Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 5

How the Uraeus (Cobra) on the Nemes (headress) does it associate with the sphinx?

I mean in Egyptian mythology. 174.7.167.7 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, it represents the goddess Wadjet, the protector of Egypt. I haven't read that the Great Sphinx had one on its headdress, but Wadjet predates it, so it's possible it was there and wasted away. Just a guess, but the Sphinx could have been a symbolic sort of guard animal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Or, perhaps more reasonably, the Sphinx was designed by a pharaoh, who decided it should have the image of his own head. Or maybe by a fan of that pharoah, later (something like Mount Rushmore). In either of those cases, the Sphinx's uraeus may not have had any exceptional symbolic value, aside from the normal use on a human headdress (signifying royalty/godliness). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the concept of Wadjet later fused with that of the lioness protector Bast to become Wadjet-Bast, something like the hypothetical pharaoh fused with a lion. Maybe the Great Sphinx isn't meant to be a sphinx at all, but the male counterpart (or replacement) to this thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the original question is supposed to mean. As for Inedible Hulk's uncertainty about the uraeus of the forehead of the Great Sphinx of Giza, I'm sure one was originally there. If you look closely at pictures of it, you can see an eroded shape on its forehead that seems certain to be a uraeus. A reconstruction of what the sphinx would have looked like when it was new (here), based on Mark Lehner's study of the sphinx, clearly shows it with a uraeus. The obvious reason that the sphinx is wearing a uraeus is that the uraeus is part of the nemes headcloth worn by whichever pharaoh the sphinx is supposed to depict. Other sphinxes throughout Egyptian history have the same headwear.

If the original poster is asking whether there's a mythological link between the uraeus motif and the sphinx motif, I'd say that they have similar functions but are not exactly the same thing. Sphinxes represent the king or a god in a lion-like form, either guarding a particular place (the sphinxes in front of temples guard temples, and the Great Sphinx of Giza sat next to the causeway that led to the temple at the foot of the Pyramid of Khafre) or trampling the enemies of divine order (as in this image of some furniture from the tomb of Tutankhamun). In ancient Egypt, lions were solar symbols and therefore alluded to the power of the sun god Ra, the original pharaoh and the creator of all order. The uraeus could represent any one of a large complex of violent protective goddesses who destroyed the enemies of order, and of the king, which explains why the uraeus appears on royal crowns. When serving in this protective role, each of the goddesses could be called the Eye of Ra (see that article for more information) because the protective goddess was sort of an extension of Ra's power. (Wadjet and Bastet were two of these goddesses and were sometimes combined with each other, though it would be wrong to say that Wadjet and Bastet were permanently joined. Egyptian gods can form all kinds of combinations as circumstances dictate.) The Eye of Ra goddess often appeared as a uraeus, but it could also be depicted as a lion or a cat. Some sphinxes are female, representing goddesses, and they may well have been thought of as forms of the Eye of Ra. But most sphinxes were male, representing kings or male gods, which makes them rather different from the Eye of Ra. So the uraeus and the sphinx are both divine powers that are linked with the sun god, that protect against or destroy the forces of chaos, and that uphold the authority of the king.

For references to support what I've said about the uraeus and Eye of Ra, see the works cited in the Eye of Ra article. My statements about sphinxes were mostly based on Egyptian Mythology by Geraldine Pinch (2004), pages 206 to 207, and The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt by Richard H. Wilkinson (2000), page 54–55. If the original poster specifically meant the Great Sphinx of Giza, which is presumed to have been carved during the Old Kingdom, I'd suggest looking at The Cobra Goddess of Ancient Egypt: Predynastic, Early Dynastic, and Old Kingdom Periods by Sally J. Johnson (1990), which I don't have. I don't know how well developed the mythology surrounding the uraeus/Eye of Ra was in the Old Kingdom or what relationship it might have had with the sphinx back then, but Johnson's book may say something about it. A. Parrot (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's something I've wondered for a while: is it a mistake to take this all so seriously in some kind of erudite mystilogical way? My intuition tells me that the pharaohs and kings and conquistadors of history have a lot more in common with our street gangs and crime cartels, and that one of them wearing a cobra on his head is like one of our gang-bangers wearing a gold machine gun pendant; that it's just a way of saying that look, he's bad-ass and dangerous and he can strike at whoever he wants. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Parrot, I noticed the forehead and thought it seemed more likely than anything that it used to be a cobra. But, despite the larger leaps I made in my guesses, I somehow didn't feel right assuming that. Starting to wonder whether we should even feel safe assuming it represents a sphinx, let alone a pharoah, rather than just a coincidentally similar hybrid. Maybe future historians will also consider the ThunderCats American sphinxes, for lack of a better term. But I'll certainly defer to your more educated guesses.

And no, you're not so wrong, Wnt. Whether it's business, government, crime, religion, hockey or war, the basic idea of a symbol remains the same. Reminds people of the history associated with it to hint at what they can expect from the bearer (or bluffs it, anyway). The meaning of the symbol can vary wildly, of course, through space or time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the sphinx, Hulk, I'm not sure what you mean. The Greeks may have seen their version of a sphinx as a distinct type of being, but the Egyptian didn't. Sphinxes were just another instance of the Egyptians' convention of mixing and matching human and animal forms to symbolize divine powers (see ancient Egyptian deities#Descriptions and depictions). The Great Sphinx is a more mysterious case, because it's one of the earliest examples of the sphinx form and the archaeological evidence for its origin is rather ambiguous (see Great Sphinx of Giza#Origin and identity). The meaning that the sphinx image was meant to convey in later, better documented times is pretty well understood, though.

To Wnt, I wouldn't say that it's wrong to analyze this stuff in detail. Egyptian religious ideology really is extraordinarily complex. As much as I've studied the subject, I still can't understand half of what a funerary text like the Pyramid Texts is talking about, even in an annotated translation. But the religious beliefs surrounding kingship did have a lot of the brutal impulse that you describe at their core. Defying the king is defying the gods and the order of the cosmos. If you do it, you die. It's just that the Egyptians were expert at elaborating that basic impulse in an "erudite mystilogical way". Replying to Hulk's other point, they also tended to retain the original meanings of symbols, combining them with each other and with new concepts in novel ways. As fascinating (and, to me, inspiring) as Egyptian religion can be, it had a definite dark side. There are some experts (Barry Kemp and Toby Wilkinson come to mind) who take care to remind people of that. A. Parrot (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean the Great Sphinx (and many other Egyptian statues) don't have wings, like the Greek "live" sphinx. A statue of a horse doesn't have an horn, so we wouldn't call it a unicorn. Just thinking the statue represents an entirely different beast, but the Greeks figured it was close enough when they saw it. One day, perhaps the same iconic blending will happen with Gamera and Yertle the Turtle. I dunno. I'm still basically a noob in the subject. Just wondering aloud, mostly.

And yeah, "fused" may have been a poor word. Didn't mean to imply Wadjet-Bast was permanent. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You gotta do what you gotta do

How do you call it when someone begins a judicial case against a politician or official because he did not do the thing that as an office holder he must do? In Argentina, in Spanish, the legal figure is called "incumplimiento de los deberes de funcionario público" ("dereliction of duty of public officials"), but I don't think I should write a literal translation in an article. Cambalachero (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The general term in English is malpractice, though the term is most commonly associated with medical malpractice (doctors) and legal malpractice (lawyers), I think it may best capture the general concept you are looking for. --Jayron32 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You gotta write what you gotta write. I'm no lawyer, but "dereliction of duty" sounds fine to me, the states of California (section 22) and Ohio (section F) and Associated Press[1]. Nothing wrong with "of public officials" either. Malpractice doesn't apply to politicians. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Because there are no professional standards they would ever accept as being applicable to them? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Depending on the context of your sentence, "derelicition of a public official's duty" may be slightly better, as it's in the active voice and in the singular. Or "...by a public official". I might be nitpicking a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Under common law legal systems, such a lawsuit was traditionally known as seeking a writ of mandamus... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Misfeasance in public office 86.183.79.28 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a specific tort in English law (which requires proof of malice, rather than mere incompetence). The more general term is Malfeasance in office. Tevildo (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

None of these are equivalent to a civil law system... They don't map. You're probably wanting some statutory equivalent... those don't really exist that much. It's surely not a writ of mandamus, which is a relatively neutral writ that has nothing to do with the elements of any crime.... AnonMoos clearly has no clue what their talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- if "someone begins a judicial case against a politician or official because he did not do the thing that as an office holder he must do" under traditional Common Law, then most of the time it takes the form of filing for a Writ of Mandamus. Such an action was at issue in the very famous U.S. supreme court case Marbury v. Madison... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing from a wedding at the last minute

I recently watched a Chinese TV series which contained a scene where the groom decided to withdraw from the wedding (and thus did not marry the bride) the moment he was supposed to say "I do." In real life, how often does this kind of thing occur - i.e. a bride and/or a groom deciding to walk away the moment they should have said "I do"? 24.47.140.246 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know how common it is in real life, but there's a phrase commonly used to describe it -- being "dumped at the altar" (or "jilted at the altar")... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Or just "left at the altar". It's quite common in fiction if it doesn't have to be exactly at "I do". See TVtropes:RunawayBride. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There also used to be a common law concept called Breach of promise. That is pretty much dead by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not on your side of the water: Jilted bride wins $43,000 breach of contract award (Dec 6, 2013). Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Breach of promise was repealed in England and Wales in 1970: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(Irrelevant bugbear-based aside) "I do" seems to be an increasingly common response, but the traditional version, at least in the Church of England wedding ceremony (or Solemnization of Matrimony, as the Book of Common Prayer calls it), in answer to the question (for the groom): "Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?", is "I will", which seems to me to imply rather more commitment to the future than just "I do". This exchange is mangled in one of the weddings in Four Weddings and a Funeral, where the "wilt thou...?" question is answered by "I do". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further complicated by the fact that "I will" means "I want to" (whether it will happen or not), whilst "I shall" means "I am going to" (definite statement of fact). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Our article on wedding vows doesn't even mention "I do". 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow, back to the point. I found Jilted Bride: 'In a Moment, It's the Worst Day of Your Life' about a 1997 New York wedding that was delayed by the non-appearance of the groom. Eventually the best man appeared with the news that it was all off. The reception went ahead. Alansplodge (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on an understanding of psychology and some anecdotal evidence, I suspect it is much more common for the bride or the groom to fail to appear at a planned wedding than for one of them to show up and then decide not to say "I do" or "I will". I think that, if people have doubts, they are likely to make a final decision whether they are ready when they are getting dressed and ready to travel to the wedding venue. It's much easier to jilt someone by failing to show up than by failing to complete the vows in front of the jilted person and both families. Marco polo (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course this happens all the time in soap operas and films. I recall hearing a Church of England priest saying in a discussion on the radio that he has never heard of it ever happening in any real wedding in his experience. I can't provide any reference for that, however. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect it happens far more often in Las Vegas than in C of E ceremonies. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. As our article mentions, the whole point of a "Las Vegas wedding" is that it can happen so quickly. Leaving someone at the alter involves you second-guessing your commitment, but a Vegas wedding doesn't leave a lot of time for that. If you're okay to marry at 9:00 when he proposed, you'll probably still be okay with it at 9:15 when the ceremony takes place. Now the next morning when it's too late is another matter entirely. Matt Deres (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I commend the case of Pitty Pat and Prince Lorenzo to your attention - a lesson for us all. PiCo (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy of me, WHAA* about this: see Primrose Potter @ "Family affairs".

(* this is a subset of WHAAOE). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And then they came for me

There is a verse or poetry which starts with First they came for (?) and I did nothing. The end is then they came for me. Would like to know who is the author and complete verse. I think this came out of the 30's or 40's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:480:1E6:BC67:75FE:955C:584A (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

See First they came .... StuRat (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's the girl at the beginning of this USAA commercial?

This reference in Stuart Roosa's Wikipedia article shows a girl who says "Mine was earned orbiting the moon in 1971. Is she Roosa's granddaughter? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The girl or person you're referring to features together with other people at 0:14 in the TV ad, in a set-up uncertain as the man holding a tablet cannot be Stuart Roosa, deceased 1994. The Apollo 14 mission for which Roosa was one of the pilots is known and notable for a first from outer space TV color transmission: Hope this helps; ask perhaps USAA.com ? --Askedonty (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess since it says Roosa sisters, 3rd generation, there's a chance that those are his granddaughters and the man is one of Stuart Roosa's sons. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

January 6

How does Pooh appear in Sophie's World?

A number of characters from other stories appear in Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder, particularly in the later chapters, but most of these characters are public domain. Then in the chapter titled "Kant", a certain stuffed bear in a red sweater appears and introduces himself as "Winnie-the-Pooh". He drops the names of Piglet, Rabbit, Eeyore, and Owl, to make it very clear exactly who he is.

I'm a bit confused. As I understood it, Winnie-the-Pooh was first written of in 1926, and thus is still under copyright today, let alone in 1991 when Sophie's World was written, and 1995 when it was translated into Pooh's native language. (Actually, that article at the beginning of this paragraph mentions Pooh revenue disputes over a decade after Sophie's World, so he's certainly under copyright even today.)

Now I've been reading a lot of Jasper Fforde lately, and my understanding from his writing is that a copyrighted character can appear, but not speak. (Fforde's recurring joke is that a copyrighted character like Harry Potter is asked to appear for some speech or ceremony, but has to cancel at the last minute due to copyright reasons.) Pooh of course is speaking quite a bit in his appearance here.

The red sweater might also confuse things further. It does not appear on the actual stuffed bear in the New York Public Library, nor does it appear in the text of the books, or the original illustrations. Apparently the red shirt was created by Stephen Slesinger in 1932, and it seems to me that it could be used in the way that MGM has used Dorothy's ruby slippers -- the slippers did not appear in the original book The Wizard of Oz, so while Dorothy herself is public domain, her slippers are copyright MGM 1939, and you have to pay a small fortune to use them.

There's no mention anywhere in the book of Gaarder obtaining permission to use Pooh. Is this something you don't have to mention? Or does the copyright somehow not apply to Norway and translations of books written in Norway? Or is Gaarder getting away with this just because no one with rights to Pooh has noticed yet?

74.94.209.187 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

List of countries' copyright lengths gives life plus 70 years for Norway. A. A. Milne died in 1956 so his works are public domain in Norway from Jan 1, 2027. The answer to your question, however, either lies in the article Fair use or the publishers of Sophie’s World negotiated a fee (this is commonly done, for example, when books quote poetry in chapter headings). A concise, useful discussion of what needs permission/fees and what doesn’t can be found here. 142.150.38.133 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The motif of the red sweater might be a red herring. Pooh didn't wear one in the books AFAIK. The bear with the red top is Rupert; the clothing is as recognisable as Paddington's duffel coat. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Winnie-the-Pooh#Red_Shirt_Pooh WHAAOE MChesterMC (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Official name of USA

When, exactly, did the USA officially get the name "United States of America"? I am assuming July 4, 1776, but I am not 100% sure. Also, what was the official name before "United States of America"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The term is simply a phrase as used in the Declaration of Independence; "the united States of America", where united is a separate, lower case adjective describing the states. The Articles of Confederation, July 9, 1778 state in article one, "The style of this confederacy shall be, "The United States of America." There's your official title. The preamble to the Constitution says it is established "for the United States of America." μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] There does not seem to have been any legislation declaring that "United States of America" is the official name of the country, but that name, alongside "United States" is used in its founding documents, the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Consequently, both the long form and the short form (without "of America") can be considered official names. Before the ratification of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, there was in fact no such thing as the United States, and therefore no name for that nonexistent entity. Each of the British colonies was distinct and in no way associated with the others, except individually and voluntarily and as constituent parts of the British empire. The first Continental Congress referred to the body it represented variously as "these colonies", "America", and "the English colonies in North America". All of these terms, except for the nondescript "these colonies" would have referred not only to what were later known as "the 13 colonies" but also to other British colonies, such as Quebec, Nova Scotia, and East and West Florida, none of which were part of the United States after 1776. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Having just read Medeis's post, I would point out that the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect. Nonetheless, that line from the Articles may have helped to establish that name as "official", though its official status is now really de facto. Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The op may find some answers in our article History_of_USA. It's slightly complicated. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Marco Polo, the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect, but it's occasionally referred to believe it or not. Check out Texas_v._White where the supreme court ruled that the "In order to form a more perfect union" in the preamble meant that the USA was constitutionally perpetual even though the constitution didn't mention that. The articles of Confederation did use the word "perpetual", and they ruled that the USA couldn't be "more perfect" than the previous union if it wasn't perpetual, therefore it was! APL (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) According to Articles_of_Confederation#Article_summaries, they defined the term. Of course, until the US won the Revolutionary War, the Brits and many others still called them the British colonies. These were drafted starting in 1776 but not fully ratified until 1781. One interesting point is that people said "these" United States, meaning united countries, until the Civil War. After that it became "the" United States. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Very interesting replies. Now, here is what specifically prompted my question. In the Wikipedia article Elizabeth Ann Seton, its opening line states: Elizabeth Ann Bayley Seton, S.C., (August 28, 1774 – January 4, 1821) was the first native-born citizen of the United States to be canonized by the Roman Catholic Church (September 14, 1975). As I was reading this, I noted that she was born in 1774. Thus, doesn't that fact (technically) make the introductory statement false? In other words, she was not born in the United States because, in 1774, there was no such entity known as the "United States". So, am I correct, or is my thinking off for some reason? Also, if I am correct, what would be the appropriate way to make the statement about Seton, so that it is factually accurate? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

One possible answer is in the way "natural born citizen" is defined in the Constitution. Obviously, the founding fathers weren't born in the USA, as such, because there was no such thing yet. But they were "grandfathered in" by the Constitution. I've run into this occasionally in genealogy research, where someone will be stated to have been born in "West Virginia" prior to the Civil War. It depends whether you're referring to current geography or geography as it was at some point in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is rich pickings for pedants and their ilk. For example, none of my grandparents was born in Australia, technically. They were all born in the 1890s in Sydney and surrounding areas. Sydney was then the capital of the British colony of New South Wales. There was no such unified nation as Australia until 1901. But for anyone to deny my grandparents were native-born Australians would be a little extreme, I think. Similarly, my parents (born in 1919 and 1925) were not born Australian citizens, because there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until 1949. Prior to then, all people born in Australia were British subjects. But for anyone to deny my parents have always been Australians - except in the most abstruse and arcane legal sense - would be somewhat absurd. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase "first native-born citizen of the United States" is false, "technically". She was native born - which means born in the land - and also a citizen of the United States. I doubt that better phrasing could be found, without unnecessary prolixity. Paul B (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, that's exactly the point of the question. You state: "which means born in the land". Exactly. But, born in what land? The land known as the United States. That seems technically incorrect to me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Born in the land now known as the United States of America." StuRat (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A story along the same lines (pre-1991)... A Russian old-timer is asked where he was born. "Saint Petersburg." And where did you grow up? "Petrograd." And where did you live and work in the prime of life? "Leningrad." And where would you like to spend your final years? "Saint Petersburg!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 03:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the above input and feedback. Much appreciated. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

January 7

Copayments in health insurance

Is the practice of making people with health insurance make copayments something that predominantly only happens in the US, or is it also practiced elsewhere (for instance, in Canada)? Morningcrow (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have separate articles on Copayment and Deductible, but if there's a difference, I'm not sure what it is. In the UK, we normally talk of having to pay an excess. Rojomoke (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ex-health insurance guru here. There's a big difference, technically, between an excess and a co-payment. But no difference as far as the consumer is concerned: they have to pay, is all they know. Both of these things are features of the health insurance landscape in Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think one reason for copays, especially on prescription meds, is the fear that if people could get unlimited free meds, they would get more than they need, possibly leading to abuse of the system and of the meds. StuRat (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify Morningcrow's question for people where the terminology may be different, he wants to know whether people outside the United States who have some form of health insurance have to pay a fee for every healthcare deliverable (product or service). Typically this fee, or copay or copayment, is a set amount for each type of deliverable, and the amount is a fraction of the amount the healthcare provider charges the insurer. For example, an insured person might face a copayment of $15 for each appointment with an ordinary doctor or nurse (which probably costs the insurer more like $150), $35 for every appointment with a specialist (cost to the insurer maybe $300), and maybe $200 for every admission to a hospital (cost to the insurer probably more than $1,000). In addition, they might face a copay totaling maybe 20% of the cost of any drugs prescribed. This is different from a deductible, which usually stipulates that the insured must pay 100% of the cost of his or her healthcare, up to a threshold (the deductible) beyond which the insurer pays 100% of the cost, less any copays. So, do people face copayments, as described, in Canada or other countries? Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I was actually interested in both deductibles and copayments, but for some reason only mentioned the latter - more "accurately" I suppose, I was wondering about addition payments for healthcare beyond the cost of insurance. Morningcrow (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, under my workplace+public coverage in Canada, I have a deductible. Some of my coverage for non-essential care has a maximum allowance, anything over which I must pay out of pocket. This isn't the same as a co-pay, I assume, because it only applies if there is overage, and that resets every year or two, depending on the service. Mingmingla (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Henning Von Treskow

I was aware of this heroic actions of Henning Von Treskow- he attempted to assassinate Hitler in March 1943 and drafted the Valkyrie plan for a coup against the German government. He was described by the Gestapo as the "prime mover" and the "evil spirit" behind the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler.

But then I just read this....it does not make sense. I thought Treskow was an honorable man. Is it possible that he signed this order: As Chief of Staff of the 2nd Army, Tresckow signed an order on 28 June 1944 to abduct Polish and Ukrainian children in the so-called Heu-Aktion (Hay Action). Between 40,000 to 50,000 Polish and Ukrainian children aged 10 to 14 were kidnapped for Nazi Germany's forced labour program Can this be researched? I cannot believe Treskow did this...he risked his life for a free Germany. (This is from Wikipedia article of Treskow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.68.72 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I take it you mean Henning von Tresckow. Our article on him is sourced, as is Heu-Aktion. It's a book source (War Of Extermination: The German Military In World War II) but at least for me, the page referenced is visible on Google Books [2] and confirms what our article says. I don't see any reason to doubt it. Based on what our articles say and the source used [3] I suspect that the order which includes Tresckow's signature was probably found after the war and part of the Nuremberg trials. So it's likely you can find a copy of it somewhere and confirm his signature was on it.

Note that if his primary motiviation was a 'free Germany' then the effects of his actions on Polish and Ukrainian children may not have been a significant concern, in fact he may have thought it a good thing if it helped Germany. (The source seems to be discussing something similar.) That said, our article does suggestion he cared about more than simply wanting a free Germany.

And obvious thought is that if it was clear this was a desired action in Nazi Germany at the time, for him to openly defy it may have put him and any of his plans at risk so he may have thought it an unfortunate but necessary action (which I think most people nowadays would strongly disagree with). He may have also not know or expected everything about the programme that we now know.

But we also should avoid oversimplfiying people's morality, behavior and character and simply thinking of them as 'good'/'honourable' or 'bad'/'evil'. Such thinking may be convient, but leads to silly things like people being unable to accept that Adolf Hitler may have genuinely cared about animal rights because he's evil (or even sillier, that animal rights must be wrong because Hitler supported it).

You also have to look at things from the POV of the time, and recognise that no matter how wrong such POVs may seem to people now, they may have been widely held at the time. Hence why people may have talked about and signed a declaration saying All men are created equal yet continued to own slaves and supported slavery, a contradiction which was even evident at the time.

In other words, there are plenty of reasons why he may have signed it, and plenty of reasons why he may not have even been troubled by it no matter whether that may contradict with anyone's view of him.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

When was Vouziers' town hall built?

I know some French, but not enough to deal with Google's autosuggestion tricks (though their translator is handy). Can anyone find out (or know offhand) when the Vouziers "Hôtel de Ville" sprung up? It's clear that the war monument is post-war, but that could have been added later. Also, was the building ever used for some other purpose? Certainly looks a bit churchish. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You can see the Vouziers town hall during the WWW I (occupied by the Germans) here (first photograph) and at the end of the war (1918) here; only the façade was standing. A new town hall was built after 1918 according to this web site. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) :This article [4] states that construction began in August 1923, to replace the previous city hall built in 1808 and destroyed by fire in 1918. The building was inaugurated in 1926 and is listed as a 20th century heritage building. --Xuxl (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thank you both! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Abolition of capital punishment 30 BC?

Capital_and_corporal_punishment_(Judaism) claims that according to the Talmud, capital punishment was abolished by the Sanhedrin 30 BC. This seems to contradict the stoning of Saint_Stephen. Also Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery seems to be in question in the article. Does anyone have more evidence one way or another? DanielDemaret (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The article actually says it was abolished 30 CE (=30 AD), so around the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, the story of the woman taken in adultery may have taken place before that time, though the oldest manuscripts of John's gospels do not contain this story. A common interpretation of John 18:31 is that the Jews had lost the right to sentence anyone to death, which belonged only to the Roman governor. This is supported by a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, of which I can only access a French translation (since I don't read Aramaic): "40 ans avant la destruction du Temple de Jérusalem, le droit de prononcer les sentences capitales a été enlevé aux Israélites" (i.e. 40 years before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the right to pronounce capital sentences was taken away from the Israelites). The Babylonian talmud has a slightly different version and states that the Sanhedrin was exiled in that year and voluntarily refrained from issuing capital sentences (see Sanhedrin 41a and Abodah Zarah 8b). You might be interested in this article, which has more information and was helpful to me in finding the aforementioned references.

Regarding the stoning of Stephen, it may well be that the Jews had no legal right to do this according to Roman law, but it is clear that they did this out of anger, like they tried to do to Jesus as well (John 11:8 etc.) - Lindert (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Silly me, misreading CE with BC :) Thank you! DanielDemaret (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And add to that that the motives of the people who brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus are commonly supposed to be the same as the motive in asking him whether they should pay tax to the Romans: the religious leaders were trying to trap him into either siding with the Roman authorities against Jewish law, or side with Jewish law against the Romans, and so either lose the favour of the people or be arrestable. So this is entirely consistent with a situation in which they had lost the right of capital punishment. 86.139.158.44 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Double credit for film directors

Most films start out the opening credits with "A Martin Scorsese film" or "A Gus Van Sant film" or whoever. The opening credits always end with the name of the director, and it's always, in my experience, the same name that opened the credits. Then the director will get a third credit in the closing credits. The most anyone else involved can expect is 2 credits, one at the start and one at the end.

Is it always the director 's name in "A <name> film"? What's the purpose of telling the audience the director's name twice, in different ways, before the movie's even really got under way? Would it ever be the producer's name there? What does it really mean to say that a certain film is "a Ron Howard film", say? Why isn't it just as much a Tom Hanks film (if he's the main actor) or a John Williams film (if he's the composer) etc, all the way through the main participants (cinematographer, editor, FX, wardrobe, writing .....)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the auteur theory - the originally French idea that, despite the inordinate number of people involved in making a film, it has one author, one creative person whose "vision" the film is, and that person is the director. Personally, I think it's absurdly simplistic, undervalues the input of other creative people, especially screenwriters (whose job has been reduced to taking a story from another medium and adapting it to the formulaic three act structure), and doesn't take into account that collaboration can sometimes produce greater work than a single artist could create, and that for a lot of films the director is a hired hand whose job is to realise someone else's ideas. But cinema critics seem to buy into it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The director's name does not appear in the closing credits, unless there is a cold open. --Viennese Waltz 13:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

An example would be 2001: A Space Odyssey which has a grand total of 3 credits up front.[5] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Presents / A Stanley Kubrick Production / 2001: A Space Odyssey [plus copyright info in small print]. As I recall, the closing credits start with Kubrick's name, and his name may be in there a few more times as well. An even colder opening would be the Star Wars series, which have a panel for Lucasfilms followed by the standard slogans of the series. But it's important to keep in mind that credits in general are determined by contractual arrangements, along with various rules (e.g. that the director is listed last in the opening credits). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head with the last line, directors are listed last in the opening credits, a rule that is bypassed by saying it's a "film by..." Hot Stop 01:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not really an accurate description of the auteur theory as it was originally propounded. The French Cahiers du Cinéma critics who introduced the concept (though not the term "auteur theory") were aware of the the collaborative nature of film-making but believed that the best films (in their opinion) had an authorial stamp from the director. However, they didn't believe all directors were necessarily auteurs and coined the term metteur en scène for those directors who did not bring such an authorial stamp, but simply competently staged the screenplay and marshalled the performers. This was later developed in English-language criticism to the point where, simplistically put, the director was the auteur and for a period film criticism tended to concentrate on investigations of the oeuvre of individual directors. This was 40 odd years ago, however, and more recently the pendulum has swung back to the original conception, and some critics have identified others in the production chain as the auteurs of particular films. (For example screenwriter Charlie Kaufmann has often been described by some critics as the true auteur of the movies he wrote [6] [7]). Valiantis (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• This practice is called a possessory credit, giving primary artistic recognition of a film to a single person. Because movie posters, trailers and the like also repeat part of the credits, this is usually done more to advertise upfront that a prominent or famous director like a Scorsese or a Van Sant worked on the film (you would not normally see it done for a director or a producer who is relatively an unknown). For famous actors like a Hanks, "top billing" is used instead, where the name(s) of the prominent actor(s) appear first before the title of the film and the other names of the main cast. Many movies have both the possessory credit and the top billing listings, where, for example in Superman (1978 film) you have "A Richard Donner film", and the top billings of Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman without any quantifiers or extra phrases (as seen in the fine print of the film's poster if you can read it).Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  And a composer like Williams usually never gets a possessory credit when there is better name recognition with a Steven Spielberg or a Hanks to help sell tickets. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Usually never, eh?  :)

Thanks to all. There's always more to these things than one had imagined. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Stranger in distress scams

Many of us have been approached by strangers looking distressed, telling us stories of how they need a small amount of money and that they have no other way of getting it. But how many of these are actually genuine and how many are scams? Clover345 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to give an accurate answer. How would anyone know whether the story is true or not? --Viennese Waltz 16:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I always look for a way around giving them cash. Say they need cash to take a taxi home. I offer to call their home on my cell phone, and have somebody pick them up, instead. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent approach. This scam is as old as money. The archetype is someone asking for money to buy coffee and/or donuts, when they're maybe really wanting to buy booze. This little scam was parodied in the early 30s in the Marx Brothers film Horse Feathers, where a bum approached Harpo and said, "I'd like to get a cup of coffee". Harpo then reached into his trench coat and pulled out a steaming cup of coffee for the guy.[8] In short, determine what the beggar really needs, and offer non-monetary help. His answer will tell you whether he's genuine or whether he's scamming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why the approach is "excellent". Somebody asks me for money, giving a (possibly spurious) reason for needing it. I have a choice as to whether I give them money; they have the choice as to how to spend it. Let's assume I give them some money. End of story as far as I'm concerned. They spend it on booze instead of a bus ticket. So what? I don't have the money any more whether they've spent it on a bus ticket, a bottle of Buckfast, a taxi fare or a wrap of heroin. My employer gives me money (reluctantly) every month; I don't expect them to have any say as to how I spend it. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The OP asked how to tell if it's a scam. StuRat and I propose a way to do that. If you don't care whether you're being scammed or not, obviously you won't use that approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well obviously you can't tell whether a scam is a scam – that's diagnostic of a scam (very few scammers will prefix their spiel with "this is a scam", though I did once see a guy begging here with a sign saying "please give me money for beer"). Your post however seems to editorialise as to whether a response is appropriate or not. Happy New Year, by the way. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, my editorial responded to your editorial. The point being that if you want to, there are ways to get at least some indication of whether someone's scamming you vs. being sincere. Trying to determine what percentage of panhandlers are sincere would be a pretty tall order. But you are always free to give your money away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tony, I don't think you understand the motivation of people who give money. Almost universally, they are only willing to do so if they think it will improve the lives of others. So, giving money to somebody who will use it to feed his kids is something they might be willing to do, while giving money to somebody so he can get drunk and go home and beat his kids is definitely not something they would be willing to do. So, then, the problem is to distinguish between these two cases. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience, these people are mostly semi-genuine. They don't have a car that has run out of petrol, they don't need to get a train, they haven't lost their Oyster card. But they _do_ need a drink. As one who is occasionally in that situation, I'm generally happy to oblige them. ;) Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally people will assume the worst. Having been in the situation of needing to legitimately ask for money, it's good to know that not everyone is a cynic (a drink would have been nice, though). Hack (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When I was working in Manchester, UK, an old guy came up to me at the station and asked for money to get the bus home. I gave him the exact amount for the bus ticket. The following day, the same guy targeted me again, and he stunk of beer, saying he didn't have the money for his bus home. I told him, "You shouldn't have spent all your money on beer, then, should you?" at which point he got aggressive (not a good idea when you are begging). I calmly pointed at two police officers standing nearby and said, "Do you want to ask them for help, or shall I?" He got the message. Never saw him again. My usual approach is to say, "Sorry, I only carry plastic." (which is true - I hardly ever carry cash) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There used to be guy who stood at the corner of Christopher Street and Greenwich Avenue, saying he needed money for pot. I gave him a $5 the first time, and nothing any time thereafter. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The scam here is that they ask you for money, wait for you to open your purse, then do a snatch-and-run on your wallet, phone, or anything else valuable they can get their hands on. --NellieBly (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

name of the book and author

The author of this book is a Canadian of Yemenite Jewry background. I am trying to find her book which has the word "world". Also, the book is about Mizrahi characters like one is a police officer and the other is a military officer. The author surname starts Tza or Tsa. I forgot her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.174 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ayelet Tsabari. It's "earth" not "world". --Viennese Waltz 16:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

looking for a book on "thought friends" from around 1970

One of my friends remembers reading a book thirty or forty years ago, that we'd both like to recover. Neither of us has been able to find any trace of it online though. He remembers the title as something like "Learning to Love Yourself; A Guide to Personal Development". I'm almost positive that title is wrong though -- perhaps it was a chapter title. He says the book was written by a man -- a psychologist -- and that it was published by "UCLA Press". Since there is no UCLA Press, I think he actually means University of California Press or University College London Press. I've already contacted the California press, and they told me that they don't have any books resembling it.

The book was apparently about "thought friends" something like imaginary friends for adults, presumably from a psychological perspective. The author's own thought friend was named "Jenney". And my friend is pretty sure that's correct, because he remembers the unusual spelling.

His copy was apparently a paperback, published around 1970.

Does anyone know it, or know how I might find it without the author's name or the title? 67.142.167.25 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I tracked a reference down, but the site is blacklisted for Wikipedia (try community dot tulpa dot info). According to the forum, the book is indeed called Learning to Love Yourself : A Guide to Personal Development, and is indeed published by UCLA Press. Jenney is mentioned twice.

We have an article on tulpa.

Cheers to you and all your friends, imaginary and otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Roald Dahl

This (fascinating) biography of Roald Dahl refers to stories that were "viciously pornographic" and some that were:

"filled with caricatures of greedy Jews. One suggests " a little pawnbroker in Housditch called Meatbein who, when the wailing started, would rush downstairs to the large safe in which he kept his money, open it and wriggle inside on to the lowest shelf where he lay like a hibernating hedgehog until the all-clear had gone."

Could someone link to or identify one of these stories?

Also, I am interested in reading his "vicious attack on his peers in the field of children's literature requested by the New York Times" if possible.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.160.26 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 8

a Language of mixed languages

Someone from Pakistan told me that Hindko language is a mixture of Pashto and Punjabi. Is this true and is there any other languages that are a mixture of two or more languages? Oh...he also said that Saraiki language is a mixture of Punjabi and Sindhi. Is this also true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.174 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Our articles Hindko and Saraiki describe each as a dialect of Punjabi.. Hindko makes no mention of Pashto, but Saraiki is also considered a dialect of Sindhi within Sindh province. There are no references given for that though. In general, a language that arises as a meld of two other languages is a Pidgin, and may develop into a Creole. Rojomoke (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanglish is one example. Note that such languages are typically not official, but more like slang. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Maltese language should be another example. It is even an official EU language. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There's also Maltenglish, a hybrid of the 2nd degree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This probably isn't exactly what you mean, but the origins of English are pretty much an equal mix of French, German and Latin, with minor contributions from other languages. See Foreign language influences in English (not our best written article, but it's clear enough). Equisetum (talk | contributions) 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A language that develops from two or more languages is called a Creole language. They usually start out as a Pidgin language.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 16:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, Sarah Grey Thomason, Terrence Kaufman, is the standard text on this issue. (Google eBook) A language's genetic classification is based on its morphology (noun and verb inflections) and its core vocabulary. English is not a mixed language on this basis. Its noun and verb morphology is purely Germanic (-s, -ed, -en, -ing), and its core vocabulary [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists} almost entirely native Germanic save for animal, forest, fruit, mountain, river, push, and because. (Some words like sky are borrowed from Norse.) English obviously does have a large borrowed non-core vocabulary. This is not at all untypical. Thomason and Kauffman spend a third of their book examining and abandonning the creolization theory of Middle English. Creoles, in which a population adopts a non-genetically related core vocabulary, and reanalyzed the morphology, are quite rare. Even then, the core vocabulary is largely from a single source. For example, Haitian Creole has a largely French vocabulary, although its morphology can't be described as flowing from French. There are rare cases like Mednyj Aleut where Aleutian speakers borrowed the Russian verb endings and added them to Aleut verbs. Cases like these are rare, and their analysis a subject of great interest and debate. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• There are also dialect chains, where geographical central locations will have speech forms that can sometimes be interpreted as intermediate between to standard languages. For example, the Catalan language seems to lie subjectively between French and Castilian to someone who speaks the "official" languages. The same for the Rusyn language, which Slovak speakers will say sounds Ukrainian, while Ukraines will say it sounds Slovak. But these "intermediate" languages are not blendings. They have their own unique aspects that do not originate in the languages that surround them. The notion that they are mixed is a social and political artifact, not a linguistic one. Someone once said a "language" is a dialect with an army. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WHAAOE. A language is a dialect with an army and navy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of definitions, I've just read this definition of language: A non-obligate, mutualistic, endo-symbiont. (Naturally, one had long suspected this to be the case, but lacked the intestinal fortitude to come right out and say it.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

70.53.231.174 -- You can see Papiamento for a language which looks "mixed" to those who know several European languages. However, modern linguists generally do not use the term "mixed language". During the 19th century and early 20th century, the phrase "mixed language" was thrown around with a number of possible meanings, but most of them were found not to exist in the real world (except for somewhat limited and artificial constructs such as Russenorsk) and/or not to be useful in linguistic discussions. Therefore "mixed language" has no standard meaning in modern linguistics... AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Family Name - Vald(h)aris

Hi,

I would like to know about family name "Valdharis". Some write as "Valdaris". Please throw more light on this Family name, like its origin, its representation, its meaning...

Thanks A.C.Annadurai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.200.93 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I removed your email from the post, since it's against the policy and it's a generally bad idea to post your email so openly on the internet. If someone has an answer to your quetion, they will post it here.129.178.88.81 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.200.93 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• The only name I came up with under Valdaris located to Tamil Nadu, India. There were many hits suggesting Valderas, a town in Spain, as an alternative. There are also the possibilities of a name in Greek or Lithuanian, both of which have last names in -is. Some more clues, like country of origin, would help.

Yes I agree, I see a lot in India. When I tried searching for its origin, I couldn't find about it anywhere. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.200.93 (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am also trying to find, which spelling is correct. Valdaris? or Valdharis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.200.93 (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Whichever way a person or family spells their own name is the correct spelling. RNealK (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Affluence of urban vs rural areas

In general, in developed countries, which have more affluent people? Cities or countryside? Why is this? Does it also depend on the country and area?Clover345 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

By "more affluent people", do you mean "richer people" (presumably averaged per head) or "a larger number or proportion of rich people"? Both types of area will of course have some rich and some poor people. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Traditionally the cities were richer. Some reasons:

1) If you run any type of business which depends on customers, there are more potential customers per unit area in a city, so you can, in theory, make more money there. Of course, there might also be more competition, so this potential isn't always realized. To take one example, say you are a house painter, then you have to travel many miles between customers and suppliers in the country, which means you would have to charge more just to break even.

2) Wealthy individuals often move to the city, for the better facilities there. For example: running water & sewers, electricity, hospitals, restaurants, etc.

3) Housing prices can be higher in more densely populated areas, keeping poor people out.

However, a trend has also been observed where more people flock to the city than can be absorbed by it, leading to unemployment and slums. And poverty in the city is often worse than rural poverty, as the possibilities to hunt or gather your own food, build your own shelter, etc., are more limited in the city. StuRat (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of a developed country where a truly rural region is the most affluent part of the country. This is apart from the occasional wealthy resort enclave such as Nantucket. In rural areas, there are few of the career, educational, and networking amenities that affluent people use to maintain their wealth and ensure its generational continuity. If you want to include wealthy resort communities where few people live year-round, you might find some rural locations with median incomes above a country's most vibrant urban areas. However, apart from these, it is hard to think of a rural area more affluent than Manhattan or San Francisco in the United States; than London in Britain; than Paris in France; than Hamburg or Munich in Germany; than Milan in Italy; and so on. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Some plantations might count as wealthy areas, provided you exclude the slave/migrant/native workers from the figures. (And if those exploited workers live elsewhere, that might well be the case.) StuRat (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In 1980 - 81 I was employed as a research assistant at Wolverhampton Polytechnic, to test a theory that people moved from the inner city to suburbs to rural areas as they became more financially stable and amassed more wealth. Unfortunately for this project, Thatcherism muddied the waters and it was not possible to complete the study. To address Marco Polo's point above, London is huge and certainly not homogeneous. Areas in London such as Bethnal Green are appallingly poor, and some such as Kensington and Chelsea are stinkingly rich. However, large swathes of the Home Counties are also stinkingly rich - at least the people who live there are. And some counties such as Warwickshire contain the richest in the country. --TammyMoet (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The prevalence of minorities in urban slums dates back a long way, yet there is a big component of white flight, driven in large part in the U.S. by Brown v. Board of Education, which put an end to segregated education and in large part left many affluent families feeling that they had a choice between (usually religious) private schools or departing the city, because they felt the curriculum had been reduced to a less-educated level of the lower class. (I remember one Russian immigrant telling me that the city school expected his child to read and discuss only four books in a year of English class, that magnet schools were determined by lottery, and that he had no other option)

In addition there are other factors worth considering - the combination of the rise of gangs due to the War on Drugs and the corresponding CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US conspiracy really threw a lot of urban minority neighborhoods to the wolves. The danger was so severe that people stayed far, far away, with a murder rate double what it is now (and the U.S. is very high relative to many countries still).

When we look back even further though, there was quite deliberate planning for deurbanization going all the way back to the discovery of the atom bomb and the Eisenhower Administration's intense program of building expressways. I think there must have been some elite opinion that saw cities as being sacrifice zones to a potential nuclear war from which the best and brightest needed to be extricated. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's true that in the United States, suburban areas can be more affluent than their central cities. (Though this is decreasingly true in the most affluent urban areas, such as New York and San Francisco.) However, suburbs are not rural.

I have some familiarity with England, and I don't think the Home Counties generally count as rural, except from the parts farthest from London. Certainly no part of Surrey is truly rural. They are what in American terms would be considered suburban or exurban. There is regular commuter rail service from most parts of the Home Counties to London, and while there are bits of residual agriculture, the vast bulk of the population depends on urban social infrastructure and employment. As for London, while Bethnal Green is impoverished by London standards, I suspect median household income is still higher than in the most rural parts of Britain. This map mostly confirms my point. The lowest incomes are in North Wales, though some deindustrialized urban areas in northern England have median incomes nearly as low. Certainly not all urban areas are affluent. However, the areas with the highest median incomes are in London, and no other part of the country comes close. Note that the map does not give data for Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster-South, which would almost certainly have median incomes an order of magnitude above the others shown. One almost wonders whether the ONS suppressed the data at the behest of the Conservative government because of the outrage it might unleash. Marco polo (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be interesting to compare wealth rather than income. In many countries house prices make it very hard for normal wage households to buy a house. In some rural areas, there are no rental apartments. In these areas, every household owns a house and probably a car, whereas rentals are the norm in urban areas, using most of the wages to pay the rent. One needs substantially lower a income if one already owns the house. Unfortunately, whereas income statistics is easy to come by, wealth statistics is difficult to come by, especially if one goes back 15 years or more, and difficult to compare between countries. These measures will give very different inequality measures, as seen by comparing : List_of_countries_by_income_equality and List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth DanielDemaret (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• The median household income of Bucks County, PA, (think Shyamalan's Signs) is $59,000 The Median Philly income is $40,000. Most US cities have a large poor population and a small rich enclave or three. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

January 9

English roofing materials

I've noticed that many traditional cottage-style houses in England have a smooth or near-smooth roof. What is this material? You can see examples here and here. I am aware of thatched roofs but I thought they looked like this? --TKK! bark with me! 03:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

They're all thatched. The second example is taken in shadow, which might make the roof look as though it has some sort of tar added (it hasn't). The English examples are well made and weathered. The final example is a little more amateurish and it looks (to me, at least) as though its been patched up, with the addition of chicken-wire and a clay (?) ridge-line, rather than re-thatched. A bit of a bodge job! --86.183.79.28 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. See our Thatching article. It's generally made of reed in the east of England or wheat straw in the west. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The last example is in Spain, not England, and they will certainly use different varieties of reeds giving a different appearance, and probably different techniques. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently thatching in Spain is done with broom - see Thatching with Green Broom in Spain. The result looks rather scruffy to my eye, but to each their own. Alansplodge (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a name for this musical technique?

If you would, listen to a few bars of System of a Down's "Science" starting about 12 seconds is. Is there a name for this sort of rythymic punctuation (DAAA-da-da-da-da-da-da)? I mean, from a composing standpoint, not playing (i.e. palm-muting). Pops up a lot in thrash metal, but that article's not helping (me, anyway).

Figured this is a better question for Humanities (art) than Entertainment, but if I could tack on a Science follow-up, is there any known psychological reason this sort of phrasing sounds "intense" (or whatever you call it), while swing music "feels" swingy and The Rolling Stones seem to "rock"? If there's a relevant field of study, just naming it will suffice. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

It's not quite an ostinato, but that's a similar concept, I think. Music psychology might be a good starting point for your follow-up question. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I found this guitar how-to video, [9], but guy just calls it a "metal strumming pattern". You might find some info in "The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal" [10]. Here's someone's academic dissertation titled "Characteristics of Heavy Metal Chord Structures" [11], which seems pretty interesting, but doesn't have much about riffs or phrasing.

But really, I think the best you'll get is a phrase to describe this phrasing. Our own Heavy_metal_music#Rhythm_and_tempo says "The rhythm in metal songs is emphatic, with deliberate stresses... the main groove is characterized by short, two-note or three-note rhythmic figures—generally made up of 8th or 16th notes. These rhythmic figures are usually performed with a staccato attack created by using a palm-muted technique on the rhythm guitar." -- To my understanding, that describes the 12-20 second mark of the linked song pretty well. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also occasionally seen people use terms for metrical verse to describe song patterns. See Foot_(prosody). In this case, we'd have something like a "primus paeon tetrabrach", but I wouldn't expect many people to know what that means either (though it might make a decent name for a metal band ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good answers and links, thanks all. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Semikhah: The authority from God of a teacher to judge and do much more

I am a Christian Pentecostal Minister; the more I study the scripture and Biblical things the more ignorant I find I am. Recently, I studied my belief that Jesus was in fact a Jewish Rabbi; in that study, I discovered the basics of the Semikhah passed from Moses to Aaron and the preists, and I would like to know more. I have read the Wikipedia articles on the subject. Is there some additional and more complete information on the authority from God Semikhah that is the one from God not a mere degree / graduation from a college? I do not speak or read Hebrew, but am so interested! Any and every detail is most important to me!

In the same study exploring the possibility of Jesus being a Rabbi, I discovered the amazing life of study one must undertake to become an ordained Rabbi. How does one study to be a Rabbi today? Since the relationship between student Rabbi and teacher Rabbi is so important with an eye toward the Semikhah, is there a commitment / covenant of some sort between the student and teacher?

Is there any evidence to support the idea that Jesus had to be a Rabbi and have Semikhah.

Why would Semikhah be passed from teacher Rabbi with Semikhah to student Rabbi making the student dependant on a man rather than on God alone?

Like the one asking for the following article, I too am interested in the mechanism of Semikhah.

I would most appreciate cited (if possible) authoritative information from a Rabbi with Semikhah from anywhere in the world, but I am happy to hear from any ordained Rabbi. Drpastor (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For others who are not familiar with the term: Semikhah. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm much of an expert, but as I understand it there is no particular relationship between being an Aaronitic priest (see Kohen) and being a Rabbi. One is based largely on descend, the other on teaching and instruction. Rabbinic Judaism developed as a reaction to the destruction of the Second Temple and the Jewish diaspora, when the duties of the classical priesthood could no longer be performed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Drpastor -- I'm not sure that there was much of a formal institution of Rabbinic ordination during Jesus' lifetime. The official leaders of the Jewish community in Judea at that time were the high-ranking priestly families who had control over the Jerusalem Temple. Others had no authority in the temple, and were basically unofficial (though sometimes very influential among the Jewish population). Jesus was well-known and well-respected enough in his local area to be called up in the synagogue to read from a scroll of Isaiah, but probably did not have any formal position as we would understand it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In the US, what's the usual way a child would address a cousin of a parent?

I understand that a cousin of parent is technically a second cousin, once removed. Regardless of technical correctness, what's the usual/customary way a child in the US would address a cousin of a parent of his/hers? Are there regional variations? --173.49.17.218 (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Either Cousin Bob or Bob, and Cousin Marie or Marie. (In my family, Cousin Bob is the only such relative I address regularly, and while I call him Bob to his face, he is called Cousin Bob amongst me and my immediate family when he's not present. Very much like "Our Bob" I'd imagine in Britain.) My parents addressed them by first name, and introduced them to us as Cousin Fist Name. I haven't had the occasion, but am quite sure that if I were introducing my nephews to my cousins I would say "This is Cousin Ed, Cousin Karen, Cousin Rich..." There would be no pressure for them to use the honorific. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Our Bob" is indeed a Britishism, but it's a particularly regional and colloquial one. I have never heard it used in real life; I've only encountered it in fiction. (Though I'm sure it turns up in plenty of non-fictional sources too.) "Cousin Bob" reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger's character being dubbed (and at one point referred to slightly sarcastically) "Uncle Bob" in the movie Terminator 2. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Our X" is very common in parts of Northern England as a way of referring to someone who is, in some unspecified way, part of the family. I hear it used regularly where I live. "Our Bob" may be cousin (in some degree), son, grandson, brother, uncle, in-law or step-relative. He may even be the dog. It can be a way of referring to others or a form of direct address - "Hello, our Bob, how are you?". A Geordie speaker may both address and refer to his girlfriend or wife as "wor lass" (literally "our girl"), and his mother as "wor mam". - Karenjc (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't realize until I was at university that when most whites say "My cousin" they mean "My first cousin" by default. In black parlance, I never assume that when introduced to someone's "cousin" that means "first cousin". Whites often actually say "My Mom's cousin" when speaking of a first cousin-once-removed. I've never heard an African American use that locution. In fact, I'd probably be a little offended if a younger relative introduced me that way. In black American culture, I think that if someone isn't an ancestor, uncle or aunt but is known to share blood, they are a "cousin" and introduced as such, regardless of specific degree of kinship. Often, however, I do hear black folks refer to or intro someone as "My first cousin", "her third cousin", etc when that relationship is known -- but "removed cousin" is never used: a "first cousin-once-removed" is a "second cousin" and everyone gets moved back a degree accordingly, so when a "third cousin" is mentioned what is invariably meant is a second cousin or first cousin-twice-removed. "Cousin" is used when speaking of, not to someone. By contrast, especially but not exclusively in the U.S. South, uncle and aunt are very often used as prefixes to the Christian name: I would never speak to one of my blood aunts without it -- but I do refer to one of my 4 aunts-in-law without prefix, she being closer to my age than to my uncle's. When she first married Uncle Bill she introduced me as "my husband's nephew" until she noticed that it put me off (BTW, "aunt" is usually pronounced to rhyme with "taunt" among blacks outside the South, but in the South, it rhymes with "ain't" or, affectionately, "Aintee". "Ant" seems to be mostly pronounced by black Americans who speak a white dialect). PlayCuz (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• By "aunts-in-law" you mean aunts by marriages rather than actual in-laws (aunts of your wife)? If so, it seems that I am about to get into a similar situation. I still refer to my ex-aunt as Aunt [Name], even though I think rather poorly of her (as do her children, fwtw) to say the least. Surtsicna (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a (first) cousin of your parent, to you, is a first cousin once removed. Regardless, the polite way I've usually heard (in my family at least) is "aunt" or "uncle". Even though that's not technically correct, they are in the same generation as my parents, aunts and uncles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A child of your parent's first cousin would be a second cousin, to you. And a child of that child would be a second cousin once removed, to you (and vice versa). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In some contemporary Australian Aboriginal cultures, a cousin is a non-immediate relative who is a of similar age and an uncle/aunt is an older non-immediate relative, regardless of actual relationship. Hack (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To confuse matters further, "uncle" and "aunt[ie]" are (or were) often used in the UK to refer to adults who are close friends of the family but not blood-related. In particular (though not exclusively) "Uncle X" could be a euphemism for a (divorced/separated/widowed) mother's lover. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This will vary within the United States by regional, class, and ethnic background. I am white, of western European origin, and all of my great grandparents were born in the United States, as were most of their grandparents (so not much European ethnic culture remains). I come from a middle class background, and both of my parents, like me, grew up in the Northeast (though my mother's parents were from Missouri and Texas). Now, in my family, on both sides, it is normal for cousins, including parents' cousins, to address one another simply by first name, even if there is a significant age difference. We recognize that we have a family relationship, but we don't put titles in front of one another's names. In my family, cousins of any degree are treated much like siblings. On the other hand, aunts and uncles, as well as parents' aunts and uncles (great aunts and great uncles), are addressed as "Aunt So-and-so" or "Uncle So-and-so". Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree with MP that while cousins of any type are referred to as "Cousin First-Name" but addressed simply by their first name, Aunts and Uncles are both referred to and addressed as Aunt First-Name or Uncle First-Name. This seems to arise from a four-way distinction of respect. Mom & Dad and Grandmothers & Grandfathers have titles and names are not used. Aunts & Uncles have names and titles, and both are used. Cousins are identified as family, but the title is only used in reference, not address. Note there are also elders who merit respect, but who are not blood relatives, yet merit the title of Aunt or Uncle. My favorite Aunt, Aunt Dorothy, is no relation, being my mother's best friend's sister-in-law. But she is and speaks Ruthenian like us, and went to the church where I was baptized, so she's an "Aunt". μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to all the usual idiosyncrasies you find in families, I would think age and age difference are going to play a large role. Between adoptions, remarriages, etc. it's not at all uncommon for your aunt or uncle to be the same age or younger than you. Being roughly part of the same generation, it wouldn't make much sense to address them with "Aunt X" or "Uncle X"; those titles are deferential and would be out of place when addressing someone of the same age. Continuing on to second cousins and removals and so on, I think the age gap is going to trump any technical division. If my second cousin once removed is ten years older than me, I would probably call him/her by Uncle/Aunt, depending on how formal and familiar our relationship is. If we were of the same generation, I would probably only call them by their name, with the "cousin" bit only added during introductions to establish our relationship. Matt Deres (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had a centenarian first cousin, twice-removed (my father's father's cousin) who was about 70 years my senior, and who married into a rich industrial family. She was only ever "Aunt Eleanor" to anyone, including my grandfather. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Medeis's family refer to cousins in the third person as Cousin So-and-so, but my family doesn't do this, and I've never known anyone whose family did. So maybe that usage is current in a region and/or class other than my own. I've heard of that usage before, and to my ears it sounds vaguely southern. In my family, even a third-person reference to a cousin would be simply to "So-and-so" or maybe "Aunt/Uncle Such-and-such's son/daughter, So-and-so" if needed for clarity. Marco polo (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not the first person to have said that things I say sound vaguely Southern. A US Midlands accent sounds vaguely Southern to anyone with a northern accent--although I am not sure where you grew up. In any case, I have tons (dozens) of cousins, one of whom has the same first name I do. My father's father has three younger relatives of the same name. I have a cousin and two aunts on his side with the same given name. My mother's father has four younger relatives of the same name, so, five including him. That makes X, two uncle X'es, my cousin "X" or "little X" as he is called, and my sister X. And that doesn't even include my mother's cousins, uncles and grandparents. So a normal conversation will start out with the cousin referred to by title in the first instance, and then by the first name after. I would never address one of them as cousin or cousin X, however. Only by first name. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

United States Statutes at Large

I'm just a little confused about the first Statute at Large, which is An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths. It shows that it is statute 23. My question is: what were the statutes before this? How come it starts at Statute 23 if this was the first law ever passed by the U.S. Congress? The article doesn't really explain unfortunately!

Many thanks. - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The way I read it, it's Statute 1, but is on page 23 of the cited reference.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is a standard citation format that is used for the Statute at Large: 110 Stat. 3035 refers to Volume 10, page 3035.[13] Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 is correct: The statute has its citation because it begins on page 23 of volume 1, United States Statutes at Large. Pages 1 through 22 contained the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and amendments to the Constitution. John M Baker (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Secure sites

I've always thought that secure or controlled areas with checkpoints should check everyone including security who work on the checkpoint (by other security staff who don't work with them) and even law enforcement. This could be in the airside area of an airport, a military base or even a major sports stadium etc. However, I've heard of and even seen security or law enforcement personnel walk straight through such checkpoints? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a checkpoint? Clover345 (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Matt Deres (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because these people have gone through a completely different set of checks, which are presumed to be more reliable than a bag-content search. --Lgriot (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed members of such organisations should indeed have been security-checked as part of their employment, but unless the checkpoint actually checks a uniformed individual's (provably authentic) ID, how can it know that he/she is not an imposter? – it's not beyond the wit of malefactors to disguise themselves.

Of course, it's possible that the "strollers through" Clover 345 saw were personally known to and recognised by the checkpoint staff. I myself have worked in controlled environments where this was tolerated. However more stringent security regimes would not permit this: a friend of mine who is a long-serving security industry employee was required by one employer (IBM) always to demand the requisite ID, even if the individual was well known to him as a senior IBM employee on his site. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.105} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Middle initials

Is there a reason that Americans (and other nationalities perhaps) include their middle initial when stating their names? For instance, the names of those killed in the Pave Hawk crash in Norfolk have been released as "Christopher S Stover", "Sean M Ruane", "Dale E Mathews" and "Afton M Ponce". I don't imagine it's to distinguish Afton Ponce from any other Afton Ponce, and it seems commonplace. It's certainly not something we usually do in the UK, in fact that report and the BBC report remove the middle initials in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd always thought that it was because of the greater prevalence of inherited first names in some areas of the USA. Quoting full middle initials as the norm avoided confusion (see George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for example). Blakk and ekka 14:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I think it is to help distinguish people with the same first and last name. Maybe this is because the United States has a larger population, so such pairs are more likely to occur? I have a common first name but a less common surname. Even so, there is a person (without any known relation to me) in my professional field who shares both names. I am careful to use my middle initial so that I won't be confused with that person (who fortunately has a different middle initial). Including a middle initial is conventional in the United States (though not done in every instance), so even a person with an uncommon first name like "Afton" might be listed with a middle initial to follow the pattern. Marco polo (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The elder Bush was never known by his middle initials H W until his son George W became a public figure. It was always just plain George Bush. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any authoritative answer, I have always supposed that it is purely a matter of fashion. I observe that I have never encountered a reference to John Q. Adams, which suggests to me that the fashion appeared after his time, but that conclusion may not be warranted. -- ColinFine (talk · contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2014‎

I'm not sure who you are, but I think you are right that the middle initial is essentially a matter of cultural preference or fashion (though it is understood as a means to distinguish among people with similar names). I suspect that its origins are in the second half of the 19th Century. Actually, its popularity in the United States may be due to military practice, per this source. Americans do not generally introduce themselves with their middle initial. That is, we say, "Hi, I'm Jarvis" or "Hi, I'm Jarvis Smith", not "Hi, I'm Jarvis Q. Smith." The middle initial occurs mainly in writing and especially in military sources such as the one cited in the original question. Marco polo (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly the way that US Presidents are recorded - everybody knows about John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon but I have no idea what Tony Blair or David Cameron has as a middle initial. A previous thread from 2009 - Presidential Middle Names - brought up the exception of Winston Churchill whose books were always published under the name of Winston S. Churchill after an agreement with the other Winston Churchill, who was in print under that name first. Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not only is there the famous three-named-assassin trope, obviously meant to avoid naming an innocent person as a murderer, there's also the fact of surname extinction. I am certain I have read that there are far fewer distinct individual English-origin surnames in the US, than in Britain, although I couldn't find a source with a quick google. In my own life, I have personally known or known of three people with the name Chris Lee. That doesn't include Saruman, the NY Politician, or any of the other famous Chris Lees on this list. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But there are probably tens of thousands of John Smiths in the UK, but I seldom, if ever, hear of British people feeling the obligation to disambiguate themselves from other John Smiths by placing their middle initial in their name in formal address. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it's because U.S. natives usually only have two names, referred to as first name or (Christian name) and middle name, whereas Britons often seem to have several names in addition to their surname, one of which they (or their parents) use for short, but none of which is considered their "first name" by default and the others aren't considered "middle" names. Therefore it makes no sense to list the initial of one and not all, so all but the preferred one is dropped. U.S. Americans normally only have two names, and the one listed first is almost always the name primarily used (discounting nicknames). Since we only have one "middle name" it is common (though not prevalent) to allude to it. Traditiionally, women who assume their husband's surname usually thereafter drop their own middle name and substitute their birth surname for their middle name. PlayCuz (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • That's pretty common, though there are exceptions. One of my favorites is a 1950s-60s pitcher named Calvin Coolidge Julius Caesar Tuskahoma McLish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're right about Britons having several middle names. It may be the thing amongst the aristocracy, but more than one middle name would be seen as a bit pretentious for us plebs. Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh goodie. When I changed my name formally a few years ago, I ditched my existing middle name and chose 2 new ones instead. I always knew there was blue blood in there somewhere.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What! You mean to say that your middle name isn't "Of"? Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No. My real user name is Jack d'Oz but I've anglicised it for the benefit of you plebs. I have not exvulged my inner names.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Alan, the vast majority of the people I know (myself included) have just a single middle name. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing word in Mary Darby Robinson's poem "Male Fashions for 1799"

In Mary Darby Robinson's poem Male Fashions for 1799, can anyone identify what the word is in the third stanza which is written as "G-----"? I wondered whether it might be "German", but if so I couldn't see any reason for it not being written in full. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"German" doesn't really make sense in that context. I think it is more likely to be "Gentle" -- "Gentle race" = women. This sort of pseudo-redaction was common in prose and poetry at the time. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I like that idea. I'll be reading the poem aloud so if there's no documentary evidence, I'll just have to substitute something that makes sense. "Gentle race" seems a very likely candidate in the context. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it, any ideas about the second line? Was a "whisper" some form of clothing? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Texts of that particular turn-of-the-century era (of which this is a stunning example I am grateful to OpenToppedBus for bringing to my attention) usually would employ that convention as a substitute for an obvious obscenity; therefore I think the missing word should be goddamned. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Such missing words are common at this time, often they are names "Mr R.... B...." etc. This seems to be a deliberate parody of that convention. I doubt it's intended to be anything as harsh as 'godammed'. It seemingly does refer to women, so "gentle" seems likely. Perhaps its a joke that it's supposed to be a "secret" that the men are trying to impress women. However, the contrast with the "million" in the next line, seems to suggest it's referring to the genteel class. Whispers = "whiskers". That is a long beard like Moses. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, come to think of it it could be "gallant", which meant a man of fashion. Paul B (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It may not necessarily mean women. I saw it in contrast to "French" in the preceding line, since most in her literate circle would have known the French called the English "goddams"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I find that rather strained. Is there evidence of that for 1799? The sentence is "Worn the G----- race to please, but laugh'd at by the million." The French postillion is in the previous sentence. Paul B (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK got looking for refs. An 1826 song book has a song called "The Fashions" with nearly the same lines with a few slight variations, said to be sung to the tune of "Yankee Doodle" and in place of the mysterious word it has "lofty"... [14] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also most versions of Robinson's original poem I could find have "lofty" for "G___" and "whiskers" for "whispers", etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that it was first published in the Morning Post and Gazetteer in 1799 and then she slightly revised the text in a later edition from 1806. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also found an account of her writing it as a "companion" to another poem in her biography here: [15] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a female fashions poem that goes with it. They can both be read in editions of her works which can be accessed via the Internet Archive [16]. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if "Whispers like Jew Moses" shouldn't be read quite literally. The overt subject of the poem is clothing. Most tailors of that period were Jews, and even in the most enlightened societies there was always an undercurrent of toleration of Jews rather than outright social acceptance. So this line could be referring to the male fashion of having a personal disregard for the Jewish tailors whose services they had little choice but avail themselves of, and taking every opportunity to note the fact of their Jewishness. In this light, the G word could well be Gentile.

See also this from her memoirs:

• About this period I observed that Mr. Robinson had frequent visitors of the Jewish tribe; that he was often closeted with them, and that some secret negotiation was going forward to which I was a total stranger. Among others, Mr. King was a constant visitor; indeed he had often been with my husband on private business ever since the period of our marriage. I questioned Mr. Robinson upon the subject of these strange and repeated interviews. He assured me that the persons I had seen came merely upon law business, and that in his profession it was necessary to be civil to all ranks of people. [Page 81] Whenever I urged a farther explanation he assumed a tone of displeasure, and requested me not to meddle with his professional occupations. I desisted; and the parlour of our house was almost as much frequented by Jews as though it had been their synagogue. …Mr. Robinson's mornings were devoted to his bearded friends, his evenings to his fashionable associates.
• A short time after Mr. Robinson was arrested. Now came my hour of trial. He was conveyed to the house of a sheriff's officer, and in a few days detainers were lodged against him to the amount of twelve hundred pounds, chiefly the arrears of annuities and other demands from Jew creditors;

But then I discovered this in my search. The poem quoted here has 11 stanzas, compared to 8 in the OP's link. Also, where the OP's version has "Worn the G----- race to please", this one reads "Meant the lofty race to please". The plot thickens. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The word "whispers" was just a common variant of "whiskers". I think this interpretation is far far too convoluted. It's a comic squib. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's "lofty race", that was sometimes applied to the gigantes of Greek myth whom it was fashionable to compare to the contemporary nobility so then the "G word" might be "giant"...? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I still think it's "Gentle", but meaning the aristocracy -- the gentlemen, in the old sense of the word. Looie496 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is the anecdote about "only 3 faithful women" attributed to?

I remember an anecdote, possibly about a French poet or philosopher, (at least 19th century or much older), where on a royal banquet he once happened to say to a friend, that women are so unfaithful, he thinks there are not more than 3 faithful women in the whole country. To his misfortune, the queen overheard it, and asked who those three women are. He was in trouble, as there were more than 3 women (and/or more than 3 husbands) around, from the highest aristocracy, and naming any 3 would upset the rest. So he said "those three are your Majesty, my wife, and the third one I won't tell".

Who was this person, and what is the exact wording of the anecdote/story? Maybe he wasn't French, but he was 100% in a European court. --5.15.56.226 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Long term Relationships

People often complain or moan about the opposite gender and long term relationships so why do humans still desire it? Is there a specific human need that only a long term relationship with the opposite gender can fulfil? Do any animals form long term relationships? Clover345 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Famously, swans (see Swan and [17]). Pair bond and affectional bond, with their associated "see also" links might also be of interest. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Some animal species form "harems", while others mate one-on-one for life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that long term relationships among humans are not always with the opposite gender. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes and same-sex relationships also have their share of arguments, fights, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a direct answer to your question, but I think an alternative approach might shed some light on it. Try reversing the question: People desire long term relationships and contact with the opposite gender (or attractive individuals of the same gender), so why do humans often complain about them? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

People most often complain about something they care about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Major Parties in each Caribbean and Europe nation

Who are the major parties in the Anglophone Caribbean nations, left and right wings and who are the major parties in European nations, left and right wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.174 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

List of social democratic parties. List of conservative parties by country. --Viennese Waltz 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

English noble titles - can someone explain?

I've wondered for a long time how English aristocratic titles and names work (I'm English, by the way, and still don't understand it). For example why is it "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" but "Lord Peter Wimsey" (I'm aware that the latter is a fictional character but why not "Lord Alfred Tennyson" or "Peter, Lord Wimsey"?). Why "Diana, Princess of Wales" rather than "Princess Diana of Wales"? "Princess Michael of Kent" is married to Prince Michael of Kent which almost makes sense, but since her name appears (per WP) to be Marie Christine why is she not simply "Princess Marie of Kent"? And if there's any logic there why (prior to her divorce) was "Diana, Princess of Wales" not "Princess Charles of Wales"?

This stuff appears to matter (in a sense; I seem to recall some controversy about "Diana, Princess of Wales" as opposed to "Princess Diana of Wales" before she died) but is there an idiot's guide out there somewhere? As I say, I'm English and I still have no idea how it works or what "X, Lord Y" as opposed to "Lord X Y" means.

I'm limiting this to English titles as Scottish titles like this are completely beyond me.

Can anyone throw some light on how names such as this are supposed to work? I'd search WP, Debrett's and Burke's Peerage but I have no idea what to start looking for. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lord Peter Wimsey is the son of a duke, and is thus referred to as Lord [Name] [Surname]. His wife would be Lady Peter Wimsey. Alfred, Lord Tennyson is a baron, an actual peer; he is properly referred to as "Lord Tennyson" (with no reference to his first name). His wife was "Lady Tennyson". Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury can be called "the Earl of Shaftesbury", but is much more commonly referred to as "Lord Shaftesbury". So:

1. All peers except for dukes and duchesses can be called and often are called Lord/Lady [Something].
2. Sons of dukes and marquesses are called Lord [Name] [Surname] (Lord Henry Somerset).
3. Daughters-in-law of dukes and marquesses are called Lady [Husband's Name] [Husband's Surname] (Lady Randolph Churchill).
4. Daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls are called Lady [Name] [Surname] (Lady Diana Spencer). Surtsicna (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, "Princess Diana of Wales" would be the title of a daughter of the Prince of Wales. During her marriage, Diana was "the Princess of Wales". She was not "Princess Charles of Wales" because that title would belong to a daughter-in-law of the Prince of Wales. So, you have "the Prince and Princess of Wales". Their daughter is "Princess [Name] of Wales" (like the Duke of York's daughter is Princess Beatrice of York). Their son is "Prince [Name] of Wales" (Prince Henry of Wales). Their daughter-in-law would be "Princess [Husband's Name] of Wales" (Princess William of Wales). Marie-Christine gained the princely title by marrying Prince Michael of Kent; she is thus Princess Michael of Kent.

I really hope this was easy to follow. Not only am I not English, but English is not my first language! Surtsicna (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sir or Madam (your name and userpage give no clue), thanks for that. I'm still not entirely sure about "Princess Michael of Kent" (few are, it seems) but I'll wander off and look at some family trees given your valuable input. Thanks very much. One thing, though – you say Alfred, Lord Tennyson is properly referred to as "Lord Tennyson" (with no reference to his first name) any idea as to why he's always referred to in the UK as "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" rather than just "Lord Tennyson" while we never say (for example) "George, Lord Byron". It's not as though there are another 6 Lord Tennysons who were famous for their poetry so we need to distinguish between them! Your English, by the way, is better than that of many people I meet. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not English, and I don't normally pay attention to this sort of thing, but I was curious to see whether I could follow the explanation. What I'm inferring is that how a person's title is rendered depends entirely on whether the title is inherited (or perhaps bestowed by the monarch) on the one hand, or acquired through marriage on the other. A woman who acquires a title through marriage must bear her husband's name after the title. That's why it's Princess Michael of Kent. A woman who inherits a title (or who is entitled to a title through inheritance) gets to put her own name after the title. Similarly, Diana could not be Princess Diana of Wales, since she is "of Wales" only by marriage. (Though I don't understand why, if a woman can become Princess Michael of Kent by marrying the Prince of Kent, Diana could not be Princess Charles of Wales.) Marco polo (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My speculation as to the difference in convention between "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" and "Lord Byron" (no George) has to to with the nature and timing of their elevation to the peerage. Tennyson received his peerage later in life, it was created for him as a result of his fame as an author, and he was published as merely "Alfred Tennyson" before his elevation. He was already poet laureate under the "Alfred Tennyson" name years before he was given his earldom, which was created specifically for him at age 74. Byron, on the other hand, inherited his peerage at age 10 from his great uncle, William Byron, 5th Baron Byron. Byron was basically already merely "Lord Byron" years before he was ever published. So, while both were "officially" merely "Lord (surname)", we conventionally keep Alfred's name at the front because most of his work was written when he was still merely "Alfred Tennyson". --Jayron32 03:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Marco polo: Princess Michael of Kent is not married to a "Prince of Kent". There is no such title. Her husband is a Prince of the United Kingdom known as "Prince Michael of Kent" because his father was a Duke of Kent. The "of Kent" in their case is somewhat like a family name; Michael's sister was "Princess Alexandra of Kent" until she married and became "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy". On the other hand, the titles of Duke of Kent and Prince of Wales are substantive titles. Their holder are known as "the Duke of Kent" and "the Prince of Wales", never as "Duke Edward of Kent" or "Prince Charles of Wales". Their wives are thus "the Duchess of Kent" and "the Princess of Wales". Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

While Surtsicna's answer is excellent, I would say I was under the impression that Diana was "Princess Charles", in exactly the same same way that the wife of Prince Michael is Princess Michael. In general married women are formally known by their husbands' names and styles, even down to the everyday "Jane Smith" is "Mrs John Smith", and never "Mrs Jane Smith". Of course these rules are hardly ever observed outside the titled ranks these days. Rojomoke (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Diana could only have been Princess Diana had she been descended from a monarch. She was styled HRH Diana, Princess of Wales (though Princess Charles of Wales would not have been incorrect). Hack (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Diana was "Princess Charles", but not "Princess Charles of Wales", much like Charles is "Prince Charles", but not "Prince Charles of Wales". Diana was never "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales"; she went from "HRH The Princess of Wales" (during her marriage) to "Diana, Princess of Wales" (after her divorce). Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's a distinction I hadn't considered. Thanks Surtsicna Rojomoke (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (who is still, despite her marriage to Will, often referred to by her maiden name Kate Middleton) could be "Princess William of Wales"? Why does that title not outrank her Duchess title? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to throw a thought in here, Kate Middleton was a commoner whereas Lady Diana Spencer was of noble descent and therefore carried her own title. I wonder if that has made a difference? Also note that the Queen's other son who is currently married bears the title of the Earl of Wessex, and his wife is never referred to as Princess Edward but Sophie, Duchess of Wessex - and she was also a commoner before marriage. Ah - now I think of it, Princeness is something you are born with as the child of a monarch, whereas the other titles (Duke, Earl, Baron) are conferred by the monarch and therefore is what you are addressed as. (Sorry to think aloud here - I'll have a look for some references in a while, unless someone else wants to in the meantime. Just popped in while having a cuppa.) --TammyMoet (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

All titles (except these days some Barons are inherited, so that's not the distinction. Lady Diana Spencer's title was only a courtesy one (Unlike some European systems only one member of a family has a 'real' title). I don't think that would have affected anything. Rojomoke (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge ... could be "Princess William of Wales"? Why does that title not outrank her Duchess title? I am no expert (though I thought Jack was!) but I think it's because her full title (or is it "style"?) is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge (see announcement here), and similarly for William (and Andrew and Edward, for that matter), to whom a similar question could apply. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Substantive peerages are considered to outrank princely titles (hence why HRH Prince William of Wales became HRH The Duke of Cambridge when he was given the Dukedom of Cambridge). The same principle applies to the wives of peers. Courtesy titles, on the other hand, do not (which is why the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester were HRH Prince Edward of Kent and HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester before succeeding to those titles rather than using the courtesy titles Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster (which their sons, who do not have princely titles, do use)). Proteus (Talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

January 10

another quote request

sorry, I'm continually asking you guys for quotes I vaguely remember - must write them down when i see them in future - this one is from some artist/writer with French/Spanish name who said something along the lines of: those who when they walk among art don't understand they're walking among wild animals are deluded/blind - does that ring any bells? A google search brings Bukowski up, but it's not him - it's someone I'd not heard of before.

Thanks - and apologies

Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A war story

There is an extract given in my English textbook of an unnamed story. In it, the narrator and a character named Natasha Ravenko visit the latter's now destroyed village, where she describes the incidents of 26 april 1986, when a explosion took place in a nearby nuclear reactor. The radiation by the nuclear dust later killed many villagers, including three children in Natasha's family. Most of villagers were dead or forcibly evacuated, so the village was now a ghost town. The extract ends with Natasha and the narrator boarding a bus going to Moscow.

Has anybody read this story? I want to read the full story but as I said I couldn't find the name of the writer, even in the "acknowledgements" section. --Yashowardhani (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The explosion of 26 April 1986 was clearly a reference to the Chernobyl disaster. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There are exactly zero ghits for "Natasha Ravenko". But when I tried "Natasha Revenko", I got this, which doesn't help matters at all, really, other than to suggest that someone's misspelt her surname. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It could be a translation of a story written in any one of the languages used in the region near Chernobyl. That might explain spelling issues since transliteration of Slavic names into the Latin alphabet isn't always uncontroversial (though I suspect that's why you tried Revenko vs. Ravenko). Anyway, I checked the academic databases to which I have access for both possible names in the Latin alphabet, and found exactly nothing. Given the fact that there's nothing in the text to indicate who wrote it, it's always possible it's by one of the editors. And finally, if you don't have an answer from all that... writing the publisher would probably get the answer quickly. Heck, if it's an excerpt of an unpublished work of the editor's, the editor may be so enthused to hear from a student who enjoyed his or her writing that you might just get a copy of the whole story in response. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite possibly Zvezda Chernobyl ("The Star Chernobyl") by Julia Voznesenskaya. Not enough text available online to be totally sure. [18] Thom2002 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I assume your title "A war story" is using the figurative meaning. But, just in case, let me point out that there was no war in the area at the time of the Chernobyl accident, unless you count the Cold War. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

£sd

So, £sd refers to the former system of dividing pounds (£) into shillings (s), and shillings (s) to pence (d), and also for the symbols you used for those values. There was, for a time, also the farthing and halfpenny. Was there an analogous symbol by which the farthing and halfpenny were represented in writing? The line in the article "Halfpennies and farthings (quarter of a penny) were represented by the appropriate symbol after the whole pence." hints at this but unfortunately doesn't satisfy. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

From vague memories, I think that all it means is that the fraction representations, ¼ and ½, were used, so that, for example, three pence and a farthing would be shown as 3¼d. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I concur with that and the example above would be read "threepence farthing". --TammyMoet (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You had to be careful to use actual ¼ ½ rather than the slash 1/2 as this was used to separate pounds, shillings, and pence, for exaple "£3/2/6" would be three pounds two shillings and six pence. "£3/2/-" would be three pounds and two shillings, and "£3/0/6" would be three pounds and six pence. you would add a fraction to these "£3/2/6½", "£3/0/6½" but "£3/2/-½" was often written as "£3/2/½". I remember our teacher insisted that fractions should be written with a horizontal rather than a sloping line too as that made it clearer, but I don't remember if this was standard practice or a teacher's pet foible. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall directly, but we always used a horizontal line for fractions and I'm sure it was always used in printed text too - like this. Alansplodge (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I must have been in about the last generation to learn 'old money' in primary school and I was also taught the horizontal fraction line for exactly this reason, so it was probably more than a foible. The Fraction_(mathematics)#Typographical_variations article touches on this too.Blakk and ekka 15:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly that site has "£3/2/0½" where I remembered "£3/2/½" where there are no (whole) pennies. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I remember, slashes were never (well, hardly ever) used to separate the pounds from the rest: it would be £3 2s ½d, as per the link, not £3/2/½ (possibly with the extra zero for the pence). The slash was only used for amounts under a pound, e.g. 2/6 for half a crown. I can't remember how we would have expressed two shillings and a halfpenny in that format: 2/0½ and 2/½ both look wrong to me now, though it's been a while since the question could have arisen. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to say my memory is from the price per lb of various sweets on a chalkboard in a confectioner's shop - which was the main recipient of my pocket money pre-decimalisation ;-) -- Q Chris (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think 2/0½ would be right. I couldn't find an example in that format but I did find this notice which shows, as you say, amounts greater than one pound separated by hyphens (although full stops, colons or just a space could be used instead), and amounts less than one pound with a slash. On printed signs, the slash was often a sort of cuneiform or wedge-shape and the shilling amount was often in larger type than the pence, with the fractions being smaller again. Just to confuse things further, amounts less than about three pounds were sometimes expressed as shillings rather than pounds and shillings, so 37/6 was £1 17s 6d. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And then there were guineas... HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And the fact that 1½ d was "three ha'pence", not "one and a half pence"... Tevildo (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Or you could say "a penny ha'penny" for the same thing. The fact that the system was centuries old meant that there were several parallel conventions. Like many Brits, I love a good old illogical muddle and I was quite sad when when the whole thing was swept away, despite being only 12. What foreign visitors made of it, I can't imagine. Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the system was not so difficult to understand. As denominators, 12 and 20 are easy to handle arithmetically. Although I am American, I taught myself the system as a child so that I would have an easier time understanding sums of money mentioned in Dickens (who actually mentions sums of money quite often). The closest I got to using the system was seeing shillings still circulating with the value of 5p (and 2 shilling coins with the value of 10p) in the early 80s on my first visit to England. Of course I collected those coins and still have them. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm Australian and we gave up £sd "on the 14th of February 1966". (Click that link to see and hear the jingle that means I'll never forget the date.) Our new notes and coins haven't gained any popular, catchy nicknames that I'm aware of. It's all very boring now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Marco polo: It gets better the further you go back. I was reading 13th and 14th century English court decisions quite a lot recently and had to figure out just what the hell a "mark" was and why they'd suddenly go from pounds and shillings to that unit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Anybody know in what part of the country was "half a nicker" called "half a bar"? @Q Chris:, where were you buying sweets that sold for over a quid per lb? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Discourse ethics

I've been looking at Jürgen Habermas' discourse ethics and his oddball student's argumentation ethics. I've read that their both based on hermeneutics. Are these also constructivist? — Melab±1 ☎ 01:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)