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?

  • Explain what you need to know.
  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Tell us what part of the world your question applies to.
  • 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 directly address what the questioner asked (without tangents), are thorough, are easy to read, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Please assume good faith, especially with users new to Wikipedia. Don't edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


April 13[edit]

Why should a company care about its own share price?[edit]

Why should a company care about its own share price? If the company has sold shares, it can only benefit from a high share price if it sells more and it could only make money on its own shares if it buys them low and sells them again later? What motivation is there to pay dividends? -- (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If the price goes too low, many bad things happen:
1) They may be the target of a hostile takeover, where another company tries to buy a majority of their shares, to gain control of the company. The dissatisfied current owners of the shares may be willing to sell, if it seems like a bad investment, and the other company might be wiling to buy them, if they seem like a bargain.
2) Your company will be very limited in their ability to raise cash by selling stock. Also banks may be unwilling to lend, knowing this. So, a cash flow problem could turn into bankruptcy.
3) Bad press may make customers unwilling to buy your products, as they are worried that you may not be there when they need service, want to return the item, etc.
4) The shareholders, dissatisfied with the return on their investment, will demand a change in management. Paying dividends can stave off this pressure, so companies with little stock growth often offer those. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Add to this: managers are very often paid in put options too. It's in their interest that the price gets as high as possible. OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean call options. Typically, managers have the right (but not the obligation) to buy stock in the company at some designated price on some future date. It is therefore in the managers' interest to ensure that the company's stock price is as high as possible on that date, so as to maximise their reward (which they get by exercising the options on the appropriate date, buying the stock at the designated price, and then selling it in the open market at the (hopefully) higher price). The reasoning behind this is that it aligns the interests of the stock-holders and the company management: both want a high stock price. RomanSpa (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, it's call options. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting and valid answers above, but unless you are Mitt Romney, you don't think corporations are people. What does a "company" want? In some sense (not perfectly, but accurately enough) what the company wants is what the shareholders want. They do, after all, own the company. So ask why the shareholders would care about the share price (you could reasonably argue that that is all they care about). Then ask how the shareholders influence the decisions of the directors. One good answer has already been given: they give them call options (or some other such stock bonus) so they have an incentive directly. Then their motives are aligned with those of the shareholders. But the shareholders could also call a meeting and fire the directors, so the pressure from the capitalists should usually amount to the same thing.
Then there is a separate question of the motivation to pay dividends. Remember these go to the shareholders, so that should be easy to work out. However, there are of course reasons not to, since they want to pump money back into the business to stave off competition. But read the article dividend for more interesting stuff. IBE (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, working for corporations, periodic earnings become THE most important thing. That fact drives every significant decision, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC) -- Before the 1930s, often very little financial information was available about publicly-traded companies, and people without a speculative mindset often bought stocks more in the expectation that previous dividend patterns would continue in future, than to take advantage of stock price changes.
In more recent times, the "shareholder value model" has been the business-school orthodoxy for the last three decades or so, with increasing criticism in the last few years... AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • To piggyback on what Anonmoose is saying: It is the responsibility of the employees of a company to make as much money as possible for the owner(s) of the company. That is, whoever owns the company wants the company to be worth as much as possible, either in terms of the overall value of the company, or in terms of how much money it can make for the owners. It doesn't matter whether a company has 1 owner or 1,000,000 owners, those owners have the right to expect that the people working for the company act in the owner's best interest. The company management has what is called a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders; that is the management is required to take the best interest of the owners in their decision making (again, for a publicly traded company, these are the shareholders, but don't sweat the terminology. Shareholders are owners). The fiduciary article cites several court cases in the U.S., UK, and Canada which uphold the basic principle that company managers/directors/trustees/etc. have a fiduciary duty towards the shareholders. --Jayron32 21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the situation is a bit different if the company is over 50% owned by one party. In that case, they may like having the stock price vary both up and down, so they can sell stock when the price is high and buy it back when it goes low, hopefully always retaining majority share, so the other shareholders can't gain control of the company. However, if they intentionally cause the share price to drop so they can buy it cheap, then this form of stock manipulation may be illegal, depending on the jurisdiction. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"We" in Islam[edit]

I was reading a Wikipedia article re: Iblis (devil) and there was a quote from the Quran: "It is We Who created you and gave you shape . . ." Quran, sura 7 (Al-A'raf) ayat 11-12

Who is/are the "We" being referred to here? (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's similar to the Bible (Genesis 3:22):
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
My explanation is that polytheism was still mixed in with both religions when they were new, and all those texts were not excised out. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Accuracy of translation from the original texts might be of interest here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The polytheism bit doesn't quite jive with "Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, and follow no friends other than He", from the same part. "He" and "We" are consistently used differently there. Doesn't seem like a translation error. Of course, there are those who swear the Koran must be read in Arabic (aloud) for it to be truly true. Could boil down to that, but there's probably a simpler answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
I'm no theologian, but from reading 7:35-36, it seems "We" are the Messengers, relating to others God's signs. "My message" thus becomes "Our message". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps We are a Council, as in 7:59-60. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • Surely the Qur'anic use is the Royal We. We ourself use that around here all the time. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Possibly. Hadn't heard of that. 7:103 on suggests We are not the capitalized Council, but sent forth Moses, a "Messenger from the Lord of all Being", to the Pharoah's Council. Noah was a similar Messenger. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Your link led me to Divine Council, then to Heavenly host. I think I'm going with "Them". "We" certainly sound like an army in this sura, and the "Angelic combat" section likewise describes booting Satan. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
We also confessed to committing the Plagues of Egypt. Were those guys identified in the Bible or Torah? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Just plain God. But it could be that God caused the plagues something like Bill Clinton bombed the Serbs. Or how Santa makes all those toys. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Some Googling has led me to believe that the specific angel speaking here is Jibra'il. Mikha'il fights with honour, Izra'il kills, Israfil plays the horn and Jibra'il writes it all down. Something like the Ninja Turtles, if Raphael was replaced by April. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know it when I wrote it, but Raphael (archangel) was replaced by Israfil in Islam. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
The two verbs in Arabic (we created you/we gave you shape) are both plural, if that helps (they both have -na at the end, well actually they have -nakum since the plural object "you" is also attached to the verb). The angel could be referring to more than one entity in this case, but yes, Arabic also has Royal We when Allah is speaking (Surah 2 for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It's definitely intrigued me. The more I read about it, the more I'm convinced the general consensus on God actually doing things is mistaken. In all three books, the "mystery" of the Elohim is a lot less mysterious if one simply credit's God's crew for everything instead. Part of me figures pride goeth before a fall, and it can't be that simple, after all these centuries. But then again, the Trinity "mystery" and some of our own Manual of Style Talk Page wars were deceptively easy, too (Use a hyphen or a dash; someone will always fix it later.).
Thank you, OP-IP for getting me interested in archangels. Still plenty left to discover on them. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
Not really relevant to the Quran question, but for a general overview of the current state of scholarship of Elohim, et al., see James Kugel, The God of Old and How to Read the Bible. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
They sound interesting, from the Amazon overviews, but the prices are personally a bit steep (oddly, both are worth more used than new). If I ever live somewhere with a good library again, I'll check them out. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
Ever try I find their prices are often better than Amazon's, at least for the obscure kind of stuff I read. Here's Kugel on Evan (talk|contribs) 00:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. Even if I don't grab the books, I'll remember the site. "On Being a Jew" seems a deal, at 75 cents. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

The Rosary[edit]

Just today, I saw a copy of the painting entitled The Virgin of the Rosary by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. A copy of this painting is in the "Gallery section" of his article. It is the one in the second row, third column. See here: Bartolomé Esteban Murillo#Gallery. The painting shows the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus, holding a set of rosary beads. Now, every set of rosary beads that I have seen contains a little medal of Mary. And it occurred to me that people say the rosary in prayer and devotion to Mary. So, as I looked at the painting, it struck me odd that Mary herself was holding a rosary. Is this an anachronism? Some form of "poetic license"? Or would there be some viable reason that a person living at that time (as Mary) would have a rosary? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds similar to the pattern of Jesus and Mary being painted as Europeans, rather than as the Semitic people they were, when painted by Europeans StuRat (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
According to Catholic beliefs, Mary continues to exist after her Assumption to heaven (rising to heaven), and she can continue to appear to mortals, for example, as Our Lady of Lourdes. By that logic, she may appear to people holding a rosary, or be portrayed that way.OttawaAC (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the legend of Our Lady of the Rosary, it was Mary who gave St Dominic a rosary in the first place, in the year 1214, about 12 centuries after she died was assumed bodily into Heaven. That one probably didn't have a picture of her on it, but later people have chosen to include one. The picture is not a fundamental or intrinsic part of the Rosary. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Any painting of "Our Lady of the Rosary" is going to show her with a rosary, because it is depicting a Mary who has already been assumed into Heaven encouraging/teaching the praying of the rosary. It is not going to be a painting of Mary during her normal lifetime. I would also add that I have seen many sets of rosary beads which had a medal depicting someone or something other than Mary, and indeed sets of beads with no medal at all. There's a bit of a trend for making rosary 'beads' by knotting a single length of cord, for example, and these knotted cords have no medal at all. (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There are virtual rosaries on line or as apps,some do and some don't have pictures of Mary on them.Hotclaws (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But, it seems like these above answers are "missing the point". OK, after she was assumed, I can see that she might "appear" or be pictured holding a rosary. But, in the painting mentioned above, she is holding the baby Jesus. Hence, the event being pictured happened (more or less) around the years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AD or so (assuming the baby Jesus is about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years old). This is well before the time she was assumed into heaven. Hence, my question about it being anachronistic. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can deduce from the age of baby Jesus that the picture is depicting an event during the early life of Jesus, or even any particular event at all. I'm sure there have been other (claimed) apparitions of these sorts of things where Jesus was a child or a baby. There's a lot of symbolism in these apparitions, e.g. Mary is sometimes shown standing on crescent moons and stars, but that doesn't mean it's meant to depict her wandering around interstellar space. What's the crescent moon all about? An eclipse, perhaps? Why not a full moon or a half moon? Sometimes Jesus appears with his heart open and rays streaming out of it, and Mary sometimes has 7 daggers stuck in her. It's not photographic or historic, and shouldn't be analysed forensically like a crime scene or an actual moment from the life of the person. It's all symbolic. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. When St Anthony of Padua is shown holding the child Jesus, this is not meant to imply he was a time-traveller. When saints are shown holding small model churches, this is not meant to imply that they had excellent crafting skills. Many apparitions and visions over the centuries include or feature the child Jesus, even before we look at the symbolism. (The crescent moon is because it's really hard to make any other sort of moon look like a moon if you're sticking to simple symbolic artwork. I have seen statues of Mary standing on the top half of a proper, crater-y moon, so it can be done. But, speaking as someone who corralled a class of children into making a sun and moon and stars, on sticks, to parade with, you quickly start sticking rays on the sun and making the moon a crescent shape.) (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the British Ambassador in Germany after declaration of war by Great Britain in 1939?[edit]

What happened to the British Ambassador in Germany after declaration of war by Great Britain in 1939? -- (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

see Nevile Henderson (although that section could use some references). Rgds  TRN 3.svg • hugarheimur 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, keeping ambassadors at their posts in enemy territory makes sense, as they are needed then more than ever, to arrange evacuation of non-combatants, prisoner exchanges, peace talks, etc., although restricting their movement to the embassy and blocking access to others is wise, to prevent spying and sabotage. Of course, this presumes that both sides are willing to behave civilly. Germany in WW2, despite the genocide, did try to observe the Geneva Conventions with regards to prisoners, hoping to get favorable treatment for their own prisoners in exchange, and win the war of public opinion in nations that could join either side. As far as the British were concerned, the Nazis considered them to be fellow "Aryans", and thus wanted to get them to give up without much of a fight, much as Austria did, and then join Germany. Of course, it turned out that the British would have no part of that plan. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I doubt the British saw the German as fellow anything. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything to confirm our article's unreferenced assertion that "Henderson and his staff were briefly interned by the Gestapo". The usually reliable Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's article on Sir Nevile Meyrick Henderson (1882–1942) only says "On the day war broke out, 3 September 1939, it was Henderson's duty to present the British ultimatum at the Wilhelmstrasse, before finally returning to England a few days later". I found Thanks from Sir Neville Henderson regarding support he received from the US Embassy in his trip to Berlin, November 24 1939 when he presumably went back to wind-up the embassy almost three months after the war had started. Alansplodge (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I happen to have some anecdotal information about this one; a relative-by-marriage of mine was on Henderson's staff. The bit about the internment by the Gestapo is true - apparently the secret police rocked up at the front door of the embassy very shortly after war was declared and placed everybody they found there under arrest. The embassy staff rushed to destroy secret files before the Germans could take them. As far as I know nobody was put in cells or anything - it was very much an on-site business, almost like house arrest. I think this situation persisted overnight, despite the embassy staff's objections. In due course a diplomatic train was arranged, into which Henderson and all his staff were placed upon their 'release' by the Gestapo; this then headed west without any meaningful stops until it reached non-German territory, which I think was the Netherlands, but I'm not sure. There was considerable awareness among the staff that this was it - that their postings were over, and the world was changing. The events of September 1939 effectively concluded a period of high alert for the embassy staff which had existed since at least the Munich crisis the previou year. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Seemed to be a bit of fuss at the Dutch border, the London Times reported that they were held up on the German-side of the frontier for long hours on some petty pretext. An it also reported that Britain thanks Holland for the assistance of the Netherlands government in connection of the return of Henderson and his staff. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Insult ?[edit]

I wonder, since both Nevile Henderson and Neville Chamberlain were for appeasement, did "Nevile" ever become an insult in England, even briefly ? StuRat (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of it. I'm not sure that appeasement was seen as such a bad thing in the UK, even after the war had started. I don't think anybody wanted a war in 1938 and almost everybody was heartily relieved when there wasn't one. Whether a war could have been avoided by standing up to Hitler is an argument which is helped by generous helpings of hindsight. That extra year of rearmament made a whole lot of difference to us, although it was a thoroughly bad deal for the unfortunate Czechs. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In other words, it Nevile, Neville happened. Ever. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that during the remilitarization of the Rhineland Germany was so weak that a combined response from France and England could have easily evicted them, dealing a severe propaganda blow to the Nazi party, and possibly forcing them out of office. StuRat (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the historical orthodoxy now. It may not have been apparent to the Chamberlain or the average Briton in 1938. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder why that wasn't apparent. Were the relative strengths of the militaries of the nations involved completely unknown ? Was Hitler's plan unclear, keeping in mind that he laid it all out in Mein Kampf (although only an abridged version was released by then) ? What exactly did the average Briton think was going to stop Hitler, if not them ? StuRat (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Democracies don't usually go to war - proper war impacting massively on the country as a whole that is - just because it would potentially be to their advantage in geopolitical terms, or because it would strike a blow against a "bad" regime in another country. Chamberlain's comment that the Sudetenland crisis was "a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing" probably reflected the opinions of many Britons at that time. The Munich Agreement was widely welcomed in the UK at the time - see Neville Chamberlain#Aftermath and reception. I'd suggest most Britons would have reacted to the question "Who will stop Hitler if not us?" in a similar way to how you or I might react to the question "Who will stop Putin if not us?" (which is not intended to make a direct comparison between the two men, to be clear). What did the average American think in 1936? Valiantis (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That "far-away" seems demonstrably wrong, to me, as many planes had crossed the Channel by then, and bombers being able to soon make the trip should have been apparent to all. StuRat (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but Hitler was not directly threatening the UK in 1938. Or indeed in 1939 - Britain declared war on Germany, not vice-versa. The comment relates to Germany's grab for the Sudetenland and needs to be understood in that context. There weren't lots of ethnic Germans in the UK that Hitler could use as a pretext for seizing parts of neighbouring countries, so it seemed like somebody else's problem. Arguably it was someone else's problem. In Realpolitik terms, did it profit the British Empire to oppose German expansion on the mainland of Europe?
Anyway, you've moved this on from looking for references to debating. Chamberlain said what he said and the evidence suggests many - probably the majority of - Britons agreed with that sentiment (indeed, the sophisticated politician probably believed it less than the populace he was saying it too). The fact that you, with 70 years hindsight, disagree with his assessment is not a topic for a reference desk. Valiantis (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I posted a new sub-Q about whether Neville was ever an insult in the UK, and knowing how they felt about appeasement was important to that. Presumably the British public largely opposed appeasement later on, after it became apparent that it just emboldened Hitler to grab more and more. So, this is the time frame when it might have been used as an insult. BTW, regarding your earlier Q about Putin in the Crimea, there's nothing the US could do now to evict him. The only way to have ever evicted Russians from Crimea I can see is to have threatened a nuclear strike back when the US briefly had nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union didn't, post-WW2. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that Chamberlain died pretty soon after resigning, and Henderson a couple of years later, I think that even without the considerable distraction of the war, most people would have found such a coinage inappropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Are there any stats for the frequency of newborns getting the name "Neville" before and after World War II? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Good Q. There certain are fewer Adolfs now. StuRat (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Neville has never been an especially common name in the UK, although it was in the top 100 names for babies in England and Wales in the decade ending 1934 [1]. It had dropped out of the top 100 in the next decade but I would beware against assuming any post hoc ergo propter hoc significance to this. Neville is an uncommon but not an unusual name now and having known one or two people with that name, Chamberlain has never crossed my mind in the way Hitler does every time I encounter an Adolf (mainly only in histories!). I suspect far more English people when they hear the name now would think of Gary and Phil Neville long before they thought of Chamberlain! Valiantis (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It was Sir Neville Marriner's 90th birthday yesterday (or today if you're on his side of the International Date Line). He's the most recorded person in history, apparently. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
But he was born, and presumably named, at least a decade before the name would have fallen into disrepute. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Jack's point may have been as with the Gary and Phil Neville, Marriner may be someone people will think of before Chamberlain. For the younger generation many of who've probably read Harry Potter or seen the movies, I can't help thinking they will also think of Neville Longbottom before Chamberlain. Even those who've just studied him in history (Chamberlain not Longbottom I presume few are studying Longbottom in history). Nil Einne (talk)

The actual diplomat exchange[edit]

Back to the actual post-declaration-of-war events: In his book, Neville Henderson gives a brief account of how the British and French diplomats returned home a few days after the declaration of war. The Germans sent them on a special train to the still-neutral Netherlands (which weren't invaded until the next spring); the German diplomatic staff traveled home from France in a similar way. The process was repeated a few times after more countries joined the war. In particular, some weeks after June 22, 1941, Soviet diplomats in Berlin and German diplomats in Moscow (Dekanozov / Shulenberg)were exchanged at the Soviet-Turkish border. After Pearl Harbor, Anglo-American diplomats in Japan, and Japanese diplomats in the UK and the USA, were exchanged in a complicated operation, via Portuguese Mozambique; the German and US diplomats were exchanged via Portugal. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for "North Carolina locations by per capita income"[edit]

Sources for "North Carolina locations by per capita income"

Hello, the article that I have mentioned in the headline has a box at the top addressing the fact that there are no sources for the chart. The note seems to be from several years ago, and I was wondering if there is somewhere that I can go to verify these statistics. This question applies to the Eastern United States, specifically North Carolina. (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a table listing all of the counties, but I couldn't find it at I did find a map where you can click on each county and look at the figures individually (Here's the one for Mecklenburg County). That last link also has a drop-down menu listing the counties alphabetically, which might be easier (but less fun). For linkage's sake: North Carolina locations by per capita income. It does refer to, but the external links it gives show data for the entire nation, not for counties in North Carolina. Thank you for caring about accuracy and sources, and please don't hesitate to ask if you need any help. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Selling weapons to both sides in a war[edit]

Can anyone provide me with some examples of when certain governments or arms manufacturers were selling weapons/military equipment/etc. to both sides in a war at the same time? Historically proven examples only, no conspiracy theories, please. :) Also, is there a specific term for this practice? -- (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War? Llamabr (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Specific term = "Business opportunity" or "Profits". HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
War profiteering is sometimes used for people who use war solely as a means of profit, and not for any ideological means. --Jayron32 00:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There can be idealogical reasons to sell to both sides. In the Iran/Iraq case, Iran was sold weapons under the Shahw, but then they had that nasty revolution, and the US then sold weapons to Iraq. Also, maintaining a balance of power can require that you sell arms to whoever is behind in the arms race, and that frequently changes. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Two things 1) It's the Shah of Iran, not the Shaw, and 2)The U.S. sold arms to Iran post-revolution as well, indeed at the same time they were selling arms to Iraq. That is, the U.S. supplied both sides of the conflict simultaneously. Does the Iran–Contra affair ring any bells? --Jayron32 11:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
1) Fixed typo. 2) I didn't mention the Iran Contra Affair because that was not for ideological reason, but for practical reasons (to get the hostages released). StuRat (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There is, of course, the Shaw of Ireland. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
IBM, especially through its German subsidiary, was involved in providing equipment to the Nazis. How much of this was weaponry is disputed (IBM made Carbines and other military equipment), but the company certainly provided machinery. IBM also had a Japanese subsidiary at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
GM and Ford? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would expect this to be fairly common if the armsmaker was in a neutral country geographically close to both sides. For example, Sweden in WW2. And according to Wikipedia, Bofors sold the same model of anti-aircraft gun to both sides. -- (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Extremely generally, AK-47s come from all over the globe to all over the globe. Either in official governemnt deals or "falling off a truck". Easily the most ubiquitous war weapon, has made countless profit for countless groups. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking to get into the profiteering business, you may want to give KBR a shout. They seem fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
In Max Hastings' book 'Finest Years', about Churchill, has some details about the profiteering of the Americans between 1939-1941, enforced (by Henry Morgenthau), including fire-sales of British-held assets in the USA; he notes, in particular, a new Cortaulds mill (/factory). My late Godfather always complained that he had been forced to sell his landholdings in Florida, including Cape Canaveral. Unfortunately, Hastings does not go into the matter in more detail, but other agreements, such as the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, were also pretty one-sided. At the same time, the British made available technical knowledge - see the Tizard Mission, and early atomic bomb research, the Americans subsequently breaching the obligation to share that research with the British under the Quebec Agreement. At the end of the war, the Americans launched operations Alsos and Paperclip to scoop up German research.
The great profiteerer was Switzerland; having banked Jewish savings before the war, whose owners, helpfully, never subsequently returned to manage their accounts, it licensed and sold war materiel to both sides (eg. the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon). Indeed, if you look at the advertisements for IWC watches, they shamelessly state that they supplied both sides during the Battle of Britain.
Interestingly, in the 'Lonely Planet' (I think) guidebook, it states that the accidental bombing of Schaffhausen was, in fact, deliberate; credence might be given to this by the fact that the Swiss were producing ball-bearings in the town (see: Switzerland during the World Wars) and the Americans were trying to interdict the supply of ball-bearings (see: Second Raid on Schweinfurt). (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not just arms; sometimes even troops. During the seventeenth and eighteenth century, it was common for smaller German states to lease out their standing armies to offset the cost of maintaining them during peacetime, in a practice known as soldatenhandel (see, eg, doi:10.2307/40107566). (The most famous example of this is the "Hessian" regiments hired by the United Kingdom during the American Revolutionary War, but it was also common during continental wars). This was treated as essentially a commercial/diplomatic transaction, rather than participation in the war as a belligerent.
On at least one occasion (in 1743), this led to a single principality providing troops to both sides of a war. I don't believe they ever came into direct conflict, and this was probably carefully arranged, but even so... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is a current (2010) view on the industry in Latin America. Of course, it's from War Resisters' International, who may be biased. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Even more recently (and more biased), it was Global Day of Action on Military Spending three days ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

King Alexander & Queen Draga's Serbian assassins[edit]

Where are the list of names of King Alexander & Queen Draga's Serbian assassins - killed June 11, 1903? The quote on the Wikipedia page does not show on p. 202 in THE FALL OF EAGLES. I am searching for the list of names of the assassins. I want more proof as to who this is & where can I find more information: "Норман Перовић, a young Greek Orthodox militant who was in the pay of the Russians,[3]" (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article titled Black Hand (Serbia) lists the main conspirators in said plot, though that article has some conflicting statements about the exact founding date of the Black Hand. --Jayron32 00:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

medical power of attorney for my adult disabled child while I am out of the country[edit]

I am trying to find out exactly what form I need to fill out to designate an individual to be medical power of attorney for my handicapped daughter while I am out of the country. I am her legal guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If so you need to contact a lawyer in your local jurisdiction. No one here at Wikipedia is qualified to advise you on such matters. --Jayron32 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
A government web site can probably provide you with the form you need. In the US, the state government would have those. Try a Google search of "medical power of attorney <INSERT STATE OR COUNTRY NAME HERE>". StuRat (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This question is the archetype of legal advice, of which we can't give, and no responsible attorney would give [in this context]. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As others have already said, we cannot give legal or medical advice here. This is something that requires professional advice. It is likely that your daughter's doctor will be able to advise you. Good luck! RomanSpa (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There may be an interesting cultural difference here, by the way. I'm English, and my first thought is that a doctor will know how the system works; I suspect the earlier respondents were from the USA, and their first reactions were biased more towards lawyers! RomanSpa (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree on this being a request for legal advice. If the question was "Should I get a medical power of attorney ?" then that would be legal advice. But the actual question is "Where do I find the form ?". That is not legal advice, and any reference librarian would be happy to answer such a Q. StuRat (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No, read it again "I am trying to find out exactly what form I need to fill out to designate an individual to be medical power of attorney for my handicapped daughter while I am out of the country". The question is not just where to find the form, but which form they have to fill out for a specific purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
So you are saying they need to hire a lawyer to tell them the form they need to request a medical power of attorney will be the one labeled "Medical Power of Attorney" ? StuRat (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be prepared to pay perhaps $100 to attend a lawyer for 2 minutes, just to find out which form you should use? Their receptionist would give you that info for free, and they wouldn't be considering that "legal advice". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Then the OP should call an attorney's receptionist and let us know how it works out. Or, they could call an appropriate government agency, i.e. whichever agency potentially has to do with this topic. If they get the wrong agency, they should get directed to the right agency, who can tell them what form is needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
"Exactly what form do I use to amend a de facto court order" is no different from "what sort of motion" or "what cause for civil litigation." Getting that wrong would be malpractice if a lawyer did it. If a lawyer can't get that stuff wrong with committing malpractice we certainly can't take the responsibility on ourselves. Contact the court that certified the original power of attorney, or get a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
But I didn't say anything about a lawyer, I simply said StuRat was wrong in claiming the question was asking where to find a form. I actually agree RomanSpa that it would make much more sense to ask someone in the hospital or whereever the OP adult daughter is likely to be treated who would likely have experience with these sort of things (after all, unless this goes to court for some weird reason, they will be the ones who need to know of and decide whether to rely on whatever form) and could likely advise whether the OP should speak to an attorney depending on their specific jurisdiction.
The people the OP shouldn't be asking is the RD or a library reference desk.
Of course this could be a cultural thing, in NZ I'm guessing if someone were to ask a library reference desk, it will be suggested they do similar (contact someone at the hospital their adult child is going to be treated at) or perhaps contact the District Health Board or Ministry of Health.
But for a more complex question, it's possible it will be suggested they contact a disability advocacy group or citizens advice bureau. I understand citizens advice organisations's are less common in the US than in a number of commonwealth countries. From some of the previous responses I've seen on the RD, it almost sounds like library reference desks in the US function like a CAB. Although I understand legal clinics and similar are also more common in the US and IIRC none of these claims have come from people with much actual experience with library reference desks.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Psalm 72:3[edit]

In the King James version, it says "The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness." I've taken that to mean the (symbolic) mountains bring peace by righteousness to the people and hills. But many other translations seem to think it means the mountains give the peace/prosperity to the people only, and the hills give righteousness. The New Living Translation, as usual, has its own view.

Young's Literal Translation says "The mountains bear peace to the people, And the heights by righteousness", but does anyone here have the skills to doublecheck that against the earliest version? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

See Robert Alter's translation and commentary - as the preceding and following verses show, the psalmist is using parallelism: in verse 1 he asks God to give the king justice and the royal son righteousness; in verse 2 he asks that the king will judge the people with righteousness and the afflicted with justice; in verse 3 he asks for the mountains to bring peace and the hills righteousness; and so on. In other words, the answer is in the poetic form used. Goldingay in his commentary says that the mountains and hills are not symbolic, but the real site of the prosperity of the kingdom (they were where crops were grown).PiCo (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Alter's $8.49 on Amazon. Not sure I'd read the whole thing, but I think I could gift it to my mom. Sold. But not wholly on that answer. Why would one translation be "by righteousness" and another not? Is there some sort of vague wording or messy writing in the original? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
The David Allan Hubbard Professor of Old Testament in the School of Theology of Fuller Theological Seminary. That's a spiffy title, but I'm not buying the literal theory. Thanks for offering it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ... so a modern translation might be "the mountains and hills shall bring peace and righteousness to the people" (where "mountains and hills" are a metaphor for prosperity). (Sometimes this still happens, and sometimes it doesn't!) The Hebrew seems to be slightly obscure ("by righteousness"?. Is there something more to be read into it? Experts please? Dbfirs 07:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw the mountains as metaphors for nations (or some big institution), and the hills for towns (or some lower equivalent). As rain trickles down the mountains to the hills to the people, so too does righteousness, and prosperity sprouts from those foundations. But that's poetry for you; always meaning something else to someone. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:15, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
Word for word the verse reads "(they) will carry (יִשְׂא֤וּ) mountains (הָרִים) peace (שָׁלֹום) to the people (לָעָם) and hills (וּגְבָעֹות) in righteousness (בִּצְדָקָֽה). Now if the meaning of "to the people and hills" was intended, we would normally expect to see the preposition "to" (לְ) repeated in Biblical Hebrew, so it would read "to the people and to the hills". However, this is not an absolute rule, there are exceptions, (see this grammar which lists 1 Samuel 15:22 as an example where a preposition with multiple objects is not repeated.) Therefore, the interpretation you give in the original question is a grammatically possible translation.
However, it seems you're seeing a contrast between "mountains" (big) and hills (small). I don't think the KJV translation of "little hills" is warranted by the source text. I can't find in any lexicon that גִּבְעָה is a little hill. In fact, in many instances in the bible it is used more or less interchangeably with mountain (הָר) or at least in a parallel manner, e.g. Isaiah 2:2 "(...) shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills", 2:14 "against all the lofty mountains, and against all the uplifted hills", 54:10 "For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you" Deut 33:15 "with the finest produce of the ancient mountains and the abundance of the everlasting hills". All these use the same Hebrew words for "mountains" and "hills" I concur with PiCo that the poet is probably using a parallelism in this passage too. - Lindert (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I see more parallels than contrast between them. Different things (even without the "little", "hill" suggests smaller, rounder), but the Psalm focuses on the similarity and unity. Like how bad food is sometimes described as "fit for neither beast nor man." In other cases, like table manners, beasts and men are presented in contrast instead. And we likewise "make mountains from molehills".
The translation bit answered most of my question nicely. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, April 15, 2014 (UTC)


A Roadkill is typically a nonhuman animal that gets itself killed on the road. Is there a human equivalent of a roadkill? That is, what do you call a situation in which a driver accidentally drives over and kills a human being who is jay-walking or cycling? A human roadkill? How long does it normally take for a dead human body to be noticed on the highway? (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S., if the driver is deemed negligent, they can be charged with Vehicular homicide, or if they leave the scene of the accident, they can be charged with Hit and run. I would imagine that a human corpse in the highway would tend to be noticed by the next motorist. --Jayron32 15:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that human bodies aren't normally left on the road to decompose. An exception was during the Bataan Death March, where POWs were driven over repeatedly and then left dead on the road. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In some parts, animals aren't left either. Roadkill cuisine! (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, Roadkill Pie. Arrrrgh. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
A friend of mine actually had a t-shirt, in the style of "Hard Rock Cafe", called "Roadkill Cafe" ;) IBE (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
My cousin had this poster in his room for years. We used to debate whether the actual restaurant existed. He was pretty sure it did. Seems to be where that menu in our article got their slogan. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'd use it for any corpse that was killed by a car, and willfully ignored by at least a few uninvolved drivers in a row. until it starts visibly rotting (and longer). If the police or ambulance deal with it, it's not roadkill. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
How are those two situations mutually exclusive? Evan (talk|contribs) 02:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems I don't know. Changed my definition. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

Do non-Jewish White Americans ever hold ethnic weddings?[edit]

It seems to me that Chinese-American families may hold traditional Chinese weddings or opt for a more generic Western wedding with the white dress and the white veil for the bride and a tuxedo for the groom. Jewish-American families may hold traditional Jewish weddings. The bride may still wear the white dress and the groom a black tuxedo, but the ceremony is distinctively Jewish because of the chuppah and the Jewish music that plays during the reception. But what about non-Jewish White American families (German-American, English-American, etc.), or is it just a generic Western wedding without ethnic idiosyncracies? (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it fair to say that those are the ethnic idiosyncrasies of weddings for white people? (Why is that the "default" and the other ones are "ethnic"?) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Because the Western wedding is everywhere nowadays. Traditional Chinese weddings and Jewish weddings tend to be more localized to Chinese people and Jewish people, but they may adopt customs from the standard Western wedding. See a previous discussion here. (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes Greek weddings are big and fat. As far as "ever", know that the answer is "yes". As in, I am quite positive, without looking, that there has been at least one traditionally "white" American couple who has decided to have a non-standard, but ethnic-themed, wedding. That's for certain. --Jayron32 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm looking for. Stuff like that. (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Adam Bishop's comment gets to the heart of the question. Your (the OP's) assumptions are totally and one-sidedly Western-centric. From another point of view, the Chinese couple may be thinking "Let's not have the same generic wedding that a billion of our countrymen will have. Let's have an "ethnic" (Western) wedding instead, with one of those exotic white dresses and a white veil for the bride and one of those tuxedos they're so fond of wearing. It'll be grand!!!"--William Thweatt TalkContribs 16:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
But Western is not an ethnicity. British is an ethnicity. French is an ethnicity. How is the French wedding different from the British wedding? Do British Americans carry over their wedding traditions from Great Britain? (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
British is not an ethnicity. You are just making this up as you go along. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Says who? The UK census regards "British" as a possible answer to the question "What is your ethnic group?" [2]. Valiantis (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That simply means mixed. You're confusing government fictions with reality. You'd be hard put to find an Englishman who thought a traditional Scottish wedding with bagpipes and all the men in kilts, or a Welsh horseback bride kidnapping was the typical British wedding. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The iconic Western wedding, with the groom in a tuxedo and the bride in a white gown, is shared by a number of ethnic groups, but it is ethnically marked. There are other ethnic groups to which it is foreign. I don't have time to research it, but I think (non-original) research would show that the traditional Western wedding was the result of co-evolution, especially during the late 18th and early 19th century, among members of the bourgeoisie of Western European nations, who were then as now somewhat mobile across national and ethnic borders. During that time, the American bourgeoisie more or less aped Western European customs, and so those customs became rooted in the United States as well. There are subtle ethnic differences even among white Americans who choose to have a traditional Western wedding. For example, at Irish wedding receptions, alcohol is nearly obligatory, whereas at Midwestern receptions hosted by people of German, British, or Scandinavian descent, it isn't. Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
So, it really is an ethnic wedding then. Nowadays, I think the spread of this type of ethnic wedding is global localization. At one time, it's very localized in the Western European countries and then it spreads to other countries. (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Tuxedo? The traditional (ethnic?) English wedding has the groom in a morning suit. Of course the traditional Scottish wedding is different. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
ColinFine's comment exposes the danger of commenting without doing research. But it also proves that there are ethnic differences in Western wedding practices. The English wear morning suits. Americans wear tuxedos. Scots may wear something else. Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is a description of the practices of a traditional Scottish wedding. --Jayron32 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR here. The brother of a friend of mine got married to an Indian woman and they had, according to my friend, had quite a few Indian influenced aspects to their wedding including, but not limited to, how the bridal party was dressed. As far as I understand it, the wedding was more Indian than Western in most every way. But this just basically confirms what Jayron was saying. Whenever you ask "Has this not very unusual thing ever happened?", the answer will almost certainly always be "Yes". Dismas|(talk) 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Often the wedding reception will include ethnic elements even if the the wedding ceremony itself doesn't. Foods, dances, songs, the little rituals, how many days the receptions last all vary. (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the wedding ceremony depends on where you live. I've heard non-Jewish White Americans get married in church, and not so much for other places. In some cultures, it's standard to hold wedding ceremonies at home and without a best man or a bridesmaid or a matron/maid of honor or a witness or wedding officiant to solemnize the wedding. (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Many weddings are in churches but many weddings are also in parks, at homes, on beaches, on mountaintops, etc. This site claims that 80% of weddings are held in churches and synagogues. It may depend greatly on where the couple lives. If they live in a city and going to a more rural or scenic locale would be cost prohibitive or less preferred for any reason, then churches are readily available. Meanwhile, in more rural locations such as here in Vermont, there are plenty of scenic places such as the aforementioned beaches, parks, etc. Many resorts have spaces available for weddings which helps their business since the bridal party and out of town guests may stay at the resort for the weekend. Another factor that can keep people out of churches or synagogues is the religions of the couple. If one is Jewish and the other Christian, do they have the wedding at a church or synagogue? If they aren't religious at all, then they probably aren't going to go to a church. According to Religion in the United States, 15% of the US population is non-religious which rather neatly lines up with the earlier figure of 80% of marriages taking place in a church or synagogue. Dismas|(talk) 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

St. Patrick's name[edit]

The notion that St. Patrick's "real name" was "Maewyn Succat" is all over the internet. Unfortunately, as anyone who has any familiarity with the sources knows, it's nonsense. The only name he uses himself is "Patricius". The 7th century Collectanea of Tirechán, which cannot be regarded as historical, mentions that, among other things, he was also known as "Magonus" and "Succetus", and later Irish lives Gaelicise these names as "Maun" and "Succat". So the spelling "Succat" at least has a source; where "Maewyn" comes from is anybody's guess. But none of these sources are historically reliable, and none of them claim that Patricius was not his real name, or that "Magonus Succetus", or any variant thereof, was. I'd like to include a bit in the article about his various names, where they come from and their reliability or otherwise, but as it stands it would all be original research based on primary sources. Is anyone aware of any recent reliable scholarly sources that discuss these matters?

I don't know enough about Welsh to say Magonus cannot be the Latinisation of a Welsh name whose modern Welsh form is Maewyn. —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


I found this definition of succus which seems to be the root of the second name succus, succi N M [DXXCO] Late juice, sap; moisture; drink/draught, potion, medicinal liquor; vitality/spirit; Magonus may be a mis spelling of magnus which means great. I guess this could be great spirit,good medicine? I've looked everywhere including a very old missal and can't find anything definitive.Meanings range from friend to war-like.Hotclaws (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Magonus is presumably a Celtic name with Latinized ending. AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
According to Tirechán, Magonus means "famous" and Succetus means "god of war". --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd also add that Tirechán was writing in Latin and he's unlikely to have felt the need to add a translation to a Latin name, so AnonMoos is correct that both of these names are likely to be Celtic. However that doesn't mean you can just take the "-us" off and be left with the Celtic name, as the ancient Celtic languages had similar endings to Latin. The two names are unlikely to add up to a meaningful phrase, because names don't usually work that way, and because they are not given as a two-word unit in the sources. But the main issue I'm concerned about is not the meaning of the names, but what scholars think about how likely it is Patrick actually bore them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked but didn't find anything. As you say, "Maewyn Succat" crops up in popular (ie, non-scholarly) books and websites without any explanation. One 1920 Irish hagiography translates "Succetus" as "Socket". The task of finding anything objective that isn't trying to prove a point about Catholic theology or Irish nationalism, or both, has defeated me. Alansplodge (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

British Cabinet: attendees and members[edit]

Apart from pay and the fact full Cabinet members usually head government departments, are there any differences in terms of power, duties or functions of full Cabinet members and those who 'attend' Cabinet? (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And, as an additional questions, is there any reason why government departments in the UK are sometimes styled Department (e.g. Department for Health, Department of Transport etc.), Ministry (e.g. Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Justice etc.), and sometimes office (e.g. Home Office, FCO, Government Equalities Offices etc.)? (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A minister is the British equivalent of a US secretary. A ministry may consist of more than one department. An office would fall within the control of a department. An agency is roughly equivalent to a department but has important governance differences, such as more autonomy over human resources, etc. OttawaAC (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that is all wrong. The Home OFFICE, the MINISTRY of Defence and the DEPARTMENT for International Development, for example, are all top-level government departments, equal in rank and each headed by a cabinet member. The only difference is in nomenclature. The original question is asking WHY is there a difference in nomenclature.
Secondly, a Minister is not the UK version of a Secretary; that would be a Secretary of State. E.g., the UK Secretary of State for Transport v. US Secretary of Transport; UK Secretary of State for Health vs US Secretary of Health and Human Services etc. In the UK system, a minister of state is the second rank, for those outside Cabinet, but senior in an individual department. For example, the Ministry of Justice is headed by the Secretary of State for Justice, who is a member of the British Cabinet. Reporting to him, are a number of Ministers of State, who do not attend Cabinet. They may have specific roles, i.e. Minister of State for HM Courts, Minister of State for HM Prisons, Minister of State for Probation. I suppose the British Minister of State is equivalent to a U.S. Assistant Secretary. (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
ETA: The Privy Council Office is an exception. It's kind of like a department in its own right, it's the prime minister's own department (technically it exists to provide advice to the Queen. I had a look for info on full members of cabinet versus attendees, and I believe the main difference is that full members have voting rights, whereas attendees do not. Attendees are there primarily in an advisory role. Cabinet votes don't happen very often, though. OttawaAC (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but again, you're not quite right. The Privy Council is an ancient body of councillors to the King/Queen. Every Cabinet member must be a member of the Privy Council, and they remain so for life. So former Cabinet members remain in the Privy Council even after they leave Cabinet. The Cabinet is formally a Committee of the Privy Council, and the Privy Council, by convention, only exercises its powers in the way the Cabinet decides. It is not the Privy council which is the Prime Minister's 'own' department, but the Cabinet Office194.60.38.28 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
In a country where oddities and exceptions are actually the norm, one should still note that members of the Privy Council are generally called Privy counsellors (meaning people who provide counsel), rather than Privy councillors (people who are members of a council). See Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Composition, para 2. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Which ETA are you referring to, and why? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry--"Edited To Add". OttawaAC (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What is happening here?[edit]

Current Google Map: 52°22'35.6"N 5°11'54.0"E @ dock? (52.376552, 5.198303) (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything odd about it. If this is a real question (and not just a clumsy way to get hits) you'll have to specify what it is we should be looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Courtesy link: [3]. Appears to me to be a small platform built out over the canal for the benefit of sightseers in the park. Deor (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It would have helped if you had indicated it was something on satellite view. --ColinFine (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Question update: Zoom in all the way on the dock. It appears that a person is dragging something to the edge. Note the trail thats left behind, all the way to the shoreline. Any ideas on what is being dragged out to the water? (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been going around the webs. It's a wet dog. Mingmingla (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
SOLVED. Thanks for the quick answer. (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This was known at least as far back as July of 2013.[4] But there's some interesting stuff in the article about other stuff Google maps has captured, including a murder investigation near Oakland. There was a hue-and-cry about that once it was discovered, so it's possible Google has replaced the image by now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
For entertainment value, of course, nothing beats the occasional Google Street View mishap (some of my favorite examples of which The Guardian chronicled a couple of years ago). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean Richmond? I didn't see any mention of an Oakland murder investigation (or anything relating to Oakland) in that article. (P.S. I have no idea if Oakland would normally be considered part of Richmond in US parlance although our articles don't seem to suggest so and this isn't intended to be nitpicky, I was genuinely confused as I didn't find any mention of an Oakland murder in the article. ) Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Check the link I posted at 8:19, and it should take you to an article about the Google Maps view that showed a murder investigation in progress with a body lying on the ground. Google said they were going to replace that item (or maybe fuzz it out), but I don't know if they did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This shows the "before" of that location. To "patch" it, they have replaced the detailed images such that you're merely zooming in on the lower resolution straight-overhead picture from before. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Richmond is near Oakland, they're both part of the East Bay area. Oakland is the better known city, so when describing where one is from, it's quite likely that people would say "Oakland" simply because more people have heard of it than Richmond, which is a considerably smaller city. --Jayron32 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to identify a painting[edit]

I've been trying for some time now to identify a painting. It features a woman picking flowers (though this may be me misremembering it; it may have been a crop of some sort) in a colorful field. She is bent at the waist on the middle-right portion of the canvas, with flowers piled on her back (I think), and she may have been wearing a hat. The left side features a cart or wheelbarrow of some sort, possibly filled with flowers. I've only ever seen it in a book of photomosaics, so it's difficult for me to remember the style, though it reminds me of Impressionism. The other photomosaics in the book were of fairly famous paintings, so I'm surprised I can't find anything about it online. MostRecentUser (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the sort of compostion sans cart. [5] This was very populer pose used by many artists. It reasured rich people that bought the paintings, that poor people are at their happiest when doing backbraking work for a pitance. So there could be a lot of painting that match your recolection. Can you narrow it down by providing more detail?--Aspro (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In the above example, the subject is plucking the sexual organs of plants and loading them onto her back. Water is in the background and the Water Lilys are associated by the Greeks with Hera. The whole painting teems with symbolism. There are subliminal messages here, is this why you ask? After all, artist are not like you and I but rather more like I and you!--Aspro (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Medeis, how do you do it? Apart from differing in almost every detail, Christina's World fits the description beautifully. —Tamfang (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, that sort of characterizes the actual painting too (see below). Sometimes we have to intuit and use our lateral thinking. MRU did mention possible mis-remembering and also that it is probably a famous painting. I thought both Medeis's and also Xuxl's suggestion below were valid long shots. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Girl in a field bent at the waist? Are you still holding a grudge from the last thread Tamfang? You really ought to come out with it, rather than this snide, girlish sarcasm. What did I say that so offended you that has recently poisoned your interactions with me? I am quite certain I have never insulted you. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Do I need a personal reason to be amazed at the wrongness? —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There's certainly something going on when of all the wrong guesses, including the OP's admitted wrong description of the image, my suggestion is the only one that's actually wrong. μηδείς (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In all the others, as far as I noticed, at least someone is harvesting something, which seems to me the most essential element. —Tamfang (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconding Aspro. There are many paintings of women picking flowers with those kinds of details. How big was the woman in relation to the size of the canvas? Some possibilities, all of which lack one or more of those details: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] --— Rhododendrites talk |  01:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We have commons:Category:Portraits as belle jardinière, commons:Category:Portrait paintings of females with flowers, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

While waiting for more details, as requested, here's one more suggestion: La brouette, verger, by Camille Pissarro. She's not picking flowers, and the barrow isn't on the left (though the burro is). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Another very famous painting on the same theme, by Jean-François Millet [11]. --Xuxl (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
We even have an article on that one: The Gleaners. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it'd be a longshot, but I really appreciate the effort.

Well, I've got an update for y'all. I don't know why it didn’t occur to me to try and find the book I originally saw it in, but after an hour of image-searching I've found a photomosaic of it, and I'll be damned if I didn’t COMPLETELY misremember the darn thing (got to love the limitations of the human brain, eh?). No wheelbarrow, two people in the center… Unfortunately, also no name. Anyone know what it's called? I don't know why this is bugging me so much, but many thanks for all the help! MostRecentUser (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It sort of screams Diego Rivera to me. That's all I got. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Jack is spot on: It's The Flower Carrier (formerly The Flower Vendor) by Rivera. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Heh, heh, I've still got it. Thanks, Sluzzy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Post-World War II Aims of Britain and France in 1939-1940[edit]

Does anyone know if Britain and France ever formulated a list of their post-World War II aims (in the event that they won World War II) in 1939-1940 (before the fall of France), similar to Germany's World War I Septemberprogramm? If so, then what exactly were Britain's and France's post-World War II aims in 1939-1940 (in terms of territorial changes/territorial gains, the post-war peace, reparations, et cetera)? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it was quickly apparent to all that Britain and particularly France were in deep trouble, so planning for a WW2 victory at that point would have seemed foolish. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The earliest well-known document I can find for allied plans for post WWII Europe is the Atlantic Charter issued in August, 1941. In the 1939-1940 time period, I'm not sure there was a cohesive plan for a post-war Europe, beyond "Push Germany back to pre-war borders". France had plans to deal with Germany before the war even started (see Maginot Line and Dyle Plan) but Germany didn't want to play along. Of course, after the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940 France's leadership split into two factions, Collaborationist France, which established peace with Germany and became a puppet state thereof, and the Free French Forces, which was France's Government-in-Exile in London following Dunkirk. Immediately after Dunkirk, only about 3000 troops were organized into the Free French Forces, it would take some time until the leadership was able to sign on to any specific plan for a Post War Europe. Free France was one of the signatories to the Atlantic Charter when it was adopted en masse by the Allies in September, 1941 (and later expanded in January, 1942). --Jayron32 14:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
At the London Conference (1939) the British Government failing to achieve any reconciliation between Arab and Jewish delegations proposed to end the British Mandate of Palestine and partition the country. That was done post-war in 1948. (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That occurred six months before the outbreak of fighting (before even the "phony war"), and was not too connected with larger events in Europe. (And of course it followed the classic Mandate pattern of the Arabs refusing to negotiate, or to consider changing their pre-existing position by one iota, and the British rewarding them for this..) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The obvious and stated war aim in September 1939 was for Germany to leave Poland. I don't think that there were any further aims until later in the war. 09:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Criticism and possible further development of the Modernization Theory?[edit]

I was reading this academic peer-reviewed article that was published fairly recently.

  • Anqi, X., & Yan, X. (2014). The Changes in Mainland Chinese Families During the Social Transition: A Critical Analysis. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 44(2), 31-53.

I read the whole darn thing, including the Conclusion. It was interesting, especially the part where they mentioned that their analysis deviated from the Modernization Theory, because China does not really develop in a linear, progressive fashion, as predicted by the Modernization Theory. From this source, it claims that there have been three waves of the Modernization Theory. I am interested in the current working hypothesis of the Modernization Theory. I read the Wikipedia article too, but much of the claims there are not properly sourced or cited, so I don't know how much I should trust the source. So, please don't reference Wikipedia in this topic. I am looking for, at best, primary sources (peer-reviewed journal articles), but secondary resources (like newspapers and magazines) are okay as long as they are well-sourced and -cited. (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not my field at all, but I found these two books using google scholar and google books. Both are recent-ish academic research monographs, that have plenty of sources therein, and both mention "three waves" of modernization theory: [12] [13]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Knut Hamsun's Nobel medal[edit]

According to our article on Knut Hamsun, he sent his Nobel Prize medal to Joseph Goebbels as a present. Do we know what subsequently happened to it? DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Duncan. Maybe my google-fu isn't up to scratch but I can find nothing about its later fate. Nice to see you back here, by the way. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been googling and finding nothing too. Might try emailing the museum. Hope you're keeping well. DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how well documented that story is about the Nobel Prize medal. I remember another story, that Nobel medals of that era were actually made of solid gold and were quite valuable even just for the gold content. This led to a couple of Nobel prizes being dissolved in acid and preserved through the war to prevent Nazi confiscation. See the "history" section of Aqua Regia for some details. (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
All I found was a negative: The Knut Hamsun Centre's website does also mention Goebbels acknowledging the gift in a letter dated 23 June 1943, characterizing the gesture as an expression of Hamsun's "connectedness to our struggle for a new Europe and a happy society" That page is only available in Norwegian: "Nobelmedaljen til Goebbels" (Norwegian speakers, please check my translation). At the bottom they write that it is not ascertained where the medal is presently located. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Presumably Hitler and Goebbels et al could not have taken all of their personal property with them into the bunker, and presumably the Allies would have searched their homes for valuables, records etc, and presumably there must be documentation of what they found and what happened to it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Hatta and Dubai[edit]

I've been wondering recently how Hatta came to be an exclave of Dubai. What is it that caused the two regions to be linked together? I would greatly appreciate any information you might have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The internal boundaries of the UAE are quite complicated. I've found one English-language reference detailing how them came about - this doctoral thesis, "The Federal Boundaries of the United Arab Emirates". It notes "All but two of the seven Emirates lack territorial homogeneity. Only Abu Dhabi and Umm al-Quwain consist of one integral unit . The other five Emirates have at least one enclave of territory entirely surrounded by territory over which they have no jurisdiction." (p. 214).
This complicated arrangement arose primarily from the need to define boundaries between the Emirates to allow granting of oil exploration concessions. Until the early 20th century, land borders between the Emirates did not exist in the traditional Western sense. Each Emirate had towns, villages, wadis, etc., that it controlled, but the open desert between wasn't divvied up because it had no value to them. That changed with the discovery of oil and the profits to be had from it, which, my source notes, "concentrated their minds wonderfully on demarcation of boundaries between the Emirates." (p. 341) When these boundaries were drawn, the results often cut off remote towns and villages from their respective capitals.
In the specific case of Hatta, during the 1870s it was given to the Ruler of Dubai by the Sultan of Muscat. (Simultaneously, the adjacent village of Masfut was given to the Ruler of Buraimi in Oman; it subsequently passed to the Emirate of Ajman and is now an enclave as well.) At the time, it was known as the village of "Hajarain" or "Hijrain"; Hatta was the name of the wadi where it was situated. (p. 258).
Hope that helps. I suppose I should update the article now. - EronTalk 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This is very good information. Thanks for going the extra mile. I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad to be of assistance. - EronTalk 18:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mid Atlantic states geography[edit]

What are the boundaries of the lower Delaware Valley? Not being from the area I don't know. Where does the upper Delaware Valley begin? Is there a middle Delaware Valley? Also, I've long wondered why it's empty fields between Trenton and the "Brunswicks" on the majorest of major highways (NJ Turnpike) when NYC's suburbs extend at least twice as far in CT, Long Island, and along the Garden State Parkway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I presume your header is short for "mid Atlantic coast" (of the United States) (of America). To the rest of the world, the "mid Atlantic" is a point in the middle of an ocean, by definition a long way from any land. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm from the US and I also initially thought that this might concern Bermuda and the Azores going by the heading. Dismas|(talk) 08:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the Middle Delaware Valley, there are a number of GHits for that phrase including a publication from the Delaware Valley Ornithological Club about the "Birds of the Middle Delaware Valley". So, it seems that some people think there is such a place. That said, our article on the Delaware River refers to a Central Delaware Valley. Dismas|(talk) 08:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding why areas between New York and Trenton along the Turnpike seem to be underpopulated, much of that land is the New Jersey Meadowlands. --Jayron32 10:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the Meadowlands are in North Jersey, well to the north of the stretch between the Brunswicks and Trenton. The latter stretch is empty mainly because it hasn't been economical to develop. On the one hand, it is relatively valuable farmland, making land costs higher than in less fertile regions. On the other hand, it lacks coastal amenities. The main reason that development extends so much farther from Manhattan and other centers of employment on Long Island and the Jersey Shore is that people are willing to put up with a long commute to live near the shore. (The coast of southwestern Connecticut is heavily developed not only because of its coastal location but also because it includes urban areas that were formerly independent urban areas and that remain centers of employment and whose suburban sprawl has merged with that of New York.) People don't want to commute as far to live in a flat, inland region without good access to coastal or urban amenities. Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The Mid-Atlantic states are also known locally as "the Mid-Atlantic", as our article points out. While this is inconvenient for people outside the region, for whom the term might suggest a deep-sea location, the term is not incorrect. Our article Delaware River suggests that the lower Delaware Valley, as a physical geographic region, is the part of the valley below the falls at Trenton. The physical geographic region would encompass the watershed of the Delaware and its tributaries below this point. The term Delaware Valley is often used to refer to metropolitan Philadelphia, which might include areas outside the watershed of the Delaware, but which is roughly coterminous with the lower Delaware Valley as a physical geographic region. According to our article on the river, the middle Delaware Valley is the watershed of the Delaware including the watershed of the Lehigh and all other tributaries entering the river between the Lehigh and the falls at Trenton. The upper Delaware Valley would be the watershed of the Delaware above the Lehigh. Marco polo (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Most enlightening, thank you Marco Polo. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Added to question header, it was completely confusing before. Fgf10 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrected header to conform to general usage (question not specific to the coast). Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of the aggressive responses I got a few months ago when I thought it made sense to remove the capital letters from the term East Coast in a sentence referring to that part of the USA. Obviously many countries have an east coast, but America has an East Coast. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the National Park Service, [14], the Middle Delaware is the 40 mile stretch north of the Delaware Water Gap. The Upper Delaware being north of that, and Lower Delaware south. That makes the Lower Delaware most of the border between New Jersey and Pennsylvania. As far as the Park Service is concerned, the Lower Delaware doesn't even reach to Philadelphia. Or at least the Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River. But as Marco polo pointed out, our Delaware River page suggests the Lower Delaware starts at Trenton, where the river begins to become an estuary. Then there's the difference between the river itself and the Delaware Valley. As far as I can tell, the meaning of all these terms varies depending on context. Sometimes in historical contexts you come across the term "Lower Delaware" for what is now the state of Delaware—especially in the context of William Penn's claim to the region. Pfly (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Could the Egyptian pyramids have been painted on the outside?[edit]

OK, I know that they were originally surfaced by white casing stones made of highly polished white limestone. In all descriptions and visualizations of what the pyramids might have looked like originally that I've seen, the limestone was left as was, producing a big white, shining surface. But wouldn't it have been possible that this surface was used as a giant canvas to be covered with mutlicolored wall paintings? After all, the pyramids were painted inside, so why not outside? Now, if it ever was the case, then all evidence is probably gone; the paintwork would have been worn away by wind and sand before the casing stones themselves were removed. But is there any evidence that the casing stones were definitely not painted? Or has there been any educated speculation as to whether they could have been possibly painted and what the design might have been? — Kpalion(talk) 07:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to consider the huge amount of paint they'd need to paint such big structures. Do we know if the Egyptians were able to produce paint in massive quantities? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The Pyramids (in particular the Great Pyramid of Cheops) were from the outset hugely impressive and much visited, and many writers from other (non-Egyptian) cultures described them, just as they did the other six of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Many described the white casing, and presumably none (in accounts known to us directly, or quoted by other writers) mentioned any traces of painting, or this would be well known to us today. While absence of evidence is not strictly evidence of absence, I think the absence in this case is suggestive.
In addition, one might expect that a soft material like limestone would absorb and retain some of any pigments used, and that these would be detectable on some of the stones that were later incorporated into other buildings and are available for analysis today. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, the pyramids were made to last for thousands of years, and they would know the paint would quickly chip off if exposed to sandstorms. So, either they would have to repaint it constantly or it would look like crap in short order. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
As in Super Mario Brothers 3, the sun would be an even more constant nuisance than the sand. Better to burn out than fade away, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Besides, the pyramids were not, for a long time, painted on the inside. Almost all the royal tomb painting you're likely to see in photos comes from the rock-cut tombs in the Valley of the Kings, which the rulers of the New Kingdom used instead of pyramids. The interior of the Pyramid of Djoser, the earliest of all, contains some relief art, but I don't know whether it was originally painted. Pyramids from the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties—which include all the best-known pyramids other than Djoser's—had bare walls. Unas, the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, and his Sixth Dynasty successors, did have painting in the burial chambers, and the hieroglyphs on the walls of the other chambers were painted in blue or green. (I don't know if Middle Kingdom pyramids had decorated interiors; a lot of them weren't well-built enough for any part to survive.) A pyramid was only part of a large complex, and most of the artwork was reserved for the pyramid temple that lay at the foot of the pyramid, for the causeway that ran from the pyramid temple down to the river, and for the valley temple at the bottom of the causeway.
The pyramid casing wasn't necessarily plain white, though. The hieroglyph for a pyramid was often colored with a red band across the bottom. According to The Art of Ancient Egypt by Gay Robins, the bottom courses of the casing on the Pyramid of Khafre were made of red granite instead of limestone. The book's illustration of what the Giza Necropolis would have looked like at its height shows the Pyramid of Menkaure with a much larger red band—about a third of the pyramid's total height. A. Parrot (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all, and especially A. Parrot for a very informative answer. — Kpalion(talk) 08:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell Senate Office Building[edit]

Is it possible to drive a vehicle into the Russell Building's courtyard, and/or to have it propelled into the courtyard whole? That is, if you're doing it for official purposes, not just a person on the street. Trailers can get in the courtyard, but maybe they have to take them apart and put them back together again, or maybe they have to pick it up and lower it with a helicopter. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There's an archway entrance that's pretty apparent from the satellite view in Google Maps - look on First St. between Constitution and C, the concrete on part of the sidewalk is the same color as the turnaround circle inside the courtyard. Can't see it in street view for obvious reasons, but it's clearly there. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I saw that part but thought it was just a spot where they built a pediment-crowned portico, but you're right about the concrete color and about it being a turnaround spot. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ice cream and beer consumption versus income[edit]

I'm looking for data on ice cream and beer consumption per capita versus income in the US or Canada. Google hasn't been much help so I decided to ask here. (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm.... beer. This one is from the 1970s: Old beer. I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream. More ice cream: [15]. Beer good, ice cream good, just not together please... --Jayron32 14:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree almost entirely. Thanks for the beer PDF; I note one major factor it doesn't take into account is the type of beer drunk. While it looks a little at beer generally versus wine and/or spirits, the study takes no note of the dizzying variety (and increased cost) of much higher-quality beers available now (as opposed to at the beginning of its dataset in the 1970s). The plural of "anecdote" is not "data," but as my finances have gotten shakier since ~2008 (or maybe since I'm getting older?), I've spent a lot less on craft/microbrews (even though they're my drink of choice bar none) and more on the least-offensive macrobrews (as well as cutting back on drinking in toto). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Examples of LGBT Christian evangelization[edit]

I am just wondering, because I recently saw a picket sign that condemned homosexuality. In my head, I thought, "Hmmm... I wonder if LGBT Christians evangelize this way. But instead of the condemnation of homosexuality, the picket sign would say 'God is love' or 'Homophobia is a sin'." Are there any examples of LGBT Christian evangelization? (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Type phrases into Google to get examples. Typing "Homophobia is a sin" gets plenty of hits. This is the first such hit. --Jayron32 18:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Today I saw this [16] from a trans man who is an Old Catholic priest in Minnesota - I think it's a pretty good example from the more traditionalist end of LGBT Christian activism. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Those sorts of signs show up at counter-protests to the sort of anti-LGBT events you describe. I've also seen churches set up booths at pride events to let people know they'll be welcome there. Katie R (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to remember a short story . .?[edit]

I am looking for a short story I had to read in high school:

A man on the beach daydreams about a girl he knew when he was a child — a kind of first crush — and comes to believe that he is still in love with her. When he "awakens" from this daydream, he looks at his wife as if she is a stranger.

It may have been by Ray Bradbury, but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopies622 (talkcontribs) 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I very vaguely remember something similar, and I'm also inclined to think it was Bradbury. I remember a lake, rather than a(n oceanfront) beach. The girl drowned, didn't she? It's possible we're remembering two different stories. Evan (talk|contribs) 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you're both (certainly Evanh2008 is) thinking of the story "The Lake" in The October Country. (I won't link to it, since it's no doubt a copyvio, but a PDF of the story appears as the top hit when I Google "The Lake" Bradbury.) Deor (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it - thanks. I just re-read it. Funny, it's very different from what I remember, and yet too similar to be something different. : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopies622 (talkcontribs) 17:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

author Jill Churchill[edit]

Can anyone find out from Jill Churchill's publisher (or other areas) what happened to her latest "Grace and Favor" book called "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes"? It was supposed to be published in 2011. I tried contacting a few places but never got a response. Thanks for your help. United States¿↑↔# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD98:2F10:191A:73C5:6733:CEE3 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I did some web searching and found a site that showed a publication date in 2013 but no copies available. The Wikipedia page on Jill Churchill shows it as "not yet published". However, on that page you will find a link to the author's official site, which doesn't even mention that book. So it sounds as though it was canceled or has been delayed more than once. But on the author's site you will also find an email address. I have no idea whether that address still works, but it might be worthwhile sending a message there. -- (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Difference between "Irreligion" and "Atheist/Agnostic"?[edit]


Hi wikipedians i`m writing an alternate history novel in which the slave trade basically thrawted in it`s early years by africans who banded toghether and stopped the slave trade in it`s tracks. my basic question is what would be some of the sociological differences in american and world history if the slave trade basically never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No American civil war. (Or, if it did happen, a very different war.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Unless New World natives were kept as slaves in large numbers instead. —Tamfang (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Not possible. Of course, the European settlers would have rather had Native American slaves (cheaper than importing them). However, they all basically died because they lacked immunity to old-world diseases like small pox. The fact that the Native American slaves kept dying while the Africans (which had immunity to such diseases) didn't is what led to the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the first place. I believe (though I may be mistaken on the specific book) that this is covered in either 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus or 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created or a similar book. --Jayron32 00:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Tamfang -- In most cases, Indians were not found to be usable over the long-term as a labor force in centralized slave-worked plantations raising commercial crops such as sugar, indigo, cotton etc. Spanish attempts to use Indians in such roles was partly what led to the depopulation of a number of Caribbean islands in the 16th century (leading to the perceived necessity to import Africans as a substitute). AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The New World, particularly the Caribbean, would have fewer African-descended inhabitants. —Tamfang (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The USA these days would be much less obsessed with race. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
...and the country would have to find another excuse for a holiday on the third Monday in January. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. used to celebrate Lincoln's Birthday (a few weeks later) in its place. Lincoln's Birthday and Washington's Birthday got smashed together into Presidents' Day when Martin Luther King, Jr. Day became a holiday. They didn't give us one extra day, they just swapped out one that was previously celebrated. --Jayron32 03:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This being one of those rare blue moon events where HiLo and I agree... I thought I'd point that out. Excellent points. You're forgetting one small detail... large swaths of the British and Netherlands, and also the rest of Europe in general, would not have gotten rich despite banning it in their own countries. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No Chuck Berry. No Michael Jackson. No Oprah. No Jimi Hendrix. No Billie Holiday. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Musically speaking, no Buddy Holly, no Elvis, no Tom Petty either ... ---Sluzzelin talk 03:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Slavery was never as simple as from Africa to the Americas. Some 12 millions Africans were enslaved and sent to the Americas but 10 to 18 million were enslaved and sent to the Muslim world (as well as at least a million Europeans). (Arab slave trade) The American slave trade lasted some four hundred years while the Arab slave trade lasted over 1,000. Slavery in Africa between tribes was also common. Rmhermen (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There wouldn't have been an abolition movement to end slavery in Britain, France (by extension their colonies), or the US. So perhaps slavery would still be legal. That's a strange thought. OttawaAC (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't really a very ref-desk-friendly question. We can point you in the direction of outside sources, as some have astutely done above, but this sort of speculation is really outside the ref desk's purview. Evan (talk|contribs) 02:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Siberian and Central Asian slaves from Russia. Indian slaves from India. Muslim slaves from North Africa and the Ottoman Empire.
Sleigh (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Chinese slaves from China.
Sleigh (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Our OP geolocates to New York. I suspect his "alternate history novel" will be based on the American slave trade having never happened. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
People would probably still make zombie movies, but almost certainly nobody would call them that. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Inauguration day falls on a Sunday[edit]

When January 20 falls on a Sunday, as it happend in 2013, the president is officially sworn in the next day. What about other public officials in the USA? Are senators, representatives, governors and mayors also not sworn in on Sundays? I know that some governors are sworn in on the first Monday (or something), but others have fixed inuaguaration dates. Cheers -- (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

New Senators and Congressman are sworn in at the start of their January session, which is theoretically the 3rd, although obviously it can fall on a Sunday also. Poking around Google, it seems that Congress can start pretty much any day they want to. As noted here, the starting date has varied from the 3rd to the 7th since 1996. I suspect the practical rule is that Congress starts no earlier than the 3rd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
However, note that plenty of presidents, senators and congressman have been sworn at on Sundays, taking the Lords name in vain or not. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not correct that "the president is officially sworn in the next day": see United States presidential inauguration. Several presidents have been sworn in on a Sunday, but delayed the public ceremonies until the next day. -- (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What happens with the bail money?[edit]

There are offenses which are bailable. My question is, when someone pays the bail, what does the court do with the money? Do they donate it to NGOs or is that simply extra money for judges like a bonus for CEOs, for e.g.? (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's returned if the person in question shows up in court on the specified date. There have been cases of quasi-corruption or blatant money-grubbing connected with civil forfeiture, but I don't know that the same is true of bail funds... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
But what happens if the person doesn't show up of their own free will ?
1) Who gets to keep it if they never show up at all.
2) Do they get it back if they change their mind and come back, or are arrested or brought in by a bounty hunter ? StuRat (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this: The judge will issue a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest, and the bond will be in forfeit (default). In this instance, the only way you will get your cash bond back is for you to find the defendant and bring him or her back to jail within 90 days of the forfeiture OR for the defendant to be arrested by a law enforcement officer and brought back to jail within 90 days from the date the bond was forfeited. There is more but I didn't want to quote the entire thing. I still don't see what happens to it if the person comes back (by whatever means) after 90 days. And I would think that it differs from state to state and/or country to country. I noticed that the OP never specified that we were talking about the US. Dismas|(talk) 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
After a reading of bail and various sites on the 'net, the person who posted the bail gets the money back even if the defendant is found guilty. It's basically just a deposit saying that you'll appear back in court. Dismas|(talk) 15:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that with regards to StuRat's question about 'do they get it back', there's the obvious issue of who's 'they'? AFAIK and supported by our articles, in the US where I think the predominates anyway, bounty hunters are generally paid by bail bond agents who posted bail on the defendants behalf. This is unsurprising since someone needs to pay the 'bounty'. In the case where a bond agent was used, they may get some or all of the bail back if they recatch and force the defendant to appear within a certain timeframe but the defendant may not. In fact our article suggests in most cases the fee the bond agents charge for their services is non refundable although our articles have enough problems that I wonder if this is really the case. (Beyond the risk of being pursued by a bounty hunter, it would seem wise for the bond agents to give some other incentive to the defendants to appear on their own. Particular as I don't think they generally give as much consideration as the court does in deciding the risk of the defendant disappearing, although the size of the bail is probably a hint.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but we still haven't addressed the issue of where exactly the bail or bond goes when it is forfeited. I doubt if the judge is supposed to pocket it. Does it go to support the running of the court ? Does it go into the city, county, state, or nation's general fund ? If it goes to the court, that might lead them to hold hearings at 3 AM, to increase the number of no-shows and hence how much money they can grab by forfeiture. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Disposition of forfeit bail bonds seems to vary by jurisdiction. Idaho, for example, first pays court costs and then distributes the rest according to a densely written statute that I am too lazy to read in full. Up here in BC, bail forfeitures are described as simply debt owing to the Crown, which suggests they go into general government revenues (though I expect there is some obscure regulation specifying exactly how they should be allocated)
As to 3 am hearings, the references I have seen all seem to allow a period of time to fulfill the terms of the bond, (i.e. if you miss the 3 am hearing, your surety has an opportunity to produce you along with a valid excuse to avoid forfeiture). There also seems to be a consistent requirement for hearings before declaring bonds forfeit, which could allow one to argue against onerous or impossible conditions - EronTalk 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully such hearings manage to avoid the obvious conflict of interest of having the same people benefit from the forfeiture who decide on it. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
One assumes the judge at least won't be pocketing the money. But there is certainly precedent for worries about the abuse of forfeiture proceedings in general. - EronTalk 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
And don't forget Judge Roy Bean, whose fines always miraculously happened to match whatever the "criminal" had in his pockets. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Is there such a concept in Philosophy? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you thinking of formal logic? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess. Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Pentecostal Parenting[edit]

Why do Pentecostal Christians use "scare tactics" (note the quote) to teach their kids about morality? Or is this just the impression that their ex-Christian atheist/agnostic/deist/humanist/skeptic/freethinker children have? What is really going on? Please give me examples of Pentecostal parenting. I suspect the "scare tactic" is really the "speaking in tongues with the devil" in Pentecostal churches. (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, speaking in tongues in the Pentecostal tradition is linked with being touched by the Holy Spirit. It is not associated with the devil. - EronTalk 19:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What about Pentecostal exorcisms? I think I meant that. (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm entirely uncertain why you believe that Pentecostals use "scare tactics" as a parenting technique. Near as I can tell, you're under any of a number of really ridiculous misconceptions based on your comments here, and I'm entirely uncertain which misconception to disabuse you of. 1) Pentacostal Christians do not use exorcisms as a parenting technique. 2) Pentacostal Christians are likely to use a wide range of parenting techniques, probably representative of the range of techniques present in the population at large. Teaching about morality takes many forms, and there are many techniques to do so. There is not a monolithic set of behaviors one finds in Pentacostal families. "Scare tactics" are just as likely in Baptists or Sunni Muslims or Agnostics; while calm, reasoned discussions about morality are perfectly acceptable parenting techniques among many Pentacostals. --Jayron32 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, "Do as we tell you or you will burn in eternal Hell" sounds like a scare tactic, to me, but certainly not one limited to Pentecostal Christians. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not going to work for Jehovah's Witnesses or Christians (i.e. Catholics) who do not believe that Hell is a physical place. (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, your answer presumes that Pentecostals believe in Hell as place rather than a state of being. (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is not an actual place? It absolutely does teach that it is a place: that this place is also a state of "the absence of God" does not prevent it from being a place that people can actually end up going. Of course, the Catholic Church also teaches that we have no way of knowing who is in Hell, or how many people, but it definitely considers Hell a place that people are in danger of ending up for all eternity after they die. Hell is one of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses claim the Catholic Church made up: it's not something the two groups agree on. (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I got the idea on Wikipedia. (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That's just a modern way of saying "I read it on the internet". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Those pesky premoderns and their Wikipedia-less Internet. Evan (talk|contribs) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Jehovah’s Witnesses have published an article about "hell" at, where you can see what they actually claim.
Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Having followed the above reference, I'm no clearer as to what Jehovah's Witnesses do actually claim about this.--rossb (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Things it claims: "Hell" is a misconception; "Hell" as a place of firey punishment is a pagan Babylonian/Assyrian idea. (N.b., calling an idea Babylonian is often code for Roman Catholic. It doesn't tell you what they actually believe about Hell (they believe that it doesn't exist, and that the wicked are simple Annihilated), nor does it spell out precisely how they think Christians came to believe in it (although it hints). (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a theological conundrum with the idea of Hell as a place in the absence of God - namely, how can something exist if God is absent? That suggests the idea that not only there could be vast other universes that exist, but don't have God, and therefore perhaps follow other Gods with the same power as God, but also that people might plausibly travel to them, which contradicts the entire monotheistic idea. Indeed if one suggests that Hell is apart from God, with presumably Satan controlling it, it seems to make him out as a near equal, perhaps a younger brother like Hades. It seems easier to suppose that the idea of the "outer darkness", however put, is as a "place" that doesn't exist, that is defined by nonexistence, you might say. I suppose there must be terms of art for all these statements somewhere in the past two millennia of theological debate. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Many of our stereotypical images of hell are derived from Dante's Inferno. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Do Japanese people have special beliefs about being beheaded?[edit]

I just recalled from some book and internet sources I read some years ago saying that during the Second Sino-Japanese War Japanese soldiers feared Chinese Dadao not only because it was a deadly weapon, but also because they believed if one lose his head he will not be granted a reincarnation in the afterlife(or granted entrance to Yasukuni Shrine, in some other version I had seen). Did this kind of belief exist anyway? Besides, I also know that it is common to cut off the suicider's head during a seppuku, for example Yukio Mishima(that is after WW2), which should be contrary to the belief above.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Frank Hird[edit]

I'm interested in Frank Hird, the companion, lover, and adopted son of the artist Lord Ronald Gower (redlinked on our article about Gower) and the subject of a painting by Henry Scott Tuke. He's described as a journalist, and another source says he was the author of a biography of the explorer H. M. Stanley. Is any more known about him, for instance place/date of birth/death, etc?. --rossb (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This book says "in the early autumn of 1897", Hird was "on the staff of the Morning Post" as a foreign correspondent "at the age of only twenty-three". It goes on to say the Gower met him in "June 1893, when he was secretary to Lord Thring". According to a 15 February 1913 newspaper article, both lost large sums of money due to fraud - the headline states "Lord Ronald Gower ruined". FindaGrave has an entry for him, stating he lived from 1873 to 2 November 1937. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the information. I've incorporated it into an article on the LGBT History Project, but I suspect Hird might be considered not notable enough for Wikipedia.--rossb (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
In Dearly Beloved Friends: Henry James's Letters to Younger Men edited by Susan E. Gunter, Steven H. Jobe, a footnote on page 18 says; "The journalist Frank Hird (b. 1873) was also the author of disparate books, including The Cry of the Children: An Exposure of Certain British Industries in Which Children are Iniquitously Employed, Rosa Bonheur, Victoria the Woman. Lancashire Stories, The Bannantyne Sapphires, H. M. Stanley: The authorized life". There are a number of other works on Amazon's list. This page says "HIRD, FRANK; [i.e., Robert Francis Hird] (1873-1937)". This page says (scroll nearly halfway down) "HIRD, FRANK [ROBERT FRANCIS HIRD]. 1873-1937. Born in Hull, England; died in Westminster, London". Find A Grave gives an exit date of 2 November 1937 and has a photo of his memorial stone in St Paul Churchyard, Rusthall, in Kent. That's all I could find I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)