy or guideline on the matter. According to this site he lived in Spain from the age of 34 onwards. Does that make it wrong to describe him as Spanish? No, because there is no right and wrong in this matter. You think it's wrong to describe him as English-Spanish because he wasn't born in Spain, yet you also think it is wrong for Ed Mirvish to be described as American-Canadian even though he wasn't born in Canada. Make up your mind. --Viennese Waltz 19:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There is not the slighest doubt in my mind that Robert Graves is English (or British) and that he is not Spanish. There is not the slighest doubt in my mind that Ed Mirvish is not American, not Austrian, not Lithuanian, that Ed Mirvish is Canadian. The doubt in my mind is that I believe people who see that stuff your way are Americans, not Europeans. About this I'm not so sure, thus my original questions. Akseli9 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A person can be English by nationality, British by citizenship, Spanish by residence, French by adoption, and a citizen of the world by common consent. It all depends on what exactly you're talking about. Also, saying that someone is "Spanish" (by whichever of the preceding measures may apply) is not the same as saying they are "a Spaniard". I think there's more than a subtle difference between those words. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

By that argument, Douglas Jardine was an Indian cricketer, and Rudyard Kipling was an Indian poet. Hmmm... Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

And J. M. Coetzee is an Australian Nobel Prize-winning novelist, and Albert Einstein was an American scientist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm British, not American, so there you go. --Viennese Waltz 20:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Graves change was made about a year ago, by a still-active account.[12] You could ask him why he made the change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

On Wiki voyage American English is wholeheartedly rejected. Only "british-English" is allowed. Void burn (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Another reason to avoid it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and one could ask also why it doesn't seem to bother that the two articles are inconsistent. Akseli9 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It clearly bothers you, so I recommend you talk to the editor who made the change a year ago and ask him why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My question was not about one single example that I quickly picked out of a long list. My question was about how should we handle nationalities in general in this Encyclopedia. Akseli9 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And as I've already said, that is a matter of Wikipedia style, policy and guidance. The only guidance I've found on the matter is in WP:MOSBIO: "In most modern-day cases this [i.e. the given nationality] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." You're welcome to apply this guidance to any article on Wikipedia. You might wish to discuss any changes you wish to make on the article's talk page before doing so, although this is not mandatory and you might encounter resistance. That's how this encyclopedia is made. --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Albert Einstein long cat quote

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." -Albert Einstein [13][14]

Did Einstein really say this? If so, is there an authoritative source proving it?

I have a feeling this is a recently invented quote that's mis-attributed to him, since it sounds suspiciously like the the mash-up of two memes: longcat and series of tubes. My other car is a cadr (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

[15] gives an anteceding quote a date of 1866. Result: Not Einstein. Collect (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.My other car is a cadr (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

• Not so fast! The 1866 version was only about the telegraph, not radio. The punch line that with radio "the dog is imaginary" was not added, according to the source Collect cited, until 1917. Of course that doesn't mean that Einstein said it; but it does mean that we can't rule it out on the grounds of the date alone: his career as a physicist was well established by then. However, according to the same source, the 1917 version was originally rendered in "heavy dialect", and Einstein's name was not mentioned in connection with it or with a 1924 version that's close to the one we were asked about. I'd say that makes it extremely unlikely that it was him. --65.94.50.73 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not in The New Quotable Einstein. That doesn't prove he didn't say it, and not everything he ever said is in there, but it's the sort of quote likely to get a guernsey if it were authentic. (The internet has spawned a whole new industry of misattributed quotations, some of which are patently absurd and obviously made up, but which then get copied as gospel truth and enter the belief systems of people who don't know any better, who often then strenuously defend the veracity of the attributions because first impressions last.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Schrödinger: "Hold on there, Albie. Maybe there's a cat, and maybe there isn't. Did you look?" Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 27

Oldest named animal

Who was the oldest historically verifiable animal (not myths or gods) given a name? An animal older than Bucephalus. Are there any records/documents in which a pet dog or cat or warhorse is given a name/refer to by a name dating prior to the 4th century BC?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

[16] People in ancient Egypt gave names to their dogs - as evidenced by names on their collars. Say 3000 BCE or so. Cats appear to have been generally called "Cat" ("Mau" or "Miw") or the like - but since they were gods, giving one a demeaning name would have been problematic <g>. Collect (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Abuwtiyuw is one of the earliest. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Christian missionaries involved in Mangareva and the Gambier Islands

I'm trying to understand Catholic missionaries that were active in Mangareva and the Gambier Islands in the 19th century besides Honoré Laval. I know of Francois Caret, Columba Murphy, Cyprien Liausu, Étienne Jérôme Rouchouze, and Louis Désiré Maigret. Can somebody help me out with finding names of additional missionaries in the islands at the time?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Here’s one more: Frère Gilbert Soulié [17] who came in May 1835 with Mgr Etienne Rouchouze. I don't know how you feel about original research, but the Pipcuiens have a website with an email address [18] If you were able to get in touch with Père André Mark (former archivist for the fathers), who wrote that article that mentions Soulié, he might have a list of all the Pipuciens that went to Gambier Islands. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would Congress want an even number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?

I was reading the introductory paragraphs in this article: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition. It seems that there were many times during which our U.S. Supreme Court had an even number of seats. Why would the legislators desire that? I always assumed that, in situations such as this, an odd number of voters is preferable (to avoid ties and "split" courts). An even amount of "voters" (justices) makes no sense. What would be the rationale or the thinking back then? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/2/5/and-then-there-were-eight-the/ --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting article. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A tie vote, as I'm sure you're aware, affirms the lower court's decision. I suppose that there could be some political edge to a court that would have a predisposition to affirm, but I'm not sure what it is. GregJackP Boomer! 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent question. One possible political edge/advantage might be judicial stability? Maintaining the status quo? That is, cases getting affirmed (i.e., settled) more often than being "disturbed" (changed). I guess that can be an advantage, though not necessarily a political one. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC):Technically "ties" in the Supreme Court aren't considered ties. A "tie" in the Supreme Court is treated the same as "win" for the defendant (the lower court's decision remains in effect). SCOTUS tradition holds that ""no affirmative action can be had in a cause where the judges are equally divided in opinion as to the judgment to be rendered or order to be made."[19] This happens more often that you'd think, even with an odd number of appointed Justices, mostly due to a Justice recusing him/herself, but also due to the President not being able to get his nominee confirmed in time to hear cases. Even with today's full nine Justice panel, a 5-4 (or sometimes even a 6-3) ruling is still often considered a "split court", especially if one of the majority issues a concurring opinion that differs substantially from the majority opinion. And while that doesn't change the outcome of the case, it considerably weakens it and can leave a lot of issues open for scrutiny in later cases. So, having an odd number of seats isn't as important as it may seem at first blush.

No, a tie is not the same as a win for the respondent (the side that won in the lower court). See Supreme Court of the United States#Decision. It's the same as regards the outcome that particular case, but it's deemed not to establish a precedent; very likely a similar case will be appealed to settle the question as soon as there are 9 justices available. --65.94.50.73 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point. That is a very subtle – but critical – distinction. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As to your question, I believe the thinking behind having an even number of seats was that a 4-2 ruling, for example, was clear-cut and made more of a statement than would a 4-3 ruling. Also, as our article Supreme Court of the United States says near the top: "Because the full Court had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was also made by two-thirds (voting four to two)." Also in that same article, it points out that the Court grew with the nation, adding Justices for each new judicial circuit created. "As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863." The number of Justices wasn't fixed at nine until 1869. Then there was FDR's attempt to pack the Court, but that's a different story.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I just read the article linked above (And Then There Were Eight). It states: "Alternately, a 4-4 tie would send the case back to lower courts—either to the states or the federal circuits." So, that statement is incorrect? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If you read the sentence in context, it's clear that the author means "sends the case back unchanged", i.e. lets the lower courts decision stand. The phrasing is a bit unfortunate, but its not strictly wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. But, it doesn't really "send anything back", correct? It just allows the lower decision to stand. Or does it "send it back" to the lower court, and then the lower court has to "do" something? (Like "affirm" its last decision?) Or "enter" its last decision as a final judgment? Is there anything "physical" or "affirmative" that the lower court has to "do", once the Supreme Court sends it back? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Mute turns verbose

I read once about someone who went on to become famous (possibly a philosopher) who was mute as a child until aged four or five he came out with, as his first words, a long and complex sentence, possibly witty, which was aimed at a servant and possibly began with the word, "Madam". Can anyone help from these slender clues? --Dweller (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are talking about Thomas Babington Macaulay. I don't think he was mute before, but on having had hot coffee spilt on him at the age of three, is said to have announced: "Thank you, Madam, the agony is sensibly abated". The story is recounted here, but I observe it is not in our article or in wikiquote:Thomas Babington Macauley. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks right, thanks. Wonder where I got the mute bit from? --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In the version I read, he had not previously spoken up to that point; there may have been confusion in variant accounts between "mute" meaning "not speaking" and "mute" meaning "unable to speak." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a joke, which when told to me was about a young German boy though the gender and nationality probably varies based on who's telling it. The boy had not spoken for the first five years of his life. Finally one day when his mother serves him some cold schnitzel, he tells his mother that it's cold. At that she exclaims "You can speak!" He says "Of course I can." She asks, "Why have you not spoken until now?" and the boy responds "Up until now, everything was satisfactory." Dismas|^(talk) 13:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleuze & Guattari

How exactly did they co-write Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus? Did they sit down together and thrash out every sentence between them? Did one of them write certain parts alone and the other redrafted it? Etc. --Viennese Waltz 09:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was almost entirely done through letters, but mostly assembled into the final product by Deleuze. But page 84 (and elsewhere) in this book talks about it specifically: Deleuze and Guattari by Ronald Bogue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Biographical research....

Any experts on Mid 19th century hymanls? see- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:A_Comprehensive_Index_of_Names_of_Original_Authors_and_Translators_of_Psalms_and_Hymns

There are some entries that are surnames only, or in some case INITALS only.

It would be nice to expand them, response here or at wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, ShakespeareFan00, but you can wikilink to other Wikimedia projects. eg. [[q:Talk:A Comprehensive Index of Names of Original Authors and Translators of Psalms and Hymns]] displays as q:Talk:A Comprehensive Index of Names of Original Authors and Translators of Psalms and Hymns. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did France declare war on Britain in 1793?

Why did France declare war on Britain in 1793? I know tensions had been worsening since the execution of Louis XIV earlier in 1793, but it was France that declared war on Britain. And I wanted to know what the specific reasons the French Republic gave to justify opening war with the UK. --Gary123 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

England was rather hawkish - and had expelled the French Ambassador it seems before the declaration of war, with the war basically seeming a tad mutual by that point. As for "reasons for war" - the war had already started a year or so earlier - and had the "usual reasons" I suppose. Collect (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Most likely a preemptive strike since they also declared war on the Dutch Republic in 1793 and the region was of strategic value to the British defense from a continental invasion. Also France was pretty much at war with almost every major nation in Europe during this period. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Although they don't really specifically answer the question, our articles about this are French Revolutionary Wars and War of the First Coalition. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 28

No dark ages in middle east

Why wasn't there a dark age after Muslim armies conquered the Middle East like there was in Europe after Germanic armies invaded Europe?

There wasn't really one in Europe either, it was just invented by people in the Renaissance who had ridiculously high opinions of themselves. See Dark Ages (historiography). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought pretty much the opposite: that the term was invented by a bloke* who had a high opinion of the period preceding the Dark Ages? *who arguably lived before the Renaissance, but leave that to one side --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. What's the purpose of the last part ("like there was in Europe") if "Muslim armies" didn't conquer Europe? Asmrulz (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the early Middle Ages until the time of Charlemagne called the dark ages?

Historically I tend to think of places like Egypt and Asia Minor as being more toward the "center of civilization" with the largest access to a wide range of knowledge. I think if you look at the great physicians and inventors of the Roman Empire, a lot of them came from or lived in points east. The Romans are typically given credit for absorbing a lot of knowledge from the Greeks, and held only temporary or tenuous control over much of Europe. So medicinal herbs such as opium, which was a mainstay of the surgical procedures of antiquity, became essentially unknown in Europe once trade collapsed, forcing the adaptation of local substitutes of varying effectiveness; by the time Paracelsus came back with his "stones of immortality" it sounded like witchcraft.

Of course today, with the brutal events in the news and isolation from world trade and science, it seems like the Middle East has fallen almost completely into a lasting Dark Age - I'm thinking really though credit goes at least all the way back to Wahhabi for this one; also the Ottoman Empire's status as the "sick man of Europe" seems relevant. The fall of empires such as Rome didn't happen in a year or a century ... it was very slow, and not altogether monotonic. Wnt (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever you call the period from the Late Roman Empire (at least in the West) to maybe the 11th or 12th century, didn't urban life, economic life, especially the monetary economy, the centers of learning, intellectual and artistic life and population size all experience a drastic reduction in Western Europe, if not a collapse? But by the 11th century or 12th century I think Europe was experiencing a resurgence. So this may not necessarily coincide with the traditional concept of the "Dark Ages". Contact Basemetal here 10:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the primary meaning of the term is that, to quote from the lede of the Article, "the period is characterized by a relative scarcity of historical and other written records at least for some areas of Europe, rendering it obscure to historians." That there was no comparable "Dark Age" in the period of Muslim domination of the Middle East the OP refers to is because the Muslim cultures of the time (as well as many of those over which they held sway) were relatively literate and there are a good deal of surviving records.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

respectable interconnections

I was watching a YouTube video. It was a promo for a documentary called USS Arizona: The Life and Death of a Lady. At the beginning, they showed the launching of the USS Arizona (BB-39) at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. There were some delegates from the State of Arizona. A girl from Prescott was also there. They used champagne and some Arizona water in the battleship's launching. I suddenly remembered the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots who perished battling the Yarnell Hill Fire. All of that triggered an idea. At least 19 long-stemmed roses and some Arizona water should be sent to the USS Arizona Memorial. There, in a special ceremony, those mentioned items can be dropped onto the decks through the opening in the floor, to remember the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots. (There are some USMC personnel entombed within the Arizona. One of the Granite Mountain Hotshots served in the USMC.) I know it would cost a fortune for the 19 long-stemmed roses, the Arizona water and the shipping charges. What's the best way to go about completing that type of task?2604:2000:712C:2900:CCBC:9979:1653:FCB1 (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Click on your own wikilink to the USS Arizona Memorial. Scroll to the External Links section and click on Official Website. Choose the Contact Us link in the left margin and make your proposal directly to the administrators of the memorial. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)