Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 1

Rene Levesque extramarital affairs

Who were the women that Rene Levesque had illegal relationship with, especially the one that he had a child with, according to CBC's tv mini-series on him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.21.68 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any "illegal" relationships apart from those between adults and minors, and incestuous ones? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, he died in '87, so it's possible there were at the time. I'm not familiar with the history of Canadian law on (say) adultery. --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

René Lévesque does not really mention anything but does mention Corinne Côté who he married after his divorce. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography mentions Judith Jasmin but again her article has nothing. You might want to check out these Google hits. Some of them may not be the best of sources and some of the women mentioned may/are still living so I won't mention them here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OP, you will want to be careful and take what you saw on the miniseries with a gran of salt. I have not seen the one in question but, if it is like most bios done for TV (or film for that matter,) some of what they showed will be accurate but other parts will have been altered for any number of reasons. These can include dramatic arc and/or trying to avoid being taken to court by those portrayed. MarnetteD | Talk 01:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

St Vincent churches in the USA

One can find plenty of American Catholic churches dedicated to St Vincent; see fr:Église Saint-Vincent-de-Paul de Bedford for a substantial article about one of them, written in French. But how many of these are dedicated to St Vincent de Paul: are most of them his, or are there plenty dedicated to other Saint Vincents? Bedford's easy, since they have an inscription over their entrance, but one often doesn't see such a thing, and anyway you often can't learn much about a place that you've not visited. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit of a guess, but I imagine that plain old "Saint Vincent" is going to refer to Vincent of Saragossa, while later Vincents might well be disambiguated, like your example for Vincent de Paul. Most of the US examples I foundon Google make it clear in their full title which one they mean; for instance St. Vincent Martyr Parish, New Jersey refers to Vincent of Saragossa. Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What can most accurately be said about optimal working hours?

Recently this very convincing relation between hours worked per year and productivity from an article in The Economist came to my attention about the same time that this Science article on how sleep removes neurotoxins from the brain was published. The productivity graph suggests at first glance like 27 hours per week is the optimal number to work for maximum productivity, but what about for maximum total output? Trying to say something accurate is difficult because of confounding factors. For example, workers who know they are more productive at 27 hours are likely to be better informed than other workers, and therefore might charge more than their competition who are also willing to work longer, crowding out the former group in the buyer's labor markets that regulators prefer. I am loath to get into image uploads after seeing how they effect some editors, so I really want to know how to summarize that relationship accurately. EllenCT (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you ignore outliers and look at the trend alone, it looks like the fewer hours you work the higher your productivity per hour. However, the graph doesn't extend to zero hours, and there are many confounding factors. For example, those who work fewer hours are often part-time workers, who may be lower skilled than those offered full-time employment, and this may affect their productivity as well. In short, productivity may affect the number of hours worked. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as maximizing total output, you'd want workers to work far more hours to achieve that. However, there are also confounding factors there. For example, if there is a set amount of work to be done by a company, then having one person work longer hours increases their total production, but might decrease other worker's, as the first worker takes over some of their tasks.

Something else you didn't mention is how the type of work matters. For example, I'm a computer programmer, and find I need to be much fresher for coding or debugging than for testing, which is hours of repeating the same test with one condition changed at each step.

Another consideration is whether they include time used to travel to and from work, check in, start up the equipment, etc. If that was included, then short days become far less efficient, as the amount of nonproductive time stays the same, while the productive time goes down. Now, as an employer you might think you could ignore travel time in your productivity calculations, but that could lead you to have people work short days, lose money due to their travel expenses, and therefore quit and go elsewhere.StuRat (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Compared to the ~10% correlations I often see in relations that conventionally are thought to be strong, the graph doesn't really have any substantial outliers. And when you multiply the productivity times the hours, 27 per week (1400 per year) still dominates. I agree part time workers may appear to be more productive because they aren't drawing as many benefits, and need to look much more closely there, as well as at the issues for the type of work, travel time, and daily less productive ramp up periods. Thank you, Stu! (I also experience ramp up periods; they are usually shorter when I am well rested, and I suspect that may be true for most workers.) EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[1], [2] may be useful to those who found OP's link interesting. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Correlation / causation / data quality. Union data, and personal industry sampling are indicative of massive over work in Australia. My industry's nominal working year is 1620 hours. The actual is around 3000. Also, optimum total output by what measure? Most industries are at market saturation and total use-value output isn't nearly as important as maximised value output, which requires realisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Would you please elaborate each of those clauses? EllenCT (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Shorter working hours don't cause higher GDP. Higher GDP empowers labour against capital, labour tends to prefer shorter working hours. The data quality is likely to be poor, for example, Australia has a working year of 38*47 (4 weeks annual leave, 1 weeks worth of week day public holidays) or 1786 hours. My industry, in Australia, has a nominal working year of 1620ish hours. The actual number of hours worked per year in my industry is around 3000. Data sources are incredibly poor for this, in part, because statistical agencies are instructed to construct statistics in certain ways, almost all of which conceal overwork. "Total output" means what? Bananas per hectare? Bananas per hour? US Dollars per hour? Most industries can't sell more bananas, their problem isn't selling bananas but selling bananas profitably. "Maximisation of output" is in our societies, maximisation of dollar value outputs that can be realised as profit, not of volume of bananas produced. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

For info, the UK has excellent data on actual hours worked. But I don't think it's possible to crunch it to show the working hours that are optimal for productivity, because productivity isn't available for local areas or for industries. GDP is available for local areas but the measure is quite meaningless for a number of reasons. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome that UK has that data. In Australia I've tended to find that the Bureau of Statistics has a number of nicely crafted essays around the place that amount to, "And that's why this measure is grossly misused, and isn't constructed to measure what people would like it to measure." Fifelfoo (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Escorts in London

What is the rate of a London escort? How to get an escort job? How to get more clients? --Hillsgod333 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt escorts are available for rent anymore, as they stopped manufacturing them a decade ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire... Tevildo (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OP might get some ideas from sites like this. There are plenty of alternatives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

How to get more clients? Give better service or more bang for the buck, and then word of mouth will do the trick. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Do they have ratings like restaurants do? Such as, anything less than 100 could involve things like drug usage, crabs, STDs, etc. And those ratings could certainly affect the ability to attract clients. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's presumably a much higher demand for escorts in London, what with the crookedity of its streets, and lack of a rational numbering system, compared with places like Manhattan, with more civilized layout. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

See The Knowledge for how this particular problem is resolved. Tevildo (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite interesting, I had been aware of that, and it is brought up in the NYC press on occasion when news is slow. I was more thinking of a walking escort though. For example, I had the occasional pleasure of walking Quentin Crisp through various parts of downtown Manhattan towards the end of his life. That was more due to his frailty than the street addresses being confusing, though. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Punternet. Nanonic (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny, Jefferson Hope in A Study in Scarlet says that he learns London by studying a map while driving his cab; Conan Doyle seems to do his best to be detail-accurate, so I never imagined that this would be impossible. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cabs were horse-drawn in those days, so they could proceed at a leisurely pace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but according to the article, The Knowledge started to be required in 1865, some years before the setting of A Study in Scarlet. He says that he simply went up to a cab owner, who gave him equipment and required him to turn in a certain amount of money per week. Perhaps it's implied that the whole operation is illegal? Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Are American pilots' letters being censored during WW2?

I had just read Arthur Miller's All My Sons, and one detail of the plot seems questionable to me: Larry wrote to Ann in a letter that he planned to commit suicide because he is ashamed of his father shipping out defective plane parts--which is not known to the characters until Ann revealed Larry's letter. I think there should be some kind of censorship of letters during war time, or it is easy to leak intelligence.--Wwtt1133 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Letters sent by US servicemen in WWII were censored, but not completely, and surely the extent different from censor to censor. I'm speaking here not from a published source, but from my own family's knowledge. When my grandfather wrote back to his mother while he served in North Africa, any mention of where he was at the time was removed (they also removed his mention of seeing Casablanca, and we always wondered if they were just mindlessly blacking out place-names). But otherwise the letters got through fine. I'm not sure what they would have done with information such as about engine parts. I'm not familiar with the play, but then again, it is fiction after all. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think if the censorers do look at the letter, the mentioning of trying to suicide should get immediate attention.--Wwtt1133 (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I recall Walter Cronkite talking about reporting on the War. He said the news services were only allowed to publish information that could be reasonably expected to be already known to the enemy. Possibly the same principle with soldiers' letters to their homes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

When I was a child, my parents owned this book (and presumably still do), which consists of anecdotes from soldiers/sailors/airmen/etc during the war, together with some from noncombatants and family members who were at home throughout the war. There's a decent chunk on censorship, including an old lady who shows up to her husband's unit's reunion to show the former censor a letter that he'd cut to pieces, as well as an airman who told his parents his location by changing his father's middle initial in the address (e.g. if he were sent to Casablanca, his first letter would be addressed to Mr. Firstname C. Lastname, his second to Mr. Firstname A. Lastname, etc), and maybe some comments by censors about the difficulty of their work. Censorship was definitely important, since the goal was to ensure that the enemy couldn't gain new war-related information by capturing mail; this is basically another method of enforcing the slogan of "loose lips sink ships". Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding All My Sons, is this letter an unintended flaw of the plot, or did Arthur Miller imply something(for example, the letter was known to Larry's forces and news agencies, but it was not put on papers because it will damage morale or affect Joe Keller's case)?--Wwtt1133 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Going slightly off-topic (perish the thought), I was amused by one British Tommy's ruse to foil the WWI censors. Wanting to let his family know that he was at the British depot at Poperinghe in Belgium, he sent a letter to "Mr. P. O. Peringhe" at his home address. It worked. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sacred sword (preah khan) of Khmer king Suryavarman_II (Paramavishnuloka)

I cannot find as much as the name of this legendary weapon which seems to be as culturally important as King Arthur's Excalibur. So far the best source for any informration on it seems to be towards the end of episode 9, season 3 of ancient aliens, "Aliens and Deadly Weapons" where it is hypothesized it is a light saber or plasma sword. I would like to know what ancient text actually mentions this sword, and what texts mention other legends involving Suryavarman II's, like the construction of Angkhor Wat by magic water. Currently wikipedia makes no mention of any of these legends. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you got that info from the Ancient Aliens TV series, it might well be fictional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Fictional fiction? That would be a bit low even for Ancient Aliens.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

While Suryavarman II is historical figure; who dedicated Angkhor Wat to Vishnu, another source relates a legend that states is was built on the orders of Indra for his son Precha Ket Mealea. Paramavishnuloka, Precha Ket Mealea. and Preah Pisnouka are all very sounding similar names makes the matter extra confusing to determine if they are different people or the same; however that the temple would be dedicated to two clearly different gods is more notable. Still no reference to the magic sword or water. I agree that ancient aliens would at least use a real legend, like how they use real medieval paintings.

A sword is definitely part of the royal regalia of Cambodia (although today it’s a replica, the original having gone missing in the civil war). Here is a picture of it. It’s kept at the Hor Samritvimean, or Royal Treasury, along with the crown and “the Victory Spear” and was used at King Norodom Sihamoni’s coronation in 2004. I can only find one reference to it having legendary powers: Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia which says “the royal sword of Cambodia which, it is believed, if drawn from its scabbard without the prescribed ritual, would bring disaster upon the country”. However, I couldn’t find any link with Suryavarman II in particular as opposed to other kings or the royal line generally, or any reference to an ancient text. Taknaran (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2

European Fairy Tales

I remember reading three traditional European fairy tales a long ago and now I'm trying to identify them.
1) I don't remember much of it. There's a blind giant who has a girl as a servant. A guy try to save her but an evil cat warns the giant. But they are able to escape. The story continues somehow.
2) A probably French boy has a silver thread. Unwindng/pulling it makes the time go faster. So he's able to skip things like war or jail.
3) A king of a fairy kingdom turns turnips into people. But they wither/shrivel too fast like the vegetable.
Do they ring a bell to anyone? --151.41.188.110 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm drawing blanks. Jack and the Beanstalk, no idea, and maybe some derivation of King Midas? EllenCT (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they weren't Jack and the Beanstalk or King Midas. They were from a collection of traditional European fairy tales and there was one story for every main European country. For example Baba Yaga was the tale for Russia. The second story of my list should be French. They were all "traditional" and "local" and not made up for the book. And there wasn't any ancient Greek myth. --151.41.188.110 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what the first is, but the second one is The Magic Thread] (click the link and scroll down to the bottom of the page.) The Third is "King Turnip Counter" and I think the book is Fairy Tales by Nikolai Ustinov. The six stories in the book are The Magic Thread (France); King Turnip Counter (Germany); Cap o' Reeds (England); The Seven Doves (Italy); The 3 Oranges (Spain); The Witch's Swans (USSR). One of those might be your first story. I had great fun searching for this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And the first does indeed seem to be The Seven Doves, complete with blind ogre, girl and cat (version here.). Nice find, Richard-of-Earth. - Karenjc (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Books wasn't showing me anything for Richard's link to The Magic Thread, but another link is here. Alansplodge (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical Theorists and Mathematical Sociology

The most prominent invention of positivist sociologists, I think, is the mathematical sociology and the quantitative subfields it spawned. According to some online articles, mathematical sociology is an "established sub-discipline in sociology", and it’s true according to different leading journals today. But what do critical theorists and antipostivists think of this mathematical sociology? Do they criticize it as well? Does Wikipedia have a specific article about this?49.144.142.14 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Instrumentalism is broadly criticised for its naive relationships to theory. The SEP has a good article with sections worth reading here and here. Here's a more specific attack from 1978 Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Congressmen from the District of Columbia

I've heard of DC's shadow senators before (cf Shadow congressperson), but only tonight did I learn that DC also elects a shadow representative. Apparently this person generally isn't the same as their Delegate to the House of Representatives. Is this some official policy decision, e.g. the Democratic Party leadership does its best to ensure that different people are nominated for the two positions? Or is this some sort of requirement of the "state" constitution mentioned at the end of the intro to the shadow congressperson article? Or is this simply the way things have worked out, e.g. delegates don't feel like running for shadow representative and vice versa? Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The positions exist under different legal frameworks. The shadow representatives are elected under DC's state constitution, but since this constitution is not recognized by the US Congress, which has not admitted DC as a state, the shadow representatives aren't seated, don't have any rights in Congress whatsoever, and are in effect no more than lobbyists. DC's official delegate to the House of Representatives is elected under a federal law passed by Congress, is recognized by Congress, and does have limited rights within the House of Representatives. The strong position of the DC government and populace is that DC should be a state, so they hold elections for shadow representatives as if they were a state (as well as for their legally sanctioned delegate). If DC were admitted as a state under its voter-approved constitution, then the shadow representatives would become actual representatives and take the place of the official delegate. At the moment, these are four separate positions, and there is no reason why any individual should hold more than one of them. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War, Anglo-Spanish War, Anglo-Dutch Wars, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War

To what degree did the Jacobite/Williamite feud have to do with James, Duke of York, becoming proprietor of the former New Netherland? Also, in tandem, the domino question asks how Prince George of Denmark-Norway fit into this same scenario regarding the late New Sweden? Are there any records from the period or papers since then commenting upon these motives, or have they always been unacknowledged, under the table?

It cannot be purely coincidence that these two men wedded and bedded the Protestant daughters of the king who had personal possession of New York, which contained both the Dutch and Scandinavian colonies, while his Catholic heir represented a further revival of the Auld Alliance. The time, place, and circumstances argue further interest than mere evolution and convenience of dynastic relations would imply. It is a parallel interest in the Kings of England having indirect title to New France, leading to the Conquest of New France and Quebec retaining the only French monarchy left on Earth in a curious repetition and/or continuation of English pretenders to France itself. It's as if, since the King of England was denied the Crown of France by competition from the Valois and Bourbon dynasties, along with the Revolutionary Bonapartes, then Canada was consolation. I have noticed that the cultural proponents of New York and Quebec make sure to emphasize the Dutch and French basis of these English lands and institutions supplanting them, as if the English were just an imposed veneer. At least the US and Canada would be English on the whole, but Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-French in the Mid-Atlantic States and Central Provinces. In some senses, it feels like the descendants of the English conquerors themselves are playing up a moribund but exaggerated multiculturalism or bilingualism in order to memorialize the conquests, otherwise these places would have been forgotten in having any essential distinction from the rest of the states and provinces inhabiting the same countries.

Could it be that the Monarchy in Canada, along with Stephen Harper and the Tories, deliberately stress the French heritage to maintain their ties to the old Kingdom of France deposed by the French Republic, by holding onto the last of it like the Channel Islands remain the Duchy of Normandy, or Northern Ireland stands in for the Kingdom of Ireland? Could it be that because the Dutch used to be ruled by Spain as part of the Burgundian inheritance, the US has been subject to Anglo-Spanish bilingualism more befitting the old Republic of Texas alone? Would social tension between Americans and Mexicans go back to Anglo-Dutch Calvinist ancestors fighting to free themselves from Habsburg Spain, the Duke of Guise and the Spanish Armada, but ironically by winning those wars, now have descendants of the former New Spain trying to turn the tables again?

Then there is the case of St. Pierre and Miquelon showing France trying to hold on from the other side. It is ironic that Old England had to deprive New England of title to New France on account of not securing Old France, thus leading to the Intolerable Acts and Articles of Confederation in which Quebec was an explicitly-mentioned reason for the breach. All the same, going back to New Netherland, I think New York was made the capital of the early American Republic in order to capitalize on that conquest, even if Quebec was the ultimate object of American expansionism--just like how Toronto was originally named York for New York, there is an overlap and relationship between the two English conquests.

Would it be fair to say that Southern American Loyalists owed their affinity to the House of Hanover by the foundation of the Province of Georgia, like how the Loyalists in the Province of New York were tied to the House of Orange, and that states preceding the Restoration tended to be the strongest Patriot bulwarks toward Independence? Would Irish republicanism as a form of nationalism have its roots in the same period as rebuffing the Orangist takeover as American republicanism also shook off the new constitutional monarchy staffed by foreign "British" monarchs? Both English and Irish veins of republicanism come from Cromwellian preservation of the Anglo-Irish Tudor inheritance, yes? Is this really far off or not? Surely, it is easy to see the connections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.95.180 (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to see (what seems to be) a more concise version of this question, have a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_September_5#Comparison_of_loyalism_and_republicanism_in_British_Isles_.26_North_America. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Rmhermen (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

An essay, WP:TLDR, has been created in answer to this very "question"! μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

When did "London" start to refer to areas outside of the City of London, and why?

I've read several articles on the history of the City of London, but nothing that tells me when "London" acquired its present meaning. When and why did this happen, and are there similar stories for other cities?--Leon (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As regards London, our article on the City of London says that as early as the 16th century the name "London" was being used to mean the wider built up area, not just the area within the city walls. As the maps in the history of London article show, by 1600 London had expanded south of the Thames, into Southwark, and west along the north bank of the Thames, towards Westminster. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Although none of it was officially "London" until the creation of the London County Council County of London in 1889. Before that, bodies with a remit across the whole London area called themselves "Metropolitan"; the Metropolitan Police District (1829), the Metropolitan Board of Works (1856) and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (1865). Large areas of the conurbation were omitted from the County of London; the part that had spilled over the River Lea into Essex was known as "London over the Border" until 1965 when Greater London was formed. Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be the natural process for any city that experiences a continuous growth beyond its original area of foundation. In fact I would be hard pressed to name a large city in modern times where this hasn't occurred. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

For Paris the process still isn't complete. If you just say "Paris" people may assume that you mean the administrative area consisting of 20 arrondissements. To be clear, you can specify Paris intra muros. "Greater Paris", Paris plus grand doesn't refer unambiguously to any particular area. The region parisienne is a very wide area. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In 1563, concerns about the possible outbreak of plague, the authorities began collecting weekly returns of the number of deaths from the parishes around the City of London (known as Bills of Mortality). These collection of parishes were the basis, in 1855, for the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Do you have a source for that? It could go in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

From the 1540s 'a city' was just any town that had a Cathedral, nothing more nothing less. So one has in the UK (for example) the City of St Albans, which is so tiny you can walk from one side to the other in ten minutes and that includes staggering from side to side after you have had a pint or too many in Ye Olde Fighting Cocks. From what I can gather, it was to make the delivering of post easier, by naming the nearest city (eg London) as the horse drawn post coaches ran city to city. --Aspro (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, but St Albans is governed by the St Albans City and District Council, whose writ extends over 62 square miles. In the 19th century, the wealthy burghers of the City of London refused to accept any responsibility for the sprawling slums that were growing apace just outside their traditional borders; such are their ancient privileges that they were free to ignore the national government if they chose. Hence the Metropolitan authorities had to be established by parliament, rather than the Corporation of London shouldering their obligations and widening the bounds of London proper. Alansplodge (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Think you'll find that District Council's came in much later. Back then you had the parish council for each parish. Only much later did Hertfordshire adopt St Albans as the 'shire' district council. [Francis Bacon] was 1st Viscount of St. Alban but vis. Roland Lytton whom was (around the same approximate time) MP for Hertfordshire. Their powers were were independent. Oh, it is time like this, I wish I had misspent more of my youth (such as smoking cigarets behind the school bicycle-sheds with the Head-Girl), rather than knuckling down to my studies and learning a lot of useless factoids that I never served me any good. I should have shunned math also and stuck to simple arithmetic -so as to become a rich banker.--Aspro (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it was the Local Government Act 1888 which created District Councils, however they were preceded by Poor Law Unions and Sanitary District Unions which allowed the parishes in a given area to pool their resources for work houses, hospitals and sewers. This never happened in London, or it wouldn't have done if the City had been left to organize things as it should have done. The end result is that in the 21st century, we have the unique situation of a Lord Mayor of London and a Mayor of London. Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Don't tell me any more about that! 'Unique' not quite.... This is one of the ding bat ideas they picked up from Government of New York City. --Aspro (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There was also the much lamented "GLC" , the "Greater London Council"85.211.141.203 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however Greater London still exists and is now administered by the Greater London Authority, when it was found that the 32 London Boroughs couldn't do the GLC's job after all. How much one laments rather depends on one's political views. Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the youngest city in the world?

Damascus is often called the 'oldest continually inhabited city in the world' - what is the youngest? By this I don't mean something like Fairview, USA, or anywhere which recently attained "city status" but has actually had people living there in a smaller settlement for hundreds of years. I mean what is the youngest city where you could go back in time and there would be literally nothing there? I thought it might be Canberra, which celebrates its centenary this year, but perhaps there are other planned capitals that are even younger? Something in the former communist world, maybe? I know Napyidaw was built less than a decade ago but it's basically right next to an existing town. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Try Brasília. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Milton Keynes. --Viennese Waltz 11:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

...except that MK is not formally a "city", just a large town. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but according to our article; "Milton Keynes competed for formal city status in the 2000, 2002 and 2012 competitions, but was not successful. Nevertheless, the term "city" is used by its citizens, local media and bus services to describe itself, perhaps because the term "town" is taken to mean one of the constituent towns." See also Milton Keynes City F.C.. The UK is extraordinarily picky about who gets to call themselves a city. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Much more recent than Brasilia is Naypyidaw, founded on a greenfield site in 2002 but with a population of 925,000 by 2009. Our article doesn't say that it's "basically right next to an existing town", so I don't understand why it's being discounted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who's discounting anything? I think we're all learning here. I certainly am. HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User:220.239.203.14. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Naypyidaw's article says it is 3km from the town of Pyinmana, and in my opinion 3km is absolutely nothing when talking about a city of any size. I'm Australian, I don't know if we consider cities separately - when I say "city" I mean the entire metro area, and I would assume that if Naypyidaw has grown to nearly a million people then it's swallowed up the existing town, which would now form a very old neighbourhood within that city. We are all learning, though - greenfield is a useful term, and I'm basically thinking of cities that were built on that and didn't have any pre-existing settlements around to absorb. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to add Pyongsong, but it was established as far back as 1969. I would guess there are some other recent examples in China (surely, they can't all be ghost cities?). --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Chinese drive to develop their economy has resulted in a number of new cities being constructed. Tieling New City has attracted a fair bit of media attention because few people have actually moved into it. We have an article on Tieling which is the original city 10 km down the road. We do have an article on Nanhui New City which was founded in 2003.

I would consider China's "new cities" (I recall visiting New Dali) to be examples of a satellite city outside an existing older city, though - with the two generally likely to merge in the next 10 years if they haven't already. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List of cities in China contains some candidates which seem to have been "founded" within the last decade, though it's not altogether clear from their articles whether this is simply an administrative change or the foundation of a new settlement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See also Category:Planned cities which throws up examples such as Ciudad Guayana in Venezuela, which was founded in 1961 but incorporates two smaller towns which stood there beforehand. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Belmopan in Belize, founded in 1970, which certainly seems from its article to have been on a greenfield (well, green forest) site. It's still quite small in size, however. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Then there’s Oyala, currently being built [3] in the middle of the jungle and planned to be the future capital of Equatorial Guinea. Taknaran (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ayn Rand had a crush on Saint Petersburg, for which she worked as a tour guide, and which she credited to Tsar Peter the Great, who raised it from the swamp by the force of his will. The founding of Alexandria as a "new" city is also a fascinating story. It seems founding a world-class city is a great way to get the epithet "The Great" attached to your name. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Being strong-willed can result in effective leadership, but it's not enough. I would bet several rubles that Peter the Great had to resort to bringing in some stonemasons to get the job done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have been a relic of her Nietzschean childhood, as she was vociferously anti-FDR and other public-works issues by the 1930's. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A social Darwinist: "If they can't find work, let 'em starve." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no betting required, Bugsy. From Saint Petersburg: The city was built by conscripted peasants from all over Russia; a number of Swedish prisoners of war were also involved in some years[18] under the supervision of Alexander Menshikov. Tens of thousands of serfs died building the city. And from History of Saint Petersburg: The city was built under adverse weather and geographical conditions. High mortality rate required a constant supply of workers. Peter ordered a yearly conscription of 40,000 serfs, one conscript for every nine to sixteen households. Conscripts had to provide their own tools and food for the journey of hundreds of kilometers, on foot, in gangs, often escorted by military guards and shackled to prevent desertion, yet many escaped, others died from disease and exposure under the harsh conditions. ... The new city's first building was the Peter and Paul Fortress, ... The marshland was drained and the city spread outward from the fortress under the supervision of German and Dutch engineers whom Peter had invited to Russia. Peter restricted the construction of stone buildings in all of Russia outside of St Petersburg, so that all stonemasons would come to help build the new city. ... At the same time Peter hired a large number of engineers, architects, shipbuilders, scientists and businessmen from all countries of Europe. Substantial immigration of educated professionals eventually turned St. Petersburg into a much more cosmopolitan city than Moscow and the rest of Russia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

“where you could go back in time and there would be literally nothing there”. I would go with HiLo48's Brasília It was founded on April 21, 1960, to serve as the new national capital. The other contenders would be the new cities of Soviet Russia of the 1930's. The planners of the new state reasoned: Now we are no longer capitalist's, we don't have to build new industries were there is already a population of skilled workers. We can build new cities westward, into our newly annexed land of Siberia and move our workers there. So new cities spouted up all over the place 'in the middle of nowhere' during this period.--Aspro (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Entering the Kaaba?

After reading the article Kaaba I found out that it is hollow, and has separate structures inside. But do Muslims actually enter the Kaaba at any time during the Hajj, or otherwise? I couldn't find out from the articles Kaaba or Hajj whether this is actually done. JIP | Talk 17:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read Jaylen's answer at the bottom of this forum page. Omidinist (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

From illustrations I've seen, it appears that the interior of the Kaaba consists of some modestly ornate decor; an original copy of the Quran autographed by Muhammed at a book-signing event; and a little kiosk where you can get nifty stuff like a sand globe of an oasis, or a T-shirt with an Arabic slogan which translates roughly as "I came to Mecca and all I got was this wonderful T-shirt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

To consolidate the forum content here: According to Ar-Raheeq al Makhtum, Rasul said Uthman bin Talha's family would take care of the Kaaba. There is a biannual ceremony "the cleaning of the Kaaba" about fifteen days before the start of Ramadan and about fifteen days before the start of the annual pilgrimage. The Banī Shaybat (بني شيبة ) tribe has the keys and allow visitors including foreign dignitaries/diplomats who use brooms to clean the building directed by the governor of Mecca. The interior has a marble floor and half-way up the walls with tablets with Quranic inscriptions inset into it, with the upper walls covered in gold Quranic verses embroidered into a green cloth. It is furnished only with lamps from a cross beam and has a table for incense burners. The marble is anointed during the cleaning with the same scented oil used to anoint the Black Stone outside.

Anyway, besides pointing out Wikipedia has some deficiencies, this leads to the obvious question of whether any of these Bani Shaybat folks can be persuaded to contribute images to Commons. :) Wnt (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

France's time zone

Western European Time in indigo

Since World War 2, have there been any proposals to put France back in the Western European time zone where it previously was? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything. Any change would put France out of step with all of her neighbours except the UK, so I think it's a bit unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, not if Spain were in a sensible zone as well. People have a tendency to report, in shocked tones, how late Spaniards eat/sleep/do this or that, but by Sun time, it's really not all that late. Or sometimes it is, but still not as late as it sounds. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Spain changed time zones because Franco wanted to be chummy with Hitler, rather than any rational debate. They could always change back if they wanted to. Alansplodge (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I did find a 1997 report to the French Senate called Faut-il en finir avec l'heure d'été ? (perhaps "Should we do away with Summer Time?"). If accepted, this would have put France on the same time as the UK (British Summer Time) between April and October. It wasn't. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And the Spanish still talk about doing it occasionally. - Karenjc (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

do also note that France extends across many different time zones, what is being discussed here is merely Metropolitan France. --02:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 3

Caracalla's hair color?

Caracalla, 22nd Emperor of Rome

Do we know the various Roman emperors' hair colors? Is it known whether Caracalla was fair-haired, red-haired, or dark-haired? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually we do. Let me find that link again. May take a minute.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is not one of the emperors who was mentioned in such a way by contemporaries, but here is the list: [4].--Mark Miller (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that list gives through Commodus, last before the Severan dynasty to which Caracalla belonged. I have always imagined him a redhead, and wonder if there's some basis for this. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

One of my hobbies is copying classic paintings. This is one I have been working on a while and I doubt it is accurate, but it depicts Caracalla and family as "Italians" of dark skin tone and hair.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Now here is something I was unaware of. Our article describes Caracalla as being of Berber decent, from North Africa west of the Nile Valley. It appears the painting may be attempting to show that decent in some manner but it is unclear what his true skin tone would have been, but is likely he had dark to black hair, not red or auburn which was a characteristic of the Julian line. Interesting. learn something new here everyday!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he was a quarter Libyan Berber, a quarter Italian, and half Syrian. This is not a combination that would be likely to result in red hair, though it is not inconceivable. More likely, he was dark brown or black haired. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a look at wikiquote:Berber people. Here's some excerpts about their physical appearance:

• "Many of them present the purest type of the blonde races, blue or gray eyes, tawny beard, fair complexion, curly light or reddish hair, muscular in build and often tall in stature."
• "A very large proportion of fair (sometimes golden) hair, blue eyes, and complexions, especially in the case of young children, who lack the tan produced by years of exposure to the fierce heat of the summer sun..."
• "They are distinctly white-skinned, even when sunburned. Usually they have black hair and brown or hazel eyes, some have yellow hair and blue eyes."
• "Like all other Berbers, the Riffians include standard Mediterraneans in their tribal populations. Among these Mediterraneans the incidence of elements of blond hair and blue eyes is a bit higher than the usual twenty-five percent. (...) Concentrated in the more isolated tribes in the central Rif, the older strain is characterized by individuals of stocky build, with large heads, broad faces, low orbits, large teeth, and broad noses. While variable in pigmentation, these individuals, who look like Irishmen, run to red hair, green eyes, and freckles."
• "When the Spaniards conquered these islands in the fifteenth century, they found a distinct population with some blond-haired and blue-eyed people – traits that are still evident among some Berbers in Morocco."

— Kpalion^(talk) 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Red hair is present in a small minority of Berbers, especially in Morocco and Algeria. However, Caracalla's ancestors were Libyan Berbers. See this page for some photos of Libyan Berbers today. A couple of the people shown (maybe 1% of this sample) are blond, but no real redheads. Libyan Berbers were one quarter of Caracalla's ancestry. Another quarter was Italian. Again, redheads are not unknown in Italy, but they are rare. Finally, a full half of his ancestry (his mother's side) was Syrian and probably Arab. Red hair is virtually unknown in that population. So there is a tiny chance that Caracalla was red headed, but it would be surprising. Marco polo (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow...great work!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Swiss Guards and the Pope

Why is it that Swiss Guards – as opposed to Italians (or perhaps Romans) – serve as guards for the Pope and the Vatican? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See the Vatican history on the subject. [5].--Mark Miller (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to nutshell it as it is a rather interesting read.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

We also have our own article, called, strangely enough, Swiss Guard. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Military in Vatican City.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I have seen and read those articles. They explain (in the affirmative sense) why it is that the Pope and the Vatican do use the Swiss Guards. I guess the question I was asking is really more in the negative counterpart: why is it that they do not use some Italian military force or guard? A subtle – but important – distinction, I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• See unification of Italy. The Papal States were the last territories to be incorporated into Italy, and during that time, Italy was seen as the enemy, while the Swiss guards are an otherwise neutral mercenary force. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The tradition of the Swiss Guard is much older than united Italy, but μηδείς is right in the sense that the Papal States had been warring with other Italian states for centuries before the unification. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Vatican is an independent nation/state and is under no obligation to use Italian forces.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a state, but I wouldn't call it a nation. I doubt that there are any native-born Vaticanians. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, there are. Disappearance_of_Emanuela_Orlandi. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Our Vatican City article says; "The military defence of Vatican City is provided by Italy and its armed forces". Countries without armed forces or no standing army says; "Vaitcan City - Maintains a Gendarmerie Corps for internal policing. The Swiss Guard is a unit belonging to the Holy See, not the Vatican City State. There is no defense treaty with Italy, as it would violate the Vatican’s neutrality, but informally the Italian military protects Vatican City." Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a result of the Lateran Treaty of 1929. It accounts for external security, not internal, and long postdates the presence of the Swiss Guard. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Pencil it in. It's gonna be one hell of party.

"We do not answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Scot[']s law is the legal system of Scotland. It is a hybrid or mixed legal system."--Wikipedia There are several islands off the coast of Normandy. Some people in my vicinity self-identify with the Irish. (And indeed they have an innate knowledge of the methods and sources of "party-tology" if I may employ a neologism). However, a special branch in my metaphorical heart exists for those clannish sorts who enjoy a rousing tra-la-la any day of the week, no special raison d'etre required. Now, in mid-September of the coming year, the English aka Shakespear's "invidious Albion" question mark, may present a present, a "gift" to be inexact (let's not argue). The "gift", something like, quote liberty and justice for all unquote. Some may, in good faith, call this a dream produced by pipe inhalation. However, were a significant fraction of Scot-Americans to, once enlightened, reverse deport themselves back to their Spiritual Homeland, the result of the voting would be clear, through the use of present-day polling techniques, by a civilized hour of the afternoon. So please, if not too great a burden, illuminate the hour (and minute) that the pubs of Scotland will open on the next day, that is, the nineteenth of September one year hence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

U.S. international flight compensation?

Cathay Pacific to China via HK, out of JFK in NY. Flight was delayed for 6 hours, the only compensation a meal ticket at the airport. A 2-hour stay in HK became overnight--a hotel stay is hardly compensation when a separate computer glitch means unexpectedly having to haul luggage through customs in HK, not to mention a whole day ruined. If I hadn't gotten on the delayed flight and instead waited for another flight, the airline wasn't even going to compensate at all. I'm writing to the airline but not expecting any compensation. Something even worse happened last year on the same airline, so is boycotting it the only thing I can do now? 24.215.201.206 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See pyrrhic victory. Any compensation you may get or be entitled to could likely cost you more to obtain than it would be worth. --Jayron32 15:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a thing called suing. See a lawyer. Call one, they will be happy to talk long enough to determine if you have a case. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, see again pyrrhic victory. --Jayron32 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Suing over a (admittedly badly) delayed flight?! You've got to be kidding me.... Fgf10 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the income level of the plaintiff, it might be cheaper to just buy the airline and then run it better than the previous guy did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd take it on the chin. There's always someone worse-off than you, and if it's any compensation, at least you don't have the ghastly Ryanair, which seems to be actively at war with its customers, and the French air-traffic controllers, notorious throughout Europe for going on strike during the holiday season. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If the OP's going to bother, he needs a lawyer, not us. If he's not going to bother he doesn't need us as life coaches either. Does anyone have any relevant references to add? Otherwise this is ready for a friendly collapsing. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are references, actually. Since you mention your flight left from JFK, I will simply note the American side of this. I have no clue what the Chinese rules are, if they exist at all. Basically, the Airline is under no obligation under either Federal law or FAA rules to give you any kind of reimbursement for a flight delay. Mandatory rules cover tarmac delays and overbooked flights only. Your only options are to seek compensation from your airline, or to protest in some manner and hope the free market punishes them or compels them to action. Reference here: http://www.usa.gov/topics/travel/air/resolve-problems/flight.shtml And that is, I believe, all the reference desk can help you. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were in the OP's shoes, I would call (not necessarily write) and complain. Keep asking for higher levels of supervision until you find someone who will throw you a bone. If all else fails, yes, silently "boycott" the airline, if that's possible or practical. You could "openly" boycott by various means, e.g. reporting this problem via a website that collects reviews of things. But the free-market bottom line is that, whether organized or not, if enough people get fed up with a product and don't buy it any more, the company will go bust. It's unfortunate that a company could go bankrupt and not even know why people stopped using their product, because most folks don't want to "make a scene". You know what? If the customer service area won't help you, try to contact the company president or CEO. In my (fairly limited) experience, the CEO is the one guy who's most interested in customer issues, because he's the face of the organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If the OP had a stop-over in the European Union, then he might be able to apply for compensation through the EU's laws; they are fairly generous. CS Miller (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I spoke to soon; only flights that are wholly with in the EU, or are on a EU carrier to/from a EU airport are compensable. I'm not sure about flights with a EU carrier, with a EU stopover. [6] ---- CS Miller (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Is a sacristan in the Catholic church allowed to marry?

Is a sacristan in the Catholic church allowed to marry? I was reading the page on Macaulay Culkin, and I noticed that his father worked as a sacristan. I clicked on that page and noticed that a sacristan was really a priest. Can someone tell me exactly who is and who is not allowed to marry in the Catholic church? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Our article links to the Catholic Encyclopedia which says a sacristan should ideally be a priest, but that laymen often get the job due to a shortage of clerics. Any unmarried adult Catholic in good standing who is not serving under holy orders can marry another Catholic in a Catholic marriage or a non-Catholic with a Bishop's permission. If you want more than that, search the archives at the top of the page for Catholic marriage. This comes up every three months or so. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Even within our article it says only that "the Cæremoniale Episcoporum prescribed that in cathedral and collegiate churches the sacristan should be a priest." That key word here is "should" with the added caveat that it's specifically cathedrals and collegiate churches that this is prescribed for. That leaves it open to anyone else, barring other rules elsewhere. Mingmingla (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Both my parents were sacristans for years. So, yes. Dismas|^(talk) 20:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 4

Pirate capture of a man-of-war

I asked this at the talk page of Bartholomew Roberts to no answer, so I thought I'd ask here. I begin with a quote from that article:

“ During this time, Roberts caught the Governor of Martinique, who was sailing aboard a man-of-war. Robert's ship pulled up next to the man-of-war pretending to be a French merchant ship, and offered information on the location of Captain Roberts before suddenly attacking it, spraying the warship with cannon and small arms fire, after which the pirates boarded it and took it over using pistols and cutlasses. The Governor was caught and promptly hanged on the yardarm of the Royal Fortune. ”

What was the governor's name? According to List of colonial and departmental heads of Martinique this would be one "de Hurault" but we don't have an article on him or even a full name. What was the name of the Man of War he was caught on? Was this an otherwise notable ship? What did Roberts do with the ship after capturing the governor? A Man of War is quite the prize for a pirate to have taken, so I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned. And finally, was there some reason Roberts had it out for this governor? Presumably he had some serious motivation to attack such a powerful warship. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This site (whose reliability is unknown) claims he made that his flagship.[7] Other google searches on the general subject suggest he was constantly at war with these islands, so hanging the governor seemed fitting. With that "dreaded pirate Roberts" stuff, I keep seeing The Princess Bride in my mind's eye. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Queen Anne's Revenge, which was basically a sailing frigate, is often mentioned as huge for an 18th century pirate ship. Larger ships are frequently cited as being impractical for piracy due to the difficulty manning them and the lack of infrastructure for maintaining them (not to mention the lack of speed and maneuverability required for pursing a prize). So given that people typically mention Queen Anne's if talking about "large" pirate ships, rather than this behemoth, I'm skeptical of any claim he took it as a flagship. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a transcription of an official British report mentioning the event (scroll down, April 25, Bermuda, 463iii). .Leeward Islands, April 23rd. On 26th March Capt. Hingston Commander of a ship belonging to London in her way to Jamaica was taken about 4 leagues S. of Antigua by John Roberts Commander of a pirate ship of 42 guns and a briganteen of 18 with 262 white men and 50 negroes in both carryed to Burbuda ... The pirate ship had been a French man of war some small time before taken by Roberts in her way from Martinique to France with the Governor of Martinique on board who the pirates hanged at the yard arm etc. . So Roberts allegedly had an 18-gun brig and the 42-gun captured French warship in March. Note that the same April 25 entry, higher up, describes how on Feb. 18, 1721, a pirate ship of 32 guns, comanded by one Jon. Roberts, and a brigantine of 18 with 350 men in both, capture a "Dutch interloper" of 30 guns at St. Lucia and refit it with 36 guns. So, by mid-February he has the brig, a 32-gun ship 'and' a Dutch 30/36. If nothing else, this could provide a citation for the capture and hanging of the governor. It certainly does suggest that he had access to ships that were approximately equal in gun numbers to 'Queen Anne's Revenge (40 cannon), although it obviously doesn't tell us the calibre or type of guns, total weight of broadside or the actual size of the ships themselves. -Karenjc (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I did a search using various possible French terms but was not able to find anything that corroborates the story from the French side, apart from mirrors and translations of the article on Roberts. Which is strange, since a governor (by definition an aristocrat) executed by pirates should have left some traces in the historiography. The Governor "de Hurault" mentioned above seems to have been one "Florimond de Hurault", but there is no indication that he met a tragic end or left much of a trace. So it's possible the executed person was not the Governor of Martinique, but someone else who may have been described as such in order to make him appear more important than he was. This would require looking at vintage documents to elucidate further, however. --Xuxl (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Florimond Hurault was appointed governor of Martinique on 21 August 1719 or on 22 August 1719 (scroll down to Hurault de Chiverny). His successor was named in 1721. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

US conference of Catholic Bishops and Abortion

I was shocked by the news that USCCB (US conference of Catholic Bishops) sponsored hospitals issued a directive, pervading their doctors from giving the best medical solution so long as it violates the Catholic teaching. The recent news said that a catholic hospital denied a certain woman of her basic medical rights when the doctors found out that abortion was the best solution. The doctors did not even told the woman about her medical situation. I think this was a measure of that Catholic hospital to fool the woman into the thinking that she was only experiencing a minor medical predicament, and she can survive without needing abortion. I haven’t heard other Catholic hospitals in other countries having the same directive. In fact, some Catholic forums say that if the woman avails abortion on the grounds of maternal health, it is morally acceptable. But this USCCB says otherwise.

Most countries have their own Catholic Bishops Conference. IMHO these CBC’s are somehow autonomous, in such sense that they can issue their own directives based on what they think agrees with the Pope’s words (please correct me if I’m wrong). My Question is – Are there “Catholic Bishops Conferences” in other countries accepting abortion on the grounds of maternal health?49.144.142.14 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, the IP address is referring to this story. The IP has accurately represented the claims of the plaintiff in a lawsuit, although the USCCB has more or less refused comment. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• This seems an obvious solicitation to debate. Even the final "question" smuggles in the premise that an abortion was necessary here. We don't have the facts, and children do survive, with bed rest and luck, when the water breaks early. (This would have been the first week of the fifth month.) It certainly doesn't seem this woman wanted bed rest to save the child--either that or she was not advised to take bed rest, which seems unlikely. So there's no chance at all we are going to be able to comment on the policies of other conferences in such circumstances, when the circumstances here are so muddied. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I spent some time looking into this, and I believe the answer to your question is "no". The Catholic policy on abortion has been set by the Popes and the Second Vatican Council, and argues that abortion should not be permitted even to ensure the health of the mother (see Catholic Church and abortion#Discussions about possible justifying circumstances). However, Catholic law, specifically Canon 1398, does specify that certain medical procedures that kill a fetus, but whose purpose is something else, may be permitted. Such exceptions include removing a fallopian tube during an ectopic pregnancy, or removal of a cancerous uterus. I also spent time searching through both Google and Wikipedia for opinions of Bishops or Bishopric conferences (see our list of articles on such at Episcopal Conference), yet I could not find any conference that condones abortion for the health of the mother, even in nations that are generally pro-choice. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which exception implies there was likely some other factor, such as the hospital's possibly having recommended bed rest, which we are rightly not privilege to due to her privacy. The reports seem to imply they did remove the fetus when it actually did come down to her life or death. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Judgment Day (Last Judgment).

Request for opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there indeed going to be Judgment Day someday? Applies to the whole world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC) No. The bureaucracy for judging billions of people who currently live on the planet, as well as all those in the past, would take too long - much longer than a day. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Jehovah’s Witnesses have published information about "Judgment Day" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002547. —Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately not. The stars will cool, and all that will be left is a frozen, dead universe. Joy, love and purpose itself will die out with the rest of life and nothing will be left to even remember that anyone ever did or felt anything at all. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) There is no way to know until it happens (or doesn't happen). Thus, there is no factual answer possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Yes. It's today. Haven't you noticed? μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Old fake headline: "The world ended today! More on this story tomorrow!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Ignore the previous ignoramuses (ignoramai?). There have been a lot of Judgment Days, many of them profitable. (The 1991 one was fairly entertaining.) I have no doubt there will be another coming along sometime, possibly to a theater near you and in worldwide release. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Assuming you are calling my response ingnoramity, CF, I find it odd someone would think today's acts are not judged. Every day is judgment day. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Nah, not you. Didn't you notice the plural form? I was referring to those who answered in the negative. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Every day is judgment day? Right.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 5

Is Day of the Dead 1, 2, or 3 days long?

Our article claims all 3, and I can't seem to find any definitive answer. Kaldari (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment is the right desk for this. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind that, sorry, I thought you meant a movie! I am not sure of the answer in Mexico, but in the US Catholics have (mischief night, then) Halloween, All Saints Day, and All Souls Day. Halloween is technically the eve of All Saints Day from the Christian perspective. That would be three days: the eve of and the day after All Saints Day. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mexican dessert cube

Does anybody know a Mexican (possibly Latin American dish) which looks like a brown sugar cube and dissolves in your mouth? II don't think it was chocolate and I can't seem to find it on Category:Mexican desserts. It is probably available in US since that is where I first tried it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about panela? --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Less likely but maybe one of the Latin American flans? Rmhermen (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Help finding Lute Song (琵琶記/pipa ji) French translation by A. P. L. Bazin

Does anyone know where to find an online archive of Lute Song (琵琶記/pipa ji) French translation (1841) by A. P. L. Bazin? I do not know the name of the French title or what the full form of the author's name is.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be Antoine Bazin also known as "Bazin aîné". — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that! It's the translator. Now all I need is a link to his work, which should be in the public domain. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Sontag quote

Hi, all - I have the vaguest memory of her giving a speech in which she relates the experience of shock to the experience of finding yourself outside the narrative of your life, as it were - like you're living a story that's familiar, whether it's pleasant or unpleasant, and then suddenly something happens that couldn't possibly fit that story. Does this ring a bell for anyone?

Thanks - sorry to give such vague clues.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried [[8]]? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, RedPen - it's not there, but that's a great resource. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Simon Rattle

What foreign languages does he speak? He's been conducting the Berlin Phil since 2002 so one would have thought his German ought to be pretty good by now. Also his wife is Czech so maybe he speaks Czech as well. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

He speaks a bit of German in this, but it doesn't sound terribly fluid to me. His son's opinion of Rattle's German is briefly mentioned at the end of this interview. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Given how many Europeans speak English as a second language... he may not need to speak anything else. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The orchestra's website defaults to an English version (though I suppose it may be detecting my location when doing that). Judging by the names of members, many of them are not Germans, so it's quite plausible that English is their lingua franca. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Words for traitors against independence of a nation

Harki and Rajakar were used on people who were against the independence of Algeria and Bangladesh. Is there other words to describe people who were against the independence of their own nation? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Have you googled "traitor synonym"? Have you chcked the archives (was it you who asked something similar to this over the summer?) Is there a specific language you want? There are plenty of terms like tory/loyalist, quisling, Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose, Benedict Arnold, depending on exact context and meaning.μηδείς (talk) 9:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Quisling is used to denote a traitor to their own country. Rojomoke (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Loyalist (or Tory) in the American Revolution. Southern Unionist, later scalawag, in the Confederate States of America. Copperheads is a more colorful term used for southern sympathizers in the North (Union). Rmhermen (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It was the CSA who were the traitors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary is the generic term. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Counter revolutionary is a marxist epthet that has nothing to do with independence per se, just opposition to a marxist revolution. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It didn't mean that originally, but it was hijacked. Arguably, the folks who sacked the Cromwells were "counter-revolutionaries". But instead they "restored" the monarchy, as if it had merely been on probation for ten years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This was closed as trolling, along with the two following unsigned questions. I suggest seeing the talk discussion. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

census scared or not allowed to publish ethnicity and religion

In France, they don't publish ethnicities and religions in numbers by departments or cities in their stats reports. Israel don't publish the term Mizrahi, Sephardi, Ashkenazi or Haredi, reform, or cconservative when it comes to which population has highest in number of these groups. In US, they don't publish religions in numbers by states, or cities in their stats report. What other nations do like this? Please answer this. don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No conspiracy in the U.S. - they don't publish it because they don't ask the question. In fact, they are forbidden to.[9] There are other non-Census attempts to answer the question though like the American Religious Identification Survey. Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why the U.S. doesn't ask the question is the constitutionally guaranteed protections for freedom of religion in the United States. There's a good chance that an innocuous question which wasn't used for anything except data collection probably doesn't violate either of the freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution (the free exercise clause and the establishment clause). However, information is power, and there is a real threat that, with information those in power may abuse that information (c.f. the current NSA data mining controversy). For this reason, to prevent the Government from potentially violating the law, the data is not collected at all. It's easier just not to collect it, since it, by the constitution, serve no official purpose. However, as noted, there are non-governmental agencies that do collect and publish that information. Besides the one noted above, the one I know that has a good reputation is the Pew Research Center, see http://religions.pewforum.org/ --Jayron32 19:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As states that are secular (albeit with different nuances to their secularism), the governments of the United States and France don't consider religion a relevant category and thus don't collect data on it. In France, there is a public myth that ethnic origin is irrelevant to the French republican identity, so for ideological reasons the state formally ignores it (but informally and arguably hypocritically takes it into account). In Israel, there are similar official blinders about Jewish ethnicity and religious sects. 67.132.19.18 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The article Race and ethnicity in censuses could help answer a part of your question here. Futurist110 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No conspiracy in France either. "Ethnicity" and "Religion" are quite simply outside the range of things considered important by the republic hence - as for shoe size and favorite color - no information is ever gathered by the government on these subjects.2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:5A2:577D:7DF4:AF7C (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "no conspiracy" because racial data has indeed been misused in a wide variety of ways useful to one side or another in the U.S., and choosing not to collect religious data avoids the same. For example, the internment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II, the creation of "minority-majority districts" (which reduces the number of districts at issue, yet effectively gives illegal aliens voting power because the districts are allocated according to total number of residents), and the practice of siting undesirable public facilities in minority neighborhoods. There's a lot more politics that could have occurred in response to religion had more data been available. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the data is still availible, just not collected by the government. There is still nothing to stop unscrupulous public officials from abusing their power in regards to that data. They just have to get it from non-Governmental sources. That is, gerrymandering and Environmental racism would still happen even if the government didn't collect the relevent data; the data is still collected by private agencies and exists. Once it exists, people will still use it. Ostensibly, the reason the government collects said data (at least on ethnicity) is to ensure that violations of civil rights DON'T occur (that is, how can agencies of the government protect the civil rights of disadvantaged groups if it has no data on where those groups live and what their living conditions are like!) Whether that occurs as intended, or if the information is abused, is a matter for another discussion, but there is at least a real justifciation for collecting it in the first place. --Jayron32 17:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. Census has been collecting data about basic racial classifications of the U.S. population uninterruptedly from 1790 to the present... AnonMoos (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No...they have been trying, but that doesn't mean everyone is complying. I didn't in the last census and my neighbor didn't help them when they tried to get the information from them. Heck...Wikipedia has more information about my ethnicity than the US census. They actually used that information to round up Japanese citizens in California to take the property of these individuals and confine them in internment camps. This is not an exaggeration and I find the whole thing rather stupid. But that is just me....and a lot of people.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as a "conspiracy"...that is an opinion and one I actually believe. When people get rounded up and their personal property stolen and they are jailed over hyper paranoia....conspiracy is the least of the issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's purely hypothetical either - in 2001 I remember thinking it was a good thing that the government didn't have a database of who all the Muslims were. Sure, there were many databases, public and private, but bureaucrats act differently when they think they have a complete and authoritative list than when they only have a partial list. Wnt (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Muslim majority African states has non-Muslim leader since independence

Which African nations that has a Muslim majority population has been ruled by a non-Muslim leader since independence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Boutros Ghali was Prime Minister of Egypt, and a Christian. --Jayron32 16:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Yaméogo was President of Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), and converted to Christianity from a local Anamist religion. In fact, many (possibly most) of the people listed at List of heads of state of Burkina Faso, including the current president, Blaise Compaoré, seem to be from Christian backgrounds, according to Islam by country Burkina Faso is 58% Muslim. --Jayron32 16:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Siaka Stevens was head of state of Sierra Leone, a majority Muslim nation, and a Christian himself. --Jayron32 17:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

François Tombalbaye was head of state of Chad, a majority Muslim nation, and a Christian himself. --Jayron32 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tanzania has no majority religion, but Islam, at 40%, is the most prominent religion. Julius Nyerere was a Roman Catholic. --Jayron32 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Léopold Sédar Senghor was a Catholic president of Sénégal, which has a large Muslim majority. --Xuxl (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

House of Cards

Hi there. I was wondering if you could help me out here. The (original 1990) series of House of Cards (UK TV series) is based on the novel by Michael Dobbs. Can anyone confirm if it is just the first four episodes (the original run) of the series that is based on the novel, and not the other two (To Play The King and The Final Cut}. So essentially, if I've only seen the first four episodes (and not the sequels), am I going to 'spoiler' myself if I read the novel before watching the later episodes. Thank you. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to the question you've posed, but I must comment that if you intend to both read the novel and watch the shows, then a) if they are based on the novel you will spoil it either way, since watching the show first would "ruin" the book, or b) no connection, no spoiler. Either way, you should be able to enjoy it. Mingmingla (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment on the novels, but the British adaptations are of much shorter length, so you may wish to watch them before the American. The British version of the first story would have seemed clipped and anticlimactic had I seen if after the first American season. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The later TV series are based on the other Dobbs novels in a trilogy; To Play The King and The Final Cut. So the answer is "yes", it IS just the first four episodes of the series that is based on the novel. Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

US presidential bill signings

Although File:Signing of the Poverty Bill.jpg doesn't show it clearly, I'm holding a picture from the signing of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which shows President Johnson's desk in high resolution, making it clear that there are at least thirteen different pens on his desk. Since only one presidential signature is required for a bill, no matter how long, what's the point of the extra pens? Is it common to for presidents to use one pen for one letter in the signature, another for the next, etc., on landmark legislation? 2001:18E8:2:1020:FDB3:68AD:F06C:A673 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a previous post that was answered: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_March_9#How_many_pens_does_it_take.3F Katie R (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Also see This Google Search for more answers. --Jayron32 20:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are souvenir pens for whoever was attending the ceremonial signing. I vaguely recall that LBJ handed out all the souvenir pens and then pulled his own regular pen out of his pocket and signed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Repenting.

question answered. Seek a spiritual counselor for professional advice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How does one repent? And what does repent mean, said as simply as possible? Applies to the world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Read the Wikipedia article titled Repentance. There are many different perspectives on what repentence is and how to achieve it, both from a secular and religious perspective. If you read that article, you can learn a whole lot about it and arrive at your own conclusions. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't (really can't) read complicated texts. Does the article indeed give the answer to my question? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) We cannot think on your behalf. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hell.

question answered, we are not a reading service and do not supply opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are we in hell? Serious question. Applies to the world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Read the Wikipedia article titled hell to learn more about the subject. You can then arrive at your own answer. --Jayron32 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't (really can't) read complicated texts. Does the article indeed give the answer to my question? How could you reply so fast? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) We provide sources, we do not digest and regurgitate them. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC) L'enfer, c'est les autres. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps try the simple English version of the article. Dismas|^(talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

21st Century Novels with Very High (1000+) Lexile Scores

Does anybody know any 21st century novels with very high (1000+) lexile scores? It must use long, complex sentences and challenging but vibrant vocabulary. A modern equivalent of Nathaniel Hawthorne. 140.254.229.134 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See Lexile if (like me) you had no idea what the question was about. Alansplodge (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dishes of Arab World

Is there websites that shows the dishes in the Arab world, by nation and explains if the dish is a Berber dish, French, Turkish or other European due to influences of Ottoman and European colonial powers, regardless appetizers, main course and desserts and snacks? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article is at Arab cuisine which also leads to some more specific country articles while noting that a number of dishes are widespread. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You know, after significant cultural contact, it might not always be too easy to assign some "dishes" to a single cultural origin (e.g. Chop suey, Vindaloo, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the last wave of colonialism didn't impact Arab cooking that much. Brits might had brought French Fries, to accompany a shawarma, but that's about it. French culinary influences are seemingly much less in North Africa than in West Africa. As per Ottoman influences, all of the eastern Mediterranean (Arab East, Turkey, Greece, etc.) shares common culinary traditions, and origins of different dishes are often hotly disputed along nationalist lines. --Soman (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

December 6

US female voter turnout in 1920 and 1924

What was the voter turnout % of females in the US presidential elections of 1920 and 1924 compared to the male voter turnout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.165.49 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The data on this is spotty because it was collected in surveys only. But it would be more accurate to look at individual states than the entire country, as numerous states already had women's suffrage before the 19th amendment. And most of the polls that were conducted at the time tended to suffer from extreme selection bias. One of the few good studies we do have was done in Chicago in 1924, and concluded that only 35% of women in the area voted in the first presidential election after receiving the right[10]. As far as government records go, for most of US history we have no idea what the gender breakdown of the voters really was. That, combined with the facts that there was significant fluctuation in turnout even without suffrage and states gradually implemented suffrage, Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections is hard to interpret. But what you do see there is that turnout of eligible voters is about the same from 1920 to 1924, which would suggest that women are voting at similar rates to men. We also have a study that looked at turnout in individual states, and lined them up according to when they gave women suffrage: see page 1170 of this. Keep in mind that this study is defining voter turnout as the turnout of all adults, not just eligible ones. What we see there is that the average turnout the election prior to suffrage is about 25% (so ~50% of eligible men), and that after suffrage it is about 38%. Assuming the male ratio didn't change, this would suggest 26% of eligible women voted (but once again, given the large fluctuations even before suffrage, this is hard to interpret). You can look online and find more such surveys conducted in different means and over different areas. It is unfortunate there was not a large, nationwide effort to find out how long it took women on average to take advantage of their new rights, until long after. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So I guess to give a direct answer to your question: Anywhere between half as many and just as many appear to be reasonable estimates based on the available data, but we can't know for sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there were women voting (and even being elected to congress) before 1920 -- there was nothing preventing a state from choosing to give women the vote before the 19th amendment was passed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Largest sunken shipment of computers

I've been looking up sunken ships and the bacteria that are found in them; and was wondering what the largest shipment of computers to sink beneath the sea happens to be. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you resolve these two conflicting studies?

This study from the CDC claims that 70% of unreciprocated domestic violence is initiated by women, while this study claims that 85% of domestic violence victims are women. These two claims seem to contradict each other, so which is right? 74.15.137.253 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the links you have provided works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the links provided by the IP. They now work, though no comment yet on the actual question. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the linked studies, but it's easy to see that the two conclusions you mentioned are not necessarily contradictory. The first claim is that "70% of unreciprocated domestic violence (presumably a very restricted set) is initiated by women". The second claims that 85% of all domestic violence victims are women. To illustrate, let's say for the sake of argument there are 100,000 incidences of domestic violence. Let's say further that in only 100 of those cases did the victim not reciprocate. According to the percentages given in your question, 70 (70% of 100) of the 100,000 incidences would have been initiated by women, while 85,000 (85% of 100,000) of the overall victims would have been women. So it is possible that the studies do not contradict each other. To find out whether the actual numbers bare that out or not would require reading the studies and I don't feel inclined to do so tonight.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How can 85% of victims of reciprocated domestic violence be women when every instance of reciprocated domestic violence (ignoring gay marriage) involves one man and one woman? The only way I can see it happening is if men were much more likely to be repeat offenders with multiple women -- but in order for the math to work out, you'd need male perpetrators of DV to attack on average ~6 women, which is surely not the case. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple. Person 1 beats person 2. The first study says that if person 2 doesn't fight back, 70% of the time person 1 was a woman. The second study says that 85% of the time, person 2 is a woman regardless. Since the studies measure different things, they don't contradict each other. It's like saying "75% of all people prefer chocolate ice cream" and "80% of the people who eat strawberry ice cream eat it out of a cup rather than a cone". The studies both deal with domestic violence, but don't measure the same thing. Plus, as William noted, since we're dealing in percentages, we have no idea what subpopulation of ALL domestic violence cases are represented by your first study. --Jayron32 18:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"The second study says that 85% of the time, person 2 is a woman regardless." This strikes me as impossible. Replace "reciprocated domestic violence" with "dancing". If we suppose that men only dance with women and vice versa, then ~50% of the people who dance will be women, precisely because every dance involves one man and one women. The figure might not be exactly 50% because men might be more likely to dance with multiple partners, but the 50% figure will be close enough. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

About 50 percent of the people involved in a relationship where domestic violence is happening will be women. But that doesn't mean that women beat men as often as men beat women. The two are unrelated facts. The second study merely states that, when a beating is going on, 85% of the time it's the man's fists and the woman's face that are involved. Why do you think that is impossible? --Jayron32 02:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not impossible but I don't think that's what the study is claiming. Here's (PDF) a link to the actual study. If you read the methodology section, you'll see that they don't ask people how often they've been a victim of DV, just *if* they've been a victim. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So? That seems perfectly reasonable that of all people who have been beaten by their partner, 85% are women. I'm not sure what about that figure seems unreasonable to you... --Jayron32 02:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused because it conflicts with the CDC report, which says that the majority of victims are male. This (PDF) law paper states that in most studies male victims are as common as female victims. But the DoJ is a reputable source, so I don't know who to believe... 74.15.137.253 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what the CDC report says. What the CDC report says is that when the victim doesn't defend themselves, they're probably male. Again, you're confusing "Person takes a beating" versus "Person takes a beating and doesn't try to hit back". In case 1, the person taking the beating is usually female, 85% of the time. In case 2, you have what could be a subset of case 1, and which merely states that in that smaller subset where the person doesn't hit back, the person who isn't hitting back is male 70% of the time. --Jayron32 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. The CDC study only distinguishes between reciprocated and unreciprocated violence. It does not ask whether the violence when reciprocated was in self defense or not. So when the CDC claims that the majority of unreciprocated DV victims are male, given that ~50% of reciprocated DV victims are male (using a loose definition of victim to mean simply that your partner used violence against you, even if it was in self-defense), we have a contradiction with the Bureau of Justice claim that 85% of DV victims (using the same definition as above) are women. Ultimately, the studies don't ask whether the violence used against you was in self-defense or not, so neither study aims to find out the "true" victim. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sample differences. The CDC study analysed "data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health", which is a fairly narrow sge range - maybe this generation is anomalous. The stats at the Statistics Brain link gets its figures from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. It's possible their figures are based on cases of domestic violence which become involved in the justice system, and that male victims of domestic violence are less likely to report their abuse to the police and the courts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought something similar but StatisticsBrain actually also says "Percent of domestic crimes reported to police" which would seem to imply it includes incidents not reported to the police somehow. SB also mentions 20-24 year olds are the most likely to experience domestic violence. This doesn't make it impossible that 18-28 olds skew the results in a different direction, but it makes it less likely. In any case, trying to compare these two sets of statistics, particularly since we don't know anything about the SB statistics. If you want to compare them, you'll need to find out more about the definitions used, how they were derived (I presume surveys since they includes ones not reported but we don't know what surveys) etc. For example, I would note that the paper cited mentions that men are more likely to cause injury than women (although it doesn't seem that much higher). It may be the SB statistics are excluding some stuff with limited violence that doesn't cause injury from the victims. SB also seems to contradict itself. In the victims table it says 85% are women. Later it says "Percent of the victims of domestic violence that are women : 95%". A possible typo but probably best taken another indication SB should be avoided. If you want to do these sort of detailed analysis, look for something with statistics you can meaningfully compare not random stuff found from an internet search (or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's there original study. As you say, it gets its data from a survey (National Crime Victimization Survey) rather than from the justice system itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.137.253 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the abstract for the first study. 24% of relationships with violence - half of that unrequited. That means that we're speaking of 8% vs. 4% for women and men respectively, for violence as a feature of the relationship. Now the abstract for the second study concerns crime, and all methodological concerns aside, women pretty much don't get arrested or go to jail. If a cop comes in the door and the guy and the girl are beating the crap out of each other, he's taking the guy. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

historical events since 1913

My grandmother is about to celebrate her milestone 100th birthday. Im trying to put together a list of wordiode major historical events in the last 100 years from 1913 - 2013 can you help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.175.116 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You could start with our article listing events of 1913 and continue from there. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What's 'wordiode'? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. “timeline 20th century” will get you lots of great stuff, including these:

• BBC British history timeline,
• Major wars of the 20th century,
• 20th century history,
• artistic, cultural, social, scientific and political events,
• 20th century inventions
• and (for fun) toys and games of the 20th century.

See also Wikipedia’s 20th century. Happy birthday to your grandmother! 184.147.136.249 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting things kept happening after 31 December 2000, when the 2oth century ended. See also 21st century, which included the 9/11 attacks, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring. the first African-American US president, the completion of the Human Genome Project, the discovery by robot Mars explorers that Mars once had water, the first space probe leaving the solar system, High Def and 3D TV in widespread use,and the spread of the internet and mobile phones to the majority of the world's population. Edison (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Identifying wallpaper pattern

Does anyone know what words describe this type of pattern (so I can search for it in the form of fabric) --78.148.106.99 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Try searching for "damask print fabrics" on a Google image search which brings up some fabrics with a similar pattern. Actual damask is a monochrome fabric where the motif is woven differently to the background. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Flock wallpaper. Very popular, at least in the UK, in the '70s and still notoriously popular in curry restaurants and dirty pubs. Nowadays considered naff (especially in private dwellings). If you put it up in your house, you too will be considered by any passing Englishman to be either some missing link from the '70s or irredeemably naff. On the other hand, it's probably considered the height of sophistication in primitive societies, such as Australia. You may run the risk that any passing Australian will mistake your house with its flock wallpaper as a dirty pub-cum-brothel, invite himself inside, and behave accordingly. I wouldn't risk it if I were you, but it is, of course, up to you. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a bad redirect (from Flock wallpaper to Flocking (texture)). If I do an image search for "flock wallpaper" or "flock pattern" I see a lot of elaborate, abstract, monochrome, leafy patterns in wallpaper group cm, like the pattern the OP was asking about. Image searching for damask shows the same kind of patterns. The Flocking (texture) article isn't even describing a pattern, but a physical texture formed by random small linear particles that simulate grass or velvet. This V&A museum page says there is a connection, the wallpaper being originally made using powdered wool in imitation of velvet, but the term seems to have been transferred to a particular kind of typically Victorian era pattern.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes on the cross-race effect

Are there any remembered quotes by famous persons relating to the cross-race effect, particularly prominent African-Americans refuting the prejudice that 'all blacks look alike'? --KnightMove (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A different angle on it, I wish I could remember his name, but I recall a Japanese-American comedian some decades ago saying, with purposeful stereotyped accent, "Awr Americans rook arike." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

House of Lords maiden speech

Sometime in the 1980s (or possibly 1990s, certainly no later) I read about a member of the House of Lords who had given his maiden speech. The unusual thing was that he had been a member for many years and had never spoken a word in the House before. IIRC it was the longest time anyone had gone before making a maiden speech. The subject of the speech was water management, the need to save water to avoid droughts and so on. Can anyone find the name of the Lord and the date of his speech? Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Baron Trevor (4th, I guess) after 43 years? In May 1993: [11] 184.147.136.249 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly not, but thanks for trying. The subject of that speech was policing [12], the one I'm looking for was definitely about water. --Viennese Waltz 14:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ask Kittybrewster. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about that Hansard resource. With the search string "lords water drought maiden" I found this possibility. Could Gerald Spring Rice, 6th Baron Monteagle of Brandon be your man? Maiden speech on 11 March 1992 after being in the House for 47 years. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I should have tried that search string myself; thanks very much. --Viennese Waltz 22:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! And don't beat yourself up. I tried several other strings without luck too; it's not an easy site to search because there is so much material. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done! I looked but didn't find anything. Lord Monteagle probably thought that he ought to get in while he could - I see that he was one of those excluded from the House in the 1999 reforms. Alansplodge (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Amish

Do any amish use electricity? Just yes or no. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article titled Amish life in the modern world. --Jayron32 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Besides the "yes" given in that article, there are occasional extreme examples; when I was growing up in Ohio, my parents knew an Amish bishop who was an electrician. The article's comments about solar panels, batteries, generators, etc. are definitely much more common among the Amish than electricians. Nyttend backup (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

However, it seems VERY likely that if the Amish are using solar panels and generators, as well as other electrical infrastructure, there would need to be some Amish electricians to keep all that stuff maintained. The Amish are primarily isolationist (that's why they don't hook into the electric grid, as explained in the article, NOT because they are opposed to using electricity per se) and it seems likely they'd rather have a trained electrician in the community to maintain their own equipment than have to go outside the community to find one. --Jayron32 02:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Har din mor lære dig at være så uforskammet, når du stille spørgsmål, IP 78?

Ja eller nej?

μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP was not rude. That is a personal attack. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Urban Percentage of Germany's Total Population in or Around 1933

Does anyone know what percentage of Germany's total population lived in urban areas in or around 1933? I am curious about this, considering that Germany appeared to be (much) more industrialized when the Nazis came to power than in the cases of many other countries when extremists came to power. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Census in Germany has information on when official German Censuses were taken. You can use that as a launching point for your research. --Jayron32 17:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this info. Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Navigate to page 59:11 in the 1935 German Statistical Yearbook, where you will see Germany's population broken down by size classes of municipalities. The 1933 data don't seem to offer a standalone statistic for urban population. Municipality size is an imperfect proxy for degree of urbanization, but you might consider municipalities with more than 10,000 residents (or some other arbitrary threshold) as urban. "Gemeinden mit Einwohnern" means "municipalities with residents". "Weniger als" means "less than", "bis unter" means "up to", "Zahl der Gemeinden" means "number of municipalities", "Wohnbevölkerung" means "resident population", "Zahl" means "number", and "vH" means "percentage" (of the total German population). Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This information here is extremely useful. Thank you very much for sharing this info with me. Anyway, I wonder which criteria Germany used in the 1925 and in the 1939 censuses to determine urban and rural areas (or did it only determine the population by municipality size in 1925 and/or in 1939 as well?) and which criteria Germany uses right now to determine urban and rural areas.

As for your suggestion of municipalities which have 10,000+ people being considered urban and the rest being considered rural, the 10,000+ number might be too high, since the United States's criteria for a place to be considered urban in 1920 was 2,500+ people. Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of "urban areas" vary widely from country to country, so different countries' statistics are not really comparable. While the U.S. Census Bureau defines the "urban" population of the country as those living in either "urban areas" or in places with populations over 2,500, "urban areas" are defined by population density. In Germany, a place with a population of 2,500, especially in 1933, was likely to have been a farming village, not urban in the usual sense of that word. I checked the latest edition of the German Statistical Yearbook, and it does not offer a statistic on the "urban" versus "rural" population of Germany. Such figures as exist on Germany's (present-day) urban and rural population seem to rely on a definition (explained here) by the Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt-, und Raumforschung (Federal Institute for Construction, Urban, and Spatial Research) that divides Germany's Kreise (usually translated "districts", which are second-order administrative subdivisions analogous to counties in the United States) and independent cities (cities that are not part of a Kreis) into "urban" and "rural" classifications. Everyone living in an independent city or urban Kreis belongs to the urban population. The rural population is the population of rural Kreise. Kreise are classified as rural if they have a population density under 150 per square kilometer. Independent cities and Kreise with more than 150 residents per square kilometer are classified as urban. This classification, as far as I can tell, did not exist in 1933. To recreate it, you'd need to collect the area and population of all of the Kreise in 1933 and calculate their density to assign them to urban and rural categories, and then add up the population of Kreise in each category. That's a bigger project than I'm prepared to take on, but you are welcome to pursue it. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Porn vs. prostitution

In California v. Freeman and the related New Hampshire decision it references, U.S. courts found that making porn films was protected speech, but prostitution isn't. What I'm wondering is, how is this line being maintained in the modern era?

For example, I would think that someone who mightf otherwise sell sex could put out an ad, "partner wanted for adult film enterprise - be the star of your own porno film!" The customer would be expected to put up an investment toward the joint enterprise. Video taken at the site could be edited afterward for "amateur adult film" distribution, if it is any good, and the two could share proceeds from the sales.

Fundamentally, I don't get how a court can claim that there is a distinction between illegally paying for a performance in person, versus legally paying for a performance to be filmed for you; I understand the courts were desperate to timidly assert the First Amendment after a long absence, but can't they by now go whole hog and wipe away anti-prostitution laws that exist only to stigmatize vulnerable women, to make it difficult for them to find other employment, and to defend organized crime's control over their activities? Wnt (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How does prostitution qualify as "speech"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the courts have been treating it as freedom of speech for you to pay some scribble artist to prick you with a tattoo needle. So why can't you pay him to prick you with something more suitable for pricking, like, say, a prick? The purpose of a tattoo is an aesthetic experience; what is the purpose of paid sex but for someone to experience a certain sensation? And in practice there is just something so degrading - contrary to dignity and privacy - about the notion of police punishing some poor girl for selling herself, as if she didn't have enough problems already. Wnt (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When have the courts dealt with challenges to the right to wear a tattoo? (Maybe only if it said "Death to the President" or something like that) And I must ask again, under what constitutional argument could the federal government decide that state laws against prostitution are null and void? Keep in mind it is legal in one county in Nevada. Has Nevada's right to legalize it ever been challenged in court? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well [13][14] for example. Personally I can see the merits of public health regulation aimed at both groups, but as stated in the second case this isn't an excuse to ban the practice altogether. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The US Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban prostitution, as stated in our article Prostitution in the United States. The only federal laws regarding prostitution are related to sex trafficking. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, as with any other across-state-lines activities such as kidnapping. The question is, would the feds have authority to override the typical state-level laws against prostitution and somehow declare prostitution a constitutionally protected "right"? I don't think so. I can't think of anything in the Constitution or its amendments which would justify such an action. But maybe I'm overlooking something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

How does making an activity illegal make it difficult for a person to do some other activity? RudolfRed (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. It's just that the assumption is that prostitution pays better than working at a fast-food joint. As to the question "Why doesn't the federal government revoke anti-prostitution laws?", they might be hard-pressed to come up with a constitutional argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• First, the distinction is absurd. But, First Amendment protections are federal, while anti-prostitution laws are state and local. There are all sorts of angles one could pursue, like zoning laws making it illegal to film outside a studio, or in a home, etc. The current policies are absurd, but better than they were before the 80's. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I was trying to think of any federal action on the subject of prostitution, and the Mann Act was the first thing that came to mind. That's in the negative, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There are both legal and practical arguments. The legal argument would be that distribution of a film is speech, clearly (in visual form). And the porn actors are being paid not to have sex, but to allow their sexual activity to be filmed and/or they are being paid for the copyright of said film. Since money was not changing hands for the purpose of having sex, no prostitution is occurring (debatable). You can also take a practical stance and say that since nearly everyone likes porn, and the porn industry has a lot of money, it will not be made illegal in the United States, even if the legal argument makes practically no sense. But once again I'd like to emphasize that in the case of porn, it is the act of distribution that is an exercise of free speech, not the act of having sex. We do have Pornography_in_the_United_States#Legality. Most of the arguments for making pornography illegal in the United States came down to obscenity, not prostitution (that is, they were attacking the distribution, not the act of creation). <personal opinion>Obscenity laws, mind you, are in general morally repugnant laws passed by overbearing nanny states that think they know what's best for you and will restrict your private life accordingly.</personal opinion> Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't let this go without giving a link to the Dinosaur Comics strip on this very issue. --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one case in the US in which authorities attempted to equate pornography with prostitution, California v. Freeman. This case did not go beyond the California Supreme Court. A similar case was heard in New Hampshire in 2008. In both cases, the state supreme court ruled that prostitution/pimping laws do not restrict the production of pornographic videos. However, it must be stated that the rulings prevented the states from prosecuting pornographers using pimping laws. They did not forbid the states from prosecuting based on a hypothetical future law against pornography, although the California decision suggests the court would not have been keen to that approach either. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a basic question about First Amendment content-neutral restrictions and state law. I've heard (but am by no means familiar with) that some states have laws that set out strict guidelines about how pornographic films operate and they expressly provide exception from the prostitution laws. I don't know how accurate or common that is, but that's one practical possibility. Shadowjams (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And the first amendment protection is not going to extend to illegal activities, such as various types of non-consensual abuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Bugs. I know you're not a moron, so stop acting like one. Shadowjams (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I didn't put enough question in this question. What I'm wondering is:

• Do any prostitutes try to present themselves as filmmakers to avoid legal action?
• Are there any countries where accepting legal porn has eventually led to upholding rights for sex workers?

Wnt (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

December 7

Are there any aging adopted parents over the age of 60 with adopted kids in their homes under 19?

Are there any aging adopted parents over the age of 60 with adopted kids in their homes under 19? Venustar84 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. 61 vs 18 is not an overly-unusual parent-child age difference. It corresponds, potentially, to a parental age of 41 at the birth of the child. — Lomn 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I said adopted kids. Not naturally born kids. Venustar84 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clarify what you mean by giving an example. Lomn answered the question you asked. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is there any reason, Venustar84, why you think a 41-42 year old wouldn't have adopted an infant? I have a friend who adopted a child at 41. He'll be 60 when she's 19. The answer by Lomn is merely saying it would be ridiculous to presume that no 60 year old in the entire world would ever have a child, whom they had adopted, would be the age of 19. We don't need to name anyone in particular to answer the question, simple logic dictates that there are many, many people who have the age range you describe. --Jayron32 02:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A quick google search for "older parent adoption" yielded a number of results. See one article here that states that "it's a trend that's clearly heppening." Mingmingla (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting174.7.167.7 (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Many Inuit adopt a child when they are in their 50s and 60s. Usually a grandchild and there are quite a few single adoptive parents of that age. I notice the question actually asks about "adopted" parents. Did you mean people who were adopted and have then gone on to adopt or did you mean adoptive? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Legally, you can adopt anyone of any age, even those older than you. The practice goes even as far back as Roman times where Augustus Caesar adopted both his stepson and wife at his death. While rare in countries such as the United States, it does happen. For instance, a millionaire in Florida may decide to adopt his girlfriend and her kids to keep his assets and business interests away from an ex-wife who holds shares in a business with him. Adoption gives you more control. Disinheiritance is an easy legal thing to do as opposed to divorce. So people of any age do indeed adopt others of any age. Sometimes they all live together and sometimes they don't. State services get invovled with the adoption of a dependent minor. The state will deny an adoption if a homestudy suggests that the environment would pose a risk to the safety and welfare of the child. Persons with certain kinds of disabilities may need a physician's evaluation to alleviate concerns, but age or disability alone are not determining factors. A couple in their early 60s and in good health wishing to adopt a newborn, could probably do so in America, although many adoption agencies as a rule of thumb do not work with adoptive parent(s) over a certain age such as 50 or 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.178.122 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit Americentric, actually, if accurate at all. I can tell you that in the former Yugoslav republics, a person has to be at least 18 years older than the person he or she wishes to adopt, and the adoptee must be younger than 18. I have no idea why law would allow the creation of parent-child relationship between a 20-year-old (as the parent) and a 40-year-old (as the child). Surtsicna (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)