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

April 7

Proust Questionnaires

What are some of the most famous/notorious/acclaimed Proust Questionnaire responses? Questions need not be identical to those answered by Proust, but in that vein Skomorokh 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oldest European novel

What is the oldest novel in the history of Europe, still continously published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.82.235 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean a work that's never been out-of-print? Ignoring this restriction, and allowing narrative poems, then The Iliad is probably the oldest European story. CS Miller (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If we really want to restrict ourselves to novel as a single work of known provenance to a specific author, the article and section Novel#Antecedents_around_the_world and following has some interesting threads to follow. Since there is no direct attestation that Homer was really one person, or even really existed, then (again depending on how you define novel) works such as the Aeneid or the later Decameron may qualify for the OP. --Jayron32 04:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a more useful (sub)title. StuRat (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There's another way, which I just did. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The point of making it a subtitle is so that a <CTRL>F page find (or manually scanning the TOC), for the original title, would still find their Q. StuRat (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you specifically asked for a European novel, we can rule out Story of Sinuhe]. If you go by the definition that a novel has to be in prose (which the epics of Homer wasn't), it would probably be Satyricon by Petronius from the 1st century AD. Sadly only parts of it is extant today. The genre of the novel developed in Hellenistic times through writers such as Petroniyus, Apuleius, Heliodorus, Longus and others (as per Thomas Häag, The novel in antiquity). Although the modern psychological novel first appeared in the 18th century, some, especially the Latin novels of Petronius and Apuleius does display some modern characteristics familiar to us, more so than the Greek novels which seems to follow a more basic formula. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to discussion the last time this came up. --Viennese Waltz 09:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The question in that previous discussion was "What was the first novel ever written ?" - and the answer, of course, depends on your definition of "novel". The OP's question here is somewhat narrower, but even more difficult to answer, because it also depends on how you define "Europe" and "continuously published". Is Beowulf a novel because it depicts an fictional narrative, even though it is not in prose ? Is it "continuously published" even though it only existed in manuscript form for hundreds of years ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The link above points out the 12th century Hayy ibn Yaqdhan by a Moorish writer as one possiblity. We tend to still overlook Arabic contributions in the West. Rmhermen (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Popular English-translated Bible in Joseph Conrad's Lifetime

What translation of the Bible might Joseph Conrad have been reading in the late 19th and early 20th century? I know translations change things and can change things quite a bit, and I wanted to know if there was a universally accepted one at the time, similar to how the New American Bible is fairly popular today. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Reader who Writes (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Authorised Version (also known as the King James Bible) would be far and away the most likely for Conrad to have read. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Douay–Rheims Bible was the standard Catholic Bible of the time while the Revised Version of the King James was issued by 1885 and quickly became popular. Rmhermen (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If he was reading in Polish, he would have had the Catholic Jakub Wujek Bible or the Protestant Danzig Bible. See Slavic translations of the Bible#Polish. Rmhermen (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Side-note: The New American Bible is a fairly popular American Catholic version of the Bible. But the New International Version is the most popular version while the King James is still required by certain very conservative groups. Rmhermen (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how "popular" the Revised Version really was; it was not free from controversy at the time (and more issues have turned up since then), and it conspicuously failed to replace the KJV in many uses... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As he was a writer I think Conrad would have preferred good prose, which the AV has in spades and none of the others have in any appreciable quantity. Does anyone know if a catalogue of Conrad's personal library exists? DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Joseph Conrad Society, on their page scholarly resources recommend the AV and the Book of Common Prayer as being useful for tracing Conrad's allusions. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Studying philosphy at an expensive private university

What kind of people study something like philosophy at an expensive private university? Are all there wealthy? Quest09 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Aside from its potential inherent benefits, an undergraduate degree in philosophy is widely recognized as being a great way to get into law school. It doesn't necessarily prepare you for any particular trade right out of school, but very few things do, anymore (there are relatively few undergraduate degrees that get you relevant jobs on the strength of your major alone — it requires a bit more beyond that). You might as well ask who studies history, English, anthropology, or sociology. Note that just because one is at an expensive private university does not mean that one is paying a lot in tuition — even at places where the tuition is astounding (e.g. Harvard, Yale, whatever), most undergraduates, even ones from fairly wealthy families, do not pay full tuition. That being said, there probably are demographics that characterize philosophy majors as compared to, say, math majors. According to this page (truth status unknown), philosophy in the US has similar demographics as majors in economics, mathematics, and the natural sciences — it leans strongly towards white and male, which isn't terribly surprising, given its reputation for being a lot of naval navel gazing and its high priority on aggressive argumentation (which in my experience goes hard against the socialization of women and minorities in the United States, anyway). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if you misspelled it on purpose, but naval gazing is certainly a curious expression. Do they watch ships pass by? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Working worker ant (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Curse you, spell check! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nautiloskepsis, perhaps? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Several of those "so-called" Ivy League schools did, about a decade ago, introduce very liberal financial aid packages, Princeton University comes to mind, such that students who are accepted do not have a financial barrier preventing them from going. Princeton_University#Admissions_and_financial_aid discusses this a bit; students who are accepted to Princeton get all of their financial aid in the form of grants, and as such Princeton, though it has a nominally high tuition, has students who graduate with very little debt load. Additionally, Cornell University has several colleges which are actually part of the State University of New York system (see Statutory college); students admitted under those programs pay instate tuition for SUNY, and not Cornell's standard tuition, however they attend the same classes and live in the same dormitories and so are otherwise indistinguishable in the student population. --Jayron32 16:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This awesome sortable table from the Wall Street Journal shows a bunch of salary stats sorted by the undergraduate bachelor's degree earned by, supposedly, 1.2 million US people in the survey. It doesn't count people with master's degrees or higher. A philosophy degree's starting median salary is apparently US$39,900, and the mid-career median salary is US$81,200. That mid-career number beats the mid-career numbers for political science, accounting, architecture, IT, business management, and nursing. (Though chemical engineering wins, both for the starting and mid-career median salary numbers.) This was a 2009 survey, apparently. An interesting feature of the Philosophy degree is that it (along with Mathematics, in a tie) has the highest percent change from starting median salary to mid-career median salary, meaning ... big big raises! Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr 98's answer is perhaps restricted to the United States. In many other countries there are a large (and increasing) number of "vocational" undergraduate degrees that prepare you for a job straight out of university. One of these is law. In the UK for example law can be a single undergraduate degree. In Australia, while law is (mostly) a second degree, the majority of students now commit themselves to it at the start of university by enrolling in a "double degree" where the law degree is packaged with a "first" undergraduate degree. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

First class mail

Is there a maximum weight for first class mail items in the UK? Cannot find anything specified on their website, but cannot believe it is infinite.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Maximum weight for any first class item is 20kg according to this page. Maimum weight for a first class letter is 100g; above that weight you have large letter and then packet. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you're quite right. A 20kg packet is possible. Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This should help. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

But that site says "No maximum weight limit". Oh well, I'm not likely to want to go over 20kg anyway.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 8

Spiritual lineage of civilizations

There's a weird idea that was once entertained by European historians. My memory of it is vague, but it is like this: there is an indefinable quality, a distinctive essence or spirit, that is transmitted from one great civilization to another as one falls and another rises, so that you can trace a continuous, genealogical "thread" of civilizations across the ages, from Egypt to Greece to Rome to Byzantium to the Holy Roman Empire to Spain to Britain (or France) to the United States, etc. Depending on where the historian was from, and according to his personal tastes, he would have a different idea about the exact details of this thread. I think the idea enjoyed popularity during the 1800's, and perhaps much earlier, and particularly in western Europe. I think it has a Wikipedia page, but I'm not sure. Does my description of the concept ring a bell with anyone? LANTZY^TALK 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it's exactly what you're you're talking about, but Hegel seems to have belabored a lot of metaphysics to arrive at the conclusion that Biedermeier Prussia was the height of human civilization... -- AnonMoos (talk)

Zeitgeist maybe? --Jayron32 05:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also Carl Jung's idea of Collective unconscious. And Emile Durkheim's Collective consciousness. And Gottfried Leibnitz's Monads. All of these philosophical traditions have the same basic concept of core, or central "threads" as you call them running through societies... --Jayron32 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that theory has enjoyed much popularity. At least in the 19th century the reigning academical schools of thought in history in Western Europe was historicism and later positivism. None of which bears any resemblence to the theory the OP describes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hegel, I reckon, and these kinds of ideas underlie a lot of what is said about "civilisation". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the medieval idea of translatio imperii. I'm not sure whether nineteenth-century folk used some other term for the notion, but my guess is that the Latin term was still commonly used. Deor (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks. LANTZY^TALK 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the most famous extension of the idea to America is George Berkeley's lines "Westward the course of empire takes its way; / The first four acts already past, / A fifth shall close the drama of the day; / Time’s noblest offspring is the last." Deor (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it started with the Atlantis myth, one version of which states that because they knew the end was nigh for that civilisation, the Elders of Atlantis sent one representative to each continent so that knowledge of Atlantis and its wisdom would remain after the civilisation's demise. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that idea existed before the publication in 1882 of Ignatius L. Donnelly 's Atlantis: the Antediluvian World. Deor (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no link between Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire as they are geographically remote.
Sleigh (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire. There are a lot of links between Byzantium and the HRE, not the least of which is that both have claims to be descendants of the Ancient Roman Empire (and Byzantium really was, without any noticible interregnum). There were also numerous diplomatic marriages between the two empires, such as the marriage of the daughter of Byzantine emperor Leo_VI_the_Wise to the Holy Roman Emperor Louis the Blind, or of Theophanu a neice/removed cousin of John I Tzimiskes and married to Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor. Byzantium and Western Europe had other important relationships as well; it was at the Behest of Constantinople that several of the Crusades were called; one of them even sacked the city and established the Latin Empire of Constantinople. --Jayron32 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, at the time that the Holy Roman Empire was established, the southern half of Italy was a province of the Byzantine Empire called the Catepanate of Italy. Some historians have asserted that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was the spark that ignited The Renaissance, with scholars like Bessarion migrating to the west. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Constantinople is mentioned in the Icelandic sagas. —Tamfang (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

War between France and Italy?

There has been a lot of talk here in Italy as to a possible war breaking out between France and Italy over the Tunisian immigrants issue. Is this a real possibility between two European Union members and NATO allies?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea of "war" seems unrealistic - clearly there are tensions, but armed conflict over the issue seems extraordinarily unlikely - there are many other ways of resolving tensions. Given Berlusconi's appetites, maybe Mme Sarkozy could use her charms to win him over. Do you have any reliable sources suggesting it as a possibility? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with all of the foregoing, but just in case anyone in Italy IS considering attacking France, it would be wise to look at a precedent within living memory; the Italian invasion of France in 1940. With France on the brink of total military collapse and having already asked for an armistice with Germany, the Italians attacked with 32 divisions (about 250,000 men?) but were held back without too much effort by the depleted French defenders. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Last night I watched a debate on a RAI Uno current affairs programme involving several Italian politicians, and one of them mentioned war, but it was most likely a figure of speech as I don't think it would happen. I must say Sarkozy has a much stronger personality than Berlusconi.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is inconceivable that this could lead to war, but perhaps not inconceivable that it could lead to the effective exclusion of Italy from the Schengen area if it is seen to be violating an explicit or implicit agreement among its members. Anti-immigrant sentiment exists among many members of the Schengen, and they could probably sway the group to agree to the reimposition of border controls between Italy and the rest of the Schengen area. Marco polo (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if France and Italy did get angry enough at each other to go to war (which they wouldn't), the rest of Europe would stop them. The harm to the rest of the continent (and the rest of the world, really) caused by the interdependance of all our economies would be so severe that the rest of Europe and NATO would send peacekeeping troops to enforce peace. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a figure of speech, as it's hard to imagine a such a scenario actually taking place. I only asked to see if it was indeed possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Medici lions at the Château de Saint-Cloud ‎

Medici lion

I'm researching the history of the Medici lion(s) in the Parc de Saint-Cloud in Paris, such as information on year of installation and sculptor. Anyone with knowledge or sources? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

MacArthur's 'army air commander' in May 1942

Can anyone help me put a name andor a position title to a person mentioned in a source? The only information in the source is that he's "...the army air commander under General MacArthur..." and held this position around or after May 1942; the source mentions his response to an incident which ocurred during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 08:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The commander of the Army Air Force at the time was Henry H. Arnold, but maybe there was a subordinate in charge at the Coral Sea. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the person the source identifies is a step down the food chain: someone responsible for the USAAF in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II and reporting to MacArthur, like Herbert F. Leary was responsible for the USN in the region. -- saberwyn 10:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Major General George Kenney took on the role from August 1942 - all we need to do is identify his predecessor. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

MacArthur was in command of the South West Pacific Area. As that article says George Brett was the Deputy Coammander and Commander of Allied Air Forces there until August 4, 1942. I assume the incident was probably the bombing of a task force under the Australian John Gregory Crace. There's a mention of Brett's response to the incident in note 59 on the Battle of the Coral Sea article. --JGGardiner (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Brett's the man I want, and yes, that was the incident. Thanks muchly :) -- saberwyn 02:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Economics

Which factor will not cause a shift in the demand curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.64.112 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

UFO sightings. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the product. UFO sightings will tend to increase demand for Tin foil hats. --Jayron32 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention alcohol and certain medicines. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but increased alcohol consumption also increases the supply of UFO sightings, thus complicating matters. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

See Demand (economics). You may also be interested to read User:Dweller/Dweller's Lungs Economics theory, which postulates some interesting demand-related issues. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some factors that will increase demand for a given item:

1) The item becoming "fashionable". A celebrity using the item might have this effect, for example.

2) The item being improved.

3) The item being made less expensive.

4) Other things which use/require the item increasing in prevalence. For example, if computer sales go up, so will computer mouse sales.

5) The item now being mandated by law, such as health insurance in the US.

6) Other similar items being unavailable. For example, if a disease wiped out lemon crops, but left limes alone, lime demand would likely rise.

7) The item being found to be "good for you". For example, healthy foods.

8) A competing brand is no longer made.

9) Item becomes standardized. For example, people who were reluctant to buy cassette audio tape when 8-track tape was competing may have done so only after cassettes won the format war.

Many of these factors also have opposites, which cause demand to fall:

1) Item going out of fashion.

2) Item is made in a shoddier manner than before, like US cars in the 1970's.

3) Price goes up more than inflation.

4) Other things which use/require the item decline in prevalence.

5) The item is no longer mandated by law.

6) A glut of similar products. Many new varieties of citrus fruit can decrease demand for any one type, for example.

7) The item is found to be unhealthy. For example, items containing "trans fats". In this case, disclosure of previously hidden trans fat info on the labels can also decrease demand.

8) More competing brands. For example, entry of foreign cars into the market can reduce demand for domestic cars.

9) Item becomes non-standardized, as new formats enter the market.

In addition, demand can also fall if the product becomes obsolete. For example, demand for horse-drawn carriages. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A demand curve is a summary of how demand for a given item responds to changes in its price; so your #3 (in both lists) is not an answer to the OQ. (They are changes in the supply curve.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "Which factor" (rather than "What factors") suggests that your homework came with a list of possible answers; can we see those? —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why can't Judeo-Islamic ritual animal slaughter use stunning?

Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws mentions they can't, but lacks specifics as to why. I don't think the prohibition is in the Tanakh, Quran or hadith and suspect it comes from some much later rulings by rabbis and imams. It's a topical question given http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_ritual_slaughter_ban Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On your first point, no, it's a notable omission. As far as Jewish slaughter goes, our article is at Shechita, and it doesn't deal with it either. AFAIK, it's because stunning is deemed to hurt, which immediately renders the animal not kosher. I'm on surer ground with your other question - and our article answers it well. I quote: "Though referenced in the Torah, (Deut. 12:21) none of the basic practices of shechita are described in this place, or anywhere else in Torah (Five books of Moses). Instead, they have been handed down in Judaism's traditional Oral Torah, and codified in halakha in various sources, most notably the Shulchan Aruch." So, if you believe in torah min hashamayim, it's from God. If you don't, well, some strands of Judaism that don't believe in torah min hashamayim have significantly relaxed or removed these laws altogether. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Shechita says: "Before slaughtering, the animal must be healthy, uninjured and viable. The animal cannot be stunned by electronarcosis, captive-bolt shot to the brain, or gas, as is common practice in modern animal slaughter, for this would inflict such injuries to the animal rendering the shechita invalid." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is background information and doesn't directly address the "why", but Temple Grandin's website includes this page on "Recommended Ritual Slaughter Practices". It is replete with references. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

copyright of mathematical proofs

I know that Ideas can't be copyrighted, only expressions of it can. But I want to know how this principle is applied to math proofs.

If I take a math proof from a copyrighted paper and change the symbols used so that the text is different but the meaning remains the same and reprint it without permission, does it violate copyright? Or does it count as a diffrent 'expression' of the idea in the paper? Diwakark86 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea-expression divide is super problematic from a legal point of view and is quite hard to resolve in many cases. (If you re-write a Harry Potter novel so that the expression is entirely different but the basic plot and characters are identical, you will get sued for infringement, no doubt.)

In theory, equations should not be copyrightable at all. They are facts of nature and all that — pure ideas if there ever were any. But a very clever lawyer could come up with very compelling arguments about the "creativity" that exists in creating mathematical proofs and probably get some traction with that. I don't know if that has ever occurred.

It goes without saying that plagiarizing a math paper might have other consequences other than copyright issues. And I am assuming you are not asking for concrete legal advice on this... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, you will sometimes hear the claim "mathematical theorems / findings cannot be patented", which is a bit of a mis-representation. Though you cannot patent a theorem per se, many individuals, companies, and universities patent the application of a theorem, which in some cases is tantamount to patenting the theorem (think e.g. of the theorems behind signal processing, which can generate serious profit.) Competing companies would be free to use the content of the theorem (e.g. in publishing related research), but restricted from using the result to make a cell phone, for instance (or whatever application is indicated in the patent). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, mathematical proofs of any note will have been published a journal of some sort; the journal holds reprint rights, and attribution goes to the author. The author holds copyright on unpublished proofs, obviously. You can generally change the symbology in ways that do not alter the meaning of the proof and use it in ways consistent with the policies of the journal. Contact the journal the proof was published in (or contact the author directly) to see what you are and are not allowed to do with the material. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you ask the journal whether your use case requires permission or payment, they will probably tell you yes, since they have nothing to lose by telling you that. If you want to learn about your actual legal rights, you should consult a less biased source. -- BenRG (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

By that reasoning, Wikipedia would never tell you that you can use the text on it somewhere else, since they have "nothing to lose" by telling you that. 188.156.178.64 (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer is yes, the modified work is a derivative of the original and therefore subject to copyright. If the proof is short enough and you explicitly attribute the source, you may be able to use it under fair use provisions, but otherwise it would be a copyright violation. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looie, unless you can quote legal code or precedent to support that, I think Mr.98's answer is better. -- BenRG (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Published proofs are routinely included in later published works by other authors, not with text copied verbatim, but with ideas appearing exactly as in the original work (referenced of course). This is often very helpful in preparing the reader for a generalization or strengthening of the original proof. I have never heard of this practice being restricted by the original author or publisher claiming copyright. This would be such an attack on ordinary academic practice that I doubt it would be tolerated by the mathematical community. Any author or publisher who tried this would get laughed out of town. Staecker (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

white house

Is white house a haunted house? --Ghoulbuster (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A white house is just a house painted white or limewashed or built from white stone, and most of them are not haunted. The White House is haunted only by the President of the United States as far as I know, but I haven't been there to check. There are other possible White Houses. Dbfirs 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of stories of White House ghosts -- we even have an article about one of them, Lincoln's Ghost. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I found this page which is relevant. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, even with all the history that has occurred there, the White House is NOT a haunted house! There is actually a very good reason why this is the case... Because there is no such thing as a haunted house. Greg Bard (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica BLP's

I've heard that about 15% of Wikipedia articles are BLP's. Does anyone know the percentage for Encyclopaedia Britannica? Thanks. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that Biographies of Living People, or some other BLP ? StuRat (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, biographies of living people, I'm wondering if EB's percentage is anything like ours. I know how many the Dictionary of American Biography had (i.e. none), though I'm not sure about its successor, the American National Biography encyclopedia. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The American National Biography, like the Dictionary of American Biography, only has entries on dead people. —Kevin Myers 04:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience it is the usual practice that National Biographies only include dead people, while encyclopedias also includes living people. Why it is so I am not sure, but it seems to have been the situation at least as early as the second half of the 1800s. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, dead people can't do anything that will make their articles obsolete, which would be a problem in a print encyclopedia. Read the 1911 EB's article on Georges Clemenceau, for example. (At one point, Wikipedia also had a copy of 1911 EB's article on the then-current sultan of Morocco, which talked about him as if he was still alive...) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, new information can come to light, especially in cases where there's a myth surrounding the person. For example, Christopher Columbus isn't portrayed as the hero he once was. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who was paying close attention to the details always knew that Columbus' career was not uniformly glorious -- to start with, he was an ignominious failure as a settlement-founder or governor on land... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's my point, I bet that most biographies written 100 years ago would have represented him in heroic terms, while recent bios would not. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Failure to accept the budget

If there is no agreement by midnight between Obama and Congress on the 2011 budget, and "the government" does not get paid, who, in this instance, is included in "the government"? Specifically, does the military get paid, and do Obama and Congress members get paid? I would really appreciate a cite for any answer. Bielle (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The only cite I have is the TV news, but apparently the soldiers don't get paid while the President and Congress do. (If it was the other way around, there would never be a shutdown, would there ?) Sounds a lot like when a company is facing bankruptcy, so slashes jobs and pay, except for executives who then get huge bonuses. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Congress and the President still receive pay when there is a government shutdown. However, there is currently in Congress Bill S.388, generally called the "No Budget, No Pay" Bill, that would stop both Congress and the President from receiving pay during a government shutdown.

There are some who consider such a bill unconstitutional. Namely, Article Two of the United States Constitution, Clause Seven, states "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected..." This is commonly seen to serve two purposes; firstly, that the President can't give himself a raise, and secondly, that Congress can't reward/punish the president via his compensation. Therefore, to some, the cessation of the Presidents' pay via this bill would violate this clause.

The military, however, may not get paid (though soldiers' are expected to continue their duty). During a government shutdown, only "essential" personnel are paid - this is determined (I believe) under the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget. There is also a new Bill on this side, S.724: "Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011", which, if passed, would continue to pay military personnel despite a government shutdown.

Hope that helps to clear things up. ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:27, 5 Nisan 5771 / 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember military pay being delayed in 1981? Payday was the 15th and end of the month. They moved it to 1 October so it would come from the next years budget. They did it again the next year, then just moved payday to the first of the month. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It was in 1987. Here is a New York Times article on it. I was serving in the USN at the time, and while it didn't affect anyone adversely and it saved the Pentagon $3 billion in that year's fiscal budget, that one time gimmick never sat right with me. It just didn't seemed like the responsible thing to do. -- 110.49.233.91 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the responses. Bielle (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

April 9

First abolitionist newspaper in the United States? (needs JSTOR lookup)

What was the first abolitionist newspaper in the United States? Some say it was the The Emancipator from Tennessee (this is what Wikipedia currently says). Others say it was The Philantropist from Ohio. The answer is probably in this paper, but unfortunately, I don't have JSTOR access any more. Kaldari (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, which is designed for exactly this kind of problem. --Jayron32 05:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR. From a quick scan (I'm on my way out), the article mentions the Philanthropist first. sonia♫ 05:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Sorry for posting to the wrong venue. Kaldari (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, lots of public libraries offer JSTOR access. You might try your local one, or (if you're in the US) one in a big city in your state. I think US libraries will generally issue free library cards to any resident of the state that the library is in. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As Sonia says, thr JSTOR article says it was the Philanthropist, in 1817. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: new DNC Chairwoman

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-FL20 is the designate, with an election by the 20th; presuming she's elected and assumes the post, is she required to resign her House seat, or is she allowed to hold both? Dru of Id (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

None of several news articles mentioned it, and I assume it would be something worth mentioning. I can't think of a reason why she wouldn't be allowed to hold both offices. Chris Dodd was General Chairperson for the Democratic National Committee from 1995 – 1997, while still holding the office of a Senator from Connecticut. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:06, 5 Nisan 5771 / 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't looked that far back at the Chairs; I just saw that the more recent ones were not in Congress during their (edit) tenure; Thanks! Dru of Id (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

An article in this morning's paper said that no, she will not resign her seat. The article talked about her juggling the concurrent roles as DNC Chair, Member of Congress, and mother. Corvus cornix_talk 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are Republicans hypocrites?

Do republicans qualify as hypocrites by disapproving of abortion on the grounds of being pro-life while at the same time disapproving of funds for adoption of to support parents unable to support a child themselves? --DeeperQA (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No. A child that isn't adopted won't be "killed". ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:09, 5 Nisan 5771 / 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-life" was originally called "Right to life", which really was "the right to be born". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that the right word is really "hypocrisy", but it's been a common observation/allegation since the Reagan administration that some pro-life advocates seem to be a lot more concerned about the fetal period than what happens after a baby is actually born, and that their "pro-life" principles do not seem to extend to such areas as health care, death-penalty, militarism, gun control, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true that this "hypocrisy" has been pointed out for decades, which is why their original slogan "right to life", as in "right to be born alive", was the more correct term. There is not necessarily any ambiguity in their support of the death penalty (though not all right-to-lifers do support it), the argument being that people choose to commit capital crimes and choose to make war on us, but they do not choose to be conceived. Note that I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy, but that's the conservative or libertarian argument on the matter. They have either not done a good job of explaining that distinction, or the other side is not paying attention, or maybe both. "Pro-choice" is also "hypocritical", because as noted, the embryo or fetus has no choice in the matter. "Pro-abortion-rights" would be the better term, but both sides of the argument have come up with terms that are more political than factually accurate. That covers all the points you raise except for health care, and that's where the real hypocrisy and obfuscation come from. The arguments about "quotas" is a red herring, as there already is a "quota", in the sense that there are not infinite resources to cover everyone properly, yet people don't typically "choose" to become ill, either. What it's really about is capitalism vs. socialism, i.e. about the government forcing the wealthy to support the not-wealthy. That already occurs to some extent, as hospital emergency rooms can't turn away gunshot victims just because they have no insurance. Higher premiums, for those who can pay for health insurance, are in some sense "voluntary", whereas taxation to cover health care would be compulsary. That's probably the core issue, what Tom Lehrer called, "What we most sincerely and deeply believe in... money." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It does lead to real problems for society, if you do everything US Republicans want:

1) Restrict birth control availability and education, thus ensuring more teenage pregnancies.

2) Ban abortion, thus ensuring more unwanted babies.

3) Cut all funds to care for and educate unwanted babies and children, thus ensuring that they grow up neglected.

On the plus side, Republicans are usually willing to pay for more prisons and execution chambers, where the results of their social experiments are likely to end up. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As you imply, attempts at social engineering often have unintended consequences. Despite the introduction of sex education in schools a couple of generations ago, despite the much more open availability of contraceptives, and despite the availability of abortion, the teen pregnancy rate is much higher now, particularly among those who can least afford it. As more than one woman has said to me, the reason many girls don't use these available preventatives is that they don't care, and neither liberals nor conservatives have figured out a way to socially engineer against that attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"They don't care" is not a very convincing explanation. Research (in the UK is the stuff I know about, but likely also to apply in the US) shows 1) that young women often want to use condoms but their partners refuse 2) that there is a culture among young men of refusing to use condoms and that reflects both lack of sexual confidence and over-confidence, and that 3) some young women actively want to become mothers because that gives them a social status they aren't going to get through education. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be noted here that there are some Republicans for Choice out there, and not all republicans want to completely cut off all funds to the poor either. I highly doubt Olympia Snowe, for example, would agree with any of your three points there. The most extreme wing of the party tends to get the most media coverage, but don't forget that there are centrists in both parties. Also, I haven't heard of any republicans trying to ban birth control, but I live in the North East and maybe that is a more Southern thing? Qrsdogg (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say banning birth control, but rather restricting it's availability, such as requiring parent's consent (which should scare off many teens, resulting in more teen pregnancy) and eliminating free (taxpayer funded) birth control (which would mean more unwanted babies born to poor women). StuRat (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For sure. That's one reason why Giuliani was never given much of a chance by the party. The extremists in both parties tend to drive the agenda. Back to the issue of "hypocrisy", though, it's somewhat of an unfair charge - because each side has what they consider to be logical and consistent reasons for their views. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In the American political system, politicians of all sorts are required and expected to be hypocrites to a certain degree. This is because the system has evolved so that positions of political power are achieved through the manipulation of public opinion. Politicians must first define a platform which engages public support (meaning that they choose issues which are emotionally charged and then frame them in morally unambiguous ways), and once elected they must follow through on the issues at least marginally to maintain the impression that they are committed to them. Issues relating to children are always good candidates for emotional reasoning, and campaigns discourage the kind of 1+1=? reasoning that shows contradictions between separate talking points.

Republicans are more prone to this than Democrats, which may be a reflection of the fact that the Republican base is not at all unified. Republicans have built their base out of a number of unrelated groups: big-money interests, farm-county conservatives, religious reactionaries, small business owners, libertarianoids, paramilitary statists... It's no wonder their candidates sometimes look crazy, trying to appeal to all those divergent interests simultaneously. --Ludwigs2 20:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, because in various parts of Europe the equivalent constituencies have been appealed to by the Left rather than the Right. Far-left groupings of small farmers in both France and Italy, leftist approaches to small business people in those countries and others, left libertarians and anarchists taking up the social freedom and anti-statist agendas, and various varieties of Christian socialism popular in both Catholic-tradition and Protestant-tradition countries. Actually, Europeans tend to think of American Democrats as instrumental in the way they seem to try and capture different constituencies. ("The Jewish vote seems to be OK, let's see about the Chinese vote next, and perhaps we need to pay some attention to the Hispanics...") Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, in the US the Democratic party found its definition in the social rights movements that dominated here from the 60s to the mid-80's - their constituency is unified by a kind of liberal, anti-violent, compassionate, pro-underdog motif (doesn't matter whether the underdog is migrant farm workers, unionized laborers, minority groups, spotted owls, oppressed foreign nationals, un-liberated women...). The Republicans have spent the last 20-30 years gathering up the the groups that feel slighted by that motif: farmers who object to controls on migrant labor, corporations who don't like unionized labor, strong Christians who object to the secularization that comes with multiculturalism, old-school statists who dislike non-aggressive foreign policy and protected domestic rights, conservative whites who are leery of racial integration, ideological conservatives who dislike taxation and government intervention... it's much harder to draw all that under one easy rubric. Of course, in europe it will be different because there will be different defining elements for the parties - for instance, no one in Germany wants to associate with old-school statists, France's more socialist perspective will create different alliances, and the whole new EU thing puts a federalist spin on everything there. European politics really isn't my thing, though. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble believing that this problem is by any means limited to either Americans or Republicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to me Ludwigs has accurately described the majority of politicians in all Western world style democracies. That is simply the premises of modern day politics in democratic societies, and the Republicans are no better or worse in that respect than the rest. It mainly comes down to whether you agree with their particular politics or not, and thus how much you are willing to ignore their particular but inevitable hypocrisies that being a politician in such a system creates. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I know much more about US politics than about politics anywhere else, and I like to keep a quiet little dream that I can someday pack my bags and move to some democracy where political figures aren't largely raving lunatics. So far I've excluded Italy, India, Greece, most of the balkan states, The Netherlands, and Russia. Ireland, Sweden, France, and Spain are still in the running, so don't tell me anything bad about them. --Ludwigs2 22:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered Sealand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ludwigs2. Wow! I think we have common political ground! (Nice to agree on something!) My god you describe things well. How about moving to Denmark? I have lived there for 24 years. It's a paradise for liberal, Democratic, humanitarian socialists, and the Danes are the happiest people in the world.

In modern social democratic societies in many Western European countries, as well as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the populace voluntarily adopts certain values and ideas about human rights. They say:

• "We refuse to accept poverty, illness and ignorance as normal or acceptable, therefore we choose less income inequality so we can pay higher taxes into a national fund where there is no profit motive, and it gets paid back to the citizenry to ensure that our concept of human rights is respected. We believe that healthcare and education are human rights, therefore we choose to build a society where it is freely available to all. Our politicians are entrusted with a responsibility to administer those funds properly, and if they deviate from our humanitarian socialist values, we will use our democratic rights to replace them."

And it works! Denmark has the lowest level of income inequality in the world and they are the happiest people in the world: Few have too much, and fewer have too little. They are secure in many ways; they have decent health care and see no medical bills; they are very well-educated, and get paid to go to school all the way through university; their home economy is no barrier to becoming a physician, lawyer, architect, etc.; women have equal rights and extended pregnancy/child rearing rights and leave time, and their husbands/partners can share it; there is little crime; children are raised without fear of oppression by their parents, without censorship, with early self-responsibility, and they develop into independently thinking and mature adults who function very well in society; the military budget is small; the country gives a higher percentage of its GNP in international aide than the USA; even the few who are homeless and losers in society are kept from real suffering. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What are the immigration rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Fairly strict. Just kidding. I'm not sure. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're an EU citizen, then just go and live there! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to enter this conversation as it's not the kind of thing best suited for the Reference Desk. But I can't help noting what Barney Frank said about this issue: that conservatives think "life begins at conception and ends at birth." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem like an appropriate reference desk question to me either. Take the name of the party and the party platform and replace them with any other and you'll have exactly the same question. Politics are power, not honest debate. The more honest debate there is in that equation the better and freeer the political system. That's true for every country, every century, so long as primates formed societies there's maneuvering for power. We're only better at it than our ancestors. The best we can strive for is a system that balances those forces as much as possible by pushing them against themselves. History strongly suggests we won't good will ourselves into a better arrangement though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Something else that should be mentioned is that US Republicans consist of two main groups, fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives. There isn't any inherent reason for these two groups to be in the same party. Fiscal conservatives want low taxes, low spending, and low debt, and generally want the government not to interfere in our lives, while religious conservatives want to ban abortion and gay marriage, which are ways of increasing government interference in our lives. So, there's an automatic conflict there. Also, the issue of immigration is a problem, as fiscal conservatives want cheap foreign workers for their businesses, while religious conservatives "have been opposed to immigration ever since they came to this country". :-) "Conservative Christians" do seem to be hypocritical, in that they really don't endorse the teachings of Christ, such as pacifism and caring for the poor and sick, so calling themselves "Christians" seems entirely wrong. They should call themselves "Old Testament Conservatives", since those beliefs are more in line with the Old Testament values. StuRat (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

transgendered novels

Can you recommend anyone non-explicit novels that have a transgendered character as a main character? Thanks!

You asked this at the Miscellaneous Desk a little earlier today. Please do not post the same question on more than one desk. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Women attending funerals

I have the impression, that it was not considered proper for women to attend funerals in early modern Europe. The men placed the coffin in the grave in all-male company and the women did not follow them to the cemetary. This seem to have changed in the 1850 or thereabout. Is this correct? Why was it like that? And why did it change? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is still the case in some funerals, although I have been unable to find definitive references for this. I'm thinking of some extreme Presbyterian sect, or traditionalists in the Scottish Isles. This page gives the old Scottish funeral procedure with reference to this practice. My reason for thinking it is still current is the fact that I have seen it within the last few months on the television in the UK. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a reference here to the practice. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You can also see it in a picture here, where the deceased's mother is the only female in attendance. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are talking about the burial. Women would still have attended the wake, prior to the burial. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I googled [women attending burials] and there were a fair number of entries, many of them about Islam, but it seemed to be connected to the concern that women would be too emotional. This general concern is also mentioned somewhere in the Funeral article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not always. Some Jewish groups bar women from funerals for other reasons. One pervasive belief is that the evil spirits that supposedly exist at graveyards could harm a fetus; another is that women are simply unclean and would pollute the graveyard. Some groups simply point to the ruling of a rabbi, who may not have given a reason for his decision. (But the vast majority of Jewish groups allow women at funerals.) In Islam, the reason for the ban seems to be not just that women cried loudly, but that families would hire women to cry loudly - it became a sort of competition. In Hinduism, two of the most common reasons given are the prevention of sati and the tendency of women to cry, but women were also expected to ritually clean the deceased's home during the cremation. Most other religions and non-theistic cultures allow women to attend funerals, and in some cultures women are traditionally in charge of funerals. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A reference to women not attending funerals in Scotland here and a quote here (can't link directly to it(?), but click on "Categories" then "Streets and Houses" then "Death") "We only had the two rooms – we put the coffin in the back room and anyone who came in got shown into the back room to see the body. The coffin was never screwed down until the last minute. Nobody left from a funeral parlour – everybody left from the house – and in those days the women didn’t go to funerals – they stayed at home and made sandwiches. It was only the men that went to the cemetery." - an elderly woman remembers Dundee in the early 20th century. Alansplodge (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Another quote here; "(Scottish) women in the eighteenth century regarded a funeral as an occasion to wear their best clothes; they usually walked to the kirkyard gate, leaving the men to follow to the grave..". Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And another here about "A Highland Funeral" by Sir James Guthrie 1881. "As the painting shows, women did not generally attend funerals at the time". Apparently it wasn't only Scotland, but across the border at Jarrow-on-Tyne where "the women did not attend the funeral, except a girl who died unmarried, and then all the unmarried young women attended in a body, wearing white sheets... These and other such customs were very religiously observed till well into the twentieth century."[1] Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

when did oral tellers of the Greek Iliad and Odyssey die out?

I understand that these texts were not passed on in written form, but by people who would memorize them. When did the last of these people probably live? (I assume we do not have a direct lineage to modern day, so that if anyone still does that, they can only trace it back to a book, not the oral tradition: is this assumption correct?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.188.226 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the precise knowledge of oral traditions tend to die out with the individuals that lives by them, we don't really know. Generally speaking the oral tradition of storytelling has survived on up until quite recently, though most likely not in a direct line from the Hellenic storytellers. It is only a guess, but the storytellers directly familiar with the original Homeric epics probably did become somewhat superflous with the spread of the written narratives in the Hellenistic world especially from the 3rd century BC and onwards. The general oral tradition of storytelling started to become outdated in the Western world when the reading revolution of the 18th century kicked in, and more so during the following centuries, especially combined with the addition of new media of the radio, cinema, TV and lastly the internet. The oral tradition still survives to some extent, but it is largely a fringe phenomena, and generally is a revival that has no direct connection to the oral tradition of the past. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, regarding oral history, there are some societies where oral history taking was preserved for a very long time, even alongside writing; and in some cases, while their role is diminished in a modern society, hard work has preserved the tradition in an essentially unbroken line. The Griot or "Djeli" of West Africa represent such a tradition. --Jayron32 04:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Greeks (and Romans) may not have been as literate as us, but the small class of people who were literate weren't much different from us. The Homeric epics were first written down in the 6th century BC in Athens, under Pisistratus, and the 6th century is pretty early, considering that what we think of as ancient Greece didn't start until the 5th century. The oral epics seem to date from only a couple of hundred years earlier, the 9th or 8th century BC, but that just means the texts are based on the stories of the 8th century. The actual events were supposed to have taken place another several hundred years before that, so if by some chance they had been standardized in writing in the 8th century, or not until the third century, maybe the oral tradition would have been different and we would now have different texts. It's sort of like what we have with fairy tales, or the King Arthur stories. I hope that makes sense...what I mean is, not to discount the important or oral history, but the Greeks made a big deal about writing things down very early on. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"We know that officials in sixth-century BC Athens used written copies of Homer's epics to ensure that performers did not diverge from the authorized text" notes Herbert Jordan in his recent (2008) notes to The Iliad. This recension, traditionally authorized by Pisistratus, is known as the Ilias Atheniensium: google that phrase. George Melville Bolling spent a career trying (fruitlessly?) to identify the pre-Alexandrian text.--Wetman (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The professional singers who performed the Iliad and Odyssey were rhapsodoi or rhapsodists, but modern scholarship is divided as to whether they relied on their memories, as you say, or on written texts. Our Rhapsode page says they existed "in the fifth and fourth centuries BC (and perhaps earlier)". The latest historical witness cited there is the orator Lycurgus, from whom, apparently, we learn that "At Athens, by 330 BC, there was a law that rhapsodes should perform the Homeric poems at every Panathenaic festival". I agree with Saddhiyama's first point that it would, almost by definition, be very difficult to establish the date when the oral tradition (if that's what it was) finally died out. --Antiquary (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading in a book by or about Patrick Leigh Fermor that, during his time with the Cretan resistance, he would fall asleep in a cave listening to a shepherd recite the Iliad, and wake hours later to find the recitation unbroken. A more recent interveiew with him and one of these resistance fighters, now old men:

Although George's father, Nicolas, was illiterate, he could recite by heart the whole of the Erotocritos, the 17th-century Cretan epic poem that comprises 10,000 lines of rhyming couplets. And the rhythm lodged in the son's head and on his tongue: poetry to these people was not the object of solemn study but a spur to the spinning of legends and the cue for a bloody good song.[...] On their first trek together, Paddy recalls how George recited a poem he had written on the unambitious theme of The Second World War So Far. "It covered the invasion of Poland, the fall of France, the German invasion of Greece and Rommel's final advance. It lasted more than two hours and finished on a note of triumphant optimism and presage of vengeance, which he emphasised by borrowing my pistol and firing it into the sky with the remark that we would soon be eating the cuckolds alive." [2]

BrainyBabe (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

April 10

What am I?

If my position on God is that I will find out when I die and until then I dont really care, what does that make me? A hellbound reprobate is, definately, not the answer I am looking for in case any of you are wondering ;) --Thanks, Hadseys 00:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

An apathetic agnostic. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See Apatheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer to this depends on what you mean by "don't really care". The issue here is the perceived relationship between the way one lives one's life and what happens after death; not caring what the after-death state-of-existence is can lead to any number of philosophical approaches. Good-natured hedonists, hard-core existentialists, and self-abnegating Buddhist monks all start from the presumption that after-death existence is both unknowable and not a matter for speculation, but beyond that they don't have a lot in common. --Ludwigs2 06:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My vote...."apathetic agnostic". You did ask "what am I".190.56.14.159 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

or "I don't know and I don't care"! Well you did ask...--TammyMoet (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That's also the punch line to the question, "I can't tell if your problem is ignorance or apathy!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a question. I don't know whether you knew that, but I do care.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, it should have read, "What is your problem? Ignorance? Or apathy?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

old joke: a reporter ask a citizen, "Sir, tell me what you think about the problem of ignorance and apathy in America!" The citizen frowns at him and says, "Humph! I don't know, and I don't care!"--Ludwigs2 01:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "if there is a God, I will find out when I die" rather than that you will find out regardless? Kansan (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Another question please. If religion as a concept had never been developed by mankind, i.e. we were totally ignorant of scripture and religious tales and belief in a deity, would religion still occur to us as a natural thought process? I don't think it would seeing as it isnt a phemonena that occurs in any other part of the animal kingdom but it would be interesting to hear differing perspectives --Thanks, Hadseys 00:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Those items you describe were a product of the thinking that led to religion being developed. So since it already happened that way, the answer has to be, "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• But the concept of religion was developed when governments couldn't control their unruly populations so they preyed on their fear of death. Religion to me always seems to have been used as a political weapon which is why it says, if your good and follow the commandments, which incidentally happen to what the majority of governments didnt want their population doing, you'll go to heaven but if you dont you'll go to hell.

That's a common hard-atheist assumption but I've never seen any proof of it. In fact, the evidence I have seen is that religion predates organized government by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. The Neanderthals had religion. Just because governments use religion to control subjects doesn't mean they created it: they also use testosterone to control subjects, and they sure didn't create that either. --NellieBly (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I see this as at least partly looking at the concept of "the god(s) of the gaps". One role religion played historically was to explain things not otherwise explainable in mankind's early days. Now that we have scientific explanations for many of these things, the OP's question makes a lot of sense. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP has some confusion, and that your comments make more sense. I would think there are some wikipedia articles that would explain things in depth. Starting with Religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Humans seem to generate what we might call unorganized or weakly organized religions somewhat spontaneously. By default, human brains are hard-wired to make meaning out of the world. "Simple" religions are explanations of weather patterns, food patterns, etc. I don't think it makes much sense to say that governments invented religion to control their populace — it's a bit more organic than that. Many governments use religious belief to cement their power, but they rarely invent the religious belief outright, and the ability of governments to forcibly alter (or stamp out) religious beliefs has been quite limited. Some governments have created religions from nothing (e.g. the cult of personality in North Korea), but it doesn't look to me a whole lot like "regular" human religions, even those with strong state elements (like, say, Catholicism).--Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that it's natural for people to try to exercise control over their environments - we're socially organized tool users, after all - and primitive religion is often just about that: trying to create a social relationship with someone who is powerful enough to influence environmental factors (such as weather, game animals, disease, victory over rivals, etc.) that man can't control on his own. Offer up a pure white ram in a pleasing ceremony, and add in some prayers for good crops and healthy herds; who wouldn't be moved by that? Religion has grown up a bit, of course, and now generally reaches for idealistic abstractions like peace and universal love, but apply the right kind of pressure and most people will will revert back to that kind of divine wheedling. Nothing quite like an epidemic, a terrorist attack, a sinking ship or malfunctioning aircraft or what have you to put people in a "Hey there God, remember me?" frame of mind. --Ludwigs2 05:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Alansplodge (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. When you're in the dark the mind tends to conjure up visions, just as when you're surrounded by a world you don't understand one must make up an explanation.190.56.14.159 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just note that there's nothing wrong about wanting explanations for things. We all cling to our stories about the reasons things happen, the way the world works. We all cling to various myths about how that knowledge comes to us. To admit as much is not the cede the ability to say, "some factual claims about the world seem better based than others," or to say, "some beliefs are more useful than others," or anything like that. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite the obvious pagan/supersititious basis of it, people still tend to anthropomorphize natural phenomena. I expect there has always been a degree of "comfort" in the notion that "things happen for a reason" rather than being merely random. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think some people have difficulty with the idea that we don't otherwise know the the First Cause in cosmogony. The other day, some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door. When I told them I was an atheist, the talkative one used what must have been his atheist line: the universe is proven to have a beginning so there has to be an intelligent designer responsible for it. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to print out the next section for reference if they show up again. That is, inform them that there is no such word as "Jehovah". If you really want to get their attention, though, when they give the "intelligent design" spiel, ask them, "If there is intelligent design, then how did YOU get here?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out that a cyclic model might disagree with his first clause and that pretty much ended the conversation. They were nice enough though and my dog is always happy to have visitors. Although I think he prefers Mormons. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue with intelligent design is that, depending on how you look at it, it's self-refuting. To have an intelligent designer, some people (i.e. Richard Dawkins) would argue that something needed to have created the designer, and something created the designer's designer, and so on, so you get an infinite regress anyways. In my Problems in Philosophy class we have a biblical literalist, and I endlessly toy with him (I'm a strong agnostic) when he tries to use that argument. There is a way around the infinite regress problem of intelligent design, but he still hasn't figured it out, and I don't think he will anytime soon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My general approach to intelligent design proponents is to point out that the theory of intelligent design - read according to its letter - is actually very close to various schools of Indian and Chinese philosophy (a nameless, formless essence or principle that 'dreams' or 'structures' or 'gives birth to' all of material reality). The very coolest ID people love that, and see it as a measure of the unity of all faiths; most ID people, though, just get miffed that I would suggest the designer is not "their" designer. Useful litmus test, if nothing else. --Ludwigs2 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Jewish pronunciation of YHWH

I've noticed that there are two principal ways that the tetragrammation is romanized for pronunciation by non-Hebrew readers, namely, Yahweh and Yehova. Which is more commonly used by Jewish persons in the United States? Would a Jewish person who prefers one also consider the other correct? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As the article Tetragrammaton explains, Jews never pronounce the word. When reading the word, they replace it with "Adonai," meaning "My Lord," or with other words depending on the context. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm pretty sure that, depending on orthodoxy, a Jewish person wouldn't speak the tetragrammaton. If they were to pronounce it, they would probably use whatever language they spoke natively to pronounce it; i.e. in Modern American English "Yahweh" would likely suffice. However, according to Tetragrammaton#Pronunciation, "Observant Jews write down but do not pronounce the Tetragrammaton, because it is considered too sacred to be used for common activities." The same article and section also states earlier "The authentic, historically correct pronunciation is not known" In other words a) No one knows how the original authors of the bible intended YHWH to be pronounced b) "Observent" jews don't pronounce it at all and c) Less observant jews would just pronounce it how it is pronounced in their native language. If you really wanted to be specific, you could pronounce it as the phrase "I am" is pronounced in Hebrew, as YHWH is supposed to literally mean "I am". --Jayron32 04:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is in the Tetragrammaton article somewhere, but as I understand it, observant Orthodox Jews pronounce יהוה "Adonai" only in prayer and in Bible reading. In everyday contexts, even "Adonai" is too holy to pronounce, so it gets replaced by other things, notably "Hashem" ("the name"). —Angr (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

72.128.95.0 -- As others have stated, neither form is at all commonly used by traditional-minded Jews in the United States or elsewhere. All that the text of the Bible as we have it contains is the basic consonantal framework YHWH, supplemented by certain later-added notations (the "niqqud") which indicate either where the Masoretes intended YHWH to be pronounced out loud as Adonai in Bible recitation, or where they intended YHWH to be pronounced out loud as Elohim in Bible recitation. These are cases of "Q're perpetuum". If you want to know the gory technical details, you can consult the images Image:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png and Image:Qre-perpetuum.png (though they might have somewhat limited value if you don't have some familiarity with the Hebrew alphabet). The pronunciation "Yahweh" is a speculatively reconstructed linguistic form first proposed by Gesenius, while "Jehovah" is an outright blunder and mistaken error, created by Christians with a limited knowledge of Hebrew, who naively combined the consonants YHWH with the niqqud in a way which was never intended by the Masoretes, and which ignorantly violates the basic principles of Q're Perpetuum. AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The English name Jesus is equivalent to the Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Joshua).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's more directly equivalent to the shortened form of the Hebrew name, Yešuaʕ, rather than to the original longer form Yəhošuaʕ. Not too sure how this directly relates to the OP's original question, however... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, my point is that using an accurately reconstructed form of the name is not important. (Using a recognizable form of the name is important.) My comment of 02:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC) was a direct response to the last sentence in your message of 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC). If that message was a direct response to the original question, it should have been indented by one increment from the left margin.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wavelength -- However different modern English [dʒiːzəs] may seem from Hebrew Yəhošuaʕ (or rather Yəhošuʕ, since the "a" vowel would not have been part of the pronunciation of the word in Biblical times), one comes from the other by means of a sequence of natural linguistic sound changes and adaptations of the word from one language to another using the closest available equivalents in the borrowing language. The article Jesus (name) which you yourself linked to explains much of this: the shortening of Yəhošuʕ to Yešuʕ within Hebrew, the borrowing from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek, the borrowing from Greek into Latin, the phonological evolution from Latin into medieval French, the borrowing from medieval French into medieval English, and the phonological evolution from medieval English into modern English. The end result of over 2,500 years of language change and 3 or 4 language transfers is that Yəhošuʕ becomes [dʒiːzəs].

By strong contrast, the form "Jehovah" was produced from YHWH and Q're Perpetuum niqqud all in one sudden step sometime in the late medieval or renaissance period (born like Athena from the head of Zeus, as it were) by people who were no means secure in their knowledge of Hebrew, and definitely not secure in their knowledge of the scribal conventions used by the Masoretes in annotating their version of the Biblical text. Unfortunately, "Jehovah" was created by an outright mistaken blunder, so it was nonsense in 1550 (or whenever), and it remains nonsense today... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, regardless of the history of the development of the name in the form Jehovah, that is the form of the name most familiar to speakers of the English language today. If you are rejecting that form of the name because you believe it to have been misformed, then you have even more reason to reject English words which are actually misnomers.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You can be as fond of "Jehovah" as you like, but when you compare a form which was abruptly conjured into existence by a mistaken blunder ("Jehovah") with a form which evolved incrementally by a series of small natural changes over 2,500 years ("Jesus"), then your attempted analogy between the two is completely useless and non-explanatory. Furthermore, the prominence of "Jehovah" has actually been somewhat on the decline over the last century or so -- its flagrant and blatant overuse in the American Standard Version (which had "Jehovah" many hundreds of times where the KJV only used it seven times, four of those in place names), and professional Hebrew scholars' knowledge that it was mistaken, ended up creating a certain degree of backlash (or perhaps resistance, if you think "backlash" is too dramatic). The RSV did not continue the ASV policy on "Jehovah", and by the 1960's the Jerusalem Bible used "Yahweh"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It's kind of cute when some people change "Asparagus" into "Sparrow-grass", and you can have a little chuckle over it, but it would seem to me that such misnomers should be rigorously avoided in the case of the original name of God in a religious tradition whose variants and offshoots are taken seriously by about two billion people. AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

These are my replies to some of your points.

• Popularity is irrelevant (http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/7-13.htm).
• Seminary training is irrelevant (http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/10-2.htm).
• Publishing trends are irrelevant (http://www.multilingualbible.com/2_timothy/4-3.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

However, facts and truth are quite relevant, and the fact is that "Jehovah" originated in a simple mistake (a misunderstanding of the conventions of Q're Perpetuum). And you were the one who appealed to the criterion of popularity ("most familiar"), so you should probably try to work on your consistency a bit more... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

art reproduction

What does the "smoldering torch" in the margin of an engraving signify? What is the history behind the use of a "smoldering torch" to code a reproduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe1128 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. When your art history instructor assigned you the reading in the textbook and/or covered this in lecture, what did they say? When you get these questions as a homework assignment, these are "are you paying attention" questions. You really shouldn't have to ask anyone for help, if, of course, you were paying attention. You may want to read {{DYOH}} as well. It will be enlightening. --Jayron32 04:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this topic, but will point out that the 'passing the torch' metaphor for extending knowledge across generations is very old (goes at least back to the story of Prometheus), and it would not at all surprise me to see it used symbolically by someone reproducing an older engraving for newer audiences. However, quoting me on this without double-checking in the reading is risky - if I'm wrong nothing happens to me, but you get an F. Aint life grand? --Ludwigs2 05:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input; however, the question arises from a high school instructor's comment made to me many decades ago. I recently purchased a reproduction in Paris with the symbol on its margin. I did not realize that questions raised on Wikipedia were subject to evaluation by the on-line "experts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe1128 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's your bad luck that you put your questions in a style resembling that of exam questions. —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering that the style of an exam question can take numerous forms, it is neither bad luck nor anyone's fault that there maybe some similarity in this instance. In the meantime rather than make unhelpful comments about an ill-judged accusation, perhaps someone could actually have a go at answering the question? 213.120.209.249 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee, AGF much? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

An image of the icon or mark in question may help.

Could it simply be the trademark of the company that produced the prints? APL (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictional city starting with Q?

I'm trying to come up with an example of a fictional city for every letter in the alphabet - more in the vein of fantastic/sci-fi/creative cities rather than just generic American Anytown cities - and I've got one for everything but Q. (X is Xanadu.) Can anybody think of one? It can be from anything - novels, movies, TV shows, cartoons, comics - as long as it's fictional. Ideally I'm looking for images and illustrations too. I've ruled out the Discworld's Quirm for that reason, and Family Guy's Quahog because it's an Anytown. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've not read it, but have you checked The Discworld Mapp for images of Quirm? And why could you not use Quahog? There's lots of good images availible for areas of town; its not much different than Springfield, or South Park, in that way, and unlike Springfield it has a real location (Rhode Island). --Jayron32 06:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Discworld has TV series and films set in it. I've not seen Soul Music (TV series), but the novel it is named after has action in Quirm, IIRC. --Jayron32 06:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

How about Quivira? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, have you tried looking in Category:Fictional populated places? --Jayron32 06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

or Category:Fictional_countries_in_other_worlds. I'd lean towards shadowy realm of Quarmall in the old Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories. I think those probably were illustrated (they were mostly pulp serials, which were usually heavy on color). --Ludwigs2 06:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies so far, but I should clarify that I'm looking for fictional cities only, not countries or regions. "Fictional populated places" was a good subcategory I hadn't seen yet (I'd only seen "fictional city-states") but, alas, no entries under Q. The reason I am reluctant to use Quahog is because (like Springfield and South Park) it's fictional but not fantastic, if you get what I mean; it will look very dull sandwiched between Port Blacksand and Rapture. Quirm was unfortunately created solely to fill the Discworld's role of a dull and boring place, so that's a last resort too - images from the animated series are very difficult to find and the only other one I can dig up is of the floral clock. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes but Leonard of Quirm was a fascinating character... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this will meet your requirements (for much the same reason as Quahog), but I'll mention that Jules Verne's "Une fantaisie du docteur Ox" is set in the fictional town of Quiquendone. Deor (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Q Continuum from star trek? Though it isn't exactly a city. There are a few alien cities also mentioned in star trek startying with Q, for example "Quin'lat", I don't think it's shown on screen though 82.43.90.38 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Has to be "Qua".190.56.14.159 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Qo'noS is the Klingon name for their capital city (although is also the name of the planet). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Qwghlm is one of my favorites- unfortunately it's an island. From Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle. Staecker (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You might consider the city of Ul Qoma in China Miéville's novel The City and the City, presuming that the "Ul" is merely the definite article in the (fictional) Arabic-related(?) language of that city. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 90.197.66.111 (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Xanadu is not fictional, it's an indirect transliteration of Shangdu, in modern-day Inner Mongolia in the People's Republic of China. If your criterion includes real cities used in fiction, then any number of other cities in China would suffice. I would suggest Qingdao, a nicely romantic German city on the east coast of China with excellent beaches. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Qward was the antimatter world/home/universe of the main evil doers in the very early Green Lantern comics. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cubic equation

Does anyone see a cubic equation in File:Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze, MMA-NYC, 1851.jpg? Been looking for some time now and can't find one. Albacore (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about a mathematical formula, evidence of cubism, or something else ? StuRat (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the ice!190.56.107.174 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are some roughly cube-shaped pieces of ice. Is this a "cubic equation" ? StuRat (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

more-or-less typical cubic curve

I'm not a mathematition, but it seems that a cubic equation does not have to involve cubes.190.56.107.174 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct. A cubic equation describes a curve, not a cube, if they meant this in the mathematical sense. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but an equation itself is not a curve, or a cube, or a camel, but simply a collection of symbols. If they'd meant a curve, wouldn't they have said so? One does not normally refer to a parabola-shaped object as a "quadratic equation". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

One can see just about anything one looks for. there is a loose, general cubic-curve feel to the picture - up the front paddles and prow of the ship, a downward cusp through Washington's body, then an upward energy through the flagpole again - but I don't know if that qualifies as an 'equation' and I don't know if it was intended to be explicitly cubic or was merely a framing tactic to place the visual emphasis on George. --Ludwigs2 21:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought maybe the OP was expecting to see something like $ax^{3}+bx^{2}+cx+d=0$ painted in small letters somewhere. —Angr (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering what led Albacore to expect to find a cubic equation in that picture in the first place. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps albacore was instructed to find one.190.56.107.174 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you expect them to look for a tuna in each painting ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

By "cubic" I mean x to the third power (x³) and it's curves. Albacore (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most will accept that definition of cubic, but what did you mean by equation? To me, equation means something containing an equals sign. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Albacore means what is more usually referred to as a "cubic function", but they do come with equal signs - e.g. $y=ax^{3}+bx^{2}+cx+d$. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Stringed instruments

1) I believe the double bass is sometimes called the bass. However, the term "double" implies that there was once a "single bass". Was there, or perhaps was this another name for the cello ?

2) I see there was also an octobass. Was there a quartobass ?

3) Are higher pitched violins sometimes called "first violins", and lower pitched called "second violins" ? (I'm familiar with the more common "first" = "primary" and "second" = "secondary", but seem to have heard it used to differentiate by pitch, as well.) StuRat (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #1: This is covered at Double_bass#Terminology. The name comes from the fact that the bass is tuned to a full octave below a cello. Regarding #2: There are a lot of strange instruments outthere. The octobass I assume gets its name from being 3 octaves below a cello (1/2 and 1/2 and 1/2 again). Presumably, one could build the intermediate instrument, and perhaps someone has, but the octobass is so weird anyways... Regarding #3: The relationship between "first" and "second" violin in an orchestra is the same as the difference between "lead guitar" and "rhythm guitar" in a rock band. That is, they are exactly the same instrument, but written with different roles in mind. The first violin, by tradition, is given the trickier "lead" parts, while the second violin is traditionally given the more mundane, "background" parts. The lower pitched member of the violin family is called a Viola. --Jayron32 23:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

1) So the "single bass" is the cello ?

2) I don't follow the math. A double bass is 2× what ? An octobass is 8× what ? StuRat (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

With 2), the wavelength - see octave. (Or put it another way, half the frequency.) I think that implies a "yes" answer to "1", but I don't know exactly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I found it in a related article. If you read the wikipedia article on the Violone, an instrument related to both cellos and double basses, there is a description of a "bass violin" as " usually a 4-string member of the violin family, often slightly larger-bodied than the 'cello, and often tuned with each string a whole step lower than the cello (lowest string is B flat)." So the single bass was NOT the cello, but a seperate (though similar) instrument which falls in range between a double bass and a cello. Perhaps because its range would be overlap both instruments, and thus it was somewhat superfluous, it disappeared from the standard repetoire, and left the double bass behind, leaving us the anomaly of having a double bass without a single bass. --Jayron32 14:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Are these all the instruments in the violin family and do I have them in the proper order from treble to bass ? :

Violin
Viola
Viol
Cello
Violone
Double bass
Octobass

StuRat (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're restricting to the classical Western family of instruments? I'm not sure how well defined that group is. There are other very similar instruments, like the kobyz. Staecker (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, your ordering has some errors. First of all, the "violone" is an italian term meaning "Medium-to-large sized stringed instrument" and applies to a whole range of bowed, stringed instruments which may or may not be strictly part of the violin family. Secondly, the viol describes a different family of instruments entirely; which are fretted instruments (the violin family are all fretless) and which often have 6 strings (instead of the standard 4 in the violin family. The better order would probably be:

Violin Family	Viol Family
violin	treble viol
viola	alto viol
	tenor viol
cello	bass viol
bass violin (obsolete)
double bass	contrabass viol
octobass

The term "violone" seems to refer to any number of these instruments from either family, usually from the "cello" size or larger. --Jayron32 16:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The double bass is in some respects alien to the violin family and perhaps closer to the viol family; in that it typically has a flat back and sloping shoulders, and is tuned in fourths, not fifths. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

April 11

I have a question about greek god Zeus

Can someone tell me the myth and symbolism about Zeus controlling thunder? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What can be said that would not be circular? Zeus controls thunder because he is the sky-god. See Dyeus. —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A common piece of symbolism is that of Zeus sitting on top of Mount Olympus, casting thunderbolts at errant humans. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A companion to World Mythology tells that Zeus was god of thunder and lightning and ruler of all the gods in Greek myth, something he had to fight for.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Did any countries create hereditary peerages in their colonies?

As far as I can tell the British didn't, and I wondered whether that was the case with everyone. 74.96.104.206 (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

French Canada had a few, I believe. The Lords Proprietors of Carolina were authorized by their charter to create titles, but (it seems) never did. —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How about the Empire of Brazil? —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The French colonial Baron de Longueuil (a suburb of Montreal) still exists and is often mentioned when Canadian nobility comes up. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the Earl Mountbatten of Burma? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That was an earldom in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam Bishop -- see Victory_title#British_Empire... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right. There is also Lord Black of Crossharbour, but that's not a hereditary peerage either. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

74.96.104.206 -- technically baronetcies of Scotland are known as baronetcies "of Nova Scotia", but they weren't very meaningfully colonial... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the patroonships of New Netherland during the Dutch rule. These weren't hereditary peerages, but the patroons did act as feudal-like lords with manorial rights. Neutrality^talk 10:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Turgot

What was Turgot's social rationale for opposing French involvement? And what was his post-retirement career? Is there any details available? --HistorianDrancophine (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

French involvement in what? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming the question refers to Turgot's opposition against France's involvement (meaning support) in the American Revolution. See Anne-Robert-Jacques_Turgot,_Baron_de_Laune#American_Revolution. (This doesn't answer the question, just for the sake of reference and clarity). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is dated but seems to answer your question:

Turgot had been a warm, and a very early, friend to the independence of America; which he welcomed in the interests of mankind, and not least for the sake of England. But his first duty was to his own country; and he combated the proposal of a warlike policy with an earnestness inspired by his profound conviction that the whole future of France was involved in the decision which her rulers were now called upon to take. His reply to Vergennes cost him some weeks of thought and labour. It was a masterly production; a voluminous treatise, three quarters of a century in advance of his age, on the philosophy of colonial administration, and at the same time a powerful and persuasive official minute upon the question of the hour. England, (so the argument ran,) would in all likelihood lose her colonies; or, if she succeeded in reconquering them, she would be condemned thenceforward to hold them in subjection at an expense of money, and military resources, which would bind her over, under the most stringent penalties, to keep the peace with her European neighbours and rivals, and more especially with France. Whatever result might ensue, France would be the gainer; and to choose such a moment for a wanton and gratuitous attack upon England was an immeasurable folly, and a signal crime. The English ministry had done nothing whatever to invite or provoke a war; and every plan of aggression on the part of France was forbidden by moral reasons, and by considerations of national self-interest more imperious still. The King, (said the Comptroller-General,) was acquainted with the condition of his finances, and knew, better than anyone, what sacrifices and efforts were required to stave off bankruptcy even in time of peace. The first cannon-shot fired against a foreign enemy would scatter to the winds all His Majesty's gracious designs for the better government of France, and for the amelioration in the hard lot of her unhappy peasantry. "An English war," (such was Turgot's conclusion,)" should be shunned as the greatest of all misfortunes; since it would render impossible, perhaps for ever, a reform absolutely necessary to the prosperity of the State and the solace of the people." [3] (1907) Neutrality^talk 10:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edmonton Journal Newspaper Article July 1996

I am looking for an Edmonton Journal Article from July 23, 1996 entitled "Kid writers mix it with 'names' by Geoff McMaster, an Edmonton Journal Staff Writer. I attempted to find it, but could not seem to get into their archives. Help would be appreciated! Thanks a lot! InkPulser (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to ask this question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, which is designed to handle exactly this sort of issue. --Jayron32 18:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Women students in Moorish Islamic Spain?

I have heard, that women where allowed to study at the universities in Muslim Al-Andalus Spain during the middle ages. Is this correct? If so, did they truly study with the male students in place at the unicersities, or did they simply study from home? The islamic separation of the sexes seem to make it unlikely that women where allowed to study in Muslim Spain during the middle ages, but I heard it once, during a discussion about the society of the Spanish moors. Perhaps I misunderstod it, or perhaps it was simply incorrect. Can anyone tell me if there where women at the universitites of moorish Spain? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see one version of a woman publicly involved in Islamic learning (not in Spain, though) in volume 5, tale 107 ("The Man's Dispute with the Learned Woman Concerning the Relative Excellence of Male and Female") of Burton's translation of 1001 Nights. Scroll about a quarter of the way down page http://burtoniana.org/books/1885-Arabian%20Nights/HTML/part50.html . She feels free to discuss some things pretty frankly, but she "seated herself behind a curtain" before doing so... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 12

French ban on face covering

I'm thinking about the French ban on face covering, which took effect today. It passed the National Assembly with a 335-1 vote, and their Senate 246-1 (albeit with 100 abstentions). I am not seeing much opposition to this on secular grounds as a religious freedom issue, and I find it curious that this would be the case (I don't know what the deal with those 100 abstentions is). In a number of other countries, this would seem unthinkable on religious freedom/personal expression grounds. Can somebody help shed some light on this? 99.13.195.179 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The French concept of "laïcité" is just as concerned with protecting the public sphere from what is considered to be inappropriate religious influence as with protecting freedom of religious practice and expression... AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

NFL cross-ownership rules

In the NFL, during last year's ownership controversy over the St. Louis Rams, one of the issues was the cross-ownership rules: NFL rules prohibit NFL owners from owning non-NFL teams in markets where there is already an NFL team. In this particular case, Stan Kroenke had to secure a special exemption from the NFL in order to purchase the St. Louis Rams, because he also owns the NBA's Denver Nuggets, MLS's Colorado Rapids, and the NHL's Colorado Avalanche, which cover the same geographic area as the Pat Bowlen-owned Denver Broncos.

What is the point of those cross-ownership rules? They're different sports and different regions, so where's the conflict of interest? So Kroenke owns the Nuggets. Considering it's a basketball team in a different city, why should that make it "bad" for him to own the St. Louis Rams, a football team?

—SeekingAnswers (reply) 05:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One issue I can see (i don't know that this is the major one) is the potential for owners to wish to move teams to markets to consolidate their ownership in one city. While it seems unlikely that Kroenke would move the Rams to Denver, given that there is already a team there; lets take a slightly different tack. Lets say that Clayton Bennett, the principal owner of record for the Oklahoma City Thunder, was buying the Rams instead. He'd have a strong likelyhood of wanting to move the Rams to Oklahoma City to consolidate his interests in the same market. If instead, William DeWitt, Jr. were to buy the Rams, it'd be much better, since DeWitt already owns the St. Louis Cardinals, so there's no impetus to move the team. The NFL as an organization tries to very closely manage franchise moves and relocations, the painful memory of the Colts move to Indianapolis, as well as the Al Davis-led L.A.-hokey pokey (you take the Raiders in, you move the Raiders out, you move the Raiders in, and you shake them all about) has made the rest of the NFL very tight on moves and things like that. The Art Modell led move that led to the Baltimore Ravens was contingent upon the Browns getting an expansion franchise within a short time, AND on the new franchise being given the rights to the history of the old Browns. There was also the debacle over the Patriots ownership during the Kiam-Orthwein years. The league forced Victor Kiam to sell basically over complete mismanagent of his finances; Buddy Orthwein (a St. Louis native with ties to the Busch family) was brought in as a caretaker owner. While there was speculation he would move the team to St. Louis, there was actually no such intention; Orthwein was basically owning the team only as an interim owner until local New England ownership could be found. They ended up with Robert Kraft, owner of Foxboro stadium buying him out. The NFL, more than any other league, protects its product with careful and highly restrictive ownership rules. They require majority ownership in a single person (one individual must own 50+% of the team outright, exception being the Packers, who are publicly owned) and carefully manage team sales between owners and team movement. --Jayron32 05:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The NFL says it is to encourage owners to focus on developing those franchises but also to protect confidential league information and avoid conflicts of interest. There are issues like national and regional broadcasting rights where an owner could have competing interests even if their teams were in different cities. On the other hand, back in the 70s the NASL suggested it was to limit the already small pool of potential owners for other leagues. It looks like we don't have an article on NASL v NFL but it is discussed here. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dominick Elwes

How and why did he suicide? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph ran a story 11 years ago on this. Neutrality^talk 11:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Infant hygiene in artic environment

How did indigenous people who lived in artic environments maintain a hygienic environment around an infant in an era before contact with more modern European technologies. How did they deal with dirty "diapers" (or whatever the equivalent clothing would be). An infant soils the "diaper" at least ten times a day and spits up constantly. Maybe I'm just naive and unimaginative, but I can't see how one could deal with this in a perpetually frozen environment. Did they have enough extra clothing (only animal skins, presumably) available to constantly change "diapers" and other clothing? Did they have enough fuel to melt and boil snow/ice to clean and disinfect "diapers" daily and then dry them for reuse? With my kids, I had a hard enough time maintaining a hygienic environment with a washer, dryer, bleach, etc... Sally Anne (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)