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

March 4

Romanov

Other than the Mecklenburg siblings of Ivan VI and the future Peter III, who else was considered a viable Romanov heir for the Empress Elizabeth of Russia or were these the last of the family?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As noted at House of Romanov#Dynastic crisis no one. The actual Romanov male lied ended with Peter II of Russia. Later scions were cognatic descendants from female lines who adopted the name Romanov to be acceptable to Russians. Under normal male-line descent, the Romanov line did not outlive Peter II. The later Romanovs (excepting the empresses Anna and Elizabeth) were all of German houses, notably House of Holstein-Gottorp. You'd have to go back to pre-Tsar members of the Romanov family. Filaret, the father of the first Romanov tsar, who had no male children with issue other than Michael Romanov. Filaret's father Nikita Romanovich had few children who may have had contenders for heirs to the line, the only one who would have lived long enough to have had children who may have contended would have been Nikita Romanov, but he had no legitimate heirs. The article on Nikita Romanov lists other families who were even more distantly related, but at that point, it seems unlikely they would have inherited over the German lines, who were more politically connected and more powerful in the right circles. --Jayron32 02:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Brunswick family and Peter of Holstein-Gottorp were the only descendants of Michael I of Russia still alive at the time. The 1613 national assembly entrusted Michael Romanov to rule the country, so the descendance of his cousins (in this case, second cousins) is sort of irrelevant. (By the way, Alexander Herzen was a male-line descendant of one of those cousins, and of Andrei Kobyla too). --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Alexei Razumovsky was rumored to have secretly married Empress Elizabeth and to have had offspring (see Princess Tarakanova), but this was never proven. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

National minorities and citizenship

It's common for people of one nationality to live in the country of another. For example the Austrian minority in South Tyrol, Italy. What citizenship rights do these groups have? Not just in my example but around the world. They obviously have the citizenship of the country they have been born and raised in. But is it common for them to also have citizenship of the country they identify with?

If they do, how is that done? How could Austria make sure it is only giving Austrian citizenship to the Austrian minority in Italy, and not to random ethnic Italians?--Quality posts here (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

One way is if both parents were born in Austria, but that would exclude third generation emigrants. The looser they set the restrictions, the "less Austrian" the average person who qualifies would be. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In most of the situations I can think of the minorities aren't emigrants, but natives who were conquered by the country they are not part of. Those Austrians were natives when Italy conquered that area in WW1. Or Hispanics in the southwestern USA who were conquered from Mexico in the 19th century.--Quality posts here (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The reverse can also happen. Russians colonized many nations that they conquered in WW2 or before, now many of those nations are independent, but retain their Russian populations. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So do any of those Russian minorities have access to Russian citizenship? What about other groups in similar situations?--Quality posts here (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

An interesting scholarly book is Russian Minority Politics in Post-Soviet Latvia and Kyrgyzstan, which as I recall discusses their citizenship status in those countries. In addition, the index has a section "Russia: Citizenship laws". Loraof (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Israel is an interesting case. See Law of Return. Of course, there's is a special situation, as they need to find new Jews to keep the majority Jewish, or face becoming majority Muslim and losing control. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

With almost 75 percent Jewish, that doesn't look like a serious problem at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'd say they see themselves as having serious medium-term concerns in this regard. Particularly the difference in birthrates between the two populations. Also, were Israel to annex the West Bank (the legalities would be complex, but not impossible, if done by consent of the residents), and was thus forced to enfranchise them, the whole demographic situation would dramatically change, and Muslims would make up nearly 50% of the population. Which is precisely one of the major factors which has stopped Israel going down that route. Not sure there's a huge pool of potential Jewish immigrants on the horizon, though. There have been a lot of French Jews coming in the last few years, as the Jews of France have perceived their situation to be deteriorating. The last big wave was around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the Iron Curtain crumbled. Eliyohub (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Dual citizenship may be a helpful article. StuRat (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Right of return despite the lead saying "to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin" which may lead you to conclude it's talking about where a person actually came from has quite a few examples of various laws which deal with ancestral national origin. It does not include Austria (or Italy for that matter) but does include Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, and yes even Russia. Some of these are just vague constitutional pronouncements and no info is provided on how it works in practive but you could probably use the info there to search for more specific info if there's a case that interests you. In addition since these talk about origin, even where more info is provided, it's often unclear how this works when it's not clear when or if the person's ancestors came from the country ot they just happen to be due to changing boundaries. Some others only provide it to cases where descent from a migrant is fairly recent, e.g. grandparents. Other countries seem to have specific cases for descendants of refugees or those who were expelled but not generally. Of course there are cases like the Rohingya people where despite according to most independent sources, being there for two or generally more generations and before the country they're living in even existed, they're frequently denied citizenship in what's likely their country of birth based on unsupported accusations they are illegal immigrants (or immediate descents of them) and they're also unwanted in the country they're accused of having illegally immigrated from. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Several countries who expelled their Jewish residents decades or centuries ago are now offering citizenship to the exiles' descendants: see History of the Jews in Spain#Modern Jewish community (last paragraph): "In 2014 it was announced that the descendants of Sephardic Jews who were expelled from Spain by the Alhambra Decree of 1492 would be offered Spanish citizenship, without being required to move to Spain and/or renounce any other citizenship they may have." In History of the Jews in Poland#Since 1989 (fourth paragraph from the end of that section): "Poland is currently easing the way for Jews who left Poland during the Communist organized massive expulsion of 1968 to re-obtain their citizenship." These are two instances; there may be others with which I'm unfamiliar. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Germany does the same. I just saw a documentary on how many ex-German Jews living in the UK are now taking up the offer, since they will then remain citizens of the EU, with all the benefits that entails, after Brexit. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal are 2 mentioned in the article I linked to above. Germany is mentioned but it seems to miss German Citizenship Project although I've now linked to it (actually I've also added brief details on paragraph 2 of the German Basic Law which was missed). Poland is mentioned but only the loose "Polish origins" clause although I've now added a seealso to the article on Polish nationality law which does mention the ability of Polish Jews forcefully deprived of their citizenship to regain it although suggest theres no specific legislation covering it. As mentioned, there are other cases of such losely worded origins clauses, I would hope they are generally intepreted to cover former citizens/residents (because some of them may have left because the concept of citizenship really existed) who happened to be Jewish, or more likely their descendants, but I don't know. Countries with grandchildren/grandparent clauses also tend to just cover all grandparents who were citizens. Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Catherine the Great had policies which still reverberate, such as the migration of the Volga Germans. From "Russian Germans and the Perestrojka" in History of Germans in Russia, Ukraine and the Soviet Union (NB caveats on its sources):

Legal and economic pull factors contributed to Russian Germans decision to move to Germany. They were given special legal status of Aussiedler (exiles from former German territories or of German descent) which gave them instant German citizenship, the right to vote, unlimited work permit, the flight from Moscow to Frankfurt (with all of their personal belongings and household possessions), job training, and unemployment benefits for three years.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

What was the 1st country to implement a system of proportional representation for their national parliament?

What was the 1st country to implement a system of proportional representation for their national parliament? (PR based on party vote % as opposed to MPs representing a geographic region.) --Gary123 (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Athens had direct democracy and was also a city-state, not a nation-state. And the Roman Republic elected the executive branch leaders, not the Senate. That leaves more modern democracies, such as Switzerland. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

According to our article, Proportional representation#History, the D'Hondt method was used by some Swiss Cantons from 1890, but the first national parliament was Belgium (same system) in 1900. The UK Parliament used the single transferable vote system (STV) for the university constituencies from 1918, followed by Malta (1921) and the Irish Free State (1922). Alansplodge (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

By comparison, only the US House of Representatives uses proportional representation, not the US Senate. And even the House isn't all that proportional, as every state gets one Rep, no matter how small their population. For example, Wyoming, with a pop of 586,107 gets one rep, while California, with a pop of 39,250,017 (67 times more), only gets 53 reps, not 67. StuRat (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Since you can't be bothered to read articles before commenting, no, the U.S. House of Representatives does not use proportional representation for voting. It uses single-member districts with a first past the post system of voting. As noted at proportional representation "it is not possible using single-member districts alone." Also, as noted at United States House of Representatives#Elections "By law, Representatives must be elected from single-member districts." Please don't comment on questions "off the cuff" when you haven't properly educated yourself on the terminology involved. This is twice in as many days when you've embarassed yourself by using words that you don't know what they mean. --Jayron32 20:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly you just did in misusing the term false precision, and then attempted to hide it when I pointed out your error. As for this Q, I thought the OP meant the number of legislatures selected for each province/state/district are in proportion to the population. The OP later clarified this by adding to the original post: [1]. Before that, it was unclear. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Proportional representation is a well-established term in the electoral and political world, Stu, and imo it was reasonable not to link it in the question. You say it was unclear: it behoves you to get clear (i.e. do a little research) before you answer such a question, not just assume it means X and then focus on your (in this case, wrong) assumption. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a big world, Jack. Since proportional representation chiefly exists for the benefit of minor parties, but for practical purposes there are (most years) no significant minor parties in the US, it makes sense that Americans would hear little discussion of proportional representation. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. The fact remains that Stu acknowledged he was unclear what the question was about, but answered it anyway, based on his guess/assumption. That is contrary to the good practice we require, because it contributes to bringing the refdesks into disrepute, something we should all strenuously avoid at all times, even if it means putting our egos to one side now and then. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Q's are often unclear, and may never be clarified, so the best we can do is state our assumptions of what they meant and answer that Q, with others doing the same with their set of assumptions. My population examples made it clear what my assumptions were. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(EC) The OP's question seemed clear enough because as proportional representation makes clear, it refers to systems where "divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. If n% of the electorate support a particular political party, then roughly n% of seats will be won by that party" and it doesn't contain a 'for other uses'. It may have been helpful for the OP to link to the article, but it had already been linked to by Alansplodge before your second reply so there was really no need for your confusion.

When people use standard terminology, understood by everyone who actually discusses such things, respondents should familiarise themselves with what these terms actually mean before responding. Especially when the terms are not particular technical as is the case here. If there is some doubt over whether the OP is actually using standard terminology you should either seek clarification or make it clear you're assuming the OP is not using standard terminology but instead referring to something else.

To give another relevant example, it would be wrong for someone to say Australia uses proportional representation for their federal legislatures because they use Single transferable vote for both the Senate and House of Representatives. Although instant-runoff voting could be called STV, STV generally refers to cases where there are multiple representatives, hence why our article only considers that example. And IRV definitely isn't generally considered a proportional representation system. However it's generally accepted that the Australian Senate does use proportional representation despite the fact all states get 6 senators, including Tasmania with 518,500 people and New South Wales with 7,704,300 people meaning it's said not to have equal representation among its people or one vote, one value. And in case this is unclear, it's the Australian house of representatives that does not use proportional representation, despite the fact it mostly tries to adhere to "one vote, one value" in modern times and definitely does so far more closely than the Senate.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that most Americans would say "What the hell is 'first past the post'? What post?" —Tamfang (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

US general delivery postal addresses

I am doing some research on the legal aspects of general delivery postal addresses in the US. These are often the only postal addresses available to the homeless or to retirees living a nomadic lifestyle, living in a recreational vehicle and traveling from place to place.

In doing my research I have seen various claims that there exists a US federal law or court decision to the effect that general delivery postal addresses are legal/valid for first class mail, and that companies cannot require you to have a fixed postal address. Does such a law or court decision actually exist? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The authorities will regard these places as your permanent residence.[2] 81.147.142.155 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I do not believe that there is any such federal law or court decision. I think I can speak fairly confidently that there is no federal statute to this effect (at least, not one that uses the phrase "general delivery"); there have been a great many court decisions over the years, so I suppose it's possible that there is some weird outlier. Can you point to any of these claims? It's probably best to ping me with your response to make sure I don't miss it. John M Baker (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of wiretapping

request for speculation --Jayron32 20:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What would happen to Obama if trump' s allegations against Obama of wiretapping turned out to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC) We do not answer requests for speculation. --Jayron32 20:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

March 5

Canadian_Airlines

From Canadian_Airlines:

"On November 5, 1999, a Quebec judge ruled that the Onex takeover was illegal, breaking the law that stipulates that no more than 10 percent of the company can be controlled by a single shareholder. Onex subsequently withdrew its offer and Air Canada stated it would proceed with the takeover of Canadian Airlines."

I'm a little confused as to why the Onex takeover was illegal but the the Air Canada takeover isn't. When Air Canada took over Canadian Airlines did it control more than 10 percent of Canadian Airlines' shares? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe "single shareholder" refers to a person (including a corporation which, legally, has the ownership rights of a person) that owned a large portion of Onex stock, and would therefore own a large portion of the airline, if they took it over. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As usual, StuRat has not done any research and just "winged it" for his answer, with the usual spotty results. If you want real information, best to review a proper source, like this summary. Here's a few key points:

• The Canadian airline business was in trouble. Canadian Airlines was facing bankruptcy. In a surprise move to stave off the disruption that would result from the failure of Canada's second-largest airline, the Canadian federal government suspended the relevant portions of the Competition Act for the airline industry, allowing merger and restructuring proposals to go forward.
• Onex presented a bid to purchase both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. The bid was funded by Onex and AMR (parent company to American Airlines, and a major shareholder in Canadian Airlines), and would have brought both airlines into the Oneworld alliance. It would have consolidated a massive share (about 90%) of the Canadian air travel market under one corporate umbrella.
• But, as Canada's flag carrier, Air Canada was subject to additional regulation. After privatization in the 1980's, Air Canada's ownership was governed by the Air Canada Public Participation Act. That law, to which Air Canada alone – not Canadian Airlines – was subject, forbade any single individual or group from controlling more than 10% of the shares in Air Canada.
• Consequently, a Quebec court ruled that Onex's bid could not go forward, as it would place the majority of Air Canada shares under Onex's control.
• The subsequent takeover of Canadian Airlines by Air Canada was allowed to go ahead, as Canadian Airlines shares were not subject to similar ownership restrictions—nothing barred Air Canada from acquiring a majority stake in Canadian.

There's almost certainly a lot more gritty detail and Canadian financial intrigue (?!) that one could go into, but I think that's the gist of it. And I've shown you my key source, so you know as much as I do now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation: did any State direct that elections were to be held for congressional delegates?

Article V of the Articles of Confederation indicates that Congressional delegates are appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct. Under the Articles of Confederation, did any State direct that elections were to be held for the people to vote for a congressional delegate to be appointed by the State legislature or did every State legislature directly appoint their congressional delegate without having the people vote? JimmieRMorris — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmieRMorris (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This says that the states legislatures selected representatives to the Congress of the Confederation. --Jayron32 03:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

JimmieRMorris -- Each state had only one vote in the Confederation (Continental) Congress, and the delegates were representing the government of their state (as much ambassadors as congressmen in the post-1789 sense), so there wouldn't have been much point in direct elections... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Trial by peers

Who was the last Irish peer to have been tried by his peers in the Irish House of Lords? DuncanHill (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It's possible this book [3] will say. The summary does mention the cases of Henry Barry, 4th Baron Barry of Santry#Trial in 1739 so not much interest and Robert King, 2nd Earl of Kingston which was in 1798 so I'm assuming would be one of the last. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at [4] which unsurprisingly doesn't cover the Irish House of Lords and unless these trials were a lot more frequent in the Irish House of Lords, Robert King may very well have been the last. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, maybe you already know it but the list I saw in the above PDF is at List of trials of peers in the House of Lords, indicating how uncommon such trials were in the UK and predecessor House of Lords which is what lead me to believe Robert King may have been the last in the Irish House of Lords. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In case the first link doesn't work, the book being referred to is "The Irish House of Lords: A Court Of Law In The Eighteenth Century" ISBN 978-1-905536-56-6. I also came across [5] which refers to "Lords of the Ascendancy: The Irish House of Lords and Its Members, 1600-1800" ISBN 9780813208404 which may cover this but I'm less sure. Using the Google Books search, I was able to confirm it does Henry Barry, but I'm less sure about Robert King. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I finally found Lyall, Andrew. "The Irish House of Lords as a Judicial Body, 1783-1800." Irish Jurist 28 : 314-360 / [6] / [7] which I do have access to. (If you don't, you're welcome to ask on my talk page if this is for personal study or to improve a wikipedia article.) It seems to confirm my suspicion. In the section on 'Original criminal jurisdiction', it says:

There were three trials of peers before the Irish House of Lords in the 18th century. All were for murder.

the last case mentioned is indeed Robert King, and the whole section ends with:

It seemed that the relatives of Colonel Fitzgerald did not want to pursue the matter. The elaborate ritual had been for nothing. The lords were called upon to pronounce their verdict in the absence of evidence. Each peer stood up in turn, the most junior first, and each declared the accused not guilty. Five days later, as Hale notes, the Irish rebellion began and one effect of that, as Hale puts it, was the murder of the Irish Parliament.

The other case is Nicholas Netterville, 5th Viscount Netterville if you're wondering.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Nil Einne, very interesting and informative. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

With what was Lord de Clifford charged?

Edward Russell, 26th Baron de Clifford was tried and acquitted by his peers in the House of Lords in 1935. Our article on him says it was for vehicular manslaughter, but as that article points out, there is no such offence in British law. The article Privilege of peerage says it was for "motor manslaughter" but I do not believe that there is or was such an offence in British law either. What was he actually charged with? DuncanHill (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The record of the trial states in one place that he was charged with "felony" and in another that he was charged with "manslaughter". Unfortunately, this record does not include the text of the indictment itself for clarification. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Then most likely manslaughter as that is an indictable charge in England, and is a felony. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, what that trial record actually says is "indicted for felony" and "charged with manslaughter". Presumably "felony" in British usage of the period was a mass noun, so it wasn't "a felony" as we'd expect in North America, but that must have been the meaning. So yes, the charge must've been manslaughter. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Prior to 1987 UK law distinguished between misdemeanours (minor crimes) and felonies (serious crimes). Manslaughter would have been classed as a felony. The phrase "vehicular manslaughter" is an American one, which has never been formally used in the UK courts. Killing someone when driving would, if negligence was involved, have been charged as simply Manslaughter - though today there are more specific offences of causing death by dangerous driving, and causing death by careless driving. Wymspen (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, that makes much more sense. DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In 1972, the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was introduced with a 5 year maximum sentence, as (if I recall correctly) juries were unwilling to convict on a charge of manslaughter in motoring cases, because it carried a much more severe penalty and drivers in the jury tended to think "there but for the grace of God, go I". The maximum was increased to 10 years and is now 14 years, A lesser offence of "causing death by careless, or inconsiderate driving" has also been introduced. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

ṭawāf and chirality

I'm told that when Hindus and Buddhists walk around a venerated object they keep their right side to it, and therefore go clockwise. So I was surprised today to learn that the Hajj includes circling the Kaaba counter-clockwise. I know Muslims aren't Hindus but I expected the bias to be the same, for the same reason.

So can anyone tell me: why counter-clockwise? —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that you've not got an answer. FYI I did ask for you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam; you may wish to follow up there if this archives without an answer. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

words for counter-clockwise

I don't really know anything about other cultures in this context, but the English language used to have a specific word for speaking of the counter-clockwise direction in a disapproving manner: "Widdershins"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure of the "disapproving manner": I have only come across "widdershins" as the opposite to "deosil" which means clockwise to pagans. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The article widdershins explains that going to the opposite direction of the apparent motion of the sun was considered bad luck in sun-focused traditions. OP, it also mentions counter-clockwise being the correct direction in Judaism, but for a non-generalizable reason. If we find the answer for Islam, it could be added to that article. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In tidying up our article sunwise, I went to the OED, which says "deasil" is auspicious and "withershins" is unlucky. I'd not come across either of those spellings before; the OED gives many variants, but doesn't acknowledge "deosil". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

TammyMoet -- the OED 1st edition (whose definitions were written in the late 19th century and early 20th century) gives two definitions for "Widdershins" (actually listed under "Withershins" with "Widdershins" as alternative spelling): "wrong way" (marked as obsolete as of the time of OED publication) and "In a direction contrary to the apparent course of the sun (considered as unlucky or causing disaster)". The neo-pagan meaning was unknown to the OED as of 1933 (1st edition and 1st edition supplement). AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Eh? What is the neo-pagan meaning of widdershins if not "in a direction contrary to the apparent course of the sun"? —Tamfang (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Let us not forget Neo-Pagans south of the Equator.

The next major difference between the Hemispheres is the direction in which the Sun moves across the sky. As in the Northern Hemisphere, the Sun still rises in the East and sets in the West, however on its journey across the sky in the Southern Hemisphere, it travels via the North because of the tilt of the Earth's axis. For this reason, most Pagans in the Southern Hemisphere cast their circles in this direction, via the North or in an anti-clockwise direction. It irks me when authors refer to deosil as meaning "clockwise" and widdershins as meaning "anticlockwise."

From Southern Hemisphere Magick. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

See Sundial#Sundials in the Southern Hemisphere. I used to live in Perth but I don't recall encountering the one illustrated, or any others come to that. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting note in the article, the sundial that is accurate in Perth, Western Australia is accurate in Perth, Scotland as well. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Tamfang -- in its pre-neo-pagan use (16th to early 20th centuries) it usually had a negative or disapproving meaning (as I indicated in my original comment, and TammyMoet questioned)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

question about the Constitution of Australia

Have any Australian federal governments (apart from the Hawke Government in 1984) been able to get away with ignoring the Australian Constitution when it was convenient for them to do so? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

All state governments, except Queensland, were illegally collecting petrol excise and diesel excise for decades until the federal government took over collecting the excise.
Sleigh (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

on all the above claims. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: it's mentioned in Referendums in Australia that Hawke claimed he had a legal opinion to ignore what the Constitution says about the time limit for submitting referendums. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The federal government has been collecting fuel excise for the states since 1997. See footnote [8].
Sleigh (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Paul, I'm not understanding why you mentioned the 1984 case at all. If the legal opinion was never challenged, then that would suggest nobody believed the government was operating extra-constitutionally. Hence what is the relevance of this episode to your question?

As an aside, I'd like to see a source for the 1984 material in Referendums in Australia. Do you know of one? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What is "乾亨行"

Language question; moved to WP:RDL. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hanover Trust Company

Is there any information on this bank other than its' association with Ponzi? Eddie891 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Try the "Handbook of Frauds, Scams, and Swindles: Failures of Ethics in Leadership" edited by Serge Matulich, David M. Currie Wymspen (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Calling the LDS children's magazine 'The Friend' a _Christian (at the bottom of the page) magazine

My question is, do you not consider truth when you allow an article to be posted on Wikipedia ? Also, do you not consult experts to review articles before they post ?

No authentic Christian would ever say that Mormonism is a Christian religion because their 'secret' doctrines so much disagree with Christianity's statements of faith and belief.

A comparison would be to consider ISIS a true branch of Islam and though I haven't checked the articles here regarding ISIS and the two mainstream Islamic belief systems, I am certain Wikipedia doesn't link ISIS to Islam as a legitimate expression of that belief system.

Even though LDS isn't radical in the sense of armed conflict, it is certainly radical in its belief that God was once a regular man and only _became God through His actions in life and so 'becoming'more and more holy until He miraculously became God as a result. This is in keeping with their belief that any man can become a 'god' after some time in Heaven and go on to create his own universe. Women aren't included in this 'opportunity' so Heaven to Mormons is a 'man's world' too.

They further believe that God lives in a galaxy named Kolob (on a planet of the same name or just the planet is called Kolob-that part is unclear). There He has sexual relations with an 'Earth mother' entity whose origins are vague as well.

There are many more differences that preclude Mormonism from being a Christian religion but the two I listed are enough in themselves to exclude them from a list of Christian denominations.

Mormonism is _not a legitimate branch of Christianity, period. Its founder, Joseph Smith, said God's angel Moroni had given him golden tablets to enable him declare a _new Christian belief and that the LDS church is the _only true church in existence. They also disavow the triune nature of God, Father-Son-Holy Spirit which is the very foundation of Christianity.

I have read some of Wikipedia's articles on the differences between LDS and Christianity but my problem is this: A person not well versed in Christianity but open to it, just reading the article on the LDS book 'The Friend' and, at the bottom seeing it called a 'Christian' magazine, would see nothing wrong with getting it for a child presenting that child with misinformation about true Christianity.Michael10sley (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. Truth is a complex philosophical concept. We try to approximate it, but our criteria are based on what is written in reliable sources. Mormonism in general and the LDS in particular are offshoots of mainstream Christianity. The LDS certainly considers itself to be a Christian church. And while the LDS is following some beliefs even more weird than mainstream Christianity, I don't think your "secret" characterisation is even remotely correct. Trinitarianism is only one branch of Christianity, if the predominant one at the moment. I'd say that a person which does not know the difference between the LDS and whatever form of Christianity they consider acceptable does not really have a basis for any objection. And I've always found that children have a lot more robust scepticism than many grown-ups. Anyways, objections to an article are best discussed at the relevant talk page, in this case Talk:The_Friend_(LDS_magazine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comparison to ISIS is a bit inflammatory, but in any case you're wrong about our page for ISIS. It is listed in lots of categories, including "Islamic states" and "Sunni Islamist groups". Our category Category:Christian_magazines includes subcategories for LDS, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc. These are all "Christian" in the sense that they are religious movements that are obviously based on Jesus as a central figure. They are also more or less incompatible with each other and with "mainstream" protestant theology. American Christians (I'm one too) don't usually use the word Christian to refer to any movement that is doctrinally incompatible with their own, but the word is being used differently here. But I'm going to move The Friend (LDS magazine) into Category:Latter Day Saint periodicals since that's a more specific category. Staecker (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• See also No True Scotsman; the fallacy the OP is using here. As noted at Mormons, Mormons are of a Christian branch known as the Restoration Movement. The OP seems to be making the mistake that they get to define for other Christians what it means to be a Christian, and if a group doesn't believe exactly what he believes, then they aren't Christians. As noted at Christianity, the minimum requirement for a religion to be Christian is that it is based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Mormonism meets that requirement. --Jayron32 13:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Per our article on the Restoration Movement, no, that's not the case at all. The Restoration Movement produces the various flavors of "Christian Church" / "Church of Christ" / "Disciples of Christ" within the US. The development of the LDS church is contemporaneous but distinct, and while it uses the term "restoration", it does so as a separate concept.

To the concept of whether the LDS church should be seen as a distinct church, I'll point to our article at Latter Day Saint movement, "theology" section: "Nevertheless, Mormons agree with non-Mormons that their view of God is significantly different from the trinitarian view of the Nicene Creed of the 4th century" (as referenced there), and "Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism.... A prominent scholarly view is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism" (second sentence referenced in the article, first sentence noted as "citation needed" but verified by my UMC-ordained wife). Which is to say that there is plenty of material support within a religious reference point to draw a dividing line between the LDS church and mainstream Christian churches (the mutual denial of validity of the other's fundamental means of admission, i.e. baptism, being the main point), and that I find the dismissal of the same as being a "no true Scotsman" case to be weakly supported. However, that's not the same as saying that Wikipedia should attempt to draw such distinctions. — Lomn 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Acceptance of baptism is a red herring: Baptists do not accept infant baptism, and yet they do not claim that denominations that practice it are somehow "not Christian". --Jayron32 15:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That is why I noted mutual non-recognition. When both parties say that the other is fundamentally wrong and incompatible, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are in fact not the same thing. — Lomn 16:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Not the same thing does not mean they both aren't Christians. Dogs and cats are not the same thing, but they are both carnivora. --Jayron32 17:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Granted, but what is the standard used to determine "is / is not Christian"? You mentioned our Christianity article up-thread; if we go by the first sentence of the first paragraph ("based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ"), one answer suggests itself. If we go by the first sentence of the second paragraph ("Christian theology is summarized in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed"), the opposite answer is most suitable. And, as I noted in my initial reply, the theological answer most suitable for the OP may not be the encyclopedic answer most suitable for Wikipedia. One need not invoke logical fallacies in order to acknowledge that "truth is a complex philosophical concept". — Lomn 18:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Except, there are also pre-Nicene and non-Nicene Christians as well; for historic reasons trinitarianism came to dominate Christianity, to the point where statistically that core theology and Christology has so dominated that many forget that other perspectives have existed and continue to exist alongside the dominant forms of Christianity. Nontrinitarianism has existed within Christianity, and still does in some small sects. Jehovah's Witnesses, Monophysite churches, Nestorianism, Syriac Christianity, the Nasrani of India, etc, all come from non-Nicene historical traditions, and are still all clearly Christian. To include any definition that goes beyond "A religion which is primarily concerned with following the teachings and life of Christ" is No True Scotsman-type fallacy. "Well, you can't be a REAL Christian if you follow Jesus but you also XYZ.." or ".. you don't ABC". Christians are people who follow Christ. Anything extra is what makes them different kinds of Christians of which there are MANY types. Some of those types also consider themselves the only true type, but of course, that's hardly fair from an objective perspective. --Jayron32 20:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

By way of a reference, Is Mormonism a Christian Denomination? (from a Catholic standpoint) says: "In one sense, clearly, Mormonism is Christian. If you were going to categorize Mormonism according to world-religion criteria, you would have to say they are Christians". It goes on to list the points where Mormonism diverges from all the mainstream Trinitarian denominations. Alansplodge (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Peculiar mix of political beliefs?

On YouTube, there is one particular user living in the United States who appears to favor stronger environmental protection laws, increased public transit, higher taxes on people which higher incomes, while opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants. How would such a mix of political beliefs be defined on the political spectrum? Are there any US politicians currently in office who hold this particular mix of political beliefs? It seems to me that the first three beliefs are left-leaning beliefs while the last one is a right-leaning belief, and these beliefs don't seem to mix well in contemporary US politics. 173.52.236.173 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As your last sentence implies, the single-axis 'Left–Right' political spectrum, which dates back to a short-lived seating layout in an 18th-century French parliament, is increasing irrelevant to an analysis of modern politics. There are several proposed two- and three-axis methods (as you'll see in the linked article). The example you mention might be described as Liberal nationalism, but there are doubtless other equally apposite or better descriptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.75.147 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Is amnesty for illegal immigrants a fundamental principle of left/liberal politics in the US, or just a commonly held one? If the latter, I'd say that the person mention sounds like a leftwing or liberal that disagrees with one common left/liberal policy. Iapetus (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The general catch-all for these sorts of things is independent.--WaltCip (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing peculiar about a generally politically left wing person being slightly anti-immigration. Historically, labour parties in many countries have been in favour of controls on immigration. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that being anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the same as being anti-immigrant, as it's possible to support immigration, done legally with extensive vetting, while opposing illegal immigration. This stance may be more popular now, due to the threat posed by foreign terrorists trying to infiltrate and attack western nations. The US political group who seems to have lost out most recently (other than the immigrants themselves), are the "business Republicans", who actually wanted illegal immigration, as it gave them a large, low-paid workforce with minimal legal rights, who were easy to exploit for profit. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Tribal Shamanism vs Organized Religion?

Moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Sorry, but we don't answer requests for opinions, per the rules at the top of the page. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dont get me wrong, I know this is probably a very controversial topic, but which of these two in your opinion is better, and why? Idielive (talk) 6:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Please see the big box at the top of this page, which among other things, says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Who says they're distinct? Also, in addition to what Nyttend pointed out: this is the language desk, not the humanities desk. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Lysander and Lysandros

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

March 6

Travis Kalanick, Ayn Rand, Objectivism

Is Kalanick by chance an Objectivist?155.97.8.169 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No, if he's an Objectivist he would deny that it's by chance! —Tamfang (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Seniority in the United States Armed Forces in World War II

I'm puzzled by the statement (in Marston's article) that John Marston (USMC) was not sent to Guadalcanal with his division because he was "superior" (which I assume means senior) to the corps commander there, Alexander Patch. They were both major generals, and as I understand United States military seniority, the senior would be the one who was promoted to that rank first. However, according to their respective articles, Patch was promoted to major general in 1941 and Marston in 1942. So what gives? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that you're misreading the military seniority article which says - "For officers in the same rank or pay-grade, seniority is determined by a "lineal number" which is based on the date which an officer was first commissioned" - i.e., when they first became an officer, rather than when they were appointed to that particular rank.

A similar system operates in the British Army, although I don't think that there is an actual numbering system. If you've seen the 1964 film Zulu, there is an exchange between Lieutenants Chard and Bromhead about who was the senior; Chard had been commissioned first and therefore took charge of Bromhead's infantry company, despite being an engineer with no combat experience. Alansplodge (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going by the article, but what I've read elsewhere, e.g. this 2013 DoD instruction, which states in p. 5 that "Rank among commissioned officers of the same grade or of equivalent grades is determined by comparing dates of rank." Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If you read on a bit in your source (section 3), it clarifies "Except as provided in section 5 of this enclosure, the date of rank of a person originally appointed as a Regular commissioned officer in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marine Corps who is not a Service Academy graduate is the date of that appointment [...]", so the "date of rank" is not the date they achieved the current officer rank, but the date they became an officer. There is an exception only for the Chiefs of Staff or equivalent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that is a specific case. On p. 7, it clarifies what "date of rank" means: "All other officers who have the same or equivalent grades and the same date of rank will rank in order of seniority based on the following criteria: a. Previous grade’s date of rank or, if the same, the date of rank in an earlier grade." Frocking also equates "date of rank" to "the official date of promotion". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Captain Cook article

The section on his early life has him being baptised before he was born. Don't understand? 82.1.129.106 (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

See Old Style and New Style dates. During the early 18th century, Britain changed over from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar. This can be confusing for biographies of people who lived during the changeover, as original sources will often list the "Old Style" (Julian or O.S.) date, while many modern biographies may have recalculated the date using New Style (Gregorian or N.S.) dates. The article needs to be fixed, as the same sentence mixes dates. November 3 Old Style would be November 14 New Style. --Jayron32 12:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That explains things perfectly. He was born 4 miles from my birthplace and in preparing to visit Australia and New Zealand for my 70th birthday, I have been doing a bit of research and couldn't make sense of what appeared to be an anomaly. Thanks again for your prompt and informative response. 82.1.129.106 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that User:Jayron32 has helpfully sorted the mess in the article. If you're in Melbourne, don't forget to visit Captain Cook's Cottage which was dismantled and moved to Australia in 1934. Alansplodge (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Except that's a major misnomer. It was his parents' house, and it's doubtful James personally ever lived there. He probably visited his parents there, that's all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Spoilsport! Next you are going to tell me that he didn't build Cooktown! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Next thing he's going to tell us is that his hand and alarm clark were also not eaten by a crocodile! --Jayron32 20:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that was Captain Kirk. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Who will indeed be born in Riverside, Iowa in 2233, a fact, unlike this Cook stuff. --Golbez (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ali Fahiye Gedi

What is known about Ali Fahiye Gedi who reportedly fought against Italian rule in Italian Somaliland? Everything I see basically repeats cursory mention in VOA News. Perhaps there's more widespread spelling of his name. Brandmeister^talk 13:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Another spelling might be found: Ali Fahiye Geedi Primary and Intermediary School --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What to the average English-speaker appears as various spellings with no more sense to their randomness than Clare, Claire, Clair, Klayre, etc. is known to the linguist as transliteration. I suspect everyone who edits here knows this backwards, but I also suspect that most readers don't. The world would be a better place if the concept were more widely understood. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No luck with that spelling either. Maybe a one-action hero, although a school is named after him. Brandmeister^talk 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Really? Ali Fahiye Gedi doesn't work for me either. But Ali Fahiye Geedi finds stuff like this tweet of an Instagram which says "Hero Ali Fahiye Geedi(Calan Gube) Was the member of Somali Youth League that established in 1943. Allaah Grant His Jannah and all Heroes those Established @our League@your league@we're @SYL" and includes a possible photo (although I'm not sure since it also suggests it's from 1900). And this Youtube video from the Noor Foundation Somalia who our article suggest are involved with the school, the key point being its title is 'NF 2012 Progress Update, Beeldaaje Cabdullahi (Balidhidhin) iyo Cali Fahiye Geedi (Qandala) School.' It seems to refer to 2 schools, the second one is I'm fairly sure the school linked above.

Searching for Cali Fahiye Geedi finds a mention of Cali Saleeban, a suggestion to search for Cali Faahiye Geedi and a bunch of stuff mostly on Somali or something else which appear to be talking about him. Searching for Cali Faahiye Geedi finds this forum post with the title 'Cali Saleeban HERO Cali Faahiye Geedi known as Calan-Gube' and again a bunch of stuff mostly in Somali or something talking about him. This includes so:Help:Wax ka bedelka which appears to be a sort of article on the clan although I have no idea why it's there (maybe someone who couldn't create articles put it there). Searching for Cali Saleeban finds Majeerteen which suggests it refers to a clan. Calan Gube finds again stuff mostly in Somali or something some of which seem to be talking about him.

To be fair, most of the English stuff don't really provide much more useful info that I noticed but he definitely seems to be somewhat well known. BTW the foundation is UK registered, it's possible they will be able to assist with finding English info even if they aren't particularly dedicated to him (I think).

P.S. I decided to link to the photo despite the possibility of copyvio since it's possibly old enough there's a decent chance it's in the public domain.

P.P.S. The reason why Cali Fahiye Geedi found a mention of Cali Saleeban for me is because of this [9] copy of a twice deleted article from the Somali wikipedia which seems to be the same article now in the help page (supporting by few a semi-spammer is desperate to keep it in). I see it does mention "the clan played a noble role in the liberation of Somalia, Ali Faahiye Geedi, a member of this Clan and Darawiish, was the first Somali hero who burnt the Italian flag in Qandala during 1920s. They reside all over Bari, Mogadisho and Kismayo" which seems to confirm my suspicion it refers to a clan. The other 2 seem to be various transliterations or including in Somali Latin alphabet or similar, of a name and nickname of the person in question. I'm not sure if the nickname always refers to him of course.

P.P.P.S. This [10] does suggest he definitely is far from universally known in Somalia. I wouldn't be surprised if this is partly a clan and/or regional thing, and he's well known among members of Cali Saleeban and/or perhaps in Puntland. There is a link in that forum post which may or may not have been in English, unfortunately it's now dead and couldn't find it on archive.org or webcitation. I doubt it was an RS if you were thinking of an article anyway.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

March 7

Racism

Why do most people seem to be racist in their mind? Is it something to do with the fact that people may see others who do do not look like them as a threat?--213.205.192.167 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Who says most people "seem" to be racist "in their mind"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

They seem to me.--213.205.192.167 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Many have suggested that racism and other prejudices would have been beneficial to our ancestors. See prejudice from an evolutionary perspective for some thoughts. Staecker (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Good link. StuRat (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is unanswerable because the OP has presented the question with a presumption that has not been established as itself true. When did you stop beating your wife? --Jayron32 01:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"I stopped beating my wife as soon as she used the safe word, as then it was her turn to use the whip on me." StuRat (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

O/P: can you tell us how you learned to read people's minds? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(Please do not mention the small matter that the Anglo-American legal system purports - see Mens rea and so on - to be able do just that.)

It's a natural reaction of most (all?) social animals to be suspicious of others of the same species who look different, behave differently, speak differently, believe differently, even eat differently! That's not racism. Such natural reactions only turn into prejudice through a refusal to get to know the "different" group. </opinion> Dbfirs 10:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Either you are supposing that people are naturally racist and are constantly thinking racist thoughts, or you might possibly be extrapolating your own feelings of racism and prejudice and assuming these also apply to other people - see projection. In any case you are asking a question which prompts a need for opinion or debate, which is not the purpose of the ref desk.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mens rea is assessed objectively based on external evidence, it doesn't involve any mind reading. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You are still making the flawed assumption that most people who act racially insensitive intend to be racially insensitive, which may not necessarily be the case - see microaggressions.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

WaltCip, I am not the OP. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why cite mens rea then, as though it explains away the near-impossibility of attempting to determine the intentions behind a person's words?--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone, presumably User:Dbfirs, said "Please do not mention the small matter that the Anglo-American legal system purports - see Mens rea and so on - to be able do just that", where "that" refers to mind reading. This is plainly wrong. Mens rea is not even purported to be assessed under the common law by mind-reading, it is assessed by objective external evidence. Mind-reading, for a given definition of "mind-reading", may be impossible, but to conflate the assessment of mens rea with "impossible mind reading" is either ignorant or deliberately facetious. I'm not sure which it is, but it was worth pointing out that it was wrong

You say mens rea is a bad counter argument to the impossibility of mind-reading. Yes and no. The way mens rea is assessed shows that you can assess someone's state of mind with some degree of certainty by external circumstances - we have a whole science called psychology that is all about this - but it does not show that anyone can mind-read in the sense of literally being able to read someone's thoughts.

Your comment further up seems to say that the OP assumes that racist behaviour is due to being racist, rather than due to just being a generally irritating human being. I agree the assumption is not always true, but that has nothing to do with whether it is possible to tell whether someone is a racist. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that was Shirt58 who added the comment after his signature. I've now inserted a break just before my comment to make this clearer. Dbfirs 20:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Short story collections by Yukio Mishima

What short story collections by Yukio Mishima are available in English? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We have a Category:Short story collections by Yukio Mishima which includes Death in Midsummer and other stories and Acts of Worship. And that seems to be all there is. --Antiquary (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Short Fiction of Yukio Mishima suggests that those two anthologies are all there is. A thorough Google search didn't uncover anything else. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Fully elected House Of Lords

One of today's events says "2007 – The British House of Commons votes to make the upper chamber, the House of Lords, 100% elected." So what happened? We haven't elected any Lords so far. I can't remember the Commons ever voting on it. Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The House of Commons alone does not make UK laws. Proposed laws have to be approved by both Houses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

... except under the procedure adopted in 1911, which "cured" the problem of the unelected Lords vetoing the elected Commons by giving Commons a trump card in the event of ping pong (to mix metaphors). --165.225.80.115 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That vote was not on a white paper to actually introduce an elected house. It was part of a series of votes to determine what structure for the upper house would obtain most support. The subsequent white paper, introduced in 2008, was never passed into law. Wymspen (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, the various provisions for Lords reform were included in a Bill and the Commons voted against all of them. The stumbling block for reform is that if the Lords become wholly or partially elected the Commons consider that they will become more assertive in rejecting legislation . 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

LORD MOUNTARARAT: Well, now that the Peers are to be recruited entirely from persons of intelligence, I really don’t see what use we are, down here, do you, Tolloller?

LORD TOLLOLLER: None whatever.

FAIRY QUEEN: Good! (Wings spring from shoulders of Peers.) Then away we go to Fairyland.

from Iolanthe 1882 by Gilbert & Sullivan. Blooteuth (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Research into a company

I have been fixing up the Mappin & Webb article. The article previously noted that starting from the 1890s the British jewellery company opened stores in far flung locations around the world. The official website noted that a store was opened in Japan in 1994. However, the company has no stores outside the UK today. All I have been able to find on this is a newspaper article saying that all of the overseas stores were closed at some point in the past, in the context of the current owners' thoughts of re-expanding overseas. Can anyone with better research skills and/or access to sources shed any light on what happened to the overseas stores? Were they all sold / closed during one of the sales of the company between 1994 and the present? --165.225.80.99 (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Earliest historic quotes expressing depression or despair from life

Hello,

What are some of the earliest historic examples of feelings of depression and deep despair from life? something in the spirit of the book of Ecclesiastes: "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless. [...] What is crooked cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted[...]So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind."

Thanks, 77.126.90.177 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I had to google that, it may be more familiar to some readers as "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity...I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This has an answer to your question, though it isn't the best source. Wikipedia has an article titled History of depression which may lead you places. This article as well seems a bit better. --Jayron32 18:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And there are more examples in Major_depressive_disorder#History. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both, but I am looking for personal accounts of depression, like the quote from Ecclesiastes, rather than clinical descriptions of the condition. I have changed the title accordingly. 77.126.90.177 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This blog post makes two suggestions:

(1) "In Orestes, Euripides depicts the tragedy’s protagonist as exhibiting many of the telltale symptoms of depression: loss of appetite, excess sleeping, lack of motivation to even bathe, constant weeping, chronic exhaustion, and a sense of helplessness." Orestes (play) dates to 408 BCE, per our article. Find quotes here

(2) "Jason the Argonaut was a great Homeric hero who you’d expect to demonstrate nothing but action and resolve in the face of adversity. Yet when he shipwrecks on the coast of Libya, his mighty mantle falls away and he becomes absolutely helpless and sullen." The Argonautica was written in the third century BCE. Find quotes here

A third possibility: "Night was our friend, our leader was despair." The Aeneid (29-19 BC) translated by John Dryden. [11] and "my shattered life crept on in darkness and grief" translated by J. W. Mackail [12].

A fourth: "But Penelope lay in her own room upstairs unable to eat or drink...she lay on her bed bereft of thought and motion." The Odyssey (8th century BC), translated by Samuel Butler [13]

And a fifth: "My members fail, my tongue dries in my mouth, A shudder thrills my body, and my hair Bristles with horror; from my weak hand slips Gandiv, the goodly bow; a fever burns My skin to parching; hardly may I stand; The life within me seems to swim and faint...Arjuna sank upon his chariot-seat, and let fall bow and arrows, sick at heart." The Bhagavad Gita (5th-2nd century BCE) translated by Edwin Arnold. [14] 184.147.120.176 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

In the epic of Gilgamesh he suffers from depression and says despair is in his heart after the death of his friend Enkidu saying that he himself would die one day and be like his friend. Dmcq (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! 77.126.90.177 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just in case you're not familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh, here is Tablet VIII, and part of the text in question:

"I'll cry now, citizens of Uruk, and you

will finally hear what no one else

has ever had the nerve to say in sorrow.

I was family and friend to Enkidu and I shall

fill the woodlands where we stalked with loud, sad sobs today.

I cry now, Enkidu, like some crazed woman. I howl.

I screech for you because you were the axe upon my belt

and the bow in my weak hand; the sword within my sheath,

the shield that covered me in battle; my happiest robe,

the finest clothes I ever wore,

the ones that made me look best in the eyes of the world.

That is what you were; that is what you'll always be". Alansplodge (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

that's quite some feelz and self-awareness considering they were all bicameral. could this passage be a later incursion? Asmrulz (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to bicameralism hypothesis? The extract above, according to our article, comes from the standard Akkadian version which "was compiled by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC from earlier texts". The corresponding section is missing from the Old-Babylonian versions (circa 1800 BC) but a subsequent fragment survives and matches the later Akkadian version. It's good stuff though isn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

totally Asmrulz (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Scientific study of psychological effects of prostitution on john/punters

Has anyone tackle the issue of how being a john/punter affects the person psychologically? It's not implied by the question, but it would also be interesting to get some links to articles about the psychological motivation of johns/punters. --Hofhof (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Research may be more likely which lists going to prostitutes as the result of mental issues rather than the cause. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, it may not be. The OP might find material of interest in the over 8 million hits obtained from the g00gle query "Why do men go to prostitutes?" {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.75.147 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I got already some links about what causes men to go to prostitutes. But the consequences part is a little bit tougher. Hofhof (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Prostitution is seen remarkably differently by various extant cultures of the world. That being the case, I doubt that there would be much use for a study of the type suggested above being conducted globally. Having said that, I wouldn't mind myself seeing some study regarding the effects in countries which share the same general ethos as the US does today. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say rather that that would mean a global study would be useful, because it would help distinguish between effects that are inherent and those that are dependent on culture. Iapetus (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to find scientific studies on a subject, Google Scholar (here) is a good place to look. I have not actually searched this question there, though. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 8

Impossibility defense

In Nevada, a man has been charged with attempted murder after attacking a mannequin in a manner that, according to police, proves that he thought he was attacking a live person. Judging by their words in the article, the public defender will be mounting an impossibility defense, since obviously one cannot kill a mannequin, but the article says that the Nevada Supreme Court has previously rejected this defense.

Are there other US states in which an impossibility defense is impossible (how ironic...) or possible only in extremely limited situations? The article mentions a Pennsylvania case in which a woman who accidentally spiked her husband's coffee with sugar, rather than her intended arsenic, but was still convicted of attempted murder. However, this seems to be different because the woman's actions didn't harm her intended target (the action of putting sugar in coffee can't cause harm, unless the subject's blood sugar is dangerously high), while the Nevada guy's actions really did cause significant damage to his intended target (presumably he could get convicted of vandalism at the minimum) and his mistake was merely going after the wrong target. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Most crimes require both mens rea and actus reus, that is one must have the mindset of malfeasance (or at least neglect) and actually commit an positive action, or neglect to commit a require action. I'm not sure what that has to do with your proposed scenario, but those terms will likely be useful for you in your research. --Jayron32 02:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well the article you linked to links to People v. Lee Kong although that case seems more similar to Pennsylvania. It also links to People v. Dlugash which seems similar but only deal with crimes that are attempts and our article says it a legal impossibility rather than a factual one. Finally it links to United States v. Thomas (1962) which is both listed as a factual impossibility example and also where there is probably a crime anyway, although it was marital law rather than state. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

To my non-lawyer eyes, the "mannequin" case seems like there should be a much stronger argument for impossibility than in the "coffee" case, because in the "coffee" case there was a real person that the defendant was indeed attempting to murder, and failed only because she used the wrong powder; in the "mannequin" case, on the other hand, there was no real person who was the target of the assault. The property damage is a separate crime/tort, not relevant to the charge of attempted murder.

I suppose I might see it differently if they could show there was a particular person that he thought he was attacking (because then there would be an identifiable "victim"). But of course killing a random person on the street is just as illegal as killing one you know, so it's tricky. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Our article on the subject, actually uses a rejected impossibility defense as its first example of an impossibility defense, referencing People v. Lee Kong. (Shooting at the location where you believe to target to be is still attempted murder, even if they moved, and the shots therefor posed no risk). Actually, every example listed under factual impossibility at Impossibility defense involves the defense being rejected... that article needs some help. Here is another case State v. Mitchell rejecting the defense, and duplicating verbatim parts of Impossibility defense, but also mentioning that 37 states reject a factual impossibility defense. It may help better frame the discussion both here, and in that article, to start with some cases where the impossibility defense DOES apply. Here is a case People v. Jaffe accepting the defense, though it really seems like a state split, rather than some clear logical line. Monty₈₄₅ 03:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious what would happen in the case of someone who tried to kill someone else by means of, say, witchcraft. My guess is that such cases are simply not brought to trial, because no prosecutor wants to stand up in front of a jury and accuse someone of trying to work deadly magic. But do the attempt laws apply to them on their face, and if so, would impossibility be accepted as a defense? --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Witness: "Your Honor, I saw the man sitting at the defendant's table as he stretched out his hand, holding a stick and pointing it at his wife, and I heard him shout 'Avada Kedavra' as he did this!" Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people have talked about this possibility (see here), but there doesn't seem to be any US case law or statutory law on attempted murder via witchcraft, explicitly. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems impossibility is not a defense in Oregon https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.425 and probably Califonria ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2243_cfa_20000327_102147_asm_comm.html I think you'd have to comb through the laws state by state to get a comprehensive list. 208.90.213.186 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now I feel rather silly — the introduction to the impossibility defense article says that 37 states have prohibited the defense, and the third page of the cited source says "Thirty-seven states have explicitly eliminated impossibility as a defense to a charge of attempt", and that statement cites the relevant code sections for the thirty-seven states in question. The article even addresses voodoo. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Counties requiring condoms in porn movies

Is there a list of counties in California that require performers to wear condos (condoms(I misspelled)) when filming porn movies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would think very few jurisdictions would require wearing buildings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is what I found so far before I asked my question. Ventura County passed a condom requirement and so did Los Angeles County. Which other counties have this requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well?Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps my question is inappropriate because it deals with a dirty subject?Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If it was inappropriate, we'd remove it. I'm having trouble searching because of the overwhelming presence of Measure B and California Proposition 60 (2016) in the news stories. There's some interesting stuff here that mentions companies moving out of state to escape the law in LA County. This mentions that it's technically been a health and safety requirement statewide for some time (no word on what happened to the goggle requirement mentioned). This suggests that it is just the two counties (as of 2013), with Ventura county specifically following in LA's footsteps (as it were). Matt Deres (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"No response after 5 hours" doesn't mean it's inappropriate, it means no one who saw this post in those five hours knows the answer. Assume good faith, friendo. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

When did the RMB devaluation end?

The Chinese government has been devaluing the RMB since the early 90s. And now recently I read that it's been manipulating it in the opposite direction, i.e. overvaluing it as of 2017[15].

1. When did the RMB devaluation end?

2. When did the RMB over-valuation begin?

I'm just an amateur, not a currency trader, so I don't need exact dates (exact dates are probably hard to come by anyhow). Just a rough year/month would be great. Thanks. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Currency_intervention#Chinese_yuan, it sounds like the devaluation is going on as late as 2010. But unfortunately it doesn't given an end date. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The RMB has generally been appreciating since about 2005, when China changed from a peg to the USD to a limited float based on a basket of currencies. In 2008-9, due to the impact of the financial crisis, the RMB was devalued to deal with the general slowdown of the Chinese economy and falling property prices. As the impact of the financial crisis dissipated, the exchange rate mechanism for the CNY was further liberalised from May 2010, from which point it has generally been slowly appreciating again (although since 2014 it has depreciated against the USD, this is more due to the appreciation of the USD against the basket).

My impression is that it is not a consensus view that China is deliberately overvaluing the RMB today. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II's longest-serving Prime Minister

My calculations indicate that Denzil Douglas was Queen Elizabeth's longest-serving prime minister of her reign (so far). However, there does not seem to be a list anywhere that confirms he is the longest-serving PM. Does anyone know of one?

The closest we seem to have is List of Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II, but you probably already knew that. It's a start anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I originally used! It's a valuable resource. When I have time, I'd like to make a page: List of Queen Elizabeth's prime ministers by time served.

Just to provide context, Denzil Douglas was prime minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis from July 1995 to Feb 2015. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You could add a column of time served, and then make the table sortable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are flexible in your definition, have a look at Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam who was chief minister of Mauritius before independence, then prime minister thereafter, making a total of more than 20 years (1961 to 1982). Wymspen (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There is always one who makes it difficult to decide on a definitive answer!

Robert Menzies (Australia) beats Denzil Douglas even if you only include the Elizabethan years of his office! Djbcjk (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how, Menzies served just over 18 years in total, and about 14 under Elizabeth. Denzil Douglas served just over 19 years under Elizabeth. Menzies fails on both counts. --Jayron32 04:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

'Numbered' companies in Canada

There seem to be many companies in Canada just with a number in the style 7654321 Canada Inc., not with a distinctive name. The List of companies of Canada implies that none of them are notable. Does this mean that companies don't need a name in Canada? Is it possible to enclose which companies chose to have it this way? Is this scheme also used in other countries? --KnightMove (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a short article titled Numbered company. There's a few refs and external links that may lead to more information. --Jayron32 12:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

British intelligence agency 'BTSS'

Coverage of the recent Wikileaks release makes mention of an apparent organisation within British intelligence called BTSS. This is for example mentioned in the same breath as MI5 in the Wikileaks press release: "The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom's MI5/BTSS." Looking to find out what BTSS might be I see that we don't have anything in Wikipedia, and what I can see that turns up on the web is just from the last day or two in relation to the leak. Can anyone work out what is actually being referred to here? Wyddgrug (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything specific, but BT is the abbreviation for British Telecommunications, now a private company but formerly the government monopoly corporation for telecommunications. Intelligence and Government in Britain and the United States notes surveillance and signals intelligence cooperation between MI5 and BT. Alansplodge (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The official name of MI5 is the Security Service or SS. Perhaps that is part of the acronym there? --Jayron32 14:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian seems to think it stands for British Security Service [16] although the way they indicated that is IMO misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. They have it in a quote as if it's from the original document, which made me think it might just be internal CIA jargon for British intelligence, with the SS standing as Jayron suggests for Security Service, but when you follow the link to the document as published by Wikileaks it's clear that it was added by the Guardian as a gloss, on what basis is not clear. Wyddgrug (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Value of work done by women

What reasons have been expressed by employers and payroll managers for paying less money to women than to men for equivalent work? (This may interest User:Keilana.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Most won't, at least not in the U.S., because acknowledging there is a bias in the workplace can open the company up to a discrimination lawsuit. The gender wage gap is mainly an issue of systemic bias, meaning that because of decisions that women make (such as becoming mothers or using maternity leave), employers favor them negatively due to a perceived drop in work performance or attendance/reliability (even if this drop is imperceptible or nonexistent).--WaltCip (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Anecdotally, I've heard one or two people say "Men should be paid more than women because men pay more in expenses to keep a roof over the family's head."--WaltCip (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Where? When? It must depend mostly on whether there's legislation against the practice. Traditionally it was "because they're women, what do you expect". Now it is more likely to be "do we do that? don't think so", or "you can't prove it", or "the work's not exactly equivalent", or "there are more men in the higher grades but it's working its way out", or "because the silly things will go off on career breaks". Itsmejudith (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I found six excuses at http://time.com/money/4285843/gender-pay-gap-excuses-wrong/.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Assumption that humans should live "ethically"

Why do humans believe that they should live "ethically"? What is ethics for? Why is it considered immoral to kill or hurt other humans? Why is it immoral to hog all the resources? Is morality for binding humans together to share scarce resources, or is morality for reducing suffering? What is wrong with suffering, even though suffering is necessary to improve? Why can't humans just allow themselves to endure suffering instead of avoiding suffering? 107.77.193.107 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Read "Ethics" and see where it leads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Also A Theory of Justice (preferably the book, not just the article) and, for a much lower level view, Altruism (biology). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. How many years do you have? In general, the branch of human knowledge known as philosophy attempts to answer many of these questions, (especially the ethics branch astutely noted by Mr. Bugs above), but there is no way we can summarize all possible perspectives on the questions you ask in a simple thread. The source and necessity of ethics and morality has wildly varied perspectives, from the the theological arguments known as Thomism (after Thomas Aquinas), to the Utilitarianism of Bentham and J.S. Mill to the Nihilism of Nietzsche and 30 other philosophical schools that I haven't bothered to list, there are WAY too many perspectives to answer your questions in a pithy little thread on this board. --Jayron32 02:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want an evolutionary perspective, there are whole books on the subject, such as "Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong" by Marc D. Hauser. AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If the OP wonders about why it's immoral to kill, all he has to do is ask himself, "Do I have a problem with someone killing me?" If the answer is "Yes", then he has the answer to his question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Not so. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. While I strongly support concepts like the golden rule or the categorical imperative, the symmetry that underlies them is not self-evident. Why should I, Jupiter, care about what you bovines feel or experience? After all, I'm more important (to me), and because I'm important, my opinion counts! ;-). From a pragmatic point of view, of course, if I behave anti-socially, the more social members of humanity may well band together and break my nose - that's reason to behave well. Add a few hundred generations of evolution and sexual selection for people with unbroken noses, and it becomes an ingrained principle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The initial point was illustrated by Dogbert when he said, "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant."[17] And your second point explains the process of how deeds come to be considered "immoral" - it doesn't just happen overnight. Some of the OP's questions don't stand up to scrutiny, as they contain questionable assumptions, such as "suffering is necessary to improve." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for some background to the above comments, when AnonMoos brings up biological rationales, he's using a well-known tradition called natural law (one philosophical school for ethics), whereas Schulz's point about society keeping him in line, is part of social contract thinking. --Jayron32 14:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You could also read about Ayn Rand and her ideas about rational egotism at Objectivism (Ayn Rand). If you read about how Ayn Rand herself got on it might make you think twice about her philosophy which was far too shallow to really encompass where her own best interests lay. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 9

Mariant Brothers and Father Data

Hi, I'd like some information on the following Marianist Brothers and Father, we cannot find this information. Brother John McCluskey, Brother William Callahan, Father Daniel Winters and Brother Donald McCoy. Mr. Christopher Dean The information looking for are date of birth, place of birth, work history, time spent headmasters at St Paul's College Altona North, Australia, their role in the school establishment and running of St Paul's and any other data about them. Thank you for your time and assistance. Violeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.90.73 (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, your very best source is likely to be the college itself; have you talked to them yet? There is contact information on this page. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a brief biography of John McCluskey (1912-1998) at Chaminade Quarterly, Winter 2006 on page 7 (page 4 of 8 in the pdf file): "In 1964, he became the founding headmaster of St. Paul’s College in Melbourne, as well as the first Marianist to serve in Australia. Brother John returned to Chaminade in 1970 and continued teaching until his retirement in 1984, returning to California in 1987". Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Winters gets a mention at The University of Dayton Alumnus, Fall 1966 on page 20 (page 21-22 of the file): "[Class of] 1956... Father Daniel Winters will serve as the chaplain at the Marianist establishment at St. Paul's College, Altona North, Victoria". I believe "1956" here would be his graduation year from the University of Dayton, but I'm not certain (it's an American thing!). Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I get a tantalising Google result for Donald McCoy at News Record from North Hills, Pennsylvania (p. 9) "11 Oct 1985 - McCoy is former headmaster of St. Paul's College in Altona North, ... Brother Donald McCoy McCoy taught at North Catholic from 1958 to 1960...". I'm afraid that you have to create an account to see any more. We have an article about North Catholic High School which seems to be the same place. That's all I could find online I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong, Br William Thomas "Brother Bill" Callahan (1920-2012) has turned up at findagrave.com with a biography. This document seems to be the source for that. There's a small photo of him at The Story of 150 Years of Marianist Education in the Diocese of Cleveland on page 18 (20/27). Now I think I've reached the bottom of the barrel. Alansplodge (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hawaiian Paniolo

According to the some sources Kamehameha III sent a royal emissary to California in 1832 to bring back Spanish vaqueros Kossuth, Louzeida and Ramon, who started the Paniolo tradition, can anybody help me find sources for the full name of these three figures and the name of the emissary sent by the king?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but you may want to seek out This book . It seems to be the most comprehensive book on the subject. --Jayron32 17:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It does have preview available in google books: [18] What I can read may provide further clues for research: "Few, if any, contemporary records for the activities of Kossuth, Louzeida, and Ramon exist, though accounts agree that they came from California and they arrived in 1832." (this is marked with footnote 89, but I can't read the footnotes) "Brothers James and Isaac Louzada were active on the islands during this time, and James Louzada became involved in ranching in Waimea decades later. 'Ramon' may refer to the Ramon family from northwestern Mexico, including Frederico Ramon Baesa, who had a Yaqui Indian wife named Vincenta Romero." (footnote 90) "Kossuth remains a mystery." (footnote 91) "On April 27, 1833, an American merchant in Honolulu named Stephen Reynolds noted in his journal that the 'Brig Neo sailed for Hawaii [the Big Island] with horses & Spaniards to catch bullock for the king.'" (footnote 92) "Some accounts clain that it was the governor of the Big Island, John Adams Kuakini, and not the king, who requested the service of vaqueros from California, and it is clear that he supervised efforts to rationalize the management of the herds on his island." (no footnote) 184.147.120.176 (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is James and Isaac's grave in Honolulu. Alansplodge (talk)

I also managed to get a Google search result (although I can't actually see the page) from the "Cattle Colonialism" book linked above, to page 144, which says: "The early Hawaiian vaquero of whom we know the most is the aforementioned Joaquin Armas, whose grievances against the Hawaiian .." and also, probably a footnote: "94 Armas related, “In the month of May 1831 I came to Oahu in the British whale ship Harriet".

Another "snippet view" for Rangelands, Volumes 5-6, Society for Range Management, 1983 (p. 101): "In 1832 or 33, three Mexican vaqueros arrived on the Big Island, Juan, Jose, and Joaquin, to teach the natives the art of cattle handling. These were not the first Mexicans or Spaniards with cow savvy to appear on the Hawaiian scene... The other was Joaquin Armas, who was wooed off his ship by King Kauikeaouli in 1831 to help catch wild cattle in the Waimean area".

A detailed account of Armas is viewable in preview at Loyal to the Land: The Legendary Parker Ranch, 750-1950 by Billy Bergin (p. 34).

Australian Capital Territory flags

In 2011 I posed a question on an image talk page that has not yet got an answer: File talk:Legislative Assembly ACT Chamber.jpg. The image shows the chamber of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Four flags are present, three of them reasonably clear (see the image talk page), but the one I'm stumped by is on the right. Any ideas? Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Australian flags suggests possibly Christmas Island but it is hard to tell. --Jayron32 12:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that. It's the Torres Strait Islanders flag. See here. The other three are the Australian Flag, the ACT flag, and the Aboriginal flag. --Jayron32 12:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Mystery initials to decipher: "IA ’43, MBA 2/’47, DCS ’58"

Hello. I am working on Stephen H. Fuller. On this webpage, it says, "IA ’43, MBA 2/’47, DCS ’58." I get that he earned a master in business administration in 1947, but does anyone know what IA and DCS stand for please? Also, 2/'47? What is 2? I've already asked at WP:Biography and they suggested I ask here. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a guess, but if "M" in MBA is "Master" then perhaps "D" in DCS is "Doctor" - perhaps Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science. Not sure if there was such a thing in 1958 - it was the year I was born! Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: [Edit Conflicts] The 2 in question would surely just indicate February?

IA can mean Intermediate of Arts, which is at least an educational qualification, but it seems unlikely in Fuller's case. Internal Assessment might be more likely for Fuller, but seems to me to be an odd thing to list on its own.

"DSC" might be a mis-rendering of D.Sc., the standard abbreviation for Doctor of Science. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.209.145 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In 1958 it would have much more likely been a Doctorate in Commercial Science. See [19]. General Ization ^Talk 22:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

IA was an Industrial Administrator degree. [20] General Ization ^Talk 22:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Which best fits his later career, and would lead neatly on to his subsequent MBA, so ignore my earlier possibilities. General Ization's link shows that adding to an IA to obtain an MBA only required one further semester, so the latter's 2/'47 = Feb 1947 interpretation becomes more likely. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.209.145 (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

One thing I can tell you is that according to the SSDI (via ancestry.com, a pay site) his birth date is Feb 4, 1920. I'm not seeing anything about colleges, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

President declaring martial law

Has any president of the United States ever declared martial law before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Martial law includes a list of martial law declarations in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Before what? μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably now. --Jayron32 04:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

March 10

Anglo-Saxon male lines

So according their articles and Burke's Peerage the Arden family, Berkeley family and the Swinton family are the only families in England that can trace its lineage in the male line back to Anglo-Saxon times; something the British Royal family cannot since they are female line descendants of the House of Wessex. Does this mean these are the only families ever in English history with that distinction or are their families that may have had that same distinction who survived for a couple of centuries after the Conquest and have died out in the male line since.--96.41.155.253 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems almost certain that many English men survived the conquest of 1066, went on to have male children, and then their male children had male children, and so on, for some time after 1066. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There are many of us here in England who think that our male ancestor line here goes back to Anglo-Saxon times, but because our ancestors were not famous, we are not able to prove this. Dbfirs 10:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

By that logic, all human on earth have male line ancestors who lived before 1066. But few if any have detailed records of that line of descent that far back, which is what I am asking for.--96.41.155.253 (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)