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

December 25

Christmas Day moon eclipse

Was there a Christmas Day moon eclipse in 810?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This might be the right place to ask in terms of historical records, but you might also ask at the science desk, where they can use astronomy tools to see exactly where the Earth, Moon, and Sun were on that day, although the change in calendars between the Julian and Gregorian may complicate things. StuRat (talk)

I asked also at the science desk. Thanks for hint. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I found it in The historie of Cambria, now called Wales: a part ... . Caradoc, of Llancarvan.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The NASA eclipse website doesn't list one, though it does list a total eclipse of the moon on 14 December 810. It also says "Eclipses of the Moon can only occur during the Full Moon phase", so that seems to rule out December 25. --Antiquary (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC) I've only just noticed your comment about the Julian calendar, Stu. Doubtless that explains it. --Antiquary (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, according to Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars 14 December 810 in the Julian calendar was 18 December 810 in the Gregorian calendar. Not a Christmas bullseye then, but very close. --Antiquary (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully my last revision here: the NASA website linked above uses the Julian calendar for all dates before 1582, so the eclipse really was on 14 December for everyone who witnessed it. --Antiquary (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that:

A) Some places were using yet another calendar then ?

B) Christmas was observed on a different date in some places then ?

C) It fell within the "twelve days of Christmas" ? StuRat (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge it's No to all of the above. I've never heard of any calendar other than the Julian being used during the Middle Ages in Wales, or indeed in any other part of western Christendom; the date of Christmas was perfectly uncontroversial in Britain, whatever dispute there was over Easter; and the Twelve Days of Christmas begin at Christmas rather than ending then. I imagine the explanation is more simple: at some point in the transmission of this eclipse date to the Historie of Cambria the word "about" got left out. --Antiquary (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There are average 2.4 moon eclipses a year a year, let's call it 2 since that excludes the ones under the percentage limit that people can see. So there should be an average of 183 years between eclipses on a specific day. For people of a specific point in the world out should be no more than 365 years on average. If half are blocked by clouds, it should be 730 years. No, let's call it 1.8 eclipses a year since anything less might not be casually noticed by people who don't have an almanac and don't use the "eclipses repeat every 18 years, 10 or 11 days and 8 hours later (depending on leap day count) rule" to look for it. But an average visible eclipse lasts about 3½ hours and Christmas nights are at least 15-16 hours at Europe, so there's at least 18½ hours of chances to be on Christmas. Take off some time since many eclipse types can't be seen near the horizon, more math and it shouldn't be more than 640 years between Christmas eclipses. It's certainly possible that Wales hasn't had one for 1204 years (or even 2000) so if that's the last then you're due. But no eclipses this winter, sorry. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is the audience in a Roman Catholic funeral mass?

I would assume it would just be the family members and close friends of the family with the deceased family member, who happens to be Catholic, going to be Catholic, or raised in a Catholic family, and who is also in good standing with canon law. Yet, I've seen popular portrayals of it, which seem to suggest a huge celebration of the death, with the men and women all dressed in black, and the women wearing veils. After the funeral service, the dead body would be carried by horse and buggy to the cemetery. That's the movie portrayal. In real life, are Catholic families really that big? Does the immediate family invite every single person related to the deceased person according to canon law (which may extend to third cousins)? Or is the Roman Catholic funeral mass a mass for the parishioners rather than a mass for a particular family? I think this is a Roman Catholic funeral mass. The room looks as spacious as a typical Catholic church, which may suggest that it's Catholic. Plus, one does the sign of the cross. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Catholic funerals I've attended have all been open to anyone who has known the deceased, which may involve parishioners if the deceased attended the church. (Which is just as well as my family isn't Catholic and neither am I) --TammyMoet (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The only restriction on non-Catholics attending any mass is that they not take communion, a restriction which applies to lapsed and unconfessed Catholics with a sin on their conscience as well. (It does occasionally still happen, the priests don't have sin- or heretic-ometers.) The number of attendants will depend on the person. Veils are an old-fashioned custom related more to class and ethnicity than to any Christian sect. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not Catholic, but have been to both Catholic weddings and Catholic funerals. Those events are typically by invitation, either formal or verbal, that being up to the family. There's no requirement to be a Catholic, just that you be welcome there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

So, is the Roman Catholic funeral mass traditionally, according to canon law, done in front of the whole congregation, or was it specially arranged as a private event? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the article Helena (song)#Music video your video was shot in a presbyterian church in LA. The absence of plaster saints is a big clue that the church isn't RC. Don't confuse a funeral and a Requiem mass, which always involves communion and may or may not be attached to a funeral. The mass is usually open for all to attend, but the sacrament is only for Catholics. How strictly this is applied is in practice down to the individual priest. The funeral may or may not involve a mass, and can just as easily happen in a crematorium chapel as a church. The whole thing is down to the next of kin, their budget, and the expected attendance. Most funerals are private events which run in a public space (church/crem/mortuary chapel). There is an assumption that people don't generally go to funerals of other people they don't know, unless they're desperate for a beer and a ham sandwich. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I found your answer most helpful, Fiddlersmouth. I actually did confuse the funeral with the Requiem mass, probably because they both had to do with death and the celebration of death. Also, every time I see the word "Requiem", I think of Mozart's piece that goes by the same name. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You won't get any food or drink at a funeral. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically, not at the ceremony itself, but it's normal for funerals in the UK (and elsewhere, I suspect) to be immediately followed by a funeral reception where ample food and drink is available for the family and friends. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's often true in America as well. Typically not for everyone, just a few close relatives and friends, to commune and to talk about the deceased and whatever else. (Kind of like a mini-Shiva.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you scroll over my text you'll see I linked to the ham-sandwich mini-Shiva. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment was still misleading and unhelpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not only was my comment strictly correct, anyone who bothered to read the link would have gotten more information. I don't provide links as mere adornment. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Funeral and wake are not synonymous, as I'm sure you know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia and in consultation with my father who was trained by Jesuits, the mass is open to all with a few exceptions. The priest may forbid late entrance once the mass has begun. The mass may be closed or secret due to persecution, and disruptive parties may be expelled. (Personally, I have seen people turned away who arrived late.)
  

Historically, there was the expulsion of the catechumens which was the exclusion of those studying to join the church after the readings and sermon, but before the Eucharist (communion) which was considered a "mystery" in the classical sense. This is attested to by Augustine in the 5th century and by others before him, but fell out of use by the 800's, when almost all attendees were raised Catholic from birth.

Nowadays the only exclusion from taking communion is voluntary exclusion by the unshriven and exclusion at the discretion of the priest for the excommunicated, etc. Specifically for funerals, over 1,000 believers and not attended my sister's funeral mass, and only a dozen were at the graveside when my grandmother was buried, although the mass in her neighborhood church was full. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Born Catholic in the Philippines. Having just attended a funeral mass for a friend's father: it's open to anyone, regardless of background or religion. As for size, it depends on the person (as well as the wishes of the family). Usual size of funerals I've attended is around 150 to 200 people. Usual invitation is in the form of a general announcement that "so-and-so has died and funeral services will be somewhere at _____ on _____" (published in the local paper, local radio, and also in social media sites). Black clothing is not required, though it's traditional for relatives of the deceased. People sometimes also wear white. Black veils (mantillas) are not a funeral-only thing, they are worn on any Catholic mass, but it's usually older and really devout women who wear them nowadays. It's not a celebration by any means. It's normally very very quiet, with people speaking in hushed tones, aside from the mass itself or family members/friends/loved ones getting emotional every now and then. It's basically just like regular mass, except the sermon is tailored a bit more about the deceased's life/death, there are no happy songs, and there are eulogies. If you're not Catholic, you can just sit quietly when they do Catholic things. There is a procession to the cemetery by hearse (if it's not beside the church), final blessings, lowering of the coffin, then everyone goes home as workmen seal it up. Food is provided afterwards usually (especially if the services extend past lunch), but most people forgo it, aside from immediate relatives. Also like everything else Catholic, it's far less strict than you think it is. At least it isn't here anyway. It depends on who your pastor is.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You say people wear white on funeral day in the Philippines. Seeing that the Philippines is near China, could the white part be a Chinese influence? In Chinese culture, white symbolizes death. When my parents saw toilet paper on trees, they immediately thought someone had died in the family; apparently, they weren't aware that they were in the United States, and the concept of toilet papering is just a prank in America. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Heh. But no, nothing to do with Chinese influence. White is nontraditional and it's not common at all, just underlining the fact that black isn't required. It's usually simply the family saying "black is too gloomy" or "[the deceased] wouldn't like us wearing black", etc. I don't know about the Catholic Chinese-Filipino community though. I've never been to a funeral of one (at least not those who still visibly uphold Chinese family traditions). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hell, you don't even have to be Catholic to get a funeral in a Catholic church. I knew a woman whose husband, Greek Orthodox his whole life (though decidedly not practicing towards the end of it) who received a funeral in the Eastern Rite Catholic church she attended. Her daughter's husband also had his funeral in that church (the daughter was also a parishioner). At the very least, the church does not worry about those who attend the funeral. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This would normally require an episcopal dispensation, just as would a mixed marriage. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, in my parish, funerals typically appear in the parish bulletin or on the noticeboard, and parishioners typically attend funerals of people they barely knew, if at all. But the people attending such funerals are usually the older parishioners, who have more free time during the weekday. There is a feeling that the more people attending, praying for the deceased, the better, so parishioners especially try to attend the funerals of people unlikely to have a lot of other attenders. There is also a sense that everyone in the parish is part of a parish 'family', the community, and so attending their funeral even if you barely know them is like attending the funeral of a distant cousin you rarely saw. This does not, of course, extend to attending any private event set up by the family. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

December 26

similarities in Judaism and Shi'a Islam

Besides praying three times a day, what other similarities does Judaism and Shi'a Islam have in common? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.158 (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Do they? In any case, there's a "comparisons" section in Abrahamic religions which you may find useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Gathering. Darkness. The Gathering Darkness (and the light within). Dualism. Feudalism. Submission. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

Why did Greek change so little?

Today's Greeks say they can speak and read Ancient Greek but the Wycliffe Bible is partly undecipherable and Chauncer speak is 9X% gibberish. Heck, even today's English can bewilder Americans ("He paid for time with the best lassie bowler in all England. He was given two full tosses, then a fast bouncer. A ball bent so much that it hit his leg stump. That was a proper yorker old top — he was given out bowled clean through the gate by the express pace which was a faster pace than his usual fast men") Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

First off, there's not much compatibility at the pronunciation level; I don't think that modern Greeks would find ancient Greek pronounced in the ancient Greek manner (e.g. Φυγη as [pʰugɛː] or [pʰügeː] instead of [fiyi]) to be very understandable. And what reading comprehensibility there is kind of depends on intermediate bridges; someone who's studied Katharevousa (formal archaizing modern Greek) can probably take a stab at reading 1st century A.D. New Testament Koine Greek, but someone who knows only Demotic (modern Greek close to the current spoken language) would probably have great problems trying to read 5th century B.C. classical Attic Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So in what ways is it hard? Like 1395 English, for me it's the horrific spelling: "And the sones of thi puple seiden, The weie of the Lord is not euene weiyte; and the weie of hem is vniust." (And the sons of the people said, way of the Lord is not one way; and the way of Him is unjust.) (probably). Ancient Greek probably has a different biggest reason.

"...is not even way...". Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not spelling -- words which exist in both modern and ancient Greek, and have been affected only by standard conventional sound shifts (without morphological restructuring), are spelled the same in modern and ancient Greek, as far as basic letters go (ignoring diacritic marks), even if the pronunciation has radically changed, as in the case of Φυγη.

To start with, modern Greek has no verb infinitive forms or noun/adjective dative case forms, and the future tense is formed from θα + the present tense. So whenever a modern-Greek reader comes across an ancient Greek infinitive, dative, or elaborately-inflected future verb, there's going to be a comprehension gap, unless educated about such matters... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

And how do they know so much about ancient/medieval pronunciation anyway? Whatever sounds in foreign words the Greek sounds were compared to are also long gone by the invention of sound recording. Do they model it as a random walk so the average of the earliest solid pronunciations of all the ancient transliterations of word X is likeliest? And add a few rules like speakers tending to remove high effort to need things like the b in debt? And weight transliterations with non-vernacular holy languages (e.g. Catholic Latin) which should change pronounciation much slower? Or did they write phoneme/tongue shape books much earlier then I'm guessing? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way, there's a ssubstantial literature on reconstruction of Ancient Greek (and Latin, and Hebrew, and Chinese ...) pronunciation. Ancient Greek phonology#Reconstruction gives some of the methods. Sidney Allen's Vox Graeca (referenced therein) is the seminal book. --ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? I find Chaucer around 2% gibberish, so long as I read it out loud (or sub-vocalise). Speed-reading it doesn't work, but it's the spelling that has changed for the most part, not the language, and where the language has changed the changes are still fairly easy to puzzle out. GoldenRing (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read Chaucer only a handful of Biblical verses picked to have never been read before (from the first English Bible (1395)), but since Wikipedia says Canterbury Tales was started in the early 1380s 2% might be about right. But then again you might've read much Shakespeare and even his poems and I have only read Bibles, and a few plays like Romeo&Juliet in school. Shakespeare wasn't keen on making simple non-subtle prose without 17th century in-jokes and in-allusions. And you might be British, you have no idea how incomprehensible Britishy ways of writing are to Americans. I still don't know how you can be given out in cricket and that's fairly simple as there's only one baffling word, not a whole phrase. It's like British intentionally go out of their way to make phrases of English words as old-fashioned and creatively idiosyncratic as possible :) Everyone will understand put out, though, though we usually just say out, but do remember that putting out in USian means sex. So does "he couldn't get his leg over" which is somehow funny enough to cause the cricket commentators to uncontrollably laugh for minutes. Anyway a few percent is still partly undecipherable. I saw one verse which I can't find again which had a literally 100% unrespellable middle half, which utterly corrupted the meaning. No clue what that verse said. Or maybe that was just bad luck. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that bit of cricketing talk you quote above is meant as comedy - it's full of sexual double entendres.PiCo (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality of mouth (ancient greek)

I look for bibliography that deals with the way which greeks saw the function of the mouth - the fact that in one way it could be used for speech, but on the other way it could be use for oral sex. --79.178.22.136 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Did ancient Greeks not consume food the usual way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds as if you might be asking if the Greeks used different terms to describe the mouth depending on context based on its functions for speaking, sexual stimulation, or (as BB pointed out) eating. I don't know about the Greeks, but the Romans used the term os impurum. Is that the sort of thing you are looking for? Perhaps you can better explain your question. We do not have a Sexuality in ancient Greece article, but that is an entry under Outline of ancient Greece#Culture of ancient Greece. The only mention of oral sex I find is in Pederasty in ancient Greece#Sexual practices: "Oral sex is likewise not depicted, or is indicated only indirectly; anal or oral penetration seems to have been reserved for prostitutes or slaves." -- ToE 11:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Did the medieval church do anything to limit the number of abandoned, unwanted children?

Or did they just let it be and place the abandoned, unwanted children in nun-run orphanages? In a nunnery, would the nuns actually wet nurse the infants, or would they hire wet nurses? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, what were they supposed to do about it? (What can anyone do about it now?) But abandoned children wouldn't necessarily be taken to a nunnery. They were often raised by monks, or by the local bishop (probably the origin of my last name, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that the wet nursing issue was probably decided on a convent by convent basis. Regarding attempting to limit the number of abandoned, unwanted children, well, good luck there. Except for the children of the nuns themselves, there wasn't a great deal they were actually in a position to do there. But, yeah, more or less in general, I think that there were a number of children who like Quasimodo were dumped on the foundling's bed for the church to work with in whatever way they saw fit. Unfortunate, and not something most of us today would condone, but when the church was pretty much the primary if not only social-service agency running that sort of thing happened a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So, what was the medieval church's stance on contraception and infanticide during the Middle Ages? Or did they silently avoid this issue? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Never mind. I already found my answer via Google. Duuhhh... 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• In case others are interested, the Church never condoned infanticide, or induced abortion, which it viewed as witchcraft. Aquinas defined quickening at about four months (when the baby first kicks) as the time of ensoulment. Child mortality was so high that most children did not survive until adulthood, and were highly valued as future laborers and providers for aged prents. Abandoned children left at the church doorstep (usually illegitimate) were given names like Iglesias (churches) Cruz (cross) and Blanco (blank). μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly sexual abstinence reduced population growth, and the more unwanted laborers tended to drift into monastic orders the more they did so. When abstinence failed, there were things like monk's pepper and hemp seeds ("gruel") with (not well established) negative effect on fertility. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The other effect on population growth was infant mortality, which was very high in certain places in the Middle Ages, and indeed right up until living memory in the UK (for example, my own mother was one of 11 children, 5 of which survived infancy). So it's quite possible unwanted infants weren't as common as the OP might imagine. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't put an exact number of unwanted infants in the past, but this website suggests that foundling homes started in the Middle Ages, and actually increased over time. By how much, I can't say. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Disease helps to keep a population in check as well as to enable the fittest to survive. Infants with weaker immune systems and serious deformities are probably not going to survive to adulthood, so those who do get to pass their healthier, stronger genes to the next generation. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Conditions were quite good in the late Middle Ages, which is what drove laborers into town to seek work, as well as the increasing phenomena of foundlings. This icreased population density made the Black Death possible, and population losses weren't recouped for about a century. As humans are the apex predator, much of our evolution is driven by diseases, but this is more of a Red Queen hypothesis situation. We end up developing cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia as genetic diseases to deal with endemic contagions like cholera and malaria, while the diseases themselves like chicken pox and HIV become less virulent through attenuation. Technically, developing immunity to a disease counts as fitness, but as the fitness landscape changes there's always a new emerging infectious disease to deal with. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I do remember back in high school, that the lowered population density caused by the Black Death contributed to less competition for resources. Then, the people could demand more pay from their employers. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a slightly different topic, but the survivors lived in a world where abandonned capital had become cheap and labor scarce. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Even a skilled orphan stood a chance. Good times. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I find it hard to understand how celibate nuns could lactate and so wet-nurse infants. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Response: One, you're assuming that they were in fact individually celibate, which is open to question. Two, it would certainly be possible that in some cases a convent could have hired or otherwise employed in some way some lactating women to wet-nurse children as required. Convents did tend to have serious money relative to the community in general, and they could easily have paid wet-nurses or had priests prescribe wet-nursing as penance as required. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A she-wolf works for free, and Romulus and Remus turned out alright. Bartholomeus Anglicus warned that wolves "loveth well to play with a child, if he may take him; and slayeth him afterward, and eateth him at the last." But Isidore of Seville assured they lose their ferocity if you keep an eye on them. It doesn't take a special nun to watch a wolf. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

Humans don't need to bear children to lactate. See, e.g., [1]. Basically, if a woman tries to breastfeed a child for long enough, the child trying to suckle, she will begin to lactate. People in the past were aware of this, just as they were aware of the ability of mothers who had lost their children to wet nurse the surviving children of other mothers. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Syed Shah Nasiruddin (Sipah Salar)

How come there is no page for Syed Shah Nasiruddin (spiah salad) and his lineage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazida88 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming he is notable and you have reliable sources, feel free to create the article yourself. I have placed some helpful info at your talk page. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The standard answer for this is "because you haven't started it yet." :) Wikipedia is made up of volunteers. In this particular case we have another problem, which is that we have very few people who speak Arabic, in part due to poor Internet availability in many Arabic countries and in part because http://ar.wikipedia.org/ may see more of their efforts. Add to this that they might even have an article that we can't find because different transliteration is used! And to make an article based on English sources... each one might have its own transliteration, which means when we search, we don't find enough information to get started working on. To give an example of how bad the situation is, even ten years after the infamous September 11 attacks, many newspapers still wrote "Osama" while many others wrote "Usama"! We really need help with all these sorts of articles, because most of us couldn't tell this person from Naseeruddin Shah... Wnt (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Or of course because the dreaded Deletionists got to it. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see the Langoliers. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If we knew more about him it would help. As it stands we have some titles (syed, shah, sipahsalar), and a fairly common name Nasiruddin. Was he actually a shah or is that part of his name? This could be dozens of people. When and where did he live? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

December 27

Threats against government officials, internationally

(1) Is it illegal for someone in the US to threaten to kill the leader of North Korea? (2) If a US citizen goes into international waters, is it still illegal for them to threaten to kill the President? (3) Is it illegal for a US citizen to threaten to kill the US President from North Korea? Please note that I do not intend to do any of these things, and I don't know anyone who would even consider them in the slightest, so I am in no way asking for legal advice, just for a reference to the laws that determine what is and is not technically allowed. 63.228.180.122 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the recent Sony hacking incident.

• 1 No, it is not illegal to threaten to kill the leader of North Korea.
• 2 What president? There are lots of them.
• 3 That would be treason. So, yes.

KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You may find this of interest, as it discusses First Amendment limits on threats of violence. For question (1) I doubt they could prosecute unless it was a totally serious and practical threat. Questions (2) and (3), presumably both about the US President, might not be prosecutable from their locations. But when or if they come back to the US, I expect they would be fair game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You can also read Jurisdiction and Universal jurisdiction. For question (2) the jurisdiction varies in different countries. Some of the conditions that countries can use when they choose to exercise jurisdiction in criminal law are: crimes within the country's borders, by a citizen, against a citizen, against the country's interests or on vessels and planes registered in the country. So the answer to question (2) is a firm "it depends". Sjö (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Threatening to kill the president of the US by a US citizen may be treason, but in ordinary circumstances it's more likely to come under Title 18, Section 871 of the United States Code as per Threatening the President of the United States. I'm not totally sure whether the US government will apply this or some other law if the person is in North Korea however, although as per universal jurisdiction which Sjö tried to link to, and also Extraterritorial jurisdiction, there's probably no particular reason the US couldn't apply the US Code, definitely I don't see anything in the wording of the law suggesting it's restricted to actions in the US. (Couldn't find any evidence for or against this ever having been tested.)

As already mentioned, the US may not be able to easily arrest the person when they are in North Korea. There is Extraordinary rendition, but's it's particularly risky in an unfriendly country and if the only thing is a threat which for some reason they're worried enough about to try that, as per those articles and others the US has also shown a willingless to kill people if they feel they are that much of a threat (or whatever). Unmanned aerial vehicle may be a bad idea in North Korea, but there are the older alternatives.

I'm also going to a on the claim it's not illegal for someone in the US to threaten to kill the President of North Korea. This may fall under US Code Title 18, Section 878 [2]. I say may because (and showing IANAL). One I'm confused whether section d means only any of 1, 2, or 3 have to apply; or it's 1 and 2, or 3; or it's 1 AND 2 or 3. I think it's the first, but not totally sure. Two, if I understand 1116 and how it applies to 878 [3], in any case it will only be against the code to threaten to kill the president of North Korea when he's somewhere outside North Korea (but doesn't have to be when he's in the US) as he's not an "internationally protected person" when inside North Korea. Of course if you make the threat while the president of North Korea is in the US, you don't have to worry about most of this and can assume you're screwed if it's taken as a serious threat but I took it this wasn't under discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had world leader power, you threatened to kill me, and I believed you, I don't see why I'd want to take it to court. I'm sure Nil Einne meant to say "willingness to kill". Where there's a will, there's a way. Most of the ways aren't nearly as overt as a drone strike, but just as far above the law. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

Yes I mean willingness, sorry. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Senior management In large corporations

What's the difference between what a chairman, a ceo and a coo does in a major corporation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.212.193 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this varies between companies. I assume that you've read our articles on Chief operating officer, Chief executive officer and especially Chairman#Public corporations. Dbfirs 14:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Church vs social security in the US

I've heard it suggested that one of the reasons for higher levels of religiosity in the US than in Europe is that social security tends to be weaker in the US. I'm also aware that American churches tend to be politically conservative. Is there any evidence that American churches espouse conservative views because social security is their competitor?--Leon (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

These churches were around long before Social Security was enacted. And conservatives' typical complaint about any kind of socialism is the theory that it erodes individual incentive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think American churches are more conservative than elsewhere, it's just that the conservative ones tend to be more vocal, like televangelists. A more liberal sect, like the Quakers, would be aghast at such publicity- and money-seeking tactics. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Crime vs Offence in England and Wales

What is the difference between a crime and an offence in the E&W legal system? Is it just that offence covers civil law as well? Thanks. 78.151.100.0 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't really a distinction between the two, although "offence" is the word usually used in statutes and other official documents. See English criminal law. Every offence is a crime, and every crime is an offence, although a particular criminal act may involve the commission of several possible offences; for example, bashing someone over the head may constitute everything from common assault to attempted murder. The terms only apply to the criminal law - the civil law equivalent is a tort. Tevildo (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How does Christianity and Islam determine the religion of offspring?

In Judaism, if a child is born to a Jewish mother, then the child is considered Jewish. The father's religion had no bearing. How do the various sects of Christianity and Islam work for passing religion to an adherents natural offspring?--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you start with Interfaith marriage and see what conclusions you can draw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe a large number of the 1 billion Catholics is people who were made Catholic as a baby and are secular, non-observant, believe little or none of the Bible and rarely think about religion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

By Catholic Canon Law a Catholic is born to the religion and rite of his father. So even if a Roman Catholic woman marries a Maronite Catholic man, her children are supposed to be raised in the Maronite Church. Again, there are dispensations if, say, you live in a Roman Catholic diocese and the nearest Maronite church is at a burdensome distance. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm Catholic, and I have never heard of that. Traditionally, the Catholic Church prefers that offspring of its members be raised Catholic. It's usually a condition of interfaith marriage by Catholics that the couple promise to raise their kids Catholic. Also, one is not born in Catholicism; one must be baptized. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure what the church would do in a case when both are Catholics of different churches which are in full communion. But in the general case, as emphasised by our article (which links to Interfaith marriage in Christianity and further to the source mentioned below), the expectation is that the children should be raised Catholic whether it's the wife or husband that is Catholic. Our article says it isn't actually a requirement that both parties promise this any more, but it's still a requirement that the Catholic party do their best and the non Catholic party be made aware of this promise. Of course the Catholic church isn't shy about talking about differences between males and females, so they may be more likely to discourage an interfaith marriage when the wife is the one who is Catholic and the husband is not, our article gives some examples, but definitely the general expectation is that the children should be raised Catholic. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nelson is confusing non-Catholics with non-Roman Catholics, Nil has brought up as an objection interfaith marriages, which I was not addressing. In marriages between parents belonging to two different rites within the Catholic Church, if there is no agreement between the husband and wife, the children are to be raised in the father's rite. (Children over 14 may choose for themselves which rite to follow.) New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, p 181 In marriages between Catholics and non Catholics, whether the husband or the wife is the Catholic, they can only have a Catholic wedding with the bishop's dispensation and on the condition that any children be raised Catholic. That's a separate matter. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually as I mentioned the last bit it isn't true any more. The current requirement is that the Catholic partner must promise to do all they can to raise the children as Catholic and the non Catholic partner must be made to understand the implications of this promise. Or as I put it earlier, it may be an expectation, but it's doesn't appear to be a condition any more. It's possible individual bishops may set their own standards. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Good Lord (irony) Bugs & Milky,it was a simple question. Not everyone is trolling this place. The answer I was seeking was along the lines of what Medeies proffered. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Was the link I posted inadequate to answer your question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Your link led to this rule for the Catholic denomination (I don't think "sect" is quite the correct word). Other mainstream Christian denominations tend to be less formal about upbringing, often with a parental promise at infant baptism to "help [their offspring] to take their place within the life and worship of Christ’s Church"( Anglican baptism), or just hoping that parents will bring up their children in that same or a similar denomination. Some cults may have stronger expectations. Dbfirs 09:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah I too don't understand the OPs complaint. The article on interfaith marriages also has a decent section on Islam and links to our article Interfaith marriage in Islam both of which seem to give a good overview. The general idea is that the children must be Muslim and because they will take their fathers faith, a marriage between a Muslim man and non Muslim woman may be okay, but not the opposite. (Of course actual practice and intepretations does vary. Some discourage or even disallow and marriage between a non Muslim and Muslim. A small number consider a marriage between a Muslim woman and non Muslim man as okay.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• How does Christianity and Islam determine the religion of offspring?

In Judaism, if a child is born to a Jewish mother, then the child is considered Jewish. In Christianity, a child has no religion until he is baptized. In Islam, any child is born Muslim, until his parents decide he is a Jew, or baptize him Christian, or just let him be a Muslim. Akseli9 (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• • I understand that, in some Christian denominations, entry to the church is marked by baptism and conversion. But there are many Christian denominations that perform infant baptism, which seems to break the link between religious conversion and baptism. Obviously, baptized infants don't have a conversion experience, but they are expected to be raised Christian in preparation for their confirmation ceremony. The question is, what happens if the child is baptized but never confirmed? I suppose baptism is sufficient enough to be considered a Christian and to be buried in a Christian cemetery or have a Christian funeral, with a dispensation from a priest. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This varies by denomination, but those that practice infant Baptism would say that Baptism is Baptism: it is being born again of water and the spirit, and is being initiated into the Church, and everybody who has received it is fully a member of the Church, no matter what other Sacraments they may or may not receive. No dispensations necessary. The idea that you must have a one-time "conversion experience" as an adult in order to really become a Christian is very much a Protestant idea, especially associated with once saved, always saved and so on. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, it is fashionable for offspring to reject the religion of their parents once the offspring reach secondary school age. Not all do so, and a few might return later, or join another denomination or religion, but for many there is no continuity of the religion of either parent. Dbfirs 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Things are not quite so simple for Judaism either... the answer to "Who is a Jew?" really depends on which sect/denomination of Jews you talk to... I have young cousins who have a (nominally) Christian mother and a Jewish father... the kids have been raised Jewish because the father cared and the mother didn't. Now, there are some sects/denominations of Judaism that do not consider the kids to be "real Jews" at all... others consider them fully Jewish converts ... but in their sect/denomination (I forget which it is) there is no question... they have always been considered Jewish... from birth. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

December 28

Radetzky′s politics

According to evidence available, would Radetzky be best described as a “conservative” or as a “progressive” of his era?--85.74.139.220 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you see anything in his article which suggests his views were any different from the typical high-ranking military officer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That was very rude and I take the liberty of striking it.--85.74.139.220 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone asks something, we answer it. Fair and simple.--85.74.139.220 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we try to answer, we don't try to "strike out" fair questions. You have a very strange notion of what rudeness is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I struck out an unfair answer, if you please.--85.74.139.220 (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to determine what or how you have tried to answer the question, though. 178.42.169.226 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

He was a loyal defender of the Habsburg monarchy against nationalists and democrats. The latter were generally seen as progressives in the early to mid-19th century; as a defender of the monarchy, Radetzky was certainly a kind of conservative. Marco polo (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Racism in Jamaica

Are alot of Jamaicans racist and homophobic? Venustar84 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Define "a lot". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I spend a month teaching a class at UWI. I noticed neither homophobia nor racism. I might have missed the first, but as basically the only white person in class and one of two I noticed in the university or the hotel, I think I would have noticed the second. They do overcharge touristy looking people on jerk chicken, and the taxi drivers will curse you if you haggle the price down to native levels... ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We have an article LGBT rights in Jamaica. Some Jamaican musicians are apparently incapable of stopping ranting on the subject... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Mythology-Xena question

1. what do you people think Callisto on Xena was inspired by? 2. Since Callisto on Xena was from Cirra Greece was there any connection in mythology between Callisto, Adrasteia, Rhea, Adrasteia, Erinyes, Cybele, Nemesis, Atë, Dirae, Tyche, Fortuna, ect Venustar84 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Venustar84: You know, I have never watched the show, but as far as I can tell Callisto was inspired by, well, Callisto. However, her myth was not really a peculiar one and had it not been for the moon of Jupiter named after her and her beautiful name (which means «the prettiest») we would not remember her today. I bet that Xena′s creators just wanted a great name that already existed and chose hers. Essentially her myth was this: Zeus was searching for yet another courtesan, he found Callisto, she bore his child Arcas, Arcas founded Arcadia, Callisto was turned into a bear and became Ursa Major, end of story. If you look at most Ancient Greek myths, you will realise that they are complex and plotty, while this is very simple and not at all peculiar. Rhea was the mother of Zeus and Adrasteia his nurse. The Erinyes were demons that haunted sinners and Dirae is their Roman name. Cybele is a non-canon member of Greek mythology, usually considered an eastern counterpart of Demeter. Nemesis was the angel of divine punishment. Atë was either the godess of lewdness or the act of displeasing the Gods. Tyche was the personification of luck and Fortuna is her Roman name.--85.74.139.220 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of "plotty", if you look at it from a high level, is there any practical difference between classical mythology and modern soap operas? "The Immortal Bold and Beautiful", "All My Half-Human Children", "Days of Our Olympic Lives", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well.... yeah.... kind of.......?--85.74.139.220 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Myths exist to explain natural and historical phenomena that were otherwise unexplainable at the time, while soaps exist to provide you with something that might pass for entertainment in between barrages of advertising. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not fully clean until you're Olympically clean! Or so the story goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Currnet ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East - is there an article about it?

Is there already an article dealing with the ethnic cleansing of Christians that is currently taking place in the middle east (is it only in the middle east?...)? Tshuva (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a contentious article to write, until enough newspapers and historians have written on it, synthesising the individual events together for us. Wikipedia, after all, is not the news. The problem would be if editors were synthesising the events into an overall narrative themselves. I'm sure we do have articles on the Syrian Civil War, on the situation with ISIS, on the effects of the Arab Spring, especially in Egypt. We also have articles on topics such as the Coptic Christians, who are suffering the brunt of the effect, and Christianity in Syria. Between those articles, and the links within them, you should be able to build up a picture. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We also have quite a lot at Anti-Christian sentiment#Middle East. --Antiquary (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of baptismal certificates

As I understand it, baptismal certificates were issued in the past like birth certificates. Would state churches (i.e. Church of England) issue a baptismal certificate to a Jewish family or baptize a Jewish baby (baby from a Jewish family) for nonreligious reasons? Maybe the baptism would satisfy the church's desire to save individuals or to keep a census of the population, even though the child is probably going to be raised Jewish. Or maybe Jewish families formally converted to Christianity for social and legal benefits while clandestinely observed Judaism? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Baptism is the marker of entry into the community of the church, so there is not any concept of a non-religious baptism, even today. Non-religious groups would call the analogous ceremony a "naming ceremony" or similar. Not in Britain, but in early modern Spain and Portugal, there was always suspicion that Jews who had ostensibly converted ("conversos") hadn't really converted at all but were going through the motions to avoid exile or execution. In England there was some fluidity between the C of E and other ("non-conformist") Protestant groups, so family history researchers can find a Methodist baptism followed by a C of E one and vice versa. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting to find that Jews in Europe would be persecuted, while Jews that migrated to China flourished, while assimilating completely in Chinese culture but maintaining to some extent a Jewish identity. Taking imperial examinations allowed the Jews to be boosted up in rank, even though it considerably took away time to study Hebrew, because the learning was then focused on learning about Chinese literature, language, and history. See Kaifeng Jews. I also read a Wikipedia article highlighting the situation behind the Jew-eating-Chinese-food-on-Christmas stereotype, which explained how Jewish immigrants to America were persecuted and faced discrimination from other European immigrants, but not Chinese immigrants. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jews were not "persecuted" in America. They came to America to escape the persecution in Europe. Discriminated against sometimes, yes. But not subjected to genocide. Also, the city of San Francisco had a significant number of founders who were Jewish (Levi Strauss, for one) and who were prominent citizens - and some of whom, ironically, participated in discrimination against the Chinese laborers who came to the area. (As per recent TV programs about Jews in San Francisco, and as discussed in some of the Finding Your Roots episodes.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Persecuted" doesn't necessarily mean "genocide". Jews were certainly seen as 'undesirable' by large segments of U.S. society through to at least the mid-twentieth century, and targeted by social and legal discrimination. While people tend to think of the Ku Klux Klan as an anti-Black organization, the early 20th century Klan was active and heavily into antisemitic attacks. One of the key aims of the Immigration Act of 1924 was to cut down on the number of of Jews entering the country. In the interwar and especially Depression years, linking Jews with communism was a popular antisemitic canard. During World War II, the State Department under (assistant Secretary) Breckinridge Long deliberately and extensively obstructed the issuance of visas to Jewish refugees, resulting in a couple of hundred thousand deaths. Numerus clausus restrictions on Jewish admissions to U.S. universities persisted well into the 1960s. The fact that there were some successful Jews, that persecution of Jews was worse in some other countries, and that the U.S. has had a worse track record with respect to some other minority groups, should not be misunderstood or misrepresented to mean that persecution of Jews did not occur in the United States. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Check out Persecution of Jews. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For part of what you (and Itsmejudith) are referring to, we have an article about Crypto-Judaism. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See Edgardo Mortara to find one of the possible outcomes of baptism in the catholic church. No official church intervention is required. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:ED6F:2AA4:ACE6:F618 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There certainly have been some fake Baptismal certificates used to "save" Jews in the past, but to save them from physical harm. E.g.

"Archbishop Cassulo's 1941 protest in Romania was in answer to a state ruling that a change of religious status by a Jew did not alter his legal status as a member of that persecuted "race". For the authorities had become suspicious, as did those in the Balkans, Hungary, and elsewhere later, of the number of Jewish "converts" to Catholicism. Until such a ruling was made in a Nazi-controlled country, however, a Jew who could prove himself a member of the Catholic Church could usually use the evidence of that membership-a baptismal certificate as a safe-conduct paper to leave the country. No records have been published regarding who conceived the idea or how it was implemented, but the existence of the false baptismal certificates, and they number in the thousands, is a fact. It is also a fact that the Vatican was well aware of the plan, and that members of resistance groups, apostolic nuncios, nuns, representatives of Jewish aid groups based in the Allied countries, and untold numbers of ordinary citizens risked their welfare if not their lives to promote the ingenious scheme."

[4] It's also well-attested that similar things were happening in Greece among the Orthodox. But everyone involved considered them fake Baptismal certificates. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

roads forming shape in cities

Is Toronto the only city that has a road that forms like a peanut (Don Mills divided into separate ways and forming like a peanut from Van Horne Ave to Fairview Mall Dr) or objects in the whole world? [[5]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.158 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I can find a few references to peanut-shaped roundabouts on the web - for an example, find 'Birchwood Warrington UK' on Google maps, and look at the junction between the A 574 and Oakwood Gate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

For a very elongated "peanut" see East and West Drives in Central Park. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Or the "Double Roundabout interchange" in Vail, Colorado. Or the Metcalfe Park Roundabout in Omaha, Nebraska. There's also one in Chamonix, France; another in Gainesville, Florida; another in Coconut Grove, Florida. If you want to search for more, remember that in some places they're not called "roundabouts", but rather "traffic circles", and in some places they're not called "peanuts", but "groundnuts". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A traffic circle is also sometimes called a "rotary". StuRat (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The examples with traffic circles aren't really the same thing. They do have a peanut shape, but they exist primarily as an alternative to a standard intersection. Although the Don Mills Avenue "Peanut" technically meets the description of a traffic circle, it has no significant traffic coming on from side streets; it's just a place where Don Mills Av. splits into separate northbound and southbound roads for a while, large enough to have the equivalent of a city block in the middle. (And in this particular case, the roads form a peanut shape.) Medeis's Central Park example is more like it in purpose, but less like it in shape. Another near miss is the University of Waterloo's Ring Road, but it's intended for access to the university rather than through traffic, and it carries two-way traffic on each side. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Given all the remarkable advances in technology, how is it possible that a major airliner can disappear without a trace?

In light of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 which has been missing for nearly a year and Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 which went missing today, how is it possible that a commercial could possibly disappear? I mean, why don't they equip airliners with GPS? You can buy a phone nowadays with GPS for only $20[6] And why store data locally on a blackbox? Why not just store the data in the Cloud computing It seems insane that given all the remarkable advances in technology that a major airline could possibly disappear without a trace. What am I missing? This seems like a pretty easy problem to solve. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

'How is it possible' seems to be a request for speculation. We don't answer such questions. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be very difficult to find a crashed airplane even on land. Finding something specific at the bottom of the ocean can be extremely challenging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Remember that retro-fitting a plane to include new guidance and tracking systems (if they exist) is very expensive. It may be that the kind of tracking devices that Quest is musing about are possible... just not practical enough to be implemented. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading Global Positioning System, I don't think a GPS would work under thousands of feet of water. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct, probably not under thousands of feet of water. But, wouldn't the GPS coordinates just prior to its crash into the water be helpful in pinpointing at least a general area of the water into which it crashed? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) In the case of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, it seems the problem is that all the tracking devices except the engine ping were intentionally disabled, and the plane was flown by a route designed to evade radar. Making tracking devices that can't possibly be turned off is quite a bit trickier, and there might be times when you would want to turn them off, such as if North Korea declares war and says it will target civilian airlines. StuRat (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Put another way, even with all the advancements in technology in any specific area, anyone who knows the details of what that technology can and cannot do and under what circumstances it can and cannot do those things can find ways to circumvent the technology. Computer hackers do that on a pretty much daily basis, and someone really dedicated to finding ways to do defeat virtually any system can probably, if enough time and effort is spent, find ways to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. You state that "anyone ... can find ways to circumvent the technology". But, that is only in the case of an intentional circumvention. That does not apply when there is some unintentional cause (i.e., an ordinary plane crash). In other words, just because the new technology can be circumvented (by "qualified" people) doesn't mean that it will be circumvented (or that it was circumvented) in any given specific situation. Thus, in the latter case, the new technological advances will indeed be helpful. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could put a transponder someplace the crew and passengers just can't get to it, like one on each wing tip, with their own batteries, in case power was cut. They could send out a jamming signal on that frequency, which would block the transponder signals (altitude, flight number, etc.), but the jamming signal itself could then be tracked. You'd also want to use shielded wires in the transponders, to protect against an EMP. (Yes, an EMP would likely crash the plane, too, but having a working transponder until the crash would help to locate the crash site.) StuRat (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• See these 10 previous threads On the Malaysia airlines 370 disappearance. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several aspects here. First, while it is easy to lose perspective with the internet and air travel, the planet really is a BigPlace (tm). An aircraft is about 50 by 50 m (the A320 is 30something, the A380 is 70something). That means there are about 2e13 aircraft-sized tiles on (or, in the case of the ocean, under) the surface. Looking at any sizable fraction of that, there is a lot of space to cover. Secondly, communication range with line-of-sight equipment like aircraft transponders is about 400 km under perfect conditions. And bandwidth for broadcast communication (like both voice radio and aircraft transponders) is severely limited due to interference. Continuous updates into "the cloud" is not currently feasible. The EM environment near major air traffic areas is already extremely challenging, with FRUIT making up by far the largest number of radar replies received by ATC systems. Satellite channels are also limited, and hence expensive - and putting up more satellites helps only to a small degree, since the problem is the overall capacity of the dedicated parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, not the capacity of any one transmitter or receiver. Tracking a single aircraft would be comparatively easy, but currently, there are several 10000 in the air at any given moment (and that's only guesstimating commercial air traffic, not private aviation and military aircraft, which also share the same spectrum). Finally, the typical lifetime of a commercial aircraft is 30 years, and that is about the time frame at which major equipment innovations move from experimental to recommenced to required. There definitely is a serious commercial aspect here, but there also is an inherent conservatism in air traffic - don't fiddle with something that works well enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The other way to look at that is as a tombstone mentality. That is, large numbers of people have to die to get them to change. StuRat (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of the deployable flight recorder. If an airline aircraft suffers an in-flight incident that will probably end in an accident, the flight data recorder is ejected from the aircraft on a parachute. It is equipped to float if it lands in the water, and it broadcasts a radio signal to facilitate its prompt recovery. Deployable recorders are already available and installed in some classes of military aircraft. A lot of work has been done on legislation to mandate its installation in certain civil aircraft. There is some good information at Flight recorder#Proposed requirements. Dolphin (t) 05:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 29

Why aren't iron, steel, iron ore, electronics-grade silicon, uranium and sand or basic plate glass prices more prominent?

The Wall Street Journal has tallow, lard, "grease", pig bellies, cow carcasses, wood (maybe two grades of each), ethanol, electricity, aggregate rock (the concrete fuel).. but only scrap steel I think. What about new steel? And why do they expect you to know the units (i.e. ¢/lb) but tell you bond prices move inverse to yield every time like you're an idiot? (notice that people who aren't sure if a bond getting cheaper will yield more might need to be explained what a bond is) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I presume that new steel is a finished product, not a generic commodity. A lot of attention was paid to iron and steel prices in the trade disputes of the 1970s and 1980s... AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they might even have burlap spot prices but only non-ferrous metals. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Steel is listed as "Steel, HRC USA, FOB Midwest Mill-S". Iron isn't listed presumably because the vast majority of it get processed into steel; the rest, as cast iron, have already been cast into custom shapes and thus aren't fungible anymore . Iron ore is listed as "Iron Ore, 62% Fe CFR China-S". WinterWall (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The age of Caribbean ascendancy

Our article Puerto Rico (board game) talks about "the age of Caribbean ascendancy", but I can't find any article that would describe such an age. Are there any historians that use that term, or was it just made up for the game review? — Sebastian 05:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's set during the 16th-18th centuries, I think, an age where Caribbean islands were economically essential for colonial powers, and had huge effects on international diplomacy. France, for example, basically gave up all of Canada for the far more valuable sugar plantations on Guadeloupe. I've never heard the term "Caribbean ascendancy" either, but it is clearly referring to those couple of centuries where Britain, France, and Spain were conquering all the islands from each other, no matter how small. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sugar, molasses and rum were major items in the triangular trade that drove much of European expansion in early colonial days. Sugarcane was produced primarily in the Caribbean, usually under horrendous conditions, establishing a strong demand for the slaves that made the third leg of the triangle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Shoplifting and theft while using self-checkout

This is a question about those relatively new self-checkout lanes that we see in supermarkets. Two comments I have about them: (1) I have read the self-checkout article; (2) I have never used one, so I am quite unfamiliar with the explicit details of their use. So, my question: Isn't it incredibly easy to engage in shoplifting and/or theft while using one of those self-checkout machines? It would seem that the easiest way is to pretend to scan the item, but make sure that it actually does not scan (by having the scanner avoid the barcode). And then just conveying the item down the belt as if it had been correctly scanned. (Not to mention, many other ideas that come to mind that would constitute very easy ways to manipulate the system and thereby shoplift and/or steal.) So, my question: how are these myriads of ways avoided and/or eliminated by the supermarket or by the company that manufactures the machines? Any ideas? Aren't these supermarkets being robbed blind? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

When you scan something, the mechanism beeps, and you place the item in a bag or on the shelf the bags are on. It's got a scale. If you don't set the item down, it will tell you to put the item in the bag. If you pretend to scan, it won't beep, so when set the item down, it will say "wait for assistance" or something like that. And they have someone monitoring the self-checkout area, to help with problems or to deter shoplifters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That scale is a constant cause of trouble. It always seems to say either "Put the item on the belt" or "Remove the item from the belt", presumably because the weight of the item isn't quite what it expected. Just repositioning an item on the belt can mess it up. They need a more intelligent system, like RFID, to tell them if an unscanned item makes it to the bagging area.

There's also a problem getting those annoying tiny plastic bags to open. They need a system where they open automatically, on a rotating carousel. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait. I am lost already. Do you scan just one item and then immediately place that one item in the bag and then continue on to scan item #2? Or is it just like when you go to a human cashier: she scans all of the items, they proceed down the conveyor belt, and then they all get bagged after they have all been scanned? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you scan one item, put it in the bag, and then scan the next one. And if you run into problems or get confused, you ask for help from the person monitoring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In my experience (at CVS) you have to put the items in a bag immediately or it will start sounding alarms. -- Calidum 06:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't seen one, they were around in 2010 at least. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I have seen one. I've seen many. I just never actually went into that lane and, in fact, have always specifically avoided that lane in favor of a human cashier lane. And, needless to say, I have never stopped and actually watched another shopper in the process of his self-checkout. From my peripheral vision, it always just looked like people scanning and bagging as per my usual experience. I've never looked closely. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can find an open lane with a cashier, or don't mind waiting, it's usually better to use a live cashier, since they can do it faster. Those things were installed to cut down labor costs, presumably, so it's a question of what your priorities are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two kinds. One kind you scan and immediately put in the bag (which weighs it to make sure you did it). Another kind has a closed conveyor belt you put it into, which also weighs it then send it down to the bagging area. To answer your question about shoplifting: Most people are honest. It would be very easy to steal from one of these machines, but most people don't. Ariel. (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So, essentially the "weight" of the items is the key to insuring that no theft occurs? So, the computer systems are essentially loaded with an extensive database that says, for example, "this can of peas weighs 12 ounces and it costs 99 cents". Is that how it works? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be my understanding of it. And that's why by-the-pound (or kilogram) items have to be weighed as part of the process. Instead of scanning, you enter the item's code, put the item on the scale, and then move it to the bag when it tells you to. It does take some practice, but it's worthwhile to know, in case you find yourself in a hurry someday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. Akseli9 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This system allows employing only one human cashier for several customers at a time, usually eight. It is yet another of the thousands of examples where it's now the customer who does the work, while still paying the same price as if the service was still provided by employees. Akseli9 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is an attractive female watching the self-checkout area and the machine summons "assistance" because of something you've done wrong, you can tell her that the machine doesn't trust you and that the machine doesn't know that you are a trustworthy person. This may result in her smiling and saying that you're good. This in turn could really make your day. Therefore I always recommend using the self-checkout lines. Bus stop (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, they usually stick the older, "plainer" ones on the self-checkouts. But whatever floats yer boat. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a younger plainer girl, but didn't pay attention to demographics. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe when they see creeps coming by who want to letch on people who are just trying to do a job, they deploy the more experienced workers who know how to respond to creeps without being upset for the rest of the day by the professional requirement to smile and say positive things when people are creeping on you. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please tell us—how do the "more experienced workers" respond? Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Without getting upset and having their day spoilt, unlike younger, less experienced women who don't expect creeps. They also possibly go to some of the many communities online for moaning about this, and laugh about the creeps who abuse the requirement of professional conduct from workers to make themselves feel better. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

While there may be cases of random homeless people asking to help you with your groceries in the US, I was referring to when employees of the market offer to do so, with management consent. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's starting to make sense now. So, just out of curiosity, what happens when you purchase/scan an "oddly shaped" or "oversized" item that one does not typically bag? For example, let's say I purchase a large mop or maybe a bouquet of flowers? Things that you don't really "bag"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an option on the screen for items that have no barcode. Akseli9 (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What I meant was: the mop (or the bouquet) does indeed have a bar code. But, after I scan it, I won't place it in a bag. Yet, the computer will "expect" me to do so, or "require" me to do so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's where you turn to the monitor person for help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And an option to "use your own bag" which is what you'd pick for oversized items. I never chose this, but presumably the human would then be called over to verify what you are doing. StuRat (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Or if it does have a barcode but won't easily fit, you can ask the monitor to let you ring it up and then put it back in the cart. Or you could try draping it over the bags. Tip: Ring it up last. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, there are some potential advantages to self-checkout:

1) It could theoretically be quicker, if they can now have one human watch over several lanes instead of just one. However, the reality seems to be that they never have enough humans to do all the checks that the automated system requires, so it can be even slower than a regular lane. They often have no human on duty at all, causing everything to stop until they get back from their smoke break or whatever.

2) It's harder to get overcharged on a self-checkout lane, as you always have time to check the price that rings up, unlike at a regular lane where, if you can even see the prices that ring up, they fly by too quickly to check them. You then have to call the human over to fix it, though, if you can actually find one.

3) Since you do everything yourself, you will presumably take better care of your items. I once carefully handed a greeting card to the cashier, only to have her drop it right onto the puddle of spilt milk I was trying to avoid on the belt. Another time a bunch of bananas was dropped into a bag with enough force to split them open. I also put frozen foods in one bag, fridge foods in another, and pantry foods in a third. StuRat (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit off-topic but, supermarkets vary by their utilization of self-checkout technology. Some devote a lot of space to it, and others don't have any self-checkout lines. Also, some supermarkets have separate "baggers" on non-self-checkout lines. This calls into question the wisdom of self-checkout lines, I think. A separate "bagging" person presumably makes the line move faster, because that additional person frees the cashier from the duty of "bagging". But of course that "bagging" person is an additional expense to the supermarket. Bus stop (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

About the only place in the world I've seen "baggers" has been in the US. They seem to be very unusual everywhere else. And if you want your things carefully stowed in your backpack so that you can take it on one of these new-fangled two-cycles things which a) don't use any gas to move you and b) provide a free workout while travelling, you have a lot of explaining to do ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are pros and cons to various setups to get you and your paid-for merchandise out of the store. I am partial to self-checkout, for some of the reasons User:StuRat mentions above. But there is a coddled feeling generated by a second employee bagging your food. It is a superficial feeling because, as I think Stu alludes to above, the abuse to the food can exceed tolerable levels. My pet peeve is packaged salad at the bottom of the bag. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Baggers can just be part-time teenager workers, so don't need to be paid much. At some high-end grocery stores they not only bag your groceries, but ask if you want them to load them in your car for you. When I was asked if I wanted that service, I was tempted to say "Do my legs look broken to you ?". :-) StuRat (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not just high-end, at least not here. Standard at both my "normal" stores. Best not to risk breaking your own legs, especially in winter. Teenagers heal quicker. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

For a healthy person to need assistance in loading their groceries in their car is a bit like needing a valet to park your car, it all seems rather frivolous and silly to me, and we could all due with bit more exercise, to boot. On the other hand, my elderly mother does need help loading a 20 lb box of cat litter into her car. (I later unload it for her and put it by the cat pan where she can scoop out a bit as needed.) StuRat (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much that I need the help, but I'm not going to turn it down when they offer. If I paid extra for it, or had to ask, I'd call it frivolous. But if it just happens, I say thanks for the job. Kitty litter isn't quite immovable, but it is a bit heavy. Minor wear and tear adds up. "Take a penny, leave a penny" thinking applies to more than just monetary change. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the idea when I'm in the US. It reminds me my childhood when I was in Africa. This kind of stuff was done by beggars and it was a way to give them money and them not losing dignity. Akseli9 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a better reason, to me, unless you were worried they are so filthy they might contaminate the food. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's in the US that I don't like the idea. I don't like the third-world aspects of the US, and that one is particularly obvious to me although I know it's only me and I may be wrong. Akseli9 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

While there could be cases of random homeless people offering to help with your groceries, I was referring to paid employees of the market offering to do so, with management approval. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In Florida I saw elderly people doing that, with management approval of course. I just don't like it because the only other place where I saw that was the Third-World, I know I'm wrong and off-topic, sorry. Akseli9 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably About half of NZ supermarket shopping takes place at places that doesn't bag your shopping for you, with or without a self-checkout. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In France's 90% supermarkets you need to buy the plastic bags. They are sold near the cashiers, several models, a very weak one that's a steal to sell that, a middle-size-middle-strength one, and a large, strong one that you can reuse and that cashier marks so you don't pay it the next time you use it. Akseli9 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In the UK there are now at least 2 supermarket companies that offer a check-as-you-pick system where you register for a wireless hand scanner which you use to read the barcodes on goods you put in your bag as you walk around. When you check out you download the scanner to a pay point, 3 seconds, and then pay with cash or card. This appears to have an even higher risk of theft but I guess the companies have done their homework and I notice from personal observation more staff in day clothes carrying shopping baskets, presumably keeping a covert eye on the shoppers. Random checks occur, but only about 1 in ten visits. Richard Avery (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What advantages does that have over regular self-scanners ? I imagine there's less delay at checkout, but more delay waiting in the aisles as people scan their items there. And what do you do if something rings up at the wrong price ? Maybe you can cancel that item, but is there any way you can get the item, and still pay the advertised price ? StuRat (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The advantage is for the store. They can analyze things like how long it took you to decide to get something, where you're coming from and going to, and what you grab there. Watch your face and body language on replay right at the moment of purchase. Then someone gets paid a fair chunk to say "We should put the tampons nearer the olives" or "The Maroon 5 tunes are working exactly as intended in the Johnson & Johnson aisle." Or something like that. Then the store can theoretically pass the savings on to the customer. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Beyond advantages to the store InedibleHulk mentioned, it would seem an advantage to the customer. Rather than having to pull out goods to scan only to put them back in the trolley/box/bag to then take to your car/bicycle/walk, you scan, put them in and then take them directly. Of course thus is counterbalanced by the random checks. I presume the scanner has a running tally so you also don't have to manually enter prices for those who prefer to keep track. Also I can't comment on stores in the UK but definitely most supermarkets here in NZ where these are also used but I haven't seen, have aisles wide enough for two trolleys. So except at real peak times or with careless or inconsiderate people, queing in aisles isn't so much of a problem but it doesn't necessarily take much for there to be a que at the self checkout. Since these it sounds like, eliminate weighing, they reduce this source of problems. The staff time balance may also be in favour. Of course you could remove these without personal scanners, but it sounds like you have to be trusted so it may be a simple way to have two streams while reducing the risk of annoying those untrusted. Nil Einne (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How do they eliminate weighing ? Are items no longer sold based on weight, or do they all come in pre-weighed packages with appropriate tags affixed ? This last one sounds rather expensive to do, especially for inexpensive produce, like bananas (which here run under 50 cents a pound). If you just sell them based on count, then customers will take the big ones and leave the little ones to rot. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, by "eliminate weighing" I was referring to weighing of prepackaged items as a security measure which is the norm for most normal self service checkouts. As has been discussed, this is one of the most common causes of errors requiring staff assistance so effectively costing the store money and the customer time. I'm not really sure how items sold by weight are handled, I would guess either these have to be done at checkout or there are machines to handle it around where these items are picked up. Again, while I can't speak for the UK, in NZ these only represent a small percentage of purchases in supermarkets as it's only used for fruit/vegetables and pick and mix items (confectionary, nuts etc). But many people buy their fruit and vegetables at specialised shops because they tend to be cheaper and may be better quality or at least are often more convient (as someone may shop at a supermarket once per week, but depending on requirements may find it better to get these items more frequently). Meat and deli items are also often sold by weight, but for hygeine and related reasons, these are handled and weighed by staff. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In my local ASDA, which has a self-service bunch of machines, if I buy alcohol, it says I need to wait for assistance, just to verify my age and whilst waiting I put everything into my backpack (I don't use their bags because they fall apart if you put too much heavy stuff in). No-one ever checks what I have bought (or put in my backpack - there's a computer in there, there's an iPad, and all sorts of stuff which I brought with me before entering the supermarket), so, yes, I can understand the OP's premise. It would indeed be easy to steal from there (though I never did, of course). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 05:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Preparing potatoes in Ireland the 1840's.

According to Irish potato famine people ate almost exclusively potatoes to the point that "men could eat 60 potatoes, women 40, and children 25".

Are there any records on how they prepared them? Did they just eat boiled potatoes every day? Or did they have any interesting recipes to add variety? Ariel. (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting recipes would require interesting ingredients, which, unfortunately, they couldn't afford. I imagine some kind of gravy would be about the most they could typically manage. If the woman of the house happened to work as a cook for a English lord, then perhaps she could take home the scrapings from the pan after cooking meat and could then make gravy from that. StuRat (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point, StuRat. I expect that those who had run out of the usual source of meat instead garnished their tatties with a piece of nutritious and tasty peat or some pond weed. Other European peasant societies might make use of the plentiful fish around their coasts - salted cod and pickled herring, for example, mackerel and shellfish in season - chicken and pigs - milk and the occasional piece of beef - fruit from an occasional tree and berries from bushes - rabbit, both domestic and wild - goat and mutton (that staple of Irish stew) - cabbage - but the Irish, with their mystic devotion to the potato (which was conflated with their adoration of the Virgin Mary - known locally as 'Our Lady of the Potato') preferred to eat only the potato, exclusively and au naturel. Indeed, it is not widely appreciated that any attempt to adorn the potato with additional ingredients was deemed a form of heresy and would bring down the righteous wrath of their neighbours, including denunciations from the pulpit and ostracism, for getting above themselves and adding 'filthy foreign muck' to the wholesome Irish potato; the one exception being on New Year's Day, when it was traditional to offer callers at one's hovel a potato matched with a piece of coal to eat. By coincidence, this anniversary is shortly upon us, and I sincerely hope that all contributors to this page will join me in eating a potato and some coal 'for auld lang syne'. 178.42.169.226 (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

^{irony alert!} --TammyMoet (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I once saw a documentary (I'm in the UK but can't remember which channel showed it) which showed that the Irish people would leave the potatoes in their skins in the embers of the house fire all day, and when they came home they would just eat them with their hands. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The above post, while sarcastic, does give you an idea of what else was available. Irish stew, champ, colcannon and boxty pancakes are well known Irish potato dishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think our article explains much of the problem -- that great quantities of other food were continually being seized by the landlords the English had put over the island, and exported even at the height of the famine. The intention of this was not particularly clandestine. The potato was an efficient crop to grow on small land holdings. But I think the article omits that it also had a unique advantage, that it could be left in the ground rather than being harvested. A family that diligently takes in a good crop of grain would only have been asking to have it taken away at gunpoint by the landlord's middlemen at their pleasure, but one with a crop of potatoes might have left them to dig them out of the frosty ground on their own. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, potatoes then, as now, weren't worth much, making it not practical to seize them and try to export them. If a more valuable crop was buried underground, like truffles, then it might have been worth the effort. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Truffles??? WTF? Alansplodge (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, truffles. WTF is the "WTF" about ? StuRat (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

a) You can't cultivate truffles - they're gathered by trained animals from woodland b) We're discussing the Irish Famine; "about three million extra acres of grain would have been needed annually to meet the food shortfall caused by the blight" [7] so a few truffles aren't going to help. I usually accept your meanderings with good humour, but it's a valid question about a serious issue. Please try to say something that could be remotely helpful. Alansplodge (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alansplodge.Fallacy alarm bell rings. Just because one editor here doesn’t know how to cultivate truffles doesn’t mean that no-one else does.--Aspro (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I never proposed that truffles be used to cure the Irish famine. Truffles were my example of a valuable buried food source, that, if it existed in the same quantities as potatoes, would indeed have been stolen by the English. Thus my point that it's not only the fact that potatoes were buried that made them safe from theft, but that, along with their low value for export, which kept them safe. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, but clarity wasn't a strong point of your post. I still think that you're over simplifying a complex issue. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Professor Kevin Whelan says the Irish farm labourers added milk (presumably in mash) when they could afford it - see Prelude to Famine: The Potato. The rest of that site is worth a read, since the Famine was a more complex problem than just a potato disease and greedy Anglo Irish landlords, although both of those loomed large in the equation. Alansplodge (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, not to say the real world, the estimated daily consumption of potatoes sounds to me absurd; every day Paddy and Colleen, together with their wee bairns Seamus and Maureen, would apparently consume a sack of spuds between them. No wonder there was a potato famine - there simply weren't enough to go around: the problem wasn't bight, it was greed.

The usual fare for the English Victorian working poor was bread (in huge quantities) and oysters (read Dickens as evidence of this latter point). Many of the foods we think of as luxuries, through scarcity, today, such as salmon, were relatively common at the time. A rural, peasant, society, would have shared, bartered, and traded within itself. As a rural society, it would have had better access to food than the urban poor.

I can think of no country that has misused its historical record to support its nationalist agenda more than Ireland. It makes little sense to denigrate 'the baddies' as 'the English' because the two 'races' are genetically indistinguishable and, anyway, the two countries were politically joined at the time. It is noticeable that the article on 'The Potato Famine' is locked and the subject of special measures, which hardly inspires confidence. By far the best book on the subject is The Irish Famine, and the talk page of that article graphically exposes the nonsense spouted about this undoubted tragedy, which is ill-served on Wikipedia. 178.42.126.148 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course the Irish ate lots of potatoes, having nothing else to eat. The book you reference denies that Ireland was a net exporter of food during the famine, but there's also the issue of the Irish having been pushed into an all-potato diet prior to the famine, setting the stage. And saying they were politically joined seems rather silly, in that the English had conquered the Irish, and treated them as conquered people. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There's actually a whole sorry side to this that you are just discovering: the Irish were growing high-yield, low-nutrient varieties of potato with a lot of water and less starch for calories than a more sensible variety. This is where some philanthropists actually had a chance of doing some good, and tried to, but it's hard to persuade people to switch to lower-yield crops they have less experience with. So the reason the Irish ate such quantities of potatoes isn't just that they were nearly their only reliable food source, and they were engaged in manual labour, but also because the potatoes were so nutritionally poor that a person had to eat quantities of them to get enough calories to live. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Classification of art collections

I'm trying to populate a new category - Category:Art collections - which has two main subcategories: Category:Public art collections and Category:Private art collections. I'm unclear as to the distinction between the two. For example, the Arundel collection is classified as private; it was originally amassed by an individual, but is now in an Oxford museum. So just what are the criteria for public collections? Collections that are owned by some level of government? By university museums? By privately owned museums which are open to the general public? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the Arundel marbles (which you linked to) is in the category for former private collections not simply private collections, and has been for a long time [8]. I'm not sure why the redirect Arundel collection (which you didn't link to even if it was the text you displayed), is in any category like that, but it probably shouldn't be (since it's a redirect) so I've removed it [9]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Offences in England & Wales

I am currently comparing section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape) with section 9 (sexual activity with a child) and am struggling to see why a person would be charged with s9 instead of s1 in the case that the offender penetrates the victim with his penis. In this case, where lies the distinction between this offence and rape? Is this just meant to cover the case where the prosecution feels that the actions committed amount to an offence that is less severe than rape? This could occur, for example, in the case whereby the offender is an 18 year old male, the victim is a 15 year old female, they have had penetrative vaginal intercourse, and the victim is deemed to have been 'willing'. This is rather specific though.

I have looked on the CPS's website but can't see any information that sheds any light on the matter. Does anyone know the raison d'etre of this offence? Thanks for your help. asyndeton talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Section 9 covers non-penetrative sexual activity (such as mutual masturbation), in addition to penetrative sexual activity. Section 1 only covers non-consensual penetrative sexual activity. In the case you posit, the offender could be charged with rape under Section 1 if the activity was non-consensual, rape under Section 5 if the child was under 13 and the activity was consensual (the term "statutory rape" isn't used in the Act, but this is the section that creates such an offence in English law), or sexual activity with a child under Section 9 if the child was aged between 13 and 16 and the activity was consensual. See Sexual Offences Act 2003. Tevildo (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

See Sexual Offences Act 2003 for the content. It seems to me that the difference is that for Section 1, it needs to be proved that there was no consent, whereas in Section 9, consent or no consent is irrelevant. But then I'm not a lawyer. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

But person B has to be under 16 for section 9 to be applicable, so they are unable to consent (age of consent in E&W is 16), so that's not an issue. The reason I said 'willing' in the above example was to indicate that the 15 year old was happy for the intercourse to take place, despite the fact that the law does not recognise her consent (I have amended my original question to introduce genders to the characters). [It's also worth noting at this point that a person who is under 16 but is 13 or over cannot consent to sexual intercourse, but I believe that they can 'voluntarily agree' to such activities.] asyndeton talk 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, this was the position under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, going back to R v Prince and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, but Sections 5 and 9 were introduced so that "ability to consent" (and similar concepts) were no longer relevant - all that matters is the age of the child. Section 74 of the 2003 act states: "[A] person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice", with no additional age-related elements. ("Capacity" isn't defined, and I don't know of any cases where the issue has come up, as such cases will be charged under Section 9 or Section 5 rather than Section 1). See Age of consent, and, as Alan has mentioned, be aware that we are not lawyers and cannot give definitive advice. Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I am not rejecting what you say, I am going to quote from Blackstone's Handbook for Policing Students 2014 (section 17.7, page 372 if you have access to a copy).

"Consent cannot be given until a person reaches the age of 16 years. The issue of consent does not apply if the child is under 13 years of age: such a person cannot legally give consent. However, the law considers that there is a possibility that children aged 13 to 15 might have 'voluntarily agreed' to sexual activities with other children or young people, provided there was no use of coercion or corruption. In these circumstances, a prosecution is not always considered to be in the public interest."

How does this work in tandem with what you have posted above? Does it depend on the exact interpretation of 'young people', which is a self-evidently vague term? I originally thought that this would specifically refer to persons above the age of consent but not significantly so, such as 17 year olds. This link is also referred to in the text as being relevant to the discussion, but I cannot find a specific reference to the case at hand, rather the slightly more vague discussion in the final paragraph of Youths (though perhaps this vagueness is intentional, and all encompassing).

And, addressing your final point, I worked under the, perhaps tenuous, assumption that capacity in section 74 would be held to encompass the person being above the age of consent. I take it, though, that it should be interpreted in a colloquial rather than legal sense? asyndeton talk 00:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[I've taken the liberty of reformatting your link so that it displays properly]. This is how I would interpret the handbook - again, bear in mind that this question can only be definitively answered by a lawyer (or a law teacher). I would add "effectively" to the first sentence to clarify it ("Consent cannot be given effectively"). Even if a person between 13 and 16 consents to sexual activity, it's still illegal, although it's not rape under Section 1. The last sentence (and the link you mention) refers to the excercise of the DPP's discretion not to prosecute, even though an offence has been committed. (There was a case a couple of years back where such a prosecution did take place (BBC article), but the children in question were all under 13.) On the "capacity" issue, this really is a question for a lawyer (or a judge). "Capacity" _might_ be as defined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but this is an incredibly big "might" for the Reference Desk. Tevildo (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think that's cleared up what I wanted to know. Thanks. asyndeton talk 01:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am afraid I have misled you; I am not quite done. You say that sexual activity with a person between 13 and 16 years old is not rape despite being illegal. Suppose the person they engage in this activity with is also between 13 and 16. What offence is this? Would it be a section 4? What about if the other person is 16 or 17? Section 4 again? asyndeton talk 01:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Section 4 covers non-consensual sexual activity where the perpetrator isn't physically involved, such as coercing or deceiving someone into masturbation, or forcing two people, (at least) one of whom doesn't consent, to have sex with each other. Consensual sex between two people, only one of whom is between 13 and 16, is a Section 9 offence. Unlike in some other jurisdictions, there's no element of age difference involved - the older person could be 15, 18, or 60, but the offence is the same. The age difference would be an element in the "public interest" test for discontinuing the prosecution, and (possibly) an aggravating or mitigating factor when it came to sentence, but it doesn't affect the offence. Non-consensual sex between two 15-year-olds is Section 1 rape. Tevildo (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? This link says that a Section 9 offence is only for perpetrators aged 18 or over. asyndeton talk 01:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. Section 13 extends Section 9 to persons under 18. I've amended my answer accordingly. Consensual sex between a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old, or two 15-year-olds, is a Section 13 offence, consensual sex between an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old is a Section 9 offence. Tevildo (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you for all your help! asyndeton talk 02:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know much about E&W law, but it sounds to me like the Handbook for Policing Students 2014 is intended to be a guide to the law for certain people which hopefully reflects the law, but isn't the actual law or regulations of E&W. The issue of consent seems a decent summary of even the 2003 law even if the wording may not totally follow the law. Regardless of whether or not people under the age of 16 can technically consent, it's an offence to have sex with them so the issue of consent is largely moot. Also even if someone below 16 can be said to lack the capacity to consent, it would seem to be an unnecessary and risky legal avenue to pursue if it isn't explicitly defined in law, when there are already other explicit offences which avoid the issue. It seems to be something more likely to come up when the person is chronologically above the age of 16, but may still be said to lack the capacity to consent due to intellectual disability. (Presumomg there isn't something that already deals with this.) BTW, section 75 and to some extent 76 goes in to issues that may come up relating to consent. Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You're right in the observation you make in your first sentence; I am, ultimately, more concerned with the real life and practical applications of the law than I am with the law itself. asyndeton talk 01:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[10] (Currency exchange rate stability)

Why are there (2 day) long periods of stability between (7 days) long periods of instability?174.3.125.23 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about a pattern, having a regular period of instability would actually be remarkably stable, on the whole. Doesn't seem to be happening here. Currency markets fluctuate for a few reasons. If you're wondering about the December dips in particular, Russia's economy had a bad November.

Also, that's a terrible section header. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I added to it to make it actually useful as a title. StuRat (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Forex is open 24h. The pattern that I pointed out implies that the currency fluctuates during 5 days a week. The graph indicates that it fluctuates during the Russian work week. This implies that the currency exchanges are open on regular office office hours. This further implies that the currency is fluctuating largely due to the Russian population.

Is this correct?174.3.125.23 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2 days of stability are simply Saturdays and Sundays, when bankers are not trading, so the price does not change. --147.85.186.6 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that can't be right: Bankers are not the only people who do buy and sell currency.174.3.125.23 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Or yehuda little Iraq israel

In Israel, Or yehuda, a development town is dubbed as Israel's "Little Iraq" because when it was built the majority of the residents were Iraqi Jews. Is there other places in the nation that has been dubbed as "Little Morocco", "Little Tunisia" and etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.36 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

December 30

Tagore poem

Hi everyone. I am supposed to make sense of a certain poem by Tagore, but I have the impression I was given a back-translation of a Chinese translation. I found the text I received here: http://blog.udn.com/quietdharma/8963422. Could someone enlighten me? (I am most interested in the part starting with "Two: I heard the music, from the moon and carcass" etc.) Thanks a lot! MuDavid (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Japan in World War 2

Did any white people fight with the Japanese rather than against them in WW2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.225.138.20 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Germans. They were allies. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean actually fighting with them, rather than allied with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.225.66.217 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The German auxiliary cruiser Michel briefly operated out of Yokohama in 1943, if that counts. It was still a German ship though, it just happened to be stuck in the Pacific. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Vichy French and Germans were fighting alongside the Japanese in Vietnam. One Allied fighter saw this and it became the inspiration for Planet of the Apes. Shii (tock) 15:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What was the rationale behind selling indulgences just prior to the Luther's Reformation?

From what I understand, indulgences were used to make sins less weighty, so a person receiving an indulgence from a priest wouldn't be divinely punished so harshly. Perhaps, some clerics wanted to cheat the system, so they lied to ordinary, naive laypersons that indulgences could be "purchased" instead of going through the trouble and confessing your sins to another person outside your family (probably very embarrassing and shameful!). Or perhaps, some artful laypersons bribed the priests into giving an indulgence without really confessing or repenting. Though, I have a hunch that it's more of the former than of the latter. Was selling indulgences done by a handful of corrupt priests, or was the entire Western Roman Catholic Church corrupt at the time? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Indulgence, an indulgence was theoretically good for avoiding temporal punishment (ie penances) for sins already confessed (ie to a priest). But the reasons for the abuses are obvious; it gave the church something it could sell and which it cost nothing to produce and greed took over. Often the money raised was for a good purpose (funding hospitals, building projects, schools etc). See [11] for more information. GoldenRing (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Incidentally, let's be clear that permission was never given to sell indulgences: permission was given that donating money to a worthy cause could be an act of penance towards the indulgence (still accepted acts of penance include things like saying certain prayers, reading the Bible, going on certain pilgrimages, attending certain sorts of events, etc), and then this was abused and turned into a situation where people were practically buying them from certain unscrupulous individuals. The worst abuses were also reserved for indulgences obtained on behalf of the dead: there are no even nearly-contemporary accounts of people selling indulgences for the living with the heretical promise that the indulgence guaranteed them entry to Heaven: there are accounts that people promised that dropping the money in for an indulgence for those in Purgatory would immediately send the soul in Purgatory to Heaven, no matter the State of Grace of the individual obtaining it, or anything the soul in Purgatory might do or have done. Whether that is because even the unscrupulous had a line they wouldn't cross, or because, no matter how poorly catechised they might be, the public obviously wouldn't believe the idea of a ticket to Heaven regardless of any actions they might take, I don't know. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would a 21st century American judge commanding people to do community service as a form of penance be a modern equivalent to the indulgence system done in the Middle Ages? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's less chance of abuse than where money changes hands. (Traffic cops are notorious for giving out more tickets when they have a budget shortfall, so suddenly behavior that was acceptable before now requires a fine.) Potentially community service could be abused something like a modern chain gang, which was a system of virtual slavery where people were convicted on little evidence and often spent the rest of their lives in prison, working without getting paid, perhaps for a relative of the judge who sent them to prison. Allowing people to choose their form of community service somewhat removes the profit motive and hence conflict of interest from the equation. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really, because nobody made people do penance. Nobody made people obtain indulgences. It wasn't part of the justice system at all. And a judge can't have you do community service in order to free someone else from jail. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A Papal Indulgence could also buy you remission for sins that you hadn't got around to yet - a sort of "Get Out of Jail Free Card"; the whole thing was genuinely unsavoury however you look at it. To answer the question, Pope Leo X "is probably best remembered for granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter's Basilica, which practice was challenged by Martin Luther's 95 Theses" according to our article, having spent all his cash on luxurious living and making war on the French. Alansplodge (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

All-green flag on early 17th century Spanish warship

I'm passing on a question by Christopher Braun regarding a painting by Cornelis Verbeeck. What is the green flag flown from the mizzen mast of the Spanish ship (to the right) in this painting?

I've searched around a bit, but can't find references to all-green flag relating to any specific Habsburg territory. My guess is a command flag squadron commander (rear admiral?), but I don't know if these were flown from the mizzen in the early 1600s. The red flag on the stern of the Dutch ship is apparently a signal flag showing intention to engage in combat. The red and yellow flag appears to be the flag of Enkhuizen in North Holland.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo You might post a link to this question at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships if you haven't already done so. They might help garner more input in getting the question answered. MarnetteD|Talk 17:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Inheritance System in Pride and Prejudice (19th Century Inheritance System)

Hi everyone,
I'm just reading Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (1813), I'm not even halfway through (so no spoilers please ;)), but I've already got a question concerning the inheritance system of Great Britain in the 19th century. I know it's actually an academically irrelevant question, and my literature professors would kill me for spending time on such a subject based on that text, but I'm still wondering about the British inheritance system at the time:
The situation is that Mr Bennet has a large estate that, upon his death, will be inherited to the closest male relative, which in his case is his distant cousin Mr Collins because he's only got five daughters but no sons. Because of that, his daughters are to be married as quickly as possible to ensure that they won't end up home- and penniless after Mr Bennet's death, which is fair enough so far. But I'm wondering now that, if one of those daughters now married, wouldn't her husband be a closer relative than Mr Collins? Or, if blood-relation was the determining factor and if his daughter and her husband had a son, wouldn't Mr Bennet's grandson, who is in his direct line of descent, be a closer relative than Mr Collins, and wouldn't Mr Bennet be able to change his will?
Or, to phrase the question more generally: in the 19th century, was a distant cousin a closer relative than a grandson (to which the answer should clearly be no in my opinion) so that seniority was more important than direct line of descent?
Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.82.10 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

According to ordinary inheritance at the time (in the lack of a will or other specific relevant legal document), the daughters would actually inherit equally. However, in Pride and Prejudice, the landed estate (house + land) is restricted by an entail legal document established in a previous generation, which presumably gives the male-line male descendants of a specific named individual priority inheritance rights (as most entails did at that time)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No wonder Elizabeth was pushed into marrying Mr. Collins - and when she rejected, she had an argument with her parents. Apparently, she put herself over what was best for her family, which seemed very selfish of her to do. And there was intense pressure to get those daughters married in wealthy homes, so they could maintain a similar standard of living. AnonMoos, couldn't Mr. Bennet get a mistress or concubine and receive an heir through her, but the child would be legally passed as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet's? That seems entirely biblical too. Sarah/Sarai received a son through a handmaiden named Hagar. He was named Ishmael. But then Sarah conceived and gave birth to Isaac. Although Isaac did become the next patriarch, Ishmael was believed to found a new religion - Islam. Also, Martin Luther and his wife Katherine begot and adopted children. Surely, the Bennets could do the same and raise a small child as their own, bestowing everything to the adopted son? Also, how could Mr. Collins have received a last name so different from Bennets? Wouldn't there be a female ancestor somewhere up the family tree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you miss a lot of the context of the book if you don't realise that getting the daughters married was actually a deadly serious matter, that Mrs Bennet is the only one taking it as seriously as it deserves, that Mr Bennet has surrendered all responsibility for his children's well-being because it is hard and embarrasing, that Lizzie Bennet is being unreasonably prideful in her judgement of her best friend, and that Jane and Lizzie are making very difficult decisions that value their pride potentially over their own well-beings and the well-being of their sisters. But the alternative is effectively like being sold to the highest bidder, which Mr Collins attempts to be: at the same time, he is trying to do the right thing by his cousins, by allowing them first refusal. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. It's a shame that there's no reference to the document (or at least to as far as I've read), so we can only speculate about it. It just seems weird to me that it's legally possible for a boy not to inherit anything from his mother's father, even when Mr Collins is very, very unlikely to be a male-line relative to Mr Bennet, otherwise he would be called Bennet as well (thanks 71.79.234.132 for that point)? So that legal document doesn't really explain why Mr Bennet couldn't bequeath the estate to a grandson as soon as one of his five daughters gives birth to him, unless it specifically names Mr Collins as heir. That, however, seems unlikely to me as a lay because Mr Bennet isn't too keen on Mr Collins or his father, and only meets the former for the first time in his life in Chapter XIII or XIV... That must have been a hell of a specific document because otherwise there's no reason why an unpopular non-male-line distant cousin should be preferred to a non-male-line (but obviously direct) grandson that is nearly bound to be born within the next five to ten years with two extremely beautiful and three other normal-looking daughters. 87.245.82.10 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I think Mr. Bennet is a Protestant clergyman. If he were Roman Catholic in Anglican England, then religion would probably be a big issue in marriage, unless the Bennet family had been Roman Catholic as well. Also, the fact that he can marry hints that he is definitely not Roman Catholic, so he may be affiliated with an Anglican church or a Free church or an Anglican off-shoot (Methodist, Quaker, Puritan, Evangelical, etc.). 71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The deed to the real estate that was the basis of Mr. Bennet's wealth could have established an order of succession to the estate other than male primogeniture. For example, it could have given priority to direct male descendants of the original owner's children, including his daughters, according to their birth order. That would explain why Mr. Collins was next in line even though his surname was not the same as Mr. Bennet's. Marco polo (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What would've happened if a centrist became president instead of Batista?

His dictatorlike-ness helped Castro be popular enough to win the Civil War, right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note the following "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate" which is printed towards the top of this page. This question can only be answered with opinions which are also debatable. MarnetteD|Talk 17:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

But yes, I'd say in general a more moderate government will prevent civil wars. Perhaps if the Mensheviks hadn't been wiped out by the Bolsheviks in Russia, it would have had a much more peaceful revolution. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to think that if they had instituted an all-kitten government, it would have kept order quite well. Generalissimo Mittens McFluffikins would have ruled with an iron paw. On a more serious note, I'd go looking for alternate history books. There's a healthy industry for them and many are exceptionally fun reads. There's bound to be a few that deal with a Cuba that never became Communist. Though many might be in Spanish. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tevet 5775 18:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, both Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam and Castro in Cuba started out reasonably enough, but were driven to more radical positions and measures because the West opposed them and their only way of surviving was alignment with the opposing superpower. The cold war tended to have such an effect - and not unreasonably. The highly illegal Bay of Pigs Invasion cost more lives than 9/11 even in absolute terms, and certainly showed much more real threat to the Cuban state than al-Qaeda ever did to the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is really two separate questions, the question in the heading and the one beneath it. The question in the heading is unclear. Is it asking what would have happened if a centrist were president instead of Batista, in the first place? It's unclear what "centrist" is supposed to mean here. Also, the primary issues with Batista were not his position on the left-right spectrum but 1) his undemocratic seizure of power in 1952, and 2) his policy of favoring the interests of U.S.-based property owners over those of the Cuban people. So, the question ought to be, What if Cuba had had a democratically elected president in 1952 who had attended to the interests of his people? Clearly, in that case, Castro would never have launched a revolution. On the other hand, this question might be asking, What if a centrist had replaced Batista instead of Castro? Of course we can't know the answer to that question, but most likely a centrist would not have provoked the anticommunist paranoia of the United States at the time, and Cuba would probably have had better relations with the United States, but probably also would have maintained high levels of income and wealth inequality like other Latin American nations. As for the second question, I think that the answer is no. Castro's dictatorial tendencies were not the basis of his popularity, nor was popularity the reason Castro won the war. He won the war through a combination of luck and shrewd strategy. The popularity came later, when his reforms reduced inequality and improved living standards for many Cubans (while also alienating many others). Marco polo (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Duty managers in retail/hospitality/leisure/travel/transport industries

I.e. Customer service or operational roles. Are duty managers in these roles employed specifically for the purpose of being duty managers or are they just a manager level employee who is required to perform duty manager roles on a shift basis but has a separate day job? 176.251.149.108 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)