Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

June 8

Globalization and anti-globalization

Can someone recommend a book arguing in favor of globalization and a book against globalization? Thanks. 74.15.137.246 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Books about globalization.—Wavelength (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Frank's Diary

Why wasn't Anne Frank's sister Margot diary saved as well? At the same time I'm also wondering if Peter Van Pels kept a diary himself and why wasn't his saved as well? Do you think that Mr. Frank would have also published Margot and possible Peter's ones as well if they were saved like Anne's?

Have to say that I always have wondered about Margots, but now I'm thrown Peters into it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they weren't saved? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Frank's article (end of intro). I don't recall Anne's diary mentioning that Peter kept one. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Miep Gies knew about Anne's aspirations to be a writer, so she saved the diary. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faaa Church from 1852

A Tahitian chief by the name of Tehapai or Maheanu'u a Mai was the first pastor of the Tahitian district of Faaa, appointed in 1852. My questions are was there a church that he was placed in charge of in that district, what was the name of church, where is it now and can someone find me an image of it today. Google searching in French would probably yield more results.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the Papeete diocese [1] lists three catholic parishes in Faa'a. St. Joseph; Puurai Notre Dame de Grâce; and Pamatai Christ Roi. This page [2] claims the first church in the area dates back to 1865, but the three current ones are all modern (1950, 1984 and 1971 respectively). There is also a pentecostal church that seems to be quite ancient. There is a contact link at the diocese's web site; that would likely be the best source for the information you are looking for. --Xuxl (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LGAs in South Australia

We appear to have a discrepancy between maps of LGAs in South Australia. File:Australia-Map-SA-LGA-Regions.png shows a yellowish blob-shaped LGA along the ocean in the far western part of the state, but it's absent from File:Australian local government areas.png. What is it, and did it recently get established or abolished, or is it the result of a mapmaker's error? Google Maps doesn't help; the area is rural enough that an unenlightened American can't learn anything relevant. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something, or are you referring to Yalata, the last item in the list at LGAs in South Australia? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it is, but the question remains: Why does it not appear on the second map Nyttend mentioned? That map was made from ABS data, so that's a bit of a puzzle. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I looked at all of the maps, but since File:Australia-Map-SA-AC-Yalata.png highlights a spot in the southeast, I assumed that Yalata was in the southeast. I didn't look at the "Region" column, so I didn't notice that "Outback" was its region. The bit about recent establishment or disestablishment was because the two maps were uploaded 2½ years apart, making me wonder if things had changed during that period, but now I see that Yalata was established in 1994. Thank you! Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the overall map is generally in error for some reason? It's missing a small rectangular exclave in the large middle-western LGA, and a small enclave\LGA near the eastern border of the state, as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople without coach

Are there sportspeople that achieved notable successes without a coach?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back far enough in time, say before the mid 20th century, the majority of individual sports people tended to have no coach. The idea of a personal coach dictating an athlete's every move is a relatively modern one. HiLo48 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deriving, at least in part, from self-taught athletes who kept their careers going by becoming coaches or at least mentors. One example would be Rogers Hornsby, who mentored other great hitters such as Ted Williams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Want to know about Nationalism

Hai Sir,

I Just want a article about labourism and which i want for a project work i searched in wikipedia about labourism but i only got about labour movement,labour economics,etc and all...but i need the exact about labourism. so i kindly request you to provide it to me as soon as possible.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.252.10.164 (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which country are you looking for, and what information do you seek on "labourism"? --Jayron32 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster says labourism is a synonym for the politics of a Labour Party [3] while other google hits seem to define it as something like "dominance of the workers" - apparently in the context of the last century. [4] [5] [6] Is there some modern term that fits this definition and that we do have an article on? Best I can find are List of social democratic parties, Labour Party and Social democracy - would these be more on track? 184.147.118.213 (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labourism refers to the instinctive ideology of the three major parties of labour in the Anglosphere: the Australian Labor Party the New Zealand Labour Party and the Labour Party (UK). These parties have a poorly developed ideology, shared with the affiliated and related unions of their countries, that is based in an attempt to take the parliamentary state apparatus and then use them to further develop labour (ie: actual worker)'s interests. Labourism is sometimes revolutionary, sometimes centrist, sometimes hard right wing. It lies between "progressivism" and "social democracy", but lacks the links to "liberalism" and "socialism or Marxism" respectively. If you could clarify which labourism, UK, Au or NZ you're interested in, we could better answer. Each has had a semi-independent trajectory. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your header mentions Nationalism, but your question is about labour politics. Can you explain why, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They could be asking after the links between labourism and nationalism, such as the Australian settlement hypothesis; basically a kind of "national level Fordism" claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Want to know about labourism (again)

Hai Sir,

I Just want a article about labourism and which i want for a project work i searched in wikipedia about labourism but i only got about labour movement,labour economics,etc and all...but i need the exact about labourism. so i kindly request you to provide it to me as soon as possible.and also i want it in about 5-10 paragraph. and also is it possible to get about labourism in europe,Britain,america,india .if anyone can. then please provide it to me fast....

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.252.12.158 (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'Labourism'? As far as I'm aware, the term simply means 'the ideology of the Labour movement', which you have already looked at. If you intend something different you will have to explain what it is. And no, we don't give '5-10 paragraph' answers on demand - we don't do people's homework for them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

American virtuosity

What is Stanley Crouch referring to at 35:55 when he speaks about American virtuosity being based on making something difficult seem easy? Mention is made of Lincoln Kirstein but a quick search doesn't trace the idea back to him. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell exactly, because it isn't a direct quote, but it appears here that Kirstein said such a thing about ballet dancers under the direction of George Balanchine, per this document. I'm digging for other sources of the quote, however. --Jayron32 04:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is pretty close: "Most important, they must make these very difficult things look beautiful and easy",[7] and "Once he had trained dancers who could perform the ballets in his head, he created a faster, more angular way of dancing -- to match the style of New York. He invented a new kind of plotless ballet -- like the modernists who were painting abstract pictures. Like many immigrants to America, he combined the traditions of his past with the vital spirit he found in his adopted country."[8] Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is Piet Hein's Grook:

To make your way in learning

When other roads are barred

Take something very easy

And make it very hard.

Bielle (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wasn't aware of Piet Hein or the literary form Grook. Here is one I like:

A MAXIM FOR VIKINGS

Here is a fact

that should help you fight

a bit longer:

Things that don't act-

ually kill you outright

make you stronger.[9] Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like grooks. Don't I, Bielle. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Box with diagonal line = cavalry

Why is a box with a diagonal line typically used to represent cavalry in diagrams of battles? Example. Google mentions this phenomenon in many places, but always (1) referring to it as a common thing, or (2) talking about a line of cavalry troopers advancing in a diagonal direction. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry strap: NATO_Military_Symbols_for_Land_Based_Systems#History. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any connection to the way a knight moves on a chessboard? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked by Fifelfoo above says that it was "inspired by the cavalry sabre strap", presumably meaning a crossbelt. In chess, the bishop moves diagonally; a knight moves two spaces and then one at a right angle, or one space and two at a right angle. "The complete move therefore looks like the letter L." Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much older convention than the 1984 date mentioned in the NATO Military Symbols article; this 1912 map of The Battle of Waterloo and this 1828 map of the Battle of Talevera both use it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I found this 1763 map of the Seige of Havana which shows the same symbol, but whether it actually represents cavalry or other troops is unclear. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, those maps are a very cool addition to the answer!184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I suspect the origins are lost in the mists of time. This article says that the symbols originated "throughout Western militaries during the decades after Waterloo", although the example that I found (above) predates that by half a century. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a paragraph to the NATO Military Symbols page, in line with the source linked above. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 184.147.118.213: this was a really helpful series of maps, so thanks a lot! I had already guessed that "its origins are murky" might be the answer, but I had no clue if that were the case. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

Causes of death

Virtually every cause of death, from warfare to accidents to old age, preferentially kills males. What are the most significant causes of death that preferentially kill females? Am I correct in suspecting that breast cancer is the only one, since childbirth is extremely safe in the modern world? --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for you answer found some good info on the WHO website. Hot Stop 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Childbirth will still kill more females than it will males, regardless of how few in absolute numbers so die, for obvious reasons. --Jayron32 05:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...childbirth is extremely safe in the modern world". Maybe in your country, but certainly not globally. The World Health Organization estimates that there are 529,000 deaths from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth every year. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

500K deaths out of 130 million births, or 0.4%. By contrast, death rates in antiquity were around 3%. --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In looking for exceptions to the assertion that "Virtually every cause of death preferentially kills males" we should first omit causes of death that are gender specific. For example... no man will ever die of Ovarian cancer and no woman will ever die of Prostate cancer, since men don't have ovaries and women don't have a prostate. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are more men than women? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by why you would include child birth but exclude ovarian and prostate cancers. But anyway, I suspect HIV is one in some cases. I had a brief look at [10] and although I'm a bit tired to understand it, I believe it suggests that the the probability of dying from HIV is similar for males and females in a number of African countries (but I don't think they were looking for small differences). However in some (or many?) African countries, e.g. HIV/AIDS in South Africa, the prevalance is higher among females. So I wonder if the mortality is higher also. A perhaps more interesting point raised by that paper. In many countries List of countries by life expectancy, the life expectancty at birth (or say 1 year old) is at least slightly higher for females than for males. As shown by the earlier paper, this probably holds true even in those countries significantly affected by HIV (well the overall mortality rates at 20-45 are higher for males than for females). However there are clear differences in mortality patterns for females and males from HIV with females generally dying at a much younger age. This is likely, and the paper suggests also, because of the difference in ages for when the person first becomes HIV positive. This would suggest the life expectancy lost by females from HIV may be greater. (There are obviously many possible confounding factors here, e.g. the people more likely to contract HIV may have different life expectancy patterns between females and makes.) The paper itself only seems to consider the combined loss. Back to the point I hinted at earlier, as people always say, currently the mortality rate is always 100% for both males and females so any female is eventually going to have some cause of death, so considering the loss of life expectancty particularly for something with such wildly different mortality rates may be worth considering. BTW, in some countries, female Infanticide is likely more common than male (to be clear, I'm using the term as used in our article and chose it because it was the article name). Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should not have included childbirth. Thanks for your answer! (I also didn't know the word "infanticide" was controversial. Is there some alternative I'm not aware of?) --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct to say that the current mortality rate of AIDS is 100%. Lots of people with AIDS die of causes unrelated to AIDS. If two pedestrians with AIDS get struck by a truck and die, the mortality rate for walking is 100%, and 0% for AIDS. Mortality rates depend on the population being studied. One study of HIV infected people over age 60 found that about 50% of those who died, died of causes other than AIDS. [11] - Nunh-huh 11:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I didn't say mortality rates for HIV are 100%. I said, (as people always say) that mortality rates in general at current times are 100%. Or as other people put it, currently everyone dies eventually. So everyone will have a cause of death, both males and females. Therefore reduced life expectancy is likely a relevant figure since if the person didn't die from HIV, they would have died from something else at some stage in their lives and the numbers were taking about here are all fairly small ones. This is significant here since even if the mortality rates from HIV are similar for males and females, it's possible or likely that in the cases I highlighted, the reduced life expectancy is significantly greater for females. So by this token, you could say HIV in those cases has a proportionaly greater effect on females than on males, in terms of mortality.

(If some people didn't die, taking in to account reduced life expectancy is complicated, since the reduced life expectancy would be infinite. Or even if people generally lived thousands of years but usually died in the 20s-60s with HIV, then difference between males and females in terms of life expectancy lost would be relatively small as it's a very big figure in both cases. In either theoretical situation, you could consider the differences in life expectancy rather than loss, but you still hit the same problem namely that since the loss is so high for all, it's harder to say the effect on females is that much worse. So only considering the mortality rates would generally make the most sense.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting university lecturers

I've been noticing from looking through university websites that the lecturers' contact details are rarely published online. Is this standard practice? Most places seem to require the contact to be through the office. Or am I not looking hard enough? IBE (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email addresses online are pretty standard in the Australian system. If administrative staff are acting as gatekeepers, politeness and an on topic reason to contact an academic usually helps. I am assuming here you're in a system where "Lecturer" is the generic job description for mixed research/teaching staff. In many systems there's an expectation that teaching only staff are not public figures in the way that mixed teaching-research staff (even if they're 90% teaching) are public figures. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and my university publishes email addresses and phone numbers for academic staff. Here is my departmental staff page. User:SamUK 11:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne's hair length

Was Charlemagne's hair long or short?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coins provide excellent contemporary portraiture, although flattery and other symbolism need to be borne in mind. See numismatics. You also have to watch out for later copies of well-regarded coins of earlier eras. Google has a number of images of Charlemagne coins. Looks like his hair was short, at least at some point(s) in his reign. But again, these present snapshots of time. Perhaps he grew his hair long from time to time? We can't be sure, really. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured Einhard would have written about this, but he only says that Charlemagne's hair was "fair", not how long it was. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source has interesting commentary on this subject, though I can't assess its reliability. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edition of Einhard says of Charlemagne's hair that it was "a fine head of hair" (III:22). In addition, there is the account of Notker the Stammerer. It's apparent from the way he talks about another person that having extremely short hair ("as if it had been turned on a lathe"!) was not the done thing (I:32) --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image shows him with short hair (I think the yellow behind his head is part of his head dress), as do other 9th century images.[12] Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on what you mean by long hair or short hair.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.... but the Merovingians made such a point of having long hair that presumably it would have been noted in the records if Charlemagnes also had it. Matt's talk 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on a film made from a biography

A very simple question:

Why did Steven Spielberg made the Lincoln (2012 film) from the 2005 copyrighted book Team of Rivals instead of choosing a copyright expired biography. Solomon7968 07:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a better biography than the old ones, presumably. I don't think paying for the rights to film a book is too much of an issue for Spielberg. --Viennese Waltz 08:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just do not get it. Every reasonable educated man knows about the life of Lincoln (not necessary fine details). So I will expect Steven Spielberg has a reasonable scholarship of Lincoln. He could have makeout the fine details by reading any biography. (After all lincoln died 150 years ago). So why did he chose a copyrighted work? And the wikipedia entry says Spielberg brought the film rights before the book was written! Solomon7968 08:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with any of these works, so this answer is necessarily generic. However: (1) Scholarship moves on; new documents emerge and old ones are reanalysed, new questions are asked (Lincoln's sexuality is certainly a topic of recent debate that would not be adequately addressed in a copyright-expired work); and (2) being able to work with a living biographer means that a film-maker can ask for clarification, have access to sources and interpretations that are only partially reflected in the published book, and so on. If you think that just because a subject is well-known and long-dead, their biography is (so to speak) a closed book, then you are making a grave error. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln's sexuality is a total news to me. Any references? Solomon7968 09:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of Lincoln being gay would probably be total news to Abe as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that most of the "reasonable educated" adults I know (whether male or female) know little more about Abraham Lincoln than his appearance, job title and perhaps a vague link to the American Civil War and/or slavery. Those that do know considerably more than that are probably dominated by those that have seen the film ... or are Americans. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dweller I am an Indian, by reasonable I mean that he abolished slavery, was president during the Civil war and was assasinated. Everyone should know that inspite of he or she is American or not. It is not bad to have knowledge of other cultures. Solomon7968 11:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn't protect facts (or ideas), only expression. Whether you make a factual biopic from one book or another really doesn't matter unless, perhaps, you are completely slavishly translating the book into a film medium. So whether he says the movie is adapted from one book or another doesn't really matter from a copyright perspective, and paying the writer is good form regardless of copyright issues. And who would want to make a factual movie from an 80 year old book? It would not reflect current scholarship and would sound ridiculous. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate a bit on, and provide links to, PalaceGuard's answer: see idea expression divide. The copyright applies only to the expression not the idea: that means that the copyright on the book applies only to direct copies of the book, not to other expressions of the ideas contained within the book. Now, IANAL, even a copyright lawyer, but my understanding the existence of a copyright on the book doesn't disallow someone from making a derivative work of it. The new work would have the dual copyrights, the original copyright to the book would still apply, and the new creative work added to the original would also have its own copyright. Furthermore, why wouldn't Spielberg use a well written, well known biography of Abraham Lincoln to tell his story? It provides a nice tie-in to an already well-known work, and from a marketing perspective, the book and film each tying to each other increases sales of both: the movie will get extra viewers among those that already know the book, and the book will generate additional sales from people who may not have read it but learned of it through the connection to the movie. Win-win! --Jayron32 13:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, several years before the Lincoln movie, "Team of Rivals" was known to be an influence on Obama including Hilary Clinton in his cabinet, and was mentioned in a "Simpsons" episode, so it's a fairly well-known book in its own way... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A film producer might pay a writer to develop a screenplay which "borrowed" from a copyright biography, arguing that the facts of the person's life are not copyrightable, and just do things like change made-up dialogue and invented scenes in the bio. But the enhanced public image of the film as being based on a recent and popular book might be worth the cost of buying film rights.Many trailers for Hollywood films started by showing the famous author and perhaps even his earlier bestsellers, showing the cover of the current book, opening the cover and transitioning to a scene of the hero and heroine. Similarly, Hollywood sometimes payed the author of a popular book to write the film adaptation, because that might attract viewers, even if they did not use the screenplay he wrote, or had ghost writers adapt it beyond recognition. Edison (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke of Richard Nixons resignation

Dear everybody. Could Richard Nixon revoke his resignation as President, before the term of office he has been elected to expired (until January 20, 1977). He was never convicted in an impeachment, so he might take back his resignation in 1975 and point out that he is the person who has been elected president in the last election. Is such a scenario conceivable? Had Gerald Ford stepped again into the vice-presidency; or is a Vice President who succeeds the presidency irrevocably president without being elected? (I know it's a very difficult question). --91.103.112.54 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

President of the United States#Vacancy or disability says Nixon resigned in an appropriate way and Vice President of the United States#Succession and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, confirmed at Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 1: Presidential succession, suggests Ford would have immediately succeeded to the full Presidential office Thincat (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual question is, whether he could revoke the resignation after he left office. Let's say in 1975, when is second term would not have been expired. --91.103.112.54 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the answer is, no. Under what authority could he possible have done so? You resign, you resign. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a scenario where he announced on 7 August that he was going to resign with effect from noon on 9 August, but after a good night's sleep he woke up on 8 August and said "No, dammit, I'm gonna stay and fight this thing", and then announced he'd changed his mind and would be staying put and the Watergate enquiry would have to proceed to finality. That is, he withdrew the resignation before it was due to take effect (the resignatius interruptus scenario). But once it had already taken effect, and even before Ford had been sworn in, Nixon had ceased to be President. He then had no more claim to the U.S. presidency than Adolf Hitler had. With the exception that he might have been able to run again in 1976, whereas Hitler could not have, not even if he were still alive. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he couldn't have run in '76, because he had been elected twice. Well, technically, he could have run (there are often minor candidates on the ballots of one or more states who don't meet the eligibility requirements), but he couldn't have been elected. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The President of Malawi denounced her supposed resignation letter as a forgery. In a time of crisis, it seems possible that someone might forge a US President's letter of resignation (many Presidential signatures were done with the Autopen, but not Nixon's resignation letter), and then the Secretary of State could accept it as official. and the Vice President (or next in line of succession if the VP office were not filled at the time) could be sworn in. A President might also claim that it was signed under duress (someone was twisting his other arm or waterboarding him or threatening to harm his family member). It is also conceivable that a President might resign in protest and the Secretary of State might be slow to open and accept the resignation, allowing time for negotiation and reconsideration. But I have not seen any scenario discussed wherein he could submit an actual resignation, then change his mind later. If he resigned in his first term, he could always run for a second term. Edison (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were possible for Nixon to have changed his mind after resigning, it's important to remember that the reason he resigned is that he was in process of being impeached, and almost certainly would have been convicted by the Senate. So if he un-resigned, he would have been kicked out permanently anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unspoken supposition here is that being president is somehow in the blood. But it's a sworn position won by election or certification of the House, or inherited by the VP (or next in line) upon vacancy. There's no constitutional path to the presidency for a former president because he wants it back. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be distinct from a President doing a "Bill Mitchell" and going into a coma. Had Mitchell recovered from his situation, he would have gotten the presidency back. (I'm referring to the movie Dave in case you're wondering.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Somali script

Hello,

are there any pictures of the Ancient Somali script?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this comes high up on a Bing search of "Somali ancient script". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does (Somali ancient script) actually exist? Should that article be merged with Wadaad's writing (which has an image)? Because:

All our articles (Somali ancient script, Somali language, Somali) source a claim that there are undeciphered rock writings from Somalia (dating from before the arrival of Arabic scripts) to an 1878 Royal Society report which, as far as I can tell from reading it online [13] mentions inscriptions in only two sentences: (p447) "I also discovered ancient ruins and rock-inscriptions both in pictures and characters. These have hitherto not been deciphered." I think it's a bit of a stretch we are using that as a source to claim, 135 years later, that there is an undeciphered Somali script.
This paper by someone at the Uni of Turin (prof or student I know not) claims there was no indigenous writing in the Somalia region until Arabic script arrived (i.e. Wadaad's writing).

Any thoughts? I'm off to make the claims in the articles at least match the source, but am not sure enough to merge the articles. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the good folks at Wikiproject Somalia have confirmed an ancient script exists, citing a 1974 Somali government publication [14]. I've asked them if they can help you find a pic. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book of John

Is there a reason why the book of John in the Bible is the most recommended of all the gospels by Christians, even though it is not part of the synoptic gospels? Why not recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible of the NRSV and recommend reading from Genesis to Revelation, along with the oral Torah or the sacred tradition of the Roman Catholic church? Sneazy (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it doesn't seem obvious at all from a Christian perspective that a synoptic gospel should be preferred, but mostly it probably has to do with the motivation John gives for writing his gospel (John 20:31): "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.". Regarding the second part of your question, reading the entire Bible costs a lot of time, and Christianity does not recognize any 'Oral Torah'. The sacred tradition of the Catholic Church, apart from it being quite extensive and not clearly defined, is of course rejected by both Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox alike. I think most evangelists, or people handing out John's gospel are evangelicals, not Roman Catholics. - Lindert (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether the book of John actually is "the most recommended". Recommended by whom... and for what? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to track the source of an in-person conversation than an Internet conversation. Sometimes, a random person on the Internet can leave a note, recommending the book of John with little explanation. Sneazy (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have basically answered your own question with "a random person on the internet"--i.e., an evangelical by style. What do you mean by recommending the "sacred tradition of the Roman Catholic church"? I am not aware of any such book. Do you mean a catechism? μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is, in fact, also part of the Sacred Tradition of the Orthodox Churches. And much of Christianity does indeed recognise the oral Torah, although obviously does not include post-Jesus stuff in their own Sacred Tradition. It's only the Sola Scriptura advocates who reject the various oral Traditions completely, and not even all of them (Lutherans have historically respected a lot of Sacred Tradition, for example). 86.163.0.30 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, the question is a bit complex, and requires one to very carefully define what you are looking for. Among all of the gospels, Mark is the most translated, thus is available in the most languages, per this. This is likely because it is the first and shortest of the gospels. Jesus (1979 film) is a filmed version of the Gospel of Luke, and has been translated into numerous languages, a case could be made that through the Jesus Film Project it is possible that more people are exposed to the Gospel of Luke than to any other Gospel, if they are only exposed to one. As far as why you Sneazy have the impression that John is the most recommended Gospel to read, no one can answer that; there are no studies as to what people recommend you to read; your question as written is unanswerable, since it is based on your perceptions based on your own experiences. One thing to consider, however, as to why people may recommend John over any of the synoptic Gospels is that the synoptic gospels are more narrative in nature, focusing on the life and acts of Jesus, whereas John spends more of its text on the his philosophy and on his essential nature (of course, there are all aspects in all Gospels, but we're talking general trends here). See Gospel of John#Characteristics of the Gospel of John, which notes the differences in terms of tone and theme between John and the other gospels. Which is to say, we cannot say why someone recommends that you would read John over any other Gospel, but if they were recommending something about John which was different from the others, you can read about those difference there. Of course, the best thing for you to do, Sneazy, is to just read the four Gospels yourself and come to your own opinions as to the matter. They're really not all that long. --Jayron32 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jayron about Mark's Gospel, and I've often heard Christians recommending it, especially when studying with non-Christians, because of its brevity. I have read that John gives a more intimate portrayal of Jesus, and when someone is doing a dramatisation of the life of Christ, he is very thankful for those parts which are based on the Fourth Gospel, since his task is made so much easier. Sorry but can't remember where I read it. IBE (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John's the most theological gospel though, the one that makes the big claims. There's a reason John 3:16 is quoted on posters at sports events. The other gospels don't make such a claim. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than any other Gospel, John spends much of its text on what is called Christology, that is the essential nature of Christ. Even moreso than John 3:16 (which is often quoted for the essence of why Christians are Christians), are sections like John 1, which discuss the relationship of a) God b) Christ and c) the "Word" (see Logos (Christianity)). Some of John can get quite esoteric like this, whereas the synoptic gospels are a much more straightforward narrative of the life and works of Jesus. In John, Jesus teaches through allegory and discourses, where as the synoptic Gospels show Jesus teaching mainly through parables, which often confuse the masses, but which he later explains in detail to his followers. --Jayron32 19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of John as the most recommended Gospel may be OR, but I believe it is correct. The typical explanation I've been given is the Christology answer Jayron mentioned. John is the only Gospel to explicitly identify Jesus as an incarnation, in some sense, of God, and is the Gospel to most clearly convey the idea of Christ's death as a form of sacrifice. I disagree with Lindert that the text's "mission statement" (for lack of a better term) is the reason. In fact, Luke gives a similar statement to that effect at the very start ("Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word, I too decided... to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of Aino Kuusinen , please !

Hello, Learned Ones ! I'm about to edit Aino Kuusinen (1886-1970, wife of Otto Kuusinen), but I found few sources, & particularly no photo of that spy who was said to be beautiful enough. Ever seen her photo before ? & where ? Thanks beforehand for your links . Truly yours, Arapaima (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pic on this page might be the couple? I don't read Finnish, so I don't know if it's public domain. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot "184.147.118.213". But [15] is commercially advertizing for her autobiography Juamala syökse enkelinä, the finnish edition of God stürtz seine Engel (God hurls down his angels), & furthermore shows only a semi-masked portrait of Aino Kuusinen. Hasn't somebody got a better photo ? Thanks beforehand for your help, ô Learned Ones Arapaima (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are better, but see page 11 of this pdf file. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Oda Mari. Funny how Otto Kuusinen has been portrayed a lot, when there is no good photo available of his wife, who for me seems to have been much more attractive in every respect...Arapaima (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

What type of demand curve is represented in the article from the Houston Chronicle from June 7, 2013 "You're Wrong About Apple's Affordable iPhone"? HELP Puhlease!!! I need this for my Economics class TODAY!! THANK you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrookeTaylore (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up at the top, it says "We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point." Here is our article on demand curves, I'm hope your text book or lecture notes have more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he was referring to elasticity?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Edward's Crown

Do we know what the original St Edward's Crown looked like? Is it the crown featured in Elizabeth I's coronation portrait? Also, after the restoration did they give a reason why they opted for such a, frankly, boring and plain design? To me the Imperial State Crown is far more impressive and the St. Edward's crown is just an ugly, bulky mess, so I assume here's an official reason for keeping it because it looks like something you can buy in any tourist shop. --Andrew 21:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, you weren't consulted when whoever gets to make these decisions makes them. --Jayron32 00:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, this is about St Edward's Crown. Looie496 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Political Culture edited by Dale Hoak says that "St Edward's crown was considered to be a holy relic - it was kept and revered as such with other relics at St Edward's". According to our article, there is some uncertainty about whether the original St Edward's Crown was among the jewel's that King John dropped in The Wash; but we never let the truth stand in the way of a good legend. From memory, Oliver Cromwell had the bits broken up and sold. At the Restoration, most of the bits were returned to the new king by their new owners, either out loyalty our political prudence. I'll look for a source. Alansplodge (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

Is Wikipedia the only non-commercial website in Top 100 most popular websites?

Looking at List of most popular websites, this seems to be the case. The only website whose status is disputed is The Pirate Bay. Everything else that I thought may not be commercial that I checked is commercial (IMDb, BBC, The Huffington Post). So, am I right to conclude that Wikipedia is the only non-commercial (non-profit) site in the Top 100 most popular Internet sites? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the BBC non-profit since it's publicly owned. Hot Stop 02:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, but see BBC#Commercial_activities. Also, the article uses infobox company, and all companies are for-profit by default. (if not, we should add commercial= parameter to Template:Infobox company). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is in understanding the word "commercial". The BBC is regarded in the UK as providing the opposite of "commercial" television/radio. It is a publicly-owned body, with no shareholders, that gains the lion's share of its income from the government via the license fee. As you can see from BBC#Revenue, of the BBC's 2011/12 income figures, c.£3.8bn came in from the license fee and other government sources and less than £0.5bn came in through means that could in any way be regarded as commercial. In the UK, many charities (most of the large ones) have commercial operations to support themselves, but having these kind of commercial activities does not make an organisation "commercial" ... regardless of what kind of infobox Wikipedia uses ;-) ! To most British people, the BBC would not be regarded as "commercial" for these reasons, but because the term can be understood in different ways, it is possible to perceive it as such, but it doesn't really hold water. --Dweller (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in answer to Piotrus, about companies - in UK law, most charities of any significant size are companies. Specifically, they are 'companies limited by guarantee and not having share capital', but they're still companies; they register both with Companies House and with the Charity Commission. The amounts to, to the best of my knowledge, several million UK-registered companies. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several million Alex? Seriously? Last I knew there were less than 180,000 registered charities in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different system). And they may be companies limited by guarantee, but they may also be Charitable Incorporated Organisations, or co-operatives, or unincorporated associations, or partnerships, or charitable trusts. I'll try and get a reference for the numbers. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC) According to this (which I believe to be the most authoritative site there is), there are approximately 160,000 charities in England and Wales. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly 'the best of my knowledge' wasn't very good! Thanks for the source. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Famous artist/writer who criticized his peers about their need to have an opinion of every question of our time, and to tell the world about it

It's probably a long shot, but I believe the person was either from France or Spain/Portugal (probably this) Basically, when asked about his - objectively worthless - opinion on a political affair, he responded that he was sorry that he didn't have any, as a way to mock his politically-engaged peers, that felt the need to involve themselves in subjects in which they had no relevant expertise. Eisenikov (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been Picasso? According to Wikiquote, he was reported in the New York Times to have said of the 1969 moon landing: "It means nothing to me. I have no opinion about it, and I don't care." - Ka renjc 08:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interception in national airspace for extradition

Can a country which has an extradition agreement with some other country, send fighter jets or whatever to intercept in its own airspace the aircraft flying to political asylum in another country? 93.174.25.12 (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The leaders of a sovereign country can order anything that is technically feasible within their own airspace. Whether they can do so legally depends on the laws and the rule of law within that country. Whether they would order an action sanctioned by law in their country is a political question that depends on political constraints within that country. Did you have a specific jurisdiction in mind? Marco polo (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just wonder whether the aircraft crew flying to poltical asylum should consider that and dodge the airspaces of such countries (fortunately didn't happen to me, so I'm not seeking a legal advice). 93.174.25.12 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition is a legal process that, in most jurisdictions, takes some time (at least weeks, sometimes years) before it can result in a person's forced transfer to the country that initiated the process. Again, jurisdictions differ, but normally a country seeking extradition sends a request for extradition to the country where the suspect is believed to be. Often, this request will have to go through an administrative procedure (lasting hours or days) in the country receiving the request to determine whether the request meets the receiving country's grounds for arrest. If it does, the suspect is arrested. Then, the suspect goes through a legal process similar to a trial to determine whether the person meets grounds in the receiving country for extradition. Presumably, arrest could happen by means of aircraft interception, but that could only happen if 1) the country issuing the extradition request could predict the suspect's flight path and send notice to the country whose air space the flight path crossed, and 2) the country receiving the request could process it and launch aircraft quickly enough to intercept the flight before it left that country's airspace. So, the answer is, yes, it is theoretically possible that such an interception could take place, but hard to imagine in practice in most cases. The only obvious exception would be if the country receiving the extradition request were an autocratic client state of the one issuing the request, such that authorities in the country issuing the request only had to phone up the office of the client state's dictator and ask him to launch aircraft on short notice, which he could do, since dictators typically don't quibble over the rule of law. For example, if China wished to intercept a flight crossing North Korea, it wouldn't be hard to imagine North Korea quickly intercepting the flight. The kind of action that you describe might also be possible if the interception were requested of an ally on military (rather than criminal) grounds. For example, if, say, Britain had just suffered a military attack and knew that the attackers were about to fly over the United States, Britain might be able to ask the United States to intercept the aircraft on short notice, but that would be a case of military assistance rather than extradition. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to imagine North Korea complying with such a request from China without extracting promises of say a dozen nuclear warheads or 10 years' supply of oil... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you intercept in your own airspace, it's not an extradition anymore. Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory and it may require any aircraft to make a landing. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert VII, Archduke of Austria and Isabella Clara Eugenia

Did Albert VII, Archduke of Austria and Isabella Clara Eugenia have three children: Philip, Albert, Anna Mauritia, who died young? Or are the names based on a faulty genealogical source?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the answer, but more info to help searchers. The German wikipedia gives some dates: Archduke Philip born 21 October 1605, Archduke Albert born 21 January 1607, Archduchess Anna Mauritia undated. It adds that according to contemporary reports (no citation given), the early death of the children led to Albert VII and Isabella Clara Eugenia stopping sleeping with each other. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many knighted/damed yearly in Britain?

About how many people on average are knighted/damed yearly in Britain at any level? Our article doesn't say and the internet ask a question fora are dreadful on this. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No general figures to hand, but some examples: in 2011, the last "normal" year (no dissolution or jubilee honours), there were 22 knights bachelor, eight KCB, five K/DCMG, 18 K/DBE, three GBE, and four KCVO - so sixty in all. About five or ten people who already had knighthoods of some form got "better" ones; I haven't included them in the above list. Conversely, though, in 1991 it was a total of almost a hundred not counting the "better" knighthoods. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just want a round figure. Do the numbers include the women as well? μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are they damed if they do? Or, then again, are they damed if they don't? --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Medeis, the numbers should include women, because Andrew mentioned DBE. One reason why the number may have dropped since 1991 is that there's been a small backlash against the seemingly automatic granting of honours for grey civil servants who've done nothing more than do their jobs and get paid well over a long time. In contrast, these days, a lot of honours come about as a result of nominations from the general public, although these truly worthy people usually receive lesser awards, below the level you're asking about. The other thing that's changed since 1991 is the Reform of the House of Lords, particularly since 1999, which means that "working peer"s have altered somewhat the balance of people receiving awards higher than those you're asking about. NB I can't find a decent article or section of an article on Wikipedia that explains how nominations work and our House of Lords reform article that I linked to is almost as impenetrable as the actual workings of that place. --Dweller (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, knights and dames alike (though fewer of the latter); "fifty to a hundred" should be a good estimate, tending towards the lower half of the range. As Dweller says, the dynamic has changed somewhat over time (which is why I drew out 1991 figures) and in particular I suspect the drawing-down of the armed forces may also have produced a few less generals and admirals getting knighthoods! I'm not sure about the Lords reform, though; my vague understanding is that the rate of new life peers hasn't changed drastically during the reform, but I could well be wrong... Andrew Gray (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you. My comment was more about the types of people who receive peerages these days, than the numbers of them. --Dweller (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire which lists appointments by year. We don't seem to have an equivalent chronological list for KBEs, although there is a category Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire. Note that the Order of the British Empire is an order of chivalry and is not part of the Peerage of the United Kingdom, which has a entirely separate and different structure. Some peers are also recipients of the OBE, but you can be a recipient of the OBE without being a peer, and vice versa. And, if you are a man, you can be made a Knight Bachelor, which is neither part of an order of chivalry nor part of the peerage. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the strange netherworld of the baronets. Their titles are hereditary but they're not peers; and they're called "Sir" but are not knights. They're ranked above knights but below peers. Existing ones will continue indefinitely as long as heirs keep getting born, but since 1964 only one new baronetcy has been created, the Thatcher baronets (1990). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14 & 18 party alliance in Bangladesh

Who are the 14 party alliance and who are 18 party alliance and who are the parties involved in each alliance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.198 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A start: Five of the 14 party alliance members are listed in Grand Alliance (Bangladesh). All of the 18 party alliance members are listed in 18 Party Alliance. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people buying books that are free?

Quoting the news report

"BIG brother is watching - sales of George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 have skyrocketed in the wake of revelations of US government surveillance.

The centennial edition of the novel surged 7005 per cent on Amazon, according to the online retailer's Mover and Shakers in Books page that monitors biggest gainers in sales rank compared to 24 hours ago."

But why are people paying money for a book that is out of Copyright in Australia? Look here http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

It seems to be counter intuitive. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They want to read an actual book, not the pale simulacrum that goes by the name "e-book". - Nunh-huh 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[AFTER EDIT CONFLICT] Can people everywhere in the world download that from Project Gutenberg? Anyway, there would be multiple parts to the answer to your question. Reading a .txt file such as the one you pointed us to is not as pleasant an experience as sitting back with a nicely bound book. And what does one do with the .txt file? Just read it off a screen? Print it, on masses of A4 or Letter size sheets. That costs money, and again, will not be as nice as a properly bound book to read in bed. Some will simply want a special edition. It's a fashion thing. And some won't know about the free Gutenberg version. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above; also note that Orwell is not out of copyright in any country in the EU and US, and in the many other countries which apply copyright for the life of the author + 70 years (see List of countries' copyright lengths). Orwell will be in copyright in these countries until 31 December 2020. The Orwell estate does enforce the copyright in the UK. And I would have thought most people seeking a copy of a work by Orwell are unaware that he is out of copyright in some countries. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in Australia but I was able to view the whole book. I wonder how that works regarding copyright law. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look that site again, I wonder if Australia copyright laws are much more liberal than elsewhere. Gutenberg Australia has a trove of relatively recent works. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My perception as an Australian is that they're horrible. Your horror may vary. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Berne Convention, which most countries are signed up to, only requires copyright protection for the life of the author + 50 years. Those countries which perceive themselves as copyright generators (rather than copyright consumers) have adopted life + 70 as a higher standard. Australia, though not necessarily a big copyright generator on a global scale, has chosen for various reasons to adopt the life + 70 standard, but to make transition easier drew a "line in the sand" at 1955 - authors who died before then do not benefit from the newer longer standard. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many places you can buy the real book used for something like $1 - $1.5. Would you really want to read that in your electronic device of choice or to have a book that won't get stolen, doesn't run out of battery, doesn't break apart and can be carried everywhere? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent $170 to buy Australian Languages, Bowern & Koch, ed., even though Claire Bowern was kind enough to email a pdf of the text. Beats reading off you iPhone. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I once considered buying a linen-bound copy of Alice in Wonderland, printed in 1950 and long out of copyright, for 150 British pounds plus international postage - just because I really like the illustrations by John Tenniel. Unfortunately I didn't have the spare change at the time. You might find 84 Charing Cross Road an "educational" read. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story. Not sure how it's relevant...Shadowjams (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

84 Charing Cross Road is about the appeal of "real" books. And the story was too. Paul B (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real books are much nicer, even cheap ones. I wonder if paper books will ever actually go extinct. Horatio Snickers (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For books which are out of copyright, personally I'd prefer paying the low price demanded for the paper version than to download the unwieldy electronic version. Maybe I'll change my mind one day when Kindle figures out how to change thickness depending on where you are in the book. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Kindle doesn't smell right and the texture is all wrong too. To me a good book is a complete sensory experience. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

Kamehameha III's Funeral

Who is the author of this account of Kamehameha III's funeral? Here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S.C. Damon - the signature is at the end of the letter on page 253. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I seriously need to read more into these. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It was a reaaaallly long letter :) 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rt Rev Paul Williams, Bishop of Kensington

How and where do I write to him please? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here: http://www.london.anglican.org/about/bishop-of-kensington 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're asking for the form of address under 'how', but here it is anyway: Forms of address in the United Kingdom#Church of England - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman isolation from European economy

In this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans it says about the above. I want to ask why. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.178.250 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it was religious and cultural. European Christians and Turkish Muslims did not share much in the way of cultural similarities, and so may have not tended to trade as much. Secondly, at roughly the exact same time (late 15th-early 16th centuries) when the Ottoman Empire was reaching its peak, Europeans stopped trading through the Middle East, and instead developed trade routes either across the Atlantic (with their new colonies there, and from then across the Pacific to Asia) or around Africa to India. The fact that Europe found ways to get goods without going through the Ottoman Empire meant that trade shifted away from the Ottomans. A good part of this was the hot economic theory of the day, Mercantilism, which focused on economic isolationism and protectionism: a country saw the path to wealth as controlling the entire supply chain from raw materials to finished goods, and only export finished goods; the "value added" between the raw materials (produced in the colonies) and the finished goods (produced in the home country) was seen as the best way for a country to produce wealth. This new way of thinking about trade probably also hurt the Ottomans economically, as countries wanted to trade less with foreign powers for raw materials, and more with their own colonies. In simplest terms, it was a shift away from the overland Silk Road and towards oceanic trade. --Jayron32 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another consideration is that the Ottoman empire had little to offer in the way of trade goods that was not available to western Europeans more conveniently either from other Mediterranean or Northern European lands (grain and timber from the Baltic countries; olive oil and other Mediterranean products from Italy or Spain). As Jayron points out, Constantinople's historical role as entrepot between Europe and Asia was short-circuited by the possibility of direct maritime trade between western Europe and any coastal point in Asia. Finally, after 1800, when the Industrial Revolution spread across western Europe, cultural and linguistic ties facilitated the transfer of knowledge from one country to the next. For example, William Cockerill chose to take the knowledge he had acquired in England during its early Industrial Revolution to what later became Belgium. Like England, Belgium had a Christian heritage, its culture is similar to England's in many ways, and French is similar enough to English that it isn't terribly hard for an English speaker to learn. Like England, Belgium (then part of the United Netherlands) observed the rule of law, which facilitates investment by limiting risk (for example of extortion or expropriation). Skilled entrepreneurs frequently traveled among western European countries and spread technical innovations and capital. By contrast, the Ottoman empire was culturally alien and therefore not attractive to most western Europeans as a place to live and work, and autocracy and rampant corruption deterred European investment. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, however, by the 1800s, when the Ottoman Empire was popularly considered the Sick man of Europe was the time when they had their strongest diplomatic ties to other European countries. They were allied with France and Britain during the Crimean War and they figured prominently in the Metternichian concept of "Balance of Power" during the Concert of Europe. The Ottomans were considered vital enough to Germany and Austria's aims during World War I that they were included among the Central Powers, which is somewhat ironic given that Austria and the Ottoman Empire had been natural enemies fighting over the Balkans for some 500 years. Perhaps, because the Ottomans no longer posed an economic threat, the other powers recognized the importance of their geographic position, which is why they became more open to diplomatic relations with them by the 19th century whereas they were pretty much universally disliked or disregarded in prior ages. --Jayron32 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Foreign relations of the Ottoman Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.178.250 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane question.

Blocked troll.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In what year were black people allowed to sit in aeroplanes? Winyviv (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "allowed". Bessie Coleman was the first African-American pilot, though I don't know if either she was a) the first African-American to ride on an airplane at all, nor b) if black people from other countries flew or piloted planes earlier. --Jayron32 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would have to first ask a more basic question... was there ever a time when black people were not allowed to sit in aeroplanes? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation on commercial flights apparently never existed in the United States, though only the affluent could afford to travel by air before the late 1960s and probably very few African Americans did. So they were allowed to sit on planes, but few could afford to do so. While planes were not segregated, airports sometimes were. See this source. Marco polo (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does "sit in aeroplanes" mean? Has there ever been a flight where people were allowed to board, and travel from A to B, but not to sit down? That would be a breach of every known flight regulation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the OP has been blocked: DNFTT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has the OP been informed they've been blocked? There's nothing on their talk page. How would we be aware an OP is blocked if there's no obvious evidence of that? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His/her contribs page, as per usual. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked the same question as Jack at the Help Desk. Seems unusual. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the checkuser, his comment is here. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shintō funeral

According to our article (Japanese funeral), 91% of funerals in Japan are conducted with Buddhist ceremonies as Buddhism has historical monopoly on death rites. I can't find any substantial data about Shintō funerals, like how are they done. Or, for example, are Japanese Emperors always given Shintō ceremonies? Quoting from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Death_and_state_funeral: On February 24, Emperor Hirohito's state funeral was held, and unlike that of his predecessor, it was formal but not conducted in a strictly Shinto manner. Also do Emperors partake in any Buddhist ceremonies whatsoever? Or are they supposed to by strictly Shintoists? --151.41.142.162 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC says "Death is seen as impure and conflicting with the essential purity of Shinto shrines....The result of this is that most Japanese have Buddhist or secular funerals....Shinto funerals, when they occur, are called Sosai, and are largely developed from Buddhist funeral rites.". A fairly detailed description of how a Shinto funeral might be done can be found at the Encyclopedia of Shinto. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To your final questions, the Emperor's official website lists the various rituals ceremonies performed by the Emperor throughout the year. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which school exams did Michael Gove sit?

In the last few days, there has been much in the UK Press about the changes to the GCSE qualification in England.

I've been trying to find out whether Michael Gove, the current Secretary of State for Education sat Scottish qualifications (at the time he was at school the equivalent qualification at this level would've been the O-grade) or English qualifications (which would've been O levels).

I know he was educated in Scotland, but it is common for Scottish private school pupils (he attended Robert Gordon's College) to sit English qualifications.

Many thanks, davidprior ^t/_c 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of digging confirms that Robert Gordon used the Scottish system then (and still does), but looking at the dates he would have been in the transitional period between the O-grade and Standard grade, which makes it harder to give an exact answer as to which he sat. He would then have presumably taken Highers (and perhaps CSYS, but I'm not completely sure if those were introduced by the mid-eighties). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had managed to find that pupils there now sit Scottish qualifications, but couldn't find what they sat back then.

He was born on 26 August 1967 so would've been 16years + 8 months in May 1984 (when Standard Grades started to be introduced). When I sat Standard Grades in May 1996, I did so in an age group ranging from 15 years + 3 months to 16 years + 3 months (the cutoff for school years then being 1st February). So I'm guessing Michael Gove therefore sat O-grades in May 1983, unless the cutoff had changed in the interim? davidprior ^t/_c 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be different for Scottish pupils, but in England the year intake cutoff is 1st September, so he could have been one of the last intake of the previous academic year, rather than one of the earliest intake of the next academic year. Can anyone confirm what was the case at the time? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These days it is indeed different in Scotland (and more flexible) but a child born in August is in the middle of the age range so they have no flexibility. I have no idea what the rules were when young Michael first put on his blazer and cap. See Education in Scotland#School years. Thincat (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a serious projection of demographical development of the US by state?

I'm searching for this for quite a time in the web but all I can manage to find are projections for the US as a whole. But I'm interested for the development by state in comparison. Much like this Article in the German Wiki.

I'm thankful for any help. Kerl Fieser (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I entered "projection of demographical development of the US by state" into Google, and on the first page of results I found this document from the Census Bureau, which seems to be what you are looking for (although it only goes to 2025). Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I of course checked census.gov but it seems I didn't do it properly. Kerl Fieser (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian apologetics

Are there any liberal Christian apologists? What about female Christian apologists? Sneazy (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "Christian apologist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A apologist is someone who defends a religious faith. A Christian apologist is someone who defends the Christian faith. I was typing "Bible Gateway" into Google, which then led me to "Lee Strobel", which then led me to read an Wikipedia article about him, which then led me to wonder if there are women or liberal Christians who are professional apologists. I suppose these types of people make money by selling books. Sneazy (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please show you've put some effort into this before asking here. Google "liberal/female christian theologian" and get back to us. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer number of apologists would mean that there are liberal Christian apologists and female Christian apologists, the real question is "are there any who are noteworthy?" For this, I went outside of apologetics and into more broad theology (though sticking to individuals who wrote some works that were either apologetic, nearly apologetic, or easily repurposed for apologetics). Some important liberal and/or female Christian theologians, or theologians important to liberal and/or femenist Christians, who come to my mind are Joy Carroll, Teilhard de Chardin, Dorothy Day, Matthew Fox, Søren Kierkegaard, Martin Luther King, Jr., Hans Küng, John Shelby Spong, Paul Tillich, Leo Tolstoy, Jim Wallis, and Simone Weil. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation theology would also be a good place to look for such people. Gustavo Gutiérrez springs to mind. Again, whether his work is apologetics or not I'm not sure, but he's definitely a leftist Christian. --Jayron32 01:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Forgot liberation theology. Honestly, the only real distinction between theology and apologetics is the target audience. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that theology's target audience is Christians and apologetics' target audience is non-Christians? If that is the case, are there liberal Christians who speak in defense of the Christian faith against non-Christians? Sneazy (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean against? How the question is answered depends on what you mean. Could you elaborate? --Jayron32 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It seems there are more conservative Christians than liberal Christians. It also seems that "Christian apologetics" refers to a series of arguments made by conservative mainstream Trinitarian male Caucasian middle-class American Protestants, while Catholics and Mormons have their own apologetics. Sneazy (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not necessarily that theology's target audience is Christians, but that apologetics repackages a religion's theology to try and convince non-members to accept it. Many liberals also tend to take a less antagonistic attitude toward differences in religion. It's been my experience that the liberal Christians have to defend themselves from more conservative ones before they can defend the religion from those outside it. That said, of the individuals I mentioned, some of Spong's works, some of Tolstoy's works, Willis's The Call to Conversion, could be read as apologetics; while Kierkegaard would probably approve of his Practice in Christianity being called an apologetic work to defend Christianity against Christendom. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.S. Lewis, who was one of the most noted Christian apologists of the 20th century, was broadly liberal in his views, although I don't know if he would be considered specifically a liberal Christian. John M Baker (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis is not usually considered one - he was Anglo-Catholic. Read his essay Fern-seeds and Elephants for a critique of the liberal theologians of his time. To return to the OP, British liberal Christians who have written books for a general audience defending their faith or appear regularly on Thought for the Day include Keith Ward, Jonathan Bartley and Richard Harries (e.g. here).

what officer shot people dead on the Titanic??

Was it Harold Lowe as shown in the film? thanks from philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.223.143 (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, it seems that "Tommy is killed when he is accidentally pushed forward and shot by a panicked First Officer Murdoch." Sneazy (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are asking about the real sinking, rather than the film, see our article Sinking of the RMS Titanic: "The first signs of panic were seen when a group of passengers attempted to rush port-side lifeboat No. 14 as it was being lowered with 40 people aboard. Fifth Officer Lowe in charge of the boat fired three warning shots in the air to control the crowd, without causing injuries". I can't find anything in the article about anyone being shot dead, though Lowe is reported to have threatened some of the crew with his revolver. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm Andy's impression that there is no evidence that anyone traveling on the Titanic died of gunshot wounds. Films, though, seem to find the notion irresistible. From our William McMaster Murdoch article: "no credible evidence has ever surfaced to indicate that any crew member of Titanic, let alone Murdoch specifically, ever shot passengers". - Nunh-huh 00:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For further information, you may want to read Gunshots on the Titanic at the Encyclopedia Titanica. In short, there were three incidents of warning shots being fired, and no actual shootings, though some alleged shootings may have occurred but remained undocumented. - Nunh-huh 00:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a look at The Apology To William Murdoch 15th April 1998 - Scott Neeson and the Cheque about the film producers having to eat humble pie in Murdoch's home town after falsely accusing him of murder and corruption. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

Translations of the Roman missal

Is there a sort of list of languages that the Roman missal has been officially translated to? It seems like Liturgiam authenticam (no. 15) says only some languages should be chosen for that. 88.68.4.26 (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that only it may only be translated into certain languages. Rather, it says that translations from the Latin to the vernacular must be, as close to possible, a formal equivalence; that is to say words are translated word-for-word, and not as idiom. It doesn't proscribe or prescribe any specific languages; hypothetically any language could be so used; just that the translation should be as close to word-for-word as possible. --Jayron32 01:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe mystery

Hello everyone. A real-life friend of mine has a copy of Edgar Allan Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination published by John C. Winston. However, there's no date of publication listed, and both my friend and I can't find any listing of the specific edition online (including Worldcat.org). Any thoughts? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the publisher is one parameter. Also look for the printing ("Third printing", for example), and the city in which it was published (although the publisher probably only published that work in one city). These would likely be enough for a good used book detective to track it down. You can try internet searches, but that info might not be online. If the publisher still exists (after merging with others, perhaps), you might contact them to track it down. And if no records can be found, they could always resort to approximate dating based on the type of binding, paper, ink, typeface, etc., along with signs of aging like yellowing of the pages. Any antique bookseller might give you an estimate of the decade pretty quickly. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I'll pass this on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not make any difference, but he spelt his middle name Allan. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was a silly typo of mine here. I've changed it above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only typo. It's &, not "and". (This can really screw with WorldCat entries) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Tales of Mystery & Imagination, not the debut album by the Alan Parsons Project linked above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I never noticed that. I should check my links when I post something. Thanks to you both! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though not the specific book you're inquiring about, here and here are two Poe-related volumes that were published by John C. Winston. It would appear that the publisher was located in Philadelphia in the 1880s and in Chicago in the 1920s, if that's any help. It was absorbed by Henry Holt & Co. in 1960. Deor (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The man with the flying horse

Does anyone know of a Saint Barnon who had a flying horse? I checked Google and all I got was this and Saint Baron. Given that he had a flying horse I think that rather than a Christian type saint he may be from some other mythology. For a bit of background see Talk:Sedna (mythology)#Sedna as a Gwynned, daughter od Dahut from YS citie,. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both Bellerophon and Perseus are associated with flying horses from Greek Mythology. Perhaps there's some religious syncretism going on here? --Jayron32 02:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section you linked to on talk:Sedna (mythology) looks like complete garbage to me. It mixes Celtic mythology with references to China, Denmark, Burma and India. Rojomoke (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Russia and Poland. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph mentioning the "flying horse" in that talk-page post seems to contain a somewhat confused version of the downfall of the city of Ys. In the usual versions, it is King Gradlon who drops Dahut from his horse Morvac'h at the command of Saint Winwaloe (Guénolé). Morvac'h is not a flying horse but one that is able to magically travel upon or through the sea. Deor (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks then, it appears that they have mixed a buch of mythologies together and none of it has any real application to Sedna. I was curious if there was some Welsh myth similar to her or one of the other Inuit figures. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About World War I

Following is a line from my history textbook:

"The war led to the snapping of economic links between some of the world's largest economic powers which were now fighting each other to pay for them."

I don't understand the last part: to pay for them. The rest of the sentence makes sense but what does this mean? To pay for what? --Yashowardhani (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really make a lot of sense does it? You can read the whole thing at The Making of a Global World (it took a while for the whole page to load on my rather elderly PC). Alansplodge (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be referring to the paragraph before it about the production of war-related goods. Either way, it is still a weird sentence.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to pay for the loss of productivity or benefits that the economic links provided.165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation makes the most sense. However, it's a badly written sentence.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary

Can anybody find an obituary or news article describing the deaths or funerals of King Kamehameha IV or Kamehameha V?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the funeral of Kamehameha IV, see Lyttelton Times, Rōrahi XXI, Putanga 1239, 21 Haratua 1864, Page 5 (scroll down past halfway). Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Kamehameha V, there's a very brief description in House Documents, Otherwise Publ as Executive Documents 13th Congress, 2d Session 49th Congress 1st Session, page 506 (scroll to bottom of page). For a brief report on the death, scroll up to page 489. The google books search hinted at a "Masonic funeral", but I was not able to view any of those results. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the Masonic funeral is at Alexander Cartwright: The Life Behind the Baseball Legend, by Monica Nucciarone (p.94) (if Google Books is willing to show it to you - it worked for me). Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the running order of the funeral procession is at Hawaiian National Bibliography, Vol 3: 1851-1880 edited by David W. Forbes (p.534). Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, an account of his Lying-in-State at New York Tribune - January 15, 1873 (at the foot of the second column). Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between a marine biologist and an oceanographer?

And someone who studies one of the things, can then study a master or post-graduate title on the other career? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IchbinKiribatisch (talk • contribs) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanography is a "subsection" of geography - biology is only peripherally involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. Please see our articles on oceanographer and marine biologist.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What help does "This is an encyclopedia" give?203.112.82.2 (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible. Both sciences are related, but Roger's point clearly presents the major distinction between them. Based on my experience in academic advising, perhaps something along the lines of majoring in oceanography and a minor in biology (or marine biology, to be more precise) would work. Matters also depend on the graduate program to which you apply (each is different, with specific preferences), the researchers involved, and (obviously) what you plan to contribute to the field. Hope this helps. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval christian iconography, hand gesture

Why is it that in medieval christian iconography there would be a man who holds a hand up, forefinger and middle finger tilted upwards while the ring finger, little finger, and thumb touch? Sneazy (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer to my own question here. Sneazy (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Schwurhand. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the Depiction of Jesus article has (in the first image) this hand sign (sort-of).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Congress district maps

I've sought but failed to find a map showing the boundaries for all of the congressional districts for the 1st United States Congress. I've not even found anything showing the districts for each state, which wouldn't be as convenient but would still work. United States House of Representatives elections, 1789 says that some states, like Pennsylvania, were at-large, but some had districts like today. 2001:18E8:2:1020:15D3:F8CD:785:A6C8 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question is "can you show me such a map?" 2001:18E8:2:1020:15D3:F8CD:785:A6C8 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can find in a handy library: Kenneth C. Martis (author and editor), Ruth Anderson Rowles (cartographer and assistant editor), "The historical atlas of United States congressional districts 1789-1983". New York: Free Press, c1982. ISBN 0029201500. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Same person, different location] Thank you! It sounds useful, but I've never heard of it before. It's in my university library catalogue, so I'll easily be able to find it. 23.25.5.57 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DOMA, the flip side

I was reading Windsor's brief to SCOTUS (Marriage cases) concerning DOMA. It raised a curious legal tangent that I cannot figure out.

Ordinarily when the constitutionality of a law is challenged, the plaintiff is a person who is bound by a law they perceive as incorrect and oppressive, and they wish to challenge its validity. if they fail they remain bound, if they succeed they can claim compensation or remedies and can act more freely in future. It's also usually a point of law that if a matter is legal, then the law isn't retrospective. But when a law is deemed unconstitutional, it is effectively "unwound", to an extent, its fundamental validity is affected.

So the brief raises a curious twist on this point. DOMA prohibits the recognition of certain matters in any Federal law - specifically in this case, any same-sex marriage. Where Federal laws exist that a person's "spouse" may not perform certain actions, those laws are not binding on the "spouse" under DOMA. Effectively for such people, the law acts not as a prohibiting law, but a protective one - it carves out a niche where certain actions that would categorically be illegal, are not illegal if undertaken by members of a certain class of persons.

(The brief gives as an example of such a law, that "House Rules require a Member to prohibit 'lobbying contact' between the Member’s 'spouse' and the Member’s staff".)

So what happens if a law, having the effect of protecting from legal challenge certain actions of a class of persons and placing their actions within the law (a protective rather than prohibitive law in its operation), is subsequently deemed after some years to have been unconstitutional? Does that mean that all persons who were previously protected are deemed to have thereby acted illegally? Is the Judicial and Law Enforcement sector of government or any private person suddenly in the position of a plaintiff who would have entered legal action but was unlawfully prevented from doing so, and now the law accepts they have standing and right?

What's the legal consequences of a protective law being deemed unconstitutional? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia cannot give legal advice, I would imagine the concept of ex post facto would be applied in such situations. Even though the situation is not strictly passage of an ex post facto law, the general principle is that you shouldn't be punished for something that wasn't illegal when you did it, though there are a lot of exceptions for things which are deemed "regulatory" or "compensatory" rather than "punishment". It'd probably depend highly on what the consequences of the removal of protection are. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]