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

June 18

Adolfo hitler and monarchism

Was Adolf hitler a monarchist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Read Monarchism and see what you think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This question may have been an attempt at humour. Or just poor spelling. See Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's the best title on this site. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Was it Adolf hitlers wish to restore the monarchy since he was very far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Hitler resented monarchies, too, since people like him who were not born into power would not be able to rule the nation. He did, however, pick his fights carefully (although not carefully enough, as when he invaded the Soviet Union and later declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor). He realized that just shooting all the aristocrats would make him powerful enemies, and that he already had quite enough enemies to handle. So, he generally tried to treat them with respect, so as to not antagonize them or their supporters. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that people who call themselves traditionalist and advocate a return to monarchism and feudalism often mention about a Jewish conspiracy to takeover the world. Joey13952 alternate account (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that makes a better scapegoat than blaming the real cause of their decline, which is common people demanding more say in government. Hard to make that look like an evil conspiracy. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that a recurrent theme? It seems Fascists and Nazis do not really like monarchies: when the last Austro-Hungarian emperor-king (K & K), Charles, tried to reclaim the Hungarian throne in 1918 the Fascist dictator of Hungary, Horthy, prevented him from doing so (see Charles I of Austria's attempts to retake the throne of Hungary). Ironically Hungary remained officially a "kingdom" all through Horthy's dictatorship. Similarly Franco only let a king regain the throne of Spain after his death. As far as I know he never made any attempt to call Alfonso XIII or the Infante Juan to the throne. So you got it backwards: traditionalists are often anti-Jewish (certainly true in France before 1940 for example) but the converse is not necessarily true. You can find lots of Anti-Semitism and theories of a Jewish conspiracy on the left too. And note Fascists and Nazis did not consider themselves traditionalists, on the contrary, they considered themselves revolutionaries. Contact Basemetal here 17:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There were members of the former German royal family who stayed in Germany through the Nazi era. But articles like the ones on Prince August Wilhelm and the Prinzenerlass suggest that Hitler had no interest in restoring the German monarchy. Herbivore (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Nazi Party was actually called the National Socialist German Workers' Party which might be a hint as to their ideology regarding the monarchy. Alansplodge (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, kings and queens like to party, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

對酒當歌，人生幾何

What Cao Cao the first to use the phrase "對酒當歌，人生幾何" in his Short Song Style (短歌行), written in 208? Or does it date to an earlier influence of Cao Cao's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0A8:AC10:A8DE:3CF:2618:B94 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is contemporary music so bad?

According to a scientific study, pop music has been trending to be more homogeneous since the 1970s. What is the sociological explanation for this trend? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We have a brief section on this at Pop music#Recent developments, with more information in the references to that section. The popular argument seems to be that modern pop music is carefully designed to be marketable, with little talent involved. A financial argument, really - record labels consider formulaic artists to be more profitable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The paper in question seems to be "Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music" by Serrà et al, doi:10.1038/srep00521, downloadable here. I've only glanced at it, but this blog post says the database they used "contains only 2,650 songs released between 1955 and 1959, but [...] 177,808 songs [...] released between 2005 and 2009. That’s because it draws on what’s popular now, as well as what has been digitized and made available for download. And the songs of yesteryear that people enjoy today (as oldies) may not be the same ones that people enjoyed when those songs first came out." As far as I can tell, that's enough to completely invalidate the paper's conclusions. -- BenRG (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Every generation has made the same kind of claim about the younger generation's music. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And every generation remembers the best music of their time, not necessarily what was popular at the time. During the infamous Summer of 69, this track was at the top of the US billboard top 100 for four weeks (though not, as is often said, during Woodstock itself). MChesterMC (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm? Sugar, Sugar is a fine song. Oh, it's not particularly deep. But it makes you feel good. What's wrong with that? --Trovatore (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I can think of any number of songs from the 60s which were loathesome then and still are, regardless of their perennial presence in the "Top 40" playlists. And I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's comment in the 1950s regarding, "Rock and Roll, and other children's records." And here's Steve Allen lampooning the lyrics of a big hit of the 1950s.[1] Going farther back, here's a song from 1921, railing against such modern music as "Shine on Harvest Moon."[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; people only remember the things which have stood the test of time, and blot out the things they'd rather forget. Two Little Boys sold considerably more copies in the 1960s than the Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever single, and one of the biggest-selling singles in the US in the entire 1960s was Ballad of the Green Berets. You talk about the 1970s as some kind of golden age, but of the five most successful songs in the UK in the 1970s, two apiece were by Boney M. and John Travolta. – iridescent 09:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, The Ballad of the Green Berets, before the Vietnam war became the disaster it became. It's funny to hear someone talking about how wonderful the 70s were, considering at least half of that decade was the often-ridiculed Disco Era. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how often I have to eject variations on "and everybody was wearing tie-die clothes and dropping acid" from articles on the 1960s written by people who believe the whole "Swinging London"/"San Francisco love-in" mythos. (The removals documented at Talk:London in the 1960s#Removed material were a particularly impressive example.) Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1966, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1967, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1968 and Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1969 are good reading for people who still think it was all hippies and love; note (with the single exception of Hey Jude) just how low down those lists the Beach Boys, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Doors, Dylan and everyone else people think of as "top 1960s musicians" are. – iridescent 10:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(adding) I'm also astonished that the OP can claim "pop music has been trending to be more homogeneous", given that I find it hard to imagine ten songs less alike than the current top 10, short of including a couple of hymns or folk-songs. – iridescent 10:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem distinguishing some voices from others, though that is certainly not a new problem in the history of recorded music. I'm reminded of one of the lines from American Graffiti: "Rock and Roll has been going downhill ever since Buddy Holly died." That was a few years after Don McLean had called February 3, 1959, "The day the music died." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just thinking aloud on this, what tangible differences are there between Louis Armstrong's work in the 1920s and the 1960s? And between that and artists around at the same time - Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Glenn Miller, Guy Lombardo? There is only so much variation possible in a particular genre and until something outside the ordinary takes hold (such as Sex Pistols/ Punk rock) it plods on doing the same sort of things. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The greater bulk of contemporary music will always be bad becuse it caters for the hoi polloi. The passage of time provides a filtering system where mostly the gems are replayed. Making it appear that only modern music is mostly *#↔¿.--Aspro (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

All arguments that new music sucks are invalid, because the 60s produced the 1910 Fruitgum Company which is possibly the worst band of all time. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the nature of the mass media controls the type of music which becomes popular:

• Originally, live music was the only option. This allowed different styles of music to grow and thrive in every venue. Of course, you still had to get people to show up, and if you couldn't describe the music on flyers, billboards, in newspapers, etc., in a way that would get people to show up, then there was only word of mouth left.

• Then recordings and radio came in, but the early ones were rather poor quality. So, the live music still drove the industry.

• Later recordings and radio became high quality, and became the primary way most people listened to music. At this point they started to drive the industry, and executives insisted on music that would sell on those formats. So, enough songs to fill an LP alum, with about 3 minutes per song so they would fit on radio, between commercials. A certain consistency in style was also required, so they would fit on one of the existing radio formats.

• Internet distribution has now created an opportunity to return more to the original situation, where every venue (web page) can have it's own style. Individual performers can also now become popular by posting videos on YouTube, etc. So, I'd expect music variety to increase in the coming years. StuRat (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You forgot the introduction of the TV. Before the audiences could SEE the artists that played on the albums it wasn't important what they looked like and even ugly people could be successful singers. Today artists (and not only in popular music) has to be good-looking (which influences the music, since the music business isn't only about the music anymore, but about the whole package - the artist's looks and clothes, the rock-videos, and the cool shows)... and sadly audiences will never hear the thousands of brilliant talents that are considered too ugly to be famous. /Kristian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.71.52.77 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• You are aware that "the United States" isn't "the world", right? In, for instance, Britain, "about 3 minutes per song so they would fit on radio, between commercials" has no relevance before 1973 (and little relevance afterwards) except for the very limited number of bands who were aiming to enter the US market. – iridescent 14:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't think the number of British bands hoping to sell in the US market would be so limited. Also, there's the reverse, US bands played in the British market. Then there are other English speaking nations, like Canada, which similarly has commercials on radio. So, are British commercial songs, on average, much different in length than US songs ? StuRat (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody was 5'55", but that's exceptional. Alansplodge (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and Alice's Restaurant was 18:34 long, so there are always exceptions. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have been searching for quite some time, but I have not been able to find the essay I want, by either Mark Steyn or Camille Paglia, IIRC. The thesis was that there has been no new musical genre since the 1990's Grunge and Gangster Rap. This was tied in I think with the rise of the internet mashup. Or maybe it was Jaron Lanier. I do basically think there are works like My Man's Gone Now and I am the Walrus which are still ahead of their time. Groups like the Black Keys are great, and I love some of Katy Perry's stuff, but they would easily have fit in the 70's or 80's. I'll keep trying to find the essay, but am hoping someone else here might have read it given my hints. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Steyn and Paglia have both commented about the phenomenon, but the particular argument I was thinking of Was Jaron Lanier's: Where did the music go?. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In a child pornography case, does the prosecutor actually show the child pornography?

I was reading about a child pornography criminal case, which prompted my following thought and question. In a criminal case, of course, the prosecutor has to prove the criminal allegations against the defendant. And, by a very high standard of proof, no less. So, in a child pornography case, does the prosecutor have to actually show the actual child pornography (the photos or videos or whatever) to the jury and to the judge, etc.? I can only imagine that the government would try to minimize any additional (and unnecessary) exposure of the child porn material, and would try to avoid it at all costs. For the "protection" (for lack of a better word) of not only the child victim, but also of the jurors, etc. Nonetheless, the (alleged) criminal will undoubtedly demand proof of child porn if he faces a conviction and a lengthy imprisonment for the crime of child porn. And, of course, the prosecutor will want to present the strongest case possible, and will not want to take any chances to risk an acquittal. What typically happens in such a case? I am referencing the USA, although I wouldn't mind hearing what happens in other legal jurisdictions. Thanks. P.S. I presume it to be obvious that this is a question about a legal topic; it is not a solicitation for legal advice. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a report of a trial where the jury "watched parts of all 21 downloaded pornographic videos that showed nude children engaging in sexual acts...", and here is a relevant discussion on Straight Dope, which talks about some of the points you raise. I suppose it's not that different in principle from juries seeing or hearing gruesome evidence in murder trials, etc: for example the recordings made of the torture and murder of children in the Moors murders case. There have been cases (in the UK, at least) where judges have excused people from future jury service for life because of the extreme unpleasantness of the task they've been subjected to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I want to point out one distinction, however. You compared the viewing of a child porn film (by the jury) with the viewing of a murder/torture film (by the jury). However, viewing a murder/torture film is not a crime at all. But, viewing a child porn film is indeed a crime (in and of itself). (Of course, this criminality would not apply in the case of a jury viewing the prosecutor's exhibit of child porn.) My point is that to prove an alleged case of child porn (i.e., it is illegal to view child porn tapes as a recreational movie), the government has to engage in the very practice that itself is illegal (viewing the child porn, albeit as a jury exhibit and not as a recreational film). That factor is not present when we are dealing with the viewing of a torture/murder film, which – in and of itself – is not illegal at all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

See Trauma trigger#Trigger warning, a term and practice that have emerged since the increasing awareness and prevalence of PTSD. Elements in a particular court trial relating to a prospective juror's personal circumstances would likely be considered as grounds to excuse for cause or preemptively on a per-case basis. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I am not quite sure what you are saying. I am interpreting your comment to mean that a victim of child porn (or perhaps sexual assault) would easily be excused from serving on a jury in a child porn case. Correct? I assume that that is true. However, a person who has never been a victim of child porn or sexual assault would still be traumatized (to some degree) by being a juror on such a case, and having to watch such materials (i.e., the government's exhibits). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Something doesn't make sense. If viewing of child porn is absolutely a crime, then anyone who sees it would be guilty of a crime, including law enforcement and court officials. That doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I think, actually, it's possession of child porn that is absolutely illegal. Not necessarily "viewing". Obviously, law enforcement authorities have some type of "exception" that allows them to view it and/or possess it. They "possess" a lot of illegal things (drugs, weapons, counterfeit bills, money from bank robberies, etc.). I am not so sure that they "possess" it, or if the are simply "custodians". Who knows? It's all semantics. And I am sure that the laws are crafted to allow the police to view/possess it, and disallow the criminals and pedophiles from doing so. I think the "tricky" distinction between viewing/possessing terminology comes from computer internet files. If I download it onto my computer, I think that that means that I now "possess" it. But, if I simply view it on the internet, I do not "possess" it. Who knows? I guess an argument could me made that some file has resided on my computer hard drive or cookie or cache or internet search history or whatever. And that fact translates into my "possessing" it. That is why, I think, there is little distinction between viewing and possessing when it comes to the internet and computer files. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, another thought. Maybe viewing it is illegal? But, it's probably worded to be "viewing it with the intent of sexual gratification" or something like that. Not merely "viewing it", period (for legitimate reasons like, for example, police investigations or serving on a jury). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The prosecutor would then have to prove intent of sexual gratification, which would probably be pretty hard. "See, Your Honour, I was only doing research for this book/art project/letter to the editor I'm thinking about." 06:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that easy apparently. To begin with the judge or the jury would have to believe your "I was only doing research" defense and even that may not be enough: see this for example. Contact Basemetal here 12:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And Pete Townshend, when he accessed a child pornography site, was cautioned by police and put on the sex offenders register despite his "I was only doing research" defense. See also: here and here and here. This particularly story did not find its way into the WP article apparently. Contact Basemetal here 12:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above statements. "For the purpose of sexual gratification" is relatively common wording in legal crimes. Think, sexual abuse and sexual molestation. If a guy mistakenly brushes against a woman's breast in a crowded public bus, this is a completely different situation than if he gropes at her breast intentionally. It is not simply the physical contact, but the intent behind it (i.e., whether or not it was for the purposes of "sexual gratification"). And, in any event, saying "I am doing this only for research" would be a weak defense, easily disproved by other evidence. Just because someone says it is so, does not make it so. A jury can see through their BS excuses. And the lawyer's job is to aid the jury in seeing through the BS excuses (i.e., presenting evidence to the contrary). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like the original premise of the question, viz., any case of looking at child pornography is criminal, commits the fallacy of accident. One commits this fallacy when one applies a general principle to a case where it doesn't really apply. For example, it's wrong to cut people with a sharp object, but that's what surgeons do, so what surgeons do is wrong. Similar reasoning applies in this case. Llamabr (talk)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Spree shooting questions on spree shooting site demolition and perpetrators committing suicide or not

There has been another spree shooting in the United States, and because of this I'm asking more about this (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 29#Mass shootings and suicides, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 16#Mass shooters killing themselves, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 April 3#Mass shootings outside of North America, and also non-American shootings where the perpetrator committed suicide. for my previous questions here on the topic).

1. In the United States at least, sites of spree shootings have either been completely renovated (Columbine) or even demolished (2006 Amish school shootings, Sandy Hook). This leads to three questions: a. why the demolitions/renovations? While from a look around (in the case of Sandy Hook), it is so that the people of their locales can move on as well as to prevent people from using parts of the structures as souvenirs, is this really the case? b. Do such demolitions/renovations generally have the support of people involved: relatives of the victims, survivors, local government, locals, the police, etc.? c. Are such demolitions/renovations very common, i. in the United States, and ii. outside the United States? A news article I read earlier (unfortunately I cannot remember the link) said that, at least in the United States, renovation or demolition is the preferred fate for shooting sites, particularly for school shooting sites, but is this really the case? Is there a list which discusses such demolitions? Are there cases where spree shooting sites were not demolished/renovated? And are similar practices done to shooting sites outside the United States?

2. I know that List of rampage killers exist, but other than the 2011 Norway attacks and the 2012 Aurora shooting, what are examples of spree shootings, both in the United States and elsewhere, that were widely reported by media (at least to the same or similar extent as incidents like Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook), and where the perpetrator didn't commit suicide? Although answers can include those where the perpetrator didn't commit suicide but was instead shot by either the police or others, I'm mainly looking for incidents where the perpetrator(s) was/were arrested. The aforementioned article gives possible leads, but it does not state which ones were widely reported on and which ones weren't.

3. Are there any statistics on the fates of rampage killers? As in, are spree shooters more likely to commit suicide be arrested? A cursory glance at List of rampage killers and its subpages imply that rampage killers are more likely to either commit suicide or be killed than be arrested, but are there any statistics which either confirm or deny this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sites of horrific crimes are often bulldozed, presumably to redevelop and improve the lot so that it can be sold again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not done for that reason, it's done in the name of the victims. To erase the scene of the crime and to ensure that it doesn't become a ghoulish tourist attraction. e.g. 25 Cromwell Street. --Viennese Waltz 08:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with "25 Cromwell Street" see Fred West, an English serial killer. Another notorious British address was 10 Rillington Place, also demolished soon afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's done for various reasons. Here is a discussion.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You can look at the Additional information portion of The Amityville Horror for a house that was not destroyed, and see what happened to the people living there. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

1) Mass murders are highly traumatizing events not only for the victims and witnesses, but also for the affected communities, so to support the healing process and to close what is basically a gaping wound in the social fabric the buildings they occurred at are often destroyed, or in cases where this is not possible, renovated. Especially after a school shooting a complete overhaul of the structure is frequently performed, because otherwise it would be a constant reminder of the terrible events to hundreds of already traumatized students. As has been pointed out above, another reason to demolish these buildings is to get rid of what might become an unwanted tourist attraction, or to erase what is perceived as a stigma to the town. So, generally these actions are endorsed by the affected people and communities, and in some cases, e.g. the house of David Malcolm Gray, they are even conducted by a helpful citizen by the means of criminal arson. How common these demolitions/renovations are I cannot say, and I don't know of any lists or articles dealing with the matter, though I suppose the decision very much depends on the severity of the crime and the amount of media coverage it gets. Are there mass shootings sites that were not demolished? Well, the town of Hungerford is still standing, I guess, as is the village of Luxiol, but if you are talking specifically about indivudal buildings I suppose you have to do your own research. Your chances of finding a few places in healthy condition are pretty good, though, considering that the house where the Villisca axe murders were committed is still standing, and the same is true for the former home of Fritz Angerstein in Haiger. Regarding similar practices in countries outside the U.S., I'm sure people are dealing with mass murder sites in a similar manner all over the world; e.g. the Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt, Germany, where 16 people were killed by a student in 2002, was completely renovated after the shooting.

2) What do you consider "widely reported? If you are focusing on coverage in the United States with an extent similar to the one on the Columbine massacre you will be hard-pressed to find anything prior to 1999. 24-hours news coverage is a rather recent phenomenon and in the past mass murders generally were not granted as much space in the media, because it wasn't considered that important. The major national newspapers mostly printed an article or two, sometimes merely giving the basics, and only the reporting in local newspapers lasted longer and was more detailed. If you are looking for a similar scale of international news coverage, well, there's probably nothing prior to Columbine, and even today very little is comparable. It sticks out that much. Anyway, as a general rule I would say any mass murder outside a very few select western countries gets little to no coverage in the international press, so you can safely ignore everything that occured in Latin America, Africa, Asia, as well as Eastern and Southern Europe. Considering that you are only interested in cases where the perpetrator survived, or was killed by police these are the cases prior to Columbine that I would consider as recipients of wide news coverage:

• Ernst August Wagner, 1913. Considering the year it occurred news coverage was quite extensive even on an international level, and it had a profound impact on the scientific community.
• Charles Starkweather, 1958. A major case in the U.S. with high impact and some mention internationally.
• Charles Whitman, 1966. Extensive coverage in the U.S., lasting impact, more than a fleeting mention on an international level.
• James Oliver Huberty, 1984. Decent amount of coverage in the U.S., though its lasting impact and the international coverage were only moderate.
• Colin Ferguson, 1993. Major case in the U.S. with extensive coverage and high impact, especially due to Ferguson's trial, on an international level rather irrelevant.
• Martin Bryant, 1996. Extensive coverage all around the world, profound impact on Australia.

3) A couple of years ago I've done some calculations with the information present in the list of rampage killers and found that the survival rate of rampage killers is varying by region. In Asia about 25% of rampage killers are either killed or commit suicide, in Africa and Europe it's about 33%, and in the Americas and Oceania/Maritime Southeast Asia about 50% of rampage killers do not survive their attack, with the difference that in the Americas they mostly commit suicide, while in Oceania/MSEA they are generally killed either by police or by civilians. You should bear in mind, though, that the LoRK lists only cases with a relatively high number of victims, and a higher number of victims generally decreases the perpetrator's likelihood of survival. If you are looking for more information on the matter, there are plenty of scientific papers on mass murders that include statistics on the perpetrators' outcome, see e.g. Lester et al.: Mass Homicide and Suicide: Deadliness and Outcome, or Fox/Levin: Extreme Killing

(Lord Gøn (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC))

Lord Gordon

Can somebody help me identified who this Lord Gordon was mentioned here? The text reads Lord Gordon and Lord Charles Beresford (making me assume that both men were Beresford) but then the caption of image on the next page uses it as if it is a surname. They were both on the ship Clio stationed in Hawaii in 1865.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It was probably Lord Douglas Gordon, although he was a couple of years young to be a midshipman at that time (but I believe that exceptions were sometimes made for sons of the nobility). Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see much of that. What is the date? Lord Lewis Gordon (3 May 1848 – 7 September 1870), not a peer but the second son of a marquess may have served on HMS Clio when it visited the Sandwich Islands in 1865.
121.211.12.111 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

HMS Clio was in Hawaii in the spring of 1865 according to this. It was about to transport Queen Emma of Hawaii to Panama on her trip to Europe at the time. I think they were both sons of English peers. If there is anyway to find a source directly stating which Gordon was on the Clio as a midshipman in 1865 that would be great. I check Beresford's memoir but he doesn't mention his accomplices in the prank by name. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Lord Lewis Gordon was on Clio but he was on HMS Captain when he died in 1870.
121.211.12.111 (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lord Douglas Gordon or Lord Lewis Gordon would never have been properly called "Lord Gordon", as he never held a peerage himself nor was in the senior line to one. (It's a common error, but the same sentence names Lord Charles Beresford correctly.) "Lord Gordon" could be the first grandson of a Marquess of Huntly, though the present marquess's grandson is called Lord Strathavon. —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The first son of a marquess gets a courtesy title (if one exists) and the rest of the sons of a marquess are called Lord. If the writer didn't know Lord Lewis Gordon's name he would call him Lord Gordon.
Sleigh (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Birth at sea

Hi, in the following scenario what would this persons citizenship rights. Parents are British nationals. They are travelling abroad on a cruise liner bound to the United States, the wife is in the final stages of pregnancy. If the woman gives birth while en route to the United States, and the first country the child sets foot in is the United States, what would their citizenship rights be. Would this be applicable to all countries or just the United States. Thanks in advance --Andrew 18:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

See British nationality law and United States nationality law. The child will be granted British citizenship "by descent" in almost all cases. Since the child is neither born in the USA, nor has parents with that nationality, it will not receive US citizenship, though he/she may obtain it through naturalization. - Lindert (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) We have an article on birth aboard aircraft and ships, which lays out the style of issue presented. Generally, "destination" is irrelevant, and "nation of registration of the vessel" only applies as a last-ditch option to avoid stateless persons. — Lomn 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That article points out that birth aboard a US-flagged vessel is not considered birth in the United States (unless the vessel is in US water, which is part of the United States), so that jus soli from Fourteenth Amendment does not apply. A United States Navy warship is a different matter, not the same as a US-flagged merchant ship, because a naval vessel is considered sovereign territory of the nation to whose navy it belongs. That is unlikely to be significant for two reasons. First, the US Navy probably would not allow a female sailor who was known to be pregnant to serve in the crew of a ship on an extended deployment. Second, the crew of a naval vessel, with a few exceptions, consists of citizens of the nation in whose navy they serve, so that jus sanguini already applies and it is not necessary to identify jus soli. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

However, warships are sometimes used to evacuate civilians from overseas hotspots; in 1986, 200 British and European refugees were evacuated from South Yemen by the Royal Yacht. [4] Alansplodge (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Born at Sea: Migrant Gives Birth Aboard Navy Ship After Rescue. Alansplodge (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

June 19

Ambassadors and the like

What exactly is the difference between a Minister Plenipotentiary, a commissioner, consul-commissioner and a consul/consul-general? I am trying to reconstruct a list of foreign representatives/ambassadors in Honolulu during the Kingdom of Hawaii and the various titles are extremely confusing. I know a nation in the 19th century can have a consul in any city within another nation not just the capital to represent the interest of its nation's citizens. Was this the same for commissioners or were they delegated only to capitals of foreign nations? I assume Minister Plenipotentiary were only allowed in capital cities as well, right? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Diplomatic rank may help, although it is sadly unsourced and needs cleanup. Neutrality^talk 08:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Current diplomatic ranks are based on the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which is of course much more recent than the period to which the OP is referring. In the 19th century, an Ambassador would normally be assigned by a fully sovereign country to another fully sovereign country and be located in the receiving country's capital. A Minister Plenipotentiary has basically the same powers as an ambassador but is of lower rank either because the host or the sending country is not considered fully sovereign, or he reports to an Ambassador who outranks him (resident or non-resident). A Commissioner is someone who has received a commission from the government to represent it in a foreign locale, usually with powers limited to only certain matters (trade commissioner is a common type). A consul can be either a representative in a non-capital city, or someone in a capital who has been given specific powers relative to passports and other travel documents, visas, shipping etc. There can be many consuls in a single embassy, and also vice-consuls, who are of lower rank. A Consul General is a consul who is also head of a diplomatic mission (for example, if it is not located in the capital). Consulates and consuls still exist these days, but Commissioners are no longer in existence - except for High Commissioners who are the exact equivalent of an Ambassador, but between two countries who are members of the Commonwealth. --Xuxl (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Where does someone who holds the title "Commissioner and Consul-General" fit into this spectrum? So does this mean that countries which sent only "Commissioner and Consul-General" as representatives in a foreign capital instead of Ministers Plenipotentiary viewed the designated country as less than fully sovereign. In Hawaii's case, only the US ever had ministers stationed at Honolulu during the period of the Kingdom and Republic; all other nations had consuls with the exception of Japan, Portugal, Great Britain, France which had "Commissioner and Consul-General" in Honolulu.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact no country had an actual Ambassador seems to point out that Hawaii may not have been considered fully sovereign. I'm no expert on Hawaiian history, but I expect there must have been some sort of protectorate agreement with a great power (the UK perhaps). The Commissioner and Consul-General title point to a holder being the head of the diplomatic mission, but whose functions would be of a more consular nature (looking after the interests of your citizens in Hawaii) and possibly trade, than a more regular diplomatic assignment, in which developing a relationship with the local head of state/government to further strategic interests is the main task. --Xuxl (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There was never an official protectorate declared over Hawaii. The lack of full fledged ambassadors is probably the result of European nations not viewing the country important enough to have an ambassador. Where does "Minister Resident" and "Chargé d'Affaires" fits into this diplomatic ranking system? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

A Chargé d'affaires is anyone who is temporarily given the power to act on behalf of an absent Ambassador. The position is usually filled by the next highest ranking member of the diplomatic staff, but it can be anyone else the Ambassador decides to appoint who is acceptable to the receiving country. The absence of the Ambassador may be because he is on holidays, because he resides in a different country, because he has completed his mission and his successor has not arrived yet, or because the sending country has decided to be represented at a lower level (that happens when relations are strained). The use of "chargé d'affaires" (literally, caretaker of business) implies that the situation is a temporary one. Minister resident is not used nowadays, but was a senior diplomat who was not an Ambassador who was resident in the receiving country (see minister plenipotentiary discussed above). --Xuxl (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

First Commandment

I know there are many versions to the ten commandments. I'm just using one version from the top of my head.

• You shall have no other gods.
• I the Lord your God am a jealous God,
• punishing children for the iniquity of parents,
• to the third or fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love
• to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I don't understand why God will punish people who reject him to the third or fourth generation. If every generation sins, then wouldn't there be an endless loop of divine punishment? How is it possible to predict what future generations will do? What if one whole generation faithfully obeys God but later generations start moving farther and farther away from God, until you get to a situation that is something like the one portrayed in the Noah (2014) film, where people will just kill each other for meat and torture for pleasure? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the ten commandments are in the Tanakh/Old Testament, they're not necessarily as universal as some evangelical Christian groups try to present it as. The rejection bit would apply to those who were a part of the Israelite covenant who broke away from it. Everyone else would just have to put God at the top of their idolatrous pantheons to ensure a comfortable afterlife. The idea that God leaves kids alone regardless of their parents behavior is more from the Second Temple period (which was after the Tanakh/Old Testament wrapped up), and still not close to universally accepted until much later.

And given that Biblical law may have been intended to be read allegorically, the meaning was probably not intended to be "do this/that and your kids will be rewarded or punished," but "God is willing to reward 1000 times for every 3 or 4 times He punishes." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

See Rashi's commentary of the later-generations punishment/reward thing. Basically, he says it only applies when the children "continue to follow in the path of their parents". If the child rejects their parent's evil ways, he or she will not be punished for them. And the same would apply for reward. 101.160.164.9 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

To me those are all just rationalizations, to try to make the multi-generational collective punishments described in the Bible seem more benign. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ban on projectile/exploding fire works in California

In what did the state of California ban the use of exploding/projectile fireworks (bottle rockets,firecrackers,etc) for personal use without a permit?137.164.249.42 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(I've removed the leading space from your question, so it displays properly)

Did you mean to ask "In what year...? Rojomoke (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, there is not a state-wide law, only local (county and municipality) level laws. (See this state doc telling people to comply with local law: [5]) (Although the state regulates fireworks and which kinds are allowed locally depends on the classifications given by the state.) Suggest you google the local jurisdiction you are interested in as well as the term "safe-and-sane". 184.147.134.128 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Brunswick Corps in Sicily?

In our Black Brunswickers article, it says that the Brunswick Corps "carried the battle honours "Peninsula-Sicily-Waterloo" until the end of World War I in 1918". The there is no mention of the Brunswickers' involvement in any fighting in Sicily in the article and I'm having trouble finding any reference to Sicily in the Napoleonic Wars; History of Sicily#Bourbon period simply says "The Sicilian nobles welcomed British military intervention during this period". Can anybody shed any light on the matter? Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lord William Bentinck contains some history of the British in Sicily right after the Peninsular war (he was the commander). The regiments are not named in that article, though. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Aha, here’s a brief reference [6] It says the Brunswick Hussars were part of Bentinck’s brigade in August 1813 in Spain and in 1814 took part in the invasion of Sicily. And more confirmation of Brunswick hussars in Bentincks Sicilian troops here if you can read or google-translate Italian [7] 184.147.134.128 (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well done. I'll follow that up as soon as I have time. Many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Cannibalism in Literature/Myth

I was really interested to see what sources and cultures had myths and literature involving cannibalism. I know that some Greek myths include cannibalism (like Cronus or Atreus), but I wanted to know if there were other myths or gods. Also, I know there are different fairy tales with cannibalism like Hansel and Gretal- I was curious if there were others. I would like 6-10 examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.196.218 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You will find some examples in Cannibalism#Myths.2C_legends_and_folklore. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A classic text on cannibalism is the essay Of Cannibals by Michel de Montaigne. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If you define "literature" broadly, see R v Dudley and Stephens, a famous British legal case (still studied) today about cannibalism and the criminal law. Neutrality^talk 03:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Sawney Bean family in Scotland was mythical but I could be wrong. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (an increasingly unlikely scenario), a detailed article in Fortean Times a couple or more years ago concluded that they were indeed mythical, in the sense that the detailed story about them was invented by a journalist or pamphleteer (in London?), possibly based on vague stories from Scotland that have been found not to have any authentic basis. However, I (or the article) could be wrong.

[Addendum: Aaand it was actually 10 years ago, being reference 2 in the Sawney Bean Article!] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In less politically correct times, "missionary in the cooking pot" was a popular subject for cartoonists and I was rather surprised to find pages of examples viewable online.[8] Perhaps we're not as civilised as we thought we were. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

On a similar vein, i found Taming Cannibals: Race and the Victorians by Patrick Brantlinger. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

June 20

Why multiple counties municipalities exist?

Hi,
I'd seen the list of multiple municipalities in Wikipedia.
And it made me we wonder why do they exist in the first place.
Can somebody explain?
List of U.S. cities in multiple countiesExx8 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cities can expand, and sometimes they cross county boundaries, presumably facilitated by negotiations among various levels of government. The most obvious example is New York City, which covers five counties. And city government is usually distinct from county government, so it works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the state, though. In California, cities cannot straddle county lines. This is sometimes the limiting factor to cities' territorial ambitions. When I were a lad, for example, East Palo Alto was not a city, but part of unincorporated San Mateo County. If it had been within Santa Clara County, I imagine Palo Alto would have gobbled it up. (Though possibly not, as it was a depressed area at the time and I don't know for sure that they wanted it.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

State law is certainly going to figure into it. 50 states, 50 potentially different ways of dividing the state up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. On reflection, it's a little strange, because in California, county government is pretty much irrelevant within a city. County ordinances apply only in unincorporated territory. So it's not really clear why a city shouldn't straddle county lines, given that the county pretty much doesn't effectively exist inside the city anyway. Maybe it has something to do with who gets tax revenues or something. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I think the California Superior Courts are broken up at the county level, and the counties also run the jails. That must be it. I suppose it would be a little awkward for the city cops to have to file charges in different courts depending on where exactly within the city they arrested someone. --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no county government in the five boroughs. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There are likely many many reasons why this might occur. In the case of Illinois municipalities, it likely has a lot to do with the fact that there is very little in the way of county government and therefore fewer restrictions and governmental hoops to jump through to make it happen. Most governance is either at the state or town/city level.

More specifically, in the case of Hinsdale, Illinois (map), it makes more sense geographically if the town extends all the way to the I-294 on the east side of town even though the limits of DuPage county (map) do not. The town naturally "grew" out on that side to the highway. The highway makes a good divider since there are very few ways to get across it for municipal vehicles that would need to service streets on the other side. Meanwhile, the county has very little concern. If the Cook county sheriff needed to patrol in the sliver that is outside of DuPage county, they'd have to find a way around/over/under the highway. But that sliver is covered by the town of Hinsdale's police department. In the end, it's easier if the town extends past county lines.

The order in which the county lines were drawn, the highways were built, and the towns grew just made it easier for Hinsdale to be in two counties. Dismas|^(talk) 19:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Consider Lloydminster which is one city partly in Alberta and partly in Saskatchewan. One city (it is not a pair of 'twin' cities, in two provinces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.232.203.148 (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

In some cases, it's because of where the county lines are drawn. Near me is Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, which was created in large part because of the burgeoning city of New Castle. This city grew up along the Beaver and Erie Canal at the point where two smaller rivers formed the Beaver River, but at the same time the border between Beaver County and Mercer County was just a few hundred feet from the confluence point (whether by design or by accident, I don't know). It was thoroughly advantageous to have a city at this location, and the county split was just an unfortunate difficulty until they gave up and mounted a successful effort to have a separate county created. (It's still odd to see County Line Street one block from the county courthouse, 40°59′53″N 80°20′22″W.) Meanwhile, looking to Trovatore's answer up above, multi-jurisdictional muddles can definitely be a problem; part of Boulder County, Colorado incorporated as Broomfield in 1961, but some years ago they became a consolidated city-county because they'd annexed into three other counties, and it was becoming profoundly awkward to deal with court systems in four different counties. Finally, comparable to the California system, consider New England. In Vermont, the law defines county boundaries by saying "This county is composed of municipalities A, B, C..."; see legal definition of Bennington County. Counties in general aren't that significant in New England, so it makes sense for counties just to be groups of municipalities. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• The main difference in the U.S. is how each state decides to organize it's own administrative divisions. Ever U.S. state is sovereign in this regard: it is free to decide how to organize itself and administer its various geographic units. That gives a wide variety of ways states are "broken down". Consider that Hawaii does not have any unit of government smaller than the county (see List of counties in Hawaii), names of settlements and cities in Hawaii are for convenience and have no legal meaning. At the other end of the spectrum, states like Connecticut and Rhode Island are exactly the opposite: No geographic division larger than the town (see New England town) has any legal meaning, "counties" only exist historically, remnants of past organization. Really, in the U.S., there exists a continuum between those two extremes (Counties with no municipalities, and municipalities with no counties). In most of the U.S., the main division is the county: municipalities are only organized around settlements of reasonable population density: much of the U.S. is essentially unpopulated or lightly populated rural areas, and the sorts of services a "city" provides don't make sense where your nearest neighbor is 5 miles away in any direction. So where cities exist and are incorporated, they exist to provide the sorts of services that a settlement would need, and there's no need to designate a municipal corporation over a geographic area where there are not the number of people to support one. In most states with settlement patterns like this, cities are incorporated without regard to county lines (so you get places like Rocky Mount, North Carolina, which straddles the border of two counties). Viginia provides a unique situation, cities are legally separated from counties, and counties provide no services for incorporated cities; functionally an incorporated city is its own county, and you get situations like Arlington County, Virginia, which is essentially 100% urbanized and operates exactly like a city except in name, and the city of Suffolk, Virginia, much of which is rural and thus which operates more like a county would in most other states. In the densely populated Northeast, almost all of the land supports municipality-like population density (except places like northwestern Maine and parts of Upstate New York) and thus for those states, essentially entire states are covered by municipal corporations and counties serve as little more than convenient groupings of municipalities or court districts (see New England town, Local government in New Jersey, etc.) There is a wide variety of ways that states organize themselves, and what people learn about administration in one part of the U.S. has no equivalence in other parts. --Jayron32 14:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Cousin marriage in the US

When in American history did cousin marriages become a cultural taboo that it is today? It certainly was an acceptable practice in the 19th centuries even amongst first cousins while you have people today who view marriages between fifth cousins as a repulsive thing. --172.10.138.193 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Our article on Cousin marriage has some history of the laws, rules and preferences. I'd be surprised if many people in America or anywhere else in the world regard marriage between fifth cousins as a repulsive thing. Dbfirs 20:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

One factor is going to be availability of unrelated mates. In a place with few options, the rules become more lenient. When you have a larger population and more immigrants, then people tend to be more picky, and they make their laws accordingly. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

True, but in cities people seem to be unaware of their extended family trees and most don't even know who their fifth cousins are. Even here in the English countryside with few immigrants (or even migrants from other counties in the past), I don't know some of my fifth cousins (and there are certainly no taboos or laws here). Details of US laws by state is given in Cousin marriage law in the United States by state. Dbfirs 08:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

First cousins marrying used to be pretty common, especially in small communities, prior to the 20th century when the practice began to be significantly curbed. I don't know who would be bothered by 5th cousins marrying. FDR and Eleanor were fifth cousins once removed, and I've never heard that there was any big deal made out of that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't know about 5th cousin, but in some traditional Chinese cultures, marriages between two people with the same surname was strongly discouraged, see Chinese marriage#Marriage in a Confucian context. I think a small number may still hold this view see e.g. some discussions [9] [10] [11]. One of those in the first external link did include a case where the genetic test predicted a 5th cousin relationship, but there was still opposition but I doubt even a more distant relationship would have mattered while conversely I'm not sure there would have been any complaints if it was a known third cousin relationship but with different surnames. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

June 21

If taking a human life is a sin, why does God Himself do it?

In general, this question is about the Roman Catholic faith, but insights from other philosophies (religious or otherwise) are fine. In the Roman Catholic faith, we learn that human life is sacred. And it is a mortal sin to take the life of another (e.g., murder, etc.). So, if we start out by believing that, how do we explain the fact that God Himself takes the lives of other humans? In other words: if it's so bad, and it's such a terrible sin, and God commands us not to do it, well then why does He Himself do it? Isn't that counter-productive to the belief that "life is sacred and it is a terrible sin to take someone's life"? Hypocritical? Now, there are many examples by which death can be seen as an act of man, and not an act of God. And, thus, the "blame" (cause) can fall upon man. For example, murder. If I die from lung cancer, we can "blame" humans (not God) as the cause of death because we (humans) created cigarettes, etc. If I die in a car crash, we can "blame" humans (not God) as the cause of death because we (humans) created cars. Etc. Etc. Etc. But, there are clearly examples of human death for which we cannot possibly assign the "blame" to other humans. And the "blame" (cause) must lie with God. Some examples: hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, lightning, tsunamis, avalanches, earthquakes, etc. All of those natural disasters. Does the Catholic Church have anything to say about this seeming paradox? How is the paradox reconciled? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Natural Disasters—Evidence That God Is Cruel?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013323

and "Why Does God Allow Suffering?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005141.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The usual explanation is that God is exempt from any such rules. This is consistent with the model of God as the "ultimate king", keeping in mind that this was a time before the Magna Carta, when the law didn't apply to kings. StuRat (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How does that answer the question of: "If it is so wrong, how and why would He Himself do it?" Whether or not He is exempt from the rules, His actions show that "human life is cheap and expendable if even He Himself can (and does) take it away". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

You're just not in the ancient mindset yet. Let's look at slaves. A master had every right to kill his slaves, as they were his property. But anybody else killing his slaves, that would be a crime. Now put God in the role of master and all of humanity in the role of slaves. So, murder isn't wrong for it's own sake, but because you were denying God his right to decide when everyone lives or dies. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, therein lies the discrepancy. I (and all of us other human beings) are not supposed to kill and murder other human beings because: (A) simply because God "said so"; or (B) because human life is valuable and sacred and should be respected? I can understand (B); (except that God Himself also "takes" lives). And (A) seems rather infantile, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

When you metaphorically "take a life", you're just ending it. When God does it, He gets to keep the soul, sort of like Shang Tsung, but without getting His hands dirty. At least according to InedibleHulk. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

The section below that section and the Humanities Desk question within are also sort of relevant, if largely unsourced. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

And, per Genesis 9, it's not just you and other humans who shouldn't kill humans, but the "beasts" as well (perhaps even the beast). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

"because human life is ... sacred". Sacred literally means "set aside for God". Your options A and B are not as distinct as you might have thought. Iapetus (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Very good point. Thanks. I never quite looked at it that way! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem of evil Contact Basemetal here 01:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Playing God is frowned upon. Being God is cool. There's no "we" in "Thou shalt not kill", and even if there was, God never kills anyone. There are more things in the world to blame than God and humans. If you can't blame a man for a drowning, you can still blame water. Just as much God's creation as man was. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Genesis also has a part about blood for blood. Maybe interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

For the actual Catholic perspective on this, basically "God works in mysterious ways". The answer is "nobody knows and don't even bother asking". See Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 1, Paragraph 3.273 of the Catechism: "Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God's almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ's power." See also paragraph 7.385, and numerous other places. Just search the Catechism for "mystery", it's full of this stuff. God can appear to do things that make no sense because God is perfect and you cannot possibly hope to understand why, but if you first have faith that God is perfect, then it will make sense, or actually it will no longer be important that it does not make sense. Another thing to remember is that a good Catholic will take euphoric delight in the things about their faith that make the least sense. I suppose this is true for all Christians but I don't know anything about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The actual quote is God Moves in a Mysterious Way and was written by a slightly unstable Anglican. But I'm being pedantic. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd heard it from a Catholic brother (and second son) of an Anglican, who heard He was a She. But it's alright, it's all right. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I would think the standard argument would be that we humans (i.e. our forebears Adam and Eve) disobeyed God and became mortal. That means everyone will eventually die, one way or another. In essence, we chose this path ourselves, so don't blame God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

But I didn't make any such choice :( Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Adam chose it for you. See Original sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Bible is big on collective punishment, something else we no longer believe in, at least where it's possible to punish the individuals involved alone. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Church is also big on people never dying, but living in Heaven or Hell forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally, some Catholic theologians and philosophers distinguished God from nature and/or fortune, the latter being blind idiot quasi-demiurges. See The Consolation of Philosophy and Natural evil. God having power to cause events does not necessarily mean that God does cause events. Although most alchemists (many of whom were medieval Catholics or studied by them) got the scientific laws utterly wrong, they did place scientific laws between God and humanity. From their perspective, God created natural laws, lets them run their course, and God is no more responsible for what natural laws do than what we do. If your kid sticks a fork in the electrical socket, should you be held as responsible as if you had tazered them? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The alchemists were wrong ??? I'm shocked ! Quick, get me some dephlogisticated air ! StuRat (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, "Thou shalt not kill" seems to be a bad translation. It should say "...not commit murder", as it's quite clear that the Bible condones killing, even genocide, as long as God commands it (or performs it directly), in which case it doesn't qualify as "murder" (the unlawful taking of a life). StuRat (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as you don't feel bloodguilt, according to our article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

The actual word for that kind of death-bringing is retzach. I don't know how to pronounce it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Given that your link re-hosts our content, retzach might be more up-to-date. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a redirect now, to where I'd linked earlier. A rather timeless subject. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, June 23, 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph A. Spadaro one article that I haven't seen linked yet that you would probably find informative: Theodicy, including several Catholic perspectives. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that article was actually linked within another article mentioned above. Thanks for pointing it out. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer Theiliad, myself. Or maybe the preceding is just a case of the idiocy.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Who collects on the reward?

It's understood a reward was offered for the capture of the Charleston church shooting suspect. How much was the reward? Who collects on the reward since Dylann Roof the shooter was captured and arrested?142.255.95.167 (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Make that alleged shooter. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're white of course yes. Not if you're black in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.154 (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of his race, he's still only the alleged shooter. And notice, if you will, that most of these mass killings tend to be committed by whites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, only the State is required to believe him innocent until proven guilty. Private persons are not prevented by law from forming and/or expressing their own beliefs on the matter. --Jayron32 14:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There's lots of confused ideas like that around. When someone is acquitted you often hear people claiming that everyone should stop arguing about their guilt or innocence as if we were all legally obligated to adopt the same opinion as the jury on every matter once a trial is concluded. Some even cite the 5th amendment! However I have noticed that news outlet are often careful to prefix "alleged" as long as the "suspect" has not been convicted. I wonder why that is. Are they legally required to do so? Or are they trying to signal they are very serious and careful news outlets and really do not want to jump to conclusions? If so, even after conviction they ought to maintain their neutral "agnostic" attitude (since convictions can sometimes be wrongful) and they sometimes do (by using e.g. the phrase "the person who was convicted of doing X" instead of "the person who did X"). Maybe that journalistic lingo spreads into the general public hence Bugs's reaction. Contact Basemetal here 15:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You asked: "However, I have noticed that news outlets are often careful to prefix "alleged", as long as the "suspect" has not been convicted. I wonder why that is. Are they legally required to do so?" The short answer is, yes, they are legally required to do so. Or, more precisely, if they do not do so, they are open to being sued. They (news outlets) do this, so that they are not sued (by the "alleged" criminal) for defamation, libel, and/or slander. A private citizen can (legally) make the claim that "I think that Person X is guilty of murder." A news outlet is (theoretically) in existence to report the news (i.e., to report the facts, not their opinions). Therefore, a news outlet cannot (legally) state that a person committed a murder – or any crime – (as if it were a fact), before the conviction. They can only (legally) state: "Person X is alleged by the government to have committed a murder." After the conviction, they can (legally) state the "fact" that "Person X committed the murder." If they want to be "extra careful", they can say that "The jury convicted Person X of murder" (or some such wording). But, news outlets are not exempt from suits against them for libel, slander, and defamation. So, a non-convicted person (a suspect) can sue a news outlet if that news outlet reports it as a fact that the suspect did indeed commit the crime. That is why news outlets are so very careful to use the word "alleged" over and over again. A side issue: if the news reports that a person is guilty of a crime (prior to conviction), what chance does that suspect have of a fair trial? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No reward was offered.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Al Sharpton had planned to offer a reward (last but one paragraph) but Roof was arrested before it was put into place. Dalliance (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

An individual can say whatever they want, in general, but not on Wikipedia, because to proclaim the guy guilty is a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that WP:BLP (WP:BLPCRIME being the relevant shortcut here) applies to the reference desk (and everywhere else on Wikipedia). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Everybody is confusing me. I wasn't asking for any debates about Dylann Roof. The only thing I'm asking was about a reward that was bound to be offered. How much money would have it been?142.255.95.167 (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 22

Space Exploration

Are humans allowed to travel in Space? Are their any religious statements defining limitations for humans to stay to Earth...? -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

See Human spaceflight: the humans who participated have almost exclusively done so with the sponsorship of sovereign states themselves, so for any reasonable definition of "allowed", the answer is "of course". I know of no major world religion which has any tenets that disallow human spaceflight; though of course with the diversity of religious thought around the world, it is possible that there is some group, sect, or person who has expressed such sentiments. --Jayron32 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Arguably it's unethical because of the heavy environmental cost (greenhouse gas generation in the rocket launch). Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with "allowed?" --Jayron32 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I take the Q to be whether an ordinary person can go into space without prior permission from their government. That would depend on the government, but for most I suspect the answer is no, you definitely need approval, for airspace and civil defense reasons. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, maybe, but compared to other human endeavours, the overall environmental impact of the space program is fairly negligible. And counting indirect effects, such as pale blue dot and better weather forecasts, the balance may well be in favour of the space program. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Creationist Ken Ham thinks "space exploration is driven by man’s rebellion against God", according to this progressive secular humanist site. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: Is there anything in the Bible forbidding space travel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's that bit in Genesis where God grants humans "dominion" over all the Earth, animals, fish, etc. Nowhere does God grant dominion over space. That could be taken as a "no". StuRat (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Also see good old Leviticus 19:19: ...neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together - which would definitely rule out most space suits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What is Antonio Nariño's correct full name because Wikipedia in English and Spanish differ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Nari%C3%B1o So is it Álvarez or Bernardo for the mother's surname in Antonio Nariño's name??

Antonio Amador José de Nariño y Álvarez del Casal (article is Spanish has this) or Antonio Amador José de Nariño Bernardo del Casal (article in English has this, despite a contradictory note in italics, just above it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.244.46 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What do reliable sources outside of Wikipedia say? That's all that matters. --Jayron32 19:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi courts

I am trying to find an old criminal case or any related reports. In what court would a man accused of murder or killing be tried in Mississippi in the 1950s? Does anybody know some useful public records database from that period? trespassers william (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You would have to know where in the state the murder occurred, as that would determine which court would handle the case. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 23

Were Pope Francis' peace doves ever seen again?

These two. Dead or alive? Proving hard to Google. Also probably hard to tell doves apart, but if one looks pecked, probably easier.

Bonus question: Is this the same gull? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, June 23, 2015 (UTC)