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.

November 7

Arguments from authority

Argument from authority notes that "any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning" is fallacious. Can't there be any exceptions? The following argument is obviously deductive, and it seems to me to be valid:

What the Tsar thinks "evil" is illegal in Russia

The Tsar thinks that it's evil to eat peanut-butter sandwiches

Therefore, eating peanut-butter sandwiches is illegal in Russia

Isn't an appeal to authority always valid when the authority in question has the sole right to define the situation in question? For example, as autocrats, the Tsars couldn't be gainsaid (at least from within the system; let's leave out the Bolsheviks, for example) on questions of legality. Isn't this basically the same as a valid argumentum ad baculum, e.g. "If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail. You want to avoid going to jail. Therefore you should not drive while drunk"? The latter is making an argument about the force itself, which is valid, and it seems that my argument is talking about the definition and the authority himself and is thus valid. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the first two statements are considered to be true, then the third statement is likewise true. Maybe it's unenforceable, but that's not the issue. So if the article claims the argument given is fallacious, then the article is wrong and should be changed. Now, if the third line said, "Therefore, eating peanut-butter sandwiches is evil", that would be fallacious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no appeal to authority in that argument. (You'd have to add something like "it's true because the Tsar says it is", like Bugs mentioned - not "it's true that the Tsar says it is".) The reason for the "in the context of deductive reasoning" clause is to make an exception for inductive reasoning (because some people believe inductive reasoning is valid). It's really trying to say "some appeals to authority used in the context of inductive reasoning are not fallacious". Card Zero (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our argument from authority article cleverly neglects to define what constitutes an appeal to authority in the first place, so there's really no reason to pay attention to what it says about them. (The very first thing a Wikipedia article about X should do is to answer the question, "what is an X"? If it doesn't, you know you're looking at a weak article.) Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is called a "fiat", an arbitrary decree by a person in authority: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can accept on my authority that Card Zero has this right. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be good to note here that "fallacious" doesn't necessarily mean "incorrect". Card Zero (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words "fallacy" and "false" both come from the same Latin root, fallere, meaning "to deceive".[2][3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that, my liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped. Card Zero (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's more phallusy than fallacy. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The world is kind of banana-shaped, if you're referencing the rare round species called the Banana globula. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a misconception that an argument that is of a fallacious form cannot be valid. An argument can instantiate a fallacious form and still be valid, so long as it also instantiates a valid form. What is forgotten is that an argument can instantiate multiple forms at once. So showing that an argument is valid is not enough to prove that it is not fallacious. Anyway, I third Card Zero on this one. I don't think any logician would classify that as an appeal to authority-type argument. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing an example? If you mean that there are multiple ways to convert English to logic, I understand; but it sounds like you mean something else. --As for the original, as mentioned, that's not an appeal to authority.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's start with a common logic error: "If it rains, then the ground will get wet, therefore, if the ground is wet, it must have rained recently." Now, if the ground is wet, it might have rained, but there are other instances where the ground is wet due to dew, snow melt, washing a car, etc. We could fix the logic error by replacing "must" with "may". We could do something similar with an argument from authority: "If an authority asserts that it is true, then it may be true." StuRat (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course. For example: "[1] If (R or S), then R. [2] ~(R or S). Therefore, [3] ~R." That is certainly valid (the conclusion follows from De Morgan's laws and conjunction elimination) even though it denies the antecedent in form. (I posted this example on the denying the antecedent talk page a while back, actually). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's clever, I'll have to remember that:-) Thanks for the example, by the way- I was thinking you were meaning something in a different direction.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Phoenixia1177: If you like clever logical tricks you may want to see some of the material posted on the internet by Raymond Smullyan or John Lane Bell. Example of a logically true statement: There is something such that if it is a unicorn, then all things are unicorns. I.e., ∀(y)∃(x)(U(x) → U(y)), where U is a predicate of being a unicorn and x and y are variables for any thing in the universe. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tendency to get the converse mixed up with the contrapositive. The contrapositive has the same truth value as the original: If it has rained recently, the ground is wet. If the ground is not wet, then it has not rained recently. (The definition of "recently" will vary depending on the climate, but it still works.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans dressing up for church

Do African Americans have a greater tendency to dress up for church than other races? In literature, fictional or nonfictional, you can see that African Americans usually dress up for church, equipped with a nice Sunday hat and Sunday dress. In third grade, I acted as the background actor in a play that had one scene where the protagonists were looking forward to buy hats so they could go to church on Sunday. I think the play was supposed to be based on a children's book, because I remember the painted Easter eggs. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, i.e. a generation or two ago, everyone of any race was expected to wear their "Sunday best" to church. Perhaps black churches have carried on that tradition better than whites. But it wasn't just church. For example, if you look at pictures of World Series crowds into the 1940s or so, the spectators tended to dress up, just like they would for going to the theater or the opera. Suit and tie were expected for office-based workers in general as recently as the 1990s. The culture of casual apparel is a recent phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea! The book's title was "Chicken Sunday", and it's written by Patricia Polacco, first published in 1992. I read in third grade in 1998-1999. Good memories. 140.254.227.54 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like race-baiting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legitimate question - we shouldn't let fear of racism shut us off from legitimate anthropological discussions. For example, see [4] which supports the OP's assertion, and [5] which implies (though I'm not sure it says) that the tradition can be traced back to the era of slavery, in that the celebrants might first have dressed up to celebrate that they were free and could do so. But that's just me looking at the top couple of search hits - some serious students of the Humanities should be able to do a lot better at answering this. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He had me hooked until he started talking about fried chicken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the hat off this. Patricia Polacco is a recognized author, and "Chicken Sunday" is a book we list by ISBN in her article. I see nothing about fried chicken. This is a reference desk, not a guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal courtroom. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. He's all yours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol get over it bugsa... 121.90.12.104 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your other entry. Have they stopped speaking English in New Zealand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must have been out to lunch during that class. lol get over it ipu... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soz brah didnt mean 2 offend 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out that any propensity to dress differently on Sunday is clearly not about race (i.e., supposed but scientifically debunked biological categories). It is about culture. African Americans are considered a racial group in the United States due to the survival of unscientific ideas about race, but in fact they are an ethnic group defined by a degree of shared historical experience and cultural traits. Just as long as we are clear that this has nothing to do with biology. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this trend, particularly among African-American women, and especially at Easter, where special outfits are bought just for that occasion. This seems to have become a tradition. I even saw a TV show about this, where the women were trying to best each other on Easter Sunday. I think it might have been an episode of Everybody Hates Chris. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure that it's so much a special African-American thing as it is a case of some blacks holding on to customs which the majority of whites abandoned by the early to mid 1960s (see the famous 1948 movie etc.). There was a classic ca. 1960 Norman Rockwell illustration of a mother and her three children passing through the living room all spiffed up to attend church on Easter morning, while the husband of the (white) family slouches in his bathrobe in a chair with sections of the Sunday newspaper around him, obviously not going to church... AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a cultural convention, and it's still maintained (by people of all skin-colours, eye-colours and hair-colours) where I live, though the recent American culture of dressing down for church is slowly creeping in. Dbfirs 17:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon French Language

Hello Napoleon eventually became the Emperor of France, but he was born in Corsican and didnt speak french very well, so when did he learn to speak french fully cos he had a hard time of it as a kid? 121.90.12.104 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Napoleon indicates that he attended a religious school and two military academies on the French mainland and then entered the army. He would have been surrounded by exclusive French speakers. At some point during his education (probably before he was admitted to the elite Ecole Militaire), he surely became fluent in French, even if he spoke with an accent. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, French was a lingua franca, especially for Europe, at the time (cf. List of lingua francas#French), in much the same way English is today for most of the world. If you travel to Germany, for example, you'll find many people who can speak English quite well today. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even before Napoleon, French was spoken in the upper classes of many parts of Europe. In royal courts from Russia to Spain, French was at various times at least a second language. See Francophile, which discusses how French culture and Language became the "thing", especially during the Age of Enlightenment. It would not have been that unusual for ANY upwardly mobile European with aspirations to learn French at that time. --Jayron32 21:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His father was a lawyer and represented Corsica at the French court, so I would be surprised if he hadn't learned some French at home. Napoleon Bonaparte by Elaine Landau says that he left Corsica for school in France at the age of 9 years-old in 1779, and that he spent four months at a preparatory school in Autun specifically so that he could learn French (presumably to the standard that he would need at Brienne). Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially I am wondering how a man like Bonaparte, a person who was bullied in his junior years for his Corsican accent, was able to become the unequivocal ruler of France whom every Frenchman (bar Royalists) accepted as their ruler. 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some factors:- 1. Napoleon was academically gifted and hard working, "one of the youngest military officers ever appointed in France" (Landau, linked above). 2. He went into the artillery, in which progress was down to technical skill rather than social status. 3. The French Revolution both destroyed the existing social order and presented France with some formidable military problems. Enter a clever, ruthless and ambitious young officer who was untainted by association with the former regime and had a bit of luck on his side - "cometh the hour, cometh the man". Once given free rein, he proved that he could deliver the goods on the battlefield. Finally, the various phases of the Revolutionary regimes collapsed in turmoil and in those circumstances, everybody wants a war-winning general to take charge and restore order. "Vive L'Empereur!" Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W Bush were all elected US President despite having accents that are not the norm in most parts of the country. At least one member of this trio was widely held to have diminished mental capacity, but that was no barrier to his election either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not referring to the only US president to earn an MBA (from Harvard, no less)--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Stalin had funny accents too. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, neither Hitler (Austrian) nor Stalin (Georgian) were of the ethnic ancestry of the country they eventually became leaders of. --Jayron32 01:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Austrian is an ethnicity. Rmhermen (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is he wasn't from Germany. You can use whatever name you want for whatever classification name makes you the most joyful. But he still wasn't from Germany. --Jayron32 02:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it depends how you define "Germany" - see Pan-Germanism and German nationalism in Austria. For many, Austrians were Germans. Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all that is true in no way invalidates the notion that Hitler was not from within the borders of the political entity that he became leader of. Nothing you say is either wrong nor contradicts my point. You can continue to make true but inconsequential statements if you like, but Hitler will still have been born in Austria, which will still have been a separate state when he became leader of Germany no matter how many other true statements you also make. --Jayron32 12:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible relevance to German v Austrian attitudes of the era is the remark attributed to Bismark – "A Bavarian is a cross between an Austrian and a human being." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the innovative but sometimes laughable 1927 silent film about his life by Gance, Napoléon (1927 film), young Napoleon at military school pronounces his name ""Nap-eye-ony" and the other French students laugh and say he said "straw to the nose." I can conceive of the last part being "auz nez" but how does "nap-eye" sound like "straw" in French? Edison (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paille is French for straw. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Napoleon's school tormentors thought that "Na paille" was the same as "La paille?" It seems quite different. Edison (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some mondegreens rely on auditory connections that are somewhat more obscure than that one. L and n are close cousins (say "lana lana lana lana lana"), and for my money, it's quite easy to see how someone could think he was saying "La paille aux nez". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Hitler's accent, Hitler grew up in Braunau am Inn, which is right on the border between Austria and what is currently accepted as Germany. Alansplodge has correctly pointed out that many Austrians and Germans during the late 19th and early 20th century considered Austrians to be Germans who were excluded from the German Empire through an accident of history. Most did not consider Austrians a separate nationality. Moreover, just 25 years before Hitler's birth, Austria was generally considered a part of "Germany" by most Europeans. Aside from this, Austrians and Bavarians speak essentially the same dialect of German, which Wikipedia has labeled the Bavarian language. Hitler's accent would have been indistinguishable from that of a Bavarian living in Germany, across the river from Braunau am Inn. According to the German Wikipedia article on the Innviertel, the region that includes Braunau, pronunciations in that region are more typical of Bavaria than of the rest of Austria. Even if Hitler had had a distinctively Austrian accent, most Germans would have accepted him as a fellow German nonetheless. Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know a Berliner who says that Hitler had the most impressive speaking voice of any German he had ever heard, regardless of message. He said nothing of the accent. Does an Austrian accent sound bad? For example, I think a Scottish (Craig Ferguson) or RP accent, or an old-time Atlanta Georgian or Roanoke Virginian accent sounds wonderful, as compared to Cockney, Lawn Guyland, or Brooklynesian. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfulness is in the ear of the listener (a well known Cockney proverb) ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hitler had an Oberösterreichisch accent which sounds similar to Bavarian German. He rolled his "r"s like they do in Munich. It's a nice enough speaking voice." [6] Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Essential Health Benefits" in Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandates insurance plans cover ten "essential health benefits," including maternity/newborn care and pediatrics. Unlike with the other benefits, there would seem to be certain classes of people who, by nature, would never need these two. The EHBs result in more expensive insurance, because naturally the more types of treatments the insurance company has to cover the more it will charge. Does this mean, for example, that a single man without children will be paying a hidden premium for his health insurance to cover these "essential" benefits? If so, is this a bureaucratic oversight or an intentional effort to pool costs? I could understand an argument that one day he may have children, just as he may not be suffering from substance abuse or a chronic disease, or indeed he may not use the insurance at all. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the man not benefit in tangible ways because the people around him are healthier.? I mean, even if I don't have kids myself, public schooling benefits me because all the people around me aren't stupid (ideally). So merely because a man is a healthy individual without children doesn't mean his qualit of life is not better because the people around him are generally healthier, and thus more able to be contribute to society themselves In Productive ways,rather than to be dependent on others because their mom didn't have access to good prenatal care. The childless man benefits because he lives I a better world. --Jayron32 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK so he may not have kids of his own (or he may have and not know it...) - but he could still fall prey to diseases that a woman couldn't such as testicular cancer: not to mention the other diseases that disproportionately affect men rather than women. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article insurance defines it as "the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment... Insurance involves pooling funds from many insured entities (known as exposures) to pay for the losses that some may incur." Jane Doe may never have diabetes or prostate cancer or use Viagra and may not be an avid skiier and thus will never break her leg on the slopes. Every person pays "hidden premiums" for medical services that they will not personally use because insurance is by definition an effort to pool costs. ZMBrak (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure who these people are who have no need for newborn care and pediatrics, but science would sure like to study them. :) Wnt (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few people who are not, at some point in their life, a newborn. APL (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very few... Tevildo (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These costs are already in existing health plans. Most plans will cover at least some sort of maternity costs. Insurers don't generally sell male- or female-specific plans now, and they won't under the ACA. Existing plans that cover preventative health will probably explicitly list that they cover regular prostate and breast cancer screenings, even though most people will never need coverage for both. Katie R (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful to know; thanks. FWIW I am one of those people who likes my current coverage and gets to keep it. I get coverage through my employer so this issue doesn't directly affect me personally, at least for now. This particular point just chafed me a bit. I could see the social benefit of mandating that I get motorcycle insurance despite the fact that I don't ride a motorcycle. But if insurance plans are already gender blind and will continue to be, I suppose it's not a big deal. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for information on hosting e-archives in the cloud.

I am hoping to find more information on cloud services for smaller to medium sized archives thinking about moving their digital collections to a third-party vendor.

I'm looking to find information on costs, benefits as well as drawbacks to third-party hosting as WELL as cloud hosting vs. traditional, home-owned servers, etc.

Also interested in whether or not this is a good idea for archives based in inclement weather locals. Because cloud-based information can be moved to other servers when a storm comes through, I am wondering if this is a good idea to ensure that an entire collection of e-records would not be wiped out if a hurricane or tornado came through, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.119.222 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Drive by Microsoft? 49.224.47.226 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through Cloud storage or File hosting service? They lead to Comparison of online backup services and Comparison of file hosting services. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were the start of my search. What I'm super in need of is this information specific to archives trying to find a way to keep their electronic records, well, electronically.

November 8

Deities

What are some examples of deities who have no, or few, preternatural powers? 58.109.44.185 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharaoh? --Jayron32 01:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Edinburgh? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohito allegedly. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Fard Muhammad. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial_cult for an overview of divine rulers, which seems like a rich area of deities who have no or few preternatural powers. ZMBrak (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any deities that don't actually exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Psalm 115:4–8.—Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic saints generally have two miracles attributed to their intercession, does that count? I was going to mention Augustus Caesar, but I see ZMBrak has already mentioned the imperial cult. I am fairly certain the dead emperors were able to make it rain in the provinces; a prophet not being without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholics do not consider their saints to be deities. --Jayron32 01:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked whether it counted. Canonization is suspiciously similiar to deification by the Roman Senate or apotheosis, so much so it has ben denied by Benedict XIV. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of aspects of Catholicism which echo non-Christian or pagan traditions. That was part of the "sell". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several Roman Emperors tended to be deified after death, although obviously without the aforementioned powers. Uhlan ^talk 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haile Selassie I Rmhermen (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative vetoes in the USA

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha ruled that the practice of legislative vetoes was repugnant to the US Constitution. Since that time, have there been any significant efforts to amend the Constitution to permit them? By "significant", I'm meaning any proposed amendments that get out of committee in either house of Congress. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought than anything "significant" that has managed to get through committee would have at least been listed on List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Almost every proposal dies in committee. It is only rare if one passes through to get to the full House or Senate. And even rarer to have it passed with a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and then three-fourths of the states. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha#Later history gives examples of Congress using other processes such as fast-track legislation or the Congressional Review Act that can basically achieve the same effect as a legislative veto. So until the Supreme Court eventually decides to close these loopholes, Congress probably is not currently interested in going through any lengthy amendment process. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different exchange rates

Why currency exchange spots are allowed to have exchange rates, different from those officially set by the national banks? Isn't it actually a fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.25.12 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it fraud if they are up front about what rate they are using to do the exchange? And the rate that they use is different because they are providing a service and can charge whatever they like for that service. If their rate is better than that of the guy down the street, they'll make more money (other factors remaining equal). But at the end of the day, they both still have to make money and they do that by raising the rate a bit higher than the national banks who they are going to for their own money exchange. After all, a European money exchanger wouldn't be able to pay their employees if all they had on hand were US dollars.

In other words, you go to a European currency exchange with US dollars and they charge 5% (for instance) but they then need their original currency back. They need to pay their employees in Euros. So they go to a national bank and the national bank charges them 3%. The currency exchange makes the exchange with the national bank for the whole amount of the day's money and they have the 2% left which they charged the customer. That 2% is used to pay the employees, pay the electric bill, and pay for other expenses. Dismas|^(talk) 10:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They could use the exchange rates published by the banks, then charge a fixed fee, or a percentage fee, but the international exchange rate might vaary during the day, or even during a transaction. They usually choose a rate for the day to include their profit and don't change this rate unless something really drastic happens to a currency. Dbfirs 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banks in countries with market economies and floating exchange rates are allowed to operate a free market in currencies. In these countries, there is no "official" exchange rate. Instead, the price of currencies on the foreign exchange market fluctuates according to supply and demand. If a currency is offered at a given price and there are no bids, then the seller either needs to offer it at a lower price or abandon the exchange. Likewise, if there are multiple bids, the seller is free to accept the highest price bid. On free foreign exchange markets, official prices set by national banks have no bearing. However, it is possible for governments to control the legal prices of their currencies and to remove them from the free foreign exchange market by enacting foreign exchange controls. Even in these cases, if the official value of a currency is too far out of line with its free market value, a black market will almost certainly develop on which the currency is traded at a value closer to its free market value. While transactions on a black market may be illegal, I don't see how they or other market exchanges in which information is not withheld are fraudulent. Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The smartest entity ever, with the exception of Spike Jones (or Peter Cook) eating alone.

Monty Python still exists. Graham Chapman is no more. "No one expects the S_______ Inquisition." Therefore Two or more may learn to expect said above event of a possible future.

Please, if necessary, correct my above "work". Stipulating that though at home, this is hardly work, i.e. homework. As always, thank you for your attention, your long memories, and your participation in whatever form(s) it may or may not take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatetd to remove leading spaces - was causing fixed font and not wrapping correctly. Astronaut (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are asking. Please make your question clearer. --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with Monty Python et al but don't know what you feel needs correcting. And don't see a question to answer. Dismas|^(talk) 14:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm not currently at home I'm afraid I cannot legitimately give you an answer, though I take it that by 'no one' you may be thinking along the lines of these twosomes? In any event no one was smarter than Peter Cook. Blakk and ekka 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user, whose IP geolocates to Louisville Kentucky, has made 26 edits to wikipedia, 19 of them new questions at the ref desk, and six of them follow-ups to those questions. Hopefully our chances are greater than the expected 6/26 we'll get a clarification of this question. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't have known this, but I find that the older I get the less tolerant I am of almost any use of the word 'hopefully', and particularly where used as a substitute for 'I hope'. Feel free to adjust your phraseology accordingly. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I've noticed that a time or two. :) What would be a proper use of "hopefully"? Maybe something like "He was waiting hopefully as the train carrying his mail-order bride rolled into the station." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds legitimate. 'Hopefully' seems to be beloved of sport players, as is 'obviously' and 'try'. Such as this exchange: Interviewer: "What's your goal for this match, Brock?" Brock: Obviously I'm hopefully gonna try and win. (Comment: That's not remotely obvious to me. I'd have thought his goal was to win, not to "try and win", and most certainly not "hopefully" anything, particularly not hopefully try and win.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I've tried to take umbrage at that expression, and find I can't. Hopefully you'll come to accept it as I always have. It is curious whether there are any better alternatives than "it is to be hoped". Let me know if you come acrost any. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptfully, you may adopt any position you wish. Thinkfully, I'll steer clear of it, because umbragefully I still don't like it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Just about everyone can agree on backwards cowgirl. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This is so much fun for a thread the OP will never read. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully understood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me. What's lrigwoc? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed an indention. I was responding to your -fully comment. I don't know from lrigwoc. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying that no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, but two or more, putting their heads together, might arrive at possibility of expecting the Spanish Inquisition. And the question, such as it is, is whether his initial statement makes sense or should be worded differently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was there another inquisition beginning with S? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None in the Monty Python world that I can recall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even fewer expect the Swedish Inquisition. Ja. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ole, to prisoner: "Who gave you dat secret lutefisk recipe?" (slap) "Ouch!" "Vhat vas his name?" (slap) "Ouch!" "Tell me or else!" (slap) "Ouch! Stop hitting me vhile I'm trying to interrogate you!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct and I also think this got discussed in Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass somewhere, perhaps when Alice is talking to one of the queens? Matt Deres (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the conversation with Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass (no hyphen, no points).

ALICE: I mean, that one ca'n't help growing older.

HUMPTY: One ca'n't, perhaps, but two can. With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven.

Tevildo (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The OP now has the perfect model for rephrasing his statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did lawyers earn a bad stereotype of being immoral and being liars?

How did lawyers earn a bad stereotype of being immoral and being liars? To what extent in the law field does this stereotype apply? 140.254.136.169 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers have to defend their clients, which requires marketing skills, some of which are being weasels and liars to varying degrees. As regards the "immoral" part, what's the source for that? I've seldom heard lawyers accused of being "immoral" unless they were found to be running a brothel or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotype goes back as least as far as Plato's Protagoras (c. 370 BC), at the very start of the legal profession. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While witnesses in court are required to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" (or something like that depending on the jurisdiction), lawyers are not. They are required to present only those elements of "the truth" that illuminate their client's case in the best possible light. Even an accused who appears almost certainly guilty of a particularly heinous crime has this right. So what lawyers sometimes present is not "the truth" as most people would see it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works both directions, lest we forget. There's no shortage of prosecutor misconduct out there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but there's that negative word, "misconduct". In your example the state (or The Crown, or whatever) is the client. Is it really misconduct to present a subset of the truth on their behalf? I think you'll find that the opposite is, in fact, true. If a lawyer did not present his client's case in the best possible light, he would be legally guilty of misconduct. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really symmetrical. A defense attorney is supposed to represent his client, period (though staying within the established boundaries). The prosecutor represents "the people" (or the crown, for you monarchists), but hopefully it is assumed that neither the people nor the crown actually want to punish defendants just for the sake of it. So the asymmetry is, a defense attorney who becomes convinced his client is guilty is still supposed to seek the best outcome for his client, but a prosecutor who becomes convinced (or even thinks it's reasonably likely) that the defendant is innocent, should drop the case in the interest of justice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, at least, the job of the defense attorney is to ensure that his client gets a fair trial. Regardless of the "truth", the prosecution must prove its case. And it is not necessarily the case that the prosecution won't try to railroad an innocent party. If you want a jim-dandy example of prosecutorial misconduct, read about Mike Nifong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say you're the lawyer of a client who, in your opinion, is almost certainly guilty of murder. You accept a million dollars from this client to claim in court that he's not guilty, to deceive the court by presenting only favorable facts and ignoring the rest. That's certainly a form of lying, and some people might consider it immoral. Of course, even people who claim this is immoral could still believe it's necessary for the legal system. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My impression, not based on any real depth of knowledge, is that in theory, a defense lawyer won't do everything - most notably, they refuse to "suborn perjury" by calling a witness to say something if they know it isn't true, can't use their position to pass messages from clients being held incommunicado, and even are supposed to report plans for future crime, so clients who tell their lawyers everything apparently can have nasty surprises. But, like massage therapists, some lawyers offer significant extra services... Wnt (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my extensive experience watching TV legal dramas, my understanding is that a defense lawyer is not allowed to lie in court, with "lie" defined rather narrowly. That is, he can't say anything he knows to be false. But he has quite a bit of leeway to say stuff he doesn't actually believe. No one, obviously, should take this as legal advice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that type of deception can be as bad or even worse than outright lies. I'm also reminded of the line from the movie Liar, Liar: "What does my Dad do for a living ? He's a liar." ... "I think you mean lawyer." ... "Isn't it the same thing ?". StuRat (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence this antique of a joke: Mike is walking through the local cemetery. On one stone it says, "Here lies a lawyer and an honest man." Mike says to himself, "Ay, begorrah, how did they get two lads into one grave?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave this here for everyone's edification. Dismas|^(talk) 22:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of a defence lawyer in our adversarial system, was explained to me be a barrister in these terms... Supposing that a defendant were rich and well educated and didn't have to work for a living, then he would be able to spend a lot of time researching the law and finding the best way to present his case in court. Because few people have these advantages, the law allows you to employ somebody to do it for you. Whatever your lawyer thinks about the rights or wrongs of the case, it is his job to present your case in court to the best of his ability, so long as he plays by the rules. Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair statement. The client's attorney has to follow the "presumption of innocence" axiom. It's strictly the state's job to try to prove guilt; the defense need not help the state do its job. If the client is found guilty, though, the attorney then is stuck with taking a "guilty as charged" mode, in arguing the sentencing phase. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your incompetent lawyer is the reason you lost in court to his cheating, lying legal counsel. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary War Titles

Hi, many conflicts occurred throughout Europe, yet most of them are named today by historical standards; the Seven Years' War and the Thirty Years' War for instance could only be named after they ended; and the First World War could only be named as such when a Second World War happened. According to an excerpt from a German diarist, Jeremias Ullmann, quoted in Osprey's The Thirty Years' War by Richard Bonney, the aforementioned conflict was named in simple terms such as 'the war': "'the war has lasted 30 full years, carried off many hundred thousand souls...'" Simply calling the conflict 'the war' does not seem viable to me, considering the fact that many other conflicts were being waged at the time, and these days we tend to name conflicts as they happen, such as the Syrian Civil War. So my question is this: what were the contemporary names of these conflicts; the Seven Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War? Cheers, Uhlan ^talk 23:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was one in Vietnam in the 1960s, known to the locals as The American War. Perspective is everything. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to this forum, the term "Great War" was used to describe both the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War while they were actually in progress. At least some of the wars that you listed were actually an aggregation of separate regional wars. The need to have an umbrella term for the whole conflict may not have been apparent until much later. Alansplodge (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the book also said that many locals called the whole conflict the Bohemian Rebellion, even after the war spread to northern Germany and France, yet there does not seem to be any definitive answer to the contemporary name. Uhlan ^talk 23:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick Google reveals that the term "present war" is a well used expressions for wars that are still happening. I found Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act 1918 (First World War), The Enemy Alien Problem in the Present War (1915), Western territory of the present war (1862, American Civil War), The History of the Present War with Russia (1855, Crimean War), The History of the Present War in Spain and Portugal (1813, Peninsular War). Statements Relating to the Measures Adopted During the Present War, (1801, War of the First Coalition), An Impartial History of the Present War in America (1778, American War of Independence). Once a war was finished, it became "the late war" until somebody thought of a better name for it; for example A Compendious account of the most important battles of the late war (1817, the War of 1812). Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the main thing, perhaps I did not make it clear in the original question, that the wars must have had specific names rather than just the present war, as per your answer, as there were many wars happening at the same time with the intensely militaristic society of pre-21st century. Uhlan ^talk 00:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that they said "the present war in wherever". The examples above include an Act of Parliament and an official British government statement. I couldn't find much else that helps; sorry, it's time for bed now. Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on WW1 has some stuff about contemporary names. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever cited The term "First World War" was first used in September 1914 by the German philosopher Ernst Haeckel, who claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word was misinterpreting what that author said. He wasn't titling the war. He was merely saying it was the first war to date that had a global aspect to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite war name is the War of Jenkins' Ear, though it doesn't seem to have been called that while it occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the same as the War of the Austrian Succession, as it was part of that conflict. Uhlan ^talk 08:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

Do some primitive diet people really try to acclimate to rotten meat?

I ran across a bizarre link (www.ehow.com/how_7718564_prepare-rotten-meat-primal-diet.html) that makes me wonder if people really do that, or if the page is an elaborate practical joke with a potentially fatal punch line. Can someone comment on whether primitive diet people (or others) really try to get themselves used to eating raw meat? Extra info on how successful they are in acclimating, and how many casualties they suffer would also be very welcome. :) (Note: I'm not asking about the science of whether this is a good idea, just if people do it) Wnt (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raw, or rotten? They are totally different things. I love sushi and rare beef. I just had a rare steak-and-gorgonzola salad to die for this weekend. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what in the world does raw meat have to do with a primitive diet? Homo erectus used fire. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link above is about rotten meat produced under specific circumstances, which is why I found it surprising. Paleolithic diet describes raw foods, but not rotten meat. Wnt (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)i[reply]

Oh. Can one not make this a clickable link? follow the first link here μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could try searching that Swedish rotten fish delicacy, although I have no idea what it's called. Uhlan ^talk 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is just what is often called the pickling of meat done by northern peoples. The Eskaleuts (not sure which race, specifically) sew birds inside seal skins and let them ferment over the summer. The Nivkh people (used to) cover pits of fish, allow the fish to ferment, feed the fermented fish to dogs, and then eat the dogs. Calling it "rotten" meat is probably just marketing. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably refers to the (presumably) disgusting 'rotten' smell of the meat, although perhaps not to the Swedes... Uhlan ^talk 04:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of Lutefisk, which is not rotten, but may in fact taste even worse. There is also the matter of defining "rotten". Cheese, yogurt, beer and stinky tofu are all examples of foods that microorganisms have been allowed to grow in, but are perfectly edible. But eating rotten meat seems unusual to me - the bacteria that decompose meat are sometimes toxic or pathogenic to humans (in the four examples I gave above the microorganisms are harmless to humans). When I search online for articles about eating rotten meat, I just find a lode of sites warning not to do it. I don't find anyone suggesting that cavemen regularly ate rotten meat. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the problem with the inaccuracies in language and with people's understanding of food science. Much (I dare say maybe even most) food is processed with some form of microorganism at some point, be it bread (yeast, anyone), cheese, wine, beer, yogurt, etc. etc. Such food is usually called (perhaps euphamistically) as "cultured", but really, its just bacteria/yeast/mold/ etc. The difference is really in "microorganisms that make my food tasty" versus "microorganisms that make my food cause me to be sick." Our language calls the former "cultures" and the latter "rotten", but that's the primary distinction. People have an odd phobia when dealing with the effect (even positive) of microorganisms on their foodstuffs. --Jayron32 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the question title should be changed from 'rotten' to 'raw' to avoid confusion. Uhlan ^talk 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lew-eez-us. I'll quote the text of the put-on (?) so there's no more confusion: Cut the organic beef or chicken into small chunks. Place the chunks of meat in the jar; air it at least every 3 days. Airing keeps the bacteria moving and is necessary to advance the bacteria through all the stages of decomposition. Only air outside, as the smell of the rotten meat can linger in your home for more than 24 hours. After 1 month of frequent airing and rotting, begin sampling marble-size amounts of the now somewhat "high" meat daily. It will taste a putrid and may stir up past feelings of fear of food poisoning, maybe even to the point of inducing a panic attack. But within 10 to 20 minutes, you should begin to experience a positive and drastic change in mood and energy levels... Wnt (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I really wouldn't trust an ehow website, I don't believe the articles have ratification from medical minds. Uhlan ^talk 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I'm not asking about the science of its advisability. I'm just curious if such a group of experimental subjects really exists that is available for study, as it would be unethical to initiate the experiment, but not to take advantage of it. (For example, I'd be curious whether they do acclimate over time, if they have higher or lower rates of autoimmune disease, asthma, ulcerative colitis, etc., whether their expression of odorant receptors changes, whether their serum levels of polyamines are different and if that has (various effects)... etc. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article is total garbage. In other words, the author laid a thousand year old egg. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rancid seal flipper is supposed to be a delicacy. While this explains the health hazards. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on everything, in this case Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Paleolithic diet. I don't think the health benefits are very plausible, but of course, "rotten" is relative, and the perceived risk of raw food is not always justified. Also compare dry aged beef, which is a delicacy that only a barbarian would cook beyond medium. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly about this -- rotting (fermenting) fish forms the basis for a number of Asian sauces, was the basis for the original Chinese ketchup, and also the basis for Worcestershire sauce. And the British believe in cooking everything to "well-done" including veggies until they are sure they are dead <g>. Collect (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on your last point - at least one less than 50 years old <grin back through clenched teeth>. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[7] BBC: What is the UK's national vegetable? says And overcooked cabbage, cauliflower and sprouts are classic school dinner fare. [8] At two, Dad would return and start hacking away at the joint, and slices of beast, overcooked vegetables, and a fatsoaked pudding would be consumed etc. All recent still. Now I note that London appears to have foreigners undercooking veggies <g>, but the main idea is still there out in the countryside. At least until the EU issues some new regulations, of course. Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well done. To be fair though, the first source is referencing a stereotype (school dinners haven't included boiled cabbage or sprouts for several decades) and the second is an American expatriate recalling his childhood. Alansplodge (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one mentioned the Icelandic Hákarl, fermented shark buried in sand and pressed under stone for months, then hung and dried for more more months. Rmhermen (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The putrid fish that Swedes consider a delicacy is called Surströmming. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pheasant, and other game birds, is sometimes hung for days, even a week or two, until its otherwise unremarkable taste has matured. This, and a brief section in On Food and Cooking, suggest that the process which produces the desired effect is indeed bacterial decay and that the refined product, if not actually rotten, is on the cusp of being so. It would be interesting to know (neither source really says) whether this change in flavour is accompanied by an improvement in the flesh's food value (whether, e.g., the action of the bacteria has broken down otherwise indigestible tissues).-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC article says; "In earlier times, birds would be hung by their heads until the body fell off, at which point they would be ready for cooking." It says that the purpose of hanging, besides changing the flavour, is to tenderise the meat which probably comes from an adult animal - domestic animals are slaughtered when they're very young. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for someone to verify the contents of an article

I'm trying to find someone who can find an article from the Manchester Guardian, May 19, 1984, by Polly Toynbee titled "The Value of a Grandfather Figure". There are a few copies floating around on blogs, but we want to verify that those are true to the published version. Any idea on where to find this? I don't have access to any paid archive services or anything beyond the big G.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only Manchester Guardian I'm ware of was renamed to simply The Guardian in 1959. Is that the paper you're referring to? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. This is the non-official version of the article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the Guardian, old editions are unfortunately not available for free. You can buy old editions from this site, but they are rather expensive. You may be able to contact that site to at least find out if Polly Tonybee actually wrote something in that edition. You may also make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, to see if any Wikipedia editors have subscriptions to old newspapers (a lot of editors have rather extensive access to stuff through their local libraries). Someguy1221 (talk)

You the man...err guy. Thanks. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

website problem

I've been looking on the website of Lil Bub. Apparently something is off. I can't seem to find her online store. When I try, all I get is her book. What's going on? Anyone know?142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to www.lilbub.com and clicking on "store" seems to do the trick for me. - Karenjc (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Constitution of Brunei the Basic law of Brunei?

[Constitution of Brunei] Alevero987 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert but for any other country the Common Law tends to be separate to the Constitution, perhaps that is indicative of Brunei also. Uhlan ^talk 22:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP should be an expert by now, because this type of question gets raised about every week or two here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Brunei specifically? Uhlan ^talk 22:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question that keeps getting repeated is what the official language or languages of Brunei are, and I suspect this question is a twist on that. The editor is obviously quite interested in Brunei (Alevero987 (talk · contribs)), but they might get faster answers re-reading the ref desk archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany the Basic Law *is* the Constitution. Maybe this is indicative of Brunei also? 86.148.57.175 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the term "basic law" is recognised in international jusriprudence, but given that the point of a Constitution is that all other laws must conform to, or at least must not be antipathetic to, its strictures and conditions, I can't see how any other law could be considered the "basic law" of a country. Keener legal minds than mine might be able to comment more usefully. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question that gets confusing to some people is the distinction between the constitution (little c) of a nation, and a document whose title is The Constitution (big C). A nation's constitution is its organizational principles: how it is organized, how the state is run, how it is governed. All nations have a constitution if they exist; saying a nation lacks a constitution would be like saying a person has no personality: the existence of a person implies that they have some personality, but people have different personalities. The existence of a nation automatically means it has some way it is run and organized: it has a constitution. That's what the word means, to constitute means to make up or compose or create. The constitution of a nation is the set of principles that gives the state a structure and organization. All states have one. Some states also have a document titled The Constitution, which explains the constitution of that state. Some states have documents titled other things, like "Basic Law", i.e. Basic Laws of Israel, Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, etc. These documents are not titled "The Constitution", but they are, nonetheless, the document that serves the same purpose as, say, the Constitution of the United States does for the United States. The U.K. doesn't have a single document titled anything that acts as its single constitution, but it does have principles that determine how the state is run, so there is still, of course, a Constitution of the United Kingdom. That's the key distinction between Constitutional law and other forms of law; constitutional law is primarily about how the state is run, not about how people should behave or what punishments exist for people who misbehave, or how taxes are collected, or whatnot. It's about "Here's how other laws get passed; here's how the legislature is elected, here's who gets to vote, here's what the government does and does not have the right to do to the governed, etc." --Jayron32 01:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the value of Iranian dinar coins grow tenfold in 1932?

Hello,

I have read that the Iranian rial replaced the Iranian qiran at par in 1932. However, the dinar, which was a subunit of both currencies, was worth a thousandth (1/1000) of a qiran before 1932 and a hundredth (1/100) of a rial after. Moreover, new dinar coins were issued only in 1935. Does that mean that the value of the dinar grew tenfold at once, with the transition to the rial? Kulystab (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the new dinar was worth ten times the old one. See this article. --Omidinist (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omidinist, allow me to rephrase my question. If all my belongings a day before the transition were 100 coins of one dinar, would I be tenfold richer the day after? That sounds odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulystab (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exchange was not an overnight transition. It took place gradually, so that the old coin could be collected and the new ones could be distributed. Your wealth would change merely nominally.--Omidinist (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kulystab (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

Alternatives to the capitalism-socialism scale in political theory

Having been thinking about political labels and theory for the past few months I've become curious to know if there are formulations aside from the sliding scale of capitalism and socialism. For example, I've been wondering if there is such a thing as non-socialist command economies whether in practice or in theory. This all comes down to an observed tendency to conceive of totalitarianism being socialist in nature. Perhaps the way in which these things are viewed is skewed. Does anyone know of alternative perspectives, definitions, or theories? — Melab±1 ☎ 05:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been totalitarian governments throughout history, long before Karl Marx. One interesting tidbit is that the Code of Hammurabi was largely a list of prices to be charged for various goods and services. Thus, it's one of the earliest known attempts at price controls.

I personally think the democratic-totalitarian continuum is more important than the economic system, and that trading with non-democratic nations is a mistake, allowing them to gain control of the world economy, and then grow their militaries and threaten democracy worldwide. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just think of China today, it has a Communist government yet remains as one of the greatest financial powers in the modern world. 121.90.15.51 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Remain" ? They recently became a great financial power, because all the democracies of the world decided to trade with them. StuRat (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a mistake. A democracy can be totalitarian depending on the technology and the system in place. — Melab±1 ☎ 19:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's got to be one or the other. Or are you talking about governments which claim to be democratic, but aren't, like the DPRK ? StuRat (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good test for democracy is whether the people have the power to replace their leader peacefully (i.e. via the ballot box rather than by assassination or violent revolution). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think ochlocracy. — Melab±1 ☎ 02:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The average Ochlocracy tends not to sustain over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's so great about wikipedia, term limits on admins and 1/3 of admins are appointed by lottery from established users. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some alternative perspectives may be suggested by out article Political spectrum. The term "Economic spectrum" might seem closer to the OP's interest, but that redirects to (in my judgement) a less relevant article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.83.178 (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two matters that don't necessarily directly correlate with private, versus public means of production are (1) social regulation of things like sex, obscene speech and other mores, and (2) the harshness of punishments in response to crimes, such as three-strike laws that put people away for life for victimless crimes, versus the "sentence" of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway who is being rewarded with a three-room suite and court-hired chess and hockey-playing companions for killing 77 people. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He messed up by only getting 77. Had he hit the century mark, they might have given him a new car. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, just a question: the problem with democracy is that it assumes that the decisions are made by the people, but if you don't know the facts you can't make a decision -- and for anything really important, it's classified and not even Congress is entitled to know much about it. So it seems kind of meaningless, a ritual validation of things not understood. I'm not talking just about the modern NSA - as pointed out in a recent feature film, even Lincoln arranged to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution based on total secrecy about the South's willingness to negotiate.^[9] Now perhaps this is just an indication that democracy in a less than fully open society is not fully pure - commingled with totalitarianism, but not indistinguishable from it - but still, sometimes you look from one kind of regime to another and wonder how big the difference is really, all PR aside. Wnt (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once humans become pure, democracy will follow suit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This addresses the premises on which you base your question more than the question itself, but I'd say that the most basic definition of socialism is "control of the means of production by the workers". By this definition, the Soviet Union and other "actually existing socialist" countries are indistinguishable from "control of the means of productions by people with money", or capitalism. These countries, despite implementing policies in workers' interests such as housing or pensions or healthcare, did not offer the workers actual control over the means of production.

So, this definition of capitalism allows capitalism to come in many forms. Fascism or monopoly are "non-socialist command economies". Similarly, this definition of socialism allows socialism to come in many forms. Workers can have control over the means of production by interacting with a state, or they can control directly in without one.

And about your observed tendency, I think it is important to clarify that communism is full-blown democracy. Every decision, from social to economic policy, is collectively decided by those who will be affected, not a higher power. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 06:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma is correct that monopolism and fascism are command economies. I am unaware of any sort of fascism that is not actually also socialist, they just seem to have militarist, rather than Labourite trappings. As for monopolism, examples are grants by monarchs for exclusive trade rights to certain people for certain bailiwicks, like the perpetual right of Columbus and his heirs to a cut of all transatlantic trade, granted by the Spanish crown. See Columbus's claim as Admiral of the Ocean Sea and the charters of the various American and West Indian colonies. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 21:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of communist states that are democratic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A communist state is actually an oxymoron. But considering that you have other misconceptions about communism, I will suggest that you look over [10] to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and I will also suppose that you meant to refer to the states that call themselves communist, such as the Soviet Union.

These countries were not actually communist. The extent to which they were socialist is still hotly debated by the left, though I personally don't believe that they were socialist. I don't mean to throw these countries and their revolutions under the bus, but the story behind my opinion on the matter isn't relevant right now.

Anyway, Chomsky makes good points about the socialism in "socialist" states in this. But to directly answer your question, no, I don't have any examples. Communism is such a hypothetical that we cannot even predict anything with certainty in a hypothetical without coming up with a hypothetical. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 03:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By definition it's full-blown democracy. If it's not completely democratic, it's not full-blown communism, since any government at all means that a state hasn't reached what Marx meant of true communism. 2001:18E8:2:1020:114D:7B9F:9BE6:F393 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marx doesn't get to define communism. Just marxism. His pigsfly predictions about the withering of the state are his own aberrations, and have nothing to do with communal existence. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers which conquered the most

I am trying to make a list of rulers/kings/caliphs etc which conquered the most area in their life time. In particular I am interested in comparing the conquests of Umar, Napolean and Genghis Khan. Where can I find such a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.134.157 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add Alexander the Great to the list. StuRat (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Napoleon's empire fell apart years before he died... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tipu Sultan? 49.226.6.254 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A subjective list can be found at "Top 10 most successful empire-builders" and a good deal of argument thereafter; the author's inclusion of George Washington at No.9 seems to have been most controversial. Here at Wikipedia, we have List of pre-modern great powers which may help. Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regard Genghis Khan

As rather an over-rated man.

What, after all, could be easier

Than conquering from the Pacific to Silesia?

(Bentley)

Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that the armies of Genghis Khan made it any further west than about Chernihiv during his lifetime. The First Mongol invasion of Poland was in 1240, while Genghis Khan died in 1227... AnonMoos (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a ruler by conventional semantics, but Jesus Christ - during his lifetime :o) - has established an empire of 2.2 billion followers. Arguably, the number of cultural Christians is significantly higher. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really correct. Jesus had a small following during His life on earth. The disciples of Jesus started the religion, which might have died had it not been for the decision of a Roman Emperor or two to make Christianity the state religion of the Empire. One could easily argue that the Roman Empire is still alive in those 2 billion followers of Christianity, or at least in the 1 billion or so who are Roman Catholic. That, plus the proliferation of Latin throughout the world (filtered through French and English) makes the Roman Empire by far the most successful empire ever. Not from one guy, of course - more like a corporation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that analogy, you could mention a small Neolithic tribe of the Russian Steppe known as the Proto-Indo-European people who domesticated the horse and dominated the few parts of the world they didn't conquer outright. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires may also be useful.184.147.119.205 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the list in the external link above, a few to add to it could perhaps be Timur, Ivan the Terrible, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. --Jayron32 02:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Anglican use of the Ave Maria

The Hail Mary article currently claims that the Ave Maria "is also used by many other groups within the Catholic tradition of Christianity including Anglicans". Coming from this tradition myself, I can't support this statement, and my well-thumbed copy of "Knott's Ritual Notes" contains no reference to the use of this particular prayer. Can anyone provide sources to confirm or (more likely, IMO) deny this statement? Appropriate tags have been added to the article. Tevildo (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to be in the Book of Common Prayer, thus its use would not be part of any regular liturgy in an Anglican church. The Litany of 1544 appears to have excised it. [11] gives some of the history thereof. That said, the musical work "Ave Maria" is commonly sung without regard to its specific meaning, and there appears to be no law forbidding its use in any Anglican church any more than Catholic churches are forbidden to sing Luther's works (they are now found in Catholic hymnals). Collect (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... as a hymn Ave Maria is not at all uncommon in Anglican/Episcopal churches (the Episcopal church that I go to sings it almost every Christmas). Same words... different context. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can confirm that it is used by some churches who follow the Anglo-Catholic tradition within the Church of England and I suspect, elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, usually as part of the Angelus. It didn't take me long to find this CofE parish website with a page devoted to the Angelus and this page from Forward in Faith, an Anglo-Catholic pressure group (mainly against the ordination of women priests). As Collect says, it doesn't appear in the BCP, neither in Common Worship which is the current CofE liturgy that co-exists with the BCP. The use of Roman rather than Anglican liturgy by Anglo-Catholic parishes has been rather contentious, especially as priests swear to "use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon" See Canon C15 at their induction. However, we Anglicans are a tolerant bunch these days and nobody seems to get too stressed about it. In addition to this, as Collect says above, choral versions of Ave Maria are sung by Anglican choirs without too much emphasis being placed on its theological meaning; however, I can think of parishes where it wouldn't be acceptable. Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my comments above, apparently the Angelus appears in a book called Celebrating Common Worship (1992) for the Anglican Society of St. Francis. The book has no official status in the CofE but has a forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury. A secondary source for this is Greenacre, Roger (2013) Maiden, Mother and Queen: Mary in the Anglican Tradition, Canterbury Press, ISBN 978-1-84825-278-3 (p.177). Alansplodge (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me again; specifically it's in Prayers and Praises for Various Occasions, scroll about three quarters of the way down the page to find... "4 MEMORIAL OF THE INCARNATION – ANGELUS". Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent references, Alan, I'll add them to the article. Is it safe to say that the Ave Maria is only used in such churches as part of the Angelus, or is it used elsewhere? I note that the "Forward in Faith" site uses a photo of a set of prayer beads - do followers of this tradition follow the formal Roman Rosary, or are these Anglican prayer beads (Matthew 6:7 notwithstanding)? Tevildo (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I'm not seeing where our article says Ave Maria is used by Anglican groups either now or before adding the sources tag. It says Hail Mary is used. This may seem a distinction without a difference to some (even though this question was in English), but I would disagree as I would assume many of the Anglo-Catholicism do actually use Hail Mary or (whatever they want to call it), on other words the English version and not Ave Maria (or whatever they want to call it) i.e. the Latin version. This seems to be borne out by the sources above. Perhaps more importantly, this distinction also helps for the question, since when people say above that Ave Maria is a common hymn without the devotional meaning, I presume they really mean one of the many popular Ave Maria hymns such as the Ave Maria (Bach/Gounod) one, and not a hymn involving Hail Mary (which doesn't seem to be very common). (I can say that after 10? or so years of Roman Catholic sunday school and even more years of church when I was younger after the 1962 and later reforms but before Benedict, I never heard Hail Mary referred to Ave Maria that I recall, in fact I don't know if I ever heard of Ave Maria at all in that time, although I've obviously heard of it elsewhere. So yes, this question was rather confusing to me at first.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, now the CoE is finally reduced to making Hail Mary's? μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Anglican tradition, Latin titles are often retained for prayers and canticles that are always in English. Thus at the Communion Service, we have Sanctus and Benedictus, and at Evensong, Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis, all of which are said and sung in English. So I don't think that you can make a distinction between Ave Maria and Hail Mary, assuming that one will be in Latin and the other in English. BTW, I should have looked at our article on the Angelus which has a section called Anglican usage. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about World War 2: How old were some of the youngest cadets in Canada in the war at the time

How old were some of the youngest cadets in Canada in World War 2 at the time and did any of the candian soldiers lie about their age. Were any of the soldiers of Inuit African-Canadian and first nation descent? How many African-American veterans from world war 2 and Vietnam are alive today? Venustar84 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to some African-Canadian vets: [12] Rmhermen (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least 3,000 First Nations WWII veterans and at least 15 Inuit: [13] Rmhermen (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This pdf answers your first question: "Numerous nineteenth, eighteenth and even seventeenth birthdays were celebrated in uniform." and "Sometimes boys as young as 13 would lie about their age and attempt to enlist in the military." Taknaran (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nice article about "Canadian Boy Soldiers", giving the names of "six servicemen, all under 13 when they enlisted between 1936 and 1939": "Wing Commander W. Taylor, Flt. Sgt. J. C. Baker, Col. W. M. Alton, Maj. R. Hampton, Sgt D. O. Hoskis and Flt. Sgt C. F. Page." The article goes on to state that there were two types of underage soldiers: those who lied about their age, and those who were accepted based on the long tradition of young boy drummers and buglers. To sum up, it claims "some four to five thousand teenage soldiers served during World War II, most over the ages of thirteen and seventeen." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

Indirect consequentialism and general human irrationality

Selfish gene theory, combined with the number, strength, scope and prevalence of the various biases at List of cognitive biases, strongly suggests to me that non-calculative human behaviour is in general a very poor approximation of what is optimal, and therefore cannot maximize utility even within human computational limits, contra indirect-consequentialist theories such as two-level utilitarianism. Does this objection have a name, and what are the usual answers to it? Neon Merlin 05:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal for what and what would be optimal? Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What objection? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that objection can be described as a manifestation of sesquipedalianism. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bounded rationality might be what you are looking for -- see also our article on satisficing. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am fairly certain this is the source and concern of NM's post. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. For a person associated with a Department of English at a prominent university, he seems to use precious little of it. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce in Ireland

I know it was not legal a while ago, but when it started to be officially legal? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 17:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland? Tommy Pinball (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it wasn't legal before. It wasn't even possible before. Now it is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man who battled the sea

I'm trying to think of a name and recall the tale of a man, possibly a king. He was said to have gone down to the sea to fight with it. He stood in the water and beat at it with his sword, or something to that effect. He's often used as an allegory of someone trying to fight a hopeless fight. Anyone know who this is? Dismas|^(talk) 20:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Canute --Viennese Waltz 20:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was just coming back here to say that I finally hit upon the right words to get Google to tell me that. Thanks again! Dismas|^(talk) 20:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Xerxes I — Herodotus reports that when the bridge Xerxes was constructing across the Hellespont was ruined he order the body of water to be lashed and put into chains. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I might have been conflating the two stories but Cnut was definitely the one I was trying to use in an example elsewhere. Dismas|^(talk) 21:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, he did it not to (try to) exercise any power over the waves, but to demonstrate that he had no such power, his kingship notwithstanding. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks Jack. I re-read the pertinent parts of the article and confirmed I was using the correct person as an example in what I was writing. Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Obama on his own election to president and control over the oceans, yatta, yatta, yatta. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Emperor Caligula, at least in a recent TV series, somehow attacked and thought he had conquered the sea of the Sea God and had his soldiers collect trunks full of sea shells which he exhibited in his Triumph. no one had the guts to tell him he was bonkers. Did Suetonius or others write of this battle? Edison (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Suetonius mentions it. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, forgot about that one, although it's in I, Claudius. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

help me identify this (traditional?) melody.

Tom Waits performs a song based on Jack Kerouac's famous book On The Road. The melody of the chorus of this song provokes a strong nostalgic and emotional reaction in me, but I'm unable to determine exactly what it reminds me of:

(see 1:07, 2:15, 3:02, in this youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgE9fqMTvTk

I almost think it relates to a campfire song we used to sing in Boy Scouts when I was a child, or perhaps it is a frequently used melody in certain kinds of American folk music.

Can anyone help identify this melody, or perhaps tell me what traditional song(s) it is similar to?

--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but it sort of reminded me of In My Time of Dying, the Led Zeppelin version. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The song is "Home I'll never be" from the album Orphans: Brawlers, Bawlers & Bastards. The melody is an original but could quite reasonably be described as traditional without referring to any specific song.2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:6061:C42A:B70E:EF09 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any idea what Akrit Jaswal does now?

There's nothing on him since 2005, on this article. I wished to find updates about him. Maybe you can for us? Thanks. --2602:30A:2EE6:8600:D59D:C79F:6214:1B7 (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show in 2010; the show materials say “Akrit is now 17 years old and working on a master's degree in applied chemistry.” I can’t find that he’s published any academic articles yet. See what others turn up. Taknaran (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

emily warren paintings

i have a painting of hers 7 x 10 parliment ottawa. who do i contact about this painting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.203.121 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you want to have it valued? I would take it to an auction house, they have art specialists there who would probably be willing to give you an approximate valuation. They could also probably tell you how much other similar paintings by her have fetched recently at auction, which would give you a good idea of its current value. --Viennese Waltz 03:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auction prices for various of her paintings range from $3(?) up to $1663. [14] YMMV. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimah

In the article Fatimah these two edits were made and then reverted. They are related to File:Muhammad 19.jpg which was obtained from here. If the caption of the external link is correct then the woman in the foreground is Fatimah and the woman to the left of Muhammad is Aisha. Further up the page is another image of Fatimah, File:Siyer-i Nebi - Muhammad gibt Fatimas Hand Imam Ali.jpg, where she is standing to the left of Muhammad and being married to Ali. Now given that the marriage image shows both Muhammad and Aisha with their faces hidden by holy fire is it likely that the second one would show her face but hide the others? Can anyone find a reference that would indicate if in the first picture the woman is really Aisha or is someone else such as a servant. For anyone unsure as to why the faces are hidden in flame see depictions of Muhammad. I'll also post at the language desk to see if someone can read the Arabic in the images. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how one is supposed to tell that it's a woman, but in File:Muhammad 19.jpg, the red-clothed person does appear to have "Fatimah" written above... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure File:Muhammad 19 is in Ottoman Turkish ("وودلر" is presumably "daughters"? I also see "turanlar" which is obviously Turkish), but the first couple of names at the top are Umm al-Mu'mineen (i.e. Aisha) and Umm Salama...there is another Umm in there but I can't make out who that is. The three women with the Holy Fire are labelled, right to left, Fatima, Umm al-Mu'mineen, and Umm Salama, but I'm not sure who the girl is. Fatima is mentioned in the text at the bottom as well. File:Siyer-i Nebi - Muhammad gibt Fatimas Hand Imam Ali.jpg is also not in Arabic except for various names and titles, but the woman is labelled Fatima. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Amanda Todd

Just inquiring about who is the author/s of the following article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd

Thankyou Muchly, Alex McKnight-Rhodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVince05 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like all Wikipedia articles, it's a collaborative work of many editors, some of whom have registered usernames, some of whom choose to edit anonymously. You can see the full list of editors who have made changes to the article here. --Viennese Waltz 09:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, on Wikipedia some (much!) editors' work is "reverted", i.e. undone by someone else, and more may be substantially rewritten, so when you read the list keep in mind that not all of them actually created text you see in the article. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tool Wikipedia:WikiBlame allows you to see who added some particular bit of text in the article and when. You clock on "View History" and then "Revision history search." Edison (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does Muslim proselytism look like?

I have seen several Christians proselytizing on street corners, to selected houses in neighborhoods, and generally promoting their organization in a big courtyard. I have seen one Buddhist monk-to-be promoting Buddhism. But I have never encountered a single Muslim proselytize. I don't even know what a Muslim proselytism look like. Do they even proselytize openly? 140.254.229.115 (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]