Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:16, 17 October 2017

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

October 13

What was the penalty for murder and manslaughter in Austria-Hungary and the German Empire?

Basically, I am curious about this because I want to speculate what would have happened had someone killed Adolf Hitler before World War I. Futurist110 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Capital punishment in Germany and Capital punishment in Austria, though the latter is very brief. Murder was definitely eligible for the death penalty, typically by guillotine in pre-WW2 Germany. Can't say regarding manslaughter, though in most societies only intentional murder is eligible for the death penalty. Dragons flight (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homicide and the Death Penalty in Austria-Hungary (1907) makes interesting reading; apparently they were unusually lenient (actual methods are not discussed however). Alansplodge (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Hanged by the neck until dead! - “Pole hanging”.: "Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary used an unusual variant of short drop hanging. There was no gallows as such, but rather a stout vertical wooden pole (or post) of about 2-3 meters height with a metal hook or eye bolt at the top to which a rope noose was attached. There was either a ladder or steps up to a small platform at the back of the pole for the executioner to stand on. The pinioned prisoner was placed with their back to the pole and then lifted up either manually by the hangman’s assistants, on a simple board platform or by a cloth sling running under their armpits so that the executioner could put the noose round their neck. At the signal they were now jerked downwards by the assistants thus tightening the noose. This jerk combined with the thinness of the cord typically caused a carotid reflex and led to rapid unconsciousness". Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather unpleasant YouTube video of the Austrian Nazi Hermann Frank being dispatched in this way, should you feel the need, Alansplodge (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see from that article that Wikipedia has Hanging#Pole method. Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking what if Hitler had died before he could rise to power in Germany. He wouldn't have to die by murder. If he had been in the wrong place, he could have died in combat during World War I. Although it's sobering to think that it's possible there was a guy who actually did die in combat, who if he had survived might have become even worse than Hitler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See great man theory, according to which "history can be largely explained by the impact of highly influential individuals". Others go with the history from below theory, which says that events are dictated by social movements which throw up appropriate leaders if the circumstances are right. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere between the two. Alansplodge (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the effects of just plain randomness and path dependence. E.g. the Year Without a Summer (1816) resulted from a volcanic eruption and I think there is a new book about how it influenced history. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there records like clay tablets, papyrus, or parchment or stuff from historians like Herodotus or Josephus etc, that suggest or say that Atenists fled Egypt due to persecution after the death of Akhenaton and tried to keep their religion elsewhere?

Like maybe they fled south to Sudan, or north to Caanan, or west to Carthage or east to Mesopotamia or Arabia etc? Also, before Akhenaton died, were there traditional religionists fleeing from Egypt because they were persecuted by the Atenists? Thanks. 144.35.45.38 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amarna letters might be a relevant source for research; they are from about the same period — The poorly-sourced Atenism article is regretfully not very helpful for your specific needs. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9480:46FD:8725:3114 (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on Akhenaten seems to be slightly more helpful; Akhenaten#Akhenaten and monotheism in Abrahamic religions does not directly address the issue of migration of Atenists, but does discuss some (often highly speculative) theories about Atenism and its influence on later monotheistic religions; that may lead the OP to some research on the subject. --Jayron 32 10:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

144.35.45.38 -- I strongly doubt whether anyone in classical antiquity who wasn't literate in Egyptian writing knew about Akhenaten or Atenism at all (and even Egyptian scribes and priests with access to surviving dusty old documents might not have been able to get any clear idea about them, other than that the priests in the reigns of subsequent pharoahs didn't like them). Herodotus barely even knew that Jews existed. Josephus thought that the Israelites' stay in Egypt coincided with the Hyksos dynasty, but he was just guessing. By Roman times, Egyptians were much more likely to be repeating derogatory tales of "Osarseph" than any genuine history about Atenism... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By classical times, no, nobody seems to have remembered Akhenaten in any accurate way, although, as AnonMoos hinted, Manetho's story of Osarseph may have been partly based on distorted memories of Akhenaten's reign.

I also do not know any earlier sources to indicate that polytheists fled Akhenaten's rule or that Atenists fled after Tutankhamun restored polytheistic worship. In fact, many scholars of religion would tell you that religious persecution is an anachronistic concept for the second millennium BC. (From a scholarly paper that I have on hand: "The history of religious persecution could be said to have begun in 167 B.C.E. when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV issued a series of decrees outlawing Jewish religious practice.") Polytheistic religions could freely incorporate new deities or even equate different deities with each other. Kings and priests had to perform rites for the gods because it was in their job description, but ordinary people could worship whichever gods they wanted. Religious belief and religious identity were much less important in ancient times than now, and still less in the Bronze Age than during, say, the Roman Empire.

Akhenaten's reign may have been an exception, because it was intolerant of other gods to some degree, but there is a great deal about it that we don't understand. We don't actually know if Atenism was thoroughly, exclusively monotheistic, because its tolerance for deities other than the Aten varied a lot (see this article section for a little more detail). Akhenaten's agents chiseled out a lot of references to deities in inscriptions, though their efforts were kind of haphazard and focused more on Amun than on other deities. And we really don't know to what extent Akhenaten tried to impose his beliefs on the populace. People living at Akhenaten's capital at Amarna chiseled out the name of Amun, Akhenaten's least favorite god, when it was inscribed on their own belongings. Members of Akhenaten's court who were named Amenhotep, meaning "Amun is content", seem to have exclusively used their nickname, Huy, to avoid mentioning Amun when writing about themselves. On the other hand, as Erik Hornung writes in Akhenaten and the Religion of Light (p. 86): "We… see no indication that the existing temples of the gods were converted into sanctuaries of the Aten; the worship of the god had its unequivocal center in the new capital. At the same time, only fifteen miles away in Neferusi, Khnum, Thoth, and Osiris were still being worshipped! It would certainly be interesting and instructive to know what was happening during Akhenaten's later years in, for example, the sanctuaries at Elephantine, whether a cult was being celebrated there and for whom; but our sources allow no answers to such questions. We must imagine that the suppression of the old cults was not altogether consistent in the distant provinces, and that Thebes surely was a special case."

Finally, if I can venture away from hard facts a little, I find it very unlikely that anybody fled Egypt to maintain Atenism. Atenism was, as far as we can tell, Akhenaten's creation, and the exclusive worship of the Aten did not long outlive him. Tutankhamun declared the restoration of Amun's worship in Year 1 of his reign, a few years after Akhenaten's death. Tutankhamun was too young then to be giving the orders by himself and must have been doing what his courtiers told him—people like Ay, who had been a high official in Akhenaten's court. Worship of the Aten coexisted with worship of the traditional gods during Tutankhamun's reign, at least for a while, but it doesn't seem like Akhenaten's belief system inspired much passionate support, even among the people who sucked up to him while he was alive.

Sources and further reading: Akhenaten and the Religion of Light by Hornung, Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet by Nicholas Reeves, and Akhenaten: The Heretic King by Donald B. Redford. The relationship between Manetho's story and Akhenaten's reality is very complicated; the second chapter of Moses the Egyptian by Jan Assmann may be the most accessible discussion of the subject, though it's a bit vague. "Plotting Antiochus's Persecution" by Steven Weitzman in Journal of Biblical Literature (2004) is the source of the quote about Antiochus. A. Parrot (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a somewhat parallel innovative royal-court religion (i.e. basically dependent on one monarch) in much more recent times, see Din-i Ilahi... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Lord of the Treasury

The British prime minister has the title first lord of the treasury, in addition to prime minister. My question is why? This title seems to imply that the prime minister is also a lord, when they’re just a member of parliament. Seems a bit muddled to me —Andrew 23:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Lord of the Admiralty was not necessarily a lord either. A lot of early holders of both these offices were actually lords, so perhaps there was an expectation that the job would automatically go to a peer? More research needed. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the "Lord Mayor of London" and judges addressed as "my lord", none of whom were generally aristocrats holding a peerage title. To dilute things even further, during the 18th and 19th centuries, continental innkeepers and others dealing with tourists often addressed any male English-speaker who looked upper class as "milord" (in Italy, "milordo"). And the Kings of Arms at the College of Arms were not actually kings... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the average lord of the manor was not a lord. Alansplodge (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French title Monsieur is a contraction of mon sieur, itself a contraction of monseigneur. The title monseigneur was accorded to royalty, nobility, other important people, the Chancellor, the Constable, the Grand Admiral, marshals, government ministers, and other high office - holders. It is also accorded to important people in the Church. 46.208.167.127 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't happen very often that I get to nitpick French etymology, "sieur" (and "sire") come from the Latin nominative "senior", which had stress on the first syllable (or technically the antepenult, I suppose). It's not really properly a nominative case in Old French, but sometimes it is called the subject case. As in "mon sieur" it also absorbed the Latin vocative case. "Seigneur" comes from the Latin accusative "seniorem", which is stressed on the long O vowel. Likewise, there isn't really an accusative in Old French, but it is often called the object case or oblique case (as it absorbed the dative/genitive/ablative as well). Another famous example is the pair "moins/moindre", from "minus/minorem" in Latin; historically there were more, like "cuens/conte" from "comes/comitem". Typically the object case came to be used as the subject and the subject case disappeared, but not always. And just for fun, sometimes Old French ignores what passes for the rules, so there was a parallel "mon seigneur" in the subject case, and now French has both "monsieur" and "monseigneur". Anyway! My point is, "sieur" is not a contraction of "seigneur". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord mayors exist in many cities throughout Britain and the Commonwealth. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A more complete answer is that the Lord High Treasurer was historically one of the Great Offices of State. Since about the 17th century, the post was not held by a single individual but by a committee or board, referred to as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. The First Lord was the most senior of these, and came over time to be the chief of the King or Queen's ministers, and was informally referred to as the Prime Minister - it only became the official title much later. Sometimes the Prime Minister has held been the head of another department, rather than First Lord of the Treasury. A parallel case is the Board of Admiralty, which took over from the historic role of the Lord High Admiral - the First Lord of the Admiralty was the political head of the Royal Navy. In 1964 the Board was superseded by the Ministry of Defence, and the nominal office of Lord High Admiral had to be resurrected - it's now held by the Duke of Edinburgh. And of course as another contributor has mentioned, the word "Lord" is used for a lot of positions that are not members of the House of Lords. For example the title Lord <Forename> <Surname> is properly used for the younger son of a peer. --rossb (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

…younger son of a marquess/duke/prince, that is. —Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KENSINGTON PALACE
October 4th

The Duke of Cambridge this afternoon visited Inspire, Lombard House, 10-20 Lombard Street, Belfast, and was received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of the County Borough of Belfast (Mrs Fionnuala Jay-O'Boyle).

BUCKINGHAM PALACE
October 9th

The Princess Royal this morning opened the Great Western Railway Car Park at Kemble Station, Windmill Hill, Kemble, and was received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Glooucestershire (Dame Janet Trotter).

BUCKINGHAM PALACE
October 11th

... Her Royal Highness, President, Riding for the Disabled Association, subsequently visited the Berwickshire Group to mark the Fifteenth Anniversary of their Headquarters, Sunnyside, Reston, Eyemouth, and was received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Berwickshire (Mrs Jeanna Swan).

So the "Lord-Lieutenant" is quite likely to be a lady. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

IRGC

I saw this[1] on the news, but then after further reading I came across this WP article: Controversies_surrounding_Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution#Labeling_by_the_United_States_as_a_.22Terrorist_Organization.22.

What's going on here? Hasn't the IRGC already been designated a terrorist organization back in 2007? Did they somehow lose the designation sometime between 2007 and 2017 and got re-designated in 2017? Mũeller (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first listing was under Executive Order 13382. The new listing is officially published here and appears to be under Executive Order 13224. The sanctions appear pretty similar on a first read. The difference is the 'offence' that is being 'punished': 13382 deals with proliferators of WMDs and 13224 deals with terrorists. The US interpretation of the JCPOA is explicit that the 13382 sanctions on the IRGC remained in place. So nothing has actually changed. It could be argued that a 13224 listing is slightly more acceptable to other JCPOA signatories because it is further away from the plan's core concerns about proliferation, but a double listing suggests that this is entirely about getting good headlines, not about actually changing the IRGC's alleged behaviour. Matt's talk 13:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Test TV Tubes Here Free! at the 7-Eleven (Hooray!)

I love 7-Elevens!

Check this out, the 1950s(?) 7-Eleven in this picture runs a banner that says "(?) Test TV Tubes Here Free!"

Did they really mean that they test CRTs for free in that store? What a wonderful proof of highly advanced ancient civilization! Erich von Däniken is right! -- Toytoy (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well into the '70s, tube testers were common, not only at 7-Eleven, but hardware stores, etc. They didn't test CRTs, they tested vacuum tubes from TVs (or radios, etc.). (E.g.) — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:7595:47BF:7C36:8BA6 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I doubt this was for testing CRTs. It says tubes, so surely is referring to testing the vacuum tubes in the TV (I'm not sure whether they actually required the vacuum tubes to be from TVs, I don't personally see a reason for that although if you brought a whole computers worth I'm not certain if they'd have been happy with you trying to test them all for free). I doubt people would even take the whole TV since those things were bulky and expensive and cars weren't necessarily that big. See e.g. these [2] [3] which show such tube testers from drug stores etc. The 7-Eleven sign is surely referring to a similar contraption. Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit should mention the tester would need to support the tube being tested. It may have been tubes used in certain applications not commonly used by home consumers would not be supported. Of course if you actually had a computer, it would probably be worth having your own tester anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of nostalgia! One or more of those smallish tubes would sometimes die, and then you would take the tubes to a store that had one of those machines and find out which one(s) had failed, and buy replacements. No, you didn't bring the CRT in. If it died, you bought a new TV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Is this from personal experience? Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never tested a tube in a 7-11, but as a kid ca. 1970 I was delegated by my parents to test a few tubes in our local supermarket. The machine had lots of different plugs on the top, and you had to look up which plug to put your tube into, and then a light would come on telling you if your tube was good or not. In my childhood, radios were pretty thoroughly transistorized, but tubes were still used in TVs for some reason... AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, did they order the tube for you if you happen to have a failed tube? They can order the tube from the electronic vendor and resell it to you for a nice little profit. -- Toytoy (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At first I imagined there's an engineer testing your CRT using an oscilloscope there. It was too much to ask for. The article tube tester says:

From the late 1920s until the late 1960s, many department stores, drug stores and grocery stores in the U.S. had a self-service tube-vending display. It typically consisted of a tube-tester atop a locked cabinet of tubes, with a flip chart of instructions. One would remove the tubes from a malfunctioning device, such as a radio or television, bring them to the store, and test them all, looking up the instructions from the model number on the tube and the flip chart. If a tube was defective, store personnel would sell a replacement from the cabinet.

I thought these cheap testers are only testing for dead filaments. -- Toytoy (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The video I linked to above shows the operation of one such device. I think the device is a little newer than the 1950s and it's from Sears, but I don't see the ones in 7-Eleven would be very different. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those tubes were fairly robust, with only two typical failure modes. The tube testers simply tested for continuity between pins. Each type of tube was supposed to have continuity between certain pins and to NOT have continuity between other pins. The tester declared a tube to be bad if it had incorrect continuity. The store mad money by selling replacement tubes. In most cases, the stores stock of tubes was kept in drawers under the tester. The number of different common tube types was fairly small, so the store probably had your replacement in stock. If you had a strange tube, you probably had a strange TV, the tester probably did not have a test for it, and the store probably did not stock it. -Arch dude (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember, with our TV it was almost always the 5U4 tube that failed, which was the low-voltage rectifier. If not that, it was probably the 6AU6, which the TV had two of. As I recall there were about 15 tubes in the TV altogether and you could buy a troubleshooting guide that would say, if the TV fails this way then you need to find whichever one of this list of tubes is in your TV and test that one. Things were very different back then from "No user-serviceable parts inside" as you see now! --69.159.60.147 (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look, Wikipedia has an article on it. See Tube tester and in particular Tube tester#Self-service tube testers. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tube testers in places like 7-11 would have been used for radio and TV tubes, plus tubes from hi-fi or musical instrument amplifiers etc. I can't offhand think of other common household devices that would have had tubes in them. Computers with tubes were made in the 1940s-50s and some probably stayed in service into the 1970s, with occasional relics maybe persisting even longer. But it doesn't seem plausible to me that their users/maintainers would test tubes from them at 7-11. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competency based interviews

Are competency based interviews generally scored, with the highest scoring candidate getting the job? 82.132.233.187 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Competency-based recruitment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ones I have been involved with have been scored - though we recognise that scores are inevitably subjective, and may not always feel that the candidate with the highest score will be the best person for the job. The score is therefore one thing which will be taken into consideration when making a decision - but not the only thing. 2A00:23C5:2265:2E00:C098:EB4F:7C52:1E8D (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think some companies (especially larger ones) have a policy to go only by the score though. I think that's particularly true in engineering and construction. 94.10.251.123 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about construction or maybe related areas like civil engineering. These days in the tech sector, collaboration and team skills are at least as important as technical skills. Interviewers take all these factors into account. Notice that Travis Kalanick didn't do that, so he himself no longer has a job. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California Public School ADA % Rate

Is there a way to find the specific Average Daily Attendance (ADA) percentage for a single public school? The district does not list this information on their website. --2601:642:C301:119A:4179:86F0:B761:E757 (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try here: "Data & Statistics (CA Dept of Education)". www.cde.ca.gov. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:7595:47BF:7C36:8BA6 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Is there a link between communication style and profession/industry?

I don't know if it's always true but some professions seem to be very direct and concise whilst others love being passive and long winded. 94.10.251.123 (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can generalize that way. There are many communication styles in most every industry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This summary paper covers a lot of ground; since it summarizes other research, it is likely to lead you where you need to go by looking into a lot of work in the field. --Jayron 32 11:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The communication "style" is usually predefined in professions. Often its simply aiming to its function. The "style" of an army General aims at leaving no doubt who is in command and how he wants it to be followed, the "style" of a doctor aims at giving confidence in his skills and judgements. If you want to call that a "link" - ok, whatever works for you. --Kharon (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generals do things differently. Omar Bradley and George Patton had their own styles. The "bedside manner" of a doctor varies considerably by individuals. And consider football coaches. It's fair to say that the styles of Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry were quite different, yet they were both successful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an active area of research in applied linguistics, especially amongst adherents of systemic functional linguistics and researchers influenced by Basil Bernstein, not least because you can't teach business/professional English unless you know how it's actually used; translators also need this kind of information. It is generally within the area of sociolinguistics known as pragmatics. It's much, much more complicated than "some professions are concise and others are long-winded" though. I have been unable to find either a Wikipedia article or a textbook in print that gives a comparative overview, just books on individual professions. Matt's talk 10:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

1960s-ish experiment regarding the effects of alcohol on driving

A few years I remember seeing a video, I think as part of a documentary (almost certainly a BBC one) about the history of road safety, of an experiment conducted (circa 1960s) to test the effects of alcohol on driving. The test was conducted at a bus depot, I think in Birmingham, and involved testing bus drivers of varying ages and experience on their ability to drive a bus through a narrow gap before and after drinking alcohol (pretty sure it was whisky). The conclusion was that alcohol impaired judgement but not skill.

Despite about an hour of searching I've not been able to find any more details about the experiment or a copy of the video of it. Ideally I'm looking for the video of the experiment, but the video of the whole documentary or details of the research would be good as well if anyone recognises it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My dad often talked about this. I understood that drivers were tested going through narrower and narrower challenges. As you remembered, their skill hardly diminished with drink, but as the test progressed they thought they could drive through the challenges that were narrower than the buses. I wonder how long was the queue for the experiment? Good luck with your search; I hope we'll see the result here. Hayttom (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Unfortunately I'm no closer to finding the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Risk Taken in Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol" by John Cohen, E. J. Dearnaley, and C. E. M. Hansel (British Medical Journal, Volume 1(5085)) 1958 Jun 21)? The experiment was carried out at the Training School for Bus Drivers of the Manchester Corporation Transport Department. (Generally it fits your description well: alcohol was provided "in the form of Scotch whisky (70° proof or 40% alcohol), with an equal amount of soda-water"). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is indeed the research I was thinking of (and it isn't the first time I've muddled Manchester and Birmingham in my memories!). Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help finding an article

I need some help finding an article. Basically, I don't remember what this article is called or the newspaper (or journal) that it was from, but I am pretty sure that it was written sometime between 1903 and 1915 (Yes, somewhere between those specific years) and talked about the possibility of a U.S. acquisition of one of the main islands in the Danish West Indies while leaving the rest of these islands to Denmark. Can anyone find this article?

Indeed, I want to add this information to this specific Wikipedia article: Treaty of the Danish West Indies. Futurist110 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the name of the island? That would probably be a helpful search term. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's "St. Thomas" ("Saint Thomas"). However, there only appear to be three main islands--St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix (also known as Santa Cruz). Indeed, you could try putting in each of these names in the event that St. Thomas (Saint Thomas) doesn't result in anything. Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands discusses the acquisition some. It was purchased along with St. John and St. Croix as you mention. A quick web search finds this interesting site, which says the US wanted to buy the islands in part to prevent Germany from building bases there. The idea of buying just one of the islands doesn't sound like a fit for that goal, but there are a bunch of archival sources listed there, so it might be more promising than the current glossy treatments. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Judas Iscariot such a reviled figure if the canonical gospels state that Jesus was aware of his plans?

According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was aware that Judas Iscariot would betray him, and even essentially gave him permission to do so. If this is the case, then why has Judas Iscariot historically been such a hated figure if, according to the canonical Gospels, Jesus himself seemed to have no problem with this? Even some Christian theologians have suggested that, had Judas not betrayed Jesus, God's plan would have not come into fruition. I'm aware of the Gospel of Judas, but it's non-canonical and is essentially the Biblical equivalent of fanfiction, and it wasn't even rediscovered until relatively recently. Of course there are a number of scholarly theories that suggest that Jesus knowing of his betrayal may have been a Christian invention, and a few scholars have even suggested that Judas didn't exist at all, but those are outside the scope of this question. I've checked sites like Quora and Reddit, but the answers there weren't very adequate in addressing the topic. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 1 billion Christians in the world, so there are likely to be a plethora of opinions on the matter; Wikipedia's article titled Judas Iscariot contains several common interpretations of Judas's guilt, including several such interpretations which note the exact contradictions you do. The answer is "there is no one answer among all Christians" and if you start with the Wikipedia article on Judas Iscariot it will start to discuss some of the variety of opinion. --Jayron 32 10:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Christian but I've often enough let a person go ahead with something wrong or silly knowing that saying or doing anything about it would be worse. Would a Christian do differently? Dmcq (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you would or would not do is not a reference for him to read to help him learn more to answer his question. --Jayron 32 12:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the questioner would get a better answer from Google than the article, for instance [4], or [5]. But I like to try and get people to think. Judas could have got himself a much better place in history like Peter by repenting and not committing suicide. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to get deep into the story, you need to study all the main characters. You know Jesus and Judas. You also need to study Caiaphas. He is known for orchestrating the plan, which didn't require Judas. Caiaphas was aligned with Valerius Gratus. But, it was a strange situation. When Gratus took power, he deposed Annas. To regain power, Annas had his daughter marry Caiaphas and pushed Caiaphas into the high priesthood. So, Caiaphas was loyal to Annas through marriage, but to Gratus by position. Then, Gratus is replaced by Pontius Pilate. Annas wants power, but can't be reinstated in the high priests. Gratus wants power, but has been replaced. Caiaphas is in one of the highest positions available. Pilate is the new guy in the mess that they all want to take down. Jesus shows up and steps right into the middle of the fight. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The short story "Three Versions of Judas" by Jorge Luis Borges, mentioned in the article on Judas Iscariot, explores this paradox about Judas' guilt as opposed to his necessary role for Christ's passion to unfold as it does. I recommend it to the OP and others interested in this question. --Xuxl (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ also explore Judas as a complex multidimensional character rather than a generic villain. Staecker (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literary references aside, this question is related to the question of God's sovereignty versus man's responsibility. A quick Google search for <"god's sovereignty" and "man's responsibility"> will find plenty of sources that discuss this subject. Bear in mind that the gospels speak of Jesus as going knowingly to his death because this was what was always planned. See chapter 26 of the Gospel of Matthew, in particular verses 47-56, the Malchus incident; attempting to defend Jesus, Peter draws his sword and wounds a member of the mob that's trying to take Jesus, but Jesus says basically "if I needed to be defended, God the Father would send angels to resolve the situation, but then the biblical prophecies of my suffering and death wouldn't be able to happen". Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read arguments (doubtless findable on Wikipedia, or googlable) that Saul/Paul of Tarsus's takeover and re-targeting of the liberal Pharisaic and Messianic (anti-occupation) movement later called 'Christianity' away from its mainly Jewish focus towards Gentile, and especially Roman, converts necessitated shifting the 'blame' for Jesus's condemnation and execution from the Roman authorities legally and actually responsible, to "the Jews." Making Judas a villain (rather than, perhaps, a participant in a now-obscured scheme gone badly wrong) would be entirely in keeping with such an agenda. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.129.189 (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cashiering

In the context of UK terminology, does cashiering occur anymore, or does the term merely refer to the commission-purchasing period? Presumably the formal ceremony before an assembled unit isn't held, but I'm wondering if the term is used in current situations where you're expelled in disgrace. Charles Ingram was forced to resign his Army commission after being convicted on criminal charges of cheating his way to £1000000 on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and I'm wondering whether such a situation would today be described as cashiering. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the BBC News and Guardian websites and couldn't find any sign of recent cashiering. A Guardian article from 1999 describes a process called 'Pay Warrant' which is used to swiftly remove unwanted officers without going through the formal procedure. I wonder whether that formal procedure is being cashiered? Having a ceremonial formal process, but actually using a bureaucratic one, would be very typical MOD behaviour. I also searched ARRSE, the unofficial British Army forum, and there's a NSFW forum thread (p30 post #443) supporting the suggestion that it dates back to the purchase period, citing a discussion on the Articles of War; the squaddies also say it hasn't happened since WWI. They also claim that the Military Service Act 1916 was supposed to automatically conscript cashiered officers back into the Army as privates, but that this rule was largely ignored. If true (and ARRSE is definitely not a reliable source!), then that might explain why cashiering fell out of fashion, as I'd imagine having a disgraced officer in your squad was double punishment on both him and the men around him. The Armed Forces Act 2006 is now the relevant legislation and it might be worth looking through it. Matt's talk 16:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redacted version of the Pay Warrant 1964, as amended up to 2008 (presumably as a result of the 2006 AFA?), is available on the MOD website and article 257 strongly indicates that cashiering is still legal. It is very unclear whether dismissal (described in articles 253 to 256) and cashiering are two separate processes or different names for the same one. If pushed, I would interpret clause 257 as describing two separate processes: nominally voluntary retirement under articles 253-255 ('volunteering' at the request of the Defence Council really confirms all the stereotypes about how people get chosen to volunteer in the Army!) and involuntary dismissal, i.e. cashiering, under article 256 of the Pay Warrant, which I speculate is the same as the sentence imposed by section 265 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. I changed my mind on this after reading an adjournment debate in 1970 which discusses these articles. However, I note that the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2009 removes references to cashiering from certain delegated legislation. In summary, cashiering still seems to be a possibility, but the language is not used (in line with Bagehot's distinction between 'dignified' and 'efficient' parts of British constitutional procedure). Matt's talk 16:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was Ceres-Demeter depicted bare breasted in antiquity?

Hello! I have seen several statues from the 17th-century an onward, that depicts the goddess Demeter/Ceres with bare breasts. However, as far as I can recall, I have not seen any statues from antiquity when she was depicted that way. So I wonder: was the goddess ever depicted with bare breasts during the antiquity, when she was actually worshiped? I suppose it would not be impossible, considering that she was a fertility goddess, but I don't know. Maybe someone with more knowledge in art can tell me? I have seen a figurine of Demeter, where she is depicted with bare breasts, and I have been wondering whether she is depicted as she would have been in the antiquity. Thank you --Aciram (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This statue of Demeter The Louvre is from 3rd century, see [6] and has a bare breast. --Jayron 32 16:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of Google images shows that most of the Greek or Roman originals had the breasts covered (though often with quite flimsy drapery) but there are a few statues shown with one breast bared. Wymspen (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State recognition and travel docs

If a country accepts travel documents as valid docs, wouldn't that imply somehow recognizing this state? I have the case of Taiwan in mind.Hofhof (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure state recognition counts as state recognition, and that playing "gotcha" games generally doesn't work all that well in adult situations like diplomatic recognition. --Jayron 32 01:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan_passport#Limitation_in_usage and Visa_requirements_for_Taiwanese_citizens have information on how this works in practice.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was an incident involving UK and US recognition of passports of a Tibetan diplomatic envoy in 1948 that may be of interest. A description can be found online on p.39 of The Snow Lion and the Dragon by Melvyn Goldstein [7].--Wikimedes (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 A more complete answer is that the [[Lord High Treasurer]] was historically one of the Great Offices of State. Since about the 17th century, the post was not held by a single individual but by a committee or board, referred to as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. The First Lord was the most senior of these, and came over time to be the chief of the King or Queen's ministers, and was informally referred to as the Prime Minister - it only became the official title much later. Sometimes the Prime Minister has held been the head of another department, rather than First Lord of the Treasury. A parallel case is the Board of Admiralty, which took over from the historic role of the Lord High Admiral - the First Lord of the Admiralty was the political head of the Royal Navy. In 1964 the Board was superseded by the Ministry of Defence, and the nominal office of Lord High Admiral had to be resurrected - it's now held by the Duke of Edinburgh. And of course as another contributor has mentioned, the word "Lord" is used for a lot of positions that are not members of the House of Lords. For example the title Lord <Forename> <Surname> is properly used for the younger son of a peer. --[[User:Ross Burgess|rossb]] ([[User talk:Ross Burgess|talk]]) 22:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 : …younger son of a marquess/duke/prince, that is. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 05:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
+<blockquote>KENSINGTON PALACE
+:''October 4th''
+:The Duke of Cambridge this afternoon visited Inspire, Lombard House, 10-20 Lombard Street, Belfast, and was received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of the County Borough of Belfast (Mrs Fionnuala Jay-O'Boyle).</blockquote>
+<blockquote>BUCKINGHAM PALACE
+:''October 9th''
+:The Princess Royal this morning opened the Great Western Railway Car Park at Kemble Station, Windmill Hill, Kemble, and was received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Glooucestershire (Dame Janet Trotter).</blockquote>
+<blockquote>BUCKINGHAM PALACE
+:''October 11th''
+:... Her Royal Highness, President, Riding for the Disabled Association, subsequently visited the Berwickshire Group to mark the Fifteenth Anniversary of their Headquarters, Sunnyside, Reston, Eyemouth, and was received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Berwickshire (Mrs Jeanna Swan).</blockquote>
+So the "Lord-Lieutenant" is quite likely to be a lady. [[Special:Contributions/82.14.24.95|82.14.24.95]] ([[User talk:82.14.24.95|talk]]) 12:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 = October 14 =