Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 5

How to look up criminal complaints?

I would like to find a criminal complaint filed against Justin Carter by the New Braunfels Police Department in Texas. This is a notable case in which many news sources ^{[1] [2] [3]} have cited the complaint. (Don't worry about outing - the family would not be offended^[4] that people know about the case) I'm quite interested in this specific example (thinking to start an article in the next couple of days, time permitting) but in general, I often feel like I don't know the particulars of a situation for sure until I've seen the complaint and the specific laws involved. Alas, though news organizations always cite these things they seem to treat their sources like a proprietary asset. Is there some straightforward way to view criminal complaints online, or is it some deal where a reporter has to walk in an archive between 4 and 5 on a Wednesday and pay $10 a page for a copy? Wnt (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be a FOIA issue, which means that you would have to file a proper request. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that States do not have to grant FOIA requests to non-residents, so you may not even be able to access the complaint yourself if no one who has already requested it has not made it availible. --Jayron32 00:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for this information in order to use it in a Wikipedia article, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which explicitly cautions against using such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems hard to picture that so many different news organizations obtained FOIAs with such little fanfare - my impression was that it was no easy task to get one acted on. As for the article, it would be nice (for example) to know the specific laws involved (and beyond that article, who voted for them...) Wnt (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no general system for obtaining court documents; each court system varies in how much it puts online. There is a docket sheet for this case (which I do not link to because it contains the defendant's address and birthdate; you can find it by making an appropriate search here), but it does not link to the relevant documents. Sometimes one of the parties will make a document available on request; you could try informally contacting the district attorney's office. John M Baker (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Further to AndyTheGrump's point: An indictment is not an acceptable source for factual statements based upon the indictment's allegations, but is an excellent source for describing what the indictment itself says. However, indictments and other court documents often contain personal information that makes them unsuitable for linking. John M Baker (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Individualism and notions of justice

In the justice systems of the West, and in philosophical discussions of the idea of justice, it seems to be a given that justice must be at the level of the individual. That is, if you have done nothing wrong, you cannot be blamed because you are a member of a group that did something wrong. I can provide no reference, because it seems to be an implicit assumption, although (for all I know) references may abound. However, in Eastern countries, the importance of the group is often emphasised over the individual. I do not mean to say this is always present there, and never here, but the individualism of the West is a commonplace observation. It may seem that the collectivism of other societies could run contrary to the importance of the individual in matters of justice. Such may effectively be the case with blood feuds - someone has wronged your ancestor, you are part of the wronged group, so you take up the fight. But in jurisprudence and in higher level discussions, it seems that all societies agree that justice should focus on the individual. So that was all background.

I am wondering if anyone knows of any formal discussion of such an issue, that is, the potential conflict between the general spirit of collectivism, and the significance of the individual when apportioning blame, and dishing out punishments. I do not mean that such notions are contradictory, I merely want to see how these concerns are addressed in collectivist societies, where the group is strongly emphasised. I would welcome any scholarly references, but also even blogs by educated people from such cultures who are reflecting on such issues. I would take these sorts of things as essentially primary sources, since they show how people from these cultures think when confronting these concerns. IBE (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is. Geert Hofstede has spent his life researching and enumerating such cultural differences, and you would do well to read some of his books, particularly "Cultures and Organisations". Also Richard E Nisbett's book "The Geography of Thought" refers to the differences between Eastern and Western approaches to, for example, academic research. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice link. Following the refs led me to this on google books, although when they talk about cross-cultural perceptions of justice, they are making the aforementioned assumption. Eg. bottom of page 361: "retributive justice arises when one individual observers another's act that breaks a rule ..." (cut short here by google, just when it was getting really interesting). So unless they go on to talk about blood feuds and the like, they are making an individualist assumption, that it is about individuals doing things wrong, even when talking about collectivist-individualist cultural differences. Well, I find it interesting. More info welcome. IBE (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The individuality of Western justice is by no means an inherent aspect of Western culture. Christianity's very premise is the validity of collective punishment: Jesus can redeem the sins of mankind not because he committed those sins, but because punishment was considered transferable. All humans are tainted by Original Sin and all women have to suffer the pain of childbirth, not because these specific people did anything wrong, but because Adam and Eve disobeyed God's commands hundreds of generations ago.

If you read Shakespeare, you'll find no shortage of blood feuds. In colonial history, there's no shortage of massacres committed against native peoples in retribution for an attack by a small (and often unrelated) group of people. The only reason that collective punishment is not accepted today is because the West, unlike the Eastern countries you're referring to, has progressed beyond its barbaric past. In particular, the Enlightenment emphasized that "men are born and remain free and equal in rights" (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), "laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind" (Thomas Jefferson), and "The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education" (Adam Smith). Enlightenment thinkers were skeptical of organized religion (see deism) and believed in the power of human reason to improve the world. It's not hard to see why, under this philosophy, each person was considered responsible for his own actions and only his own actions. If I get arrested and hanged simply because my dad committed a crime, I'm hardly "free and equal"; to the contrary, I'm being persecuted for my circumstances of birth, which I have no control over. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Some good points. I confess I can't find much in our article on individualism, but my knowledge of history tells me that individualism itself has relatively recent beginnings, and does not go back to the dawn of Western civilisation. So you make the valid point that individual responsibility (in matters of justice) does not go hand-in-hand with Western political history, but do not seem to state the same for individualism itself. You don't contradict it either, but I feel it needs to be emphasised. The beginnings of Western individualism are to be seen (according to Burckhardt) in the Italian Renaissance, and according to what I read in the Times Atlas of World History, even earlier, in mediaeval times. This took some time to flourish, and may not have permeated the society until the Enlightenment. So it may not be a case of "progressing beyond barbarism", or the quickening influence of "habit, custom and education", but the natural growth of individualism as an idea and an ideal, which in turn influenced systems of government and jurisprudence. I am not trying to argue for such a case (indeed, I incline towards your approach), but I would not consider it settled as an issue of overcoming barbarism, rather than of cultural values. IBE (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to be careful with words like "individualism" and "collectivism" as they tend to be dodgy. The root words in each don't seem to capture the concepts that they denote and even then there are multiple senses of the words. "Traditionalism" would probably be a better term to use than "collectivism". With this in mind, I think the difference can be attributed to the delay in Enlightenment ideals of liberalism and cosmopolitanism to reach the shores of Asia. Japan sealed itself off from the rest of the world until the 1800s—a fascinating example of willful cultural isolationism. — Melab±1 ☎ 03:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What became of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement in the '20 an '30 ?

Hello Learned Ones ! It seems to me the article Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement doesn't say how fruitful this agreement has been in the following years; & the blue link n° 1 seems to me to lead into cul-de-sac...It may not have been very "eupareunistic", since I notice that during the Great Purge, "espionnage for G.B." was frequently the reason for a bullet in the neck. Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. PS : is "eupareunistic" (& "thanatophily") correct english ? Arapaima (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that most aspects of USSR-UK relations suffered a strong setback after the Zinoviev letter affair... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

On the language question, "euparenuistic" isn't an English word (and I'm not really sure what it means - "good relations between states"? If so, the usual word in English is entente, despite it being French). "Thanatophily" isn't in the dictionaries, but it is understandable in English - we have Thanatophile and Thanatophilia (although I personally would disagree with the redirect - thanatophilia and necrophilia _aren't_ synonymous). Tevildo (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot AnonMoos ! And also to you, Tevildo, for picking up my obviously off play and drifting away second question : among french sexologists, an intercourse is said (or rather, was said some 50 years ago...) "eupareunique" (from "nice union" in greek) when physically and psy.lly satisfactory for both partners. As for "thanatophily" , I was wondering if it is correct in english after having used it in the french meaning, as "cultural tendency to love (or not to be afraid of) death, as Mexicans and Japoneses

are said to be" ; in french, having sex with corpses is called "necrophilie" . T.y. Arapaima (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max?

What's the difference? Why market 2 drinks with the only obvious differences being that Diet Pepsi has <1% salt (Pepsi MAX has none) and Pepsi MAX has 1 calorie per 250ml (Diet Pepsi has 2). Is there something i'm missing? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Diet" anything is often seen as being a bit soft or womanly, so Pepsi thought that not many men would buy "Diet Pepsi". As such, they created "Pepsi Max" which has a bit more of a hardcore name to encourage sales from people who would feel embarrassed about buying a product with "Diet" written on the front. This should explain more. — Richard BB 11:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Diet Pepsi is aimed at women, Pepsi Max is aimed at men. This article gives some background. The same dual marketing strategy is used by Coca Cola with Diet Coke (women) and Coke Zero (men). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Coke Zero and Diet Coke have different formulations, not just different marketing strategies. The artificial sweeteners used and the actual tastes differ. --Thomprod (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the whole idea is that men like to imagine that they are somehow actively crushing those calories underfoot, rather than passively resisting them. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been buying Diet Pepsi because i thought there was hidden crap in Pepsi Max. If it's just a gender stereotyping thing, then i'll stick with Diet Pepsi. I bought Pepsi Max in the week to see if it tasted different - that's the reason for the question. Thanks for the responses guys ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Max" in Pepsi Max refers to caffeine content; it has 69 mg compared to 38 mg in a can of standard Pepsi Cola.[5] Personally, I'd rather have a nice cup of tea. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say on the bottle how much caffeine is in Diet Pepsi. Is it possible that Pepsi Max has a difference in the amount and is meant as a kind-of energy drink version? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Pepsi Max has nearly twice as much caffeine as Diet Pepsi - 115mg per 20fl oz for Max versus 59mg per 20fl oz for Diet. The figures are for the drinks as sold in the US - other markets may have different amounts. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is purely speculative, but look up shelf space... well, I guess not, but slotting fee provides a trace of insight on it. My impression is that the largest companies provide a really long line of products to distract the consumer from the fact that they've purchased total control over the supermarket and there isn't really any competition at all. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Introducing new flavors is also a way to steal market share, as there's a slight "novelty" bump from people who try it out (Oooh look, the new Bacon Pepsi! I'll have to try that). It doesn't last very long, which is why companies who use that as a marketing strategy need to keep a near constant stream of new products. --Jayron32 13:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

All interesting replies. I'm thinking after seeing this that it's simply just Diet Pepsi is diet, while Pepsi Max is an energy drink with no sugar content. It seems that simple. Pepsi don't release new products often and i assume that's to avoid a New Coke moment. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Pepsi is a very different business than Coke is. PepsiCo is a diversified food and beverage company that, besides making soft drinks, also makes snacks (FritoLay) and breakfast cereals (Quaker Oats) and formerly owned restaurants (Pizza Hut, KFC, etc.) and even at one time owned sporting goods brands (Wilson) and a trucking line (North American Van Lines). They've since divested themselves of the restaurants and non-food brands, but continue to have a wide variety of products and revenue streams. The Coca-Cola Company makes beverages only. So Coke has to manage it's beverage lines very carefully, and has different marketing strategies because it's a different kind of business than Pepsi, which can afford to run a smaller beverage product line, as it also dominates several other food-related markets. --Jayron32 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S. (but not other countries) they contain different sweeteners. Diet Pepsi has only aspartame while Pepsi Max has a mix of aspartame and acesulfame potassium. Pepsi Max also has ginseng extract. Rmhermen (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Egypt

Why do other Arab countries in the middle east support the military coup? What did they have against the Muslim Brotherhood? 163.202.48.126 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Many are afraid that Islamist ideology will spread throughout Africa, that secularism will be eliminated, and that conservative, political Sharia law will become the governing principle, rather than more moderate forms of government. The Muslim Brotherhood were an Islamist group, and the military removed them from power. — Richard BB 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would Middle Eastern Arab countries worry about the spread in Africa of fundamental Islamism? Those countries supporting the coup are by no means secular or moderate or democratic or whatever in this direction. Check [| this source] as to why the Muslim Brotherhood has a disturbed relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest supported of the coup. Other countries, like Bahrain, being Shia, are also of a different denomination of Islam, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to beards and support for cool, Western-style haircuts. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding Hamas, it is concerned with stability in Egypt, but do not care who is at charge there. And it certainly doesn't care with Richard's "spread throughout Africa, that secularism will be eliminated, and that conservative, political Sharia law will become the governing principle." Support for the coup is not about fighting fundamentalists. The supporters of the new government are by no means more Westernized, democratic or less radical. I'd even say that the Muslim Brotherhood is less radical that say Saudi Arabia. It's all about power, and threats to stability. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the OP. I don't understand what the story is about beards and hair-cuts but this is a serious question. If you don't know the answer, that's fine - but please don't treat this as a silly question. Thanks to Osman and Richard for your answers. 105.236.76.120 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That's your problem if you don't think personal freedom matters. Instead of people throwing childish insults they should read the links provided. There's a large liberal contingent in these countries that does, including the young men I linked to in the head shaving article and the anti-Sharia/Muslim Brotherhood protesters chanting and tweeting "no more beards". Look at the anti-Islamist protests in Turkey of the same nature. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of the 1 vandal whose edit was quickly reverted, you seem to be the only one acting childishly. Your first link is an excerpt from this Daily Mail article, which claims that "BBC reporter tweeted that people were chanting 'no more beards' apparently aimed at the Muslim Brotherhood". Let's leave aside the fact that the Daily Mail is no epitome of reporting quality, and that it is reporting second-hand information without identifying the source. Even according to this Daily Mail article, opposition to beards has nothing to do with the issue; the beard is merely a symbol for MB members and Islamists in general. For more information on the role of facial hair in signifying religious beliefs, see this BBC article.

Your second link is about Hamas. It has nothing to do with Egypt, the coup, Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, or even Hamas' reaction to the coup. It is completely unhelpful to the OP. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have something to say about the subject, Bowlhover, do so. The OP asked why other countries supported the uprising, what they ha against the Sharia supporting and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. So far as I am aware it is the people of those countries that do, for the reasons I have given. The liberals don't want Islamism. I am not aware of any Arab/Islamic governments that have openly expressed their support, although they may be happy in private, for their own reasons, which I don't believe I have insulted anyone for commenting on. In any case, drop the personal nonsense and provide links according to your own understanding. μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What I had to say is that most users, including me and the OP, were completely confused about what relevance your post had on the question. I don't understand why you chose a roundabout way of making your point when you could have said it directly. I have no comment on the validity of your point itself. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OP again. Look, I have read your links and you are entitled to your opinions, but I really don't think that support for the coup is driven by the way the MB members grow their beards or comb their hair. I think the comments and tweets you mention speak to what a certain type of beard symbolises. This question was inspired by the article on 2013 Egyptian coup d'état and I see now the section on the post-coup international response. Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and Syria made comments supportive of the coup. 105.236.76.120 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Medeis and @Richard: the question was why Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia supported the coup? They are not against the MB because they are against its fundamentalist views, have concerns for human rights, or want Egypt to become a democracy. They question is not why we should be against the MB, it's why Middle Eastern Arab countries are against it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't tell me if you mean the people of those countries or their regimes. I suspect that the sources I have given reflecting public attitude reflect public attitude. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the OP's point here. You said above: (emphasis added)

The OP asked why other countries supported the uprising, what they ha against the Sharia supporting and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. So far as I am aware it is the people of those countries that do, for the reasons I have given. The liberals don't want Islamism. I am not aware of any Arab/Islamic governments that have openly expressed their support'

The people may very well support the coup but it seems clear this isn't what the OP is asking about instead they are interested in the governments. Otherwise they would have asked why people in said countries support the coup not why the countries (which normally implies the government) support the coup. Even if it weren't clear initially, the OP has said they are referring the quotes in our article, which unsurprisingly are mostly from governments.

I would note we have no real idea what most of the people in said countries think of the coup, I expect many haven't even given it that much thought. And in any case many of said countries aren't places where people are used to, or always able to openly express their views. And even ignoring the questionable reliability considering the various problems facing any attempts (including that the governments may not allow it), I doubt any scientific public polling has been done to give us a gauge of public opinion of the coup in many, probably any, of said countries. I'm sure some people in said countries support the coup for various reasons, as some oppose it, I'm not sure coming up with random reasons why random people support the coup is useful in any way.

And you said you weren't aware that governments were openly supporting the coup. In reality, it's been clear from early on and before your reply and as reflected in our article also before your reply, that quite a few governments in the region were publicly/openly supporting the coup. Of course some of the comments may just be normal comments after any change of government and reflective of the fact many government in the region don't care much about legitimacy, more about who is currently in control, but if you read the comments and the commentary surrounding the coup carefully, it's clear it goes beyond that.

It's even more clear now, given as widely speculate prevously, several countries like Saudia Arabia, UAE and Kuwait who refused the previous president/governments requests for finanancial support, have promised financial aide totalling US$12 billion post coup [6]. Even Qatar, which had been financially supporting Egpyt before doesn't seem that concerned.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of those countries have had their own trouble with the MB, see Muslim_Brotherhood#In_West_Asia. At least that isn't helping. Unilynx (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get in to this in much detail but I disagree with Osman. I think they're looking at this too simplisticly. Some of the governments may very well be concerned about fundamentalism. Just because the same governments may also be fundamentalist themselves doesn't mean they aren't opposed to forms of fundamentalism which they consider incompatible with their forms of fundamentalism. That said, I'm not suggesting this is a major factor. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sociology

Which are the given subjects when you study Sociology as a career?? Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 14:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean rather, "which careers are open to someone who has studied Sociology?" --TammyMoet (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Or do you mean, "what topics are included in a course in Sociology"? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Itsmejudith and TammyMoet. Sorry, English is not my first language. I meant what topics are included in a course in Sociology: Thanks :) But you could answer both questions for me... ;) I am in my way to study Sociology at The University of Havana and I would like to be prepared. Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The only on-line information I can find for the University of Havana is in Spanish (not surprising !), but if you do a Google search for "department of sociology undergraduate course list" you can see a cross section of topics covered in various undergraduate sociology programs. Or you can read our article on sociology, which has a "Scope and topics" section. As well as content-oriented courses, you can also expect to have modules on study skills, research skiils and quantitative methods/statistics. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Gandalf61. Thanks for your answer. Unfortunately I don't have Google access, or other sites. I just have access here www.wikipedia.org. So i cannot follow any links or do Google research. Thanks! Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 15:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have email you could use Web2PDF to browse the web using your email address. Compose an email message, type the URL of any web page in the body of that message and send it to submit@web2pdfconvert.com. The service will then fetch the corresponding web page on its own servers and will send it back it you as a PDF attachment – all this takes no more than a few seconds. For example, for searching for sociology and topics, you put "http://www.google.es/search?q=sociology+topics" in the subject of the email and send it to submit@web2pdfconvert.com. Alternatively, put http://nytimes.com as the subject or http://www.cnn.com. They'll send back an email with the Google search results or the corresponding page attached.

I don't know if this is legal or possible in your country. I don't know if internet use is restricted due to technical, economical or national security issues. So, do it at your own peril! 87.217.149.193 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :)... Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Outline of sociology has it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 2 :) Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 17:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Taking sociology trained me how to analyze data quickly into something meaningful. But I didn't even know there was anyone who couldn't access google! As an aside, how come she can't access google? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel Goolgle and Internet access is blocked at work and Internet access it's too expensive and I cannot afford it at home. Miss Bono^(zootalk)☆ 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically that's for the OP to answer, but if she doesn't get back to you, she might have internet access at work, and google/most internet might be blocked. This happened to me in a previous job - we really needed wikipedia, but the web was just too much of a distraction. As for the course, and assuming it has probably been answered well enough, the only thing I can add is that I would expect a course in sociology to be quite flexible. IBE (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Alba --> Murray/Salmond

This is gonna be speculation, but is Alex Salmond gonna fly down for the Wimbledon final now that Murray is [almost] through? Pnly 1 year to go...and if he makes it next year too then you got commonwealth games as well. What a climax?Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask his office. How on earth would we know? Paul B (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

He did, incidentally. See this article. Tevildo (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Man of La Mancha

This might not be strictly referencable but what the hay... Should I read Don Quixote before seeing Man of La Mancha later this year? Dismas|^(talk) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You should read Don Quixote, period. It's great fun. Looie496 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The theme of the novel is a would-be hero repeatedly makes a fool of himself in other's eyes. Given we are not allowed to give opinions I will not tell you to bother to read it. The musical is in English, of course. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The musical was not written with the idea that people who came to see it would be familiar with Don Quixote, and it's safe to say that most of the people who saw and enjoyed it had not read the tome on which it was based. Clearly reading Don Quixote is no prerequisite to enjoying the musical, which is not to say, of course, that it's not a good idea per se. - Nunh-huh 09:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Looie496, I have it on my "to read" shelf anyway. I was wondering if I should make a point of reading it beforehand. Once I finish a book, my wife picks my next from the shelf. This way I avoid having any "I've had this for a very long time but have just never picked it up" books. Though I can influence her decisions by saying that, as is the case here, I'd like to read X before seeing Y.

Medeis, I know the general themes of the book. Your answer was just as I expected it to be. You have not failed my expectations.

Nunh-huh, thank you! Although it was not as "clear" to me as I guess it is to you that it is not a prerequisite, hence the question. You got the gist of the question and answered it satisfactorily. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Effects of fiction on crime and criminals

There's a lively discussion on the effects that fictional works (movie, literature, etc.) have on crime. Are there any academic studies that examine if (and how much)

1. they increase the abundance and severity of crimes?
2. they help criminals to avoid convictions?

Thank you. 84.109.248.221 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Re question 1: a related discussion is that surrounding video games: the lines of evidence and the conclusions seem to be fairly similar. A good place to start is these youtube videos: nice and short and a bit longer. The last one is in three parts, about half an hour, but very good. Then there is our article Video game controversies. I can't find any article we have specifically on fiction, although I'm sure we must have one. There is a lot of research on this, dating back at least to the 60s and 70s, e.g. Sex Violence and the Media by Eysenck and Nias. IBE (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Also see Excitation-transfer theory for a bit of the theoretical underpinnings, and do a control-F for the word "movie" to see the relevance. IBE (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As the article Video game controversies says, the results are inconclusive. The same is true of Social effects of pornography.My reading of it all is that it seems we have to accept that for the average person exposure to such things desensitises somewhat and one might expect them to commit more crime, but the statistics under different laws indicate they lead to less crime overall, perhaps those who actually choose them can use them as an alternative and train to control themselves. Things sometimes just are not straightforward, it would be nice if someone could come up with an overall good solution to this conundrum. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the second part of the OP's question, I wonder if forensic science-based crime dramas, of which there are now so many, might be giving attentive criminals tips on how to avoid leaving any clues behind that might allow the police to identify them? --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly has affected how juries view forensic evidence. See CSI effect. -- 71.35.96.251 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Though not exactly an academic vehicle, the 1963 film The Wrong Arm of the Law had gang leader Pearly Gates (played by Peter Sellers) trying to improve the flagging performance of his men through compulsory training sessions at which they had to watch films of successful heists, like Rififi. --Hors-la-loi 14:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 6

Rankings of British Monarchs

So the other day, I was reading an article on the BBC's website about James Buchanan's legacy as one of the worst presidents -- he's usually at or near the bottom of most lists. Curious about that, I looked it up online and found our article Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States and the similar Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I was wondering if there are similar lists (either on Wiki or not) of British monarchs. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the BBC panel's top three in various categories (although the same three are listed in the same order in all of them). And here's Andrew Roberts' (presumably this chap) list of the bottom ten. Amusingly enough, one of Roberts' choices is also in the BBC list. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That page is not a ranking, but a listing of arguments for the importance of the three contenders according to several criteria. Since it's a listing of positives, some of Henry VIII's strikingly negative personal characteristics (especially later in his reign) which got him onto that worst list go unmentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's one by a website named "Rankopedia", so give it whatever credence you may, but it gives the top 5 as Elizabeth I, Henry V, Victoria, Alfred the Great, and Edward III and the bottom five as Canute, Charles II, George V, Henry II, and Edward IV. This list by the BBC has the top 3 as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Victoria, but doesn't rank beyond that. This site has a "top ten" which begins Henry II, Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, and Victoria. This list by the Daily Mail of the worst monarchs includes Henry VIII (he's a polarizing figure who seems to show up on both ends of many of these lists), Stephen, Mary I, George IV and Edward VIII. This list of the worst by the BBC includes Edward II, Mary Queen of Scots (considering both England and Scotland as predecessor states to the modern UK, which is a good way to do it), and George IV. If anyone asked me, I'd have to put (in no particular order) Elizabeth I, Victoria, Henry II, all near the top, with John, Stephen (having no successor take your name is usually a bad sign), Richard II, Henry III, and Richard III near the bottom (having widespread rebellion and/or being deposed or imprisoned during your reign is a sign things aren't going well). --Jayron32 03:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why Canute is one of the worst -- he was successful in his goal of incorporating England into a Scandinavian-based empire in a way that hasn't been done before or since. AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that list gets a little suspect near the bottom. George V is also not usually thought of as a particularly bad monarch, while usually despised monarchs like John, Stephen, etc. get off rather lightly on that particular list. All of these always carry a YMMV disclaimer. --Jayron32 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Rankopedia" appears to merely arrange the list according to the votes of anyone who turns up. So far only 27 people have voted. I guess Canute is there because some arbitrary ignoramuses vaguely remembered that he tried to stop the tide. Also, their picture of Henry II depicts Henry II of France. How he and Edward IV can be at the bottom of the list when both their hopeless predecessors get off scot free is a mystery that only the "27" can answer. Paul B (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reading the three-way arguments in favor of Henry, Elizabeth and Victoria, I see repeated mention of praise of establishing Protestantism in England. Yet theologically neither of the Tudors embraced Calvinism or even Lutheranism; they simply opposed papal supremacy (no more than JFK) and Victoria reigned while Catholics were re-enfranchised. Nowadays the CoE is moribund, while conversion to Catholicism has been the trend amongst believers since the mid-1800's. What, exactly explains the glorification of Tudor "Protestantism" other than as a political resistance of the powerful non-Protestant France and Spain? μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't be rude to the CofE please; "Moribund" is overstating the case. The fact that Anglicans think that the founding of Anglicanism is a good thing shouldn't be surprising, and that Anglicanism isn't Calvinism is self-evident. Alansplodge (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, I have no idea if your comment on the two religious groups is correct or not but I would point out that without a reference it is your opinion. And two sections earlier you stated that "we are not allowed to give opinions". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that I agree with μηδείς on the substance, but your logic is faulty. "There are infinitely many prime numbers" is a fact, even if I don't reference it to Euclid. A fact does not cease to be a fact because it is not sourced. It may make it easier to dismiss it as "only an opinion", but again, that dismissal has no bearing on the actual state of the statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I have asked a question. I am not arguing for a claim. I want to know if these authors are saying the Tudors were important because the advent of the Church of England was important, or if they are arguing they were good because the advent of Protestantism was good. My understanding is that most people view Henry's split as cynical and politically motivated, and view Elizabeth's attempt at an accommodation ("no windows into men's souls") as her best attribute, not her mere protestantism. Second, moribund is not an insult--it's a fact. The Church of England now has less than 2% weekly attendance, halved in the last 50 years, while Catholic affiliation has almost doubled over the last hundred. This is not even to mention non-belief and Islam and other sects. So my question stands. Are the BBC authors reflecting a widespread opinion in England that the Tudors were good or important because of their role in protestant history? If so, is that a theological viewpoint? A nationalist one? An Objective one based on national interest or human rights? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any great emphasis on the Church of England in the BBC website. It's referred to a few times, yes, but is given no more prominance than cultural, military and administrative achievements. For the most part it seems to be mentioned because it's significant in creating the culture England/Britain as we understand it. Henry and Elizabeth are important because they essentially founded the "English State" of the modern era. Victoria creates a modern "symbolic" monarchy. However, I don't think it essentially matters whether or not the C of E is currently "moribund" as a religion. Essentially it represents the subordination of the church to the state, which, one could argue, is a major step towards de facto secularisation. However one understands it, it's a major development. The British Empire is also "moribund", but that does not alter its world-changing historical significance. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But Medeis's question is, is the ranking in terms of "important", or in terms of "good"? There's no question that Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were extremely important, but by my lights they were both tyrants. (BTW the rankings of US presidents tend to suffer from a bias in favor of activism, which to my mind is generally a bad trait in a president; something similar might be going on here.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If we are still talking about the BBC pages, the historians quoted do seem to oscillate between "important" and "good" arguments - which I think is mainly because they are equating "important" with "making Britain (or England) a major and influential nation", which is "good" for Britain: and thus the Big Three are "great" monarchs. They certainly don't mean good in the sense of "virtuous". Whether Protestantism is or is not good as such (or "theologically") is obviously another matter altogether, but the language used by the historians quoted certainly seems to imply that they think it was good for Britain. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore is reading me correctly. Also, note that Victoria is praised by the same authorities, but her liberalization of the treatment of Catholics contradicts with Henry's split and Elizabeth's solidification of Protestant rule. I guess I'll have to settle for the fact that the BBC rankings were basically top-ten type lists in a pop-forum. You do run into the same problem with presidents. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon are rightly considered highly important, even great presidents, but none of them was, in my opinion, a good president. On the reverse, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland and Howard Taft were very good presidents but rarely considered important or "great" in the way even Nixon could be. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Usually Abraham Lincoln is considered to be a president who's status is ambiguous. — Melab±1 ☎ 04:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely such a ranking would depend on your point of view. A republican might put Charles I at the top of his "worst" list, or a Northern Irish Catholic might put William III (William of Orange) at the top of his "worst" list. Are there any objective criteria for such a ranking? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The BBC article on US presidents here, incidentally, does have a fairly "objective" list, ranking presidents by "Peace, Prosperity and Liberty", which puts Tyler (!) at the top and Polk (!!) at the bottom (well, ahead of Dubya, but that's a given). I'm sure it would be possible to put together a similar assessment of English/UK monarchs - as a non-historian, I wouldn't be surprised if Edward VII were at the top and George V at the bottom. Would it be impermissible speculation if our resident historians were to opine on this question? Tevildo (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(Not a historian but) I like Edward VIII. Sure, his politics were a little dodgy, but he didn't really do anything about them. And it's true that he didn't know how to do anything after abdication except be a useless aristocrat, but was that his fault? What else had he ever been taught? I like him for looking at the whole deal (give up your personal life to serve the nation; in exchange we'll make it extremely comfortable) and saying, nah. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about that. Apart from the abdication speech, his most famous quote is "Something must be done" [about the poverty of the Welsh miners] - he was heading for a greater involvment in politics than one expects from a 20th-century king, and (as you point out) his other political views were decidedly out of step with modern ideals of social justice. But, it's true, he didn't have time to do any actual damage, and he _did_ show us how to tie a tie properly. Tevildo (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

From "something must be done", people assume he was going to meddle outside his accepted responsibilities? I think that's a lot of stew from one oyster. But it's a good example of one reason that I don't like the monarchy. These people are born into a very unnatural role where they have to be more symbols than persons, a gilded cage with unlimited creature comforts but without the basic liberties the rest of us take for granted. Not too many of them have the guts to call bullshit on the whole thing. Edward perhaps did not demonstrate exceptional courage in any other aspect of his life, but at least he got that one right, at least that one time. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the only good monarchs are those who choose, well, not to be monarchs? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the verdict of history is dead against you. Edward VIII is the only British monarch to have voluntarily abdicated (the other 2 were either forced to or deemed to have done so), yet he's been the target of more derision and contempt than almost any other monarch, for things like his avowed admiration of Hitler, not to mention the abdication itself. Even his own father had no time for his lack of character, and predicted his reign would come to a sticky end within a year (it took only 10 and a half months). I am much more impressed by someone like Elizabeth II, who made a public vow on her 21st birthday that when she became queen she would serve her people for her entire life, whether it be long or short. And she's done exactly that. In 60 years, not one breath of personal scandal has ever been forthcoming, in stark contrast to the disastrous personal lives of three of her four children, the regular shocking faux pas of her husband, and the disgusting lack of loyalty exhibited by certain of her staff members who have published their memoirs of palace life, contrary to their duty to maintain such confidences to their graves. I am certainly a republican, but if we have to have a Queen of Australia for now, I would take Elizabeth over anyone else you could name. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I have nothing against her. Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, as The Beatles said, and she has played the hand she was dealt. But I would have even more admiration for her if she'd forthrightly said it was a crummy hand and she hadn't joined the game voluntarily in the first place, and she was going to go find a way to be happy on her own. --Trovatore (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

But see, you're imposing your attitude to the monarchy onto her, and she clearly does not share it. Whatever her private opinion of the hand fate dealt her may be - and we'll never know - she has embraced whole-heartedly what she perceives to be her duty. Not that being born a queen is like being a Nazi concentration camp inmate, but Viktor Frankl (who wrote Man's Search for Meaning) would have tipped his hat at the way she has actively chosen the life that she had no say about, and lived it to the fullest, rather than spending her life resenting that her childhood dream of becoming a landscape painter or a Shakespearean actress or a champion jockey, or whatever, was denied her. Where is your evidence that her decision has caused her not to be happy? She does a damn fine job of impersonating a happy old lady if she's really miserable. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying she's miserable. She's not free. My highest admiration is reserved for people who go seek their happiness-slash-meaning as radically free persons, while always being careful of their effect on others. Now, you could be right; maybe she is free after all, the way Sisyphus is in Camus's famous essay, but on the surface, giving speeches that other people write for you is not very obviously consonant with that. --Trovatore (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

On the surface, I agree, it's not. But it goes deeper than the mere surface. In the Westminster system, it is vitally important that the monarch always be above politics, and always be seen to be so. This method of reading a speech prepared by her government for her to read is one of the ways this is demonstrated. She's entitled to her private thoughts about politicians and their doings, but there's no place for the public expression of them. One might say that that is proof positive of her lack of personal freedom. Or, one might consider that she knew this full well before she ever became queen, and chose it anyway. All of us who consider ourselves "free" still experience certain lacks of freedom. But the queen, for all the restrictions her role places on her, has at least three rights that nobody else has - to be consulted by the government about its proposed policies; to warn; and to encourage. So, for every swing there is a roundabout. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This question was definitively answered in the book 1066 And All That, which most agree was a Good Thing. 86.9.66.238 (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Famous editors on Wikipedia

Are there any famous editors .? I mean a serious non-vandalizing editor who has gotten some sort of fame or recognition for their work? I don't know if this has been discussed before.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been asked whether any editors have become professional writers. Try searching the archives. Someone will probably answer anyway if they do know an example, but the only one I can think of was the fraud with the supposed theological degree. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, although to my mind it doesn't adequately distinguish between those who're just here to edit their own article and talk about themselves, and those who actively participate in the encyclopedia in general. Few would meet even a generous definition of "famous", however. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 09:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Johann Hari? Horatio Snickers (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was a minor reporter for a major paper for a while. Some sort of recognition in the byline, but never shared my photo, so was never really recognized. Couldn't get free meals like Jimbo Wales might, or likely even a Wiki article. But I did briefly feel notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We generally don't discuss private identities of editors, as per Wikipedia:OUTING. However, there have been quite a few prominent persons engaged in WP:COI editing. --Soman (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Roger Ebert is pretty famous. Matt Deres (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Brian David Josephson won a Nobel in physics and edits a variety of articles. Others edited mainly their own articles and articles related to their interests, and publicly identified themselves: The woman who led the drive against hocus-pocus black box voting machines in US elections: Bev Harris, and a former head of SDS: Michael Klonsky. Edison (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

On both the French and English Wikipedias, the Bogdanov brothers repeatedly rewrote the article about them to erase embarrassing information. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In his autobiographical Over Time, published last year, Frank Deford indicated he had made some corrections to an article about one of his books. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Two that I've come across are Chip Berlet and Michael Everson... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

First one who comes to mind is Arthur Rubin (User:Arthur Rubin), who appears to be somewhat of a figure in the mathematics/computer science world. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What languages did Robespierre speak?

I'm trying to research Robespierre's early life via the internet, and I'm unable to find an answer to the question in the subject line. What languages, apart from French, did Robespierre speak? I'm particularly interested to know if he spoke English, and if he could read and write in it as well.

I suspect that he only spoke French, though I can find no page that explicitly confirms this.

thanks,

I found some sources saying he was quite skilled at Latin, and a biography saying that he had to take French, Latin and some Greek in grammar school. (Robespierre, a Revolutionary Life by Peter McPhee, p. 1,713) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: I doubt that 1,713 is the correct page number, the google book seems to have the page numbers all messed up and it's impossible to say what the correct page number is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Here it is p. 16. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Eulenspeigel and Pp.paul.

jack thompson

Thompson tried to ban games like gta, manhunt etc. but 1 Amendment (remember out of my head) says that things can not be prohibited on the basis of its contents unless it is child pornography. then it would not have been impossible to get the games banned if he won the trials or he would also change the 1 amendment?--80.161.143.239 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your question is very unclear. What do you want to know? Which of these Jack Thompsons are you talking about? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Jack Thompson (activist) is a former Florida attorney who attempted to ban violent video games more than a few times, most notably Grand Theft Auto. I'm not sure he cared the slightest about the 1st amendment as it relates to video games. As our article on him states, he does not accept that freedom of expression even applies, as he believes these games to be "murder simulators". He believes that violent video games beget violent people, and sought to get them banned, or at least rendered extremely difficult to procure. Mingmingla (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Does he approve of toy handguns for kids? HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't say. If you Google "jack thompson" and "toy gun" in two double-quoted search terms, you get quite a few hits, but so far I haven't seen one where they're directly connected (not that I've tried that hard). In this link he appears to want to ban a "gaming gun", which I'm not sure exactly what it is but my guess would be that it's a video-game controller, so I suppose that's a sort of toy gun, but probably not what you have in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Just from the article Jack Thompson (activist), you can follow a link to the Miller test, which gives an example of how a similar issue was addressed. That covered pornography and its relationship to the First Amendment. The point is that it was a Supreme Court judgement, with specific points that all need to be satisfied. The implication is that the same could happen with regard to censorship of violent video games - it could come down to a Supreme Court ruling. This also shows that your claim, that the only exception is child pornography, is false, since the Miller test relates to all pornography. To see how big the role of the Supreme Court is here, observe that with the Miller test, the Court has effectively made legislation to fill a void, because they have listed some specific tests that can be applied. So Jack Thompson could leave this to someone else to worry about. IBE (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You can also google "jack thompson first amendment" and follow some links, eg. [7]. IBE (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Prydain and Middle Earth

When I was a lad in grade three, my aunt gave me a copy of The Book of Three, the first part of Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain series. I enjoyed it very much and read the rest of the series. However, I never really got into fantasy fiction. Fast forward (several) years and I'm sitting in a theatre watching the first film of The Lord of the Rings and I'm getting a very weird feeling of having read all this before. I bought the LOTR books and have read them through several times since then. I am just now re-reading the Prydain works and again, the feeling that these two works are extremely similar is just overwhelming.
Now obviously they draw from many of the same sources (I suspect Sauron and Arawn may share an ancestor), so some similarities are to be expected, but it really does seem to be over the top. Google searching brings up forum posts and blog entries of varying coherency; is there any kind of serious literary criticism that discusses this? Any comments from Tolkein himself? Our article on Gurgi hilariously suggests that the film version of Gollum was somehow reminiscent of the film version of Gurgi, while ignoring the rather obvious opposite conclusion: the literary Gurgi is a complete rip-off of the literary Gollum. Is this one of those things that people just don't talk about? Matt Deres (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings came out a decade earlier, and spawned many imitators. You'll note Tolkien made his languages resemble Welsh and Finnish, while Prydain and Arawn are just flat out Celtic. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the forewords of each of the Prydain books, Prydain is meant to be Wales and the characters are drawn from Welsh myths and legend; for example, "Arawn" actually links to the original Welsh legendary character and not the dude from the Prydain series, who resides at Arawn Death-Lord. Matt Deres (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've usually seen the discussion framed as both using some similar sources (Welsh mythology and language) rather than as a matter of imitation. For example, this forum thread - which also suggests a number of good books on Tolkien's use of existing mythologies. For an example of discussion of Alexander's sources: [8] [9]. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tolkien's own notes have been published, and while he was familiar with Celtic mythology (which I think he described as "mad") it is obvious that any resemblance between Sauron and Arawn is coincidental and convergent. See Sauron#Concept_and_creation. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

July 7

Charles Gordon Hopkins

Does anybody know the birth date and death date of Charles Gordon Hopkins (1822-1886)? He was an uncle of Gerard Manley Hopkins who served as Hawaii's Minister of the Interior.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Last supper vessels and utensils.

Considering the norm of the time, and the circumstance of the occasion, what would be the nature of the vessels and utensils likely to be used in the last supper. Wooden, metallic, glass, clay? Would the drinking vessel referred to as the 'holy grail', be an non-descript clay cup, likely to thrown out, once it has reached its useful lifetime? Would they have used a low table, or none at all? What niceties would the host likely be able to provide his guests, would the guests have to sit on the floor, or on pillows, or something else? Paint me a picture what would have been the likely scene? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Start with Passover Seder and see where it leads you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That does not address any of my questions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I said start with. You need to find out whether the way they handled the Seder in Jesus' time is the same way they do now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then how does whether they did or not, provide me with an answer? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because if they do it the way they did then, you can easily find out. If they don't, you'll have to research further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

One gospel says it wasn't a seder, the three others (which mostly copy each other) say it was. Scholars go both ways: [10] [11]. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, my logic tells me that 'that', will only tell me what serveware would likely have been used, not what those items were made from. Plasmic Physics (talk)

Which reminds me of this oldie: What did Jesus say at the Last Supper? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What? (...of relevance?) Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone who wants to be in the picture, sit on this side of the table." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ROFL --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This picture doesn't show any utensils, as far as I can see. Except that for that metallic knife. Not sure who's supposed to be holding that. Silver plates, glass glasses and breadlike food. I suppose they ate with their hands, sandwich style. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is an image by Leonardo Da Vinci, discussed at The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci), and painted shortly before 1500. It's probably more indicative of the culture of the Italian renaissance than that of 1st century Palestine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion of the accuracy of Last Supper Paintings here [12]. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, non-contemporary history is always a bit sketchy. When it's religious history in art form, even more room for error. Just figured there might be some basis to the painting. I notice the Bible talks about Jesus picking up bread with his hands and dipping it. Again, the Bible comes with the same sort of religious art asterisk the painting does, but it's quite a bit closer in time. If I had to guess, I'd still say they didn't have utensils. But yeah, my non-expert guess isn't worth much. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

An educated guess is better than nothing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A look at our Holy Grail article shows that there's no agreement on whether the Grail was a platter or a chalice. A little information on New Testament era tableware is here. Alansplodge (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And on the table question, here's the take of a Catholic Monsignor [13] (reclining on a mat). 184.147.144.173 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Glass is very unlikely. Glass in first century Judaea would have been extortionately expensive. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Glass has been around for ages before this time in the form of jewelry, such as was made in Egypt. That being said, I have no idea about bottles and other functional items created by glass blowing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it was very expensive. I'm not that familiar with the lives of the disciples, but I doubt any of them were astonishingly rich. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Our Roman glass article says that initially glass was only for the very wealthy, but the invention of glass blowing changed that; "By the mid-1st century AD this meant that glass vessels had moved from a valuable, high-status commodity, to a material commonly available". So just a few years too late for the last Supper. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The supper was not hosted by the disciples, but by an unknown Jew, who was wealthy enough to own a servant. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so dishes, and cups were likely clayware. What about knives and spoons? (I know that forks were only invented in the second millennium) Were they pewter, iron, or some something else? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If they indeed reclined on their left sides as IP 184's link says, using a knife to cut food would be some trouble. I know this from countless hours of experience. So I imagine that was made of nothing. Whether the spoons were made of anything seems lost to history, going by Google. I'll still guess Jesus used the literal blood and body of Christ. If he has women anointing his feet with hair, lips and tears at dinner, I doubt messy hands would be much of a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Western education culture

i'm from india and this is actually a two-fold question.

1) it's very common in my country for teachers to hold grudges against students for really petty matters, like "not paying respect", "not solving a problem exactly as told to" and so on. and many a times, this grudge translates to less grades in the final exams, even though the student deserved more grades. my question is: does this happen in the West?

2) my next question is about something what we call "the management quota" in Indian colleges. what this essentially means is that many kids "buy" their way into a college. maybe you don't know about Indian colleges' admission procedure, but we have a number of screening tests during admission, including national ones (IITJEE and AIEEE) and private ones which are for individual colleges. now, many-a-times, students who haven't got a good rank in those exams pay a helluva lot more than what they normally would and "buy" their way into a college. sometimes, it's not money but contacts and influence. for this reason, a huge number of colleges "reserve" a specific percentage of seats just for these students with rich and famous parents who would happily pay more to get into a college. my question: does this too happen in the West? do people just "buy" their kids seats? -- 117.197.234.248 (talk · contribs) 05:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding question 1): By "very common in my country" (India), I presume you mean "A few of my teachers did this to me, and so I assume my experiences are universal in a country of almost 1 billion people." Because that seems a bit unreasonable that you would extrapolate your experience to the millions upon millions of teachers currently working in India, and presume without any evidence beyond your own personal experiences that such behavior is "common" in India. --Jayron32 05:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This question sounds familiar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) Yes it happens occasionally at the secondary school level. Human nature is what it is. (2) Doesn't happen in the UK, where all the top tier universities are fiercely competitive and the tutors mostly get to choose who they teach. (They prefer to teach more intelligent pupils who will be more interesting to teach.) No idea about the USA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1) In the US, it would be hard to get away with this in any class with an objective grading system, like a math class or a science class using multiple choice answers. If a question was marked wrong which was clearly correct, an appeal to the principal would get the grade corrected and the teacher reprimanded. However, in classes with a subjective grading system, such as with written essays, it would be harder to prove intentional bias on the part of the teacher, although giving a failing mark on an excellent essay would not stand.

2) In the US, public universities that take money from the state and federal governments might get in trouble for such behavior, but private universities are more likely to get away with it. An exception seems to be "legacies". Those are students with parents or other relatives who attended that college. Such students generally have lower requirements they must meet to be admitted. These students also tend to come from wealthier families, than say a student who is the first in his family to attend a university. StuRat (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Humans hold grudges everywhere. That's universal human behavior.

2) In the US they have legacy admission. College athletics in the United States also seem to be an easier way into college. Celebrities and children of them are also suspected to be entering well-known colleges through the back-door.

3) Total OR here: no country or college can be trusted. If you want to assess the quality of the education that you'll get, check the department specifically, or be even more specific, enrolling for courses of specific teachers. No matter what university: they have their share of junk, try to avoid this. OsmanRF34 (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OsmanRF34 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is pure opinion and I can't back it up, but I always wondered how on earth George Osborne and David Cameron managed to get into Oxford University. Maybe it has something to do with going to Eton. So I'd say to the second question, yes it does happen in England. Plus I have experience of (usually foreign) students who pay more to go to UK universities expecting preferential treatment when it comes to marking. But then maybe I'm just a cynical ex-university lecturer. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying about Osborne and Cameron, Tammy. Merely wondering is not an opinion, unless you're inviting us to read between the lines that, in your opinion, they were too dumb to get in on their own merits, or something like that. Can you clarify? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that worse than George W. Bush going to Yale and Harvard? OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how much you know about Oxford University, TammyMoet. Admission is to individual colleges, of which there are now 38, and each consciously or not has its bias over who it will accept. Getting in is only the start, however, since you have to survive interim exams and get a degree at the end. In 1988 David Cameron won a first-class bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics, which must put him intellectually well in the top 1% of the UK population. How far this past achievement is reflected in his present leadership of the country is a quite separate question. --Hors-la-loi 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I just wonder how someone who did this badly at school did so well at Oxford. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic achievement aged 11 is not always a good predictor of academic achievement aged 21, or even at 16. According to our article, he later took three As at A-level and a distinction in the Scholarship exam; perhaps Eton did a better job of teaching than Heatherdown did, or - more likely - he was a smart but lazy pupil who was prevailed upon to actually start doing some work. With Cameron, we also know that his tutor, Vernon Bogdanor, has called him one of the most able students he has taught; even allowing for a bit of rose-tinting over a quarter-century, it doesn't suggest he was particularly inept! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What would a professor at a private university say? "Half of my students wouldn't be here, weren't they from wealthy families, including that Cameron guy." It's not possible to know what is self-interest, what is marketing and what is education and honest testing. I have no doubt that he's well-read and over the average educationally, but within the 1%? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of pupils who get all A grades at A-level is a very small percentage. (Statistic please, anyone, for 20 years ago in particular?) The number of pupils who also get into Oxford or Cambridge is a smaller percentage (partly a subset of that former percentage). Estimating it at one or two per cent is reasonable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That means he was at the 1-2% of something, but this something doesn't have to be intelligence, or at least not purely intelligence. Going through the system requires many other aspects: social abilities, your economical situation, and even the month you were born can be an advantage towards your grades! OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

His family are definitely in the top 1% of British society, whichever way you look at it. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, OsmanRF34 is right that lots of things can make a difference to your grades in the UK, but money or prestige is not the most important of them. (Reliable sources sometimes mention sensitivity to hay fever as being a significant factor.) Prince Harry's family are rather a great deal wealthier and more elite than Cameron's, and yet Prince Harry managed precisely one grade B and one grade D at A-level according to our article, despite claims (refuted according to that article) that attempts were made to help him with his work unfairly. He attempted a third A-level but dropped it after a year. Most Etonians do not get into Oxford or Cambridge; most of those who do, do not gain first class honours like Cameron did. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In Australia, the influence of money at university level is becoming proverbial, perhaps because of the impact of funding cuts, and the consequent need for universities to find a suitable replacement. Edward J. Steele was notoriously sacked for speaking out against soft marking of full-fee paying students. However, it does not follow that the problems are endemic or particularly widespread, merely that it is a real concern. IBE (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the second question... In the United States, colleges and universities can be divided into two categories; need-blind and need-aware. Need-blind schools (which include many of the most prestigious) choose their incoming class without any consideration for their ability to pay. Need-aware schools acknowledge that they make some admissions decisions based on the student's ability to pay. This is combined with a school's financial aid policy. Some schools promise to meet the full demonstrated need of every applicant; this means that the student will be offered loans or grants to cover any tuition they cannot afford (as determined by a common process, known as the FAFSA). Other schools do not, and may admit a student but offer little aid, forcing the student (if not wealthy) to find outside funding to attend the school. Different schools combine these policies in different ways, some of which may result in a phenomenon like you describe. (Sorry, wasn't logged in) gnfnrf (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about Male Primogeniture and The Act of Settlement 1701

When the monarch in the UK dies, their crown goes to the eldest living son. If there are no living sons, then it goes to the eldest daughter.

So what happens in this case:

1. The Monarch who dies had two male children.

1. The eldest male is also dead, but before his death he had a single daughter.

Does the crown go to the dead monarch's granddaughter or his eldest living son? I know that in this case if the grandchild was a son, that he would get the thrown, but I'm not clear on the situation with a daughter and there is no historical parallel. --CGPGrey (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The daughter gets it. George IV's daughter was his heir, and would have been queen, but she predeceased him. Later in the same generation, Queen Victoria succeeded ahead of her father's younger brother. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Our article Order of succession#Primogeniture gives the details (albeit without a reference): In primogeniture (or more precisely male primogeniture), the monarch's eldest son and his descendants take precedence over his siblings and their descendants. Elder sons take precedence over younger sons, but all sons take precedence over all daughters. Children represent their deceased ancestors, and the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line, within each gender. The right of succession belongs to the eldest son of the reigning sovereign (see heir apparent), and then to the eldest son of the eldest son. This is the system in the Commonwealth realms. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It was this part ' but all sons take precedence over all daughters ' that confused me. So in the example above, the eldest, deceased, son has already claimed the right of succession for his daughter, regardless of what else has happened in the family, correct? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. If Prince Charles dropped dead today, Prince William would move up a notch in the line of succession and would succeed the Queen on her death. Will and Kate's unborn child would then become the heir apparent on its birth. Prince Harry would come next, followed by any children he may happen to have, assuming they're legitimate and he married with the Queen's consent. Princes Andrew and Edward and their progeny, and Princess Anne and her progeny, would come next. Basically, wherever a person sits in the line of succession, they are immediately followed by any sons or daughters they happen to have, and then by their children, and then by their children etc etc, before the next person gets a look-in. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only would that granddaughter be first in line, she would also be heir apparent even according to male-preferance primogeniture. Ancient English baronies descend the same way the Crown descends (ignoring abeyance), so it is not quite true that there is no historical parallel. This woman was heir apparent to her grandfather because her father was his eldest son. Although he was outlived by five other sons, she was the daughter of the eldest. Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The daughter would actually be heir presumptive, as there is always the theoretical possibility that the king could have a son who would disinherit her. Rojomoke (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not talking about daughters. I was talking about granddaughters, and so was the OP. A granddaughter with no brothers whose deceased father was the eldest son is heir apparent under male-preferance primogeniture, because there is no possibility that her titled grandparent could have a son older than the deceased eldest son and because her dead father (the titled grandparent's eldest son) cannot beget a son anymore. Since she cannot be displaced by anyone's birth (much like the eldest son), she is heir apparent. Surtsicna (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

However, male primogeniture is a thing of the past in the Commonwealth Realms, see Succession to the Crown Act 2013 for the current arrangements. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not yet in the past. It will be when the Lord President of the Council announces the new act. If it had to, it would still apply today. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please elaborate. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 article makes no mention of that act not being passed, completely, and through all "bill stages". Are you claiming that that's incorrect? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Once an Act is passed and recieved royal assent, it has to come into force. Usually, they either come into force immediately (on the day of Assent), at a specified time (such as the start of the next financial year), or at a yet-to-be-specified time. In this particular case, s. 5(2) states that "The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." For an example of such an order, see this, which brought the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011 into force; the Act was passed in July, the Order made in December, and it specified the Act would enter into force from February. This usually doesn't take long, but for an extreme case see the Easter Act 1928, which has never been brought into force. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See Perth Agreement#Timetable. Some of the Commonwealth Realms require local legislation to approve the change to the succession. (Other realms report that they don't require such local legislation, and still other realms apparently haven't indicated yet whether they do or don't require local legislation.) The change in succession will take effect when the Lord President of the Council designates after all the necessary legislation in the realms has passed. See Section 5(2) of the Act and Explanatory Notes] #42. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And the reason this is relevant is that the Statute of Westminster requires that any change to the law of succession must be agreed to by all the Commonwealth realms in identical terms, or it applies to none of them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could add a note to our article, as it doesn't really explain those points. Alansplodge (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think the reason many people believe the change is already in effect is that, when it finally does come into effect, it will apply to anyone in the line of succession born after 28 October 2011, the date of the Perth Agreement. That means it will for all intents and purposes have been in effect since that date, but we can't say that yet, until all 16 realms change their laws, and it's a convoluted process in places like Australia and Canada where there are multiple sovereignties. This means that, if Will and Kate had a daughter who was born before 28 October 2011, she would be displaced in the line of succession by any later-born sons, but if such a daughter had been born after 28 October 2011, her place would be assured. So, even though the laws are not yet in effect, we can already say with almost total certainty that the soon-to-be-born royal child will immediately succeed its father no matter what its sex is. We just have to wait for the laws to actually come into effect to convert that "almost total certainty" into an "absolutely total certainty". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Victoria is a very good example to consider. She succeeded her uncle William IV as Queen of the United Kingdom through being the daughter of his younger brother (the Duke of Kent) under male primogeniture, but didn't succeed him as King of Hanover under Salic law, so that position went to the next of George III's sons, the Duke of Cumberland. Tevildo (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Victoria is the best "real-life" example, but she was heir presumptive, while the granddaughter OP asked about would be heir apparent. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Differences between socialism and fascism

Benito Mussolini was once a socialist, but then went on to forge fascism. The word "socialism" is used with such derogatory connotations in the media that I'm not really even sure about what it means anymore. "Socialism" seems to apply to a broader category of concepts than "fascism" does, but I think there are more differences than that. What are they? — Melab±1 ☎ 15:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, there are plenty of examples of people whose political opinions shifted over time. Fascism and socialism are two different ideologies, and both contain a broad set of different tendencies and schools of thought. To judge which is broader than the other is quite arbitrary, but following the defeat of the Axis powers in WWII the term 'fascism' has largely disappeared apart from being used as in a derogatory sense. Socialism on the other hand does not carry such connotations, apart from in the United States. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Both terms are misapplied in a derogative manner to cover a broad range of "the other side", so the boundaries of the terms become mushy at least in popular language. Check Fascism and Socialism. Some differences are that socialism usually is internationalist and egalitarian, while fascism is nationalist and elitist (while at the same time appealing to the massed by claiming they are all part of the elite). Socialism is, or, in practice, at least has, an economic model in which the means of production are owned by the state or the people as a collective. Fascism's economic model is about the same as Vito Corleone's. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fascist establishment and the Sicilian mafia found themselves on opposite sides of the political spectrum (at least in the latter phase of WWII). And socialism isn't inherently international, there are plenty of varieties with nationalist leanings. I think a key difference to be mentioned is the social conservatism of fascism, seeking to maintain the role of family, gender roles, tradition, military hierarchies, etc., whilst socialist movements tend to challenge established social and cultural norms. --Soman (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's in no way unexpected or unusual for different crime cartels to be on different sides, or even in violent feuds, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is pretty much a direct answer to the original question. --Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Socialism usually means that the government works to help the workers maintain fair and just control over the economy (with or without communism or capitalism), fascism means that the government is highly nationalistic and authoritarian. A socialist could be democratic and anti-fascist, pretty much holding that the government should ideally only have the power to help people, have no control over their lives beyond the ability to enforce nigh-universally accepted social contracts, and should recognize other countries right to exist without fear of colonization or domination. A socialist could also be fascist, holding that the government should help the nation because that nation is the only nation with a right to exist, and then seek to exploit and domination other nations to bring that about. A fascist could be anti-socialist, holding that certain people wouldn't need government aid if X group could be eliminated or Y nation could be "defended" against.

(I have excluded the more anarchist versions of socialism from this explanation, because I fail to see the difference between the workers maintaining control over the economy among themselves without outside aid and the workers maintaining control over the economy through a purely democratic government by the people and for the people; unless such a venture were to lapse back into capitalism).

(And by "with or without communism or capitalism, I mean that a socialist may or may not favor the abolition of private property as a means to liberate the workers should they be communist, or may see that the workers merely need to have their private property protected from hostile and immoral forces to ensure their liberation should they be capitalist).

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the articles and it appears that one difference is collectivism versus corporatism. — Melab±1 ☎ 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What philosophy is this?

Im curious about what philosophy is this, i find its ideas interesting: "There is no other will other than my own. My own will is the only one that exists in this fictional reality. Everything begins and ends with I. Ideologies are meant to enslave my very own essence into a mindless doll. My happiness is the ultimate goal and in order to achieve it, i have to eliminate suffering and pain in my life. Life is suffering and pain and thats an absolute truth. There is no meaning to life, i am the only one who can give it a meaning, as an artist who finishes its masterpiece, i ended it with my own death, my best friend. "-isms" such as capitalism or socialism are just totalitarian ideologies that "eat" individuals who renounced their rationality. Man should eat ideas, not the other way around. To love life is to suffer the consequences: Insanity, its to be glued to an empty concept. My reason and logic are absolutes that transforms my life to be the expression of the hero who battles against the opressive collective, which is modern society." I´ll be waiting for your answers

"There is no will other than my own..." sounds like a pipe dream. I think Plato attacked this concept. If you tell us where you found it, it might help. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, wait come to think of it I think the concept of Maya (illusion) might involve a philosophy similar to this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a melange of solipsism, pop existentialism with a few slithers of lightly sautéed Buddhism: covered with lashings of teenage narcissism. Paul B (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like an indecisive suicide note. Looie496 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looie might have hit upon something here. We even have an entire category that might be relevant. IBE (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reads like a combination of nihilism and individualism, maybe similar to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Nietzsche wanted to "eliminate suffering and pain"; that's more a Schopenhaurean borrowing from Buddhism. Paul B (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul has it more or less right. It's a recent ('totalitarian ideologies') pastiche basically of several 19th. century thinkers, who are interlinked in their personal genealogy of ideas (Nietzsche synthesized S & S, plagiarizing without acknowledgement much of the latter). (a) the suffering and pain motif comes from Schopenhauer (b) that ideologies enslave one's essence is straight from Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own (c)that 'Man should eat ideas' not viceversa, is a Stirnerian development of Ludwig Feuerbach's pun about Der Mensch ist was er ißt (Man is was he eats(ist/isst)) (d) 'my reason and logic are absolutes' is straight out of Gottlieb Fichte and (e) The commendation of suicide is Nietzschean but tagged with a recall of Maurice Blanchot, who analogized it (L'Espace Littéraire (1955)with the work of art and the heroic. Not bad I suppose for an undergrad whose reading of philosophical anthologies is so deep (s)he has no time to learn grammar. If it's a suicide note, the act should be suspended until the author can come up with an original idea, i.e., indefinitely or never, as per Ecclesiasticus 1:9. Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I got that fragment from a textbook about philosophy. And I liked what that type of thought said. And there is more, I'll continue: "Nothing matters. My self should enslave other wills. Life has a pessimistic bias. My might is above all other wills from the non-selves and should rule based on selfish rational motives. As there are no other selves other than my own it means there is no such thing as society. What we know as Society is just a collective of irrational entities who are slaves to their passions and absolutist ideologies and whom want to destroy the rational individual: Myself. the "I" is the absolute of all, the true alpha and omega. Manifestations of that collective of irrational entities such as the market and the State devour common sense, which is the basis of Order. Order is the "mother" of liberty and equality, concepts stolen by the Right and Left, and thus nothing more than empty words. Religion, Government, Marxism, Psychoanalysis etc. are tools of social control and thus decay into chaos, which is the opposite of the natural order or Autarchy. Decadence is the norm these days, the death of free will and one's own supremacy, from an individual to an automaton move by the contemporary trends and by the mysticism and arbitrary whim of the non-selves. I is the observer of time-space, the hero who achieves his values by "creating" a soul and killing his "personality", the individual who goes from man to God, the objective absolute. We is the object in essence, victim to the conflict between altruist utopias and ultra-rationalism. "

Sure. As therapy read Gore Vidal's Kalki, a reprise of Aldous Huxley's After Many a Summer. You might dislike them, but the prose is excellent.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

One is also tempted to recommend Rick's Teen Anguish Poem in this sort of situation. Tevildo (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Haile Selassie I, who was Emperor of Ethiopia, wrote in his Autobiography that "God's designs always prevail over those of man" and he gave numerous examples of this philosophy. So according to this Ethiopian philosophy, while there is a conflict of wills that may involve millions or billions of individual wills, there is one Will that can aways prevail if and when it wants to. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been said better before. [14] (come to think of it, that link may eventually die, so I should spoil the fun and note that I'm referring to the end of Dark Star (film)) The connection between the reaction to solipsism and the designed purpose of the solipsist is interesting, though. Wnt (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't watch YouTube atm because of a computer issue, but the article describes a 1975 Hollywood movie about an artificially intelligent bomb that decides it is God, and destroys a spaceship in outer space. I doubt that is making the same point about reality that the Ethiopian Emperor was making, or that it is either 'better' or 'before' (he wrote Volume One of his Autobiography in Bath, England in the 1930s.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't a specific reply to you, but a general comment on solipsism. Nonetheless, it's not entirely irrelevant to yours, because the Dark Star conclusion was that an entity, in the absence of all credible external input, will end up spontaneously acting out its designed purpose - which, for the bomb, is to explode. Wnt (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Japan and Russia

Japan and Russia are the two G8 member states where possession of child pornography is legal. Distribution of child pornography was made de jure illegal in 2003 after international pressure from the United Nations, UNICEF. why would the UN put pressure on making the kind of sick stuff legit? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. Your last sentence seems to be saying that UNICEF is putting pressure on Japan and Russia to make child pronography "Legit" (i.e. legal, or acceptable). This seems to contradict the previous sentence. There is some discussion of this in the article Child pornography laws in Japan, from which both of your first two sentences seem to derive. There is no suggestiuon that UNICEF is trying to make it "legit". Paul B (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP is making a distinction between possession (first sentence) and distribution (second sentence). I think he's asking "Since they made distribution illegal, why didn't they also make possession illegal?". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence is scarcely clear, if indeed that's what s/he is getting at. I imagine that representations are being made, but UNICEF does not generally try to force its views aggressively on independent nations. Each sovereign country makes its own laws, of course. As we know, if those laws are deemed problematic various kinds of international pressure can be applied, but it's usually only very major issues that lead to serious pressue. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the question is very unclearly worded. The OP is assuming that, unless pressure from the UN to make distribution illegal was accompanied by UN pressure to make possession illegal, this would amount to UN pressure to keep possession legal. That would be a very false interpretation, in my view. There are many things that are illegal in one jurisdiction but not illegal in another. That does not mean that the government of the latter jurisdiction is actively promoting whatever the practice is, or in any way condones it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Vehicle identification

Can anyone identify make/model/year (approximate) for the pickup trucks seen in this image? I'd like to put the image in the Commons categories for the trucks, but I know essentially nothing about vehicles other than my own. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trucks. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The one on the right isn't a pickup truck; it's a sedan. Looks like a beat-up 1957 Chevrolet to me. Deor (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a good enough picture of the truck, to me, to include it in the commons. It's too obscured by the other items in the pic. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The truck appears to me to be a 1970s GMC C/K, though I'm not certain of that. The car on the right is indeed a '57 Chevy. I would agree with SutRat on the usefulness of the picture as far as inclusion in the commons is concerned. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If the car on the right is a pickup truck, it's a mid 1950s Chevrolet Task Force, which had essentially the same front end as the Chevy Bel Air. Since we can't see anything further back from the front doors, it could be the Task Force rather than the Bel Air. --Jayron32 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a Task Force. Comparing it to the picture of the 1957 Task Force in the article, and to other images on the Net, it has a flat hood, with (missing) dual hood ornaments, unlike the curved hood of the Task Force. There's no large Chevrolet emblem at the very front of the hood, and from what I can tell, no mounting holes for one that's missing. The cutout for the grille extends the full width of the vehicle to be identified, while on the Task Force the fenders extend past the grille. You can also see three trim pieces on the fender immediately behind the headlight on the vehicle in question, which is consistent with the '57 Chevy coupes and sedans, but not the Task Force. Those trim pieces appear to have only appeared on the 1957 model; I don't see them on the 1956 images I'm finding, and in 1958 the car had dual headlights. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm reasonably confident it's a car (can't tell whether it's coupe, sedan, or station wagon), and not a pickup. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look through, rather than at, the windshield, you can see the configuration of the side windows on the far side of the car (and even a bit of the rear window). It's definitely not a Task Force. Deor (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch, Deor. It looks like there's a window pillar visible, and you can see the slope of the roof toward the rear, which would make it a sedan (probably a 2-door from the proportions), not a coupe or a station wagon. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Perforator

What the heck is this? On the 1901 Irish census, my great great aunt has a job "perforator", but it says nothing else about it, and I can't find any indication what it could be that she would have been perforating. Any ideas? Mingmingla (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A long shot, but perhaps someone who perforated punched cards, perhaps for Jacquard looms? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There are dozens of jobs that even today have the word perforator in their job description. Textile production was an important industry in Ireland the turn of the last century. That's an educated guess, but I also knew an Irish seamstress when I was young who'd've done that sort of work at that time. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 8

1960s organization known as the Silver Dollar Group

Does anyone know about the Silver Dollar Group's history and how it affected the civil rights movement? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A violent wing of the Klu Klux Klan thought to be responsible for multiple unsolved racial killings. The identifying marker was a silver dollar minted in the year of the individual’s birth. Google is your friend! [15], [16], [17]. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned in the article of White Knights of the KKK Klansman James Ford Seale that he was a member of the Silver Dollar Group, which was founded by Red Glover? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If a published reliable source states this, and indicates that it is relevant, it might seem reasonable to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source does. Why isn't there an article about the Silver Dollar Group, Red Glover, or the case of the assassination of civil rights activist Wharlest Jackson? This Klan organization was responsible for notorious crimes that alarmed the American people, leading to desegregation. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't there an article? The usual answer is because nobody has written it yet. WP is a work in progress. You're welcome to write the article yourself, if you'd like and if you have enough reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject. Dismas|^(talk) 04:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaspar de Carvajal's account of the Amazon

Where can I find an online English translation of Gaspar de Carvajal's Relación? I've found many Spanish documents, but I unfortunately don't know Spanish. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there probably aren't any English translations that have fallen out of copyright. Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

legal issues about surveillance cams in the US

I had just visited Carnegie-Mellon University for a few days. I found there are seldom any visible surveillance cams though there are notices like "This area may be monitored by closed-circuit camera". I wonder:

Do you need to get any grant before you set a cam?

Is it legal to set up covert surveillance cams? -- Agiongpg (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

It most likely varies from state to state, and likely also within each state. Best suggestion would be to seek qualified legal advice in the area you are planning to set up a camera. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Carnegie Mellon is a private university, and the laws about private institutions might be considerably different from those about public institutions. I'm thinking back to when the Chicago Cubs installed security cameras at Wrigley Field, ca. 1970. I don't recall anything being said about them needing permission. I would also argue (with no legal knowledge, just opinion) that if there's a sign warning you, then it's not really "covert". It's like when you call a help desk and a message says "this conversation may be recorded". Or it may not. But at least you know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is going to vary greatly by jurisdiction but you can read expectation of privacy and look into the Chuck Berry settlement. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Pennsylvania law generally prohibits recording someone unawares; there are probably some exceptions, but if I understand rightly, it's illegal in most situations, at least when done by people other than government officials and employees. CMU's signs presumably meet or surpass the legal requirements, which don't require consent. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you give a link for that Nyttend? There are plenty of rules against recording people on the phone without consent, but very few rules that prohibit recording on your own property or in public. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the "we don't give legal advice" rule the reference desks used to have? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We still enforce it, but it doesn't apply to this specific situation unless Agionpg is actually editing on behalf of CMU. Can't bring up a source right now, Medeis; this is something I learned a few years ago while living in Pennsylvania. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I googled [Carnegie Mellon University security cameras] this link,[18] was interesting, as it came up well before 9/1/11, and talks about plans to use security cameras with no hint of any legal restrictions. Here[19] is a more recent item. I recommend the OP google the subject, and maybe also google something about security camera laws for Pennsylvania, and see what turns up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear legal advice question, and some of the responses here are prime examples of why we have this rule in the first place. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between asking about a law and requesting legal advice. The OP isn't asking us what he can do legally or how to proceed on a lawsuit, or whether we think someone has committed a crime. We are not advising anyone what to do or not do or giving any legal opinion about a specific alleged tort/crime. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's clearly a legal-advice question. But it's clear no one here knows for sure. The OP should contact a local attorney and find out the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Diapers

I have a question the usage of diapers. I am aware that this is an odd topic but I hope I can find an answer. My question is: Are diaper age people (usually age 0-3) aware when they have soiled/wet their diapers? Can their own nasal capacities detect that their diaper is full? --I Need Answers Please. (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are aware. No doubt their sense of smell contributes to their awareness, but I think the experience of a dirty diaper is more of a tactile experience of a wet mass against the skin. I think even infants have an instinctive aversion to their own waste and will cry for their diaper to be changed. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure they can feel a wet diaper. Modern disposable diapers are designed to drive urine from the skin. Read Diaper#Disposable here about the details. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, actually a company here in NZ actually advertises a nappy for toilet training where the urine is supposed to stay for a while so they know when they we the nappy/should have gone to the toilet. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Further in the article Osman links to there is information about cloth diapers, which tend not to wick moisture away from a baby's skin as much as disposables do (at least the ones I'm familiar with), so the baby does very much sense that s/he is wet, and make that fact well known to all within hearing range fairly quickly (as in more or less immediately). I believe one argument for cloth diapers over disposables is this fact, since it helps keep babies from being conditioned to sit in their own waste, but I can't find an authoritative source at the moment. I'm not the expert around the homestead as far as that goes; I just change them in stereotypically clumsy fashion when the situation warrants. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Telugu speaking and Kannada speaking Muslims?

Are there Telugu and Kannada-speaking Muslims in India like Malayalam and Tamil-speaking Muslims in India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.246 (talk • contribs)

Yes. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you returning to anonymous IP status, instead of using your "Donmust90" account? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because he must? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Political Philosophy and Semantic Metaethics

Ethics is very wide subject matter, and there are so may ways to discuss it as it encompasses a number of fields like psychology, political philosophy, and cultural studies. But the most interesting topics in ethics are metaethics and prescriptive ethics. Metaethics is heavily focused on semantics, proving whether ethical terms are truth apt or not. Base on my readings, political philosophy tends to discuss ethics in a normative fashion. There is little or no significant connection between semantic metaethics and political philosophy. I mean political philosophy does not care much about the semantic nature and the truth aptness of ethical terms. They are more concerned on the utility and the pragmatic effects of their moral prescriptions. Given that, what are the general comments of some political philosophers, preferably the modern ones, about their lack of interest in semantic metaethics? And, are there any moral or political philosophers who criticize the semantic treatment of metaethics and ethics as a whole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs)

Please always sign and date your posts by adding 4 tildes (~) at the end. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The template is {{unsigned|Joshua Atienza}} μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm asking the OP to sign and date his own posts, rather than have others do the work of tracking down his name and adding it to his posts. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It helps to make sure that trolls are named for future reference when they don't follow the rules. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Prison Cell

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was wondering what the psycological effects would be if: I was locked in this prison cell for 20 years straight , without being let out. I was not allowed TV, books or anything else. What would be the mental health consequences? --Ańotede (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC) You're asking for speculation. We're not supposed to do that here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Despite that, at least one reliable source has collected some expert views, statistics, anecdotes and speculation about the topic; [20]. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Solitary_confinement#Effects has some links. It is devastating, even at a much shorter length. The BBC link above implies that answering your question is not speculation, but something that happens and has been analyzing. Some people spend longer than one decade in California prisons under solitary confinement. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC) None of us can answer what the effect on the OP would be, if anything it amounts to speculation or medical advice. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, the question can be answered. "I" means "someone." There is plenty of literature about the effects of solitary confinement. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC) If the OP wants to ask that question, he's an experienced enough wikipedia user to do so. See the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Experienced enough? He has asking one question and done no edit. It's obvious he meant someone and not him concretely. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Agreed. We shouldn't punish them for not knowing the exact way to ask a question so it won't get boxed up. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Prison Cell (Osman's version)

A friend of mine was wondering what the psychological effects are when:

• someone is locked in a prison cell for 20 years straight, without being let out.
• this someone was not allowed TV, books or anything else.

What would be the mental health consequences? Are there sources about it?

OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Might help to specify whether the person were in contact with guards and/or anyone else walking past in the hallway; I'd guess that someone with no human contact would end up substantially differently from how he'd end up if he chatted with the guards every few hours. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If the cells either side (or nearby) are occupied, the people in them would be easily able to make themselves heard, and this would be a form of human contact. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

At least one reliable source has collected some expert views, statistics, anecdotes and speculation about the topic; [21]. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Solitary_confinement#Effects has some links. It is devastating, even at a much shorter length. The BBC link above implies that answering your question is not speculation, but something that happens and has been analyzing. Some people spend longer than one decade in California prisons under solitary confinement. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Above two comments copied by me from the rudely hatted section above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The boxing up was proper, as the question as stated is unanswerable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is tragic. We have seen Osman unhat invalid trolling before, with the edit summary saying he merely wishes to annoy another editor with his actions. Now he not only posts his own troll proxies, he answers himself. This violates the ref desk guidelines, {WP:POINTY]] and invites all sorts of sanctions for disruptive editting, vandalism, and so forth. These two threads are at the point of deletion per WP:DENY. μηδείς (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Take your complaints to the talk page, Medeis. This type of criticism has no place here. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Natan Sharansky writes about this. IIRC, he was in solitary for a considerable period. He'd been a chess prodigy as a child and he passed the time playing chess against himself in his head. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a valid question that we should try to answer. And I don't see anything particularly wrong with the previous question. Anyway - some references I got off google:

• Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement
• How do people survive solitary confinement? (BBC News)
• Wikipedia

StewieCartman (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you take the original question literally, it's unanswerable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Posthumous births in the Commonwealth Realms succession

The discussion up above, "Question about Male Primogeniture and The Act of Settlement 1701", made me wonder — how do the Commonwealth Realms address the matter of posthumous births, and how has it been addressed in the past for England/the UK? Neither Succession to the Crown Act 2013 nor Succession to the British throne mentions it, and while a couple of English kings appear in the list at posthumous birth, both of them obtained the crown by overthrowing their predecessors, rather than by inheriting it from their fathers. What I'm reading in the posthumous birth article is largely aimed at normal inheritance and at crowns that are actually significant (i.e. not figurehead constitutional monarchs), and I don't imagine the pattern of Shapur II being repeated if Prince Charles, Prince William, and Queen Elizabeth were all to die tomorrow. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer is "it hasn't been addressed because it never happened", and the British system doesn't tend to rely on legislating in advance for unusual issues. I suspect that were it to happen now, we would have a regency with a vacant crown until the birth and then a regency for that child until the age of succession.

In the context of a modern constitutional monarchies, the likely analogy for how it would work is Alfonso XIII of Spain in the late nineteenth century; Queen Maria Cristina was three months pregnant when Alfonso XII died, and became regent until the child was born. At this point, she became a regent on behalf of Alfonso XII; had he been born a girl, she would have become a regent for her elder daughter Mercedes. Mercedes was explicitly not named Queen until the birth. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Another example I can think of from another European country was Jean I of France. Not only was his succession posthumous (that is, his father died before he was born), but he himself was so sickly he only lived (and thus was king) for only 5 days. His death was followed by the succession of two of his father's brothers, and within a little more than a decade the direct Capetians died out, precipitating the Hundred Years War. --Jayron32 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In cases of both John I of France and Alphonse XIII of Spain, the throne was left vacant until the kings were born. What little precedence there is indicates that the same would not be done in Commonwealth realms because vacancy is apparently avoided at all costs. When Victoria succeeded William IV of the United Kingdom, she was proclaimed sovereign but "Saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort". Essentially, that meant that Victoria's reign would have come to an end had her aunt given birth to her dead uncle's child, and as soon as that child was born. Of course, it was not considered likely that such a child would be born, but I still believe that, if such a situation were to take place in the next few days, there would be a Henry IX for a short while, and that his reign would end upon the birth of his niece or nephew. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

When Victoria succeeded, though, there was essentially no chance of this happening - Adelaide was 45 and had not been pregnant for thirteen years - so they could safely fudge the issue! I think the regency aspect may come into it as well; a situation where there is an adult heir like this may well be handled differently from the Spanish case where a regent would have been appointed in either case, and so the practical difference was slight. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The Crown passes immediately from the former heir of the body of Sophia of Hanover to the new one. Unborn people are incapable of succeeding. They cannot be heir of the body. Henry IX would, in that case, be Sophia's heir of the body until the birth of his nephew or niece. Surtsicna (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Surtiscna, I'm not following that. I can't see how it could possibly arise in the current circumstances, unless not one but three people die, today. William is not yet the heir, let alone his unborn child. The Queen is still on the throne, and Prince Charles is still the heir. Should William die today, Prince Harry would immediately move up a notch in the line of succession from 3rd to 2nd, and then drop back when the baby's born later this week. But that is no way the same as aaying we've suddenly got a King Henry IX. For that to happen, not only William has to die, but the Queen and Charles as well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to a situation in which "Prince Charles, Prince William, and Queen Elizabeth were all to die tomorrow", which is what the OP wanted to know about. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. Seems we were on the same wavelength. I should re-read the question occasionally. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Even with the unlikelihood of a dead king's wife being pregnant, do official ask the widowed queen if she is with child in that circumstance? I know in Hawaii after the death of Kamehameha IV the politicians asked Queen Emma if she was pregnant prior to allowing his brother Lot to succeed. It would be awkward if the widowed queen found out she was pregnant three months into the new monarchs reign.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it would not just be a case of asking her, but of actually testing for pregnancy unless she'd become medically unbearable through hysterectomy or advanced age. The future of the monarchy should not depend on the late king's widow saying "Not as far as I'm aware". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean "unbearable" or "impregnable"? Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

*wink* -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 9

Bodhi tree at Mahabodhi Temple = Tree of Knowledge according to Enoch?

There's a curious anecdote from one of the "Book of Enoch" versions floating around. To be sure, the enveloping context is fantastic, and the details variously confused, yet...^[22]

And thence I went towards the east, into the midst of the mountain range of the desert, and I saw a wilderness and it was solitary, full of trees and plants. And water gushed forth from above. Rushing like a copious watercourse [which flowed] towards the north-west it caused clouds and dew to ascend on every side.

And thence I went to another place in the desert, and approached to the east of this mountain range. And there I saw aromatic trees exhaling the fragrance of frankincense and myrrh, and the trees also were similar to the almond tree.

And beyond these, I went afar to the east, and I saw another place, a valley (full) of water. And therein there was a tree, the colour (?) of fragrant trees such as the mastic. And on the sides of those valleys I saw fragrant cinnamon. And beyond these I proceeded to the east.

And I saw other mountains, and amongst them were groves of trees, and there flowed forth from them nectar, which is named sarara and galbanum. And beyond these mountains I saw another mountain to the east of the ends of the earth, whereon were aloe-trees, and all the trees were full of stacte, being like almond-trees. And when one burnt it, it smelt sweeter than any fragrant odour.

And after these fragrant odours, as I looked towards the north over the mountains I saw seven mountains full of choice nard and fragrant trees and cinnamon and pepper. And thence I went over the summits of all these mountains, far towards the east of the earth, and passed above the Erythraean sea and went far from it, and passed over the angel Zotiel. And I came to the Garden of Righteousness, and from afar off trees more numerous than I these trees and great-two trees there, very great, beautiful, and glorious, and magnificent, and the tree of knowledge, whose holy fruit they eat and know great wisdom.

That tree is in height like the fir, and its leaves are like (those of) the Carob tree: and its fruit is like the clusters of the vine, very beautiful: and the fragrance of the tree penetrates afar. Then I said: 'How beautiful is the tree, and how attractive is its look!' Then Raphael the holy angel, who was with me, answered me and said:

'This is the tree of wisdom, of which thy father old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were before thee, have eaten, and they learnt wisdom and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden.'

And from thence I went to the ends of the earth and saw there great beasts, and each differed from the other; and (I saw) birds also differing in appearance and beauty and voice, the one differing from the other...

Now to be clear, most of the spices described are known from commerce in Palestine and Syria - then again, the author clearly is using familiar names sometimes in reference to unfamiliar plants.^[23] What I find intriguing is that the voyage described passes north of the Erythraean Sea, which is to say, the Indian Ocean near Iran; then further east away from it along a valley of water, which seems plausibly the Ganges. That seems to describe a physical voyage that could plausibly have come near to Mahabodhi Temple. Given the nature of that site, its connection of the tree with enlightenment, it seems irresistible for an ancient writer in the Jewish traditions to have seen an equivalence with the story of Eden. I wonder though if the relationship could be deeper, if there was more communication and more of an underlying relationship between the sites and their traditions, and thus between Abrahamic traditions and Buddhism, than is commonly believed? Has this potential equivalence been explored or dismissed by historians? Wnt (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I really doubt that any historians have ever explored that identification. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The oldest part of the Book of Enoch dates to 300BC. Prior to that are the boreal World Tree, the polar axis attributed to the Germanic and Uralic and other peoples, and the Tree of Life and the Apples of the Hesperides found in the near east. The tree of the Bodhi Tree tradition is probably a borrowing from thos traditions, equi-and pre-dating Eve and so-forth. μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to the other article Buddha dates back even further. I would have expected historians to consider it because, well, if you go north of the Indian Ocean you're most of the way through Iran, and after that, where do you go? There aren't all that many options - the author, or at least the singer of this particular segment of traveller's tale, didn't go into Nepal or he wouldn't have found the Iranian mountains impressive. Also note the description of the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge as being like grapes - from something like [24] the Sacred Fig seems believable. I'm not so sure about the leaves like the Carob tree - you can compare the articles and see what you think - obviously the little tail is missing, but I'm not sure if there was anything more similar that could have been used. So, I mean, it seems like somebody must have at least asked the question in all this time, shouldn't they? I can't be the first person in two millennia to read this section and take it at face value. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

THe Bodhi tree dates back to 750BC. Not before the Germanics or the World Tree or Tree of Life. The earlier concepts are world-astronomical, not self-ethical. μηδείς (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not the first person to note this; unfortunately, for subjects like this, the books that deal with it tend to be unreliably esoteric and not scholarly academic treatments. (Another example, the link between Abraham and Brahmins...) I suspect it has something to do with the tendency to treat Judaism (and by extension Christianity) as a hermetically sealed religion that had no outside influences, miraculously appearing out of nowhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. Tom Foley

Can someone help me find an image of Tom Foley with his wife, or just a photo of Mrs. Foley? I found this page with a wedding photo, but I'm looking for something from the 1990s, when Foley was Speaker of the House. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B9AC:BD21:3CDF:DE4E (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Google images is your friend. Try "Tom Foley with wife" next time. Her name is Leslie Fahrenkopf. http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/05/tom-foley-wins-gop-endorsement.html 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact just Google Images her name. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem — you got images of Thomas C. Foley, a Republican, while Tom Foley was a Democratic leader. I got the same thing when I tried a basic Google Images search; Mrs. Speaker Foley is/was Heather. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B9AC:BD21:3CDF:DE4E (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a so-so photo of Heather Strachan all by her lonesome. No idea when it was taken. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 10

Ambassador at large?

Is "ambassador at large" a correct way to refer to Richard Armitage's position from 1991 to 1993? The article says "Following that [1991], he was sent to Europe with the title of ambassador; his assignment was to direct U.S. foreign aid to the countries that had been formed out of the fallen Soviet Union." 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

conspiracy to commit your own murder

kind of out-there question :) say you wanted to commit suicide, but through the mechanism of murder made to look like a suicide (you're chicken, whatever). so, while hiding your identitiy you attempt to hire a hitman to murder such and such a person - you give you rdescritpion, identificaiton etc. and (unbeknonst to the hitman who thinks you're just money) actually it's you.

Can you be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in this case - even though it's you?

Obviously this is a question about legal references - not a legal question. It's just a funny hypothetical. Not asking for legal advice,a nd also it's whimsical in that hiring a hitman would obviously be by far the most expensive form of suicide there is, as well as risky and totally stupid, as well as inaccessible to people.

--91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)