Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I found this guitar how-to video, [1], but guy just calls it a "metal strumming pattern". You might find some info in "The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal" [2]. Here's someone's academic dissertation titled "Characteristics of Heavy Metal Chord Structures" [3], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The way I read it, it's Statute 1, but is on page 23 of the cited reference.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.[5] Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! - Letsbefiends (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is assumed that there are sufficient controls over the issue and checking of ID passes that anyone who has entered the airside area or military base must by definition be bona fide. --Viennese Waltz 09:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"... [6] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also found an account of her writing it as a "companion" to another poem in her biography here: [7] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [8]. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Almost, but not quite. It isn't that "substantive titles outrank princely titles", it is that royal titles outrank noble titles. Most people think of "royal titles" as king, queen, prince, princess. But if the recipient is royal, the title is treated as royal, if not, not. Royals always outrank nobles, and they "uplift" their titles. So "Duke of Cambridge" and "Earl of Wessex" are royal titles because they were conferred on princes of the blood royal: Contrary to popular opinion, a "royal dukedom" is no different than a noble one, except that it is borne by a prince (this was not always thus: "dukes of the blood royal" once-upon-a-time were a distinct rank, with specific precedence assigned to them and their children above noble dukes and theirs, but this practice has fallen into desuetude, so nowadays once a royal dukedom is inherited by someone not entitled to the style of Royal Highness -- say someone who is only the great-grandson of a British sovereign -- its precedence drops down below all dukedoms created previously) Thus, when Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife married Prince Arthur of Connaught in 1913, who did not live long enough to inherit his father's royal dukedom, her ducal title (being inherited from her non-royal father) was submerged and she was known as "HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught". Her non-royal son, Alastair Windsor, however, used his mother's subsidiary title, Earl of MacDuff, as his courtesy title, until he succeeded his paternal grandfather as non-royal Duke of Connaught and Strathern (but didn't outlive his mother to succeed to the Dukedom of Fife, which would have been submerged in his royal dukedom anyway). FactStraight (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my statement was entirely correct. The best counter-example to your theory is the one you've provided: Princess Alexandra was known as "Her Highness The Duchess of Fife" before her marriage to Prince Arthur, her "non-royal" title not being subsumed beneath her own princely title because substantive peerages are considered to outrank princely titles. Her choice to take the female version of her husband's title after marriage was just that: a choice. Formally she was the Duchess of Fife (Princess Arthur of Connaught), and was named as such in formal notices. Proteus (Talk) 13:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that Alexandra was a peeress in her own right as Duchess of Fife, so of course she retained that title legally: the question is, was the ducal title used to refer to her at the Court of St. James's? Can you provide sources for the contention that Princess Alexandra would have been known as "Duchess of Fife" after marriage and that it was a matter of her personal choice that she be known, instead, as "Princess Arthur of Connaught"? Otherwise, I don't see how this marriage demonstrates anything other than that her non-royal ducal peerage was subordinated to her husband's royal princely style. Her use, pre-maritally, of the ducal title after inheriting the dukedom, rather than the princely title, isn't convincingly relevant because her only two options at that point were to continue to be known by (the same style as her younger sister) "HH Princess Alexandra of Fife" or become "HH the Duchess of Fife". In the cases of other British princesses who marry non-royal peers, they continue to use their own royal prefix (i.e. "The Princess Royal" or "Princess Firstname") dropping only their maiden suffixes in favor of their husbands' title, viz. Mary, Princess Royal (wife of the Earl of Harewood), Princess Alice of Albany (wife of the Earl of Athlone), Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom (wife of the Earl of Snowden). But wives of princes (whether he is a peer or not) lose their "Princess Firstname" distinction, henceforth being referred to at court only by their husbands' title, e.g. HRH Princess Marina of Greece became "HRH the Duchess of Kent", not "HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent". FactStraight (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And how exactly am I supposed to find that editor? I read the excerpt from a textbook which must have been reprinted about a dozen times, and each time edited by a different team of editors. --Yashowardhani (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the textbook. If it's an excerpt, the publisher will almost certainly have the source information, and the failure to attribute is probably an oversight (as it might be serious from a copyright perspective if done intentionally). And there's usually a chief editor or maybe three editors who oversee a textbook project, with chapter editors. At any rate, all you'd have to do is go to the publisher, give them the information on the book, and ask who wrote the part you're interested in. If you tell us the ISBN of the book (should be either on the back cover or on the copyright page) it might make finding information easier, by the way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the ISBN in the book. It wasn't written even in the info of the book in a shopping site! [10] --Yashowardhani (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly Zvezda Chernobyl ("The Star Chernobyl") by Julia Voznesenskaya. Not enough text available online to be totally sure. [11] Thom2002 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry for that. This excerpt, along with a few others, is given in my textbook under the unit "Environment", for us to understand the impact of pollution on society. There was no mention of the context of the stories, or the writers. Therefore I assumed from the date given, nuclear and from the Russian-like names, that it must be related somehow to the Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashowardhani (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in a way it was caused by the Cold War. That is, the Soviet Union was trying to keep up with or surpass the NATO nations, while it's communist economy was quite weak. This meant they had to cut corners to get the same results, in this case nuclear power, at a much lower cost. And this may have contributed to the accident. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of the textbook chapter with this story. (It's on a possibly dodgy site and I don't know the copyright status, so I won't link it here.) It looks to me like something written as a reading passage for the textbook rather than an excerpt of a longer story. However, there are novels about Chernobyl that you might enjoy reading. Perhaps the one that Thom2002 pointed you to above? --Amble (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked that up and I'd love to buy it but it's not available where I live. I wish it was available in the internet. --Yashowardhani (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

£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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This seems to be in concordance with Rationalization (economics), as well as with Rationalization (sociology). In this last even though obviously cheeseburgers are made available using rationalization at the same time not one will care that selling them is in appealing to fantasies. --Askedonty (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The OED has a few quotations using "half a bar," though it doesn't get into where the phrase was common. F. D. Sharpe used it in Sharpe of Flying Squad (1938), J. B. Priestley in Let People Sing (1939), and M. Pugh in Wilderness of Monkeys (1958). The second quotation is interesting "Knocker brought out some money and examined it. ‘..A nicker, half a bar, a caser an' a hole.’" At the very least that suggests wherever Priestley was from (edit: He was from Bradford), "half a nicker" wasn't the term. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more fun slang: "A penny is a ‘clod’, and ‘sprasy’ means sixpence. A shilling is also a ‘hole’, and a two-shilling piece is a ‘two-ender’." P. Allingham (1934), Cheapjack. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

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)[reply]

See Constructivist epistemology for the relevant article. I personally wouldn't describe Habermas' views as constructivist, as he assumes that there is a real, normative set of moral/political standards that can be discovered by the analysis of discourse, while the typical constructivist (such as J. L. Austin) is only interested in the discourse itself, and either ignores or actively denies any sort of "Platonic" truth to be found behind it. But I'm not an expert, and I'm sure others more knowledgeable in the field will comment. Tevildo (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert either. I agree with Tevildo, on the same grounds. I am just curious on what grounds you would suggest that they might be constructivist? DanielDemaret (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By trying to argue by "performative contradiction". (Kind of a bad way to argue, too.) — Melab±1 ☎ 17:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creative C's

go to get help with Creative C's and guided help creating a profitable program. edits and help from others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachaelhollis (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 January 2014

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're asking about Creative Commons and how to get help developing commercially successful collaborative software. Wikipedia does use licenses produced by Creative Commons, but the two are separate organisations. You could ~~try asking at one of our other reference desks which can help with general knowledge questions, or you could~~ visit the Creative Commons website or the the Creative Commons wiki where there may be more information. - Karenjc (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How could an anti-semitic person befriend a Jewish person?

I read Columbine (book) by Dave Cullen and I read Eric Harris' admiration for Nazism and some of its ideology but at the same time he was close friends with Dylan Klebold, an American Jew. How could that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.160.191 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically the inverse of Linus said in a Peanuts cartoon: "I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." People are inconsistent; that's all there is to it. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Many of us admire in Nazism: the MG 42, a beautiful toy still in usage, the standard machine gun of the Austrian Armed Forces etc. In short for some reason this guy did not want to have his interest forwarded further than in decorum, the better specialty of the Nazi's capability for the "mise en scène". --Askedonty (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this actually mean something? Paul B (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I'm using "decorum" following a slightly different meaning compared to the proper usage of that term in English. Are you thoroughly familiar with the details of the Nazi Kultur yourself ? --Askedonty (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the question. How thorough do you require my knowledge to be? I have published academic articles on the subject. Well, one academic article anyway. Is that enough? Paul B (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would all depend on the article. Using only basic and common knowledge you will perhaps agree that decorum is the primary attractive angle of that scenery for young teen-agers looking for a field and subject for their gaming. If otherwise, what else ? --Askedonty (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Norcicist racial theory. Are you saying that teenage boys are excited by the idea of being a ruthless member of a superior-race? Yes, I agree. Being excited by Nazism is like imaging living in Grand Theft Auto but also being the police. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and that superior-race stuff also is a contemporary disease: having put Nazi Germany down although America could have preferred to remain neutral. I certainly agree with your suggestion of a subjacent although inaccessible role of 'being the police'. --Askedonty (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same psychology as those who are suspicious and wary of other races in general, but may have some "friends" in those races who they consider "OK" because they know them. There's a term for that seemingly self-contradictory mentality, but it's not coming to mind just now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive dissonance, perhaps? --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in that neighborhood. The closest I can find at present is the old saying, "Some of my best friends are..." [as per Jack's version, below]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It often comes under the header of "I couldn't be anti-semitic. I know many Jewish people", or similar. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing unusual or inconsistent about in admiring aspects of Nazism but not being influenced or impressed by its anti-Semitism. It's possible to be a militaristic uniform-loving, democracy-hating, gun-obsessed sub-Nietzschean jerk without hating Jews. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countless Volkswagen products have been sold, without the buyers necessarily knowing or caring that this was a Nazi product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure how the VW bug is a "Nazi product", other than that Hitler promised cheap abundant consumer cars to the German public, but when the time came built tanks and planes instead. The VW bug was basically a concept car until after the war... AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence this illustration.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the answer in this case, but I suppose if a Jew doesn't know the other's antisemitic, and vice versa, they could have a ton of other interests in common. Probably wouldn't happen with best friends. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

The OP says "some of" the Nazi ideology. Nazism was about a lot more than just hating Jews. Is there any indication that Harris hated Jews? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler himself had Jewish friends and associates, protecting some such as Eduard Bloch and helping Emil Maurice remain an SS officer despite some Jewish ancestry. People are often contradictory and inconsistent. --Amble (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book claim Eric was anti-semitic? Far from all nazis were. DanielDemaret (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what's written on the Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold#Background page, it seems the latter was raised Lutheran and his so-called "Jewish identity" consists of some family traditions that came down from his maternal grandfather. This is marginally Jewish "heritage" but far from "identity." Unless it can be shown that Dylan Klebold identified personally with his Jewish ancestry -- as "an American Jew" or "Jewish American" in the face of his Protestant upbringing -- I'd say the question as posed here is far-fetched. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unless Klebold's maternal line going back some distance was all Jewish, traditionally he would not be considered to be Jewish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an pertinent exchange in Methuselah's Children by Robert Heinlein: after a particular group of families have been 'outed' (it doesn't matter here what as) somebody says "Are you saying that I'm suddenly in danger from my friends and neighbours?" and somebody else answers "No, but you are from my friends and neighbours, and I am from yours". --ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism & Entartete Kunst

Futurism is often seen as the "official" artistic movement of Fascism and, even if it isn't totally accurate, it was somewhat endorsed by the Fascist regime. That said, what was the position of Nazi Germany regarding it? Was it considered degenerate art? --151.41.217.98 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement isn't really true - see Futurism#Futurism in the 1920s and 1930s. Marinetti himself was a Fascist, but the party didn't approve of modern art - according to the article, "right-wing Fascists introduced the concept of "degenerate art" from Germany to Italy and condemned Futurism." Is there such a thing as a left-wing fascist?. The official Nazi Entartete Kunst exhibition was confined to German artists, and there wasn't a significant body of German Futurist work. Tevildo (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Degenerate Art exhibitions included among the others works of art of non-German people such as Marc Chagall, Wassily Kandinsky and László Moholy-Nagy. --151.41.217.98 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Freie Universität Berlin's database "Entartete Kunst" gave me a couple of Futurist works of art the Nazis had confiscated from a museum in Erfurt as part of a portfolio titled ""Neue europäische Graphik. Italienische und russische Künstler"", such as prints by Umberto Boccioni, Carlo Carrà, and Gino Severini. Another drawing by Severini, Mon portrait, was confiscated from the Provinzialmuseum in Hanover. Not much of a "position", but that's what I found. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

President Nixon's pardon

Can someone please clarify the issue of President Nixon's pardon? Doesn't one have to be charged and convicted of a crime first, in order to be pardoned for that crime? So, what exactly was Nixon pardoned for, since he was neither charged nor convicted of any crimes? I understand that this was all politics, smoke and mirrors, rhetoric, and hocus pocus. But, officially, what did Ford claim to be pardoning Nixon for? And how did he (Ford) wiggle his way through this political charade? How is it that Ford was essentially allowed to simply flaunt the legitimate pardon process, just to protect his friend? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section about this in the Gerald Ford article may answer your questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the pardon here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Big Apple called?

The Wikipedia page for New York City [Which seems to have a bug when I try to link to it] calls it "'New York City' or 'The City of New York'" and the city's website mentions both names. And I thought I once read that the city is actually just called "New York", the same as the state. So what's it called? Hayttom 18:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

It can get complicated. The totality of New York City is the five boroughs. New York, by itself, typically refers to Manhattan, i.e. New York County. As opposed to the Bronx (Bronx County) and Brooklyn (Kings County), for example. I think the boroughs each have their own street numbering system, too. So a letter or package being sent to Manhattan will say "New York, NY" a mailing to another borough will say "Bronx, NY" or "Brooklyn, NY". Sending mail to an address in the Bronx and saying "New York, NY" would either send it to the wrong address or would be rejected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) New York City refers to the Five Boroughs: Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens. Manhattan is New York County. A letter addressed to 1000 Third Avenue, Bronx will end up on Third Avenue, just north of 149th Street. A letter addressed to 1000 Third Avenue, N.Y., NY will end up on the same avenue around 59th Street, in Manhattan. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, I believe the USPS will use the ZIP code, even if it conflicts with the city. So, if the letter has a Bronx ZIP code, they will look for that street address in the Bronx, regardless of whether it says New York, NY on it. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things even more confusing... when referring or writing to an address in Queens (another borough within the City of New York) it is rare to put "Queens, NY" ... it is more customary to use the neighborhood (as in "Flushing, NY", "Astoria, NY", "Forest Hills, NY")... this may be a mental hold-over from the days before Consolidation, when these neighborhoods were all separate townships within the County of Queens. Being the last borough to be "urbanized", these former townships have retained their individuality to some degree. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? Why is there all this focus on where letters will be sent to? Letter addressing is a *very* flexible system. For example, although according to the post office the street I live on is "XYZ Pike", letters addressed to "XYZ Road" have no problem finding me - even though a separate "XYZ Road" also exists in the same city. Likewise, I have no doubt a letter addressed to "Barracks Alabama; 1600 Penninnivaniana Blvd; Washingmachine, BC, 90210" will eventually find it's way to the same person as if it was addressed correctly. - All of this is a side track, though, as the original questioner's request did not have anything to do with letter addressing. Wiktionary, the first link when Googling "new york city offical name", mentions that just "New York" is the official name. The New York city charter, 2004 version [13], in section 1 uses the form "The city of New York". Note the lower case "c" in "city", indicating it's being used descriptively, rather than as part of a proper name. "New York city" also appears in that document. As best I can tell, the only time "City" is capitalized is in title contexts, where things are all-caps or title-cased. For what it's worth, though, the "official" name of things are sometimes hard to come by, as governments don't always bother officially spelling out their names. For example, see this article, which mentions that, at least in 1945, it was somewhat uncertain whether it was "officially" "New York" versus "New-York". -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain my point was that while NYC includes all five boroughs, N.Y., NY is only Manhattan, so the OP's supposition would be wrong if he thought it was okay to say that a location in any of the other 4 boroughs besides Manhattan was in N.Y., NY. But you can let me know if I confused myself. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "CITY OF NEW YORK CITY CHARTER" seems to point to "City of New York" as the name.[14] Also "the corporate name of "the city of new York".[15] Rmhermen (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence the "New York City Charter" on the title page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etruscan questions

1-The Etruscan civilization article says The Etruscans called themselves Rasenna, which was syncopated to Rasna or Raśna. Does this mean that the first syllable of Rasenna was stressed? 2-What did the Etruscans call the land which they lived in? RNealK (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Etruscan language says it had a "strong word-initial stress", which led to "the loss and then re-establishment of word-internal vowels" (syncope being the loss of internal syllables), so it would appear that the first syllable of Rasenna was indeed stressed. Can't help you with what they called the region - our knowledge of Etruscan vocabulary is patchy, so it could be that it's not known. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I typed too soon. The Etruscan language article says that the Etruscan word for Etruria was "meχl Rasnal". --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the role of wikipedia

Is Wikipedia suppose to be a font of knowledge for the common people? If so then why are so many wikipedia articles for technical subjects written in such a way that you can only understand it if you are already knowledgeable in that particular technical subject. Is truthfullness a higher priority in writing the article than understandability for the naive readers? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a continuing problem here. Such articles attract PhD's, who are only accustomed to writing for other PhD's in their field, and are incapable of communicating effectively with the common man. One specific problem is that they refuse to allow any model that isn't 100% technically correct according to the latest research, even though such simplified models are absolutely essential to reaching a larger audience. For example, the model of an atom as a nucleus surrounded by electrons in fixed, circular orbits in a single plane, much like the solar system, is far easier to understand than the electrons each being a wave probability function with an indeterminate position. The simpler model works well for explaining many atomic behaviors, too. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was very well said, Stu. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but then is Wikipedia here to confirm what you learned in high school science, or is it intended to teach you what a nucleus is really like? Ideally it would be written in a way that is understandable to all, but there's no need to repeat the half-truths and simplifications you learn as a kid. (This is true of historical articles as well, and any other subject, I'm sure.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those simplifications exist for a reason. You can't take somebody with no knowledge of physics and hope to teach them about collapsing the wave function. Imagine if we tossed out all the globes in the world because the Earth isn't really hollow with a metal pole through the center and the names of nations printed on it. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- we have an article on Bohr atom, and I really doubt that anything is going to happen to it, but the Bohr atom only explains a limited number of things. It does great with the lines of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, but most things beyond that aren't explained so well... AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu's point doesn't need a but. It's spot on. One can look at the talk and editing of the reptile article to see the endless technical maneuvering over unsettled minutiae that makes no sense unless you've got at least a BA in biology, or the same for the Uralic languages article where it has been argued that mention of Fenno-Ugric should be omitted, regardless of the intellectual history, because, once again, the most recent fashions question its validity as a genetic node. General articles should give a broad, accessible, historically informed view of the topic, not an obscure, narrow, wonky one.

P.S., this thread belongs some place other than the ref desk. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If StuRat could point to an article where quantum mechanics is used for what he thinks could just as easily be explained by the Bohr atom, then other people could evaluate his specific complaint. I understand the general issue, though -- some parts of article Trefoil knot, for example, are very difficult for people without specialized mathematics knowledge to understand, even though the basic topic of the article seems quite simple... AnonMoos (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge of making technical articles understandable has been recognized for years.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (2008)

and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable

and Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a problem unique to wikipedia. It's endemic to anyone who tries to span audiences. I believe in 99% of the cases it's completely possible to both provide the overview, and also delve into details, but it's hard, and it takes work. As the number of articles expands the regulars have their work spread more thinly. But the OP has a good point, the only issue is that it's not unique... it's true of every attempt at democracy. Shadowjams (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an illusion that every field of knowledge can be adequately described to "the common man" without said common man being willing to spend literally years or even longer on the subject. If we want to present "the sum of human knowledge", then we need articles on advanced topics. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". There is a reason why advanced math and technical language are used - it's not to keep out outsiders (though it may well be misused that way sometimes), it's because this is the best, and often only, way we know to adequately describe the concepts. There is nothing wrong with also presenting simplified models, as long as we make clear that they are just that - simplified models with shortcomings. We do have articles like Introduction to special relativity, and we could possibly use more. But we should not present half-baked middle-school material as "the truth". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The way I see it, a failure to learn by jumping into "deep water" is usually more the reader's fault than the writer's. It would be the same if that reader got into university straight from high school and started with third-year stuff. Wikipedia can (substantially) replace the pricier educational alternatives, but can't replace the student's need for a basic foundation to learn upon. That would take a miracle. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Also remember, Wikipedia includes a Simple English version. It may be too simple for some, but probably just right for others (at least to start). Here's the general Physics page, if anyone cares to try. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

People keep talking about "truth". It's not that truth is not held in high regard, but this is a question about Wikipedia's modus operandi, and our guiding principle is WP:Verifiability, not truth. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, In my view more "introduction to" articles would be a great idea, and this probably represents the best way to solve this issue. Is there a wikiproject on this? If not there probably should be (maybe I'll start one when I have a little more free time). Equisetum (talk | contributions) 11:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

A book on Japanese history

What I want is, basically, a much longer and more in-depth version of our History of Japan article. Not being a prolific history book reader (this will, in fact, be my first), I'm not terribly familiar with how to search for exactly what it is I want. Are there any resources that the Ref Desk would recommend? I'm going to guess something in that article's reference list, but it's quite a long list.

Thinking about it, there probably won't be a single book, given how long history in most countries is. Still, I'd be interested to see what might be recommended, or how I could refine my searches. 86.173.145.139 (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One semi-classic older book that I happen to know about because I have it is "Japan: A Short Cultural History" by G.B. Sansom. It has some interesting material, though it ends in 1867... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you specified "book", but the part about never reading a history book leads me to suggest this video. Quite long and fairly deep. Turning on the captions makes it an e-book, with moving illustrations. It might also help you narrow down which periods and events you want to explore further (on paper, or otherwise). Not a big country, but a very busy and old one. To fit it all in one physical book would take a miracle. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:54, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes stories from a professional POV

Have you ever come across a discussion, an article or a book that has a modern professional police detective discussing Sherlock Holmes stories, from the point of view of whether what Holmes does makes sense (adjusting for technology difference). Something along the lines of "here he does what a real detective would do, here he jumps to unwarranted conclusions, here he is full of it, but gets lucky", etc. I think I once read a passage in a fictional book where a (fictional) policeman criticizes one episode in such a fashion. I can't remember what it was though. I'd be most interested in a comprehensive sort of analysis of all, or at least many of the stories in this fashion. --108.202.177.21 (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that Sherlock Holmes was intended to represent professional police crime-solving techniques, but rather an idiosyncratic individual with sharp powers of observation and "ratiocination". In any case, modern criminal forensics barely even existed when Conan Doyle was writing the first Sherlock Holmes stories... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]