Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • 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.

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:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

April 16[edit]

Non-Roman Catholics in the UK[edit]

Legally, are members of <Uniate/Eastern Rite/Eastern Catholic/choose-your-term> churches considered to be papists under Englishandwelsh law, and/or were they at some point in the past? At least some restrictions on Catholics don't apply to the Orthodox, as demonstrated by the marriage of the Heir to the Throne to an Orthodox guy back in the 1940s, but as the Eastern Catholic Churches are kind-of in the middle between their Orthodox ancestors and Latin-rite Catholics, I'm curious how they are and were considered for secular purposes. I'm aware that they weren't a major presence in Englandandwales during the centuries when the current and major former restrictions on Catholics were set up. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Notably, though, the Orthodox guy converted to Anglicanism... --Jayron32 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Prince Philip converted before the announcement of the official engagement. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 16:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather hilarious that Philip converted to Bishopism in order to become the First Man of its future high priestess. "A room at Buckingham is well worth a Mass". μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood (and I understand the reference to Paris being worth a Mass), but had he been a parishioner of the Diocese of Westminster, wouldn't he still have made her ineligible for the throne? Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We had this discussion about a year ago, there was some debate over (which I don't recall ever being satisfactorily resolved) as to whether the requirement was "ever being a Catholic in your life" or "Being a Catholic at the time of (engagement, marriage, etc.)" Which is to say, whether it was sufficient to convert to Protestantism in order to remove the prohibition against marrying a Catholic. --Jayron32 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the Act of Settlement, the throne is barred to any person or persons who "is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion." (It goes on to say "or shall marry a Papist," but that was recently repealed.) According to our article, the Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Pope. That would suggest that Eastern Catholics are considered papists, at least for purposes of ascending to the throne. John M Baker (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my. Given such bigotry t'is a wonder the Brits never persecuted the Irish. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, bigotry or homeland security, depending on your viewpoint. For those formulating the Bill of Rights 1689, Louis XIV of France's Revocation of the Edict of Nantes four years previously, resulting in the systematic demolition of Protestant churches and schools and a huge exodus of Huguenot refugees to England, stood as a horrid warning of the dangers of a Catholic king. James II had, after all, been a fervent admirer of Louis. Earlier reasons to be wary included the Bull issued against the English Crown, Regnans in Excelsis which had directly led to several plots to overthrow the government as well as the Spanish Armada; and even further, the persecutions of Queen Mary I, who had sought to dissuade people from being Protestants by burning them alive. But those days are past and we rub along better than we used to. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Building on Alansplodge's comment, note that the Pope officially absolved all Catholics in the Three Kingdoms (Englandandwales, Scotland, and Ireland) of their allegiance to the Court of St James and gave open assistance to opponents (whether Spanish would-be invaders, or Jacobite pretenders) of the Crown. Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
When was that? 1828? I realize none of us alive now is responsible for any of the past unpleasantries, and apologize for making this a debate. My real objection is that the word papist is offensive, even now. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; its not a word used in the UK except perhaps in the more extreme rhetoric of some Ulster Unionists, and I don't think its used in any of the legislation that has been mentioned. As to why it has taken so long to amend the legislation allowing heirs to marry Catholics, I really can't say, except that since the independence of Dominions in the 1920s, it has required all of us to legislate at the same time, and in the case of Australia, for all the constituent States in the Federation to legislate as well. Thus, sleeping dogs have been left to lie. On the other hand, the Monarch themselves will need to be an Anglican for the foreseeable future, since the job of Head of the Church of England comes with the throne. Perhaps in the future, the CofE will be disestablished (there is some talk within the church for that to happen); but that's another legislational nightmare. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Philosophical question[edit]

Hello.   I am having difficulty of my spiritual writings being accepted can you explain why this is so? No copyright is involved as they are truthfully expressed through the Holy Spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmglen (talkcontribs) 10:52, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

If you are trying to get your writings accepted by a publisher, you need to ask the publisher why he won't publish them. If you are trying to get them accepted by Wikipedia, you need to read Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are meaning the item you placed here, then I'm afraid it isn't really encyclopedic, and won't be added to Wikipedia. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Three Bible questions[edit]

Here are three questions regarding the Bible, involving two different denominations:

1. Is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (the Bible translated and used by the Jehovah's Witnesses) used by any non-Witnesses? If, so, in what way (for example, independent study, Bible scholarly research, etc.)? And following from these, have any non-JW denominations made statements regarding the NWT translation? @Wavelength: @Jeffro77:

2. Has there been non-Latter Day Saint scholarship on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

3. Apart from the Jehovah's Witnesses, what other Christian denominations produced their own translations of the Bible primarily for their own official use? The King James Bible does not count, as non-Anglican denominations use it as well. The aforementioned JST doesn't count either, because as far as I know officially the Latter Day Saint movement prefers to use the KJV or "any Bible so long as it is translated correctly". I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church uses some Catholic-specific Bibles, but as far as I know none of these have any official status.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Whilst it is unhelpful to say what translation any particular individual might prefer, there are no well-known groups that prefer the NWT other than JWs, largely because key texts were translated specifically to support JW doctrines. Various scholars have examined the NWT for the purposes of criticism and review. Some of these are already mentioned at the article for the NWT linked in the question above. Various denominations have commented on the doctrines of JWs, including their views of doctrinal bias in the NWT. For example, see [1].
3. There are many translations of the Bible, and it's fairly naive to imagine that 'only JWs' have come up with their own translation, regardless of any tempting argument from ignorance. The official Catholic Douay-Rheims version is a very obvious major translation—it was commissioned specifically by Cathoics to refute Protestantism and remains the preferred translation by many English-speaking traditionalist Catholics. (See also Modern English Bible translations#Catholic translations for a list of Bibles officially recognised by bishops of the Catholic Church.) Members of any denomination could claim that only their preferred translation is "translated correctly", so the 'justification' for excluding the JST (or any other translation) from your criteria is fairly weak. The (original) NWT was actually quite closely modeled off the KJV, with variations generally relating to 1) replacing Old English, 2) indicating progressive verbs, and 3) doctrinal bias. (The 2013 revision of the NWT is essentially a paraphrase of the original NWT.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: As a follow-up: as far as you know, do non-JW Bible students (i.e. other sects of the Bible Student movement) use the NWT? And have any of these sects made any statement regarding the NWT? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware that any of the minor Bible Student movement groups that separated from the Watch Tower Society after Charles Russell's death have since started using the New World Translation, and it is extremely unlikely that they would do so, as Rutherford's doctrinal alterations that form the basis of JW beliefs that differ from Charle's Russell's teachings were largely responsible for the main 1917 schism (though other splinter groups also formed during Russell's life). It is quite possible that some of the extremely small Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups that diverged more recently might use the NWT, though I am not aware of any specific examples.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you know about the academic fields of religious studies and comparative religion? Many people study many bibles, and they may prefer a different bible, or not even identify as Christian. One recent example that has made the popular press: Reza Aslan, who is a highly educated scholar of the New Testament, even though he is personally a Muslim [2]. So yes, most likely there are scholars who have studied the Joseph Smith translation and NWT, while not personally identifying as a member of either sect. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't really count as an answer for Q3, but the Conservative Bible Project (page access likely to be blocked for many users) is good for a laugh. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that the one where Jesus says, "Blessed are the job creators, for they shall be exempt from taxation"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite possibly, as Andrew Schlafly believes that many of [Jesus'] parables were freemarket economic parables. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the solution to "Christian" conservatives ignoring the teachings of Jesus in favor if the Old Testament is to change those teachings to match. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Many Christians are concerned with inaccuracies in any translation, that's why Parallel text bibles are published, showing several translations side-by-side. That allows readers to get a better sense of the original text even if they don't speak it, the idea being that the differences would "average out" over several translations, or to allow one to understand the variety of possible interpretations of a passage. --Jayron32 20:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Why do colleges charge prospective students just for applying?[edit]

Why the fee just for applying for college? Isn't every application welcome, since they will appear more selective if more students apply? However, they treat the application process as a service, although you are not getting anything for this fee in return, unless you are accepted. --ListCheck (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

In the United States, education is only marginally supported by public money. See This data, which as of 2011 (the last year the U.S. has reported data), the U.S. ranks 27th on the list, which is pretty low considering that the U.S. similarly ranks 10th on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and second on the List of countries by GDP (PPP). What that means is that, as a measure of government income, the U.S. vastly undersupports its educational system. Most of that data I noted, BTW, is for public schools through high schools. The figures if we only look at post-secondary education are even more grim for the U.S. Because of this, post-secondary schools in the U.S. need to make money using any means necessary to meet the needs of providing education for its students, alongside the secondary (and in some cases primary) mission of advancing knowledge through research. For this reason primarily, such schools take money for everything they do. Because, by-and-large, they aren't getting it from the state, they have to get it from the users (the students and prospective students) instead. --Jayron32 01:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
But then, there's this America's Wasteful Higher Education Spending. It says "(w)e devote more of our economy to postsecondary education than any other developed country" (that's total economy, not just public money) but my point is that, while Jayron's reply addresses the funding side of the issue, that is only half the problem. Wasteful spending also contributes to universities' need to charge for anything and everything. From what some claim to be unnecessarily huge administration costs, to problems with the tenure system, to overpaid/overcompensated (benefits) employees and professors, to downright frivolous spending, critics claim much of the money that the universities do take in is simply wasted.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The basic principle is that people respect things in proportion to what they pay for them. My dog had six mongrel puppies, and my father advertised them as available for $50 each (in the 80's). When I asked him why they weren't free, he asked me if I remembered my neighbor who had tortured a kitten to death a few years before. He said that people who will pay $50 for a puppy won't then turn around and kill it. I applied to three undergraduate schools. Had it been free, and had I applied to 100, than at least 99 of them would have wasted their time on evaluating my application. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There could be an issue with too many low quality applicants, if all applications were free. That is, it would waste university resources to read them all, and/or they would then devote less attention to each, leading them to automatically reject them for one typo, etc. So, it makes sense for them to charge something. However, this could be abused and they could charge more than it costs them to read each one, leading to them making a profit off applications they have no intention of giving serious consideration. To prevent that, the cost should be limited to what it actually costs them to review an application. Now, whether they can do this without government forcing them to comply is another question. Also, some kind of pre-check would seem to be in order. For example, for a given major, you could have the would-be applicant answer a few basic Q's, like GPA, college admission test scores, etc., and have the web site tell them then if they are eligible to submit a full application. That way there is no need to do things like writing and reading essays, on ineligible prospective students. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Remember that processing all those applications involves a lot of time and money. The people who work in the admissions office don't work for free. The university uses the application fees to help pay them. Blueboar (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

handwriting exercise in different languages[edit]

Is there a website or some websites that allows you to print exercises for improving handwriting in different languages like Perso-Arabic, Bengali, Latin alphabets in different languages like French, Italian, and Gurmukhi and other South Asian languages?

Google is as good a place to look as any. For example This search (Devanagari handwriting worksheets) yields some promising results.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

European Handwriting[edit]

Inspired by the question above, why is it that Continental European handwriting is all joined up and curly? We don't write like that in the UK, and I find Euro handwriting very difficult to read. In the UK, our handwriting is very clear - some letters joined, and some not, and everybody has their own style. In Euro countries, it seems that everyone has the same style. Why is this? KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 07:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

British handwriting has changed significantly over the past hundred years. The UK fashion for not joining letters started, I think, with Marion Richardson (I recall rebelling against the method at school because I was being forced to unlearn my older style). What system is taught in European schools? Is it the same as older UK styles? Dbfirs 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in Euro countries, they mostly join every letter in each word, and it is all very curly (and small) but here in the UK we are first taught to write clearly, then taught cursive, then allowed to develop our own style. I mix the two, and use larger writing than Euro people. Speaking of older UK styles, I have been trying to read soldiers' letters and diaries from WW1, with last year being the centenary, and they are really hard to decifer. The Euro style is similar. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 09:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean copperplate handwriting --- LongHairedFop (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not quite as flamboyant as that, but similar. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 11:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
"Euro countries"? I think you mean "European countries", the handwriting has nothing to do with the currency. Having said that, as far as I'm aware, roughly the same styles of cursive are taught all over Europe, however they are not used very much any more by anyone, understandably so, as they take more effort to write. However, they are very readable if done properly, so I don't know why you would have problem reading it. Possibly it was written poorly when you looked at it. Everybody has their own style in Europe as well, I don't know where you're getting the idea it's uniform, far from it. Fgf10 (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
'Euro' is my nickname for 'Continental Europe' - no harm in that. I just find it difficult to read. It's not exactly uniform, because, as you say, everyone has their own writing, but it's still nothing like British handwriting. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 12:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

When I need others to clearly see what I write, I use "British handwriting". When I need to take a lot of notes for myself, I use my old-fashioned "Continental European" handwriting, because it is two times faster. Akseli9 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Could someone post a few links to examples of what's being discussed? I'm not sure if I'm completely misunderstanding or just used to different terms. In NA, there are two common forms of handwritten communication: 'printing' (each letter separate, not "curly") and 'writing' (a/k/a cursive, most letters in each word connected). To me, writing cursive where the letters aren't connected seems all but nonsensical. Matt Deres (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This kind of stuff. And 'all but nonsensical' would mean it is not nonsensical, but everything else, therefore exclusively excluding 'nonsensical' as a trait. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 14:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
At least in Germany, the basic writing style taught at school has evolved over time, if slowly. You might want to take a look at de: Ausgangsschrift. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The enwp article cursive has a bit to say about all this. Thincat (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems that fashions keep changing everywhere. The American Spencerian script from 1884 is quite similar to my grandfather's handwriting (that I tried to imitate with only limited success), and to some family wills from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries here in northern England. There was a lot of variation, though, because I've seen some old wills in a horrid angular style. Dbfirs 18:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as quite odd. In the US in the 70's we were taught the Palmer method and not allowed to hand in printed assignments from 4th grade on, unless specifically told to do so, such as for science reports. We were also taught cursive in (pomoskovsky) Russian in the 90's, which my grandmother used, and I have documents in the Rusyn language that were written in cursive from the turn of the 1900's, including the statement "Ja kupil haus" by my great-grandfather in 1905. I don't use cursive anymore unless I write out my full signature formally, but I do use a very quick semi-cursive printing style on the rare occasions I still write by hand, like notes and shopping lists. It's very odd to hear cursive is unnatural to the British. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Not unnatural, but I stopped using full cursive when writing on the board because students found my old-fashioned style difficult to read. Is it true that only 15% of young people in the USA use cursive? Dbfirs 20:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
My eldest nephew is at the point where he should have been taught cursive, but I believe the local school board has decided to teach typing instead. I'll have to ask my sister. We were required to use cursive in almost all situations until graduating high school. I gave it up immediately except to indicate italics, but adapted a semi-cursive (printed and unconnected but looping) script for ease and speed. I just checked, my sister in Mass. says that one of the teachers in his grade is teaching it to her class, the others aren't, and it's not policy any more that they learn it. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Apparently one of the differences between the "traditional" Zaner-Bloser cursive (widely taught in the U.S. in the 1970s) and D'Nealian cursive (taught in the U.S. now but by less schools as time goes by) is that D'Nealian cursive looks like joined-up D'Nealian print while Zaner-Bloser cursive is quite different from its print. Rmhermen (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If you say so; I'm not seeing the similarity. —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I suspect part of the variation in people's writing styles in the UK may arise from the politicisation of the education system. From 1958, when Hugh Gaitskell ceased to support the postwar consensus on the education system, the Labour Party at all levels of government started to advance a range of measures to promote a supposedly more egalitarian education system. Although the centrepiece of this was comprehensivisation there were a great many efforts in local education authorities to advance a wide range of supporting schemes, including variation in handwriting skills.
For what it's worth, I was taught round hand at primary school in the UK, and gently guided to oval hand (italic) once I had mastered that. I now write oval hand in formal letters, with a few minor variations arising from my laziness in forming the full characters. RomanSpa (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not following (and given the cogency of the above answers, I assume it's due to my stupidity). KT's question mentions that in the UK, their handwriting is done with some letters joined and some not. KT, are you referring to cursive script with spaces between letters even within a single word? When I use cursive, I sometimes print the capital letters (especially in cases where the cursive capital is ridiculously fancy like "F" or "I" or "Q"), so they might not be joined, but that's about it. Are you talking about that - or something else? For example, if you wrote "references" in cursive, would it all be a single line with no breaks (it would be for me)? Or, if that's a bad example, could you provide another one? Are there commonly used rules about when to break? Matt Deres (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, for example, this is my own handwriting for comparison with the example I gave above. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 16:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies the question. This "semi-print" style is becoming increasingly common in the UK and USA. (I blame teachers who simplify their own cursive to avoid being asked "what does that say?") Perhaps writers in continental Europe are more likely to use full cursive, but fashions seem to change everywhere, and there are still many of us in the UK who retain almost full cursive. Dbfirs 18:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
When I was working in a primary school in Eastern Europe, one of the activities I used was to get the kids to write their favourite animal on the board. One girl came up and wrote something I couldn't read. I said, "What's that?" and she said, "Fish. F-i-s-h. Fish." The following week with this class, the native pair teacher told them to write more clearly, recognizing the fact that we don't write like that. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 18:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for entering the lists rather late in the day, but I've found some proof to confirm that European handwriting is difficult for us poor Britons to comprehend:
"I find it hard to read because of his curious continental handwriting..." The Diaries of Donald Friend, Volume 3
"It has long been a painful rite of passage for German schoolchildren – learning "die Schreibschrift", a fiddly form of joined-up handwriting all pupils are expected to have mastered by the time they leave primary school. But now, many German teachers have had enough, insisting it is a waste of time to force children to learn a cursive script when they have already learned to print letters at kindergarten." The Guardian 29 June 2011.
"I have pretty good penmanship, but it’s nothing like the calligraphie of the French. Theirs can be absolutely unreadable, but is always done with so much flair and polish, that it’s hard to fault them." David Lebovitz
Finally a note about learning penmanship in the UK; the style that I was taught in the dogma-driven 1960s was a simplified system devised by one Marion Richardson in the 1930s, with the result that my handwriting rather resembles that of an eager schoolboy. I have since taught myself to write in copperplate and Foundation Hand but it takes forever and when in a hurry, revert to primary school style. A friend of mine has a 5 year old who is being taught at school to write letters complete with the ligatures so that he can quickly move on to cursive script. The result is that his writing is completely undecipherable to anyone except himself and possibly his teacher. Alansplodge (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
At age 8 I decided that the prescribed curlicued style, that we were exhorted to improve without any suggestions as to how, was ugly in my hand and abandoned the attempt (with no teacher objecting); my hand ended up resembling KT's in structure if not in detail. At age 16 I spent some time in Lausanne, where the customary hand was very different (though rarely hard for me to read); I believe I adopted some affectations from it, though now I'd be hard put to say what. —Tamfang (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Recording devices in courts[edit]

How come recording devices are usually restricted in courts, but in other cases they are freely used? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again, which country? In the UK Crown Courts, all recording devices must be switched off, including mobile phones, computers, iPads, etc. Recording devices are only used by the Police when questionning. This may be played in court as evidence, but generally, the jury receives a transcript beforehand, so they can speed up the process of coming to a verdict. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 08:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@KageTora: No specific country. But I'm interested in cases in the United States, as sometimes I see in their news reports that all they can use is court sketches, but in other times news reports show actual court proceedings (I'm pretty sure there's is even a TV show which is nothing but court hearings). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, Judge Judy is just fake, but there are times with high-profile cases where there are TV cameras used, but this is purely for public entertainment, like the Scott Peterson trial, or the OJ Simpson trial, for example. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So in UK courts, all devices must be switched off? Does the court reporter have to use a typewriter, or something like that? I just assumed that with today's technology, it would be routine for court reporters to film and/or produce sound recordings for official purposes, and then produce transcripts from them, so that they could review their work in case of an error, and so that there would be more evidence in case of violence in the courtroom. Nyttend (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That is for people officially employed by the courts, not the journalists and public audience who may also be present. The Crown Court in the UK is a public court. Anyone can go to watch the proceedings. They just cannot record it. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 11:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe UK courts use a system called Digital Audio Recording and Transcription and Storage or DARTS since about 2012 when the Stenograph was phased out. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Guys, my question is about why recording devices are sometimes prohibited in courtroom hearings and sometimes they are allowed in hearings. It has nothing to do with how they are used, or even stenography. Why the inconsistency? Why not just either allow them at all times or restrict them at all times? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess we would want to know who is making the decision and what criteria go into that decision-making process. I don't know the answer. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Every American state has its own laws about when, if ever, recording devices can be used in court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The general principle in common law is that the judge is the arbiter of what evidence can be allowed, and what excluded. So he can have things stricken from the transcript if they are objected to on grounds such as irrelevance or prejudiciality, but he obviously can't censor a cellphone transmitting the live proceedings. I once was foreman in a civil suit where I and most of the witnesses and plaintiffs spoke (and testified) in Spanish. We were instructed by the judge to disregard anything said in Spanish and only to consider the English translation. Of course that was absurd, but at least neither party ever disputed the other's translations, and as soon as we went to deliberation they settled. Basically, the issue is Evidence (law). μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's look at some pros and cons:
PRO: The public has a right to know what happens in it's courts. This prevents obvious miscarriages of justice by shining a light on them.
CON: The individuals involved have a right to privacy. This includes the victim, particularly in cases involving minors, rape, etc. The accused may also have a right to privacy, at least until they are convicted. Tabloid TV shows/anything involving Nancy Grace would love to show a snip from a trial and then declare the accused guilty despite a total lack of evidence. The jury may also have a right to privacy, particularly if they might be attacked for making the "wrong" decision. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As we've all seen from TV news reports, it seems fine to have an artist do a hand drawing of the defendant(s), and that can presumably be as true to life as the artist can make it. But a photo is not on. I've never really understood that distinction. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the muted pinks, Jack. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, apparently my oeil has been tromped many times without my knowing it. Ignorance is bliss. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem is the impracticality of banning it. An artist could attend, memorize the people in question, then draw them later and submit the pics to the media anonymously. Rather than trying to track down such people, they simply allow it. Another reason might be that artists don't disturb the proceedings as much as cameramen, what with flashes, extra lights, shutters clicking, film winding, etc. (although modern cameras can potentially be far less obtrusive than those used back when the laws were made). StuRat (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Some references:

Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Women in Love[edit]

Per edit request. ―Mandruss  15:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

(This page will be protected for 10 hours, so I have to use the talk page for my question). If I read D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love without having first read The Rainbow will I have any poblems? Is it a direct sequel (like, say, The Two Towers) or a more "loose" one (like The Libation Bearers)? (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

When I was in college, taking a course on the modern novel, we read Women in Love. I have never read The Rainbow. If I was missing something, I was never told, so I assume that it can stand alone. (The Two Towers, by the way, is not a sequel; it's just the middle part of a unitary novel.) Deor (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, first of all, Deor. Concerning Tolkien, as they were not published together, I think that it does qualify as a sequel. Still, I can change it to Perelandra, if you wish. (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic, but most Tolkien nerds consider LOTR to be one work, comprising 6 "books", commonly published in 6 3 volumes. The item-level and manifestation-level differences (e.g. there are some single-volume editions) don't change the nature of the work, or make one part of it a sequel, at least not in the sense of FRBR classification ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean 3 volumes. LotR is a sequel to The Hobbit though. - Lindert (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Noted, corrected, and good point. Actually, I would like to have a six-volume set, but AFAIK it was never released that way :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Such an edition (with a seventh volume for the appendices) was issued in 1999. Deor (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Battuta portrait[edit]


Looks like the image that was removed from Ibn Battuta per Talk:Ibn_Battuta#Portraits has been deleted, so I don't know whether it was the same as this one. This source implies that the image commonly believed to depict Ibn Battuta (e.g., by Muslim Heritage and even by 1902 Britannica) actually comes from an earlier 13th-century Arabic manuscript (thus predating Ibn Battuta). Is it indeed so or some scholars think otherwise? I can't read Arabic. Brandmeistertalk 21:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that manuscript, certainly. It's pretty famous, and, as the page you linked top notes, images from it are used for all sorts of Islamic things, no matter how tangentially related (the cover of the recent translation of Usama ibn Munqidh's "Book of Contemplation" for one I happen to have in front of me). So that's definitely not Ibn Battuta, just some guy on a camel. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. We removed this picture from the Russian article on Ibn Battuta quite some time ago. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

travelling in the Regency period[edit]

Can someone please tell me how long the China fleet generally took on the round trip England to China around 1820? Also, ideally, what time of year they left England. With thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenadrienne (talkcontribs) 07:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It took Sir Edward Pellew six months to sail to Penang in his flag ship in 1805. But he wasn't slowed by a cargo fleet.
Sleigh (talk)
Sir Thomas Troubridge left England in the spring of 1805 on his flag ship HMS Blenheim with a fleet of Indiamen and arrived in India (perhaps Madras) in August, 1805.
Sleigh (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
A British East Indiaman, the Kent, "...left Cowes on 14 Mar 1821 and reached Bombay on 10 June. She arrived in Singapore on 29 August, and Whampoa anchorage on 24 September" (just over six moths including stopovers). "On her second voyage, Kent left The Downs on 7 January 1823, reaching New Anchorage on 9 May. From there she reached Penang on 1 August and Singapore on 21 August. A little more than a month later, on 30 September, she arrived at Whampoa" (more than nine months).
A Royal Navy frigate, HMS Alceste (quite a bit faster than a merchant ship) "...left Spithead for China on 9 February 1816.... and after stopping at Madeira, Rio de Janeiro, the Cape of Good Hope, Anyer and Batavia, sailed through the Bangka Strait into the South China Sea. After a short stop to pay respects at Canton, Alceste passed the Straits of Formosa and hove-to in the Bohai Sea on 28 July" (just over six months). Going to South Africa via Brazil might seem illogical, but finding the right trade winds was vital. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
On his return voyage, Sir Edward Pellew left India (perhaps Madras) in his flag ship HMS Culloden in February, 1809 with a fleet of Indiamen and reached England "a few days after" 9 June, 1809 (a journey of around four months). Four Indiamen were lost in a gale off Mauritius.
Sleigh (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It would make sense to leave England early in the year so as to be able to take advantage of the summer monsoon in East Asia, with its southwesterly winds. It would also make sense to leave East Asia late in the year so as to take advantage of the prevailing winter northwesterly winds to return to the Indian Ocean. Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

1990s Childrens Book[edit]

I'm trying to remember the title of a series of children's books that I read in the UK in the early/mid 1990s. They may have been puzzle/choose your own adventure books or just stories.

The main thing that I remember is that the genre changed from traditional fantasy to space/sci-fi fantasy at some point in the series. When this happened the covers of books changed to look futuristic and robotic, but in the run up to the change the previous cover gradually started to shift and showed hints of what was about to happen. Sorry but that's all I remember!

Thanks! JJL85 (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fighting Fantasy? (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Homeless people in America[edit]

State Pension[edit]

Middle Ages[edit]

Did people in the middle ages have the technology to create a basic bicycle? If so, why didn't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkDampAndWet (talkcontribs) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how basic you want to get. See Dandy horse for the precursor. Making a chain drive would be very hard, and a freewheel probably impossible. In either case, it would be very expensive. No rubber wheels, either. One reason why apparently no-one tried is a lack of good roads. Even with a modern mountain bike, everything but prepared roads or decent footpaths is a technical challenge. The League of American Wheelmen was a major early advocacy group for road improvements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason I can think of why bicycles like in this picture could not have been made in the Middle Ages. As mentioned above however, things like chains, freewheels and rubber tires were unavailabe. Road quality would of course be an issue, but there were definitely some roads that were good enough for cycling (things like carriages and chariots also benefit from smooth roads). So although it was possible, it wouldn't have been as practical as it is today. - Lindert (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
For wire wheels you need suitable steel for the spokes and precision-tooling for the spoke nipples and spoke threading. I won't say its strictly impossible if you know what you are aiming for (after all, we did get there), but it is a big technological step. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Although early velocipedes had wooden wheels with very slender spokes, but when compared with the chunky wheels seen on medieval carriages [3], it seems likely that they would have been beyond the skills of the wheelwrights at that time (although perhaps they were over-engineered to cope with the poor road surfaces mentioned above). Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Would not such a vehicle have been slower, less comfortable, and more expensive than a horse? I would think that the answer to the OP's second question would be that, in view of the limited materials and technology and the poor roads then available, a bicycle would have provided no advantage in the middle ages. John M Baker (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Even today, a horse and carriage works better if you have company. Or just a horse, if you can't afford a carriage. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, the first (authentic) depiction of a bicycle dates from 1672, in St Giles' church in Stoke Poges. See this forum thread. There is a drawing of one, purportedly by Gian Giacomo Caprotti and dating from 1493, but it's believed to be a nineteenth-century fake. See History of the bicycle. Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi military medal?[edit]

Can someone identify this medal (unfortunately photographed upside down)? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be the one on the far left of the bottom row on this chart. All you need now is somebody who can read Arabic script! Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Another website says "Supreme Worthiness Medal, 1992-1993". Apparently worth $24.95 if you want one. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Marie-Adélaïde and the Germans in 1914[edit]

On a visit to Luxembourg City many years ago, I'm certain that I read a plaque or monument on the Adolphe Bridge saying that the Grand Duchess (presumably Marie-Adélaïde) had blocked the path of the German invaders there in 1914 by sitting in a chair in the middle of the road, and that the German soldiers had been forced to pick her up, chair and all, and carry her to the side of the road so that they could enter the city. Our German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I mentions the meeting on the bridge, but not the splendidly defiant episode with the chair in the road. I thought it would be easy to find another account of this story, but I have drawn a blank. Either a) I'm not looking in the right place or b) it's a national myth or c) I've somehow imagined the whole thing. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It may well be a national myth, since it doesn't seem Marie-Adélaïde offered much resistance at all to the Germans. In Inventing Luxembourg: Representations of the Past, Space and Language from the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century [4], the authors write (p. 90) "...Marie-Adelaide was accused of having shown too much sympathy for the German occupiers. These allegations arose largely because she did not condemn the military occupation and even seemed to endorse it when she publicly welcomed the Kaiser to Luxembourg". The footnote there, regarding collaboration and opposition in Luxembourg in WWI, cites Gilbert Trausch 'La stratégie du faille. Le Luxembourg pendant la Première Guerre mondiale'. - Nunh-huh 19:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
On a royalty blog [5], it's claimed that a Stars and Stripes story of November 29, 1918 said that "Grand Duchess Marie Adelaide of Luxembourg acted decisively when the Germans invaded her country. On the morning of Sunday, August 2, 1914, the Grand Duchess maneuvered her motor car across the road in Luxembourg City, trying to block the invading German motorcade that streamed across the Adolfe Bridge into her neutral country." So the story in some form may have gotten its start, or spread, from appearing in Stars and Stripes four years after it was said to have occurred. - Nunh-huh 20:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your efforts; what a shame, it was a good story. Alansplodge (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I find no reference to this event in the Stars and Stripes issue of November 29, 1918, page 1, page 2, however, Kathy Warnes explicitely references the Stars and Stripes issue of November 29, 1918. --Stuhlsasse (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's very interesting. At least there's a story on the U.S. troops entering Luxembourg there. Perhaps there was another edition that included this story, or the date is wrong. Perhaps this is an old erroneous reference that's simply been repeated. I looked for an archive that contains old Stars and Stripes but couldn't find one. Could you share where you found these, Stuhlsasse? - Nunh-huh 03:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
In the wikipedia article on Stars and Stripes linked in your edit above. --Stuhlsasse (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

UK general election[edit]

April 20[edit]

US Police Statistics[edit]

Was wondering what percentage of police in the US have a college degree. My google-fu is coming up empty. Thanks in advance!2601:8:B380:23E:999D:A0FF:D204:E0BA (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

According to This only 1% of U.S. police agencies require a 4-year degree. But that doesn't say how many officers actually have one. --Jayron32 02:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This has some really interesting statistics. I haven't read it thoroughly, but it may lead you interesting places. --Jayron32 02:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
In Florida in 2006, 24% had bachelor's degrees, 16% had associate's degrees and the remaining 58% high school diplomas.[6] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This thesis used data from a 1998 survey (p. 26) of 925 officers: about 24% had at least a bachelor's before being hired, and 31% had at least a bachelor's at the time of the survey (pp. 38-9). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Also note that it won't be evenly distributed. That is, far fewer beat cops will have degrees, while higher level officers, and especially technical workers, will have much higher levels of education. How each department handles lab analysis will also make a big difference (if they send out samples for DNA analysis and such, versus doing that in-house.) StuRat (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Soviet Union-Vietnam mutual defense treaty[edit]

Our article on the Sino-Vietnamese_War says that: "On November 3, 1978, the Soviet Union and Vietnam signed a twenty-five year mutual defense treaty..."

1. Where can I find the text of said treaty?

2. Why wasn't the treaty triggered when PRC later invaded Vietnam? Did the Soviet Union back out of its treaty obligations? WinterWall (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

1. This link appears to have the "official translation" of the treaty.
2. Looks like the Soviets did back out. Other link: "When Moscow did not intervene, Beijing publicly proclaimed that the USSR had broken its numerous promises to assist Vietnam." 2601:8:B380:23E:999D:A0FF:D204:E0BA (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The USSR did support Vietnam during the invasion by China. It supplied arms and ammunition, and had military advisers there. That was sufficient. Vietnam pushed China back. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Literature: Deliverance (novel)[edit]

After all these years that I first read this book, I still have difficulties with its title. I have my ideas - but what "Deliverance" is being referred to? GEEZERnil nisi bene 07:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Deliverance from the appeal of the wild, perhaps? Akseli9 (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitler and the Antichrist[edit]

Was Hitler the Antichrist?

Johngot (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that the existence or otherwise of the Antichrist is a matter of religious belief and doctrine, rather than verifiable fact, we clearly cannot answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The only answer that can be given is that in Revelations, the Antichrist is supposed to reign for 1,000 years (which is not possible, given the human lifespan of 80-odd years). Hitler didn't, and he shot himself. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 09:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The book of Revelations doesn't mention the word Antichrist at all, let alone that he would reign for 1000 years. The only explicit mention of Antichrist or anti-christs in the Bible are in first two the epistles of John. Some people may interpret the beast as a reference to this Antichrist, but that's not universally accepted, and this connection is not made anywhere in the Bible. - Lindert (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Knew it was something like that. I gave up this stuff when I was 12 years old, and just preferred to play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay instead. Lots more interesting Gods in there, and you can even make your own. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hitler was not a demon, an alien or some other type of otherworldly evil force, he was a human being like all of us. Nazism, as a political phenomenon, is so as well: it is not the result of some unnatural force of evil, but the result of a political doctrine taken to extremes. If the same context takes place elsewhere, and government and society react in a similar manner, something similar to nazism may arise again. Have in mind that if we ignore that fact, if we think that "someone else" completely unrelated to "us" started the Fuhrer, then we relieve ourselves from learning from that mistake, and risk commiting it again. Cambalachero (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Hitler was a terrible military leader (although many of his generals and admirals were brilliant). His decisions to invade Poland (thus bringing war with England and France), then Russia, then declare war on the US, as well as his many numerous smaller military blunders, ensured the defeat of Nazi Germany. I would expect the Antichrist to at least be competent. The early military success of Nazi Germany was due to the vast industrial capacity of Germany, the brilliance of his generals, and the slowness of the allies to respond (due to Chamberlain in England, isolationism in the US, and the placement of Communist Party members over military professionals in the Soviet Union). StuRat (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
One little nitpick: the last book in the bible is singular, Revelation, not Revelations. That may seem like no big deal, but it does have implications. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to put this into perspective (and not for a second being any kind of Nazi apologist): the 21st anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide is currently being commemorated. "In a 100-day period from April 7, 1994, to mid-July, an estimated 500,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed". The usual figure given is c.800,000. That was in 100 days. Now, Hitler was in power for 12 years, in which time he destroyed more than 6 million lives. Had he murdered people at the same rate as occurred in Rwanda, he would have had 35 million lives on his head. Yet who remembers the name of the person in charge in Rwanda? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, but then use the right perspective. The Nazis systematically killed about 6 million Jews, but another 5-6 million other victims, from gypsies to gays to political opponents. And WW2 in toto killed between 50 and 85 million (or so claims our article). So it's the same ballpark. On the other hand, the Rwandan Genocide killed about 20% of the population, the Khmer Rouge 25%. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What does "half-cent sales tax" means?[edit]

What does "half-cent sales tax" means? For example, if a municipality in a state with a sales tax rate of 7.00%, but the voters approve a half-cent sales tax raise, what does it mean? WJetChao (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It means an increase of half a cent on 1 dollar, or an increase of 0.5%. In your example it means the sales tax rate will be raised from 7.00% to 7.50%. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Properly speaking, if the rate changes from 5% to 5.5%, it has increased by 10% (the amount of tax increases by 10% of the old amount) or by 0.5 percentage points (the amount of tax increases by 0.5% of the price of the purchase). However, people sometime get careless and don't make that distinction, as in Sluzzelin's response. You can assume that a reference to a half-cent increase means half a percentage point). Note that the original phrase was about a half-cent raise (increase), not a half-cent tax as in the title. -- (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You might be confused because, on a bill totaling one dollar, you can't pay 7.5 cents tax. It would then be rounded to either 7 cents or 8 cents, depending on how the law is written. A $10 total would have 75 cents tax.
Tenth of a cent (thousandth of a dollar or "mill") taxes are common in land and real property (building) taxes. See millage. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it normal anywhere to express tax rates as just "cents"? It's obviously short for "cents per dollar" and is equivalent in value to a percentage, but still ... -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the standard terminology in the UK - politicians will talk about a "5p tax cut" when they mean 5%. See, for example, this BBC article. Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly the same, though, because the UK uses "pence" rather than "cents". -- (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Word for "acorns turning to ducks"[edit]

I found this curious old Usenet post alluding to the existence of a word for "the process by which an acorn falls into the water and becomes a duck." However, what language this word is from is not known, and the last commenter seems to be sure the word exists but doesn't have a source or info. I assume this has something to do with the "barnacle goose" myth, although I haven't heard of acorns being involved in this folklore. Does anyone know what this word is, and what language it's from? (I would suspect Latin.) (P.S: I wasn't sure if I should post this here, on the Science Desk, or the Language Desk; I chose this desk because it seems to be the most active of the three. Is cross-posting alllowed?) (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that people used to think that horse hair transformed into baby eels,[7] which may be partly understandable since eel spawning has never been observed;[8] however, it defies belief that anybody could fail to notice that ducks lay eggs. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Knowing that ducks lay eggs doesn't actually prevent one from believing that some ducks used to be acorns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Alansplodge (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
From what I've read, the barnacle geese breed in the far north, so nobody (in Europe) actually saw where they laid their eggs. (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Could also be a metaphorical reference to Wood ducks, aka Acorn ducks due to their diet. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is probably from this post on creating Lojban compound words. I don't see any mythology refs. There is, of course, the AcornDuck pokemon/fakemon. --Mark viking (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Good find. However John Cowan's posts were in response to Nicolas Knoth's original query on another usenet board, and so don't explain why anyone was looking for a word for "the process by which an acorn falls into the water and becomes a duck" in the first place. Maybe someone can email Knoth and find out. Could have been been simply dreamt up, or... Abecedare (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict-- I was adding the same link as Abecedare. So this word does predate the jocular Lojban coinage; I can see how such a definition would be irresistible to conlangers... Cute Pokemon, too, but I prefer Cactowl (and when I learned that there was a barnacle Pokemon in the newest gen, incidentally, I hoped it would evolve into a tree sprouting geese). (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Biggest artic expedition[edit]

I remember reading once about an artic expedition (for the north west passage?) of about 4+ ships and >300 men that resulted in everyone dieing.

Does anyone know the name of this expedition? I believe it was well before Franklin's lost expedition.Dacium (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably Martin Frobisher's third try in 1578, with 15 ships and "almost 500 men"[9]. No large-scale deaths, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking Vitus Bering, not that large, but famously died on an Arctic expedition. Wikipedia has a List of Arctic expeditions which may help. --Jayron32 00:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Fingerprints on Driver's Licenses[edit]

Some states (e.g. California, Texas) require driver's license applicants to submit one or more of their fingerprints. Such prints have been used in some cases to track down fugitives if authorities are tipped off to these states. However, it seems that the actual physical licenses themselves don't contain the prints, so where exactly are these prints stored - are they embedded somewhere on the licenses themselves, or do they just appear on the application paperwork submitted by the licensee? (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A driver's license is used as a form of ID. The fingerprints will have been stored on a database. If your fingerprints are found at the scene of a crime, the database will show your home address, and the license plate number of your car. This way you can be tracked down. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 05:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I remember one case where the FBI, while searching for a fugitive, stumbled upon a person living in California (using a different name) who seemed to resemble the fugitive, so they decided to obtain a "certified copy" of that person's driver's license (which contained the right thumb print) and used the print to confirm that this particular individual was indeed the fugitive they were looking for. I'm guessing that this "certified copy" of the license will contain everything in the application records (including the print)? (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, this has some downsides:
1) Gives police another tool in framing people. I'm not sure if they can reproduce that fingerprint at a crime scene, but they could just show a copy of that print to a jury, and claim they found it at the crime scene. (They would need to do some photo manipulation to make it less obvious the print was made in ink, and it would likely only work on poor defendants who lack a good lawyer who might figure out where the prints came from.)
2) False positives. If enough people check enough partial prints against yours, eventually one may "match", especially if they use low standards for a match, as many do in many places in the US. StuRat (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Section 12800(c) of the California Vehicle Code requires license applications to include a "print of the thumb or finger". Oddly, I can't find anything prescribing what they're supposed to do with it (based on searching for "finger" and "fingerprint" in the entire Vehicle Code), aside from §12800(j) which implies that it's to "enable the department to determine whether the applicant is entitled to a license under this code". Maybe they compare the submitted fingerprint to the previous one to ensure it's the same person, though you'd think the photo would be enough for that. I don't think the fingerprints are disclosed in bulk by the DMV to any other entity, because the California Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional (though that was in 1986 and I'm not certain they haven't changed their mind). Law enforcement can obtain a print from the DMV if they suspect that person of a crime, but not just because they want to have all citizens' fingerprints on file. The code doesn't say whether prints are included on license cards, but does specifically forbid the SSN from appearing, even in digital form (§12801(e)). I'd think the prints would not be included because they are quite sensitive (more sensitive than the SSN, because you can't change your prints if your wallet is stolen) and I don't see what purpose including them would serve. I didn't look at other states' or countries' laws. -- BenRG (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why don't Lutherans make the sign of the cross the norm?[edit]

In the Lutheran church I visited, making the sign of the cross was the exception, not the norm, and relatively few people did it. Children and the teen acolytes didn't do it at all. In contrast, in the Roman Catholic church I visited, making the sign of the cross was the norm, not the exception, and the congregation did it together or whenever they received the Eucharist. In Martin Luther's Small Catechism, Martin Luther advised explicitly that people should make the sign of the cross - but Lutherans today, even with the fancy vestments and elaborate liturgies, don't do it? (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article sign of the cross, it is not discouraged formally by the Lutheran faith. Which doesn't mean it is mandatory either. --Jayron32 13:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a male equivalent to "Fallen Women"?[edit]

Fallen Women occurred before and during 19th century Western Europe. Was there an equivalent term for a concept for fallen men? Does being "fallen" have to be related to sexual promiscuity or sexual libertine behavior? Can it refer to general perversion or wickedness, like being uncharitable or irresponsible? (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it's used to refer to sexual promiscuity. While there is generally more leeway given to men in this area, there is a limit, and you get insults like whoremonger tossed at men who pass that limit. Historically, having sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis might be the point where the man is then shunned by his peers. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Historically the equvalent term in English was "rake", but of course "fallen woman" is usually just a euphemism for prostitute, though there is a bit of leeway in its usage. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether you can really say it equivalent. For example, as I understand it, a woman who'd had sex outside marriage once, even been raped, could be regarded as a fallen woman if it was publicly known regardless of anything else. I doubt a man who'd had sex with one woman outside marriage is likely to be regard as a Rake (character), at least not without a late of other stuff. It may be the closest term as there may not have been a closer one due to the different moral standards and views of males and females particularly their sexuality. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There can be no direct equivalent, of course, because female promiscuity and adultery has historically been much more condemned than male promiscuity and adultery, which is just a sign of masculinity. Rake and 'rakish' can even be positive terms, as in the Aussie TV series. There've never been real effective male equivalents of slut, slag, whore, etc. Paul B (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Or kind of celebrated, as in The Rakes of Mallow.[10]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Phew! Glad he did ask about an equivalent of a fallen Wikipedian editor. I can't imagine a member of the fairer sex falling as low as we do. Come on girls, get editing – we need you to lead us out of this world of intellectual smart-arsed promiscuity and back onto the path of righteousness! - edit, edit, edit.--Aspro (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)