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.

August 20

How much more work was making enough wampum to make a living?

Compared to making the living directly? It had to be less work to make the living directly, right? So was it like Step 1: someone who hates making food for some reason becomes a professional wampum maker. Step 2: Go around saying "Yo, I got some ill beadwork here, how much food will you give for it?" Step 3: Free food!? (Step 4: Yo, my moccasin broke, I need like a new shoe man, how much bead do you want for it? Step 5: My wife is like 8 months preggers, yo. Can you make baby clothes for me? Thanks man. I pay in bead. Step 6: My man artisan! My child is now old enough to use a spoon, how much bead do you want for one? Aw screw that, I'll just carve it myself.) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait for the Dutch to come along, and go to work in one of their wampum factories. Fun for a few years, until the flood the market, devalue the currency, and crash the local economy. See the article titled Wampum. This book has a pretty decent chapter on Wampum, as does This article. --Jayron 32 01:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I first heard of wampum in school that's exactly what I thought happened to it. Because, you know, it's just beads. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And coins are just discs of metal. Really, money is just stuff that we declare to be worth something, and everyone accepts it. Beads as a medium exchange is no inherently better or worse than any other random, standardized trinket. --Jayron 32 01:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to make even with 1600s/1700s European tech, though. The Europeans thought they were buying Manhattan for trinkets. The Native Americans thought they were getting fair value for it (though at least they thought they were just letting them live there and not selling and leaving). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a matter of an unsophisticated understanding of economics, probably on both sides. If there is an effective government control of the money supply, including both effective counterfeit controls, such as identifying markings, and an effective government monopoly on the production of the currency medium, there is no inherent reason why clamshell beads couldn't have been a successful form of currency. The reason it tanked isn't because the Europeans didn't value it (indeed, the Dutch understood its importance and conducted trade in Wampum as a currency very early on). It tanked for the same reason that Spain had to declare state Bankruptcy multiple times in the 16th century, a massive influx of currency (in Spain in the form of New World silver and gold, in the Northeaster North America, cheap and efficient Wampum manufacturing techniques) caused the currency value to plummet. Massive changes to the money supply leads to hyperinflation, which is basically what happened to Wampum as a currency medium. There's nothing inherent about the actual physical bead itself which makes it unsuitable for use as a currency, rather there was a problem with the lack of institutional control over its supply that led to its downfall. --Jayron 32 10:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for any medium of exchange, there is a huge benefit in being free of the coincidence of wants. In addition, there probably is a benefit from division of labor. One person making wampum, two hunting, one preparing food, another making clothing and housing is probably more efficient than 5 people trying to be good at all of these tasks. — Sebastian 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though of course all the visible easy gold being harvested a long time ago and having no one who does nothing but make money after that is even more efficient. And there would be little new gold until modern mining technique but if the wampum maker continues for millennia it should get more and more common unless some is destroyed. The same wampum is paying for the harvests that people buy year after year while the wampum maker is still making new wampum. Even if the string rots the wampum should survive cause the shells are still good and re-stringing is easy compared to making a new one. The European tech just caused that to happen quicker. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if there were dedicated wampum craftsmen? In pre-industrial societies, division of labor was much less pronounced. Certainly there was some specialization, but frequently you didn't have highly specialized hunters and farmers - most everyone hunted or farmed a little bit. There wasn't a specialized shoe-maker class, instead most everyone knew the rudiments of basic clothes and shoe making, even if it was well-known that certain people were much better at it than others. I'd expect the same from wampum manufacture. Likely, each family would spend some amount of their "free time" manufacturing wampum for trade purposes. Some would be poor at it (lots of cracked shells), and decide to focus more on hunting or clothes making, and some would be better at it and focus more on making wampum and get other necessities through trade. I'm not confident of it, but I somehow doubt that there was a dedicated "wampum maker" in the tribe in the same sense we think of professions today, unless it was considered a ceremonial role. (In which case it would be similar to the priest/medicine man/shaman/leader/headman roles regarding how they made a living.) -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philome Obin

Can you tell me more about Philome Obin? He was a famous painter from Haiti, and also my long-lost grandfather. This is Philip Robert Obin, his grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.105.40 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous question was answered yesterday. Please see above. --Thomprod (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Native Hawaiian suffrage

Was it ever considered to withhold native Hawaiian male suffrage in the Territory of Hawaii after annexation much like it was during the Republic of Hawaii?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

Why do runners from Kenya always dominate running races?

Why do runners from Kenya always seem to dominate running races? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly the Kalenjin people of Kenya (see the Athletic prowess subsection). The NPR article "How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners" suggests one genetic possibility - thin ankles and calves - or their high-starch diet, altitude at which they live or socioeconomics (whatever that means). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. Usain Bolt is not Kenyan and dominates the 100 metres.--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyans dominate at certain distances, mostly 1,500 metres and up. Sprinters like Bolt need a completely different morphology to excel, and those distances are dominated by Caribbean and African-American runners whose origins are in West Africa. --Xuxl (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do runners from Kenya always seem to dominate running races?"—they don't. Taking the mens' distance events at the last Olympics as a reasonable baseline, the top three at the 1500m were Algerian, American and Moroccan; the top three at the 5000m were British, Ethiopian and Kenyan; the top three at the 10,000m were British, American and Ethiopian. It's only when you get to the marathon that you get more than one Kenyan in the top three, and even then it wasn't a Kenyan who won. (A Kenyan did win the men's 3000 metres steeplechase, but as our article correctly points out that's primarily because Kenya is one of the few countries in which steeplechasing is a significant sport, and runners in Europe, the US and other parts of Africa tend to train for different events.) ‑ iridescent 12:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude is very significant. Training at high altitude forces the development of a denser network of capillaries, which in turn strengthens stamina. Socioeconomics and culture are probably even more significant. Kalenjin society has a (modern) tradition of training for runners and therefore some expertise. In addition, since the Kalenjin have few competing opportunities for professional success, talented runners who might have pursued careers in, say, medicine or finance in Europe or North America are instead much more likely to exploit their talent for running if they are Kenyan Kalenjin. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See nature vs. nurture and understand it is both genetics and environment. Some people have a genetic predisposition towards having body types suited for long-distance running, for example the difference between fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles, or how muscles process glucose, or other biochemical or physiological factors that have a genetic basis. However, there's also training: people still need to train to run a marathon, and a well-trained runner with bad genetics will still beat the couch potato with the perfect genetics. That's where socioeconomics comes into play: People without job prospects in other domains of life will be more likely to go into athletics, as it provides the only path they have to bettering themselves, thus are more likely to train for such events. --Jayron 32 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Kenya and Ethiopia share an enormous land border, some research has taken the two nationalities together: see Eight Reasons for Kenyan and Ethiopian Dominance which quotes research published in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance undertaken by scientists from the United States Olympic Committee Athlete Performance Lab and the University of Glasgow. The findings are summarised in the linked report:

1. genetic predisposition;

2. development of a high maximal oxygen uptake as a result of extensive walking and running at an early age;

3. relatively high hemoglobin and hematocrit;

4. development of good metabolic “economy/efficiency” based on somatotype and lower limb characteristics;

5. favorable skeletal-muscle-fiber composition and oxidative enzyme profile;

6. traditional Kenyan/Ethiopian diet;

7. living and training at altitude;

8. motivation to achieve economic success.

That's what they say anyhow. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to confirm East African domination of long distance running events; in the 10,000 metres final at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics in Beijing just a couple of hours ago, the finishing order was Great Britain (originally from Somalia), Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, USA, Eritrea, Turkey, Uganda, Uganda, Ethiopia. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Currency Post-Elizabeth II

What will happen to British currency once the Queen pops her clogs? Her face is on all of it. Will it all be phased out and changed to pictures of Charles (who is already quite old, so it would only be a few years before it has to be changed to William's once again). Assuming it does have to change, how much would all this cost, in terms of minting new money and getting rid of the old cash? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly certain that it wouldn't cost anything significant. Banknotes in circulation have a fairly short lifetime and when too worn are withdrawn on an individual basis as they pass through banks, and replaced by the Bank of England with newly printed notes.

When Charles ascends the throne, new notes from that date onward will begin to be issued. Obviously the redesign and new printing plates will cost something, but printing plates themselves wear out quite quickly, and there have already been several redesigns of the Queen's portrait as well as other design elements, both to reflect Her Majesty's appearance as she ages and to incorporate new security feature, etc.

The same does and will apply to coins, though they have a longer lifetime. As a child in the 1960's before decimalisation I used occasionally to find Queen Victoria pennies in my change. {The [poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Actually, per Banknotes of the pound sterling#The monarch on banknotes, her face isn't on all of it since Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes don't have it. Anyway this source [2] does suggest new currency for those notes with her replacements face will be produced ASAP. It seems to imply the old notes will simply be removed from circulation the same way they normally are. The UK is fairly odd in the modern world in having several retail banks making the currency, but the Bank of England at least seems to follow most other central banks in producing a new series of notes (for security and other reasons) roughly every 10-20 years, so the actually production will only be ~0-20 years in advance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also per the IP's point, we're only talking about the production of a new series of notes. In reality the notes themselves have to be replaced fairly often, although probably a bit less so if they do move to polymer bank notes ([http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-plastic-banknotes-launched-britain-5385378 suggests 2.5 times longer). Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I were a lad in the 1960s, a pocketful of copper change would be a history lesson, in which you could see the faces of Elizabeth II, George VI, George V, Edward VII and (very worn) Victoria. It was only the introduction of that new-fangled Decimal currency in the 1970s that consigned all the old coppers to the smelting pot. So I'm certain that when Her Majesty (whom God preserve) eventually passes to higher service, her coins will outlive her for many decades. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even decimalisation didn't put an end to pre-Elizabeth II coins. The pre-decimal shilling and florin were of equal value to the decimal five pence and ten pence and the new coins were the same size and colour as the old. George VI shillings and florins continued to be widely in circulation until the early 90s when the 5p and 10p were reduced in size. I seem to recall seeing earlier monarchs too, but rarely, as prior to 1947 silver coins contained some actual silver so pre-1947 coins were taken out of circulation if they were spotted [3]. Valiantis (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right; I thought I remembered seeing George V shillings, but having Googled some images of them, I now realise that they were early George VI ones. Don't forget the sixpence which stayed in circulation as a useful 2½p coin until 1980, according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly here in Canada, in the 1960s I used to frequently see coins with George VI on them, occasionally with George V, very rarely Edward VII. They pretty much never appear any more now that pennies are no longer made and the other coins have changed to cheaper metals than before.

When Edward VIII took the throne in early 1936 they continued issuing coins with George V while working on the dies for Edward VIII coins, but when Edward abdicated late the same year, it created a problem. They had to start over with new dies for George VI and could not issue any coins dated 1937 until these were ready! To avert a coin shortage, they finally decided to cheat and issue George V coins dated 1936 even into 1937, but with a dot under the date, meaning "not really that year". Curiously, in two denominations the 1936-dot coins are now rare: I've seen it suggested that the dots wore off (but I don't have a source to cite for that). Incidentally, the independence of India created a similar problem as George VI was identified at the time on our coins (in abbreviated Latin) as "king, and emperor of India". Coins dated 1948 had to be made without the latter phrase, and the dies weren't ready in time, so coins with the phrase dated 1947 were issued in 1948. Instead of a dot, these have a little maple leaf under the date. See Coins of the Canadian dollar#1936 dot coinage and Coins of the Canadian dollar#1947 maple leaf coinage.

I don't know if the UK had the same problems on these occasions, or how they resolved it if they did. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google shows that the British coins for 1948 continued to bear the IND:IMP (Indiae Imperator) title, whereas the coins for 1949 did not. According to our Emperor of India article, the title was not officially renounced until 22 June 1948, so perhaps the Canadians were jumping the gun somewhat. Alansplodge (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've seen George VI coins fairly recently in Canada, usually pennies, before we got rid of pennies anyway. I remember seeing 1945 "victory nickels" in circulation too, at least as late as the 1990s and probably in the 2000s as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the final part of the question. When coins with Chuck start getting printed, the ones with Lizzy will not become obsolete or worthless - they won't be "getting rid of" the old coins and notes any more than they do when new designs come out. However, you do need to use them up by the expiration year printed on all currency; if you find any expired bank notes or coins in your possession, please forward them on to me for proper disposal. :) 99.235.223.170 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you find an expiration date printed on currency - you certainly don't find them in the UK. All Bank of England notes ever issued, back to the originals in 1695, can be exchanged for current notes of the same face value by taking or posting them to the Bank's head office. Notes get taken out of circulation periodically, and cease to be legal tender, but they can always be redeemed (unlike, say, Swiss franc banknotes which lose all their value 20 years after withdrawal). There's a new Bank of England £5 note scheduled to be introduced sometime in 2016 (a polymer note, with Winston Churchill on the back), and going by previous experience about a year later I'd expect the Bank to announce a date around 3 months in the future after which the current Elizabeth Fry £5's will cease to be legal tender; there will be announcements in the newspapers, on TV, and possibly some notices in shops, and after the date the commercial banks may still accept the old notes for deposit into accounts for a few more months, but after that, that's it for the old notes unless you take them to Threadneedle Street. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, all US money is legal tender forever except for trade dollars from 1876 to 1965. And maybe gold and silver certificates? It's a waste of money to use US currency more than very roughly a century old as legal tender though, or any with silver or gold in it (our 1964 silver coins are only worth 3.2 to 64 pence as fiat money, lol). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a stab at 99.235.223.170's comment. I suspect that it's a joke, and the expiration date is just whatever date happens to be on the money. This would then suggest that all money in OP's possession is "expired" and should be sent forthwith to 99.235.223.170. Mingmingla (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We used to use smileys on the internet to show humour; I guess that's gone out of fashion...? Almost all currency around the world has at least a year stamped on it - the year it was issued. I figured that the kind of person who thinks money becomes junk because of a change of portrait would get suckered into thinking the issue date was a best-before. If you're not sure whether your money has an issue date or an expiration date, please send it to me for proper checking. :) <-this is a smiley face to denote humour. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identify portrait of a 16th-century Maghrebinian ruler

I came across this portrait, apparently a part of the Giovio Series, a series of copies made in the second half of the 16th century of a collection of portraits from some time earlier in the century, painted by Cristofano dell'Altissimo and held in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. Catalog entries on the web, based apparently on a museum inventory of 1890 [4], describe it as "Ritratto di Achmet sceriffo di Mauritania", i.e. "portrait of Ahmed, sharif of Mauritania", and date it to "1552-1568". According to less cropped copies seen elsewhere on the web, the painting bears an inscription of "...SCERIFFVS M:RE:MAV..." above.

Can anybody help identify this person? I'm assuming we are dealing with somebody from the List of rulers of Morocco. The title "sharif" might point to the Saadi dynasty. There was a person called Ahmad al-Araj from that dynasty in the mid-16th century, though apparently not a prominent independent ruler, and a more prominent Ahmad al-Mansur later in the century, but his time of rule would not fit with the dating of 1552-1568 (he was only born in 1549 and assumed power in 1578).

I'd like to get this identification cleared up, because the painting has also been widely circulating on the web with a totally different (and entirely unsourced) attribution, as allegedly intended to portray 8th-century Tariq ibn Ziyad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Heh, interesting. Here is another print version, evidently loosely based on the same original (same winning smile!), titled "Effigie di Mulay Ahmed detto Sceriffo Re Marocco Xilografia da Paolo Giovio 1575". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is getting funnier and funnier. Here [5] is another print version, and the German verse underneath it is just too hilarious to omit:

Muleameth von angesicht

Ausserhalb vast schön ist nicht,

Hett aber innerliche gaben,

Die wol des Hannibals gleich traben

Was krieg füren belangt, zu dem

Warn ihm die Frey künst angenem.

("Mulay Ahmed wasn't exactly good-looking outwardly, but he had inner gifts comparable to Hannibal in military prowess, and he also liked the liberal arts.") Cool. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More and more fun. Here is yet another version about "Muleamethes", in an German-language book from 1586. The biography (in early modern German) seems to point to our Ahmad al-Araj. Mystery solved? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's another version of the painting in the Museum of Art History in Vienna [6], under the title of "Muleamethes, Beherrscher v. Fez u. Marokko". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Mulay/Mule part of the name (and the M in the catalog inscription rather than A, are you sure it is not his brother? 184.147.128.46 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a part of his brother's actual name, but it's also a title meaning "lord" or "master" (mawlah), so conceivably Ahmad al-Araj could also have been called mulay as well. "Mulay Ahmed" would produce "Muleamethes" more easily than "Mulay Mohammed". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the biographical sketch in Paolo Giovio's Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium [7], which all these portraits ultimately all go back to, is explicit about the two brothers and that the one he's talking about is Ahmed, not Mohammed (hi erant Mahometes & hic Scyriffus nomine Amethes). I am wondering though, because he seems to be going on telling about his "Mulamethes" finishing off his brother as well as the rival sultan of the older dynasty, both of which being feats that according to our article Mohammed did, not Ahmed. Maybe Giovio (and after him all those other European copyists) mixed the two brothers up at some point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This [8] source explicitly identifies Giovio's "Muleamethes" with the "Sa'iden-Scherif Mulai (Mawla) Ahmed al-Aradi"; that's certainly our Ahmad al-Araj. (BTW, Adam is right, Giovio treats "Mule-" as a routine title for all these rulers, and "Muleamethes" is clearly meant as a contraction of "Mulay Ahmed". Actually he calls the other sultan who was getting overthrown by the Saadi brothers "Muleamethes" too; he was another "Ahmed".) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It's been a pleasure to watch your detective work, glad you resolved it. And thank you Adam for the explanation. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Trading floor of the stock market

Every once in a while, the stock market becomes a "newsworthy story" (in the general news, not just the business or finance news, where it is always featured). When this happens, I have often seen (on the TV news, in print newspapers, or on the internet) photos of stockbrokers running around like chickens without heads. Here is an example: [9]. And, oftentimes, they are performing some types of hand signals (such as here: [10]). So, my question is: what on earth are these people doing exactly? I am going to guess that they are somehow selling or trading stocks. (But I honestly have no idea.) If that is the case (that they are engaging in selling or trading stocks), isn't all that stuff done on computers nowadays? Whatever they are doing seems pretty "low tech" and must be inefficient, I'd imagine. Any insights? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Open outcry. Widneymanor (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will go and read that, now. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your instincts on the rise of electronic trading is correct. The number of floor traders has been dwindling for years on the NYSE. The CME Group (which formed from the merger of the former Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade) has already eliminated its trading pit). With the advent of high-frequency trading, floor traders will go the way of the dodo, probably over the next decade. Neutrality^talk 04:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

did de Gaulle say this?

did Charles de Gaulle (or any notable Westerner) say the quote in this meme ("Stalin hasn't become a thing of the past, he has melted into the future")? Could he have? What was the original wording? Asmrulz (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1a) Hi, when you put quotation marks around a phrase and put it into google, it searches for those exact words in that exact order. Doing that for your phrase as written here doesn't give any results. This suggests that no one said it in English. (1b) One way to find Charles de Gaulle's writings in French is via the French Wikisource. But searching those for Staline brings up no results either. (2) is unanswerable. (3) If you wish to search further in French, suggest you try the nouns as keywords: Staline, passé and futur or avenir. "Melt" could be translated by too many possibilities, plus you'd have to try too many forms of the verbs. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the English phrase was my translation of the Cyrillic caption solely for the purpose of this Q. I'd be surprised if you got any hits. Asmrulz (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for explaining. I didn`t click your link because I didn`t recognize the site. To try and avoid meme-related hits, could you try a search on the Cyrillic phrase in books only, or on a site with sources texts only (use site:http://URLhere as one of your google search terms) such as archive.org or gutenberg.org? Or of course Wikisource for whichever language your meme is in. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hits, one of them in a Russian book from 2000, where it is attributed to "a Western analyst", and another in literary magazine from 1996 which attributes it to one Pierre Courtade (quoted, according to the footnote, from "De la Nature de l'URSS" by one Edgar Morin, ed. Fayard) Asmrulz (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-da!!! "Staline n'a pas disparu dans le passé, mais s'enfonce dans notre avenir." ("Stalin didn't disappear into the past, but buried himself in our future") Aren't you and I little Sherlock Holmeses (or Jules Maigrets in this case) Asmrulz (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic. How satisfying when it works out like that! 184.147.128.46 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao mass-editing wrongly. Question about the nature of Wikipedia.

Problem fixed by user. Next time you notice disruption, please ask the user directly or report it to WP:ANI

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao is wrongly editing tons of articles at the moment. Who has the power to stop him and how is that done, please? He systematically adds the category "French sportswoman" or "American sportswoman" (etc) to as many articles as he can, obviously not at all taking into account whether or not the subject is a sportswoman or not. I even found that he also adds some non-American people in the process, for example tenniswoman Elena Dementieva is now an "American sportswoman". Obviously the problem is some kind of mass-editing that seems automatized, that someone can perform with no knowledge of the article or subject, just for the fun of editing as many Wikipedia articles as possible. Is Wikipedia just a hobby for a few permanent contributors? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a reliable encyclopedia? Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am aware of the problem and am working to fix it. Should have it taken care of completely within the next couple of hours. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Spanish music

This, particularly from 0:13 reminds me of some kind of traditional Spanish music roughly similar to flamenco, but not it, possibly some regional Spanish variety. What kind of traditional music closely resembles that? AFAIK there was a car commercial video with similar traditional Spanish motives. Brandmeister^talk 20:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the guitarist, Ewan Dobson, which says he is a fingerstyle guitarist (which article lists flamenco as a fairly major theme). I'm not musically inclined enough to pick through the details of the article to assess precisely what you'd call the style in the YouTube clip. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

Is there a standard font for formal or professional writing?

Is there a standard font (and font size) for formal and/or professional writing? Do any of the style manuals address this? Or, what is the commonly accepted practice? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They vary from publication to publication, so it's best to ask whoever you're writing for what they need (often, they'll be able to send you a template, or alternatively, they'll accept your writing in any font and change it fit the publication's style guide themselves). In screenwriting, 12 pt Courier is standard (since it's a standard size, so a page of Courier 12 should usually correspond to one minute of screen time). In many academic fields, Computer Modern has become the standard, since it's the default font in LaTeX and has a very comprehensive set of mathematical symbols. For other general uses, just go for a standard typeface like Times New Roman, Arial, Helvetica etc, at a size between 11 and 14, with a bit of extra space between the lines and you'll be fine. Smurrayinchester 06:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second advice above.

Every academic and professional field has their own preferences, and every publisher can enforce their own rules.

In business and professional writing, the best generic wisdom is encapsulated in the Chicago Manual of Style.

Rhetorically, you aim to please and persuade, so usage is your guide. But good taste is allowed: one need not be boring.

An excellent ebook by a font designer that Bryan A. Garner, editor in chief of Black’s Law Dictionary, calls a “tour de force” that’s “smartly reasoned,” “well written,” and “assuredly infallible” provides great background and strong, succinct recommendations, not only for his own relatively inexpensive fonts, but for several openly licensed ("free as in beer") fonts:

Butterick, Matthew (2010). Typography for Lawyers. Houston, TX: Jones McClure. ISBN 978-1598390773..

I'll name and link to these beautiful and businesslike free fonts later today. But do read the free preview of the book - Edward Tufte quality. (Another font of wisdom, and well worth emulating.). -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th edition of the MLA Handbook (2010) has this:

"Always choose an easily readable typeface (e.g., Times New Roman) in which the regular type style contrasts clearly with the italic, and set it to a standard size (e.g., 12 points). Do not justify the lines of text at the right margin; turn off your word processor's automatic hyphenation feature." (section 4.2, "Text formatting", p. 116).

The 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2009) advises:

"The use of a uniform typeface and font size enhances readability for the editor and allows the publisher to estimate the article length. The preferred typeface for APA publications is Times New Roman, with 12-point font size.

A serif typeface, "with short light lines projecting from the top or bottom of a main stroke of a letter" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2003, p. 837), is preferred for text because it improves readability and reduces eye fatigue. (A sans serif type may be used in figures, however, to provide a clean and simple line that enhances the visual presentation.) Do not use a compressed typeface or any settings in your word-processing software that decrease the spacing between letters or words. The default settings are normally acceptable." (section 8.03, "Preparing the Manuscript for Submission ", pp. 228-229)

Both the 15th and the 16 editions of The Chicago Manual of Style do not have any specific recommendations on fonts, deferring such choices to publishers. A work based on the Chicago Manual of Style is the venerable Turabian. The 8th edition of A Manual for Writers of Research Papers Theses and Dissertations (2012) has this:

"Choose a single, readable, and widely available typeface (also called font), such as Times New Roman, Courier, or Helvetica. If you use a less common typeface, you may need to embed the font in the electronic file. Avoid ornamental typefaces,which can distract readers and make your work seem less serious. (For the characteristics of specific typefaces,see Robert Bringhurst, The Elements of Typographic Style [Point Roberts, WA: Hartley and Marks, 2004].) In general, use at least ten-point and preferably twelve-point type for the body of the text. Footnotes or endnotes, headings, and other elements might require other type sizes; check your local guidelines." (section A.1.2, "Typeface", pp. 225-6)

Times New Roman is "safe", but widely regarded as a lame default, an admission of typographic illiteracy. Robert Bringhurst, in the cited contemporary classic The Elements of Typographic Style:

"When the only font available is Cheltenham or Times Roman, the typographer must make the most of its virtues, limited though they may be." (p. 96)

"Times Roman - properly Times New Roman - is an historical pastiche drawn by Victor Lardent for Stanley Morison in London in 1931. It has a humanist axis but Mannerist proportions, Baroque weight, and a sharp, Neoclassical finish." (p. 97)

"There are many versions of Times New Roman. The version tested here is Times New Roman ps mt, version 2.76, the default text font in recent versions of the Microsoft Windows operating system. ... The kerning is good as far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough." (note, pp. 204-205)

Stephen Coles has this to say, in his "The Anatomy of Type: A Graphic Guide to 100 Typefaces" (Harper Design, 2012):

"Good for: A non-designed, conventional office-document look." ("Times New Roman" entry in surprisingly good looking e-book on typography)

If one desires to please and persuade, alternative typefaces are preferred. Wikipedia uses Linux Libertine for its logo. It is included with Libre Office and is freely licensed and free to use. A good choice in my opinion (and especially good for lawyers submitting Microsoft Word documents, as it preserves the overall transitional serif style and spacing of Times New Roman very well - see comments under review). Recommended commercial alternatives include Le Monde Journal (recommended by Stephen Coles) or Equity (recommended by lawyer/typographer & Equity font designer Matthew Butterick). His two books, Typography for Lawyers (2010) and Butterick's Practical Typography (2014), are freely readable online; the former title is also available in print and epub. Highly recommended first title has foreword by legal eagle Bryan Garner, second by noted type designer Erik Spiekermann -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, master type designer Erik Spiekermann chose Butterick's handsome Equity font for the new edition of his masterpeice, Stop Stealing Sheep & Find Out How Type Works, 3rd ed. (Berkeley, California: Adobe Press, 2013). ISBN 978-0321934284 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the above excellent advice, I'd add one suggestion from this former professional editor – don't use a font in which "capital eye", "lower-case ell" and "numeral one" can't easily be distinguished. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious. Why do you say that? (Apart from the obvious, of course.) I understand that "capital eye", "lower-case ell", and "numeral one" might not be easily distinguishable in a certain font. However, they are pretty much always easily distinguishable by context, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the intended character may be unambiguous in context, the actual character used may not be readily apparent to typographic slobs, but will stand out as a glaring error to typographic sophisticates, including many who read a lot for a living: not only editors, but lawyers and academics. They will know what you meant (usually), but will also know you apparently consider such niceties not worthy of your time and may well think your writing and reasoning less worthy of theirs. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue of font aside, it does seem like 12 is a standard size, then. Is that correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say the sources cited above agree. Think of it as a courtesy for older eyes, perhaps wiser readers. But think twice:

Matthew Butterick again:

"While courts often require text to be set at 12 point — and sometimes larger — it’s not the most comfortable size for reading. If you compare a court filing with the average book, newspaper, or magazine, you’ll notice that the text in the filing is larger.

When you’re not bound by court rules, don’t treat 12 point as the minimum. Try sizes down to 10 point, including intermediate sizes like 10.5 and 11.5 point — half-point differences are meaningful at these sizes." -- "Point size" in Typography for Lawyers (2010)

See also his revised discussion, with clear examples, in Butterick's latest free Web book:

"... the point-size system is not absolute—different fonts set at the same point size won’t necessarily appear the same on the page.So you need to let your eyes be the judge. Don’t just rely on the point size." -- "Point size" in Butterick's Practical Typography (2014)

As noted on that page and detailed elswhere in Practical Typography, line spacing ("120–145% of the point size") and line length ("45–90 characters or 2–3 alphabets") would need to be artfully modified as well to achieve your desired effect. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English translations of Proust

Per In Search of Lost Time#Publication in English, there seem to be two major English translations of Proust available - the Moncrieff/Kilmartin/Enright translation and the one by a team of translators edited by Christopher Prendergast. What is the critical consensus on the respective merits of these translations? --Viennese Waltz 09:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Scott Moncrieff, it seems the consensus is he was not accurate, but created a wonderful read. Some references:

This textbook on translation (published 1988) says, page 56, that the Moncrieff version is "a model of translation"

The Public Domain Review claims "Moncrieff’s translation of À la recherche du temps perdu is considered by many journalists and writers to be the best translation of any foreign work into the English language"

Boston Review: "The translation Moncrieff produced was a masterpiece. That said, it was not without its share of controversial choices"

2004 article in The Atlantic which contains a long discussion of a retranslation in the 1980s and gives a bit of history on why people started wanting to redo the Scott Moncrieff version.

On Prendergast, it is harder to determine, since everything seems a comparison with Scott Moncrieff rather than assessment on its own merits. People think simplicity and humour have been restored. Have a read:

New York Review of Books article (itself critical of the Prendergast book) beings with "The six volumes of the new Viking Penguin translation of Proust received rave reviews in England"

And here are some of those reviews: Guardian (2), Guardian (2) and Telegraph

New York Times review of Prendergast, and I can't tell if it is positive or negative

(afollow-up discussion on the NY Review of Books letters page provides some insight into the differences between the two.) 184.147.128.46 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really useful collection of links, thanks very much. --Viennese Waltz 13:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference needed

G'Day. I know of a person called A. M. [name hidden] who has been a priest for over 50 years in Pakistan but cannot find any reference to the date of his ordination. Can you help? Tissueboy (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have hidden the name, given "outing" a private person where he can be murdered is counter to WP:BLP. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that we cannot ever type anyone's first and last name on the reference desk? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsouzaron: The priest in question has some info at the facebook page for "St. Lawrence's Church - Karachi, Pakistan" here [11] - they have a contact email for the church, I suggest you contact him/ the church directly if you'd like more info. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was also an alumnus of St Patrick's High School, Karachi and principal of St Paul's English High School (see this site), and parish priest of St. Jude's Church, Karachi (see our article). I think Medies is being a little over-enthusiastic in her interpretation of WP:BLPNAME. Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given Christian clergy are subject to assassination, yes, I hid that person's name out of caution. Hence is is not searchable, but anyone who edits here can read it. While this may have given SM a sour stomach, the OP got his answer. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

When you purchase a grave plot, for how long do you own that plot?

On the Miscellaneous Desk, there was a question that prompted me to think of another somewhat related question. The original question on the Miscellaneous Desk asks: "What happens when graveyards get full?". My question is: when one purchases a grave plot, they own that for all time, into perpetuity, correct? Or is that not a true statement? I am referring to the USA. And, come to think of it, another question: are you purchasing/buying the plot (such that you "own" it) or are you simply "leasing" it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, yes, grave plot ownership is assumed to be perpetual, ~~which is something we probably inherited from English law~~. See [12] for some info on this. This is not the case in most of the world, where plots are typically considered rentals. Cemetery regulation is done by the states in the US, so there is variation in the precise laws from place to place. But an example of just how perpetual things are meant to be, some states actually require commercial cemeteries to have a financial plan in place to pay for the maintenance of the plots forever. That said, every state does have provisions in place for the removal of graves. While the use of a plot is assumed to be permanent, states can and do authorize the movement of interred bodies for various reasons. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK (and I'm not sure that this is common) I only have a 99 year lease on the plot where my parents are buried. So I presume that after this is up (and after I'm dead too!) they will be dug up and reinterred as my post on the posting Joseph referred to said. Either that or they'll be cremated. Whatever, I'll be long gone! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever the US having perpetual grave plot as perpetual has come from, it's certainly not inherited from English law; until the Burials Act 1851, English graves were traditionally reused after a few years, with the existing bodies either being relocated to a charnel house, dumped in pits, or left in situ with the grave's next occupant just laid on top of them (this is why graveyards tend to be significantly higher than the surrounding streets). Hogarth's 1747 engraving of a churchyard, with random bones from previous burials just lying around where the gravediggers have dug them up, isn't an exaggeration. After churchyard burials were banned in 1851, bodies were (and are) traditionally shipped out to big mass cemeteries rather than buried locally. There's a reasonable explanation of how pre- and post-1851 burials in England worked at London Necropolis Company#Background. ‑ iridescent 09:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Churchyards burials are certainly not banned in the UK - I have attended a number. There are a number of references to prove this, including this.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends where you are. The Burials Acts gave the government power to order any city to ban churchyard burials (chapter-and-verse here), which was promptly applied to almost every population centre. Those churchyard burials that do still take place are generally either in country parishes where the pressure on space isn't as acute, or one-off exceptions for people with a particularly strong connection to an area. (In some places, notably central London, the churchyards themselves were dug up and physically relocated away from populated areas.) ‑ iridescent 16:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but I am reasonably confident that the dead cannot own property under US law. (The person's estate can own property, but it has only temporary existence until inheritance claims are settled.) So that by itself seems to answer the original question taken literally. --Trovatore (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to what you are saying. You are saying that the deceased person does not own his own grave site; his heirs own it? That doesn't seem quite right to me. But, you also seem correct to say that a deceased person cannot legally own anything at all, regardless. So, I wonder how this works with grave sites? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is exactly true. If the grave site has been purchased outright, then title passes to the heirs. --Trovatore (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While my father was researching our family history, he came across a distant great uncle who was buried in a north London cemetery (maybe East Finchley Cemetery?) at the end of the 19th century. We were surprised that the said uncle or his family had paid not only for an ostentatious obelisk, but also to have his burial plot mown and weeded "in perpetuity" and we were able to find it on a current maintenance list on the local council's website. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When do the university rankings come out?

I believe the university rankings (specifically QS, times and Shanghai) come out this time of year but I was unable to find an exact date on any of the websites, which I thought was odd since surely they are all a big deal.

I am interested in whether Manchester University has gone up or down in the new 2015/16 ranking, since they staters few years back they wished to make the top 25. Is there anywhere I can find predictions or anything similar. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.82.235 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This year's Shanghai rankings came out on August 15th. The organisation's site is here [13]. The University of Manchester is at 41 on the main ranking. More details can be found on the site. --Xuxl (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashley Madison class action and its' particular plaintiff

The recent mass hack of Ashley Madison has resulted in a class action lawsuit being brought in Canada against the site's owners. The plaintiff, however, is apparently a widower (and only joined the site after his wife's passing).

My question is this: When class actions are brought, does the court see things through the eyes of the actual plaintiff(s) bringing the action? Or does the court also consider the sorts of damage done to the "absent parties" on whose behalf the action is brought, even though they are not in any way actively involving themselves in the case (and which the plaintiff himself has not suffered)?

For example, in this case, the plaintiff himself, as a widower, has likely suffered relatively limited damage from the leak. He has no jilted partner. (I stress limited damage - I'm not claiming he has not suffered at all).

On the other hand, thousands of members who are in relationships have likely suffered far more damage from the leak. However, they are not active participants in the case. How would a court go about assessing how much each of these parties should be awarded - through the circumstances of the plaintiff widower? Or through the circumstances of the absent, but far-worse-injured parties? And if it's the latter, wouldn't this require a forbidden degree of speculation on the part of the court of the circumstances of theoretically injured individuals?

(Oh, and the exact situation with the ashley madison case might change - some seriously injured parties might seek to actively join as plaintiffs - but please focus on answering my question, even if this happens.

Also, I am not asking for legal advice as neither I nor any of my friends (to my knowledge) were victims of the leak). 58.164.127.224 (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. For convenience our article is at class action, including a brief section on Canada. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my quick understanding. First, a lawsuit has to be "certified" to obtain status as a "class action". In that process, it has to be specifically defined "who belongs to that class" (in other words, what are the requirements in order for a person to be considered a part of that class). Hope that helps. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the exact rules on certification for class actions are different from one legal jurisdiction to the next... so we should be careful about giving generic answers. Since this specific suit was filed in Canada, we would have to focus on the rules applicable in Canada. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this case instead had been brought in a federal court in the United States, it would be subject to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires that (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. It is not clear whether the mere fact that another plaintiff might be able to show greater damages would preclude the use of this lead plaintiff on the facts you describe. John M Baker (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

First Nations and Native American men and long hair

I have read several of the articles here and may just have not seen the answer. My query is with respect to First Nations and Native American men having long hair. I know this is culturally important, but am not sure why. Can anyone enlighten me as to the cultural significance? Thanks. 50.101.202.203 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question! For starters, you can see the Wikipedia article on long hair. There is a brief paragraph or two, under the heading "Native Americans". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Earth Catalog copyright

I'm attempting to review an image from Commons, File:Whole Earth Catalog (1975) - Picture fuddling by computer (15418025739).jpg, but I'm missing some relevant copyright information. The Flickr source has a clear cc-by license tag, but that doesn't address everything: this is a photo of a page from the 1975 edition of the Whole Earth Catalog. Has anyone a copy of this work that's available to check? If the publisher included a copyright statement, the work is still under copyright, but if not, it's in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My copy is in deep storage, but surely still copyright by the Portola Institute, the Point Foundation &/or Penguin Books (distributor in 1975) or Random House (publisher in later years). Perhaps an email to Online Archive of California - Guide to the Whole Earth Catalog Records, 1969-1986? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat record for The (Updated) last whole earth catalog : access to tools - 16th. ed, 1975. Publisher: Point (Foundation) [San Francisco]; Distributor: Penguin. ISBN 9780140035445 - OCLC 1890408 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Whole Earth Catalog reprint content from other publications? That's not my recollection, but I never looked at it much. Look at the right-hand side of the image: this is obviously a letter to the editor of a magazine, and the magazine in question is presumably the one named above the letter: Popular Mechanics. The letter itself mentions Popular Science magazine. I tried a Google Books search for the first 10 words of the short article (as a phrase), and did find it in a magazine. But, curiously, this was Popular Science magazine (specifically, page 56 of the April 1971 issue, as part of Arthur Fisher's "Science Newsfront" column) and not Popular Mechanics, it was at the bottom and not the top of the page, and there wasn't a letter to the editor beside it. Still, it's typographically identical to the one attributed to the Whole Earth Catalog, so presumably the same identical item was published in more than one magazine. To determine whether there was a copyright notice, you'd need to find the first publication. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

WEC usage may fall under fair use, as it added editorial comment and reviews to short extracts, but that does not apply to taking their gleanings of copyright material out of WEC's fair use context. An independent case for fair use would need to be made.

Most likely all editorial content copyright the Point Foundation, at least as of 1985, when the online community The WELL was founded. From p. 142 of Fred Turner's From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press. 2006.

"Whatever proﬁts the system made would be split ﬁfty-ﬁfty with the Point Foundation, non-proﬁt owner of the Whole Earth publications. Brand accepted the ﬁnancial arrangement and took day-to-day responsibility for the system."

I spent an otherwise academically abortive freshman college year pretending to work in the campus library while systematically browsing the library's holdings described in this very edition of The Whole Earth Catalog - a great liberal and liberating education in itself. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both my copy of the The Last Whole Earth Catalog (1971) and my cherished beat up copy of The Next Whole Earth Catalog (1980) have copyright notices. -Modocc (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of the United States cabinet

I have a question about the importance of the cabinet in US politics compared to parliamentary systems like the UK or Australia (where I am). The question is inspired by the aging show the West Wing--that show has (according to wiki) been lauded as fairly realistic (at least in terms of the depiction of US politics and institutions, if not the pure motives of the characters). Anyway, it seems in the show that the cabinet play a very small role in decision-making. Is this accurate? In one episode, President Bartlet says of a cabinet meeting 'Actually, I find these meeting to be a fairly mind-numbing experience, but Leo [chief of staff] assures me that they are Constitutionally required, so let's get it over with'. Is this kind of attitude realistic? I have found some sites describing the US cabinet as having an advisory role, where ultimately the power is with the president and he can pretty much ignore them. Is this true even of the high profile positions, i.e. secretary of state? Thanks. 129.96.81.98 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the Cabinet of the United States. There is no constitutional requirement for the President to ever meet with his cabinet, though it would be unusual for him not to. Each cabinet member is typically the head of a major federal department and exerts significant control in their respective areas, basically serving as a vessel for the President's authority since he cannot do everything at once. However, they are also entirely under the President's authority, so he may choose to dismiss, override or ignore them at will if he so chooses. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference with a parliamentary system is that, in the United States, Cabinet as a whole does not really have any specific powers. There is not Prime Minister, so all Secretaries report directly to the President, and there is no provision for decisions to be taken by the Cabinet collectively. There are of course meetings of small groups of Cabinet-members that make critical decisions (think of the members involved in national security issues), but there is nothing similar on a whole-of-cabinet level. Any meetings tend to be symbolic ("I'm convening the whole cabinet to discuss this because it's so important") although the issues are decided elsewhere. This is nicely satirized by Kurt Vonnegut in the novel Jailbird, whose main protagonist is a junior Cabinet member who gets to meet President Richard Nixon exactly once, at such a meeting convened entirely for public relations purposes. --Xuxl (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with some of the sentiments that the Cabinet has no authority or power. Policy runs both ways through the Cabinet in the U.S. On the one hand, the Cabinet members meet regularly with the President (as noted, by tradition rather than statute, but that doesn't make it unimportant or illusory. The entire British political system is also built on tradition rather than a written Constitution, and it isn't like power doesn't exist there!) and in those meetings, advise the President on how policy should be shaped in their own areas, as well as general and frank discussions of various issues. People who have the President's ear in that way are very important. Secondly, policy also goes in the other direction. Each Cabinent member is the director of one of the United States federal executive departments, and as such, have a LOT of power in the work those departments do, from implementing policy, to personnel decisions, etc. etc. --Jayron 32 09:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Someguy1221 notes, President Bartlett is quite wrong. The original text of the Constitution doesn't even mention a Cabinet or the heads of the executive departments (or executive departments at all), aside from one spot in Article II providing that the President "may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices". So obviously the executive departments were envisioned, but their heads weren't expected to exercise significant influence. As far as I remember, the executive departments also aren't mentioned in any amendments to the Constitution, aside from Article XXV, which provides for the temporary removal of the President "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide", a provision that's meant for when the President's been physically disabled; this provision was intended for situations like the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, which happened fourteen years after the amendment took effect, but it's never been used. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, the confusion caused by our language. One very important thing to remember, and one that often gets missed in these sort of discussions, is the different meanings of the word "constitution". In the basic understanding, the constitution of a national government is its operating principles. Every government on earth, from the UN and national governments, on down to student councils and clubs and the like, has a constitution. If it exists and it has rules on how it operates, and it governs something, it has a constitution. There also exists, sometimes, a document with the title "The Constitution", like the United States Constitution, which is a document which, in one location, spells out most of the really important rules. We can think of these concepts as the "little-c constitution" and the "Big-C Constitution". The important thing about drawing this distinction is that a) You don't need a Big-C Constitution to run a country (the UK has done without one for most of its history, TYVM) and b) even if you have a Big-C Constitution, you don't need to (and it would be quite impossible to) list every single, little rule for how the Government is supposed to work. Even in the U.S., for example, which is in love with writing everything down, there are lots of "constitutional principles" which are not explicit within the Constitution, but are nonetheless important rules for how the nation should be run. Famously, things like judicial review and right to privacy are not in the text, but still are considered constitutional principles. There are, of course, critics adhere to original intent and strict textualism, though of course there will be questions of how to deal with issues that did not exists when the text was written down. What does that mean for us? It means that even though something isn't written down in the Big-C Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a constitutional (little c) issue. --Jayron 32 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As individuals, the various Cabinet members (the Secretaries of the various Cabinet level Departments) have a lot of administrative authority and power... as a body, "the Cabinet" is purely an advisory council for the President. Of course, a wise President will seek that advice and follow it ... but nothing requires him to do so. So... I would put it this way: "the Cabinet" as a body, has no designated powers ... but it does have a lot of influence on the decision making of the executive branch (and influence is a form of "power" in itself). Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have to remember that the Australian constitution (relevant because the question was asked by an Australian) is far more similar to the US constitution than are the constitutions of other Commonwealth realms. The issues Jayron raises are comparable to uncodified concepts like the necessity of the government to maintain the confidence of the House of Representatives, but unlike in Australia, pretty much all of the ordinary procedural situations are either written out or considered "optional", i.e. people don't object on constitutional grounds when normal operating procedures aren't followed. For example, if the Senate were to reject a money bill passed by the House of Representatives, difficulty might happen because federal spending would potentially not happen for a while (the term is "government shutdown"), and people would criticise the Senate because the poor federal employees have to wait a little while for a paycheck, but unlike in 1975 in Australia, nobody would object that the Senate's action was fundamentally unconstitutional. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies with political representation in the mother country

Are there examples of colonies that has fair political representation in the mother country? As in, citizens of the colony could vote in the same general election as the citizens of the mother country.

Just to clarify, I'm not asking about Home rule, where colonials have political representation within their own colony. My other car is a cadr (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of... France has what they call a "département d’outre-mer" (see: Overseas department. An example is the island of Réunion. They also have smaller overseas collectivities (collectivité d'outre-mer) (such as Saint Pierre and Miquelon) which send senators and deputies to the National Assembly. These are former French colonies, that are now considered fully part of the nation of France. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another "sort of" example, French again, was French Algeria, where locals could choose to become fully French citizens if they renounced their coranic ruling. Akseli9 (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I understand correctly, Réunion ceased to be a colony in 1946 and became an Overseas Department. So did Réunion resident/citizens have the right to vote in French elections before 1946? My other car is a cadr (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One-word loose answer would be: yes. But the real answer is not that simple. Firstly, Réunion was never a colony in the sense that this island was not populated and was firstly discovered by some Europeans and some Arabs during Middle Age. They started to populate the island, and they were landlords under the rule of the Kings of France. Then they brought in slaves from Africa just like the US did and also the French West Indies islands and the British Caribbean too. Then during French revolution and during the Napoleon era and what followed, some other people were called in, again for working and for running businesses, this time not slaves from Africa but free immigrants from China and India. During all this time from Middle Age to 1946, one could say in a word that Réunion was fully part of France in the sense that its landlords were dying for France in European wars etc, then when France became a republic they still were representing France and are still feeling fully French until now. Akseli9 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tangential reading related to this topic is one of Virtual representation, which is a philosophy of parliamentary representation which holds that, while representatives are elected from specific geographic districts, once elected they are supposed to represent the interests of the whole nation. Under that doctrine, for example, the Parliament of the UK claimed to represent all British subjects equally, even those which did not vote for them directly, such as colonists. --Jayron 32 13:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One example that almost happened is Taiwan and Korea during WWII: House_of_Representatives_(Japan)#The_House_of_Representatives_as_part_of_the_Imperial_Diet_1890.E2.80.931947. My other car is a cadr (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Evensong part of high-church Anglicanism or low-church Anglicanism?

Is Evensong part of high-church Anglicanism or low-church Anglicanism? In terms of high-church and low-church, what in the world is a middle-to-low church? I think Evensong is a high-church ritual, because it implies that the organization celebrates an evening liturgy full of song. Do Anglicans have a fancy term for some kind of morning service or hold a service in the morning? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are not governing bodies which decide these things, it would be better to think of Anglicanism as a continuum between "high-church" (very Catholic-like) to "low-church" (very Protestant-like), with all churches lying somewhere in between those extremes rather than at one of them exclusively. The distinction is one of liturgy and style-of-worship rather than theology. That is, in a broad sense, all churches that are part of the Anglican Communion profess to the same basic understanding of their faith, in terms of what they believe and what their relationship with God is. Now, a completely different question is what it looks like when you sit through a worship service, or how one's belief should inform their actions, and things like that. The continuum between "Catholic" and "Protestant" determines what that looks like. If someone described a particular congregation as "middle-to-low church", that would mean to me that they were pretty close to the protestant end of the spectrum, while retaining some catholic elements. --Jayron 32 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer the OP's last question: see our article Morning Prayer (Anglican). Between that and Evensong (repeated to link for convenience), most of the OP's quandries should be met. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having been raised in an Anglican church, I would say that the very term "Evensong" implies a high church, since it implies a musical service, almost certainly with a choir. If a low church were to have an evening service, they would call it "Evening Prayer", and any music would be limited to the congregation singing from a hymnal, perhaps with a piano accompaniment.

While Jayron is right in very general terms that high churches have a style of worship that is more "Catholic" than low churches, I'm not sure that really captures the distinction, since worship at most Roman Catholic churches is probably plainer than worship at really high Anglican churches. High church involves the use of colorful vestments by priests and other officiants, the presence of a choir, altar boy, and other assistants around the altar, each with a colorful vestment, a rich musical program involving the choir, certainly a pipe organ, and liberal use of incense. In a low church, the priest or other officiant will typically wear much simpler vestments, with black and white the dominant hues, any other people assisting around the altar will wear ordinary street clothes (such as a dress for women or a jacket and tie for men, or even more casual clothes), music will be limited to hymns sung by the congregation, perhaps with piano accompaniment, and there will be no incense. Also, high churches typically refer to their clergy as priests, and low churches refer to the clergy as ministers.

Jayron is right that there is a continuum. Churches don't decide to be either high or low, with no options in between. For example, a middle-to-low church might have most of the features of a low church, but maybe with the addition of a pipe organ and the use of more colorful vestments for holidays such as Christmas and Easter. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what do jews think of white people

What do jews think of white people?