Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 30

God, King, and Republic

God is king. But why king? I mean, a republic is a country without a king. Most countries nowadays are republics. Great Time (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What has the one got to do with the other? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is "God, King, and Republic" some recognised expression? If so, Google doesn't know about it. "God, King and Country" is part of the Scout Promise. What exactly are you objecting to? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the question is, why refer to God as a "king", if we no longer believe in kings.

That will vary from believer to believer, but I would venture that the most common answer (or at least, the most common Protestant-in-a-broad-sense answer) would be, we no longer believe in Earthly or human kingship, but it's different for God. Lyrics from My Country 'Tis of Thee:

Our fathers' God, to thee

Author of liberty

To thee we sing

Long may our land be bright

With freedom's holy light

Protect us by thy might

Great God our king

Consider that this is to the tune of God Save the King, and the deliberate contrast should be clear. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of this may be suspect at best, but my impression is that Jesus specifically is taken at least by some to have "despoiled the pricipalities" (expression from [1], I guess) of the world. Start with the Old Testament contention that among all the kings of the world those of Israel are special. Then there was something (I forget what now) where the Jewish priests made it clear that the Romans had some role in proclaiming a king, and there's actually an article Mark 15 about some of the back-and-forth with Pilate, ending in the final mocking "I.N.R.I", which is taken, I suppose, as an inadvertent but meaningful coronation. The theory, then, is that by this means the ancient practice of kingship passed away from the world, as only the still living Jesus possesses valid royal authority. Despite obvious earlier precedents, and the widespread shameful practice of claiming a divine right of kings afterward, there is some argument to be made that the transition to democracy is at least in part a consequence, rather than contradictory, to this theology - after all, democracy has been largely associated with "Western civilization", and San Marino, founded by Christians seeking refuge from persecuting Romans, is the world's oldest extant democracy.

To editorialize a moment, I'd suggest the peculiarities of Christian kingship are illustrated by Emperor Norton I, who madly insisted he was the ruler of North America, and, eventually, exerted some privileges from this role. All very absurd, and yet, he is given credit for appearing before a racist mob that intent on doing harm to local Chinese workers, and stopping them with prayers. Which, to be sure, is a more noble authority than all the Tudors. The royal power was passed on, in a most non-traditional way, to the Widow Norton, and to this day the Imperial Court System somehow makes use of it to do significant amounts of charity. Who (apart from Laozi, that is) would have predicted that nobility, liberated from its power and wealth, would become noble, and thereby the source of meaningful power, or that the irrational respect for kings, liberated from the confines of sanity, would become sane? Wnt (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it has less to do with whether you live in a monarchy or republic and more to do with the Jewish and Christian faith. If you follow either religion, it is implicit that you accept God as your king. See our article Kingship and kingdom of God. Alansplodge (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely correct. The Bible unambiguously speaks of God as king in several of the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 93 and Psalm 97), which both Jews and Christians accept (and in numerous places in the New Testament, so the dispensationalist Christians don't see it as something not relevant to Christianity), so it's rather necessary for both Jews and Christians to accept the concept. Being much less familiar with Islam, I can't say anything beyond what's in the article Alansplodge links. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Great Time -- Unless your religion allows believers to vote to dethrone your god and install a new god, then "republic" may not be the best metaphor for divinity... AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right that the ancient notion of God as a king who has the right to rule is incompatible with modern ideals of egalitarian democracy. God is a human invention, constructed in ancient human cultures which had very different values than modern democracies. They believed in the right of kings to rule in return for protection from enemies, and organized themselves into tribes and kingdoms by common ethnicity. The same cultures and thus Biblical stories supported other practices we find abhorrent today, such as genocide, seizure of land through conquest, and (eternal) torture as punishment for wrongdoing. Medieval European societies that translated and edited the Bible also operated as monarchies for a long time; remember the Magna Carta didn't appear until 1215, and modern democracy didn't really start getting implemented in most European countries until the 1600s and 1700s. The Bible also encodes beliefs from ancient and medieval physics which have been obsoleted by modern science, such as that the sky is a hard sphere, above which there is a space which could support a habitat to which one could physically ascend. Abrahamic religions demand the abandonment of democratic decision-making when it comes to matters of morality or any other issue upon which God issues orders, including a different set of arbitrary dietary and worship requirements for each one. Bible-believing Christians are not free to criticize God's decisions, moral judgments, or leadership style in the same way they are free to criticize their political leaders. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Does Islam likewise consider God to be "king", either explicitly or implicitly? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really an expert, but Kingship and kingdom of God says it does. -- Beland (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

God as king is a theme which abounds in the Old Testament. The first third of the [extremely long] musaf service of Rosh Hashana is littered with biblical quotes describing God as "King" or referring (as in Exodus 15:18, the last verse of the Song of the sea, which from memory might be the first one chronologically in the Bible) to God reigning. What modes of worship have to do with current fashions of political form is difficult to grasp. Come back in 500 years and unconstitutional monarchy might or might not be all the rage again, worldwide, but the Bible will be the same. --86.12.139.50 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Rich Christian Countries

The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. All the rich countries are Christian. All the Christian countries are rich. Rich Christian countries include America, European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. They are Western, Northern, and First World countries. Britain began and invented the Industrial Revolution and had the world's largest colonial empire. America is the world's only superpower, has the world's largest economy, and is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. Why? What do Christians think about it? Great Time (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Who says so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Japan isn't Christian. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

South Africa isn't particularly rich, isn't first world and is decidedly not Northern. Mingmingla (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking South Africa was First World by the correct original definition, but it's definitely not an MDC (the more acceptable term these days). Sorry, always been nitpicky about that one, especially when some people say the US might become a Second or Third World country.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Shevat 5774 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Which World does Detroit belong to these days? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's quite a few poor Christian countries as well. Look at Haiti (regarded by some as the least fortunate country in the Western Hemisphere) as a good example. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Shevat 5774 13:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation. And instead of saying "all the rich countries are Christian", it would be more accurate to say most (not all, particularly those in East Asia) rich countries are "European", in the sense of having European-derived cultures. The Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution gave Europe a technological lead over the rest of the world that translated into greater wealth. Europe is historically Christian, and since those rich countries have European-derived cultures, those rich countries are consequently majority-Christian. Whether being Christian has anything to do with Europe getting rich in the first place is debatable; some historians have argued so with such theories as the Protestant work ethic, but there are just as many historians critical of such explanations. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 04:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It has much more to do with geopolitics and econoimic systems rather than theology. Per capita, some of the richest and poorest countries are in the middle-east (non-Christian); the main difference being political / economic systems. E.g.: Qatar is #1, Yemen is #150 (per IMF list: List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita) ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Great_Time -- During much of the middle ages, most Christian realms (other than the Byzantine empire and certain Italian cities) were really not too rich. At various times, Muslim and/or Chinese empires were almost certainly richer than any medieval Christian state. For some interesting discussion on possible factors in why this changed, you can see "The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community" by William H. McNeill (a semi-classic book of a type which professional historians aren't really allowed to write anymore...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going out on a limb here to go one step further. For most the the history of christianity, christian countries have been poor relative to China and India. I do not have sources for all that period, only parts of it. The reason the trip Columbus made was to find a shortcut to the wealthy India. China would probably have been good too. Unfortunately for India, once it was easily accessible to Europe, it was up for plunder. If anyone has good sources either verifying or debunking my statement for at least most of this period, I would welcome those. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been quite a few books that have tried to explain why christian Europe in particular, and consequently its descendants in America have became so successful. Some books emphasize the competition and free thought brought on by many small states in proximity of each other. Some emphasize religion, especially Lutheran work etic values. There are almost as many theories here as there are theories on the fall of Rome. My personal favorite is The_Origins_of_Political_Order. I recommend it warmly. I am not going to give the book justice in this single paragraph, but let me just ramble on a bit on what I think may be relevant to your question:

The main parts to the success, according to this book stems from 1) A working Rule of Law in Europe. 2) The first universities. 3) The competition and free thought due to many small states, leading to both social and military innovations. He contrast this to India and China. These three factors took hundreds of years to be entrenched, but finally bore fruit. The author brings up how the Justinian law that the catholic church re-introduces around 1070 or so, which had several consequences. By adding rights to women not to be forced to remarry within her tribe, and other limitations in family law, one consequence was the abolishment of tribal society which the rest of the world is still clinging too in the non-christian areas, and which lessens the role of the Rule of Law, by corruption from loyalty to family and tribe rather than loyalty to the state. Another consequence was that interest in this law was so great that it led to people travelling from all of Europe to the place to Bologna, the place where these old laws were discovered, established the first University ever, the University of Bologna. ( As an interesting side-note, now that women suddenly had the right not to marry, they did not. Within 50 years, half of all land and local political positions in Catalonia (northern Spain) and in southern France belonged to women. This was reversed by the reformation. ) The two main points here are that the Rule of Law became firmly established in Europe and also the first University. The third point was made was that the power that the catholic church got from this was used, during the time it had to power to do so, to make European countries to refrain from wars costly in lives and avoid a pan-European state. By keeping a lot of small states alive, competition in science and technology took off. The author contrasts this in a very interesting way with the history of China and that of India. China was very brutally integrated very early into one huge state, which had its advantages, among them a central learned and state-loyal mandarin bureaucracy, but left China with the disadvantages of lack of competition of ideas and also left it with corruption from latent tribalism. India was only for short periods of time integrated, and therefore lacked an overall Rule of Law. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Great Divergence is an excellent article on the very question of why European countries became economically dominant in recent centuries. I agree the correlation with Christianity is merely a coincidence. If other countries had for reasons of natural resources, economic system, innovative culture, or whatever, become economically dominant, they would have brought their local religion(s) along with them. For example, if an Indian kingdom had colonized Australia, it wouldn't be a Christian country now. -- Beland (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Christian nations became rich despite Christianity. That is, whenever the teachings of Christ conflicted with getting rich, they pretty much ignored His teachings, which included included extensive charity for the poor, not lending money for interest, etc. Muslim nations, by contrast, maintain many such religious rules or customs, such as prohibiting usury. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

For most of its history, christian countries have been poor. Looking at the success of South East Asian schools these last few years, it could also be a temporary state of affairs. DanielDemaret (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

United States television networks and the State of the Union

In the United States, every year, the Big Four television networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) all air the State of the Union simultaneously. The program is not profitable for them, since they can't sell any commercial advertising during the speech. Meanwhile, the fifth major network, The CW, instead of airing the State of the Union, airs counterprogramming which is very profitable for them, with the CW consistently, year-after-year, achieving ratings significantly above their norm on that night because none of the other broadcast networks are competing against them with non-State of the Union programming.

I have heard that the Big Four air the State of the Union, despite its unprofitability, because they are mandated to do so by the FCC. Is this true? If so, why doesn't the FCC also mandate the CW to air the speech as well?

—SeekingAnswers (reply) 04:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about any FCC regulations. What I do know is that the major difference is that the CW, as a relatively newer network, does not have any type of national news division. For decades (probably dating back to the late 1940s when TV in the US was beginning to spread accross the country), the news divisions of the three major networks (ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News) have always pre-empted regularly scheduled programing to air live, uninterrupted coverage of significant, breaking news stories. The State of the Union address has always been considered one of them. And although Fox does not usually air news programs, it does air Fox News Sunday and a couple of others in the past, produced by its sister cable network Fox News Channel. Airing live news events, without any commercial advertising, brings credibility to the news divisions. It also showcases their anchors, reporters and pundits. The hope was, for example, a loyal viewer of ABC World News would stay with ABC News' coverage of the event, and then tune in for all of the analysis afterwards, instead of going to another network or news organization. Although the proliferation of the cable news networks have decreased this effect, not everyone in the country has cable and regularly watches CNN and the like. Thus, there is still no incentive for the major networks to stop there practice of pre-empting regularly scheduled programing to air live, uninterrupted coverage of significant, breaking news stories. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is any FCC regulation, it may be related to what the FCC considers to be a "network". The CW currently only airs 20 hours of programming over six days, and it does not offer any national news or sports programming. That may be below the FCC's minimum limit. One of the reasons why Fox stayed afloat and grew in its early years was that it tried to stay below the FCC's limit back then, and thus could do things that the Big Three could not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And report the stories the Big Three dare not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that they realize if they don't show things like the State of The Union address voluntarily, Congress would mandate that they do, so they might as well do it voluntarily, and get some credit for it. StuRat (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no FCC requirement to air the State of the Union speech, and given the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is dubious whether either the FCC or Congress could in fact enforce such a law. Supreme Court interpretation only allows content-based rules in extremely limited circumstances. -- Beland (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the US Supreme Court has ruled that since broadcast TV uses limited radio frequency bands, this is a publicly held resource, and that those can be fully regulated by the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine was one such example of this. Cable TV is different. Satellite could probably be argued to be lumped with either. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

British "grammar school"

From what I understand from reading articles, the British "grammar school" just refers to a higher education with multiple subjects. Why is it referred to as a grammar school when grammar is not what is taught there (I assume proper grammar would be covered in early education!); thanks! -- 140.202.10.134 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a historical usage which persisted while the role of the establishments changed. According to grammar school "The original purpose of mediaeval grammar schools was the teaching of Latin ... The schools were attached to cathedrals and monasteries, teaching Latin – the language of the church – to future priests and monks." Gandalf61 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

... and, of course, it refers to a school for secondary education that selects the most able students. Some comprehensive schools offer more subjects, and teach more subjects per pupil, than many grammar schools. (Higher and further education follow on from secondary education in the UK.) Dbfirs 17:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll just qualify that: grammar schools selected on ability. However, where technical schools existed (parts of the industrial West Midlands, for example), grammar schools selected on ability in arts and humanities, while technical schools selected on ability in sciences. The selection was made by means of the 11-plus exam. Those who did well in arts and humanities were sent to grammar schools: those who excelled in sciences were sent to technical schools: everyone else went to secondary moderns. (I was a product of this system, but the standard of teaching of sciences was so poor and sexist that I went off sciences until after I'd left school.) --TammyMoet (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That might have been true in some regions, but in most areas the 11-plus was just a test of general intelligence, including Mathematics and word usage, but no science, arts or humanities. What was the content of the 11-plus papers that you took? I can still remember the general content of mine (taken well over 50 years ago) but can't quite remember exact questions. I think the early years of the 11-plus in England included some arts and humanities, but these questions were dropped because of the class bias (I would have been less successful on those topics). Papers might have been different elsewhere (I'm not trying to ascertain your age!) Dbfirs 21:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No the 11-plus was the selection test and was generally abolished when selective education was abolished. The only question I remember, and it was from the year before's paper that we did as prep for our test, was "How long is a piece of string?". I was also coached extensively before the test as I showed promise, and the headteacher was absolutely amazed when I didn't go to the local grammar school but to the technical school instead. He said it must have been the questions they asked. Not every region in England had technical schools; they seem to have been mainly located in the industrial areas as I mentioned originally, and your area may have been one of these. There are very small parts of England that still have grammar schools and so they still use the test. (The answer to the question, by the way, is "from its beginning to its end", in case you wondered.) --TammyMoet (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your 11-plus tests must have been much more "arty" than mine. I'm sure mine had only well-defined questions with logical answers. I'm glad I didn't have to answer your papers! Dbfirs 13:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with Dbfirs here - my 11-plus test questions were all along the lines of "What is the next number in this sequence?", "Which of these words belong in this sentence?", "What is 14% of 791?" - very little in the way of creativity was required. Tevildo (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Obituary for John Henry Phillips (born 1876, Sun Prairie Wisconsin)

Can you help me find an Obituary for John Henry Phillips (born 1876, Sun Prairie Wisconsin)?

I am looking for biographical information on this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.224.98 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any information on names of spouse, children, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a little bit of information here. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

After a thorough rummage, the only other thing I could find was a newspaper report of (possibly) his parents' 50th wedding anniversary in 1918, on the "Society" page of the Madison Capital Times: September 14, 1918 in the second column from the left (beware, the preview times-out with a message asking you to buy a subscription, so read it quickly!). Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The John Henry Phillips of Tuckahoe, N.Y. mentioned in that report is probably the architect who designed his own house. That architect seems to have had offices at 681 Fifth Avenue in New York City. I also found a 1903 passport application on ancestry.com for a J.H. Phillips, born Feb. 12, 1875 in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. The application lists his occupation as architect and he was at that time a resident of Chicago.--Cam (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In which cultures do the "man-hug" exist?

In which cultures do the "man-hug" exist? 140.254.227.69 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject comes up to some extent in the Hug article. I wouldn't say it's an excessively rigorous article. But I do like the statement, "Some cultures do not embrace hugging..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Town lines and bodies of water

Since this has more to do, I think, with legal boundaries and not necessarily computer science, I'm putting this question here.

That said, if you do a search for Bristol, Vermont in Google Maps it will outline Bristol with a red dashed line. Through the town there is what appears to be a double dashed line going down the New Haven River. Zooming in, the line can be seen as two lines with one on each side of the river running along the banks. Following this west, if you search again for New Haven, Vermont which is the next town over, it shows the same double line along the river again. Does this mean that the rivers and other waterways are not under town jurisdiction but instead state controlled? I wouldn't think so since I tried the same search with other towns and found another with a river bisecting the town, Waitsfield which has the Mad River running through it, but no similar lines run down the length of that river. What's the deal with the New Haven River? Dismas|^(talk) 23:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How sure are you it's not a glitch in Google Maps? --Jayron32 00:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think it's an error in Google Maps (of which I've found several over the years). I happen to have a DeLorme atlas of Vermont showing town lines, and it does not show town lines along the New Haven River through Bristol or New Haven. I did some searching online and could find no evidence that the river was outside the towns' jurisdiction or under state jurisdiction. I will contact Google Maps and alert them of the possible error. I will try to remember to report their response when I receive it, probably not for a couple of weeks. Marco polo (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. All territory in Vermont is incorporated, except for four grants and gores (and seemingly Lake Champlain); three of the four are in the far northeastern corner, and the exception (Buels Gore) is still some miles away from Bristol. Also see 24 V.S.A. §2, the relevant portion of the Vermont Statutes Annotated: Addison County is composed of Bristol, 21 other towns, the city of Vergennes, and unincorporated bits of Lake Champlain; there aren't any other pieces of unincorporated territory in the county. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In many states (such as Washington): The waters (of Washington State) collectively belong to the public and cannot be owned by any one ...[2]; and in some instances access to such cannot be prohibited. See: Water rights   —Yes, I know we're not talking about Washington, but that was the 1st search response 71.20.250.51 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Presumably, water that flows adjacent to, or thru, a municipality is considered public property, outside of any local jurisdiction.

While collective public property is inconsistent with private ownership, it is not inconsistent with local jurisdiction. Vermont towns are not private bodies. They are public entities. Towns in New England certainly have jurisdiction (again, different from private ownership) over ponds within their boundaries. I am fairly certain that they have jurisdiction over streams as well. Your quote from Washington State doesn't say anything about state jurisdiction over bodies of water. It just prohibits private ownership. Presumably in Washington State, municipalities also have jurisdiction over bodies of water entirely within their boundaries. Marco polo (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

25 V.S.A. § 141 demonstrates that there's public control over streams, and you can't gain ownership of a stream via prescription or by adverse possession. I can't find a specific definition of what's considered un-ownable by private individuals (10 V.S.A. § 1422 defines public waters, but it doesn't specify how far up the riverbank that goes, for example), but what you're looking for is probably findable in 10 V.S.A. Chapter 49. Finally an actual answer to the question. 10 V.S.A. § 1424 (f)(1) notes that the Secretary of something or another may delegate navigable-water-governing authority to "a municipality which is adjacent to or which contains the water". It wouldn't be possible for a municipality to contain navigable waters if the boundaries can't include those waters. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, an important distinction is to be made between the water, and the dirt under the water. Borders are defined by the dirt, not the water... --Jayron32 04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not always. See [3] about the dispute over whether the Kentucky border was at the low water mark of 1792 or the modern low water mark, which was settled only in 1991. Rmhermen (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

But is it even the low-water mark? See Handly's Lessee v. Anthony for a case in which the answer was held to be an unambiguous Yes, since otherwise "states and nations would find their jurisdiction expanding and contracting with the seasons and the tides". Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• As a side issue, you might be interested in the part of the Delaware border called Twelve-Mile Circle which ends up granting all of a stretch of the Delaware River to Delaware, as a relic of the Duke of York's deed to William Penn. Part of the New Jersey mainland is actually the property of Delaware due to this. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dismas: You may have better luck with openstreetmap.org. For example a search on "Boston, MA" on Google Maps highlights only the land under the city's control. A similar search on OpenStreetMap shows what I think is the correct legal boundary, that the City of Boston has jurisdiction over the parts of the Atlantic Ocean between the mainland and the islands that are part of Boston, all the way out to the edge of Massachusetts waters. (See tidelands.) The various levels of government have concurrent jurisdiction on water in similar ways they do on land. For example, the Boston Police can pull you over for speeding on a Massachusetts-owned road in Suffolk County, and so can the Massachusetts State Police.) Unfortunately, there's no OpenStreetMap boundary for New Haven, Vermont. The article on New England town may also be of interest. -- Beland (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to Nyttend, Beland, and the rest for your replies! I can't wait till I start on my goal of being in the 251 Club. It's a loose sort of club whereby a person has visited all 251 towns and cities in the State of Vermont. Dismas|^(talk) 00:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dismas, why use an external link, when an internal link will work? WP:WHAAOE. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

January 31

Pedophile Movements

I would like to find all possible articles having to do with movements having to do with pedophile rights. I am having a hard time finding this. Thanks. MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

South Park mentioned a NAMBLA. Other than that, you're (hopefully) on your own. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

There was PIE in the UK in the 70's and 80's. Rojomoke (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's also the Dutch pedophilia supporting group MARTIJN which, like NAMBLA, was a member of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association in the 80's and 90's. Associated with MARTIJN was also the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity, a short-lived political party in favor of abolishing age of consent laws, but which did not gain enough signatures to participate in elections, despite the media attention it got. - Lindert (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's an interesting BBC documentary from 2002 called "The Hunt For Britain's Paedophiles", which can be seen on YouTube. It refers to various groups that existed at the time in the UK, including societies that were nominally "fan clubs" for child stars (particularly the "Hazel Ascot Appreciation Society"). Paul B (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Convicted diddlers are usually granted protective custody when they go to prison (in Canada and the US, anyway). More of a privilege than a right, but somewhat relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

secondary sources

I have a published address in a journal of a very prominent theologian giving opinons about Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science. Is that a secondary source or a 3rd source It is about the theologian making comments, assessing what Christian Science is about Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source for the writer's views on Christian Science. Assuming the writer is really a "very prominent theologian", it would be a valid secondary source on Christian Science. As far as WP:RS is concerned, it might be suitable as a source for an expansion of the Christian Science#Classification as cult, sect or denomination section of the article. Tevildo (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source because it was a political speech about the author's involvement in discussions with Christian Science about whether they wanted to join the National Council of Churches (NCC) when he was NCC general secretary (they didn't and he is no longer general secretary). It represents a tiny-minority view.

There's already a mention of his discussions in the Classification as cult, sect or denomination section (final paragraph), based on primary sources because there are no secondary sources for this; that is, no one other than the participants in the discussions have written about it. So it is (arguably) already over-represented in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Largest Roman province

What was the largest Roman province ever? By population and land area? What about in Christian Rome, when the provinces were probably smaller (I remember Gaul as a province, but Wikipedia shows it as a diocese or something split into many provinces). Hey, why is a diocese composed of provinces anyway? This is the reverse of church usage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

During the late republic, the largest province in area was Hispania Ulterior. Hispania Tarraconensis was the largest in area during the early empire, though it was smaller than Hispania Ulterior had been. The largest in population was Aegyptus. Note that Italia (Italy) had a larger population than Aegyptus, but it was not considered a province. Because provinces decreased in size after the reforms of Diocletian, these were the largest provinces ever in size and population. After Diocletian's reform, the reduced province of Hispania Tarraconensis was still the empire's largest in area, since other pre-reform provinces were divided into smaller pieces. Because Egypt was now divided into four provinces, Tarraconensis was probably also the largest in population after the reform. (My sources for areas are the maps and articles in Wikipedia and area figures for corresponding territories today. My source for populations is the Atlas of World Population History, © 1978, edited by Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones.) Marco polo (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Answering the question on "Gaul", Gaul was never an official "unit" of the empire per se. It was a region that roughly corresponded to the area between the Pyrenees and the Rhine-Alps-Rhone line (i.e. France, roughly, plus bits of of other countries). Gaul had, AFAIK, always been multiple provinces, which of course varied over time. Roman Gaul covers the various divisions of the area. Regard to the word "diocese". From the original Greek, it just means "district", and really like any other similar word such as "region", "province", "area", "zone", etc. it doesn't have a predetermined size or hierarchy. In the Roman Empire, a "Roman diocese" was a large collection of provinces, while a Roman Catholic diocese is much smaller in size. It just is what it is. --Jayron32 03:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Generations of schoolchildren learned that Gaul is divided into three parts in practically the first full sentence of Latin that they were exposed to... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Or, according to a classic schoolboy howler, "All Gaul is quartered into three halves".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

According to 1066 and All That, the three parts were: the Weeny, the Weedy and the Weaky Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 1

Agency ranking private schools in Mexico

Is there an agency that ranks or gives objective evaluations of private schools in Mexico? In es:Discusión:Liceo_Mexicano_Japonés#Relevancia on the Spanish Wikipedia the editor stated his belief that sources stating the school is known to be the "most prestigious" of a country should only be indicative of notability if a third party organization objectively ranks it as such. However typically private schools aren't put on rankings but public schools are. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a rather subjective term. Something more objective, and easier to verify, would be the most expensive private school in Mexico. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It was the school where President of Mexico Carlos Salinas de Gortari sent his kids, and one source states that in Japan because the Mexican President sent his kids to the school, the Japanese perceived the school to be the best in Mexico. The user said in Spanish: "El que Salinas de Gortari haya tenido a sus hijos en el instituto, tampoco le otorga relevancia a este, véase es:WP:NOHEREDA. Saludos." WhisperToMe (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried http://www.sep.gob.mx/wb2/ ? There is no clear evidence that any mexican private education is superior to mexican public education in general and specific. Seriously! EllenCT (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link! I'm not saying private schools are always better than public schools. I'm just trying to find "objective" rankings/credentials that will satisfy the user on the Spanish Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two similar men?

Here's an intriguing mystery.

We have an article on James Spens (cricketer), who was born 30 March 1853 and died 19 June 1934 (our article says 19 August, but the linked source gives June). It talks entirely about his cricketing career.

Here is a modified copy of the Who's Who entry for James Spens, a British Army general - according to the full one ([http://ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U217420/ paywalled) he was born 30 March 1853 and died 19 June 1934.

Both are listed as educated at Haileybury. Were they the same person? It seems somewhat plausible - army officers frequently had the leisure time to be amateur gentleman cricketers - but I'm reluctant to say so for sure without any specific evidence. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This Wisden obituary suggests they are one and the same. -Karenjc (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - exactly what I needed! I'll get them updated. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary realist painter: series of paintings of young adults partying

I have seen these paintings (which I think are 1990 to post-2000) some years ago, and can't get them out of my head:

Each of them are realist (maybe slightly stylized) depictions of about a dozen (young) adults partying in a wealthy environment (large, expensively furnished rooms, maybe a penthouse), some of them in "various stages of undress". Although the colors are quite intense (almost comic-book-like) and the lighting is bright, there is a sense of boredom and depression in these paintings.

Does anyone recall these paintings? I don't even know if the artist is here on Wikipedia... -- megA (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Terry Rodgers does something like that. Would you please confirm if this is what you were looking for? DanielDemaret (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Wow. Stendhal syndrome. Didn't know these paintings existed... They are similar to those I remember, but the style is different... "mine" are less... "baroque", they are still realistic, but look a bit more two-dimensional, as far as I can remember. The lighting is brighter. And there is actually less nudity on them. And more free space, less crowded. I've looked through as many collections as possible, but the paitings I remember are definitely not among those by Terry Rodgers that I could find. -- megA (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What plantation did this person live on before the Civil War?

I'm doing some research on a man who lived two miles west of Courtland, Alabama before and after the Civil War. I'm trying to figure out what plantation he lived on or near during this time. The Sherrod/Wheeler plantation is looking promising, but how can I be more sure? Wrad (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we know what his name was? Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert H. Tucker. Actually, it says on an old court record that he lived 2 miles west of Courtland on the "Shackelford plantation" in 1872, but I'm having trouble finding out more about that plantation and how it may have changed hands earlier on. Wrad (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This Shackelford Clan Magazine article claims that a "Captain Jack Shackelford, (1790-1857)" moved to " to Courtland, Lawrence County, Alabama, where it is said that he lived like a baron of the middle ages, on a large plantation. His home, a mansion of that day, was built near the Coose River". I rather imagine the Civil War had something to do with the change of ownership. This Shackelford also lived in Shelby County, Alabama, where the Coosa River flows, so his plantation would be in the wrong place. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-judicial agreement

X thinks that Y has commited a crime against him, and opens a legal case, asking for an ammount of money as a compensation. Y proposes X to pay him a smaller ammount of money, if X declines the lawsuit. X may accept the deal, as the payment would be immediate (instead of after a long lawsuit and the appeals, wich may take years), and there's no risk that the judge may eventually declare Y innocent. Which is the name for this kind of agreement? Cambalachero (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason for a civil case is a tort, not technically a crime, although lots of torts involve crimes. The voluntary agreement is called an out-of-court settlement. There are also mediation and arbitration which usually come into place when contracts are involved or things like family issues. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why it would not be called a settlement out of court. Have our prepositional phrases been taken over by Germans or something? —Tamfang (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Viking boat construction

Typical Norse building of the period

Were Viking sailing boats in medieval times built in some sort a building for protection against inclement weather? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

About the only contemporary visual depiction of a Viking boat being built is part of the Bayeux tapestry, and it doesn't show it happening indoors... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty much right in the middle of https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Tapisserie_de_Bayeux_31109.jpg (click on the image to bring it up to full resolution), but this isn't at all a Viking boat: the Normans were well established and didn't send out vikings by this point. I've also added an image of a reconstruction of a typical Norse building (a longhouse) from the period; build a longship in there, and you're going to have to knock the building down to get it out. Nyttend (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning -- clicking on the above link will try to open a 30,000-pixel-wide image! (Normal image description page link is File:Tapisserie de Bayeux 31109.jpg.) It was included as being relevant to Viking ship construction in a Scientific American article a while back (don't know anything more)... AnonMoos (talk)

The description in Longship makes me guess that they were built outside. Hauling a vessel that's so large would be hard enough (note that it describes the method of overland transportation as "dragged", not "carried" or "portaged") if you built it right next to the water and just had to move it a few feet over open ground. It would be substantially more difficult if you had to take it a longer distance (presumably big buildings wouldn't be next to the water, since they'd be more vulnerable to flooding) and get it to squeeze through a doorway. Remember that Norse architecture wasn't particularly advanced throughout the viking period (they didn't have chimneys, for example), so the building might not be able to accommodate the construction and exit of a ship, even if moving the ship were easy. On top of all of that, consider the issue of a massive tarp or tent: it would probably be a lot easier just to cover the construction site with fabric, especially since the light and open design of these ships meant that almost every part would get drenched with seawater anyway. Yes, you'd be out in the elements while you were building it, but houses weren't exactly well sealed by modern standards; a fire on the ground might be just as good as a fire inside, and you wouldn't have the disadvantage of tons of smoke floating around trying to escape through the hole in the roofline. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What good's a boat if you have to protect it from the weather? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That rather depends on the weather. If a normal rain destroys your boat, then it's not much of a boat. But severe storms and sitting in water as it freezes over are much more challenging for any boat, so giving them some type of shelter from those conditions will certainly extend their lives. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In Norway, if they want to make themselves a Viking long ship, they do it outdoors. See Building the world's most iconic Viking ship. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2

Machine-gun firing squads

Jang Sung-taek was executed a couple of months ago, soon after being purged from a top position in North Korea's government; according to at least one South Korean analyst, it's likely that he was killed by a machine-gun firing squad. Some of his associates had been purged and executed not long before, and a similar method of execution was used. What's the point of using a firing squad of machine guns? I can't remember hearing of multiple machine guns being used for any purpose, except of course on the battlefield where multiple guns can cover more ground, provide redundancy, scare the enemy more thoroughly, etc., but none of those is particularly applicable when you've got just one target at close range who can't move or fight back. It would also seem silly because a group of guys with rifles is generally sufficient, and one machine gun would definitely work as well: you wouldn't have the difficulty of bringing multiple machine guns into a building or the increased risk of one of the many rounds ricocheting off the walls, or if it's outside you'd have a reduced risk of one of the rounds ricocheting or being fired in a weird direction and causing havoc. It just doesn't seem to be the efficient solution I'd expect to be employed in this kind of situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The main point of execution by a normal firing squad is to disperse the responsibility. Guess a machine-gun squad is the North Korean regime's idea of turning a normal firing squad up to 11... AnonMoos (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, chances are that a lot more machine gun bullets will hit the victim, so it would be even less apparent who really killed him. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Turning it up to eleven what? Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(This). 71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In years past, they formed a circle around the victim. That tended not to work out very well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That was actually part of what I was wondering. Bring a group of guys with rifles, or one guy with a machine gun, and you should be all right; but a group of guys with machine guns might run the risk of a gun going in the wrong direction (e.g. through recoil) and accidentally shooting another shooter. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a (very old) joke, son. But you raise an interesting point. The only depiction I can think of just now is in The Great Escape, where the Nazis use a machine gun to mow down some escapees whom they had recaptured. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

NK has also reportedly executed generals by placing them at the aim point of a mortar. That's certainly not efficient, but that's not the point. It's a (morbidly) theatrical gesture pour encourager les autres. Acroterion (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, a machine gun firing squad would be just as safe, provided they use it as intended, i.e. supported on the ground or some kind of raised support. Holding a machine gun against your shoulder only supported by your arms would indeed be dangerous, much in the same way as firing a rifle holding it with one hand at arm's length like a pistol. Sjö (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article says; "[In] recent military history, Russian, Japanese and Chinese firing squads all had real bullets, no blank rounds were issued. It is thought that this is because they didn't care less about who thought what about who, and who did what, where and when. Even today, Chines firing squads all have real bullets..."'. I'm not sure how reliable a source it is, but it makes sense. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A WW2 vet I know scoffed at the notion of a member of a firing squad being spared the knowledge of whether his rifle fired a blank or a bullet, and said it was easy to tell the difference from the recoil of an M1. But they wouldn't know until they pulled the trigger, so they might be less likely to balk, and more willing to point the rifle at the victim and pull the trigger. See also Straight Dope. One problem with overkill such as mortar fire or a corpse torn to bits by machine gun fire or hungry dogs or lions is that it does not leave an identifiable corpse, and it would be possible for there to be a fake execution staged, if the condemned had sympathizers among the force charged with the execution, with someone else killed instead. Think of all the stage illusionists who have been apparently killed. Edison (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

About the recoil thing, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 October 4#firing a blank. Note that while the removal of the statement from our article about remembering the bullet as blank was probably appropriate considering the lack of sources, I think it is fair to say people are often good at 'remembering' what they want to 'remember'. So it wouldn't surprise me if multiple experienced shooters in a firing squad thought they had fired a blank if they'd been told one round was a blank even if none of them were, in cases where it mattered to them. Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a depiction of a machine-gun execution in Thailand in the mini-series Bangkok Hilton (can be seen on YouTube, but is perhaps not for the squeamish). I have no idea how accurate it is. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you do a search for something simple like 'machine gun execution' on the internet, you should find two things.

1 is a claim that the NK execution didn't just use a machine gune but an anti aircraft machine gun. I have no idea on the accuracy of the claim and think it's wise to treat any claims about what goes on in NK with scepticism. In fact you'll probably also find claims the execution was done using hounds [4].

Another is thing you should find are links to videos allegedly depicting real machine gun executions in Syria, Libya and I think Afghanistan. (I haven't looked at any of the videos so can't confirm they depict anything.)

Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Who is the celebrated "Rudpiki"?

Hi all,

I was reading Walter Scott's The Talisman, and there is a reference to a 'celebrated Rudpiki', who or what is that. The reference is like this:

"He was thus greatly perplexed, and undecided how to act; and it was in a tone of hasty displeasure that, at length breaking silence, he interrupted the lay of the celebrated Rudpiki, in which he prefers the mole on his mistress's bosom to all the wealth of Bokhara and Samarcand."

Cheers Gulielmus estavius (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A lay is a narrative poem or a song, such as a ballad.
Sleigh (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And Rudpiki seems to be a name that Scott dreamt up for the singer of the song. I wonder if the p was meant to be a Thorn (letter) (þ). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this glossary, Rudpiki was a Persian poet. I have no idea about the novel, but maybe Scott was referring to Rudaki? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here the quote (from Chorasmia, attributed to Hafez): "If that Shirazi Turk heeds my heart's call for love, I would sell even the jewel cities of Samarkand and Bukhara for the Indian mole on her cheek." Legend has it that Tamerlane sent for Hafez regarding this verse and asked angrily: "Are you he who was so bold as to offer my two great cities Samarkand and Bukhara for the mole on thy mistress's cheek?". "Yes, sire" replied Hafez, (...) --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Creativity and Innovation

My friend is currently pursuing a marketing degree and is looking for materials that will help him to highlight ways in which innovators and people who make creative things and the marketing methods that people utilise to showcase their creative accomplishments. External links would be helpful, particularly ones which focus on the various methods used --Andrew 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Global Economic Inequality and the Law

The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. There is a big inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries. There are very rich countries and very poor countries. Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with the law? If so, then what? What does the law think about it? Great Time (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that as a request for references rather than a soapboxing invitation to debate? This is not a chat forum, and you've asked substantially the same question four days ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What law or laws are you talking about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The lack of rule of law in the "developing nations" is definitely a contributing factor. That is, nobody wants to invest in a nation where their investment can be arbitrarily taken away by the government, rebels, or whoever else is in charge at the time. Not to mention that the owners might be arrested or killed when they visit their factory. See the case of Mohamed Bouazizi for an example of how corrupt governments make it impossible to operate even the most basic businesses, because everything is illegal there, unless you know/bribe the right people. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent comment, Stu. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"What the law think about it" is kind of meaningless. Equally, your assumptions about the division into rich and poor are dubious at least. In the same vein, there is no way of guessing what do you mean by 'the law.' International law? National laws? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Great Time: You might want to check out the article Economic inequality, which lists a number of factors, many of which have legal aspects. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

==+ Global Economic Inequality, International Law and Justice ==+

The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. There is a big inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries. There are very rich countries and very poor countries. Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with international law? If so, then what? What does international law think about it? Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with justice? If so, then what? What does blindfolded Lady Justice think about it?

Great Time (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In sentence order: Incorrect assumption. See Gini coefficient, World systems theory, comprador elite: your assumption is again incorrect, many people in developing nations also live disgustingly opulent lives on the backs of the working class. Incorrect assumption. No. See World systems theory, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Late capitalism. Social relations don't think, and you can't give them human characteristics like thought. No: this isn't a world of justice, son, this is a world of force. Then you ought to do basic research on International relations and political science before you spam this answer again. Again, personifications, social relations, and institutions aren't capable of thought. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't double post your questions, please. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your question is so misguided that's difficult to start unraveling it, although StuRat (on your last question) tried to put you on track. Apparently without success, despite his very good answer, which is well complemented by Fifelfoo's answer. I wonder whether you are aware that Lady Justice is not actually a woman who thinks about the state of the world. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than dividing the world by income, and seeking an explanation in law, why not divide the world by the quality of legal systems (perhaps using the anti-corruptionTransparency International measures), and seek an explanation about wealth?DOR (HK) (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism and Anti-Communism in India

America is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. What about India? Great Time (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I give up. What about India? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Economy of India, Politics of India and Socialism in India might be useful starting points here --Andrew 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused about your question. It's like you are asking "Kangaroos hop. What about cows?". Regardless of how much Kangaroo hop or not hop, it has no impact on cows' ability to hop. So why make a statement about the Kangaroos in the first place? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither term describes India very well. After its independence, it followed a path of non-alignment and implemented some socialistic reforms. 1975 began increased free market reforms. India has tried to implement what it feels are the most useful aspects of both, while trying to stay clear of the extreme violent aspects of both and wanting to live in peace, both internally and externally. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 3

UN parade with US troops from Korean conflict 1952

October 24, 1952- was there a UN parade including troops from the participating countries? If yes, any details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.251.251 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

October 24 is United Nations Day. The Keith Highlanders Pipe Band, Seattle claim that they represented "the United Kingdom at the United Nations Day program in 1952", presumably at an event in Seattle. The town of Lubbock, Texas held a United Nations Day Dinner complete with a UN birthday cake. I also found this 1952 British newsreel clip which just says; "Remember October 24th - United Nations Day", so presumably it was commemorated in the UK as well. If you could tell us a particular location, it might make the search a bit easier. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright assertions by dead people

I've seen this sort of thing before, but the oddness of it just struck me. I've just finished reading Under the Sun, the letters of Bruce Chatwin. In the legal stuff at the front is this statement:

• Bruce Chatwin has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.

He died in 1989, and this book of collected letters was published in 2011. How could a dead person assert any such thing? Do they mean the executors of his estate have asserted the right on his behalf? If so, why do they not say that?

It also contains many footnotes and explanatory texts about Chatwin's travels and writings and personal life, to help put the letters in context and explain the non-obvious references in them. These were written by the co-editors, his widow Elizabeth Chatwin and his biographer Nicholas Shakespeare. As were the Preface, Introduction and Acknowledgements. Do they not get to claim any part of the authorship? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• As author of the letters, he still maintains copyright, despite being dead. The UK recognizes copyright for 70 years after the creator's death, not publication, and these letters would have been considered automatically copyrighted. Not sure about the footnotes etc. though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes, introductions or similar stuff on a text won't make anyone a co-author of the main work. Although they are probably protected by their own copyright, independent of the main work.

I am not sure that the long claim "Bruce Chatwin has asserted his right" is in any way different from the short form "© Bruce Chatwin." It seems like a standard formulation, which is probably required by law, and not the case that Bruce personally asserted that, or had to do that. Possibly, this claim is simply a moral right of an author of being considered the author. Many works are surely automatically covered and some rights can not be waived. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand the moral right concept, and that copyright survives an author's death. I'm assuming that the "Bruce Chatwin" in the sentence is not to be interpreted as the physical person - because he was cremated shortly after dying 25 years ago - but the legal entity which is the owner of the copyright, and which is very much extant until 2059. If, in 2060 or later, someone comes up with previously unknown letters from him, they could presumably publish them as their own work and not Chatwin's. Is that the case? Or at least get to keep all the royalties and not have to share them with his estate? Why would the moral right cease to exist at 70 years, or ever? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The economic rights might expire 70 years after the death of an author (other clauses and special cases apply, so this is a general rule). However, the moral rights, o be considered the author, to avoid distortion of his work, and damage to his reputation, for example, last at least the economical rights expire (also, in general also 70 years). You probably can't publish something that you found, claiming that's yours. After copyright expires, then, you can keep the royalties. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. So, for example, I could publish an edition of Hamlet and keep all the royalties because Shakespeare's been dead for far longer than 70 years, but it would still be fraud/misleading conduct for me to claim I wrote it myself. Separate issues. Thanks for the enlightenment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Could Woody Allen be indicted?

The rules of WP:BLP apply to the ref desk, please observe them. Criminal accusations are defamation per se. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the accusations against him are more than 20 years old. So horrible as it might be, isn't there any statute of limitation for things which are not murder? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It actually isn't unheard of that crimes besides murder, such as child sexual assault has no statute of limitations. That said, if I understand [5] correctly, the statute of limitations in Connecticut for childhood sexual assault occuring in the 90s is likely to be "up to 30 years after the victim reaches age 18 or up to five years after the victim reports the crime, whichever is earlier" which concurs with these sources that the statute on any of the historic allegations which have flared up again likely expired 15 years ago (5 years after they were reported) [6] [7]. I'm not 100% sure what happens if allegations are made that weren't reported before and obviously if any allegations are made covering activity in another state then this is all irrelevant. Either way, to emphasise the earlier point, as I understand the source and also [8] + [9], there it no statute of limitations on sexual assault commited since the amendment in 2002, by an adult (or anyone more than 2 years older) on someone under 13 years of age. (In other words, if everything but the laws were moved 10 years later, there may be no statute of limitations.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at Statute_of_limitations#Heinous_crimes_in_the_United_States? ManOfTeeth (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not clear whether sexual assault is heinous or not. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately that paragraph is unreferenced, and in any case doesn't specifically mention any crimes other than murder. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like he could, in theory - but given what this article says, there was unsufficient evidence 20 years ago. So unless there's new evidence, it could be a problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In reference to Medeis' comment above, it's important to keep the discussion to what has already been published. On TV shows where they talk about some particular case, they often go into what could be called "abstract mode", where they talk about the various laws and such in general terms rather than zeroing in on a specific individual. As to the OP's question, "could be" can be answered, "yes, could be". That doesn't mean "will be". There's no indication of what, if anything, the legal system is going to do with these resurfaced allegations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack Cornwell VC shell splinters

I thought that I would have a go at improving our Jack Cornwell page (we're both from Leyton), as large chunks of it are unreferenced. The "Battle of Jutland" section claims that the gun shields on Cornwell's ship, HMS Chester, were too short and many of the gun crews suffered severe leg injuries as a result. I'm struggling to find a source for this; Jutland, 1916: Death in the Grey Wastes by Peter Hart, Nigel Steel has several eye witness accounts of the carnage on the deck of HMS Chester but no mention of short gun shields. The Imperial War Museum's page says "...the forecastle received a direct hit as a result of which every member of Cornwell’s gun crew were either killed or wounded"; presumably the explosion was behind the open-backed shield. Can anybody shed any light on this? I have posted the same question on the article's talk page, but it doesn't seem to be very busy. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail ("the open-backed gun-shields did not reach the deck to give protection") and the Boy Scouts of Western Cape ("The gun mountings were merely open backed shields and did not reach the deck. Splinters were thus able to pass under them or enter the open back when shells exploded near or behind.") both think so, but for a really definitive answer, it would seem that the Imperial War Museum is the best place to ask, seeing as they have the very gun at which he served. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that I might go with "some sources suggest" unless I can find anything published by the IWM. The open-backed shields seem to have been the main issue; the Royal Navy persisted with these until the 1960s, because they're much lighter than fully enclosed ones. Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wealth and Divine Reward

Asked and answered (again)     05:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. Most rich countries are Christian. Most Christian countries are rich. Rich Christian countries include America, European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. They are Western, Northern, and First World countries. Britain began and invented the Industrial Revolution and had the world's largest colonial empire. America is the world's only superpower, has the world's largest economy, and is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. Is this because God rewards or blesses them? Great Time (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC) See Webber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC) You've already asked this question, multiple times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs. I just thought you might like to know that you've just written, "You've already asked this question, multiple times." I hope you find my observation helpful! 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

America, Australia and Secular Republics

Is America a secular republic? Is Australia a secular republic?

Great Time (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Read America and Australia and report back. I'd love to know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The USA is certainly secular. There are occasional minor encroachments of religion, like inserting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance, but there's a huge difference between that and a theocracy. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Australia most definitely is not. Whether or not it's secular depends on your definition, but it's not a republic for sure. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops: There is an obscure animal called a crowned republic. Our article gives Australia as one example. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

PS @Beland below: Australia´s head of state is, of course, QEII. She is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (17.1% of the population). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Great_Time -- The United States is a secular republic, modified by Ceremonial Deism, granting tax-exempt status to religious bodies (without discrimination by denomination), and declaring Christmas to be an official federal holiday. It's up to you to decide whether this meets your definition of "secular" or not... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither have a state religion, which is a good metric. -- Beland (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hey, we also have the article secular state which goes into a bit more depth worldwide. -- Beland (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 4

Nellie McClung

My husband is a great nephew of Nellie McClung and is very familiar with her life and works. In your article you list a 17th book attributed to her "The Morning After Dawn" (1950). We own the complete collection of her books (16) and a list of all the articles written by her, many of which are housed in the Sipiweske Museum at Wawanesa, Manitoba, where she grew up and went to school. We have been unable to find any mention of the book listed in the article, nor does it appear that she wrote an article or essay under this name. Also, have researched it in Victoria, B.C. where she resided prior to her death and there is no mention of this book. We are wondering what the source of this information is and, frankly doubt that a book or article under this name was written by her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.27.243 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss the publication and the authorship of the book right away. It could perfectly be an anthology of her previous work, in the same venue as Baraka ([[10]]) and not an original work. The number of books would remain then 16, consistent with your information. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Appointed discussion area is Talk:Nellie McClung... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at second-hand book websites brings up no mention of this title, so I would be tempted to delete it. If anyone else comes up with a reference, they can always restore it. --Viennese Waltz 09:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The two bibliographies I found, while they disagree with each other (added to the article), don't list The Morning After Dawn either, nor was I able to find anything other than Wikipedia mirrors, so I took it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Added a third bibliography source. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user who added that title to the bibliography made another factually incorrect edit on the same day. --Cam (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

article help

What factors caused Las Casas to renounce his holdings and devote his life to defending the interests of Spain's Native American subjects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsoccer4 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, Bartolomé_de_las_Casas it was while reading the Sirach. I assume you are looking for something more than that? DanielDemaret (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Sipple

Hi, the man is deceased but I'm not sure how to confirm his actual middle name. It could be William or Wellington, I see both used and reported but it would be nice to confirm it and add the reference(s). Any ideas? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry.com has 'Wellington' for his middle name, sourced to 'California, Death Index, 1940-1997':[11] but I don't have subscription to verify. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I do, and it does indeed say "Wellington". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Name of a painting (and artist)

Does anyone know the name of the painting (and of the artist who painted it) displayed from 01:00 onwards in this YouTube clip. Thanks! 59.167.253.199 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)