Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 February 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 7

Two questions about New France

Alright, so as the title said, I have two questions dealing with New France.

1. From what I can see, the only wars between the 1721 and 1748 in North America was Father Rale's War and King George's War, but someone had told me that there was fighting going on in between that time period. Is that true? If so, what were they called, and who won?
2. Did France ever willingly send peasants or other poor Frenchman to North America? Was it an act that granted this, and if so what was it called?

I just wanted to know accurate information, thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the King's Daughters. BrainyBabe (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

France also sent many female convicts as wives to the French colonists. One of my own direct ancestors was a former inmate at the La Salpetriére prison in Paris. She arrived in Louisiana on the ship La Baliene in 1721 and subsequently married a French colonist, by whom she had children. These women were known as the Baliene Brides.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean La Baleine (The whale) and La Salpêtrière — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To get back to question 1, the Canadian Encyclopedia calls the period between 1713 and 1744 a "long period of peace" in New France [1]. So no, there weren't significant conflicts between France and Britain in North America during the period. On the issue of colonists, apart from the Filles du Roy metioned above (an appelation that includes Jeanne boleyn's ancestor), the only "unwilling" settlers were soldiers, who were offered an opportunity to settle in New France after completing their service there. Many did, and left behind characteristic family names that were originally nicknames often linked to gambling, drinking and performance on the battlefield. All other colonists were volunteers, which goes a long way to explain why there were so few of them: France was relatively prosperous, the ocean crossing was arduous, opening farmland was hard work given the forst had to be cut down first, and persecuted religious minorities were not allowed to come over, leaving only a small number of persons willing to undertake the move.--Xuxl (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

About the U.S. economy

Was the U.S. originally founded to operate under a Capitalist or a Free-Market Economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endmysteries (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalism is free market, no? →Στc. 04:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Theoretically it would be possible to have private investment in state-controlled enterprises, which would be capitalism without a free market. But the answer to the question is that the US constitution does not say anything about economic systems, and even the Declaration of Independence essentially ducked the issue. Looie496 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Some info on this topic at Laissez-faire#United States. Pfly (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'Capitalism' and 'Free Market' are (loosely speaking) synonyms, but the actual answer to your question is probably 'No'. The U.S. wasn't founded with the intention of pursuing a particular economic ideology - it was founded as a reaction against another ideology, along with the military and economic might that was attempting to enforce it. In as much as the U.S. had ideological roots, they were in the enlightenment, and in radical opposition to the status quo, rather than in defence of a utopian abstraction that nobody at the time had even heard of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the same year when The Wealth of Nations was published, and the Constitution was adopted in 1787. The ideas of Adam Smith (classical liberalism) had influence on the Founding Fathers and they advocated a system which in modern terminology can be called "capitalism, minarchism, and individualism". [2] --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that asserts that the 'Founding Fathers' had actually read 'The Wealth of Nations'? Not that it matters that much, in that Adam Smith was no supporter of what is now misleadingly called 'capitalism'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Looie496, Pfly & AndyTheGrump. The most salient characteristic of (early) American economic thought like the American School (economics) is its pragmatism, nationalism and concern for the real economy, in marked contrast to a modern "mainstream" that fantasizes that there ever could be or was a monetary economy which was not supervised by the state.John Z (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether any of the Founding Fathers read TWON, but Franklin, Jefferson and Paine knew Smith personally, meeting at Richard Price's house in Newington Green. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question to me! but if you economic warriors want to battle it out here... i guess you got the perfect prompt! Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The bill of rights protects property, which I always have interpreted as including capital, which I interpret as officialising Capitalism, but maybe I am making an assumption here. --Lgriot (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, making a couple of big assumptions, mostly wrong. You should check out Oliver Wendell Holmes (more of a fan of the father than the "individual rights be damned" son), but also perhaps wrong with this forum, which tends to be dedicated to answering discrete questions, not homework problems from bad students who need to repeat their rather simplistic prompts from bad teachers so they can quell some good answers here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me???? First of all, I am not the OP, if that is what you assume, and I am not even American, so please try not to sneer about what I don't know. Second, you don't need to insult anyone by calling them bad students, this is the reference desk, not a steam-letting out device for your temper. Then 3rd, in the article that you point out, there isn't even the word "capital", "Capitalism" or "property", so I really don't see how it can be an answer to my point about protection of property being linked to Capitalism. --Lgriot (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Democracy vs. Republic

¿What is the main difference between a Democracy and a Constitucional Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endmysteries (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See the articles about democracy and constitutional republics. →Στc. 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The inverted question-mark and constitucional with a c should tip the reader off that this OP is a Latin American leader about to face some tough choices... :-P 188.157.211.6 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This never gets old:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Brunei

-- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

More detail: A "republic" is a country with a president (or other elected official) instead of a monarch, whether it is democratic or not. The selection of the head of state does not have to be the result of a fair election. Thus, Cuba is a republic, because its head of state, Raul Castro is officially a president rather than a king. A "democracy" is any country where the government is controlled by "the people." This is generally interpreted to mean a country with free elections, usually with more than one party, and human rights. A democracy can be a republic (like Finland) or a monarchy (like Canada). A "constitutional republic" is an analogy to constitutional monarchy, which means a country where the monarch's power is limited by a written or unwritten constitution. You sometimes hear some people like Glenn Beck say things like, "America is a republic (or "constitutional republic"), not a democracy." What they mean is that it is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. People have been referring to America as a "democracy" since the early 19th century. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Democracy Index has Italy as "Flawed democracy". More important to the question, Italy is a parliamentary republic and not a constitutional republic. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Italy most certainly is a "constitutional republic." What is is not is a presidential republic like the US. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

about portrait painting

Who was the first live portrait painter of India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.77.167 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple google search --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this it was Tilly Kettle --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Honor killings

Which Quranic verses and hadiths are most commonly used by proponents of honor killing to justify their beliefs? --140.180.7.220 (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you any evidence that 'proponents of honor killing' use 'Quranic verses and hadiths' to justify anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, which is why I'm asking. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In which case, your question is based on a flawed premise. Have you stopped beating your wife? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me revise my question:

• Do Muslim proponents of honor killing usually justify their beliefs using their religion?
• If so, which verses and/or hadiths do they use? --140.180.7.220 (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me revise my answer. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to assume good faith, please leave Wikipedia. I honestly think that people like you, who assume the worst of fellow editors, are more harmful to Wikipedia and a bigger roadblock to its mission than actual trolls. My question does not violate any Reference Desk rules and is answerable with references to scholarly work; therefore, it is perfectly legitimate. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please cite your 'scholarly work' for the assertion that "Muslim proponents of honor killing usually justify their beliefs using their religion". Not that it matters much, one could say the same thing about the sack of Constantinople. If one wishes to 'prove' the invalidity of a religion, one only has to examine the behaviour of its adherents - and ignore the behaviour of anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reread your comment and see if it has any relevance to my question. If you have nothing to contribute, I refuse to read any more of your comments. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OP, your question is as nonsequiturious as this:

• How many US presidents had green penises?
• Do you have any evidence that any US president had a green penis?
• No, which is why I'm asking.

In other words, since there is no evidence of any such thing, you are asking the question not to get the answer - because you already know it's zero - but as an underhanded way of seeding the minds of your audience with this hitherto undreamt of absurdity. You've done the same thing here, in the hope that some impressionable minds will read it hurriedly and pick up on it. They'll go out and tell their friends that Muslim proponents of honor killing usually justify their beliefs using their religion, and if asked will say they read it on Wikipedia. While you can sit back smugly and disclaim all responsibility for the dissemination of such rubbish, and even point to where you explicitly denied the existence of any evidence of this. There's a word for this sort of thing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the revised question has merit and deserves an answer. --Viennese Waltz 08:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I really have. You have never met me; you don't know me personally; you know nothing about my beliefs, personality, or character; you know nothing about my motivation for asking this question. Yet you've blatantly violated WP:AGF and made wild accusations without a single shred of evidence. Let me ask you this: if someone who genuinely believes that proponents of honor killings often justify themselves using the Quran, and is honestly seeking more information on the reference desk, how does he phrase his question to avoid your accusation? If there's no possible way, you would be refusing to provide answers to people who would benefit the most: open-minded OPs with genuine misconceptions. Such a person could easily become a virulent Islamophobe if everyone he asks for information assumes the worst of him and refuses to answer objectively.

To use your example, a good answer to "how many US presidents had green penises?" would be "0, because there is no evidence that human penises can be naturally green. There was also no known ritual that would have involved US presidents painting or dying their penises green." If there was a common misconception amongst the public that some US presidents had green penises, I would add to that answer "the misconception comes from sources X, Y, and Z. None of these 3 sources are viewed as reliable by scientific or historical experts; the first, for example, has been conclusively disproven by many scientific papers, including A, B, and C." --140.180.7.220 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a legit question. I'm not positive, but it seems to me that most of the bad things associated with the Muslim religion are actually part of Arab culture, which predated Islam. In particular, Arab culture seems to demean women (by requiring them to wear more modest clothing than men, restrict their movements and freedoms more than men, limit their education and right to vote, make their word count for less in court, etc.). StuRat (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The bizarre edit you just reverted is a perfect example of that. I don't know if you recognized that post for what it really was (it's virtually unknown to the western media), but that was a chilling reminder for me that our women workers who go to the Middle East for domestic jobs are treated not as employees, but as owned slaves.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it said "pilipina escape from his (sic) employer". How can one "escape" from an employer and how is the nationality and gender relevant ? I see what you mean. StuRat (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@ OP: ... if someone who genuinely believes that proponents of honor killings often justify themselves using the Quran ... - OK. But you were asked above if you were aware of any evidence of this, and you said you are NOT aware of any evidence. So, if there is no evidence, or no evidence of which you are aware, then how can you possibly "genuinely believe" that it is so? How? And if you have no basis for believing it is so, what is the purpose of your asking questions about it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Presumably they heard it somewhere and are now trying to determine if it's true or not. That's exactly what we're here for. StuRat (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have irrational beliefs and assumptions that I try to get rid of, just like anyone else. That's why I revised my question to ask whether my assumption was correct or not. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To StuRat: Hearing it somewhere would count as evidence or at least as worthy of mention when asked "Have you any evidence?". But the answer was no.

To the OP: The human mind is unlimited in its capacity for inventing things that have zero basis in reality. It's called creativity and it's a good thing; but the sane mind knows it's not the truth. You've acknowledged you've assumed this thing about honor killings without the slightest external evidence, and you've acknowledged it's an irrational assumption. That should be the end of it. Do you really need us to confirm the irrationality of this assumption? What next? Are you going to dream up that the world is governed by invisible purple zebras and then come here to ask how many of them there are, or even whether it's true or not? Your opening question took for granted that Quranic verses and hadiths are used by proponents of honor killing to justify their beliefs; you just wanted to know which ones were the onse most commonly used. Yet ever since, you've acknowledged your question had no basis, as was pointed out very early. I remain deeply suspicious of your motives in bringing this question here in the first place, despite your reframing of it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Hearing it somewhere" is not usually admissible evidence, especially if you don't remember where. This type of hearsay would rarely be allowed in court, for example. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about courts of law here, Stu. Go back to the start and read the opening question and the OP's answer to Andy's response. In that sort of context, if the OP had been told or read somewhere that "Quranic verses and hadiths are used by proponents of honor killing to justify their beliefs", they'd have mentioned that they'd read it or been told it. But they didn't. Therefore, they made it up out of thin air. There's nothing wrong with coming up with thoughts that have no external origin, but if you want to check if they could possibly be true or not, you ask something like "I was just idly musing and it occurred to me that XYZ could be possible. Is it?" But that wasn't what the OP asked. They assumed, or pretended to assume, the Quranic verses thing as true, and asked questions only about the detail. Don't you think the very thing of which by their own admission they had no evidence is what they'd check out first? People who fail to do that are either insane, or trolls who think they're terribly smart and subtle by suggesting evil things and then later denying they were the proponents of any such theory. They want people to read this statement and accept it without question because the speaker is treating it as a given. It is exactly like "How many people who perished in the Nazi gas chambers were mis-identified as Jews, and therefore didn't deserve their fate?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't worry too much about what the OP's opening question was or what their motives may or may not have been for asking it. The fact is, they rephrased it in such a way that, if it had been the question they had asked in the first place, you probably wouldn't have objected. Now, you can say that the cat was out of the bag by that time and that you could tell the OP's true motives were questionable from the way he phrased the original question. But that is unfair and unreasonable, in my view. Forget about the opening question, forget about everything else he wrote, just focus on the rephrased (and, IMHO, entirely reasonable) question "Do Muslim proponents of honor killing usually justify their beliefs using their religion?" and either answer it or don't. --Viennese Waltz 14:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I will waste no more time refuting your closed-minded, bad-faith assumptions. If you don't want to answer the question, I don't care to read your comments. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mohammad Shafia in the recent case in Canada said that his daughters, whom he killed, "betrayed Islam" [3], however I've found nothing suggesting that he cites any scripture. I think "honour killing" is a term that is applied to some murders that are motivated, to some extent, by religion, but since it is not a term in Islamic jurisprudence it would be problematic to use it when talking about the categories of such a system. That is, it would not be easy to find fatwas or, more generally, scripture which justifies "honour killing" as no such writing talks about "honour killing" per se. And specific cases are always going to be muddled: The people who do such things probably won't be on the record as citing any text at all. I think you would be more successful in directing your mind to justifiable homicide in Islamic jurisprudence in general, i.e., ask: "Under what conditions is killing permitted in Islam?" For example, which even deals with extra-judicial killing: Anderson, "Homicide in Islamic Law"Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Cambridge University Press, 1951), pp. 824:

Where homicide is legally justified all, of course, agree that the killer is free from all responsibility. The most obvious example of this is the infliction of the death penalty, after judicial judgment, on one convicted of apostacy from Islam, of the graver forms of illicit sex relations, of homicide in the course of brigandage, or of deliberate homicide of the sort discussed above. A difference of opinion obtains among jurists, however, as to the position of the man who inflicts this penalty for one of the above offences before judgment has been given accordingly. The majority view in cases of homicide is that anyone other than the proper heirs of the victim is liable himself to suffer talion if he interferes in this way with the due course of the law. As we have seen, however, this does not apply to the "heir of blood", who in such cases is only liable to suffer a discretionary punishment for his disregard of the proper procedure. But still more controversy has raged with regard to those who kill adulterers. All agree that the husband, father, or brother who surprises his wife, daughter, or sister in adultery is exempt from all penalty if he kills her, her paramour, or both: while jurists are divided as to whether this exemption extends to cases where the couple are only surprised in suspicious circumstances

--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How come this question made me think of Anders Breivik? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Did he quote any religious text as justification? -- 119.31.22.124 (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a legitimate question here... so I will attempt to reformulate it in a neutral way:

• There have been cases of individual Muslims engaging in what is commonly termed an "honor killing". 1) Did any of these individuals cite specific Quranic verses and hadiths to justify their actions? 2) if so, which ones were cited? Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't find scholarly journals, but a simple Google search shows a lots of sources (albeit partisan sources) 1. FFI [4], 2. Conservapedia [5], 3. Jihad Watch[6], 4. The Humanist magazine blog [7] --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In a sensitive topic like this, scholarly opinion (rather than partisan activist sources) is essential. It is important to find a clear connection between the individual incidents of honor killing and the perpetrator's use of Koran verses. This should be covered by news pieces, but I can't find any. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw those links too, which is exactly why I asked this question: I wanted to get information from a scholarly source rather than Conservapedia or Islam Watch/Jihad Watch. The former is completely nutty on every issue, the latter does not accurately portray the opinions of most Muslims, and I doubt it knows the opinions of extremist Muslims, and even Richard Dawkins considered Faith Freedom International too biased to include in his book. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

One can find news articles about "honor killings" which say that some Moslem families equate the sexual purity of wives and daughters to the family's "honor" and use violence to preserve the "honor." An example is the Dallas Morning News, 2008: "“Honor killing” is the term used to describe a practice in which one or more males kills a female relative who has, in their view, dishonored the family — usually by breaking a strict taboo governing sexual behavior or gender roles. To be sure, it is not a practice historically limited to Islamic societies. Nor is there clear sanction for it in the Quran, though Islamic proponents interpret the Quran to do so. " It cites a Quranic verse (4:34) .."the good women are therefore obedient guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded: and as to those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them, then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them..." Is that the strongest endorsement of beating family members in the Quran? It does not say "kill them." The Jordanian parliament refused to pass laws restricting honor killing, seeing it as "necessary to protect traditional Islamic social mores" rather than necessary to enforce the commands of the Quran. The Judeo-Christian scriptures have many verses calling for beating of offspring (Prov 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13, 23:14, 29:15, and Hebrews 12:6-7, not to mention all the transgressions which require stoning various transgressors to death. Edison (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

AsiaTimes (2008) had an article on the practice of "honor killing" and said that Sudra 4:15 calls for killing adultresses, but that it is supposed to be done by the government. Edison (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Sura 4:15 doesn't say that at all, although it's always the one cited by anti-Islamic polemicists. (It does say to confine adulterous women at home for the rest of their lives, but it doesn't say they should be executed.) In any case, why do we never have the same reaction when a Christian kills someone, like a member of their family who they think is possessed by a demon? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All this discussion and not one link to the article on Honor killing, which is actually quite helpful. The article links to Honour killing in Pakistan which says: "...Islamic leaders in Pakistan use religious justifications for sanctioning honour killings" (ref: Goonesekere, Savitri (2004). Violence, Law and Women's Rights in South Asia. SAGE Publications. p. 149. ISBN 0761997962); and "...traditions [which] serve to protect society from moral transgression namely adultery and amendments or repeal are seen as unislamic" (ref: [8]). The last reference quotes MMA member Asadullah Bhutto as saying "Right of compromise is given by Islam any law against it will be an interference in religion." while also saying that honour killing is unislamic. While none of these directly cites Quranic verses or hadiths, it seems this is about defending Islam against external interference including things like western attitudes to sex, marriage, relationships, clothing, etc. That could be interpreted by some as being close to apostasy for which the Quran is quite clear about the penalties. Astronaut (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian hotspot

Why did the younger and more southern volcanoes of Māhukona, Kohala, and Mauna Kea went dormant/extinct thousands of years before Haleakalā? In fact Haleakalā remains dormant while Māhukona and Kohala are listed as extinct. Why is that if the Hawaiian hotspot is moves down the chain one volcano at a time?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the Science Ref Desk? --jjron (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The islands move away from the Hawaiian hotspot, not the other way around. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is the most intelligent Wikipedian?

I know this is a rather vague question since there are several possible definitions of intelligence. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:ClueBot? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Grawp? And he is notorious in the internet for his edits in different wikis, just Google search "grawp+vandal". --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jokes aside, your question is not difficult, but impossible to answer because it is based on a false premise that a particular individual can be the most intelligent compared to other individuals. It is like asking who is the most intelligent person on Earth. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Me, of course! Now ask me how I know. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not anyone who writes "...the most intelligent than...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

well well don't be a Grammar Nazi --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If superlatives are so super, then why can't they be comparative too? Got you there! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 13:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant "Well, well, ....."  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Langan appears to have an inactive account: User_talk:Christopher_Langan. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 13:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we know if Stephen Hawking has an account on Wikipedia? If so, he would be a likely candidate. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you were not serious about Langan as Bus Stop is with Hawking... o_O -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In what sense Hawkins is more intelligent than Richard Dawkins who also has an account in Wikipedia? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You made them rhyme! :D -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:) --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also considering there are at least 10 active editors I know who either have or are close to getting PHD's, there are several active editors who are published authors and professors and lest us not forget Jimmy Wales who had the foresight to create this newar utopian compendium of human knowledge called Wikipedia. --Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Having a Ph.D. is not a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of persistence. I speak from personal experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe insanity too. If we were really smart we would have found a better-paying career, and earlier in life... Adam Bishop (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But then we might have to do work to fill the time in the day, rather than play on here. None of my friends who became lawyers edit the Ref Desk... --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are many Wikipedians (active and inactive combined) who have doctorates and many of them are famous personalities. For example Andrew Schlafly has a Juris Doctor and an inactive Wikipedia account Andysch (talk · contribs). --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We have List of notable Wikipedians (now a redirect). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, SE, I got one of those too and it doesn't entitle you to be called doctor, it is a law degree at many schools. Personally I think we're overloaded on intelligence around her and underloaded on clue.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:ClueBot is very clueful.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How many Nobel Laureates edit Wikipedia, in addition to User:Brian Josephson, who received the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973? He is an active editor, including articles on physics. Edison (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Has he ever been blocked for original work :) 188.157.211.6 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Some years ago, there was a question or discussion about the average educational attainment of the ref-desk regulars. IIRC, there seemed to be more with a doctorate or masters level education than might be expected from a random selection of the population. Astronaut (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well clearly that was before my emergence. Can we move on now from a most ridiculous question? Shadowjams (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Whence did you "emerge"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

From the shadows. -- Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I recently came across a contributor who wrote 'Here I am, superior to Newton, Leibniz and Cauchy'. Unfortunately we were unable to comprehend the reasons for their edits and they were banned so no longer on Wikipedia I'm afraid. Dmcq (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, genius. Still so little understood (God knows, mine always has been). Self-proclaimed geniuses suffer the worst fate of all, so the more astute ones of us hide their lights under bushels and go on about their business relatively unmolested. Of course, it's not possible to always hide one's genius - our very words drip, nay overflow, with uncommon quality, sometimes in torrents even we are incapable of quelling. It's only those who wield the dishrags and floormops of history who can truly appreciate what it is they're cleaning up after the likes of us. Lucky them. But cleaning has, strangely, come to be regarded as an ignoble profession, so the rich and famous will never know what they're missing. Theirs is the true poverty. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I knew I shouldn't have left those mushrooms out!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there is a parallel question to ask: who is the least intelligent Wikipedian? I suspect, however, that it might be as well to leave that unanswered... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thousands put in their claim every day.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Identifying a late-Victorian illustrator

I'm trying to identify the illustrators of the plates in various novels by Charlotte M. Yonge, published as part of a uniform one-volume series by Macmillan, London. In most cases, these plates date from the original publication, and are by easily identified artists (so far, Marian Huxley, W. J. Hennessy, Kate Greenaway, Herbert Gandy, J. Priestman Atkinson, Charles Oliver Murray, and Adrian Stokes).

However, there's two odd cases. The first is a 1901 volume containing Countess Kate and The Stokesley Secret. This has one plate only, with no title; there's a monogram in the lower left corner, of a superimposed A, W, and G (or possibly "C").

The second (1891) contains P's and Q's and Little Lucy's Wonderful Globe; I've identified the illustrator for the first, but the second is baffling me - all the plates are signed LFR. I'd particularly like to identify this one, as it's very densely illustrated.

Any idea who either of these might be? Shimgray | talk | 17:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

One down - it seems that LFR may be Lorenz Frølich; he's credited in the 1871 and 1881 editions. No luck on the enigmatic AWC/CWA/CAW/ACW/WAC/WCA, though... Shimgray | talk | 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the image in question? Just so we're looking at the same thing, here. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed - yes, that's the one. Shimgray | talk | 20:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Purgatory, anyone?

Howdy all, I need some help. Google Books is great, but doesn't give me what I need--I need someone who has a copy of Robert Durling and Robert Martinez's translation of Purgatorio. Specifically, I need the title of an addendum that begins on page 595, 596, or 597, a section on Manfred (and I need to know which page it starts on). Thank you very much! (Can you please drop a note on my talk if you can help? Muchas gracias.) Drmies (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer here if that's all right, to save anyone else from duplicating the work. In the 2004 OUP paperback edition of Durling and Martinez's translation they have a section headed "Additional Notes". The one you want starts on p. 597, and is called "4. Vergil's Palinurus in Purgatorio and the Rudderless Ship of State". The title may not sound like it's on your subject, but it does deal with the comparison between Manfred and Palinurus from the Aeneid. --Antiquary (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I need--I was working on Palinurus. Thanks Antiquary! Drmies (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)