Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

June 3

Where specifically are pterodactyls mentioned in the Bible?

Question as topic. The thread I started about cryptids on the science desk reminded me about this.

As far as I remember, that the Bible refers to something that could possibly be pterodacyls started some sort of minor 'movement' to locate living specimens in Africa. I think that the logic is something like 'they are clearly mentioned in the Bible, so they could have been alive back then - and there have been reports of pterosaurs in remote parts of Africa over the years, so maybe there is something to it...'. It's not specifically a religious thing, they just use the Bible as a potential lead, more than anything else. Who started this, anyway? I think that some group was raising money to send an expedition somewhere or other to look for pterodactyls. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the expedition you were thinking of was this it's a hoax made up by a satire site. I don't know if there's ever been a similar actual expedition, but attempts have been made to track down an alleged living pterosaur in New Guinea (the Ropen). 75.4.17.61 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been it. Can't remember now, but it looks sorta familiar. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where specifically are pterodactyls mentioned in the Bible? Nowhere (and no, I can't cite a source for that - for the same reason that I can't cite a source for Bill Gates not being mentioned in the Rigveda) Though sadly, Googling 'pterodactyls in the bible' [1] reveals that people have made the claim (see e.g. [2]) As to who started it, creationists have been arguing against extinction more or less ever since the fossil record began to unearth creatures no longer apparently in existence - since this would appear to contradict the Biblical version of the Flood, and Noah saving the animals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiery flying serpent? 184.147.134.128 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, if you ignore the fact that a pterodacyl resembles a serpent in the same way that an umbrella resembles an alarm clock... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked everywhere I could, to be true I'm completely unable to find the icon for marking it 'Liked', in Fiery flying serpent--Askedonty (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other animals that I'd compare pterodactyls to before I thought of 'serpent', to be honest. Anyway, I found this - pterodactyls in the Torah (maybe). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting post, but I doubt the validity of its facts-- I'm pretty sure that all bats, not just the vampire ones, are quadrupedal. The verse is usually interpreted as referring to insects anyway. Then there's that "legs above the feet" thing; I really don't know what's going on there. 75.4.17.61 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking further, the 'plesiosaur' in question supposedly being sought was the 'Ropen', a supposed cryptid for which I'm glad to say we no longer have an article (AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ropen). Feel free to Google it if you have spare brain cells you no longer require... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, I should have checked the Ropen wikilink before posting it. 75.4.17.61 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilibel

What does the law say about naming the alleged rapist in cases like the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)? The name is already public information obtaining from an official record. Besides that, in the notes, anyone can read the name of the alleged perpetrator. The name is also all over the mainstream media, so, there is little novelty value here. He's is even giving interviews defending his point of view.--Llaanngg (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question would be better asked at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, where this particular case has already been discussed. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what the law says, not what wikipolicy says. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, why entitle the thread 'Wikilibel'? I think the OP needs to clarify what exactly is being asked - and in particular, if this is a question about libel laws, clarify which jurisdiction the question relates to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wiki part. I only want the libel law in the US, UK. So, if everybody knows something and has access to public records corroborating it, or any other reliable source, does it become fair ground to talk about it? --Llaanngg (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the name of an individual is repeated "all over the mainstream media", it would seem a safe bet that doing so isn't libellous. As regards to 'talking about it', that would clearly depend on what was being said - defamation (which includes libel) generally consists of making false statements about a person, rather than merely naming them - though the latter may well be contempt of court in some circumstances and jurisdictions. I suggest that you read United States defamation law and English defamation law (Scottish law is slightly different) if you want further information - and look at the sources cited by the articles if you need to know more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can give you examples of cases and their results (for example, "in Doe v. Bloggs, the court found that Doe had libelled Bloggs by saying that he was a bloodthirsty lying crook"), but interpreting those results and extrapolating them to other situations is something we can't do here, because it would functionally amount to giving legal advice. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Nyttend, we cannot tell you how any particular law applies to any particular case. There are people who are allowed to do that; they are called lawyers. If you need to find the answer to your question, seek an answer from them. We cannot provide you with any answer which may lead you to believe that a particular course of action is or is not allowed under the law, for if we are wrong, you could get yourself into deep shit. --Jayron 32 00:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the article United States defamation law of interest. A key statement there is that the laws vary from state to state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English-Scottish peace, 1641

A peace-offering to God a sermon preached to the honourable House of Commons assembled in Parliament at their publique thanksgiving, September 7, 1641 : for the peace concluded between England and Scotland

What's the peace in question? Had the two kingdoms been at war immediately up to this point? The second of the Bishops' Wars had been over for a year by this point, it looks like they were allies against the Irish Rebellion of 1641, and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms wouldn't break out yet for a few years. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second Bishops' War had ended with a ceasefire but not with a final resolution. According to this source, that resolution came with the Treaty of London in August 1641. According to this source, the treaty was signed August 10, less than a month before the sermon cited in your source. Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

Careers in emergency services and mental health support

What are the similarities and differences between a career in emergency services and a support group/crisis helpline? 194.66.246.29 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles titled emergency services and mental health provider. While those specific articles are short, each contains blue links which will lead you to further articles. You're allowed to read any articles at Wikipedia you wish, and arrive at answers to your question. --Jayron 32 00:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii

Who has been chosen to succeeded Bill Maiʻoho as curator of the Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii? The most recent thing I can find is that the state park department is finding a replacement [3]?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't bring any specific knowledge to bear, my ObPersonal is that they might well not have done so yet.

The previous incumbent died in February 2015. In the UK it can take an ordinary company requiring even a low level employee (like myself) several months to go through the process of assessing their requirements, advertising a post, assessing the applications, interviewing candidates, and finally appointing someone (even assuming their first choice doesn't decline, having been appointed somewhere else in the meantime).

In this case the post is a high-level academic specialist one that would likely require unusual qualifications, and there will necessarily be a much more restricted pool of locally qualified potential candidates, so the additional hurdle of appointing someone from overseas might be involved. I wouldn't be surprised if it took a year or more.

This is of course assuming there wasn't someone in a deputy role ready to move up into the post. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a second note, can a United States state park department choose a person for a curator solely base on lineage or would that technically be discriminatory/illegal?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transport people's passports

How do passports and visas work for people like international sailors and airline pilots/stewardesses on international flights, whose jobs may take them lots of different countries for very short durations? Do they typically have to present their passports and get visas every time they're going somewhere, or are there different arrangements for their situations? In particular, is there some sort of international treaty that handles this kind of thing, or does pretty much every country do it differently? It's discussed at this forum, but without sourcing; I'd like sourcing that could be used to improve the passport article. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various countries issue Crewmember Visa's, see also this blog. These can be applied for personally or via the carrier in question. Once issued, the crewmember usually works on one particular route (or region) during the validity of the visa. Nanonic (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked an air-stewardess friend of mine, and she said she needs visas for countries outside the EU, but for countries within the EU (she's from Germany), they don't need them. So essentially it's the same as for passengers. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cabin-crew friend of mine must carry his passport while working at all times. You do not need a passport between Schengen countries (most of Western Europe), but I am in the UK. It is needed on all flights. The airline only flies in Western Europe, so no visas are necessary. 92.28.229.197 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

Icelandic people who take their mother's name?

So, if an Icelandic person use a matronym instead of the customary patronym, would people generally assume by default that this is because he/she didn't know who their father was? I don't suppose that this sort of thing matters as much nowadays - but to be realistic, I suspect that people would still comment on it if that was the case... Thanks (no offence intended to anyone, particular our Icelandic friends - just curious). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thing called "search" which you will find at the top or top left of this page. Type "Icelandic name" in that field and click go for an answer. You can do this for a lot of similar questions, so please take advantage of it. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kurt. While Icelandic name does cover this topic, here are also some external sources should you have wished to add references to the article. Modern law allows both [4][5], Matronymic given when parents not married or if mother wishes to conceal paternity (in the past) [6], Matronymics becoming more common [7], Matronymics no longer considered identifier of parental marital status [8], When a parent has a foreign name [9], When mother's family is more prestigous (historical) [10]. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children's book on the paranormal featuring alien pterosaurs

When I was in elementary school, back in the mid or late 90's, I read an illustrated children's book about paranormal phenomena. It was a fairly generic book covering ghosts, alien abductions, cryptids, and the like, and I think it had a generic title along the lines of "Unexplained Mysteries" or "Mysterious Phenomena," but there are two things about it I still remember. The first was a fairly frightening illustration of a phantom dog monster (might have been on the cover). The second was an elaborate illustration of life on another planet-- the scene showed Gray aliens watching a spaceship launch (implied to be a specific UFO seen on Earth) in an icy landscape, while pterosaur-like creatures flew overhead. Anyone know what this book is? I'd be interested to find it again for nostalgia's sake. 75.4.17.61 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it might be the Mysteries, Legends, and Unexplained Phenomena series, which has a book on "UFOs and Aliens". Ian.thomson (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was it (the book covered a range of paranormal phenomena, not just aliens) but thanks for the link anyhow. 75.4.17.61 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on a forum and someone actually knew what I was talking about! The book was entitled 'The World of the Unknown' and may have been an anthology of three volumes (monsters, ghosts, and UFOs). Here is the image I particularly remembered. The alien in question was the Hopkinsville goblin and not a gray. 75.4.17.61 (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The three books ("Ghosts", "Monsters", and "UFO's") were first published by Usborne in 1977, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Making a differences: Canadian Multicultural Literatures in English commentary

Is there a website or other book that deals with the commentary of each work in the book called "Making a Difference: Canadian Multicultural Literatures in English", edited by Smaro Kamboureli? Please and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.135 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How was Germany so strong

How was Germany so strong that it could fight the entire world in WW2 and almost win (and probably would have won if Hitler had let his generals do the work) even though 20 years before they were crushed by WW1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.83.85.141 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason Britain and the USA did win despite having armies of 224,000 and 174,000 respectively at the outbreak of war. Germany had well-organised industrial production and the resources to run them at full capacity, and a well-run operation to recruit and train soldiers in the use of new equipment and techniques. Pre-1941, Germany's network of alliances and non-aggression pacts meant they were only fighting significant battles on one front at any given time, while geography meant that Germany could move forces to the front within days while Britain and France took weeks to ship in troops from the colonial empires. Plus, crucially, in the early stages of the war France was hoping for a negotiated settlement and didn't have the will to escalate, allowing Germany and Italy to take the initiative; if France and Britain had smashed into the Rhineland and Ruhr at full strength while the German military was tied up in Poland, the war could have ended within a couple of weeks. – iridescent 10:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me we have questions like this one (or questions which turn out similar like the question a few weeks ago regarding Hitler as a strategist which soon became, at least partly, a question about how Germany could have won the war) pretty often? It seems the Net is fascinated with Nazi Germany. But I've never quite grasped what kind of answer people who ask these questions expect. Is the OP assuming that Germany performed in WWII much better than would be expected from a country of that size/economic power/population/natural resources/industrial/technological/scientific basis, that their military achievement was such that it is in need of an explanation that goes beyond those factors? Are they wondering if Nazi Germany had a "secret" and what it was? (I don't know... "fanaticism"? "discipline"? what?) Their mind is already made up that Germany would "probably" have won the war if Hitler had not continually kibitzed his generals. So what exactly are they asking? What kind of answer would answer their question? Contact Basemetal here 13:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal, it's because "we saved the world" is such an important part of US, British and Russian history, and "we fought and defeated a powerful enemy" sounds better than "we won a war we were inevitably going to win". In reality, even if the Nazi-Soviet pact had held, once Britain entered the war the only realistic way Germany could have won would either have been a massive amphibious assault to occupy London and force the UK to sue for peace (which would have meant destroying the Royal Air Force first, then fighting street-by-street against a highly motivated and well-armed defending force), to draw the UK into a stalemate where business interests would press the government to declare an armistice (which was never likely to happen, especially once Churchill succeeded Chamberlain), or for Germany to develop the atomic bomb and to have had the means to deliver it. To put things in perspective, had the British Empire mobilised its entire colonial strength its army would have been larger than the population of Germany, and it had the luxury of factories in Canada outside the range of any possible German bomber. (It is possible to envisage scenarios where Germany wins the war, but they all depend on improbable conditions such as a military alliance with Stalin, or Britain remaining neutral following the invasion of Poland.) – iridescent 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned the more improbable of those are called alien space bats. The OP (or someone) might be interested in AlternateHistory.com. Judging from the title and a quick glance, it seems like the place to find answers to questions that can't be answered. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Following on from the above editor Basemetal. Nazi Germany only had the initial advantage of being the aggressor and so had time to build defences. Together, with modern battle plans (blitzkrieg, better tanks, aircraft etc.,) they held that advantage for some two years. Then, reality bit. Even without the US entering the European theatre, German industrial might (which was not crushed by WW1 – it was the economy that suffered) was not sufficient to bring the war to a conclusion in Nazi Germany's favour. A reasonable regimen would have sued for peace. Even if the second front in Russia had not been opened. Stalin would just have let Europe exhaust itself in war, then walked in. There is no alternative history here where one can speculate what would have happened if Nazi Germany won the war. It was just not strong enough. It was ideology triumphing over the rational mind.--Aspro (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany was by far the leading industrial power in Europe (a larger population and greater industrial production than either Britain or France), especially by the 1930s, and in Word War II they had a promising strategy of neutralizing their strongest opponents to the west before turning on the Soviet Union to the east. Also, Germany had been arming and training their military heavily during the 1930s, while its opponents devoted limited resources to their militaries until they rushed to mobilize beginning in 1939. Of course, Germany did not count on the strength of the US-British alliance, the resilience of the Soviets, or the consequences of bringing the United States fully into the war. The difference with World War I was that in the earlier war, Germany had to fight on two fronts from the beginning and was never able to win control of France. By the time Russia dropped out of the conflict, Germany was seriously weakened and the United States had already come to the aid of the western allies. Also, prior to World War I, Germany had no great advantage over its western opponents in military preparation for the conflict. Marco polo (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Economy of Nazi Germany article, the Nazis had financed rearmament during the 1930s by "...creating a huge deficit and national debt reaching 38 billion mark in 1939". Once Hitler had started to occupy other people's countries in 1938, they were shamelessly plundered for the benefit of the Reich; besides what they could actually steal, the Nazis also manipulated the currencies of occupied territories for their own benefit, forced their companies to trade with Germany on very unfavourable terms and conscripted forced labour from them. "By 1944, slave labour made up one quarter of Germany's entire work force". Then there was The Holocaust which was immensely profitable; everything from the contents of Jewish people's bank accounts to the gold fillings in their teeth. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that last comment is nonsense. The Holocaust may have been profitable for individuals, but on a state level it was a massive negative - it took a significant part of the population out of productive use, and wasted another part and additional infrastructure on the execution. It's like chewing your own hand off - sure, it gives temporary nourishment, but it's not an overall good thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting thing I learned from reading William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was that workers, many of whom did not own cars, were made to invest a significant portion of their wages into a plan to finance the eventual purchase of a Volkswagen. That capital was also diverted for industrialization and rearmament, with the cars not being delivered before the advent of war, at which time the promise could be broken as an emergency measure. Under single party rule a pragmatic military state not interested in property rights and consensus can build military roads and seize private businesses that don't comply with the government's edicts or help achieve its goals. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar weasels still say you can't own a Volkswagen without investing a significant portion of your wages into car insurance. But instead of losing your return in case of emergency, you lose it if you avoid emergency (or can't convince them you're innocent of it). It's like The Trial, except complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Another important factor here is that the British army was quite weak at the time. Take e.g. the way Japan was able to capture Singapore: "The commander of the Australian forces in Singapore later said: "The whole operation seems incredible: 550 miles in 55 days – forced back by a small Japanese army of only two divisions, riding stolen bicycles and without artillery support."". Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for these articulate answers. I hope they do satisfy the OP. They certainly satisfy me. One part of the OP's post was not addressed and it is puzzling me: many people who like to speculate on those things affirm (like the OP did) that "Germany would probably have won the war" if such and such a thing had happened. But they do not define a "German victory". What do they mean? That Germany would have managed to physically occupy the whole of the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and the British Empire? (This is what an allied victory meant for Germany, didn't it?) Probably not. So how do they usually define a German victory? Contact Basemetal here 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They (Germany and whichever imaginary friends help) win when their enemies surrender or die, I figure, like how we generally figure the Allies won. What they take for prizes after that is secondary. Even had they not taken anything, they'd still have won, simply for being the last men standing. The freedom to do what you want is more valuable than doing what you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hitler was fairly clear as to what his ambitions were, so it would be reasonable to treat "German victory" as something that satisfied those; the complete German control of the lands defined in Deutschland Uber Alles ("From the Meuse to the Memel, From the Adige to the Belt"), plus a German sphere of influence/occupation in European Russia, and US and UK recognition of these boundaries. Had the Allies not entered the war and Germany somehow defeated Russia, it's certainly possible to imagine the US, UK and France eventually grudgingly recognising a Fascist occupation of Eastern Europe as a fait accompli, in the same way they eventually recognised Mao's takeover of China once it became obvious he wasn't going to go away. – iridescent 16:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjacent countries with no diplomatic relations

The foreign relations section of Bhutan says that the country has no diplomatic relations with China (maybe the Chinese dislike Bhutanese passports?); they only negotiate via ad hoc diplomatic visits. Is this a common situation? How many pairs of countries exist in this situation? I'm excluding countries that have severed relations over disputes; I'm only interested in stuff where the relations simply don't exist, as opposed to where a dispute is a major reason for the countries actively not maintaining relations. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Syria relations do not exist, apparently. (Not sure if that fits your criteria or not.) Other might be found in the Category Foreign relations by country but I haven't found a handy list. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's quite an active conflict zone, where "a dispute is a major reason for the countries actively not maintaining relations". Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP Bhutan has diplomatic relations with 52 countries, so there must be many other countries, besides China, it has no diplomatic relations with. Similarly you would probably find (I haven't checked that) Papua-New Guinea or the smaller island nations of the Pacific maintain diplomatic relations with a small subset of the total number of countries. Embassies are expensive. Contact Basemetal here 13:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should make it clear you are asking about adjacent countries. The section title does but not your actual question. Contact Basemetal here 13:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan–China relations have been historically tense. It's not like they just never met. Not sure if that counts as a "dispute", but "historically tense" is how I'd describe the Koreas, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

The Bhotanese wouldn't have too much to talk about. They don't a too many folks and they're a very small country, too. They are one of the few countries without any diplomats in the USA [11], and yet they get along with the US. 92.28.229.197 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's difficult to talk about no relations whatsoever, because normally some sort of dispute is in progress. See the case of North/South Korea; who claim to rule each other. China/Taiwan has the same problem. 92.28.229.197 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Understood, but there's a big difference between "no relations with your neighbor" and "no relations with the big country on the other side of the world". (2) One speaks of "severing diplomatic relations" as a precursor to war, e.g. countries preparing to go into World War II, but they would still conduct informal or formal talks in neutral countries (e.g. Switzerland) without having restored relations. I'm talking about formal, official relations, whether an embassy in the other country's capital, or a legation in another major city, or whatever: a formal, permanent presence of some sort. I understand that disputes exist, but as far as I can tell, the lack of diplomatic relations between Peiping and Thimbu is unrelated to their disputes, and it's possible to have border disputes between countries that otherwise get along wonderfully. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine had a new neighbour move in 16 years ago, and he still hasn't bothered learning her name, let alone open an embassy. Keeps calling her "Georgia". Maybe he truly doesn't recognize her anymore. Maybe more to do with spiting the old landlord. Those two talk more than friends do.

Same sorts of passive-aggressive relationship drama and non-drama with semi-fictional places, if you don't dispute those as countries. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order and Demeter's Manual: differences

What are the differences in procedure between these books? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.102.205 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Robert's Rules of Order and Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have, they don't say what is the difference. see The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure for ane xample of what a comparison looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.102.205 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords carvings

Here's an obscure one. I was looking at the carvings on the royal canopy in the House of Lords chamber, and I noticed what seemed to be letters in the panels to the upper right and upper left of the royal coat of arms. My first thought is that they're "ER", but I don't see any crossbars for the E's. Is it maybe GR for William (Gulielmus) IV who was king when the previous chamber burned down in 1834? That seems like a bit of a stretch. So my questions are: what are those letters, and do they change them for every monarch? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VR, for "Victoria Regina". – iridescent 19:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, that makes sense. I was misinterpreting that little circly thing for a gap in the letter, so it didn't look like a V. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're in a style called uncial; also "U" and "V" are the same letter in Latin, but I agree that they're too fussy to be easily legible. The reredos in the House of Lords was designed by Augustus Pugin, so we know who to blame. Alansplodge (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, thanks for introducing me, at least, to the word reredos. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to introduce it to my spell checker too! Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

Quote about death for a eulogy or funeral memorial

Can anyone suggest a good quote about death ... something that would be appropriate for a eulogy or funeral memorial? Maybe something from Shakespeare, or from the Bible, or from some other source? If getting specific, the death of a parent or the death of one's mother. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would depend on the tone you wanted to set, but in general, I have always been partial to John Donne's "Death, be not proud", either in part or in whole. As for Bible verses, there are many, but again, context is important. If the decedent was an active Christian, I like Philippians 1:21-23 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better." (KJV) or Isaiah 57:1-2 "The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death." (NIV) For general assurance/comfort/hope there's Job 19:25-25 "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God" (KJV). Some people like 1 Corinthians 15:50-57. I heard this recently: "They say you die twice. One time when you stop breathing and a second time, a bit later on, when somebody says your name for the last time." used to encourage attendees to continue sharing memories and stories of the departed with loved ones even after the funeral.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above are included in the Anglican Funeral Sentences (BTW William Croft wrote a wonderful choral setting of these which are always used at British state funerals - the most moving music I've ever heard or ever will probably [12]). Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few things about mothers for funerals. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Not at all Shakespearean or Biblical, but I like Joyce Grenfell's If I Should Go, which I would have liked to have read at my mother's funeral if I'd known about it at the time. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, it all depends on the tone you want to set, and how you (and those present) want to remember the person - as religious, non-religious, fun-loving, well-read, etc etc. - or not. There are many, many, websites, with a huge variety of options. A couple of examples are here and here but there are many more. Some of us do this a lot. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above suggestions. I will review them. I will clarify a few points. perhaps not clear in my original post. First, I would like to find a short quote ... perhaps one or two sentences long. Something (relatively) short that can fit on a prayer card or a memorial card (in other words, not an entire poem ... but just a line or two). Second, as far as tone: I really hadn't given that any thought. I just assumed (incorrectly) that the tone I had in mind would be the same tone that anyone would have in mind. So, my tone is: something along the lines of these themes: (1) how we often look at death as sad, but we really shouldn't do so; (2) death is not the "end", but rather the "beginning" of the deceased person's "new" life (in heaven); (3) a reflection of how much better our lives have been for having known this person, the deceased; (4) how life is so short and even, say, fifty years or eighty years can go by so fast; since life is so sort, to value every moment and appreciate what you have; (5) how death is a natural cycle, much like the cycle of a flower (or such); the circle of life. Things like that. Basically, the card would have a photo of the deceased, and I'd like to add a nice quote (one or two lines, not an entire poem) under the photo. My first preference was for something by Shakespeare or something from the Bible, but any appropriate quotation would do. If it matters, this would serve for a Roman Catholic faith family. I want the tone to be perhaps: serious, classy, elegant, thoughtful, insightful, religious, thought-provoking, somber, uplifting, hopeful, reflective, bittersweet, etc. Not fun-loving or cutesy or whimsical. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some that were on our list for a similar personal occasion recently that might fit your numbers 2 and 3. And very sorry for the loss. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Psalm 121:8 The Lord will keep your going out and your coming in from this time on and forevermore.

2. All Creatures of our God and King (paraphrase of Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Sun): And thou, most kind and gentle death, / waiting to hush our latest breath, / Thou leadest home the child of God, / and Christ our Lord the way hath trod.

3. The Parting Glass: Oh, all the comrades that e'er I had / They're sorry for my going away / And all the sweethearts that e'er I had / They'd wish me one more day to stay / But since it falls unto my lot / That I should rise and you should not / I'll gently rise and softly call / Good night and joy be with you all.

A slightly different approach, I did the readings in the Catholic funeral mass for my sister. From the New Testament I read the KJV 1 Corinthians 13 but changed the word charity to love, which is used more often in modern translations. One thing is that for the funeral mass you need the priest's dispensation to read the King James, since the Rheims-Douai Bible is the authorized Catholic version. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a quote

I remember someone making the claim that all humor is based on pain of one sort or another but I can't recall the exact quote nor who said it. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Dismas|^(talk) 09:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Comedy Is Tragedy Plus Time". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did the age of majority become 21?

Actually, I'm not concerned so much with when it happened as how we decided on 21. 50.43.33.62 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which country are you talking about? Age of majority notes that different countries have different ages of majority, including a number with it set to 21. Different countries will have different reasons for setting their age of majority at the time they do. - Your IP geolocates to the US, so I'm guessing you're not talking about the "age of majority" (the point where one is considered an adult), which is 18 for much of the United States, but rather the age of license for consumption of alcoholic beverages, which is 21 for much of the United States. For the latter, Alcohol laws of the United States notes that in 1984 the US Federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which withheld national transportation funds from states which did not have a drinking age set to at least 21. The reason for the age 21 is partly due to a return to earlier laws which had the drinking age set to 21. At the time of these earlier laws, prior to the 26th Amendment, the age of majority (or at least the voting age) in the US was 21. I'm unsure of why the age of majority was set to 21 in the early days of the United States. Perhaps someone else has more information. -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, "The concept that a person becomes a full adult at age 21 dates back centuries in English common law; 21 was the age at which a person could, among other things, vote and become a knight." There is a lot more information in this book, mentioning that the age 21 was considered significant back in the 13th century in England. The reason for choosing 21 rather than, say, 20, is obscure, but may be related to a Roman practice of dividing youth into periods of seven years (3x7=21). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles, Coming of age and Age of majority, which led me to Person_(canon_law)#Age_of_Majority which says: "The age of majority in the Catholic Church is 18,(ref)1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 97(ref) following the general consensus of Civil law, though, until Advent 1983,(ref)Ap. Const. Sacrae Disciplinae Leges(ref) the Age of Majority was 21,(ref)1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 88(ref) based on the age of majority according to Roman Law."

Since the early US legislators tended to follow English Common Law and England was a Catholic country awhile back before then, that seems to be a likely origin. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some contradiction to my previous post: Young People’s Human Rights and the Politics of Voting Age by Sonja C. Grover says, "Under Roman law, the basis of civil law in Europe, a person came of age or reached majority and acquired full civil and legal rights at age 25... Under English common law, men and women came of age at 21, which was regarded as the average age at which a person reached full maturity and discretion. English common law divided the twenty one years from birth to adulthood into three seven year periods: infancy, childhood and adolescence" (p. 21). This is a direct quote from Youth's Battle for the Ballot: A History of Voting Age in America by Wendell W. Cultice. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Institutes of Roman Law by Rudloph Sohm, James Crawford Ledlie, Bernhard Erwin Grueber agrees: "The above-mentioned lex Plaetoria was the first to fix the limit of age at 25 years..." (p. 218). Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also defence of infancy and the Jesuit maxim, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man." μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approximate number of STANAG magazines manufactured annually in the US

I'm trying to find the approximate number of STANAG magazines manufactured annually in the US. Alternatively, the total number of such magazines sold annually in the United States would also suffice as an approximation, since the import/export factor is essentially negligible due to ITAR restrictions. I found some excellent data[13][14][15] on the number of firearms manufactured, but can't seem to find any useful data regarding magazines. My other car is a cadr (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handcuffing after shooting

Why do police in America handcuff suspects after they've been shot by an officer? 94.10.243.44 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this article which explains the training they receive in the US. Nanonic (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would this apply even if they weren't shot too? Are all suspects always handcuffed in the U.S. I know in some countries, they only handcuff if the officer determines that the suspect poses a risk to the safety of officers. 94.10.243.44 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least based on TV shows, I think they're always handcuffed. Sometimes they also get a perp walk. 50.0.136.194 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons they have lawyer-negotiated voluntary surrender of wanted suspects/people for whom arrest warrants have been issued is that it may allow the suspect to walk into court without the stigma of being escorted handcuffed. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International arbitration

Do we have an article on arbitration between nations, when two nations agree to refer their dispute to a world leader from a third country instead of settling it themselves? See, for example, the Pig War, a minor US-UK dispute that was arbitrated by the German Emperor. We have an international arbitration article, but it's all about commercial disputes involving international trade, where a company from one country gets into arbitration through another country's courts — not at all the same. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, most similar voluntary but binding arbitration nowadays over territorial disputes or similar matters happens somewhere like the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Since we don't seem to have an article covering this (it probably should be in international arbitration), I doubt we have an article covering the historic practice. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps clarify that I believe technically cases voluntarily take to the ICJ may still be considered court cases rather than arbitration. Also by voluntary but binding I mean where there was no existing agreement, nor any aspect of international law or anything else that requires them to settle it that way but where the state parties agree to do so and agree that they will be bound by the decision (though even with ICJ cases, enforcement is not easy if the party changes their mind albeit for many countries strong international pressure may result). Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

Herman Knaust

I'm looking for references that deal with Herman Knaust — mushroom farmer and founder of Iron Mountain Incorporated — in detail. Just trying to see if there is enough detail available to warrant an article. Hack (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find a book

Hi, I'm trying to remember the name of a book I read an extract of a few months ago. I can't remember the name or author, but I remember the following:

the writing style was notably unusual
there was a reference to the radio saying it was 'going to be a scorcher' or similar wording
the radio crackled
there was a red postbox
it was a fairly popular book at some time

I appreciate this is not much to go on, but any help is much appreciated. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry? Mikenorton (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1993 South African constitution

If the 1993 South African interim constitution was assented to by the State President in 1994, why is its short title "Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993"?Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]