Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

September 20

Translation

Suppose I download Inspire (magazine) from the Internet, translate it into French, and post the French version on the Internet. I do this all by myself. In the US, would I be guilty of any crime?

Just in case anyone's wondering, I am NOT planning to translate Inspire into French, nor is my French even good enough for such a task. I'm asking because someone did exactly that and was indicted in France for "terrorism apologism" and "inciting acts of terrorism". --Bowlhover (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crime or a tort? You could be sued for copyright infringement. --Jayron32 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's highly unlikely that anyone, least of all al-Qaeda, would claim copyright and pursue the matter in court. I'm pretty sure the author(s) would be overjoyed to see their work in another language anyhow. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not what would happen. You wanted to know what could happen. Stealing the work of others and publishing it without their permission is copyright infringement, a civil law violation. Whether the person or persons so aggrieved actually sues you or not is irrelevant, and also not within the scope of this board to speculate on. You wanted to know what crime you were committing in the U.S. It's not a crime. It's a civil violation known as copyright infringement. --Jayron32 01:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little more specifically, US copyright law gives the original creator exclusive rights to create derivative works, of which a translation is one. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it's copyright infringement, but I wanted to know if I would be committing a crime. Is your answer that I would only be guilty of a tort, and not also a crime? --Bowlhover (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be wise for any of us to tell you you would not also be committing a crime, since we are not lawyers, and we do not know all the specifics. You've been advised of commonknowledge about the relevant civil laws. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the person in France is in legal trouble not because of a copyright violation, but because the text he translated allegedly violates French anti-terrorism laws [1]. These laws vary from country to country. --Xuxl (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why I asked what the law is in the United States. --Bowlhover (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We told you the laws. Not criminal law, a civil law, against copyright infringement. --Jayron32 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although copyright infringement generally is seen as a civil matter and most copyright infringement cases are civil actions, it can also be prosecuted criminally. The relevant federal statute is 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1), which provides:

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed-- (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

It sounds like what you describe probably would not come within any of these prohibitions, but that should not be taken as more than the guess it is. It is possible that the infringement would also come within other criminal statutes. John M Baker (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are referring to John is anti-piracy law. That is slightly different from civil law regarding derivative rights, which covers translations, although what you mention is interesting in its own merits. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis: Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "anti-piracy law" (except, you know, the kind involving actual pirates, on the high seas and such). The crime is criminal copyright infringement, and it's the one that the OP is asking about. It's true that this statute is used primarily for copyright infringements involving software and music, but in theory it is equally applicable to written materials. John M Baker (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The law you quote has to do with the copying or distribution of a copyrighted work or one in process--it basically defines a new type of theft, and has nothing to do with derivative works, and nothing to do with the question the OP asked about making a translation, which is still covered as civil infringement. I am baffled by the significance of your point that this is not technically high-seas piracy. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under U.S. law, the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works (such as translations) based upon the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. Any act that violates any of a copyright owner's exclusive rights is an infringement. Black's Law Dictionary, infringement (9th ed. 2009). An act of infringement is a criminal offense if it is willful and if it meets any of the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1), of which the relevant alternative would be if the infringement was for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. The criminal statute does, therefore, apply to translations. Of course, per John Z, if the source is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted and there can be no infringement. John M Baker (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don't know if you are being willfully obtuse, but the full conditions are:

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

The law applies to distributing physical or electronic copies for gain of a finished work or one in progress. Clause (a) by itself is necessary, but not sufficient, (a) in conjunction with (b) or (c) constitutes the crime. This law does not criminalize translating a copyrighted work per se. The translation of a text is not the reproduction or distribution of that text, it is a derivative work, not a reproduction. It's an anti-pirating law. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will choose to be amused rather than offended. Anyway, you are incorrect; Sections 506(a)(1)(A), (B), and (C) are alternatives, and any one of them is sufficient for criminal liability to attach. We can tell this just from the text; consistent with the usual drafting practice for the United States Code, there is an "or" after the (B) clause and no conjunction after the (A) clause. If there were any doubt, however, it's made crystal clear by 18 U.S.C. § 2319, which has separate criminal liability provisions for each clause. John M Baker (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire (magazine) may be in the public domain - see the talk page. Mohamed Yousry and Tarek Mehanna have been prosecuted and convicted in the USA for similar actions. The translation being into French would likely not succeed as a defense against similar prosecutions.John Z (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, it's rather shocking to see someone convicted just for translating something. However, freedom of speech/press is not boundless. It all depends what you do with such a translation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that the OP's two examples seem a bit incongruous. The FBI would definitely see a distinction between posting a translation of a magazine like Inspire ... and translating and posting a message from a known terrorist organization. The second might well see you arrested for engaging in terrorism. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the government would make a distinction between "You need to know what the enemy is saying" vs. "I believe in making war on the country, just like what these glorious freedom fighters are saying". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's probably kind of hard to follow the back-and-forth above, I wanted to clarify the answer to the OP's question. Translation and publication of the magazine may be a crime under U.S. law; the statements that there could be only civil liability are incorrect, although in practice criminal prosecution is unlikely. Criminal liability may attach if all the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) are met. Those requirements are as follows:

That the magazine is in copyright;
That the person publishing the translation acted willfully; and
That he or she acted for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

On the facts as described, all three elements are in doubt, but none can be conclusively eliminated. John M Baker (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's simply not true, Mr. Baker; the law you quote (I should say woefully misrepresent) does not cover derivative works like translations. It covers physical or electronic copies of the original work for sale or under production. Again: "(a) Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (b) by the reproduction or distribution, ... of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; (c) or by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution..." Clause (a) by the means expressed either clause (b) or (c) must be met. Clause (b) starts with a by, not an or. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, you have exhausted my patience. I have no idea why you persist in your uninformed statements. 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A), (B), and (C) are alternatives. Meeting the requirements of any one clause is sufficient for criminal liability to attach. It is irrelevant that clause (A) starts with the preposition "for" while clauses (B) and (C) start with the preposition "by," when either preposition can grammatically and sensibly follow the language preceding those clauses. As I noted above, we know for sure that the three clauses are independent, because each has its own criminal punishment specified in 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Any infringement, including the publication of a derivative work, is subject to criminal liability if the requirements of the statute are met. We know all this from the clear language of the statute itself and from standard references in the field. See, for example, Rebecca E. Hatch, Criminal Infringement of Copyright Under 17 U.S.C.A. § 506, 120 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 181 (2011).

At this point, I must ask you to supply some backup for your claims. I have provided you with a legal analysis and an authoritative reference. I am a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School and have 29 years of legal experience. What basis do you have for asserting that I have "woefully misrepresent[ed]" the law? John M Baker (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with John here, the reading I would give it is "Shall be punished if committed (for personal or financial gain/by the reproduction/by the distribution of a work being prepared)" The dash after "if committed" introduces a clause of the form A, B, or C, where doing any of A, B, or C makes it a crime. For your reading, it should read "shall be punished if committed for financial gain - by the reproduction ... or by the distribution..." (note that the dash has moved). On the other hand, depending on whether or not a translation is considered a copy in US law, if the translator was not making a profit (no pesonal gain, so not (a)), and the magazine had aleady been published (so cannot come under (c)), there ma be no crime in the original example. MChesterMC (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I appreciate the time and effort of everyone here, but I honestly don't care whether translating Inspire would violate copyright. I wanted to know specifically about non-copyright laws like those regarding terrorism and threats of violence. Sorry that I didn't make this clear. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You ask whether you would be guilty of any crime, and about criminal laws. I would say no. And I would say that the consensus of society would have said that in a freer, idyllic era, now shrouded in the mists of time, like 1993. :-) But likely your implicit question is whether you would be prosecuted or found guilty in today's USA. And I would say yes - it would be very dangerous to do this, just as it is in France. If you were a Muslim, if you were Middle-Eastern or "ethnic", if you were political (in some way outside the two-party duopoly), or were associated with such people, the danger would be seriously heightened. Of course if you were wealthy or powerful the danger would be diminished. An academic doing such a thing for academic purposes would be less likely to be prosecuted. One academic testifying for Mehanna noted he regularly did the same things Mehanna was prosecuted for, but he was not prosecuted, although on the government's [remarkable] theories he should have been in danger also. Since Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project one can hardly overestimate the incredible overreach of the definition of material support for terrorism.John Z (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might have helped if you had mentioned a little earlier that you were only interested in non-copyright laws. You might want to repost the question, since it's about to scroll off the Reference Desk.

It is illegal to publish anything advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government. 18 USC § 2385. So intent is going to be a critical issue. If a criminal proceeding were brought, authorities might actually include criminal copyright infringement, just to have a potential alternative basis for conviction. There may be other potentially applicable statutes, but I know more about copyright law than the laws applicable to terrorists. John M Baker (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans Helots

The ancient Spartans practised their military skills on their Helots, singling out the more intelligent, innovative, potential leaders. What other examples exist of a ruling class using their lower class to practice their military skills on. As there may be a lot of examples, historically/geographically, I am particularly interested in Europeans/Russians in modern times, no further back than 1,000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Edo period Japan; "Law stated that any disrespect against a samurai from a peasant was justifiable cause for the peasant to be killed on the spot. Some regions had laws so lax that a samurai could kill a peasant for any reason at all, often leading to "practice murder." [2] Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern France in the 11th century was known for it's random violence committed by the knightly class - the idea goes that because the feudal system was particularly strong there, sometimes there were young knights with no land, who had nothing better to do that wander around making war on other landless knights and attacking peasants. The Peace and Truce of God was an attempt by the church to stop (or at least regulate) this. There is also a theory that this is partially responsible for the crusades - the church, looking for a way to stop all this random violence, decided to round up all these jerks and send them somewhere where they could put their skills to good use. It's an outdated theory, since the origins of the crusades are far more complicated than that, but this was a real concern - the theme of the brutal, peasant-attacking knight definitely appears in the literature of the time. (As an example of such a knight who was sent on crusade, see William the Carpenter.) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically that would be knights attacking other knights property, not really an example of a ruling class "using their lower class to practice their military skills on". I think the Spartan society (if we are to believe the sources) was pretty extreme and unique in that regard, there simply isn't anything comparable anywhere else. The Japanese example is probably what comes closest to something like that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is something even more barbaric: Tsujigiri. Samurai would test out their swords on random passerby, often at night, to see how well they worked. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least in theory, Europeans were bound by the Ten Commandments which forbid murder. Although there were all sorts of ways of legitimizing killing people, an institutional right to murder whoever one wanted would have been beyond the pale in my opinion. 07:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

'Role reversal' in political thought?

This is just a terminology question. I was wondering if there was a specific term for making a point about feminism or discrimination generally in which one changes the parties involved but not the situation, and noting that we would react differently if that were the case. For example, if someone were to argue that the TV show Take Me Out was unacceptable because if it were thirty men (or just four) judging the romantic and sexual appeal of a single woman, it would be regarded as extremely distasteful. Or perhaps (though this is maybe slightly different) exploring how we would react to the burqa if it arose out of some kind of western, quasi-feminist movement.

is there a term for that, or even just a better one than 'role reversal'?

Thanks much for your attention, Wikipedians! Dan Hartas (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turning the tables ? (can't find an article) --Xuxl (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen someone call it "the flip test" as in "let's see if this argument passes the flip test". Katie R (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal question: Would Charlie Harper's daughter have a claim to his estate?

In this season of Two and a Half Men, the show is introducing Charlie Harper's previously-unknown daughter, Jenny, as a new character. I don't know what is supposed to have happened to Charlie's properties when he died, but (possibly counterfactually relative to the show's plot) let's assume that Charlie died intestate and his properties were distributed according to law. Now further assume that Jenny could prove her relationship to Charlie. Would Jenny have a claim to her father's estate against recipient(s) of the properties already distributed? Two and a Half Men is set in California, but if the story took place in some random place in the US, what would the legal situation of Jenny typically be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.146.6 (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The laws governing the handling of estates is going to vary from state to state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he dies intestate (and unmarried), presumption is normally that any children inherit, but they would have to come forth while the estate is in probate. It will be hard to make a claim or perhaps impossible after the estate is settled. Also, the concept of legitimacy at least used to play a role, with illegitimate children not being recognized legally as having any claim to inheritance. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the laws of the particular state. I don't think this is a matter of national law, except as regards estate taxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "it depends on the state" covers about 90% of questions on US law. (I didn't repeat it, cause you'd already said it.) μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, in the show, he died owing more than his assets, based on his lavish lifestyle of gambling and hookers, so the creditors would be paid off first, with nothing left for the heirs. This is why his brother Allan, in order to continue living in the house, had to sponge off the new owner, as he had off of Charlie. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But even this would vary from state to state and what kind of assets they were. For example, in some places life insurance is distributed regardless of whether the deceased had debts outstanding. No idea about California, though. Matt Deres (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that will be part of her character's plotline, that she has some claim to the home which is how she persuades Walden to allow her to stay. We will find out when it airs. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While, in the TV show, it turns out the Charlie had three mortgages on the house and didn't leave any money to his family, because he was a jingle writer, I assume his estate would receive residual checks for as long as the copyright to his tunes lasted. Music licensing is very organized and, in general, more money goes to the songwriter than the performer (which is why touring is such an important source of income for most musicians). While, of course, he would not be producing any new music, as long as his jingles continued to be used in advertising or TV theme songs, domestically or abroad, his estate would be compensated.

Of course, sitcoms are not known for being realistic (what does Barney on How I Met Your Mother do?), in this scenario, assuming his daughter could prove paternity, she likely has a claim on his estate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny article - section on Judaism

Someone has locked the article on misogyny, even though there's a bit of bullcrap on it. The section on Judaism has blatant misinformation on it, such as where it talks about Lilith and where it says Jewish women can't divorce their husbands. No, no, no. Lilith is basically a piece of fanfiction that shows up nowhere in the Torah and wasn't even a concept until the Middle Ages. Jewish women COULD divorce their husbands for a number of reasons, including abuse and if he were sexually repulsive to her. Finally, just to add insult to injury, it talks about "the divine feminine" or something which makes me think that part was written by a Neopagan. Also note that all of this crap is unsourced.

I've left two comments on the talk page so far and as of yet no one's stepped up to fix this or source their so-called "facts". I request that either the article be unlocked so that I can fix or someone else goes in and fixes it. Bluekevlar16 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16[reply]

This is not the proper forum. You should put your comments on the article talk page. The article is only semi-protected because of vandalism. That merans you will be able to edit in a few days from a newly-created account. Paul B (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there an orthodox prayer where Jewish men thank God for not having been born women? μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently. --BDD (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether it should go in dispute resolution or not, since I haven't seen any one person causing trouble. Also, I've already left two comments on the talk page, and got no reply, and as of yet no one's fixed this glaring errors.

At the above people, Idk if that's true or not. I was just seriously annoyed with the blatant lies like the sheep crap about Lilith and not being able to divorce. It's also rather unfair that Judaism gets such a long entry (with hardly any sources), whereas the other sections on religions hardly mention anything. I mean, look at how short the section on Greek mythology is, and the myths outright state women were created in order to punish mankind. Bluekevlar16 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16[reply]

I think it was only Hesiod who said that "women were created in order to punish mankind", and he's known for having a somewhat sour personality in some respects. As for divorce, see Agunot... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wrong venue. Take it to the article talk page. — Richard BB 21:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the OP's claims, Lilith appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls and many other Jewish texts written well before the Middle Ages: see Lilith. The section on Judaism is comparable in length to the sections on Christianity and Islam. I think it's fair to say that ancient Greek mythology has a much smaller influence on today's world, and that fewer people know or want to learn about it, than for any of these 3 religions. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The myths also have Artemis kicking out one of her huntresses for being "impure" (being raped by Zeus) and Athena punishing Medusa and her sisters for daring to be raped by a god, so it's not just that part. Ah well, my source I had read said a woman could initiate divorce based on a number of reasons, guess that source was wrong. I'm not Jewish, so my knowledge is pretty scant. I just thought it was unfair to Judaism whenever most other religions have sections talking about how they're not as bad as others think.

Again, what am I supposed to do when the article is locked and no one replies to me or the other person on the talk page because they know they can get away with it?

Yeah, she appears as some kind of demon or monster, not as Adam's first wife. My point regarding Lilith still stands. And Greek mythology continues to get more attention in the media than any other mythos, and is often sanitized and sugar-coated for kids. Also, starting in the 20th century, some people started worshipping them again, and yes, it's heavily sanitized and appropriated but that combibned with the pop-cultural stuff makes me think that the misogyny in Greek mythology deserves more of a look. Also look at how most Greek women were treated. They had fewer rights than most other pagan societies afforded to their women, and certainly less rights than the ones in Persia (despite what 300 claims). And what about other pagan cultures? Islam has its flaws, but at least it made it illegal to kill infant girls and maybe it's so that at least Arabian women have some rights.

Also I think it's kind of worth mentioning that Islam does actually have some positive things in relation to women, such as what I've already said, and also how the treatment of women in the modern day is actually worse than what it used to be. Bluekevlar16 (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16[reply]

Ancient Greek societies had some repressive customs against women (varying to some degree between different city-states, with Athens often being one of the most repressive), and also had some bizarre (occasionally disturbing) myths -- but the myths weren't generally directly used to justify the social customs (there was at best a rather tenuous and indirect connection between the two). There was also no fixed "canon" of ancient Greek religious texts, or consensus on which writings were most authoritative (except that mainstream Greek thought placed Homer -- most of whose writings were not primarily religious in nature -- on a level above the others). Therefore it would have been ineffective in many cases to try to use the writings of someone like Hesiod to justify repressive social institutions; Hesiod was a somewhat respected early author, but he was not the voice of God, and his heavy-handed personality was far from being to everyone's taste, and it would have very unclear to many why Hesiod should be allowed to dictate social arrangements... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Carpenter's Voice

Can anyone suggest a good analysis of what makes Karen Carpenter's voice so distinctive in both abstract and concrete aspects? Our article doesn't even mention the subject. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that information usually discussed in singers' articles? How is it sourced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some information here. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly read comments on other singer's voices--NB's link mentions lush harmonics. If I knew the answer I wouldn't be asking the question. I am assuming a musicologist could have an educated comment on the subject. I have neither the skill nor the vocabulary. I can make sense of commentary in this field, but not produce it myself. μηδείς (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is a music guru here, so hopefully he can comment. Karen had what I, as a total non-expert, would call a "rich" voice. Too many of today's singers sound like shrieking 12 year old girls. (And by the way, I include Bieber in that category.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't comment, hopefully or in any other way. My gurutude has its limits. The mechanics of voice production is not something I know much about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, full, golden, and rich are terms that appeal to me, and I would suspect that her overtones are extremely regular. But that's the totally ignorant guess of a layman who cannot read music or play an instrument. Timbre is obviously a relevant concept. I'd be happy to settle for a good documentary on the subject of the human voice in music along the line of something by Howard Goodall. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the very interesting [3]. Note also that she was a contralto, the lowest female voice. That just may be the range for your taste. But it makes sense too: Lower notes means more possible audible harmonic content (the higher the harmonics you go, the less you are going to be able to hear them, so the lower the note, the more number of harmonics you will be able to hear, ceteris paribus). Here's some discussion of recording equipment and technique: [4]. A final link relevant Google scholar search link: [5] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! This http://rfrick.info/interpretation/carpenter.htm is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I'll have to listen to her again in light of its comments. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more excellent. I've often wondered why singers, mainly female popular ones, sometimes do what I think of as "croaking" a word or two to inject some special feeling, since nobody never does this when speaking. And there's the answer: Gristle and Creak (good name for a band). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'[N]obody never does this when speaking' - not sure if it's the same thing, but what about creaky voice or vocal fry? See also Language Log on the subject. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice my intentional Freudian slip - "nobody never does this". See, typos do have their uses. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As in, "Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a female her voice was officially called "contralto", but her range was more of a tenor, in that it was lower than most female voices and a note or three lower than the normal contralto range. She had roughly the same range as her brother, which is unusual. (I know this because my voice has almost the same range, and when I was doing A level music at school the teacher and I had to explore what songs I could sing in order to take the exam, and I ended up singing the tenor set pieces. Her voice was quoted as an example for me.) --TammyMoet (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Here is Richard Carpenter saying that at school, she was forced to sing falsetto which bears my point out. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-modern poetry containing time travel or other worldy beings...

Hi, I was considering attempting to write a saga like poem about the Rendlesham UFO incident, and was wanting to know if there were any existing examples of Pre-Modern sagas (Anglo Saxon ones especially) which involve time travellers, ships of falling stars, other worldly visitors etc..

The idea came out of listening to a comment on Micheal Wood's BBC program on Beowulf, which stated that Rendlesham used to be an ancient Saxon seat.

However, I don't know that much about pre modern sagas and wold appreciate some starting points to draw from in the existing 'canon' so to speak. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of epics that speak of divine beings including stories as exotic to Europeans as the Popol Vuh and the Kalevala--how one defines other worlds is open--it doesn't mean other planets, since that notion wasn't discovered until the Greeks of the Classical era. I am not aware of any time travel stories before Mark Twain and H. G. Wells. But they may exist. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel in fiction has stories of falling asleep or travelling to another and and returning in the future that predate Wells's machine. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rip van Winkle would be an obvious example. Although that doesn't really defy the laws of physics, other than the notion that one could sleep for 20 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis-Sébastien Merciers L'An 2440 ("The Year 2440") from 1770 is another example. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Voltaire's Micromegas (though not a "saga", of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the Hindu canon, see Revati for something similar to time travel and vimana for something similar to otherworldly flying craft. 142.134.215.140 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True Story, The Man in the Moone and Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon are some early science-fiction-ish works. I'm not sure if the Green children of Woolpit would count (probably not) but it could be of some interest. 198.84.198.188 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like various others who spent time away with the fairies, Thomas the Rhymer is supposed to have undergone a form of time travel: it's likely older examples exist in the folklore of the British Isles and Europe. {The poster formerly known as 81.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

White poverty in America

[6] states, "Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press. The gauge defines 'economic insecurity' as a year or more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent. Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones."

Who are the authors of the Oxford University Press measure described? EllenCT (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any of these? 142.134.215.140 (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for certain, but the authors of [7] may know. Thanks. EllenCT (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Population Gap

Why central (east of the Rockies but west of the Mississippi) North America so sparsely populated? Is it as simple as a lack of water routes? All of the population centres are on major lakes, coasts and rivers, so this seems like the likely answer, but what accounts for Denver, Calgary, or Kansas City say, but not much else? This isn't to say that these and other cities aren't meaningful, but there is nothing like the density or sprawl of Chicago, LA and the Northeast Megalopolis. Mingmingla (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WAG warning. The middle of the continent is good farmland, the Great Plains. Farming = low population density. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is: What is there in the central part of the U.S. that would have made a good site for a city? Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, etc. are where they are because of what is where they are. That is, the local physical geography makes them ideal locations for large population centers to grow. Those places aren't, by and large, in Iowa or Nebraska. --Jayron32 23:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago is the biggest city of the midlands because it borders the Mississippi and the Hudson rivers by way of the Erie Canal, the same for Buffalo, New York. St. Louis, Missouri is the easiest southernmost east-west passage of the Mississippi. New Orleans, Memphis, Tennessee, and Pittsburgh are local riparian trade foci of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. Denver, Colorado is an east-west railroad nexus. Other central areas like the Black Hills and cities like Dallas, Texas are the beneficiaries of gold and oil wealth. The topic is worth a doctoral study, so you need t be more specific if you want a more focused answer. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago doesn't really interact with the Mississippi very much, as it doesn't naturally connect. But it certainly exploits the Great Lakes, as do all the "rust belt" cities. There's kind of a chicken-and-egg situation. The coasts are naturally the first areas to develop, especially clustering around the mouths of rivers. As canals and roads and eventually railroads are built, opening up the interior lands, various communities of various sizes are established at intervals to service those entities. The interstate highway system has undergone a similar phenomenon. And these developing "tank towns" generate needs of their own that can help keep them going and growing. A place like Kansas City served both the railroad industry and the cattle industry. As to why some areas are not well-populated, it's a matter of whether they ran the railroads and interstates through those areas or not - and what can be done with the land. Iowa is good for agriculture. Wyoming, not so much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would take issue with the part about Chicago and the Mississippi system. 17 million tons of freight a year travels through Lockport (the first lock downstream of Chicago on the Illinois Waterway). The partly manmade connection opened in 1848 and was very important in Chicago's early growth. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's just that Illinois "borders" the Mississippi, but Chicago does not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that Chicago is connected to the Mississippi river system by means of a canal, but doing so doesn't hurt. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the Ohio-Mississippi River system, and its various tributaries, remains a huge conduit for commerce. The lack of such conduits in much of the great west accounts at least in part for the relatively sparse population. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many (notable) Roman Catholics and ex-Roman Catholics are also researchers/scientists using embryonic stem cell research?

I am told an interesting story about a Korean scientist who lost his credentials by faking results in human cloning. I checked out the story and navigated my way to the Wikipedia about it, which reported that he was formerly Roman Catholic. I find that note interesting, seeing that embryonic stem cell research is ethically controversial. Anyway, are there other Roman Catholic or ex-Roman Catholic scientists in embryonic stem cell research? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do yo mean people who are notable as Roman Catholics? The last such I can think of in science are Georges Lemaître and Gregor Mendel.

Those two probably weren't using embryonic stem cells for their research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I expressed doubt about people notable as Catholics and described these as the only ones I could think of in science. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Brüstle is one, see this story in Nature. There are surely many others. 142.134.215.140 (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this opportunity to note that with 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, you will find that we are a varied people who don't all toe the line on such teachings. Without a reference I can't prove it, but with 1 in 6 people in the world being Catholic, it is virtually certain that there are many scientists in embryonic stem cell research who are Catholic. Mingmingla (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, Mingmingla, I am telling. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may even be Catholics who have (gasp) provided the embryos for embryonic stem cell research! (what, did you think they all came from God Fearing Protestants?) Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With questions like this (and I have run into them a lot in academia), the question always turns on the answer to this query, "Who is gathering the data that might answer this question?" There are lots of interesting questions one can ask but if there is no source of this information, ah, well, these fascinating questions go unanswered. And there are millions of unanswered questions because there are not enough financial resources or trained people to address them.

Approach these kinds of questions by considering, "Who would be in a position to know the religious affiliations of scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research?" Well, there are a couple of possibilities...it could be someone conducting social scientific survey into the stem cell issue but there would have to be a lot of trust involved for scientists to reveal their religious backgrounds to that person(s) (or the promise of anonymity). Still, even with assurances, it might be seen as an intrusive question.

A second source of this information would be if there were professional associations which had religious affiliation as part of its membership. For example, the Association for Sociology of Religion was originally a professional organization for Roman Catholic scholars of the sociology of religion who felt unwelcome in other SoR organizations. One no longer needs to be a Roman Catholic to be a member now, of course. But some of these types of groups still exist. The issue here is that these are usually professional support groups for academics working in a secular setting and their existence is not well-publicized because they rarely take on a public role. Plus, if you located such a group, it is unlikely that they would just give you their membership list.

So, the only other source of information that could address this question would be self-identification, from the scientists involved, either in interviews or the books they publish. You might have some luck with interviews but in the "hard sciences" (as opposed to the social sciences), scientists are discouraged from "writing themselves into the book", that is, incorporating their own subjective views and experiences into the subjects they write about. There are exceptions but even still, this would be anecdotal information and you'd have a small sample.

Sorry for the long answer but I frequently ran into this myself in my own graduate work and I see in on Wikipedia...plenty of insightful, interesting questions are asked but if there is no systematic way of gathering this data and if no one is working on the topic, we're all out of luck. Of course, there are always new scholars graduating, dissertations being written, funding sources that can be reapplied to different projects so there is a possibility that these questions could be addressed in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Science and religion are often not as incompatible as it sometimes seems. You might be interested in the Society of Ordained Scientists, here [8]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium's oldest and largest university opened it's own stem cell research institute in 2005. I assume a Catholic university has at least a few Catholic researchers... Catherine Verfaillie, head of the institute was critical of the EU decision in 2006 on financing of embryonic stem cell research, calling it "more liberal than the U.S., but hypocritical", because of the condition that no EU money can go to research projects where human embryos are destroyed. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Psychology, religion, political views, and occupation

Are psychology, religion, political views, and occupation/profession related? I seem to recall a study that detailed political and religious tendencies by occupation (or occupational category). Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by psychology. But much work has been done to explore the relationship between the others. Category:Religion and politics and Category:Religion and science have lots of articles in. Also see Religiosity and intelligence and Religiosity and education as a starting point. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that by "psychology" they mean personality types. I doubt if many type A personality people become librarians, for example: "You want me to recommend a book for you ? What, do I look like I have time to waste on pathetic losers like you ? Time is money ! Now get out of my sight !" StuRat (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant something along the lines of "personality types" (sorry for not being more specific). My primary interest was political and religious tendencies by occupation, but I'll take a closer look at the linked articles. Vidtharr (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You left out philosophy, which subsumes these categories. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the intersection of four different factors complicates this question enormously. There has been plenty of studies, going back decades, about religion and politics, especially examining voting behavior. And I believe there have studies done of religious affiliation within specific occupational fields. And there is an entire field called Psychology of Religion that examines than intersection. But I don't think you'll find any work that combines all four of those specific components.

Regarding any studies of religion, doing anything resembling a nation-wide study costs millions and millions of money to conduct. Most agencies funding scholarship on religion are very focused on specific groups (say, millennials, Muslims, nurses), areas like cities or states, issues (like how do feminist women cope with being in conservative traditions) or historical, critical studies. Occasionally a researcher into religion can "piggyback" on someone else's large-scale study by including a few questions about religion on a survey of another topic but even that requires some serious financial investment. Bottom line? Sometimes answering the big questions costs a lot of money and many grants go to either scientific or medical research, not studying human behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When could the default on the US debt limit take place?

The date for the looming government shutdown is clear: if on Sept. 30 there is no budget or continuing resolution, it will happen. But what about the threat of a default on the national debt? Is the date definite, and if not, what does it depend on? --173.20.252.164 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our aptly named 2013 United States debt-ceiling debate which is linked from the equally aptly named United States debt-ceiling crisis mentions the middle of October and links to [9] with further explaination. This source says the same thing [10]. BTW I'm not trying to criticise your language but I do think the words are important to understand what is going on, your question seems fine but your title is IMO confusing. I'm pretty sure the US (government) will not default on their debt limit. They will default on some of their debts once the debt limit is reached as this means they can no longer borrow any more to enable them to pay all they need to including debts which are due. (As it's not believed realistic and I think under current law likely not even possible for them to reduce spending by such an amount that they can service their debt without further borrowing, as the source says to some extent it also depends on what debtees do.) I recognise something I've said here may be confusing or wrong as well as is common with these sort of things but decided it might still help so worth posting. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably some short term patches that can be put in place to delay the default. First off, not all debts come due on that date, so they only need to be handled as they come due. Many debts can then be rolled over with the permission of the debt-holders ("Give us another year to pay off that debt and we will give you X more in interest"). The real threat is if debt-holders get scared that they will never be repaid unless they get their money quickly, and demand their payment the moment the loans come due. This is the classic "run on the banks" scenario, where everyone wants to get their money first, before it runs out. If that doesn't happen, and current debts are rolled over, but no new debts are created, that might actually be a good thing, forcing the US to learn to live within it's means for once. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the technical definition of a default is "not paid on time". There can be different means to handle a default, but as soon as the U.S. goes to its bond holders and says "Give us another year to pay off that debt and we will give you X more in interest" that's a form of default: You aren't paying off the debt by the agreed upon terms. Refinancing and renegotiating terms are common means of handling a defaulted debt, but it doesn't make the debt less defaulted because the terms were renegotiated. --Jayron32 19:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this applies, but it's not a "default" if you renegotiate the terms prior to the date when the dept comes due. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how Annie Lowrey described it today in the New York Times: "To be clear, that is not “hitting the debt ceiling.” That happened on May 19. The government has stayed about $25 million below the $16,699,421,000,000 limit since then through various “extraordinary measures” that have let it free up about $300 billion in cash. But those “extraordinary measures” cannot last forever. One day — sometime in late October, probably, though nobody knows exactly when — cash going out would overwhelm cash coming in plus cash on hand. The government would keep missing payments, about 30 percent of them, until Congress raised the debt ceiling again." --Halcatalyst (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latest thinking is October 17. [11]DOR (HK) (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Languages

Can every speech-capable human produce every sound in every language? Is there any known language that can only be spoken by a certain tribe/group because other people are physically incapable of producing the sounds, due to genetic or environmental differences? --140.180.250.181 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A possible starting point might be Second-language phonology, although this does not answer the question. I would suggest that if there were major differences based on birth/genetics etc., this would have been covered in such an article, so the absence of such information at least suggests that these major differences do not exist. It does not rule out subtle differences. The article might also help other editors as a starting point in trying to hunt down the answer to your question, but I am really presenting it only as a possible resource. I have certainly never heard such a claim (phonology dependent upon birth/location) from linguists, and it would go against my understanding of human genetics - it would seem to require a specific anatomical wiring of the mouth, peculiar to a particular tribe or something. IBE (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is No: see for example Speech and language pathology in school settings#Articulation disorders. Whether there are whole populations who cannot innately produce some sound is less clear, and I would be surprised if there were. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Individual prior to society and vice versa

I'm trying to figure out what statements like "the individual is prior to society" and "society is prior to the individual" mean. It's worse when the term "logically" is thrown in. I feel like this strays into ontology or something else that's kind of mind screwy, so can anyone explain to me what those statements means and what the differences are? — Melab±1 ☎ 03:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that it is philosophy as much as anything. Can you give us a context? IBE (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's stuff like this you are interested in, then yes, it's philosophy. I would suggest that it requires the word "logically" to be thrown in, for without that, it isn't even clear what sort of a debate we are having. Individual logically prior: this means we can have a debate about individual rights without respect to prevailing social conditions, so an individual might have an innate right to live. Individual not logically prior: might need further clarification, but would suggest that individual rights depend on social circumstances, so the right to live might be something the state could take from you, if it could grind up your bones to produce a cure for cancer (for example). This is different from "historically prior" because that depends on whether the state (or prehistoric, tribal equivalents of this) did in fact evolve alongside human biological evolution. But if you could give us more context, that would be best. IBE (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melab-1 -- In the 17th and 18th centuries, social contract theorists, notably John Locke, assumed that the individual was prior to society, at least for purposes of political analysis, while some opponents assume the reverse... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what do those assuming the reverse have to say? What do they describe it as? — Melab±1 ☎ 21:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine and Belorussia at the UN

When the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs were in the UN, did they ever vote differently from the USSR? Perhaps on minor things, to show that they weren't puppets? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 61 shows Ukraine voting against while Russia abstains, I'm unaware whether or not the Ukraine did so under orders from the Kremlin, either way the whole list of security council resolutions can be found here. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justice delayed is justice denied

The Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, John Stalker was suddenly taken off his enquiry into an alleged "shoot to kill" policy by the RUC and suspended while he was subject to an enquiry headed by the Police Complaint Authority. He wasn't told why and the media frenzy which followed put him in the ridiculous situation of when he was asked - what is this about? he could only answer "I don't know". He was cleared and reinstated but only after his wife had nearly had a breakdown and he had an enormous legal bill which might have resulted in him having to sell his house, but for the tsunami of donations from the public. An associate, Kevin Taylor, who had no criminal convictions of any kind, remained under police investigations for years, causing financial ruin. Stalker said about this "In less than that time "international terrorists and mass murderers have been investigated, tried, convicted and imprisoned"

There's no smoke without fire. Just by investigating someone, the police generate smoke. What other examples are there since 1988 of the police ruining people with their "investigations" where the person investigated was completely innocent and there was no evidence to suggest guilt in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly what you're looking for but here's a list of people executed and later found innocent. Richard Jewell is perhaps a better example, in 1996 after he was suspected of bombing the Olympics in Atlanta, the media hounded him but the police never formally charged him. These examples are all American so I hope that's what you're looking for, given the subject of the question you may also be interested in The Innocence Project an organisation which works to exonorate the wrongly convicted. If you want specifically British cases you should find something here. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Duke lacrosse case, which was entirely unfounded and based on false accusations. But again, that's an American case. --Jayron32 13:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix Churchill case comes to mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Churchill was Customs and Excise, rather than the Police. Off the top of my head: Christopher Jefferies, Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Plebgate, Hillsborough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.25.36 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some Canadian examples, David Milgaard and Stephen Truscott. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Overturned convictions.—Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literary influence over French Revolution.

Is there any literary work that influenced French Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.227.214 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Older historiography usually points out Jean-Jacques Rousseaus The Social Contract as a main influence, however bookhistorian Robert Darnton in his work The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Prerevolutionary France has challenged that view, claiming that that work was never widely read, and was mainly to be found in a few private libraries among the wealthy, while it was a much broader group of poor and middleclass people that caused the revolution, and made a list of forbidden bestsellers that in his opinion was far more widespread amongst the populace and thus much more likely to have been influential. On pp. 63-64 of this book he lists the 35 top bestsellers, the no. 1 being Louis-Sébastien Merciers L'An 2440, rêve s'il en fut jamais, no. 2 Anecodtes sur Mme la comtesse du Barry, and no. 3 The System of Nature by Baron d'Holbach.

However it seems that a research team is currently in the process of revising Darntons results, so the list may change drastically. Then of course there is the whole debate on how much or even if at all books had any influence on the Revolution, or if it was mainly social or economical reasons that caused it. A part of it is collected in the anthology The Darnton debate, but it still continues and historians are still greatly divided on the matter.

Most recently historian of ideas Jonathan Israel in his trilogy on the Radical Enlightenment has made the case that books and the ideas they contain did indeed cause revolutions (his claim being that most of the radical enlightenment philosophy, which in his view was the cause of the Revolution, can be traced back to the works of Baruch Spinoza), while postmodern historians like Samuel Moyn on the other hand rejects that interpretation and claims a wide variety of reasons was the cause. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual vs. __________

Anne was resolute about following a spiritual path, and consequently, she made a focused effort to divorce herself from _______ concerns.

A.plebeian
B.secular
C.pious
D.nebulous
E.temporal
F.nondescript

Select the two answer choices that, when used to complete the sentence, fit the meaning of the sentence as a whole and produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning.

Without looking at a dictionary (trying to simulate a test environment here), I chose B and E, and I got the answer right. However, this question was intriguing, because it made me wonder if a person could follow the spiritual path and still make changes in the world, thereby interested in both spiritual and secular matters. As a matter of fact, I hear this from religious people who are also politically active. So, is there a term for it or not? 164.107.215.162 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the use of the word "divorce" in the test sentence. This indicates that Anne wanted to keep them separated. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat is right, there doesn't need to be a term for it because their separation isn't necessary, it was a choice made by Anne. Biggs Pliff (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it may be the assumption of the narrator (assuming that secularism and spirituality are polar opposites) rather than Anne's choice. 164.107.215.162 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical subsumes both spiritual and secular or temporal concerns. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Material" would have been the best choice, except it's not on the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, spiritual/temporal make the easiest pair, as in Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. Then working from Temporal ("produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning") you get "secular". I realise that it's one of those idiosyncratic bits of the British system though! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some statistical / financial questions

I considered posting this question at the maths desk, because I'm not so much looking for the ref-desk to answer these questions for me - rather to suggest a methodology for reaching them myself. I'd add that what seem to me to be the obvious Google searches haven't helped me much.

I need to work out the following for a work-related report. I won't cloud the issue by explaining how (indeed if) they all inter-relate. But I would say that I need rough-and-ready answers which I can look up on the internet today, or calculate with simple arithmetic, rather than high-quality very accurate answers which would require research or posting freedom of information requests!

Anyway, here goes:

What is the life expectancy, in England, of an average person of a specified age?
What is the average value of the "net estate" of all cases actually admitted to probate in England and Wales?
How do you work out the current value of a future payment (i.e. what is the hypothetical market value, today, of the right to receive £x at a specified time y years in the future?)
Of a random sample of 1000 people of a specified age, in England, how many will die in each subsequent year? (And if that figure is not constant, how does it change? e.g. will more people die in year 10 than in year 5, or vice versa, and what would the pattern look like?) AndyJones (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the first and last question. What do you mean by "of a specified age" and how is that relevant? Are you just asking picking a random Englishman or -woman at this present moment, taking into account of his or her present age, and calculating his or her life expectancy? Is it important to take into account of the present age? 164.107.215.162 (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. A life expectancy calculator should help?

2. And you might look through these statistics for estate values.

4. I'm not sure I understand this one either, but is it about Risk of death by age? 184.147.120.88 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Specified age is a set of ages: under 1, 1, 2...120.
Sleigh (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is the job of an actuary.

3. Looks like an annuity.
Sleigh (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. looks like a simple case of present value. The present value of payment X, occuring Y years in the future will be X/(1+r)^Y, where r is the appropriate discount factor. The discount factor is the more difficult part to find and will depend on the nature of the payment. Risk-free interest rate (yield on government bonds of a corresponding duration are typically used) is a good bet for cash flows occuring with certainty.129.178.88.81 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

When did British monarchs stop authoring the speech from the throne?

According to our article Proclamation of Rebellion, King George III authored (or at least authorized) the speech from the throne that he delivered to Parliament in 1775. Today, according to our article on the speech from the throne, the speech is authored by government ministers to state their policies, and the monarch simply reads the speech without exerting any influence on those policies. In what year was the last speech from the throne delivered that was initiated or authored by the British monarch rather than the British government in Parliament? Thanks in advance. Marco polo (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this would be easy to find the answer to, but I'm not having much success so far. George III was the last sovereign to be heavily involved in government, particularly that of Frederick North, Lord North. I dimly remember being told at school that George refused to read the Speech from the Throne that finally agreed to American independence, on the grounds that he had lost his false teeth. However, I can now find no reference to that story on the internet and I'm beginning to wonder if it was just a history teacher's tall tale. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this can be assigned to a definite point in time, just as there is no definite point in time at which the monarch became obligated to accept the advice of the government concerning appointments and policies. That's one of the consequences of not having a written constitution. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing that may not resolve the issue, Looie. For example, the Australian Constitution has been with us from the start, but it is devoid of any reference to matters such as: the Governor-General commissions the party or coalition that controls the lower house to form a government; the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister; there are reserve powers available for use in extraordinary circumstances. During the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis the first two of these conventions were violated, and the third was invoked. To add to the mix, two state premiers also breached convention by appointing replacement federal senators who were not from the same party as the deceased/resigned senators. The lesson was: Anything's fair game as long as the letter of the constitution is upheld. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. (1) George III wasn't the last to be involved in government; see the material on Catholic Emancipation in George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom#Reign. (2) This is a hard-and-fast thing [who writes a speech is nice and factual, although of course the knowledge could be lost], not an undefinable "when did the government first gain influence over the contents of the Speech". 2001:18E8:2:1020:960:1ACF:434A:32B3 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Positions of the worlds religions regarding the morality of bringing the dead back to life.

I recently added the use of recently deceased children's brains to the article for voodoo zombies; and a while ago I created the page for anarchist founder William Godwins Lives of the Necromancers. The page for voodoo zombies makes no reference to opposition to the practice within voodoo. I doubt an edit to the page for Jesus or Solomon saying that by definition this is what they did to Lazarus and Hiram Abiff would last more than five seconds. So what do the worlds religions have to say about this practice? Let me guess, no reply; like all my other tough questions. User:CensoredScribe 00:32, 25 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Only God can raise the dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer and goodbye Bugs; I feel no need to add further references to any failed scientific attempts. Bones staying in the ground is better for the environment anyways, as they bio remediate heavy metals like lead and cadmium. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe - the only way on which this is a "tough" question is that it's very weird, and hard to give a rational answer to. Most of the regular respondents here, and spokesmen for the major religions, are going to see your beliefs(?) about raising the dead as nonsensical. So, not tough. Just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the OP's question, and a glance at his user page, tell me he's not a good faith user and there's no point spending any time engaging with him. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, certain characteristics of his writing style look familiar, suggesting he's been here before under a different name or names. Exactly who, I couldn't say, as I don't keep track of that stuff. But he'll eventually get the boot. Again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now that we're onto him, he seems to have jumped ship.[12] Or perhaps not. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know what was the fate of this boy?

21-year-old Ebrahim Hamidi, Iranian, sentenced to death but not executed. Is he in prison? what happened to him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZMikeAZ (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed part of your description of this possible living person which does not appear to be supported by sources. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have reworded. The question is about Ebrahim Hamidi, found guilty, without conclusive evidence, in the face of severely irregular prosecutorial conduct, and at the age of 16, of the crime of sodomy ("lavat"), and sentenced, in Iran, to execution by hanging. Simply removing the word "gay" from the question pretty severely hampers the ability of people to follow what's being asked. It's not merely the death penalty that sparked outrage, it's the "crime" for which it was meted out. - Nunh-huh 21:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any news items on Google after September 2010, when he was still under threat of execution. The volume of foreign condemnation at the sentence, particularly from France, suggests that if he had actually been executed, there would have been a major outcry. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue about the morality of making such an act a crime, but did the suspect in fact do what he was accused of doing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the people who prosecuted him feel otherwise, but I think it's fair to say that most unbiased observers believe Ebrahim Hamidi is a heterosexual Iranian accused and convicted of a crime (really attempted sodomy rather than completed sodomy) which he did not commit. - Nunh-huh 21:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there are no gays in Iran. Just dove handlers. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanhedrin

In a recent women's Bible study about the Apostle Paul, it was suggested that he was a married man because any member of the Jewish Sanhedrin would have had to have a wife. I'm questioning that fact and hope you can lend some light on the possibility of Paul (a Hebrew of Hebrews, as scripture says) having a spouse. Thanks for your assistance32.177.22.3 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.177.22.3 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin would be a follower of Jesus in the first place. 164.107.147.131 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Bible, it explains how Paul became a follower of Jesus in some detail in several places, both in writings about him by others and in writings by him. Acts of the Apostles, ascribed to Luke, describes the incident on the Road to Damascus, an event you can read more about at the Wikipedia article Conversion of Paul the Apostle. Paul himself covers the event as well, notably in his own Epistle to the Galatians. --Jayron32 14:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think that the existence of Paul's wife is a contentious issue, as shown here. 164.107.147.131 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is questionable whether Paul was ever a member of the Sanhedrin, the primary evidence for this assertion seems to hinge on the interpretation of Acts 26:10 which some take to mean that Paul had a vote in the assembly.

Secondly, although frequently asserted, even by seemingly reliable sources, I've not been able to find any primary source for the claim that marriage was a requirement for Sanhedrin membership. Even if such a requirement is to be found in the Talmud or later rabbinic sources, that does not prove that it was a requirement in Paul's time (pre-70 AD). - Lindert (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point: I'm unfamiliar with the text, but wonder whether "the assembly" might more correctly refer to the congregation (at large); the Sanhedrin was a council. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ETA) - I've just raised this possible ambiguity on the Talk:Sanhedrin page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Calley, My Lai Massacre

Why did Richard Nixon let William Calley off with just house arrest for the My Lai Massacre? Seattle (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no personal attacks please, calling people criminals is a violation of BLP

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

For the same reason that Jay Bybee is a federal judge, not a debarred and disgraced ex-lawyer, and for the same reason Donald Rumsfeld is not in prison for crimes against humanity. He did essentially what he was supposed to do, up to the point the act became too extreme and too public. And the cynic in me very much wants to say "and he did it to small brown poor people far away". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, Stephan, but you have to make it in another way. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What proportion of the time do Christians, on average, devote to God, Mary, or the saints?

I once read the full version of this academic article that Christians - especially those in Europe in earlier times - would pray to Mary more often than they would to God or the other saints. Now, that made me think about exactly what proportion of people's devotional time was actually spent on praying to Mary, as opposed to the other entities. What is the purpose of praying to God, Mary or the saints? Do they share the same purpose, or is praying to one means slightly differently than praying to another? 164.107.103.177 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first question, what is the average proportion, that is pretty much impossible to measure. Some Christians believe that every moment of their lives are dedicated and devoted to God, while others may consider that only prayer and church time is directly devoted to God. As to the purpose of prayer, see: Prayer. For 'prayer' to Mary, see Marian devotions, and for Saints' intercession... see Intercession of saints. Mingmingla (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the median or mean, but the mode is ~an hour on Sundays. One would have to define the population to get a better response. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I read "Mary / the Saints" - are these relevant only for Catholics? My impression is that fundamentalist Protestants invoke Jesus (= "personal savior") on an individual basis throughout their waking hours. Are there church-based denominations more oriented toward public worship services? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, Intercession of saints explains all. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about saints and Mary and so on is mostly a Catholic thing, and amounts to de facto polytheism. Protestant denominations generally pray to God and/or Jesus, not to saints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Orthodox would disagree with you. Devotion to Mary and the saints is, perhaps, mostly non-Protestant, but it's certainly not even close to being exclusively Catholic. And, as always, "de facto" polytheism is in the eye of the beholder... and if the beholder worships three gods and counts them as only one, his discernment can be questioned. :) - Nunh-huh 21:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Eastern Orthodox. Do they pray to saints also? As regards the Trinity, that's the notion of a single God in three personas or aspects or whatever. Such is not the case with saints. They're individuals. Hindu gods and Catholic saints both specialize in aspects of the human experience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The orthodox indeed venerate the saints. If I ask you to pray to god for me, would you accuse me of polytheism? Those who ask for the intercession of Mary and the saints would say that it's an exact analogy. - Nunh-huh 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard Protestant view is that God is all-knowing and all-seeing, and that "intercession" is not only unnecessary, it has no biblical basis - it's an invention of the Catholic church, and makes sense in terms of how they structure their organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer this question you would first need to accurately define a Christian. Numbers of Christians in Wikipedia articles are obtained by many means. For my country, Australia, that involves counting those who self identify as one of several "Christian" groupings on a voluntary question on our five yearly census. I would submit that, of those, many never pray at all. How many, we will never know. I doubt if anyone has ever surveyed who the others pray to. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive vote of no confidence

The Cabinet of Germany article says that "There is a grace period in-between the dismissal of a Chancellor by the Bundestag and until the Bundestag can elect a new Chancellor, so as to allow the federal government, if it so wishes, to advise the Federal President to dissolve the Bundestag so that elections may be held." That's all well and good, but just above this, it says that the dismissal of the old Chancellor and election of the new Chancellor happens at the same time, i.e. the constructive vote of no confidence. So how is this reconciled? 92.23.130.40 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely correct. The law provides a number of safety measures to prevent an "extended" power vacuum. Here is an English translation: PDF. But there may be very short periods of time (only weeks), when no regular chancellor is in office. But during this time the former chancellor and their ministers are required to continue their office as acting interim chancellor and government. GermanJoe (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the difference that one is a vote of no confidence coming from the Bundestag, the other a vote of confidence requested by the Chancellor? Ssscienccce (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, both types of vote have this "grace period" of 48 hours (Art. 67.2 and 68.2) - no matter if it's a no-confidence vote by the Bundestag or a confidence vote by the Chancellor. GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Johnson's inaugural parade

During the inaugural parade of 1965-01-20, were flags at half-mast? I've looked all over for the subject, even finding photos such as this set, but I can't find any textual references to the issue, and none of the images I've found showed any flagpoles at all. I'm holding a group of prints taken around this time that depict a cavalry troop from Culver Academies at 38°53′30.5″N 77°1′0″W / 38.891806°N 77.01667°W / 38.891806; -77.01667; it's a parade in cold weather (judging by the bystanders' cold-weather clothing), and all the flags are at half-mast. I don't know that it is the inauguration parade, but I don't know why else an Indiana academy's delegation would be in a DC parade. 2001:18E8:2:1020:960:1ACF:434A:32B3 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's 30 minutes of footage of the parade [on You Tube here, if you have half an hour to spare... 184.147.120.88 (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Medicis breaking Machiavelli's arms

"The context in this case is that the Medici family to whom he dedicated his love letter is the same group who personally broke Machiavelli's arms for being such a staunch advocate for free government."[13]

Is there any historical evidence that Machiavelli's arms were actually broken by the Medici family? I googled around and all I could find are verbatim quotes or paraphrases of the Cracked article.Dncsky (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli was subject to the strappado, which (according to most sources I'm aware of) lead to dislocated shoulders, but not to any actual fractures. Tevildo (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the help. Do you know which source from the strappado article includes this information? Dncsky (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people vote?

I'm doing a project and I need help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.235.74 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's either that or guns. See loyal opposition. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my country, Australia, we vote because it's illegal not to. See Compulsory voting. Obviously too some of us like to think that we can influence government decisions by helping to choose who is in the government. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They vote because it's a civic duty. At least it is in America. In Australia it's compulsory, so it's not a civic duty, but merely just something you have to do, like renewing your driver's license. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some good articles for you to read:

- you should be able to pull out quite a list of reasons from these. Best on your project. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]