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

February 20

Waltz played S01E01 American Version of House of Cards?

Can anyone identify the waltz played at the pre-inaugural ball in (the last few minutes of) S01E01 of the American version of House of Cards? It sounds Russian Romantic to me. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone thinks they can identify a waltz, I will email a link. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Shostakovich's "Waltz 2" (in C minor and E-flat major) from the 7th movement in Suite for Variety Orchestra (adapted from his Op. 99: Music to the film The First Echelon)? ---Sluzzelin talk 05:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it, excellent. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Color changes over historical time

I am trying to find any article in wikipedia on color perception changes over historical time. It is not obvious to me whether to ask here, linguistics or science, so this will have to do.

Specifically, what people have called different colors. For example, Homer used only 3-4 words for different colors. Some languages have only three words for different colors. In my lifetime, and in the languages I know, even primary colors have changed from what they used to refer to. The largest shift in colors came with the introduction of Windows 3.0, which I attended, and which homogenized and shifted color perception in languages all over the world. Boundaries of colors changed in a Voronai Tessalonation style, new words for certain colors were introduced in many languages, and some names of colors were displaced by others, and later replaced by the new ones (like the shift from "brandgul" to "orange" in swedish).

I have read several books about this in books related to cognition, but I can not seem to find any article to read or build on. On top of that ,the subject seems to me to warrant a full article, not just fleeting references.

I have tried look for "color shift" , "color change" and "peter gärdenfors", since he wrote a book (which I can not find right now, it might have been "Conceptual spaces") mentioning this.

Any suggestions as to where I might find such an article? Or do I really have to start a new article? DanielDemaret (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a rather technical discussion at Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate (a horrible title IMHO). That points to the article on the book Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Rojomoke (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware of those articles. They are related, but do not quite cut it. DanielDemaret (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can't find a book, you can't start an article. Articles based on OR will be deleted.
Sleigh (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I know. I found it, though. It was "Conceptual Space". There are other references also for other examples that I could use. DanielDemaret (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me of an article I once read, which claimed that the name "pink" did not exist until the last two centuries: the name for what we now call "pink" was "light red". is that the sort of thing you are looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There are a lot of colors like that. I would not be surprised if there were more than seven colors a hundred years ago in English, and even fewer in Swedish. Now there are many thousands of names for colors. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Before that, the description was more like "the color of the sea" or some other likeness. Strike the previous... Heraldic colors were probably more than seven. But not much more.DanielDemaret (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just checked. Funnily enough, I found exactly seven heraldic colors :) Or, Argent ,Azure ,Gules ,Purpure ,Sable ,Vert. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And purpure is doubtful. (The lion of the kingdom of León is the most prominent example, and it's sometimes red.) But heraldic colors are constrained by the need to be distinguishable in a number of media (dyed cloth, painted wood, stained glass, ...) and in poor light; meseems that would have made the palette smaller than what people recognized for other purposes. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In Swahili, according to my brief study thirty years ago, 'white' and 'black' and 'red' are true adjectives but all other colors are 'of the color of [noun]'. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Our article Distinction of blue and green in various languages suggests blue is an adjective in Swahili although derived from English. BTW, our article pink suggests the name is recent (although from the 17th century so way more than 100 years ago) but the colour itself has been described since ancient times in Western literature. (The earlier article suggests pink is still not always considered unique in some languages.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this article by the American Psychological Association may be what you're looking for. This is just an abstract, but also seems to point to what you're requesting (Turkish speakers versus English speakers differentiating blue colour chips). This full article is also from the same periodical, but deals with Russian blues rather than Turkish ones. Matt Deres (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Afroyim v. Rusk and John Demjanjuk

Today's featured article, Afroyim v. Rusk, quotes an "expert" as saying in 2005, that on the basis of policies adopted in 1990, it is now "virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it".

How does that jibe with the case of John Demjanjuk, who was denaturalized in 1977 and again in 2004? I know that the rationale was that he had supposedly lied during the naturalization proceedings, and it seems to be folklore that lying to obtain naturalization is the one cause that permits denaturalization. However, this is not mentioned as an exception in the Afroyim article. Is this just a flaw in that article, or is there something I'm missing? --Trovatore (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There may be a difference between "was a naturalized citizen and had a valid citizenship revoked" and "was discovered at a later time that his citizenship was never valid". If I have five dollars and you take it from me, that is different from me thinking I had five dollars, then when I search my pockets discover I was mistaken. Same thing here. If the ruling is "He was a valid citizen, but now based on what he did since then, we're revoking citizenship," that is a different situation than "upon investigation, it turns out he never became a citizen in the first place." --Jayron32 11:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32's intuition is correct. As the Supreme Court ruled in Fedorenko v. United States, "there must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship. Failure to comply with any of these conditions renders the certificate of citizenship "illegally procured," and naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be set aside." Afroyim itself explains that naturalization unlawfully procured can be set aside. 387 U.S. 267 n.23. It would probably be worth adding a sentence to the Afroyim article to explain the distinction (and of course the Fedorenko article could use a lot of work). John M Baker (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit like a divorce (= a valid marriage was dissolved) vs. an annulment (= an acknowledgment that, despite appearances, a valid marriage never existed). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, sure, that's the theory, I suppose. Still, according to the records, Demjanjuk was at some times a US citizen, and at other times, not. What if (as actually seems fairly possible) he never was a Nazi guard at all, and therefore had not lied? Then do we say he was never denaturalized, and in fact remained a US citizen until his death, just an unrecognized one? In any case, I think the Afroyim article should explain the theory, problematic as it might be, and probably with more than just "a sentence". --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the explanation is that he was never a citizen, but it was thought that he was for a time. Again, no matter how strong I believe I have five dollars in my pocket, if I later find out it was never there, the time I spent believing that doesn't mean it was taken away from me. The time people spent believing that Demjanjuk was a citizen doesn't mean that he actually was. He doesn't become a citizen simply because he believes he was one; nor because others believe he was one. If his naturalization didn't actually happen, he never was a citizen in the first place. --Jayron32 20:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

But as I say, if he didn't lie (which quite possibly he didn't), then according to the theory, he was a citizen, right? Even though according to current records, he wasn't? This theory has obvious problems; if you accept it, then it means you never quite know who's a citizen and who isn't, but letting that go, it still needs to be explained carefully in the article. Not just "a sentence", because it's a rather important exception to the stated rule as most people would read it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not alone in seeing the problems - Stevens' Fedorenko dissent ends: "I remain firmly convinced that the Court has committed the profoundest sort of error by venturing into the unknown to find a basis for affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals. That human suffering will be a consequence of today's venture is certainly predictable; that any suffering will be allayed or avoided is, at best, doubtful."John Z (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

But Trovatore, you never quite know anything. Perfect knowledge is an illusion; even our own assurances of the reliability of our own senses and memories is taken on some measure of blind faith. There's a level of Solipsism in all of this. We act on what we believe to be the truth; as do courts, as do all people. Based on the best evidence we have, we proceed with what we believe to be true. There are no assurances. There is only "We're doing the best we can with the evidence before us". If the evidence before the court told the court the naturalization procedure was invalid, he was never a citizen. If the evidence before the court had convinced them otherwise, they'd have ruled otherwise. If I believe I have five dollars in my pocket, I make the stop for the coffee I want. If I find out it isn't there when I go to pay the cashier, I don't get the coffee. Belief leads to action, change in evidence leads to change in beliefs leads to change in action. There is no perfect knowledge of absolute truth. --Jayron32 03:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't think you're quite coming to terms with the point here. For all practical purposes, Demjanjuk acquired US citizenship in 1958, lost it in 1977, regained it in 1998, lost it again in 2004. That's the way most people will see it. You can say, if you like, that according to legal theory he either never had it in the first place, or else had it continuously from 1958 to his death, depending on whether he was or was not a Nazi concentration-camp guard. But that's a very abstract viewpoint, and not at all the prima facie interpretation of the sequence of events (certainly it is not how it is described in Demjanjuk's bio). On its face, there is a clear contradiction between the events described in Demjanjuk's bio and the almost-categorical claims of the Afroyim article, and I think it's the latter that needs to be corrected. --Trovatore (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, what is practical purposes? We're discussing abstract concepts here, not physical objects. Look, if you really want to get down to brass tacks here, either a) we accept that a valid interpretation of Demjanjuk's situation is that the citizenship never existed or b) that since we're dealing with abstract concepts, it comes down to the fact that he was an undesirable and the U.S. government wanted to make a statement to that effect, and just freaking did it. a) is how you provide a valid justification for b). Since justifications for abstract concepts like "citizenship" are going to be nebulous at best; that is we can all agree on whether a physical object like my 5 dollars in my beaten-to-death example really existed or not, there's no way to make a similar reasonably agreeable statement on whether citizenship "exists" or "not". What color is citizenship? How much does it weigh? What material is it made out of? Since those concepts sound completely ridiculous, we get at the crux of the problem. If it has no physical form, how do you define if it does or doesn't exist? And if you can't, it's REAL easy to play games with it in this way. --Jayron32 04:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Practical purposes are, you are a citizen if the authorities treat you as one.

I am also a bit frustrated that you don't mention the possibility that Demjanjuk, in fact, was telling the truth all along, in which case (according to your viewpoint) his citizenship was always valid. Do you take the view that, if he was telling the truth, then his citizenship was always valid, or not? --Trovatore (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I take the point of view that the U.S. Government is more powerful than me, and will do whatever the heck it wants to because it has power and and that my opinion means doodlysquat. The rest of whatever comes after the Government's actions is merely whatever bullshit they can tell the masses to keep them quiet and appeased. --Jayron32 04:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Objection, judge. Witness's answer is not responsive. --Trovatore (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On a more philosophical note, one thing the US gov cannot do, no matter how powerful it is, is change the past. The claim that Demjanjuk's citizenship was never revoked, but simply never existed in the first place, makes sense only if the citizenship is a real thing. But if it is a real thing, then it either did exist or it did not, independently of what the US government now says about it. (This is a point that people seem to be missing a lot these days. Lance Armstrong, for example, did win seven Tours de France. Legitimately? No. Nevertheless he did win them. That's just historical fact.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, being able to revoke legal acts ex tunc (i.e. from the point where the act occurred) is an important part of most legal systems. For example, if I have a patent which is found invalid (a decision which applies ex tunc), I cannot sue someone for infringing that patent in the period between when it was granted and when it was found invalid. It is true to say that I had a patent for that time, but legally, it is considered to have never existed. MChesterMC (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why this ultra specific tuning is used in music?

Why non [ 12 tone equal temperament, with octave, and A4 being 440hz, and note order being c c# d d# e f f# g g# a a# b ] tunings arent used today?
I mean there is a reason to it be this way , my real question is why its use is so super ultra specific, like not having some considerable amount of musicians using 13 tone equal temperament (with the rest of the rules stuff being equal) or with some using A4 being 400hz, some using a4 as 450hz, some ordering notes as C C# Db D E E# F F# G A B Bb.......
So not having musicians using minor variations of the "theme", and so the good tuning being really the very specific tuning in the first part of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.220.93 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

When all musicians playing the same piece of music are not all playing the notes at the same frequencies, it doesn't sound pleasing or correct. Everyone needs to be together, so a set of "standards" developed over history. For various arbitrary (but still real) historic reasons all instruments are tuned to concert pitch; most anglophone countries use A440 (pitch standard), but some continental European traditions use slightly different frequencies. The issue is not that it MUST be 440. The issue is that it all should be THE SAME, so that musicians can all start playing a piece of music together and all have the correct notes right away. Beyond that, the tradition of the 12-tone western scale can be found at articles like note, Chromatic scale, Equal temperament, etc. --Jayron32 11:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's complicated. A musical culture uses the notes and intervals it's used to, and other notes and intervals feel wrong or strange. There are other musical traditions that divide the octave differently - see microtonal music. As to where our twelve notes came from, the interval of a perfect fifth, which increases the frequency by a ratio of 3:2, was felt to be the most consonant interval. The circle of fifths - C increased by a fifth is G; G increased by a fifth is D; D increased by a fifth is A; A increased by a fifth is E; E increased by a fifth is B; B increased by a fifth is F#; F# inceased by a fifth is C#; C# increased by a fifth is G#; G# increased by a fifth is D#; D# increased by a fifth is A#; A# increased by a fifth is F; F increased by a fifth is C - produces the 12 notes of the octave. As Jayron notes, the exact frequencies of those notes have come to be standardised so people can play together. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To further complicate matters, if you follow the circle of fifths past an octave using the same fractional math that got you the first fifth (the 3:2 ratio), you don't get to the octave (2:1 ratio) note. You instead get to a note which is slightly off from the octave. This difference is called a comma, and the reason for equal temperament is to reduce the comma to a tolerable level. The idea is, to make both the perfect fifth and the octave work correctly on keyed or fretted instruments (like a guitar or piano), you simply cannot do it perfectly, so you "fudge" the differences and spread your "fudge factor" out along the entire scale. If you didn't, the further you get from the root note of your scale, the more perceptably "wrong" it sounds. When you spread the "wrongness" out in little bits over the whole scale, it sounds fine. In simpler terms, equal temperament is meant to allow musical pieces to be truly transposable and sound right, and to minimize problems with Enharmonic notes being different. --Jayron32 11:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There are twelve tones in the chromatic scale because 3¹² happens to be close to a power of two. The next time the "circle" of fifths almost closes (with a small comma) is at 3⁵³ (which gives 53-tone equal temperament), and the next time after that is 3⁶⁶⁵. Some intermediate scale sizes have other desirable properties (for example, 31-tone equal temperament has a good 5/4 major third) but most of them are bad choices for purely mathematical reasons.

There are seven tones in the major scale because that's the fewest consecutive notes in the circle of fifths that fill the octave with no gaps larger than a whole step (two semitones). If you use only six consecutive notes you get a hexachord, which has a minor-third gap between la and do/ut.

A440 is entirely arbitrary, as far as I know -- BenRG (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: arbitrary, I believe that at one point they were going to use A439 Hz as the international standard, but they were having trouble generating it with the equipment of the day because 439 is a prime number. Also, I think you meant (3/2)⁵³ and (3/2)⁶⁶⁵ etc., since 3/2 is the fifth ratio, and 2/1 (power of two) is the octave ratio. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of other things: Five consecutive notes in the circle are the fewest that give you gaps of at most three semitones; this is the pentatonic scale, which is also widely used. Although the cyclic WWHWWWH pattern of the major scale is dictated by the circle of fifths, the fact that it starts with do is semi-arbitrary; I think it's because of the hymn ut queant laxis, which is also the origin of most of the solfege syllable names, except do (formerly ut) and ti. -- BenRG (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see nobody has yet mentioned that equal tempering allows musicians to change to a different key without having to use a different set of frequencies. Looie496 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, almost. Equal temperament allows pianos, organs, harps, fixed pitch instruments etc. to play in all the keys and have it sound the same. Even before equal temperament a pianist could play in all the keys (see Well Temperament) but some keys sounded better than others. As far as I know, string, wind, and brass instruments still don't play in equal temperament because they have the ability to modify the pitch they're playing to play perfect intervals whenever they want. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

arbitration where parties can't agree on an arbitrator

I see common arbitration language saying an arbitrator will be agreed on by the parties. But is it common that they will actually agree? Can't they just refuse each other's selections - and does this happen? (including in bad faith.) What happens if nothing is specified for this case? --91.120.14.30 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of arbitration is not to pick a winner; the point of arbitration is to arrive at a solution to a problem where two parties cannot agree on how to solve the problem. If one or the other party is primarily concerned with defeating the other party, rather than coming to a solution to a problem, arbitration is useless. A truly neutral arbitrator should be available; if a party is picking an arbitrator not by the criteria of impartiality and skill, but on the criteria of whether or not the arbitrator will pick them as the "winner" and the other party as the "loser", there's really no point in arbitration in the first place. If parties cannot agree for legitimate reasons, then a third party may be asked to step in and appoint an arbitrator; but again if the parties don't agree to allow the decision of said arbitrator to be binding, then arbitration isn't likely to be helpful from the outset, regardless of anything else. --Jayron32 11:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting - thank you! I had just been thinking of it in terms of a cheaper version of court. (While being less rigorous). In other words I was thinking it's the parties trading some Due Process for a cheaper process.

I forgot that in the end it's not at all actually binding and requires cooperation. The whole purpose is a bit different from how I was thinking of it. --91.120.14.30 (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have seen contracts that stipulate a particular arbitrator and one that made the decision of that arbitrator binding to both parties. I do not know how "legal" or binding such contracts were. Contracts can be disputed in court. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration is generally binding on the parties, where the arbitrator makes a judement based on the evidence presented (sometimes it will be non binding, but the parties are expected to take it as at least persuasive, otherwise there's no point). It may be chosen over court because it's (often) cheaper, not public (and therefore there is no risk of having to disclose potentially confidential documents, and less risk of damage to repuation if you lose), and generally easier to enforce abroad than court judgements (due to several enforcement treaties). Mediation is a process similar to arbitration, where a neutral third party works with the other parties to try and come to an agreement, but the mediator has no power to bind the parties (though (s)he will try and convince them to enter into a binding contract). Generally, a contract will specify arbitration (or mediation) and the rules by which the arbitration shall proceed. Unless there are exceptional circumstances (e.g. specifying an arbitrator who has since gained a major conflict of interest with one of the parties), I wouldn't expect arbitration terms to be found invalid in a contract, since the party accepting the contract agreed to them at the time the contract was entered in to. MChesterMC (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Most Terms of Service lately make clear that they choose the arbitrator and/or legal venue. Problems with UFC's Fight Pass online service, for instance, must be weighed in their backyard of Clark County, Nevada. See Cracked's #1 terrifying user agreement you've probably accepted. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Importing and exporting stuff

Hi,

I live in Dubai and I'm thinking of starting a small import/export business. I never studied anything about economics so I have no clue how it works. Can anyone ship stuff (using DHL for example) to any country? Or do I need a license? Is there a maximal quantity of stuff I can import in a country? I'm thinking of exporting from Asia to import to Africa. Thank you so much for your help! 92.97.189.131 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We cannot provide you with legal or professional advice. If you have a request for a reference, such as how to contact a business school in your area, we will be glad to help. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This will all depend greatly on the laws of the two nations involved (and possibly any your cargo must travel through). Some issues you may encounter:

1) Export/import restrictions. Some things can't be legally imported in some places (or exported from some), such as some weapons, endangered animal products, art and antiquities which don't have a clear provenance (so could be stolen), & certain drugs and alcohol in some places. In addition, sometimes some otherwise legal products can't be imported to protect the local producers of that product from foreign competition.

2) Taxes/tariffs. There may be additional taxes or tariffs from importing items.

3) Limits. There might be limits on how much of certain items can be imported. Those limits could be per importer or a total for the nation, in which case all importers must stop, once the quota is reached.

4) Inspections. Customs officials will often want to inspect incoming/outgoing cargo, which can be time consuming and cause delays.

For your particular case, you'd need to contact customs officials in your nation for the rules. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Or, as Medeis suggested, get proper training in import/export business management rather than just start out asking about nuts and bolts issues. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Something else I should mention is that importing/exporting is often an opportunity for corrupt government officials to solicit bribes. They might hold up a shipment indefinitely, until you "grease the wheels". Hopefully such corrupt government officials don't exist at your end, but you might have trouble at the nations from which you are importing. It's important to research this before setting up imports from a specific nation, since once bribes are included in the cost of doing business, you may well find that doing imports from that nation is no longer profitable. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, Stu. You shouldn't be mentioning anything else. The OP needs to consult a professional or study the subject formally. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So if they contact the customs officials in the nation they want to import from, and ask for a list of their requirements, do you really think they will mention the need to pay a bribe ? StuRat (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You will need to know your CIF from your FOB. Most shippers use a customs agent, which will be another slice out of your profits, but the aggravation of dealing with customs and excise bureaucrats as an amateur is such that their services will seem cheap. I'm afraid that you appear to know so little about your proposed venture that it doesn't look very promising. 86.181.15.48 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The UAE ranks 26th on the Corruption Perceptions Index. He's at low risk of bribery, but has a large expatriate community to benefit from.81.145.165.2 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

contact info. for Inchegeri Sampradaya in India / contact info. for english speaking Disciples of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

My skill set does not include "deep" research ability. i am seeking contact info. for the Sampradaya of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. It is my desire to travel to India where I can study under the guidance of Sri Maharaj's disciple(s). If it is not possible for you computer geniuses to provide this defined info. could you please try to find some info to his disciples. My homeland is Canada, but "wintering in Mexico until arrangements for my journey are set. I ask you to please draw on every resource at your disposal. Thank you. Wes — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesskyR (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has an article, Nisargadatta Maharaj, which includes a number of links to other websites which may be useful. There is an active discussion group and a Facebook group is mentioned, if you use that social network. The Wikipedia article lists a number of Nisargadatta Maharaj's disciples, but the only one who himself has an article is deceased. One disciple living in Australia is Sailor Bob Adamson who apparently teaches on the subject. Another is Stephen Wolinsky. Googling the names of other disciples mentioned in the article may prove fruitful.--Kateshortforbob _talk 20:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How did the Catholic Church rise to power and become abusive during the Middle Ages?

close spamming, debate seeking by user venustar84
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How did the Catholic Church rise to power and become abusive during the Middle Ages? And has it made any efforts toward reuniting with Protestants since then? 140.254.227.23 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC) You have already posted multiple questions while having promised not to post more than one a day, Venustar84. You have been shut down by User:AndyTheGrump for seeking debate, and are now posting not under your user name. Please abide by the good behavior you have promised to follow. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order

Robert's Rules of Order (11th Ed) has an incidental motion called "Suspension of the Rules". When a suspension of the rule motion is tabled it is not debatable and cannot be amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it. My question is why cannot it not be debated? The fact that it is absolute and not debatable seems so undemocratic. Anyone know? ** CanadianGuy 99.241.162.219 (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of the rules doesn't answer your question directly, but does outline the circumstances in which it might be used, and the safeguards usually in place. Dalliance (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave it a read. Good summary of the rule. Unfortunately I am knowledgeable of it's use. I am just wondering what the political science / political philosophy / parliamentary procedural rational or precedence is that makes it undebatable. It just seems like a strange (and very powerful) motion not to have debate on. Thanks anyways. ** CanadianGuy

99.241.162.219 (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My take on it is that suspending the rules is done when the rules get in the way, so having more rules dealing with how to suspend the rules would be counter to the point. Just have the vote and either suspend the rules or try to continue using the normal process, as endlessly debating which option to use gets to be like a peace negotiation where nobody gets to discuss peace since they are too busy arguing over the shape of the table. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

February 21

DWK statue

I have a statue of the Archangel Michael with DMK 2002 on it. It fell over and broke and when I picked it up inside was the head of a cherub inside looking right at me. maybe a flaw but to this day it gives me chills. really curious,Zuech1 (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You thought you were scared? Just imagine how the cherub felt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that DWK or DMK? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Moral event horizon: does morality exist in North Korea?

Wikipedia's recent news item on human rights in North Korea is uniquely appalling. I should say that I have, at times, questioned whether such reports could be accurate, doubting that a society can be entirely hellish toward all of its inhabitants at once, and to the extent I might believe it, it causes me to doubt, for example, ideas for spreading life to other planets, on the basis that we may be of such monstrous essence that it would be better for all life to perish, without so much as a microbial Noah to survive the steam-cleaning, than to risk writing and rewriting such scenarios across the infinite heavens. But what I'd like to ask in particular is whether there is any theory of morality that has addressed, either to assert or repudiate, that in such societies morality can become utterly irrelevant because they are already in need of destruction.

For example, imagine the Bombing of Dresden in World War II is imminent. Supposing it is justified to prevent Nazis from oppressing all Europe, could we say it would be wrong for a psychogenic arsonist to burn down individual buildings in the city for his personal amusement? Would it be wrong to steal a car that the world wants to see bombed anyway? Would it be wrong for a man to beat the wife who we're about to try to drop a blockbuster bomb on? Is anything wrong in such a situation -- even to the extent of collaborating with the regime's mindless ravings in the hope of being someone akin Lenin's "wreckers" and helping the society to lose all connection with reality and destroy itself?

Now I do intend this to be a question, not an argument; I recognize that there were those among the early Christians who developed a profound morality in opposing a regime little better than the worst of our own era (and only due to the blessings of technological backwardness). I'm just wondering if there is an overall analysis of the concept. Wnt (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are asking but it sounds like you're interested in Normative_ethics. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

North Korea is at war with South Korea, United States and Japan. The Bombing of Dresden was during war. The arsonist is not burning down a building during war. The car is not being stolen during war.
Sleigh (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sleigh, North Korea is not at war with Japan. See Korean War. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't read Korean, but I'd bet the Korean wikipedia (being in the language standard in both warring countries) has some real experience in balancing our concerns for humanity like WnT's with impartial reporting. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Responses in this direction do call on known doctrine. In particular, the Thomas Aquinas version of just war theory states that war should be done by a properly instituted authority (i.e. not random people) and with motives of peace rather than self-gain (not psychogenic arsonists). But how does the first interact with a world in which partisans and even lone whistleblowers are key to conflicts? And how does the second interact with the reality that those in the military may get pleasure from an enemy's suffering, while an arsonist might have a valid grudge against a society as well as gaining personal satisfaction? Lastly, there's the issue of whether Dresden is a war zone but North Korea isn't. Technically, North Korea is a war zone; even the armistice has been repudiated. How can the morality of an action be determined based on whether an undeclared peace exists or doesn't exist far away from the scene? More generally, if someone within a society believes it should be the target of war but it is not, then doesn't that give him more justification for any harmful action than if he knew that established authorities and professionals elsewhere would do it for him? Wnt (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course concepts of morality exist in North Korea, just as concepts of morality persisted in Nazi Germany. Just because a country's ruling elite seem to defy morality as we, or most people, understand it doesn't mean that there is no morality in that country. Very likely many North Koreans view their leadership as immoral. On the other hand, the Nazis and very likely the North Korean ruling elite had their own warped view of morality. In the view of the Nazis, they were engaged in a moral mission of ridding Europe of what they considered "inferior races". I am less familiar with the North Korean case, but one wouldn't be surprised if they justified their actions with a warped version of Confucian-derived role ethics. Marco polo (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd also point out that it is almost impossible to imagine a case in which an entire society is in need of destruction, as you have put it. The leadership may be in need of replacement, the ruling ideology may be in need of rejection, but ordinary people living as morally as they can under a murderous government are not in need of destruction. The immoral actions of a government, or the fact that a country is technically at war do not suspend the strictures of morality. During military combat with an enemy in a just war, if one accepts that concept, the moral standards that would apply may be different than those that apply between civilians not engaged in combat, but in each case, there are moral standards that apply. For example, there is no way that a man is justified in beating his wife just because his country is in a state of war. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only do they consider that they are moral, it may well be that the regime has considerable support and that they consider themselves morally superior, as this article claims: https://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/02/19/northkorea/ . I have read other articles that claim the similar things. See Moral relativism. DanielDemaret (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On a smaller scale, it may be instructional to compare smaller moral differences among western countries. Many from especially small countries in the EU consider the US to be immoral for upholding the death penalty. DanielDemaret (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get into a debate about the death penalty, but of course not everyone subscribes to the same moral standards. The death penalty issue is relevant to my point about North Korea, if one considers the death penalty immoral. (If one doesn't consider the death penalty immoral, it's relevant only insofar as it points out that moral standards are not universal.) There are many Americans who agree that the death penalty is immoral. For this reason, the existence of the death penalty in the United States, even if one considers it immoral, cannot be used to argue that all Americans are immoral or that morality doesn't exist in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. DanielDemaret (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@[User:Wnt], I am curious to whether you think Moral relativism relates to what you would consider and "overall analysis of the concept." or whether I have misunderstood the question. DanielDemaret (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really much understand moral relativism. In fact, the second sentence of our article, "because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to..." pretty much sums up the problem. At least superficially, it is relevant, in that it suggests the morality is different in different countries; but if I understand at all it would seem to bend the rules in favor of an oppressive country's basic conduct rules rather than finding them invalid. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That said, perhaps I'm missing a point, because there's still the question of judgment to consider. As awful as the report paints the country as being, I still even now do reserve consideration that it might not be impartial, and that indeed as User:Marco polo says there could be plenty of good people there being ignored. Can you have an isolated society where a substantial fraction of the people are good yet everyone is, unnecessarily, at the very edge of utter misery? Well in any case I recognize that someone who is actually there should be in a better position to judge whether life is unbearable than someone far away. And I don't understand why they don't take that action. North Korea is famous for having an impressive array of biological weapons stored up, even bizarre hybrids of smallpox that would be of unprecedented lethality. What I don't really understand is why it would be that among the people working at one of those facilities, seeing how bad things are, facing the ever constant threat of brutality themselves, some one of them doesn't take some of the stuff, gulp it down, go home and kiss his family goodbye, and wander around the country spreading ... mercy. (Actually, it was consideration of the potential for this to happen and what it would imply for those of us outside the country that are at the motivational origin of this question...) Wnt (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@[User:Wnt], in the long run we're all dead, our planet is dead, the universe is dead. The question of why and how to live in the meantime is the heart of existentialism. It's easy to act morally when social pressure supports moral action and you expect a payoff to moral behavior (or a penalty for randomly burning down buildings). On the other hand, it's exactly when moral (or ethical) actions carry a heavy cost and the results are uncertain that moral decisions are thrown into the sharpest relief. They are stripped bare of habit, self-interest, and social expectation. I would say that morality exists in North Korea or it doesn't exist anywhere at all. Since you were wondering about analyses of this concept, I think you're basically looking for existentialist ideas of ethics and morality. Of course there are a lot of divergent views under that heading. --Amble (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It would clearly be immoral by any number of moral standards for a North Korean to spread a biowarfare agent around the country with the intention of killing as many of his countrymen as possible. One such argument would be that, even if there is a lot of misery in North Korea, even if most of the people are miserable most of the time (which I don't think we know is true), many North Koreans may still find meaning and fulfillment in life. Occasional, widely scattered moments of joy, such as expressions of love or experiences of the beauty of nature, may make life worth living for millions of North Koreans, even amid vast suffering. Most moral standards would agree that no individual has the right to take the life of another (except perhaps in combat, again depending on one's moral standards). Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

For North Koreans morality is based on "What would Kim Do?" just like some Christians base their morality on What Would Jesus Do?. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There's an extremely weird and evil cult that bases its morality on some obscure clerk, but I wouldn't give them the time of day. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If there were no morals at all in North Korea, would they still be able bring up children in their 11-year compulsory school? There has to be love in there somewhere for this to work, doesn't there? DanielDemaret (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@[User:Wnt], I have just read human rights in North Korea . It brings to mind how people were treated in several western european countries up to few hundred years ago. In fact, I think I could make a case that human rights were violated even worse in England, France and Sweden three hundred years ago. There seemed to be a race as to who could invent the most cruel methods of execution. Hanged, drawn and quartered was just one out of a hundred. The way poor people starved all over Europe was appalling. Foreign aid, food, came from Italy to starving Sweden, for example, asking nothing in return. There were a number of problems. First of all, the Italians would be burned for being Catholic, as was the law in Sweden. Secondly, even when they finally agreed to unload the food, Swedish poor people were not allowed to touch it, because of their way of interpreting Lutheran ethics at the time. They had to invent hard nonsense labor for the poor to do since the idea was that only people who worked were allowed to eat. Trials were a sham by the standards of any modern country. North Korea may have no worse morals than 18th century Western Europe had, and we still attribute morals to Western Europe . There was a reason that France had a revolution and that millions of Swedes, those who could afford the ticket, fled to the USA even in the 20th Century. There is one big difference. For those who could afford to travel and were not indentured, borders between countries did not restrict people from travelling. This would have made it obvious to people in France at the end of the 18th century that they were ill treated compared to Switzerland, for example. It is the isolation of people and their ideas that makes North Korean violations possible today. The relatively modern idea that states may restrict movement across borders. DanielDemaret (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Morality in NK is presumably whatever Kim decides it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

From the article, it seems to me that the human rights abuses in North Korea are similar to those in (wartime) Nazi Germany, minus the Holocaust; the latter might thus be a better example of morals in extreme situations. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nappy pack sizes

Can anyone shed any light on why nappies should come in packs of 74? Or why dishwasher tablets should come in packs of 51? It must relate to projected usage but I wonder why the quantities wouldn't be rounded up for easier accounting... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Total speculation/OR here, but maybe in the past the item was a different size. Rather then retool the production machinery for larger or smaller packaging, it might be easier and cheaper to modify the quantity in each package and the printing on the outside. So for example, maybe at one time there were 100 nappies in a packet, but the nappies got thicker (more absorbant) and now there is only room for 74 in the same size packet. Astronaut (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It may have to do with ensuring that the product fits snugly into a container fitted to standard pallet sizes. A product will be cheaper to warehouse and ship if it can be packed in multiples tightly into the area of a pallet. The manufacturer and/or retailer has probably balanced the most popular quantities and price points with those physical constraints. For example, they may know that customers would like about 50 or 75 nappies at a time, but not be able to create economical packages with exactly those amounts. They can create profitable packages that come close containing 51 or 74 nappies, so that's what they offer. Marco polo (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a UK thing. In the US Fairy comes in 34 tablets: [[1]]. I suppose they set the weight first and then they see how to divide the amount into x tablets. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as US Fairy. That's a European brand. Did you see the shipping charges to the US? Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's completely right. Now I wonder who pays that $40 to get it shipped to the US. Otherwise, I agree with your explanation above about the convenience of packaging this way as the reason of these numbers of units. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Downsizing is one possibility. In the US, at least, a seller who wants to increase profits knows that raising prices will be noticed, but slightly decreasing the quantity of product may not be. And with things like liquid detergent there's always the twist that they can disguise the downsizing by claiming the product is now "more concentrated". So, maybe it's now 10% more concentrated but in a 20% smaller package, and perhaps after everyone gets used to the smaller quantity they will go back to the original concentration. (They should have to list the amount of the active ingredients, to prevent this particular scam.) StuRat (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell. For example, when you mentioned dishwasher tablets coming in packs of 51, I immediately thought that they were in three packs of 17 and then Osman essentially supported that by saying the other pack-size was 34 (also divisible by 17). It could be that whoever figured out how many to stick in a box laid 17 out (in rows of 6,5,6) to figure out how many tightly fit per layer and then figured 3 layers would fit in the "carton" and 2 layers in the "box" ("and try our new jumbo 68-pack for real saving!"). It could also be that the die used to form the tablets was laid out in 6,5,6. It may sound unlikely, but I assure you such prosaic explanations are entirely possible; never mind that they don't actually sit in the box in neat layers anyway. Matt Deres (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

White opposition to the Jim Crow laws

I've been reading about the issues of racial discrimination in the United States, mostly between the Civil War and the 1960s. I'm curious that while there were campaigns by individual African Americans and bodies such as the NAACP, there is almost no mention of liberal white attitudes of the time. For example, while the Kate Brown (plaintiff in racial discrimination case) article doesn't mention the intervention of a white man, when I read up on the case itself she was indeed helped by a Mr Hinds (see here). Was the intervention of Mr Hinds, a white person coming to the assistance of an African American, a very unusual thing? Did no white person make any attempt to intervene, for example in the beating of Isaac Woodard, or when Rosa Parks was arrested, or in countless other cases? Why was it up to the (federal) courts to force the repeal of Jim Crow laws, rather then white public opinion? Astronaut (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at the Freedom Riders, Freedom Summer, Mississippi civil rights workers' murders, notice all the white folk singers who had songs about those events, etc. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't suppose you've heard of the Republican Party? Jim Crow was largely imposed on the nation by the Senate. The railroads fought segregation, they didn't ask for it. It was imposed on them by the Fedral Gubmint. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what that means -- before the early 1930's, U.S. blacks were aligned with the Republican party much more than with the Democratic party, and such civil rights laws as existed in the 19th century were almost always passed with Republican support (not to mention the 13th-15th Amendments). In fact, Jim Crow laws were much more a product of the individual states, and railway segregation was basically due to the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court (during its 1857-1937 politicized period) weakened the interpretation of Republican-passed provisions to the point where the states were able to impose it on the railways. It was Democrat Woodrow Wilson who segregated federal government employees... It wasn't until the 1970's that deep south whites turned to the Republican party in large numbers. AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It was (white) Republicans who opposed Jim Crow, not Robert Byrds. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was the 60s and not the 70s. See Southern strategy. The "flip-flop" of the parties (Republicans as progressives and Democrats as southern conservatives back in the 1860-1920 period) to the modern, largely opposite, alignment started in the 1930s, and took a good 50 years to work itself out. The Democratic party, which had its power base in the Solid South started in the 1930s putting forward Northern elite old-money candidates to combat what had been a Republican hold on most of the national-level politics for the better part of the first few decades of the 20th century. Franklin Roosevelt alienated many of the Southern Democrats; eventually leading to the Dixiecrat split in 1948. Those conservative Southern Democrats stayed democrats, but left the National-level power of the party and had nowhere to go until Nixon and Goldwater's southern strategy convinced many of them to finally give up their yellow dog status and they became a major part of the strong support that ushered Nixon in in 1968. However, there were still quite progressive Republicans even into the late 1960s (see Pete McCloskey) The last piece of the political swap came in the 1980s, when formerly Democratic northern white labor (politically conservative but traditionally Democratic voters who supported the Democratic party because they were strong labor supporters) switch to support Reagan and became so-called Reagan Democrats. So yes, it is correct that the parties were once "Republican= progressive and Democratic =conservative" and have since swapped, but it didn't happen overnight and took about half a century to occur. Even today, however, it's not as monolithic as the FOX/MSNBC split makes it appear. There's still conservative Democrats (the Blue Dog Coalition including people like Brad Ellsworth and Heath Shuler) and still progressive Republicans (before he had designs on national office, Mitt Romney basically invented Obamacare, many of his political positions changed dramatically when he ran for president. See also politicians like Richard Tisei, and Carl DeMaio). Politics in America is diverse and complicated. --Jayron32 02:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As you mentioned, in national elections Southerners started significantly dissenting from Democratic presidential candidates as early as 1948, but locally I don't think that large numbers of Southern whites in most areas transferred over to the Republican party until the 1970s... AnonMoos (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it was a decade earlier. Read again the link I noted above to the Southern strategy. See the map at File:ElectoralCollege1964.svg, in 1964 Goldwater took the entirety of the Deep south; in 1960 Kennedy still won some of those states, while the situation in Mississippi and Alabama that election was "confused" by the election of "unpledged electors" in those states who, though Democratic, decided to cast their ballots for southern Democrat Harry F. Byrd, a vocal segregationist who wasn't even running for President that year. So you can see that in 1960, the south is basically "We don't like these Northerners who like civil rights, but we don't know what to do about that, and we're very confused" and by 1964 the south is all "Yeah, screw it, we're all Republicans now." The transition between the Solid South as a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one is basically played out in the space between those two elections (1960-1964). The basic process started earlier, but the actual flip in party alignment in the deep south was in the early part of the 1960s. It took a bit longer for the "old guard" of local politicians to die off/retire, so for example many of the incumbent Democratic politicians from the old Solid South hung around until the 1970s, the voters themselves were identifying with the Republican party on a national level by the Goldwater candidacy in 1964. --Jayron32 05:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually going to partially contradict myself, and reinforce my earlier statement that "Politics in America is diverse and complicated". Looking at the maps at the various House of Representatives elections, the Solid South remained solid Democratic from a House perspective until the 1990s Republican Revolution. Except for a few random districts through the Deep South, the entire area remains stubbornly Blue from the 1960s right through 1990. Start at the United States House of Representatives elections, 1990 and watch the map of the Deep South change rapidly over the next three election cycles from Blue to Red. It isn't until 1998 or so that the Deep South became fully Republican from a House of Representatives point of view. --Jayron32 05:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence that 1948 is in the time-frame where Democrats began taking up in earnest, the cause of civil rights for minorities. And by the 1960s, the Democrats were strong on civil rights, and passed reform legislation over the objections of guys like Barry Goldwater. The hard truth is that no US president since Lincoln, neither Democrat or Republican, was willing to seriously challenge the white-supremacist status quo of the south, until the Truman years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Grant cracked down very hard against the KKK (see Enforcement Acts etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

While it is interesting that the south switched from Democrat to Republican (although the exact timing of the change seems in dispute), it doesn't really answer my question. I'm rather looking for examples of individual liberal-minded whites intervening in the manner of Mr Hinds, rather than politicians or civil-rights workers. Astronaut (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Appliance kidnapping?

Part of the Vance Miller article is the intriguing idea that, in November 1995, he was sentenced to 18 months on counts of kidnapping and affray following an altercation with his neighbours over a missing kitchen unit. Is something missing here, or did the guy get charged with kidnapping because he took the kitchen unit? The source is print, so I can't check it. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A sin in Appliantology? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Times law report of 28 November 1996 (page 45) states: "LORD JUSTICE ROSE, giving the judgment of the court, said that the prosecution case was that the appellant had kidnapped one Robert Macey and his common-law wife, Carol Jones. They had been neighbours of the appellant and the offences took place against a background of a missing or stolen kitchen unit." Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's his own explanation [2]:

...kidnapping charge that followed his 'citizen's arrest' of a gang who had repeatedly robbed his mother's house. "I staked the place out and collared them when they tried the next time. But then I was the one charged for catching them and they were let off".

StuRat (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Article edited to clarify what went on. Thanks for the help. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Having just read that article, I think the word kitchen must be used differently in British English than American. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, while Americans use "kitchen" solely to mean the room, I suspect that Brits also use the term for the sum of the contents, as in "I need to buy a new kitchen". This is similar to how "wardrobe" can mean all your clothes, or the closet in which they are stored. Can a UK English speaker confirm this ? StuRat (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - see Kitchens from only £395

Oh, I completely missed the point. I thought he was some sort of construction professional with a side business of selling fixtures. Nyttend (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 23

Soviet women's national teams

Why the USSR had no women's national teams in football, ice hockey, etc? Ain't woman's business? :) --93.174.25.12 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't just the USSR... in those days, no one had national women's teams in those sports. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that's correct.

First I presume the OP who is apparently from Poland is referring to Association football since they are from Poland and very few other forms of football have any significant widespread involvement of national teams even in mens tournaments to this day, or are otherwise unlikely to be called football unqualified in a case like this by most people.

The European Competition For Representative Women's Teams as it was then known has existed since 1984. The England women's national football team played it's first international match in 1972 (depending on what you count), the team was under the WFA, since the FA had only just allowed women to play on their football fields again, I don't think this is particularly surprising or discounts them being a women's national team. And there were unofficial European championships in 1969 and later years, as well as a Nordic championship since 1974 [3]. The United States women's national soccer team played their first game in 1985 (again possibly depending on what you count).

However the OP isn't quite correct. The Soviet Union women's national football team did exist albeit only for a very short time. Still it's clear it was quite late compared to a number of other countries hence why it could only exist for a short time.

For ice hockey there was the unofficial 1987 World Women's Hockey Tournament. Even the official first IIHF World Women's Championships was held just before the dissolution. So the possibility for a national team was there as other countries did have one at least a few years before the dissolution.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Secrecy of execution statistics

I'm aware that I have asked about this topic several times over the years, but after reading a Listverse article, the topic again caught my attention. China is believed to execute more people per year than the rest of the world combined. According to several sources (including my own Reference desk questions; check the archives), they keep their execution statistics a state secret, which to my knowledge is highly unusual in current history (according to my previous questions, China is currently the only country that keeps execution statistics secret, although some sources online suggest that Vietnam, Belarus, and historically Mongolia also follow this practice, although in the case of Belarus, there does not appear to be an official policy regarding secrecy of execution statistics).

My question is no longer about what other countries keep execution statistics secret (although further answers to this topic are also appreciated). My questions are: 1. At least in recent history, is the practice of keeping execution statistics secret by countries common? Was it common in the 20th century? This obviously excludes executions that were done in secret, or executions that were denied to have happened, only publicly confirmed executions. 2. If only China (and perhaps the aforementioned countries) keep executions secret, then why has the practice of secrecy regarding execution statistics not caught on elsewhere? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it hasn't? If it was truly secret, you wouldn't know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

In answer to your last question, execution statistics have generally not been kept secret because execution, like most punishment, is intended to have a deterrent effect. As our capital punishment article notes, historically, executions were often carried out in public. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A good reason to keep some executions secret would be if their legitimacy might be called into question. The deterrent factor would be that of people disappearing without a trace. Which is by no means limited to a place like China. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The military dictatorship that ruled over Argentina in the late 1970s and early 1980s was infamous for "disappearing" people. See Dirty War. --Xuxl (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- the obvious reason why it's not spreading to more countries is that it not only violates basic principles of democratic transparency, but also the desire to see justice be done. The Japanese government famously keeps the dates of executions secret until shortly before they are to take place, and even that's aggravating enough in its way... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Nowadays when an American is sentenced to death, a date is set, but then a long, drawn-out appeal process can begin which tends to reset the date many times. Does Japan take years to carry out a death sentence, or does it happen fairly quickly? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, we have an encyclopaedia at our disposal. Let's look at .... oh, Capital punishment in Japan and head for the stays of execution section to discover more! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, the Rambling Man, that the encyclopedia you linked is absolutely amazing. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is just a minor note - or so I hope. There is another way of looking at secret executions. For most of history, and until too recently for comfort, especially in less literate societies, executions were seldom written down. There was no official policy of secrecy, executions where simply not always considered noteworthy enough to write about. Even after WWII, Indians in South America were persecuted and killed in great numbers without any official statistical records about it. This was easily done, since they had no birth records, no social security numbers, no officially written way to identify any individual Indian. The same may well be true, even today, in some areas of the world. Is every individual person in the world today registered by birth, death, and cause of death today? If not, there is still room for executions or state murders not being known, and still not being officially "secret". DanielDemaret (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is possibly yet another reason for the importance of that amazing encyclopedia that The Rambling Man mentioned above. To record things like this, so people do not forget what has happened. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare

I have a book titled The Works of Shakespeare. It was published my T.Y. Crowell and the glossary was prepared by the Rev. J.M. Jephsen. There is no year in the book and I am trying to find out when it may have been published.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.154.203 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This may help. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Montrose Baptist Church in Rockville, MD

Montrose Baptist Church has a fascinating and convoluted history. At least one of its pastors, whose first sermon I heard in person, turned out to be even worse than I suspected at that time, though the church members seemed to be taken in. SOMEONE SHOULD RESEARCH and WRITE an ENTRY on that church. Identify it here: http://www.montroseministries.org/ I never did join and have no connections there, but it would be very helpful for people new to the Rockville/North Silver Spring, MD, area, to be able to read its history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.61.96 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it would. If the subject is notable and there are enough reliable sources, why not write the article yourself? Just remember to always use a neutral POV and remain disinterested. Matt Deres (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish exposés, because they are by definition WP:original research. If there is reliable published material about the Church, then Wikipedia may have an article summarising what those sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine peacefully coexist with both European Union and Russia

Is it possible for Ukraine peacefully coexist with both European Union and Russia or is it already doom?

I for really want to know because to me this is the best of both worlds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Most things are possible, but this is in the realm of speculation and we don't do that here. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine can certainly "peacefully coexist" with both, but it can't be strongly aligned with both at the same time -- EU membership would be incompatible with a strong Ukraine-Russia alliance... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you expect there is a possibility Europe will invade the Ukraine? Do you expect there is a possibility the Ukraine will attack Europe? Do you expect that the Ukraine will attack Russia? Do you expect there is a possibility that Russia will invade the Ukraine? Which of those seems like a possibility to you? We cannot offer predictions, but we can answer more specific questions than the one you have asked. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say there was some possibility Russia might have sent in troops "at the request of the government of the Ukraine". However, the timing being during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, they really didn't want to launch an invasion at the time, and now that Yanukovich has been booted out, it seems the window for an invasion has passed, as there would no longer be the pretext of having been asked to help "fight terrorists". So, the Ukraine may owe it's independence and democracy to the Olympics StuRat (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Other countries that have land borders with the Russian Federation are neutral or have close western ties, and co-exist peacefully with Russia, such as Norway, Finland, Estonia and Latvia (also Lithuania and Poland that border Kaliningrad Oblast). Most are full EU members. They are all smaller than Ukraine. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

In the short term, if they join the EU, I'd expect Russia to cancel contracts, reduce diplomatic contacts, etc. But, in the long term, they are likely to see that a strong trade relationship would be mutually beneficial and restore full relations (this might have to wait for Putin to leave, though). StuRat (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Eastern half of what is now Ukraine was formerly Russian, including the Crimean peninsula, which is a huge sticking point for Russian nationalists. It's no coincidence Yanukhovich fled to eastern Ukraine when he was deposed. Russia has long had hegemony of Ukraine, so much so that the name itself means borderland. Historically what is now eastern Ukraine was Russian, Cossack, and Ottoman, and the Crimean War was fought by Moscow to wrest the land from the Turks. Even after the 1991 Revolution it was a matter of pride for Russia not to give up the Black Sea port of Sevastopol. No KGB agent in power wants part of his legacy to be the loss of historically Great Russian land to the Little Russians. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your answers to my question here. In which some of them were what I was looking for and others weren't. Of course didn't mean with all out war, but meant with all out peacefully or whatever its called.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 24

Anne Hathaway

Why is she Anne Hathaway, and not Anne Shakespeare? Was it just not the custom in England at the time, i.e. did women typically keep their maiden names instead of changing them upon marriage? Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policies, the article title is because that's how she's most commonly referred to nowadays (regardless of how she was most commonly referred to at the time)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As to why "Anne Hathaway" instead of "Anne Shakespeare" is the most common name used today: I can only speculate, but it may be because, as the lead section of the article says, "her personality and relationship to Shakespeare have been the subject of much speculation by historians and creative writers". They married when she was 26 years old and he was only 18, which was a large age difference at the time, as well as the then-very rare scenario of a man marrying an older woman. Various scholars suggest that it was basically a shotgun wedding primarily because he got her pregnant. The issue is compounded by Shakespeare's so-called "lost years", where there is a period of absolutely no historical record of him for several years until he suddenly shows up as part of the London theatrical scene. And during those years while he was in London, the couple was basically separated, with her still living in Stratford. Finally, it's how she is mentioned in Shakespeare's will, where he famously bequests his "second-best bed with the furniture" to her. With all these questions surrounding her and their marriage, I think scholars find it more convenient to use "Anne Hathaway" basically as a signal that these unconfirmed facts do exist. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing article in Wikipedia

I think an article on Massacres against Turks (and/or) Muslims during the final years of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans is a seriously missing article in WP. Almost all articles considering "massacres" or bad treatment of other ethnicities in the Empire deal with massacres realised by Turks (or moslems in general). Please simply write "Ottoman Empire massacre" in the search button and see the result. This situation does not comply with WP's impartiality and objectivity. In the Turkish WP there is a quite good article on this issue. (I am not sure if I could add the link correctly so I repeat it as an external link. This article has many English sources as you may see in its Reference section. (This fact makes me even more surprised about the lack of it here.) If such an article may be initiated by an experienced user, I will try to do my best to contribute to it. Best regards and many thanks. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add your request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/History . Google translate was not enough for me even to make a safe guess even at the title for the article. I was not even sure why the word "muslim" was in the title, since the article mentioned Armenians. I was not sure whether it was just a list of massacres in Turkey, and whether these were mentioned separately in other articles in wikipedia. I recommend also that you start a wikipedia account. If you do start a wikipedia account and you decide to translate it for yourself, and still get no help here, then contact me, and I shall try to help out. DanielDemaret (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If the article is just a list, and each event has an article in other parts of wikipedia, you might try to make a short article that mainly points to all the other articles. DanielDemaret (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed your advice. (You deserve the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar that I saw on your page. :-) I kind of changed the name of the proposed article to be able to make a time-frame with an existing article, Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. To be able to respond to your kindness, I am always at your disposal for simple translations from Turkish. Regards. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That is very kind of you :) I added a link to the wikipedia article in turkish to your addition to your title in the hope that it might help them there a little. DanielDemaret (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have just started, as you requested, the article: Massacres_against_Turks_in_the_Balkans_during_the_Dissolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire This stub has been created because of your request and with the assumption that you will be build on if started, as you wrote that you would. I am starting the article assuming that this will happen. If not, it will just have to be deleted. I can not understand enough og the turkish original article to build on it, but I will help in formatting future references, and answering questions. Just put your questions in the talk page of the article. DanielDemaret (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much again. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Can one call oneself "Right Reverend Father" whilst defrocked and excommunicated?

Can anyone have the title "The Right Reverend Father" being defrocked and excommunicated? ( I dare not give any examples. The previous time I put the question, I gave an example. Someone deleted the question, since they themselves objected to some of the views of that person on sexuality in the linked reference I gave, and assumed incorrectly that I also objected to his views, and was criticizing that persons views. The given cause was BLP violation. ) DanielDemaret (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What often happens is these people start their own "church" where they are free to call themselves what they like. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the rules of the church that did the defrocking would no doubt prohibit such actions by its members, but if the defrocked person is happy to ignore those rules, I doubt if any country would prevent a person doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The only caveat would be if it was used in a way considered fraudulently, for example if he was paid to carry out a funeral service on the basis that those paying believed that he was still a priest of his ex church. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I'm quite sure that some countries might enforce such rules. The US is, for once in a positive sense, an outlier in the degree of church-state separation. I can very well imagine (though I know of no positive example) that states with an established church (like England, or, for that matter, the Vatican) or a very strong historical bond between church and state (like Italy or Spain) will act more strictly in the interest of the church. And if one uses the titles to give the wrong impression of having a position in a particular church, one is well into fraud territory. I suspect if you claim to be a Roman Catholic priest collecting money on behalf of poor children in Ethiopia, but you are really an acolyte of the Flying Spagetti Monster, you will be prosecuted even in the US, and even if you really collect money for poor children in Ethiopia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Church of England is established in England by law, and nearly half of the population make some use of its services at some point in their lives (this includes many who belong to other churches; only 2% attend the CofE regularly), but it has only an advisory role in general law making and could not prohibit any use of titles. The title "Right Reverend Father" would be rare in the CofE. It might be occasionally used in the Roman Catholic Church, but would more likely be used by an Eastern Orthodox Church with Russian rather than Greek practice. Dbfirs 12:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Here was a famous case in France of a person pretending to be a Catholic priest (articles are in French) [4] and [5]. Short story: he was arrested and sentenced for fraud, and spent 8 years in jail. He's been living off selling his story through conferences and television appearances since. --Xuxl (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Right Reverend tells me it would be used with "Father" in very limited cases indeed. Mostly, it would apply to a bishop. Any religious person who introduces himself with any honorifics at all other than Father, Bishop etc, would be a little suspect anyway. It would be like meeting the Pope on one of his evening strolls around Rome, and he said "Hello, I am His Holiness the Pope. Pleased to meet you". These forms are generally used when addressing such a person, but rarely by the person themself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC) If only because it actually wouldn't be His Holiness or Your Holiness but My/Our Holiness. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

is it okay to eat cheese with white hairy mold in it internally

way hairier than the picture. it's mold. however, it is "bresse bleu" cheese, bought last day of expiration and on 50% off - I'm thinking possibly due to poor storage? It looks like this: http://www.ambafrance-bd.org/IMG/jpg/Bleu_de_Bresse_250_grammes.jpg but with MUCH hairier mold - in splotches on the inside. Do I just eat those parts? --91.120.14.30 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No guarantees, but the cheese in the image looks perfectly fine to me. In general, the white mold is Penicillium camemberti (or a similar species). It's part of what makes the cheese so good, and is usually consumed. I life close to the French border, and I swear that cheese that has expired in Germany is shipped over the Rhine to France and sold as "not quite ripe" with another 4 weeks on the "best before" date. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheese doesn't go off, it just becomes a different type of cheese MChesterMC (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here are the USDA's food safety guidelines on mold and cheese (scroll down a bit to see the chart) [6]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

71 sects of judaism, 72 sects of christianity and 73 sects of islam

Prophet Muhammad PBUH said that christianity will be divided into 71 sects, judaism will be divided into 72 sects and islam will be divided into 73 sects. Who are these sects in christianity, judaism and islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.61 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Its just fictional. There are many more sects of christianity, I don't know about the others. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The hadith apparently says there are already (in Muhammad's day) all these sects in Judaism and Christianity, and there will be, in the future, 73 sects of Islam. Since the definition of a "sect" is fluid, and our knowledge of the various factions in existence at the time is sketchy, the statement is unprovable and unfalsifiable. Also, he offers no information about when in the then-future the 73 sects of Islam will emerge. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds more like a metaphor than an actual count. Even now, aren't there pretty much just two main sects of Islam? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really. That's a MASSIVE oversimplification. Just as broadly you can divide Christianity into three main "groups of sects" being Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, you can very broadly divide Islam into the two main camps of Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. However, just as those big groupings in Christianity both a) encompass a lot of smaller sects within them b) fail to completely capture every sect and c) even among sets that fit into the three, some straddle the line between multiple sects. For example, Syriac Christianity split off from the line that gave us Orthodox and Catholic traditions; they are outside of the tripartite division noted above. Also, it becomes problematic fitting Anglicanism into the three divisions, because they really straddle the line between Catholicism and Protestantism. There are also post-Protestant Christian churches such as Mormonism that also don't fit neatly into the schema. Likewise, among Muslims, you will find that there are many different "Sects" within both Sunni and Shia traditions, some that lie outside of both of those, and some that defy categorization well. Islam is no less complex that Christianity is. Any religion approaching in excess of a billion adherents (as both Christianity and Islam do) are likely to have a WIDE diversity of theological traditions within them. --Jayron32 17:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And, by an amazing coincidence, each sect thinks it's the right one. :) The OP's question was about the numbers 71, 72, 73. Is there a metaphor in Arabic that makes those numbers symbolically significant as opposed to being taken literally? Like for example the famous "70 virgins" or whatever. It sounds like "70" might just stand for "many", so those other numbers could mean like "many plus 1 or more". That kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, See the religion section of 70 (number). It has long had significance in Judaism, and derived faiths. I guess the meaning is that Judaism has split into 70 + 1 (with the 1 standing for the "authentic" version). Christianity is itself a split from Judaism, so we get a new set of "70 + 1" + 1; and then Islam splits from that again (but also restores the "purity" of revelation), but is also destined to break into factions with one "true" version, which the Hadith says will be the only one to escape hellfire. Sadly, he doesn't say which it is, but of course, as with Christianity, we all know it's the one you're in. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

By one count, there are 41,000 denominations of Christianity today (see list of Christian denominations). Of course, by adjusting your definition of a denomination, you could probably reduce that number to 72. That doesn't mean Muhammad was correct; it just means his prediction is meaningless and unfalsifiable. --140.180.249.224 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Given Paul's explanation above, it's not necessarily literally 70. In the context of the point Muhammad was trying to make, he was "correct", or maybe I should say "not incorrect". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

For Judaism, while the idea of 70-odd "sects" at any time in history seems fanciful, if you interpret the hadith as Mohammad saying that there's a plurality of opinions about how to be a Jew, it's as true now as it was in his days. The famous adage is "one Jew, two opinions". The longer variant of the joke is about the Jewish man washed up on a desert island. When he's rescued years later, he proudly shows the captain of the ship all the things he's built on the island, including two synagogues. Why two synagogues? "That's the one I pray in, and that's the one I wouldn't step foot in". --149.254.56.7 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Eponymous law regarding failure of business following building an expensive corporate headquarters

I seem to recall an eponymous "law", somewhat along the lines of "Parkinson's Law", suggesting that when a leading business spent a massive amount of money building a shiny new HQ then their corporate star was due for a steep decline. A sort of "pride comes before a fall" thing, but specifically related to fancy HQs. Any idea whose "law" it is? ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it is actually Parkinson again - same,guy, different law. Here's a reference to the "law", and this seems to be the quote that inspired it. - Karenjc (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Parkinson did not express it in such terms; his thesis was that perfection means death - thus, once the perfect, optimal, layout of a factory or office has been achieved, the organisation is unknowingly already dead on its feet because it is no longer growing. Chaos in proceedures is indicative of vitality and growth.

This law is frequently abbreviated to the concept that before each organisation dies, it erects a mausoleum to itself, although that is not what Parkinson actually wrote. When I did my MBA, many moons ago, that was how the law was expressed and, once that was finished, I went to work at Lloyd's of London, whose grandiose and absurd building, put up at 10 times its initial estimate, was subsequently sold off at a fraction of that price and exemplified this variant of the law.

Parkinson's Laws are well worth reading; they used to be available in a short Penguin paperback. The other one that sticks in the mind was how the number of admirals in the Royal Navy was inversely proportional to the number of ships. 86.181.15.48 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I do vaguely remember reading at least some of this book in my teens - I think my grandfather may have had it. I have been inspired to track down a copy for myself on the back of this question, even if only for Parkinson's point about the length of time spent on an item on the agenda being inversely proportional to the sum of money at issue. There is at least one organisation I'm involved with where I want that framed and mounted on the wall, writ large, before the next meeting. - Karenjc (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Martha Washington College

I am confused about something. Wikipedia's article on Edith Wilson says she attended “Martha Washington College (a precursor of Emory and Henry College)” but the article Emory and Henry College says nothing at all about Martha Washington College. Meanwhile, the article Martha Washington Inn mentions that the building used to be Martha Washington College, but says nothing about Emory and Henry College. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Precursor" is probably a bit misleading, as E&HC predated it. Martha Washington#Educational institutions explains that it was effectively merged into E&HC in 1918, and absorbed completely in 1931. The cite is to a now-defunct page on the E&HC site. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)