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.

November 25

Catholic Priests / Protestantism

As far as I know Protestant persons-of-cloth are allowed to marry. Do all of them do marry, or only a few of them do so? And what about the nuns ? Are they allowed to marry too ? In the case, do they all do so or only a few ? And is a Protestant priest allowed to wed a Protestant nun ? Jon Ascton (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Protestant nuns exist? (Or as today's yoof would say: are Protestant nuns even a thing?) —Tamfang (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the article, Nun. Also, there's Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary for an example of Protestant nuns.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether 'most' protestant clergy are married, but at least in the Church of England the idea of the Vicar's wife - as someone who generally helps out and does Good Works around the parish - is, or used to be, a familiar trope, and I think it was sort of expected that Vicars would be married. There are some examples in the Jeeves stories of curates wanting to marry but being unable to afford to until they have a living - in particular the long-running saga of The Rev. Harold 'Stinker' Pinker and Stephanie 'Stiffy' Byng. (WP:OR: my sister is married to a (retired) vicar, but it was a second marriage for both of them, and she never really fitted the standard pattern.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed under Nun#Protestantism, Section 2.3.1 Anglicanism, some categories of religious communities containing people who might or might not be called 'nuns' preclude marriage due to the requirement for a vow of celibacy [which presumably is in contradiction to portions of conventional Marriage vows), while others do not and permit it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our male Anglican priest is in a Civil Partnership. And the other half "generally helps out and does Good Works around the parish". How very modern. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Clerical marriage. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why Catholicism is mentioned in the title but not the question. In any case, married Lutheran priests who convert to Catholicism have been ordained as priests since WWII, and more recently married Episcopalian ministers have been granted this exception. And Catholic ≠ Roman Catholic. Byzantine Rite Catholics who are married may become priests, but they may not marry if they undergo ordination first. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Pastoral Provision#Married priests. Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran priests do not exist; same with most protestant denominations. Luther and the other reformers rejected the concept of a Christian priesthood (apart from the priesthood of all believers). - Lindert (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that Apostolic succession#Lutheran claims to apostolic succession and the Porvoo Communion? 92.27.49.50 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article is talking about the succession of bishops, which has nothing to do with the priesthood. The latter is connected to the sacrifice of the mass, whereas protestants do not view the sacrament as a sacrifice. The title 'bishop' (from Greek episcopos) means overseer, that is a leader/pastor/elder in the church. - Lindert (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans are familiar with the reference to "this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" which is part of the Communion service. The word "priest" is from the Latin praepositus, which means "person placed in charge". The article cited says:

The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (LEPC) were some of the earliest Lutherans in America. They have autonomous and congregationally oriented ministries and consecrate male and female deacons, priests and bishops in apostolic succession with the laying on of hands during celebration of Word and Sacrament.

There is controversy over whether the offices of bishop and priest were separate in the early Church or simply alternative names for the same function [1]. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that Anglicanism retains many worship elements from Roman Catholicism. That's why Anglicanism is sometimes described as being somewhere between Protestantism and Catholisism.

The origin of the word priest is not from Latin 'praepositus', but from the Greek word 'presbyteros'. However the etymology is somewhat misleading because modern usage equates 'priests' with people who offer sacrifices on behalf of the common people, as the descendants of Aaron did, even though the Greek word does not actually mean that.

If you look at the LEPC's website, you'll find that they use the word 'priest' only in a universal sense: ("All are called as a royal priesthood.") and do not use it to describe a specific church office: ("Men and women may serve as deacons, overseers, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelist ..."). - Lindert (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese and effing Crackers. This is mere semantic point scoring. The Anglicans ordain priestesses. So what!?!?! μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Anglicanism has diversity built into it, a consequence of the Elizabethan Settlement. Those on the Evangelical wing would use "minister" or "clergyman", whereas those on the Anglo-Catholic wing insist on "priest". The in-between Broad Church has increasingly used "priest" over the last century or so, but some still don't. Words are sometimes important. Alansplodge (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How big is the Wikipedia Cabal? Need to know answer for news report on channel 4, tonight at 11

Not a reference desk question.

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

Hello, I am writing a fearless expose on the secret Wikipedia Cabal which, I am told by my sources, rules this place with an iron-fist. How many individuals are in this top-secret cabal? Would any survivors or political dissidents be willing to share their stories? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B10F:CF21:B8D3:599C:4C7E:5E31 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite happy to tell you all. But then I might have to kill you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're a long ways from April Fools Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago i visited an admin i know at his home and he was chatting with someone called "skyorg", "skygov" or alike (something with sky) about the cooperation with google. The admin also asked about some place in a "bunker". When i asked he said that these all where secret encoded names for internal use in server security staff. He was steward or something he said. No idea what that was but when we smoked some pot later he mumbled something about the boss was always online. Guess its only one person at the top called sky-something. --Kharon (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I heard something like that too, I think it was net, but unfortunately they quickly terminated the conversation as I came in. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a category on Wikimedia Commons commons:Category:Wikipedia Cabal, but most of the images are French Wikipedia in-jokes... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:SCREW Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (list of the cabals which dominate Wikipedia), which is "kept because it is considered humorous". —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C11B:49D1:9CF3:5784 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was Pistorius's resentencing permissable under South African Law

How come that Pistorius sentence can be increased? Don't they have a double jeopardy clause in South Africa? After all, it's a western country, that surely would have a strong influence from European jurisprudence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.96.85 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the sentence is permitted in America, as noted in the Double Jeopardy Clause article. And not all western nations disallow double jeopardy. Italy, for example, re-tried Amanda Knox after she was found not guilty the first time around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Knox case is not really an example of double jeopardy not existing. Italy, like France, merely allows the prosecution as well as the defendant to appeal a sentence. Double jeopardy is forbidden when no appeal is possible (anymore). Regards So Why 11:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the England or Wales, it is possible to appeal to the Attorney General’s Office if it is believed that the original sentence was "unduly lenient". Anyone can ask for a sentence to be reviewed, they don’t have to be involved in the case. If the application is found to be warranted, it is passed to the Court of Appeal for consideration. See Ask for a Crown Court sentence to be reviewed. It's not a retrial, just a review of the decision making which led to the original sentence. This is an innovation of the last few decades, exactly when it was introduced eludes me at present. The South African system seems to be similar in this respect, although Law of South Africa shows that it is markedly different from the English system in other respects. Alansplodge (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can get a reference to the relevant SA law or constitutional clause that covers this, rather than comments about America, Italy, England and Wales? μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The remarks about other countries are relevant to the "After all..." part of the original question. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Pistorius was not simply resentenced. As explained in our article, "the Appeal Court overturned the culpable homicide verdict and convicted him of murder". He was then re/sentenced for the new conviction. This sentence was then extended by the Supreme Court of Appeal. As to whether South Africa has a double jeopardy clause, not that surprising, Our Double jeopardy#South Africa has the part of the South African constitution that deals with this. As to how this relates to Oscar Pistorius, you can see some commentary here [2] [3] [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 16:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the "double jeopardy" rule to be that once acquitted of an offence you could not be put on trial again in respect of the same matters. This was recently changed following the murder of Stephen Lawrence Double jeopardy#Post-2003. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The double-jeopardy clause was written into the US Constitution to prevent that kind of thing. "Don't get a guilty verdict? No problem. Just re-try them!" No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that if the jury simply fails to agree the defendant can be re - tried later. If the judge asks them to return a formal verdict of "not guilty" then you have problems. Scottish law has a third option, "not proven", but I doubt if the defendant could be retried there after such a verdict. In civil cases, an issue can be re - litigated if the judgment was given without going into the merits. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, if no verdict is reached, then it's still an open case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

which US presidents from long ago had a reputation for being dumb?

If we limit the discussion to Presidents from FDR and earlier, which US Presidents were rumored or believed (whether fairly or unfairly) to be not particularly smart in their day?--69.121.235.11 (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln was often derided as a hayseed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that anyone whose opinion mattered for much thought that Lincoln was actually stupid, but some did see him as a kind of rural crackerbarrel philosopher, given to telling anecdotes and funny stories at inappropriate times...

Buchanan wasn't lacking in basic intelligence, but he was kind of weakly-willed or something, since he allowed himself to be easily manipulated by others into taking petulant spiteful decisions which (as could be easily foreseen) were counterproductive to his administration's continuing political influence and the health of the Democratic Party. (Together, these decisions greatly increased the probability that the Civil War would start when it did, and ensured that Buchanan would be perpetually ranked as one of the worst presidents.)

And of course, some people have claimed that William Henry Harrison didn't know enough to come in out of the rain...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren G Harding also had something of a poor reputation in that area, particularly for his coinage of the word "normalcy". Tevildo (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnson, together with Harding, are considered among the less intelligent presidents. That is, with the limitation imposed by the OP. Otherwise, there's serious competition for the post of dumbest president from the post-war incumbents. B8-tome (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

A question about the images on the page on heraldic attitude

What is that thing between the legs of the lion? Not-bot (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzle is the technical term. Tevildo (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a convention that all heraldic beasts are male (apart from the pelican). Wymspen (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the (winged) griffin; a "male griffin" is wingless, nobody knows why, and I don't know if it's even attested. —Tamfang (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude (heraldry), to save someone a search. —Tamfang (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Griffins are generally assumed to be pre-modern interpretations of the fossils of various ceratopsians, especially Protoceratops. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

..." though this hypothesis has been strongly contested" per our article. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when a poet laureate dies?

For example, when Peggy Vining died (I know it may be controversial to ask a question related to that), does she still remain the poet laureate of Arkansas for a bit afterwards until a new laureate is chosen, does a vice/acting poet laureate takes her spot, or is there a brief "interregnum", or does something else happen, or is a new laureate chosen right away and no editors have added that to Wikipedia yet? -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Arkansas, it appears to be up to the Governor. See [5] and [6]. Nanonic (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old poets never die! —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5BE:8B3:6285:3518 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some particle analogous to kingons may be involved. Henry ^Flower 12:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to carry this discussion along this tangent, this is why relativity of simultaneity matters, and why information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. If the information did travel instanteously, then there would exist some frames of reference where the kingon particle (or queon) arrives before it left. That breaks causality. I know we're just being goofy, but if we're also trying to consistently goofy, it bears following the train of thought till it reaches the station. --Jayron 32 14:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

How expensive was owning a car in World War 2?

Were fluids and tires and things more expensive? How far could you drive without using up your ration? Were used cars more expensive since many (all?) manufacturers switched to military vehicles? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, "motor vehicle travel fell dramatically during the war years. Cars that had been nursed through the Depression long after they were ready to be junked were patched up further"^[1] [and] "The national maximum Victory Speed was 35 miles an hour, and driving clubs or carpools were encouraged."^[2] Interestingly, the U.S. Office of Price Administration mandated "no new-car sales to nonmilitary personnel, price limits and mandatory indoor storage of unsold new cars" (of which there were 532,000).^[3] However, none of these sources directly answer your questions. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5BE:8B3:6285:3518 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way:, according to the article Rationing_in_the_United_States, the normal ration for gasoline was 3-4 gallons per week. More was allowed if you were performing work critical to the war effort. You could look up the milage for cars of that era, along with the 35mph limit, and deduce how far you could go. RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 gallons a week? Big deal. In the UK, from 1942 to 1945 you couldn't buy the stuff at all. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[UK] Very cheap. It was difficult and expensive to operate one. Many cars were simply laid up in garages 'for the duration'. Many such owners sold their tyres to those who were still running a car.

But there was also a trade, especially towards the end, of buying up old cars (especially high-end cars) that had been stored and planning to open a garage selling them after the end of the war. The difficulty then was that post-war petrol become quite widely available, and batteries could be obtained from government surplus, but rubber tyres in civilian car sizes were very difficult to get hold of for some years. There was a strong trade in second-hand cars post-WWII, because purchase tax on new ones was deliberately high (new cars were intended for export, not local sale). There was also a large trade in stealing their wheels! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Automobile History - Facts & Summary". HISTORY.com. A+E Networks.
^ "World War II Rationing on the U.S. Homefront". www.ameshistory.org. Ames Historical Society.
^ Jesse Snyder (October 31, 2011). "No new cars, but that didn't stop U.S. automakers, dealers during WWII". Automotive News. Crain Communications, Inc.

Another way of beating petrol rationing was a gas bag, or you could make your own coal gas as you drove along with a miniature towed gasworks like this. Wikipedia seems to lack an article about this (unless you know better). Alansplodge (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wood gas generator. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks WegianWarrior. Somewhat confusing title as the gas in question (in wartime Europe at any rate) was coal gas. Also, users could fill their bags direct from a tap in the gas main at special filling stations, so no generator required. [7] Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of wood gas powered cars in wartime Europe as well, in particularly in the countries where town gas were not common (such as Norway). AFAIK the conversion of the engine is similar, even if I have no ready sources for that.

A bit more wood in Norway than London I suppose :-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest body called "Senate"

What was the smallest legislative body ever called a "senate"? The Senate of Belize has 8 members, and the Delaware Senate had 9 in the 1800s...so are there even smaller ones?!—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Legislative Council of the Isle of Man (which is not called a senate, but serves a parallel function to the senates in various legislatures) had 8 elected members and 2 ex officio ones from 1980-1990, according to our article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about ever, but a good place to start to look for candidates would be the Wikipedia article titled List of legislatures by number of members. --Jayron 32 12:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That list, and the Belize article, indicate that Belize has 12 members in its senate, not the 8 suggested. The list shows Palau and the Northern Mariana Islands as having senates with just 9 members, though the Palau article disagrees. It looks as if the Northern Marianas may hold the current record, and I can't find any references to anything smaller. Wymspen (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, the Northern Marianas has 9 senators by statute, but currently one seat is vacant, which means there are currently 8 members of their Senate. --Jayron 32 15:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate of Liberia has two senators from each county, and at the country's independence, there were just four counties. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Royal conundrum

To this US mind, the following from the BBC doesn't make sense:

...Lady Diana Spencer was never officially Princess Diana. She was the Princess of Wales and, after her divorce from Prince Charles, she was Diana, Princess of Wales
— "Why Prince Harry's wife will not be called Princess Meghan". BBC News. 28 November 2017.

Huh? Was she a "Princess" or not? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:6511:82F:F02B:9988 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Titles_and_styles clears this up, with reference. She was the Princess of Wales, she was a Princess of sorts, but she was never formally, technically, narrowly and properly titled "Princess Diana" (simply, verbatim). See also Forms_of_address_in_the_United_Kingdom, Courtesy_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom, and Royal_Style_and_Titles_Act. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Geesh, thank God for the Revolution)

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:6511:82F:F02B:9988 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As that article points out, even the queen's husband Phil was only the Duke of Edinburgh until Lizzy granted him the title of Prince, in 1957. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true. He was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark from birth until February 1947. See List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that he disowned all his foreign titles when he became a UK citizen. The then Princess Elizabeth married a commoner. An ex-prince, but still a commoner. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, until February 1947. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they married in November 1947. Whatever he may have been prior to that was now an irrelevancy. Bugs' point correctly said that he was not a prince at the time of his marriage, and he remained a non-prince for the next 10 years. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that is torturing the English language a little too far. He did not mention "at the time of his marriage". DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the details from the article: "...the Queen's husband Philip married into the royal family, and yet he is a prince. When he married the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947, the then British King, George VI, created him Duke of Edinburgh. He only became Prince Philip in February 1957 when the Queen accorded him the style and title of a Prince of the United Kingdom." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, Jack of Oz. She married "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh". He was granted the peerage on the morning of the wedding, making him a lord rather than a commoner under British law. Strictly speaking, it was the Duke who married a commoner. A princess and heir presumptive to a kingdom, but still legally a commoner. Surtsicna (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Elizabeth a commoner? I don't think so. See Royal family. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be difficult to comprehend, but the British law is clear: if you are not a peer (or Sovereign, of course), you are a commoner. She could have stood for the House of Commons but not for the House of Lords. King George III had to make his son, Prince William, a peer to prevent him from standing for the Commons. A blog is not exactly a reliable source, but this sums it up nicely and was available after a quick search. Of course, the more common meaning of the word "commoner" is different but also less clear (was someone called "His Royal Highness" really a commoner?). Surtsicna (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty and commoner at the same time? Bizarre. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She could have stood for the House of Commons but not for the House of Lords - not sure why you mentioned the Lords there, Surtsicna, as it is an entirely unelected body. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was not able to sit in the House of Lords, then. You still get my point, I hope: the popular meaning of the word "commoner" does not quite correspond to the legal meaning and whether "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh" was a commoner is debatable to the point of questioning which of the newlyweds was actually a commoner. Surtsicna (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is multiple definitions of Commoner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above discussion is British royal family#Status, the title of Prince or Princess is rigidly defined by British law (in this case, by Letters patent rather than by Act of Parliament, but law nonetheless), as well as the use of the Royal last names of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor. Prince is a title but it is not a title of peerage, so that's why Princes are not automatically Lords (though many princes are eventually grated peerages such as Dukedoms or Earldoms). In many ways, it is not unlike the title of Baronet, which is a title of nobility but not one of peerage. --Jayron 32 16:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Prince Harry promised the title Duke of Sussex (Feb 2013). Not the most reliable source, but it would follow the precedent of Andrew, Edward and William. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake honey from fake bees?

There's an advert on British television at the moment for an American sweet alcoholic drink, which makes a point of it containing "real honey from real bees". Is fake honey from fake bees a thing in America, so that they have to trumpet echt honey when it is used? DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the ads for kids' "healthy snacks" or whatever, that proudly and breathlessly trumpet the almost unbelieveable claim that they contain "X per cent real fruit". I always respond, "Eat an apple. That's 100% real fruit". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google "artificial honey" and you'll find plenty of references. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that looks like a reliable source to me. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here[8] is a Walmart product called "Honey Tree's Sugar Free Imitation Honey". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a European invention, and Victorian. "Invert sugar" is another term for it. Chemically it's a process of converting plant sucrose (from cane sugar in the UK, sometimes beet sugar in mainland Europe) into glucose and fructose. These taste sweeter and more 'honeyed', but they're also more stable for storage and in use for some industrial processes such as baking.

Originally it was termed "artificial honey" as a simple explanation of how it appeared at first taste. As food purity regulations toughened, a more distinct term was required and it was also better marketing to hide terms suggesting artificiality.

Today it's widely used as invert sugar, because of its technical advantages. Less so in the US, where high fructose corn syrup is the cheap industrial sugar of choice. However honey is now getting expensive, owing to increasing scarcity, and (of course) that encourages adulteration. So honey is rarely fabricated from scratch, unlikely to be sold as "artificial honey", but there is a problem (particularly in the US) with adulterated honeys, extended by the addition of this invert syrup. In Europe the faking is still mostly for diluting expensive honeys with cheap honey (Anything labelled Manuka is a prime target). In the US though, the impending extinction of bees (fostered by both pesticides and idiot policies like trans-state mass shipping of bee populations and the resultant epidemics) is likely to change matters fairly soon. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, there's plenty of British Sugar from beets. Rojomoke (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only because of the EU and the CAP. It's not otherwise economic. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note... (I thought it was honey too until someone told me.)

November 29

rosa gravura

Looking for the definition of this phrase. Think it's used in photography but unable to find. -- 2602:304:CFE0:61D9:CCED:E8A7:96B1:83FF (talk · contribs)

I suspect you're thinking of Rotogravure. Not a word you hear often, but it's in the lyrics of "Easter Parade": "On the avenue, fifth avenue, the photographers will snap us, And you'll find that you're in the rotogravure." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content of old newspapers roughly 50 to 100 years ago was black and white text with fairly low quality black and white drawings and photos. Often, a few pages or a section would be printed using the much higher quality rotogravure process, with vibrant colors and higher resolution photos, printed on shiny paper. The rotogravure section might have photos of celebrities and ads by big companies. Here's a description by the Smithsonian Institution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first photographs transmitted by wire – i.e., fax – was sent in 1865. Scanning arose in the 1880s and the radiofax allowed newspapers to make extensive use of photographs by the mid-1920s. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macmillan Publishers vs. Macmillan Science and Education

The lemma is Macmillan Publishers, but at the end of the first paragraph in the History section, suddenly the term Macmillan Science and Education appears. So, are they one and the same thing or where they before? If not, it might be useful to introduce the aforesaid designation, mightn't it? Best regards--Herfrid (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macmillan Science and Education and Macmillan Publishers are divisions of the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. So no, not the same. Henry ^Flower 09:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

Why does Uruguay have a high percentage of irreligious people compared to its neighbors?

I've read the article on Religion in Uruguay, and checked other websites such as Reddit, Quora, and Stack Exchange, but while they all mention that Uruguay has a large irreligious population, they do not detail why. What are the historical and cultural reasons for Uruguay's situation? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find your answer at Uruguay#Religion. It's quite interesting. Surtsicna (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other factors could be that Uruguay is a small fairly urbanized and relatively prosperous country without large concentrations of poverty or recent major instability.

I find it interesting that one major reason why there are a lot more non-religious people in the Czech republic than in Poland is that in Poland the Catholic church was identified with Polish national aspirations, while in Bohemia-Moravia the Catholic church was more or less imposed on the population by means of Germanic military might three times (Great Moravia, Hussite Wars, Winter King), old historical episodes which still seem to have some impact today. AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other factors could have to do with the way that people respond to surveys in Uruguay compared to other countries, or with the way Uruguayans express their religious outlook (which is different from the outlook itself) compared to other countries. There are many reasons why a survey result should be different between two different places, and surveys themselves are notoriously hard to produce consistent, unbiased results. Wikipedia has an article about this, response bias, which is a good start, but it only touches on some of the deep issues with self-reported survey data which would lead to this information. --Jayron 32 12:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron your answers seem irrelevant, as they ignore the history of Uruguay and the presence of organized religions in the area, with data on their adherents. The data is not only based on self-reporting. Dimadick (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are relevant because they provide a reasonable explanation for the data, or at least some of it. Bias in self-reported data is a known problem, and to present explanations of data of this nature while ignoring this factor is folly. My answer was fully relevant because it's a factor in the data which should not be ignored.--Jayron 32 16:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote our article on the subject: "Uruguay's secularization began with the relatively minor role of the church in the colonial era, compared with other parts of the Spanish Empire. The small numbers of Uruguay's indigenous peoples and their fierce resistance to proselytism reduced the influence of the ecclesiastical authorities."

A country where Christianity never had much of an influence, ends up as the most secular state in the Americas. Dimadick (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life estates

If Fred grants Alice an estate that expires when Bob dies, it's a life estate for the life of another. If Alice grants Bob an estate that expires when Bob dies, it's an ordinary life estate. But what if Fred grants Alice and Bob an estate that expires when both grantees are dead? In other words, when Alice dies, Bob has a life estate, or when Bob dies, Alice has a life estate, but Fred doesn't get the property back until both Alice and Bob are dead. What do you call that? A life estate with concurrency? Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In before someone complains about legal advice. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're joint life tenants, and the arrangement is joint life tenancy. (Reference is any google search for the phrase, but e.g. here). Henry ^Flower 21:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the answer the same for all legal systems? Common law, civil law, Sharia law, others? 73.110.38.83 (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at common (Pennsylvania), but I didn't specifying, because the intro to the article made me believe that life estates are found only in common-law systems. At least in Louisiana, there's no concept of a life estate (they use a usufruct), but I don't know about other non-common-law jurisdictions. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

Painting samples?

What are the wallet-sized samples of original artwork called? I used to know this because I used to own some, and I was thinking I might go write/improve the wiki article on the concept...but I can't even remember...AMightierHeart (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miniatures match your description, but they come in various sizes, not just wallets, since they're a centuries-old concept. Is this right, or are you looking for something specifically tailored to today's wallets? Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah, I found it, it was ACEO that I was looking for, apparently there's an article already at Artist trading cards. Thanks for the effort! AMightierHeart (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape trials and compensation? in Roman Judea

This question is inspired via perhaps excessively creative combinations of Jesus in the Talmud and Biblical Magi: basically, suppose a Jewish woman in Judea had been raped by a Roman soldier and gave birth, which I'd suggest actually could truly count as a virgin birth.

1) Would the Romans have cared if one of their soldiers raped local populace, and investigated it?

2) Would the Romans, upon proof of guilt, have offered compensation to a rape victim? (Perhaps even in the form of gold, frankincense, and myrrh?)

3) Would the Jews, Romans, or anyone else in ancient Judea have attempted to prosecute a pregnant unmarried woman for some kind of fornication charge, causing men to question whether she was a rape victim or not?

4) Would travelling to view a newborn baby's features potentially have been used as a means of evidence gathering?

As you can tell from these questions, I really have no idea if there was very much or very little law and order in that time and place. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that too much detail is known, but it seems plausible that local Jewish authorities (ultimately under the Sadducee high priest of the Jerusalem temple) were basically allowed by the Romans to administer Jewish law in disputes among Jews. They were not allowed to inflict the death penalty, and had much less jurisdiction over non-Jews than over Jews. In any case those who were Roman citizens could always appeal directly to the Emperor... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At some point the Jewish penalty was ... not in line with modern notions of justice at all. [12] But presuming (per most versions AFAIK) that Panthera was a Roman soldier, I wonder if he would not have been forced to marry. I assume the fifty shekel fine would be in the ceremonial shekels used by the Temple moneychangers that the Romans did not allow to be circulated anywhere else, so paying it in kind seems plausible. I have no idea if Roman soldiers had any kind of tax or trade advantages that would let them buy frankincense and such at lower prices abroad then count them at full value for purposes of paying fines in Judea. The last issue reconciling those two versions is that the Deuteronomy fine was to be paid to the father, though I'm not sure if her intended relationship with Joseph could have given him some kind of "wali" like status. Obviously I know much too little and could fit any two pieces together with the glue of imagination at this point. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is currently an argument that rape doesn't count as losing one's virginity, would that have been the case in Judea 2,000 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is just a scenario; I'm not trying to defend that bit here, just to demarcate the direction of my interest. Wnt (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"But presuming (per most versions AFAIK) that Panthera was a Roman soldier, I wonder if he would not have been forced to marry. "

Assuming that this Roman soldier was not already married to someone else. Unlike the polygamous marriages of Jews, Egyptians, etc, Roman law only allowed one wife at a time. Per Marriage in ancient Rome: "Marriage in ancient Rome was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by law could have only one spouse at a time. The practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives. Greco-Roman monogamy may have arisen from the egalitarianism of the democratic and republican political systems of the city-states. It is one aspect of ancient Roman culture that was embraced by early Christianity, which in turn perpetuated it as an ideal in later Western culture." ... "In order for the union of a man and woman to be legitimate, there needed to be consent legally and morally. Both parties had to be willing and intend to marry, and both needed their fathers' consent. If all other legal conditions were met, a marriage was made."

Romans typically married during their teenage years: "The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Most Roman women seem to have married in their late teens to early twenties, but noble women married younger than those of the lower classes, and an aristocratic girl was expected to be virgin until her first marriage."

If married, the soldier could be considered guilty of adultery and face consequences.: "A married man committed adultery mainly when his female partner was another man's wife or unmarried daughter. The punishment varied at different periods of Roman history and depending on the circumstances." Dimadick (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number and Amount of Merit Scholarships awarded by the Hammond School (SC)

I added some statistics about merit scholarships to the article on the Hammond School. I used the IRS form 990 filings for the information [13]. Another editor pointed out that I needed a secondary source and removed the information. See Talk:Hammond_School_(South_Carolina)#Scholarships.

According to the 990, the school awards about $1.6 USD million in scholarships to about 25% of students. For a school of this type (former segregation academy), these are unusually large amounts, so I think there is a good chance that it may have been mentioned in secondary sources. I've tried, but can't find any good references.

I suspect that there may be some references in the archives of The State. This newspaper is available through newsbank [14], but my university does not subscribe to this collection.

Billhpike (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter, peacher skin in winter

Fact or myth: white people have lighter and peacher skins during the winter? I don't pay attention to potential differences of people's skin tones between winter and summer. I went to Black Friday shopping and saw numerous people having light, peachy skins rather than blushed reddish skins, though I saw some that have reddish skins. When I go out during the summer, there could be more people having darker, redder skins but I don't compare it with winter just by judgement. Does anyone tell the difference in the proportion of darker and redder skins and lighter and peacher skins between winter and summer just by judgement alone? Planet Star 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-skinned people who have gotten a tan in summertime tend to see their tan fade in the winter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday? Maybe ask Missy Higgins. (Bruce). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not talking about the song, talking about the day during the time of the year when maybe more people have lighter and peacher skins. Planet Star 01:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a myth or wrong assumption. White and colored humans, each have similar, different skin types as subsets. These skin types are genetically predetermined independent from the genes for the color tone. Some black people get sunburns faster than some white people and that skin type is usually also associated with freckles, which allot of black people actually have tho its not as obvious and visible as freckles on pale white skin appear. ~~I think only asians never have freckles but im not shure.~~ There are some differences, like the Irish people more often develop freckles and red hair, but all the variations of Homo sapiens, no matter if you want to categorize them by skin color or ethnic group or not at all, additionally have multiple skin type subsets which usually only dermatologists know and care about. --Kharon (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you claiming as a myth? Alan's linked article explains the mechanism. Dbfirs 11:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That "sunburn" or tan is a specific issue for white people. Besides you can catch a sunburn in winter too, if you decide to take an exessive "sunbath", but most people stay inside their home much more. --Kharon (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the bottom line is that everyone, regardless of race, will tend to get lighter in the winter, because they have less exposure to the sun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and the effect is more noticeable in some skin types. Dbfirs 16:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

(heraldy question) What attitude would be used for pterosaurs and raptors?

--Not-bot (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely rather low because birds first had to develope the needed, adapted skills and senses, like exeptional sharp sight and good isolation against cold, befor it could start to make sense to fly in high altitudes. --Kharon (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is this where you ment to put this? Not-bot (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Rereading the question i found i was lost and i still am, unable to make (my own or any)sense of it again. --Kharon (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In heraldry, the attitude is the position in which an animal stands, sits or lies on the coat of arms - things like rampant, couchant, etc. Any animal (or, more correctly, beast) could be put in any possible attitude, as long as it was acceptable to the family concerned and the court of heralds. Not that I have ever seen any prehistoric beasts so used (assuming that the raptors intended are the dinosaur kind, and not the modern birds). Wymspen (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But would the creatures I listed be considered birds or beasts in heraldic terms? Not-bot (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not-bot -- I don't see why the terms used for birds ("volant" etc.) couldn't be also applied to pterosaurs (see "A Complete Guide to Heraldry" Chapter 14). As for dinosaurs that stood on four feet, the same terms that apply to four-legged animals ("passant") could be applied to them(see "A Complete Guide to Heraldry" Chapter 12). The only special challenge that dinosaurs would pose, as far as I can see, is those whose basic normal standing posture was with two feet and the tail on the ground, but you might call that "rampant"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, could a pterosaur use the attitudes of beasts? Not-bot (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do eagles actually spread like spread eagles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that where you meant to put this? Not-bot (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You're asking whether a pterosaur could use some particular attitude. I'm asking the same about eagles. Where does it say heraldic creatures have to drawn with "realistic" attitudes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pterosaurs were winged creatures, so I would assume that they could be depicted in the same attitudes that any other winged creatures are depicted. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(heraldy question) What attitude is closest to 'wings on the ground'?

Not-bot (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a snap federal election in the US

Are there any circumstances in which a US federal election to Congress or the Presidency could be held outside the normal sequence, or would that be unconstitutional? I know there are special elections if an individual member of Congress needs to be replaced, but I'm asking about a snap election for many if not all the seats at once. Thank you. 82.53.56.191 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Automobile History - Facts & Summary". HISTORY.com. A+E Networks.

[2] "World War II Rationing on the U.S. Homefront". www.ameshistory.org. Ames Historical Society.

[3] Jesse Snyder (October 31, 2011). "No new cars, but that didn't stop U.S. automakers, dealers during WWII". Automotive News. Crain Communications, Inc.

[1]

[2]

[3]