Who was the freshwater economist who (in)famously mocked John Maynard Keynes, either at a conference talk or in a published paper, by saying something along the lines of "Keynes's name is not spoken today but with a snicker"? Robert Lucas is famous for his "Lucas critique" of Keynesian macro, but I cannot remember the quote well enough to attribute it to him, or anyone else. I'm pretty sure I've got the sentiment right, though. -- [[User:Branden|Branden]] ([[User talk:Branden|talk]]) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Revisionasof06:51,6September2013
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
As with all legal questions, it depends on jurisdiction. According to our article, in the USA, the defence is available "in federal court, and in the state courts of every state except for Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah." It's available to any crime that requires a mens rea in English law. Tevildo (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Price of sarcophagus setup like Tutankhamun's.
I know his is "priceless" and legally not for sale, but has anyone ever tallied what an exact replica would cost today (labour, materials or both)? Either the whole shebang, or any one of the coffins. Doesn't need to be in 2013 dollars. I've Googled a while, and failed, but I know it's a popular general topic, and figure the question must have crossed some author's mind over the years. Any clues? InedibleHulk(talk)09:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stubbed an article on Grave candle. It's a major custom in a number of Christian countries; certainly in Poland, Germany and Scandinavia. I am finding very few sources, so I wonder if the English names I added to the article (grave/death candle/lanterns) are not the most common ones? Any alternative names and sources you can suggest would be helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Votive_candle springs to mind but their use is not limited to graves but "To "light a candle for someone" indicates one's intention to say a prayer for another person, and the candle symbolizes that prayer."196.214.78.114 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may be of interest to you. It is a Swedish doctoral dissertation in ethnology from 1965 on the subject of placing lights at graves and related recent (20th century) traditions. It's in Swedish, but has a German summary, making it more accessible to international readers. You can probably find it in many libraries outside Sweden, but there are numerous second-hand copies to be found at http://www.antikvariat.net from about 150 SEK. --Hegvald (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine three countries: A and B are at war with each other, while C is at peace with both. What effect do international treaties on diplomatic immunity have on A's interference with diplomacy between B and C? This is prompted by the Belfast Blitz article, which notes that "the German Legation in Dublin remained open throughout the war". Presumably the UK expelled all German diplomats in September 1939, so it didn't need to worry about protecting any of them anymore. Imagine that a British naval vessel stopped a German ship carrying the German Ambassador between Ireland and France mid-war — what could the British do to the ambassador? Diplomatic immunity doesn't appear to address the issue. the closest thing I can imagine is the Trent Affair, but (1) that was during the American Civil War, 1½ centuries ago; and (2) Trent was a British ship, not one from the Confederacy; and (3) the legal nature of the Confederacy complicates the situation, while nobody will argue that German or Irish diplomats in 1942 were from an illegitimate self-declared country. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before the German ambassador presented his diplomatic papers to the Irish president he was not an ambassador and the British could intern him as an enemy alien civilian. If the German ambassador had already presented his papers and was returning after visiting Germany then I don't know. Sleigh (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem here. Diplomatic immunity provides certain protections from a host country's laws. Britain isn't the host country in this scenario, so why couldn't they treat him like any other enemy on an enemy ship? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured, but on the other hand, I can imagine that it would be highly inconvenient for Ireland if the functions of an embassy in their capital could be impaired by a third party. Accordingly, I wondered if there might be some treaty provision that extends immunity in this case. Perhaps I should have proposed an even more difficult situation: how would the British embassy in Bern have operated during 1941, for example? I can't imagine how the country could have served as an important protecting power if Allied diplomats couldn't reach the country. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was only adopted in 1961, so was not yet in effect during World War II, but it codified existing diplomatic practice. It covers such a situation in article 40.1: "If a diplomatic agent passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted him a passport visa if such visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or to return to his post, or when returning to his own country, the third State shall accord him inviolability and such other immunities as may be required to ensure his transit or return. The same shall apply in the case of any members of his family enjoying privileges and immunities who are accompanying the diplomatic agent, or travelling separately to join him or to return to their country." [1] In effect, the UK intervening against the person of a German diplomat accredited to a country with which it has relations (Ireland) would be a violation of the convention. The question is whether Germany would have any means to seek redress, since the two countries were already at war. What the UK could have legally done is prevented the diplomat from legally transiting through its territory; any arrest would then have to be conducted outside UK territory, which raises other issues. --Xuxl (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing known about the man who ended WWII?
Posted by mistake in the language desk, transferred from there. --KnightMove (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The Japanese surrender in World War II was to a controversial extent influenced by the false testimony of Marcus McDilda, a captured American pilot (the sources disagree on whether a P-51 or a B-29 pilot) who under torture said that the Americans would have 100 atomic bombs ready for action. It seems that absolutely nothing is known about McDilda save for his name and this episode. But how is this possible? There should be some record about his biographical data in military files?! --KnightMove (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information is available online. I found his full name (Marcus Elmo McDilda) and dates (15 December 1921 - 16 August 1998) without too much difficulty, and the first source in the Google search suggested by Surtsicna has a posting from his son. Whether his actions - and any reporting of them in sources - are sufficient to justify an article to himself might be more debatable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. My apologies. However, it's an unusual name, and there was a Marcus Elmo McDilda with those dates. There was also a Marcus E. McDilda who was included on the US Navy Muster Rolls on the Hollandia on 20 February 1945, and whose mother's address is given as Dunnellon, Florida - which ties in with the son's posting. That and numerous other records about a Marcus E. McDilda from Florida are accessible through Ancestry.com (subscription required). There are posts on this site where someone else (*Tootsie Plunkette" - obviously mad usernames aren't restricted to us...) has concluded that the McDilda who died in 1998 was the airman concerned and has confirmed his Florida origins from offline sources (aka "books"). It seems unlikely that McDilda's son would have erred about his father's death date, but equally it seems unlikely that there were two people in the same area with identical or nearly identical names who died ten years apart. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are 78 McDilda's in Find-a-Grave, so it's unusual but not unknown. It would be interesting to find out more about this story, i.e. whether it's true. If you could find his obituary, that could be useful. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The McDilda claim needs reliable sources for verification. Lots of people have made grandiose claims of how they or their family member did something which had significant effects in a long-ago war. maybe McDilda told a friend, who told a reporter, who published a little feature on it, which was uncritically reprinted by other reporters and book writers. I would be interested to see if any source from the Japanese or US military authorities reported it, and if they did so within a few years of 1945. I have grave doubts about the veracity. Edison (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles involved all take that for a fact. Of the books found by Google supporting the story, the first was released in 1971... while you could be right, nobody seems to question the story up to now, and a hoax is not unanimously and durably established as a fact that easily. Is there an indication that it's not factual? --KnightMove (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got curious and came across bodies like the Thomas Coram Foundation for Children (1739) and the Foundling Hospital (1741). But it's not clear if these are comparable to the RSPCA in terms of "scope when launched" or similar.
How would one compare the emergence of early child and animal welfare institutions, charities and chartered bodies? If one looks at the RSPCA around the time it was founded, and then at child welfare bodies when they were founded (so far as possible), would this claim stand scrutiny? Is it really fair or a "like-with-like" comparison to assert that animal welfare bodies came first? It sounds possible but dubious.
I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but early British children's charities seem to either concentrate on looking after abandoned or homeless children, or on educating children from working families (most of the Public schools originally fell into this category; Christ's Hospital (1552) still fulfils this function amongst others). I believe that the first child protection legislation were the Factory Acts, the first of which was introduced in 1802. The 1809 act prevented children under 9 years working in factories and that children aged 9–16 years were limited to 12 hours' work per day. Various Factory Acts thereafter progressively reduced the working day for children and introduced an element of compulsory education. There doesn't seem to have been a specific charity lobbying for these reforms, but there was real public pressure driven by high profile philanthropists, outstandingly Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of ShaftesburyofEros fame.
The NSPCC is governed by a Royal Charter and has been since 1895. The question is why its title does not include the word "Royal". According to our article: "It did not change its title to "Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children" or similar, as the name NSPCC was already well established, and to avoid confusion with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), which had already existed for more than fifty years." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - that has answered my question perfectly. I'm not sure about the OP's question though ;-) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Richard Martin had proposed a Bill to give protection to domestic animals, it became law in 1822, two years later he founded the RSPCA to see that the act was properly enforced. That doesn't animal welfare was put before child welfare; I doubt that kicking a child to death in public would have gone unpunished in those days, even without the NSPCC. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of environmental conservation and animal rights in non-White cultures
So like, I don't mean to be racist or anything, but have you noticed that non-European, non-White peoples do not make as much of a priority for environmental protection and animal welfare as Europeans and their descendants? It seems like animal rights and the environment can be seen as exclusively white preoccupations.
I know that the United States and Western Europe had a poor environmental track record during the early Industrial revolution, but even then there was a strong nature-loving literary movement (Walden Pond and all that), as well as President T. Roosevelt having championed conservation over one hundred years ago. Compare this to the USSR and the current industrializing nations, who don't seem to care how badly they trash the environment.
Furthermore, animal welfare historically and currently never has had a foothold in non-white cultures, has it? One of the strongest state policies that supported animal rights was in Nazi Germany. So, does anyone know more about the seeming nonchalance with which non-whites regard the environment and animals? Am I wrong? I'd like to research this more. Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes, you are very wrong. In general, animal welfare and environmental protection have been luxury concerns. People start caring about it when their basic needs are met. As for "white" respect for nature, you cite some very few exceptions, and you seem to have a weird definition of "white" if you exclude the USSR. For examples of "white" environmentalism, look no further than Buffalo Bill, acid rainorDeepwater Horizon. On the other hand, Only after the last tree has been cut down / Only after the last river has been poisoned / Only after the last fish has been caught / Then will you find that money cannot be eaten is a Cree sentiment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that environmental protection and animal rights are luxury concerns. There was a strong conservationist movement in the West even during the early part of the industrial revolution, even when the Western modern "needs" were just beginning to have been "met." Furthermore, if you read Charles Dickens's characterization of the industrial landscape of England in the 1830's and 1840's, it is obvious that he was not too pleased with the destruction of the natural environment and landscape. Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to think who formed the "strong conservationist movement" in the West. There were rather few miners or sharecroppers among it, and more well-off romantics of the upper middle class or gentry. And I'd like to see a source for "strong". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying you're disproving your own statement? Since the upper middle class and gentry controlled society yet animal rights and environmental protection were limited to say the least at the time, this seems to imply the support even among this group wasn't that strong. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rest you appear to be cherry pick a few examples, have a rather confusing understanding of "white" and are missing the many counter examples. For starters, it's clear people's enviromental and animal rights beliefs are heavily cultural dependent often in skewed ways.
For example, for much of the anglophone Western world, it's some sort of terrible sin to kill whales or dolphins, and the arguments for this are generally poor (the only real ones seem to be the possible pain due to the method of slaughter or intelligence). There is a similar perhaps wider adversion to the consumption dog meat with even fewer real reasons (it generally doesn't really matter if the animals were raised and killed arguably more humanely than many factory farmed animals). For many Jewish people and followers of Islam, for meat to be kosherorhalal, it has to be slaughtered in a certain way which depending on interpretation prevents the use of stunning or thoracic (chest) stick. I don't know with your odd definition but I guess you're including Spanish people, for who Bullfighting is often considered an important cultural heritage, for some generally white Americans the rodeo is similar and it was only very recently that the practice of intentionall chasing foxes often with foxhounds which is considered an important cultural heritage to a small number again mostly white British (or perhaps English) people was partially banned. Meanwhile in the US the current black president is frequently considered to have a better environmental record than the previous white one.
Sssciencce already mentioned Buddhism, we also have Jainism who's follower may even avoid cooking at night to avoid killing insects. And India probably has [[|Vegetarianism and religion|the highest per capita rate]] of vegetarianism in the world. While this may partially be because of wealth and the rising middle class throughout the world and their demand for meat is often cited as a concern for a variety of reasons relating to the environment and animal rights, it seems clear for a large variety of reasons (including comparing developing countries, analysing the reasons and cultural issues etc) it isn't just cost which causes the rate to be so high in India.
Australians seem happy to mine whatever they can and sell it to whoever they can, and there is an occassional push to do so in NZ as well including in conservation land. Despite my heritage I'm not intentionally beating up on Australia but they do have a significant live export for slaughter trade, the reasons for this may partially be downstream market preference for live animals but it also seems possible in some cases it's partially to allow slaughter in methods which wouldn't be acceptable in Australia, well provided they keep it hidden. (And consider the reasons mentioned for NZ no longer doing so aren't directly because of animal welfare concerns.)
Meanwhile it's easy to tell people not to cut down their trees when you've already cut down many of yours, have enough land already for your farming etc needs and it isn't really going to make that big a difference to your economy what you do with them; not so easy to actually put your money where your mouth is and pay people not to cut down trees. (To be clear, there are complicated issues involved which it isn't our place to debate, the point is simply that talk is cheap and these sort of comparisons are fraught with difficulty.)
To use an example, consider that animal welfare and environmental considerations and protections in many developing countries now compared to whatever developed countries you are thinking of ~70 years where in some ways they were similar. Of course only in some ways, they didn't have the level of machinery, industry and capacity for extremely rapid development that exists now and many were still some of the most developed countries of the time. ~70 years ago of course some of these developing countries were still colonies of said developed countries (and how were they treating stuff in the developing countries then)?
And BTW, do you actually understand Mandarin? Hindi? Malay or Indonesian? Any native language common in a developing country other then English and other European ones (which depending on the country may have a fair degree of use but often isn't the only language)? And regardless how many books or whatever have you read from said countries? If as I'm guessing the answer isn't many, how can you know what thinkers in said countries have or haven't said compared to the few historic thinkers you can name like Charles Dickens?
P.S. As a bonus question, do you mostly blame non whites for the utter destruction of Nauru via strip mining even though many of those benefiting were Australians and other 'whites' both financially and from the output (and corruption etc ensured only a few people whatever the colour of the skin from that country benefit)?
There are lots of tropes about organized crime in popular film. But what is the truth?
Mob debts. In theory, people have huge debts to the mafia and are at risk of being killed if they don't come up with some desperate scheme to repay. In practice, they certainly can intimidate people and try to get money by extortion, and run bookmaking operations. But when their model is to take money by force, does the notion of a fixed debt have any real validity? Especially, if a person were truly in fear for their life over debt, why wouldn't they go to police and bring the whole thing crashing down? (I suppose the smart ones assume local police are thoroughly corrupt, but they could move to a different jurisdiction loyal to different mobsters, try to get other agencies involved, etc.)
The above particularly applies to movie plots in which mobsters claim that someone has "inherited" a debt from some relation who has had an unfortunate accident. Can these be confirmed as pure fiction?
Which brings to mind: while there are gang wars, even occasional personal car bombs, does anyone ever go after mafias with genuine terrorist techniques? Clear out the whole crew with truck bombs and chemical weapons, etc.?
Often mafias are presented as operating openly - there are even video documentaries of mass meetings of certain gangs on days associated with their founding or the Caesar cipher of their name. Are there any sites that present directory information of where they're located, how they work, in obnoxious detail? (I'm thinking a mafia webcam might not be safe but it would certainly be amusing)
In the movies, people are spotted "wearing a wire" taped to their body. I assume that this is some dutiful Hollywood obfuscation comparable to the "keep them on the line while we trace the call" nonsense. In theory, the "wire" could be as tiny as smart dust. But in practice: is the surveillance equipment they actually use possible to recognize with a thorough search, or is it completely beyond all but the most high-tech scrutiny?
Wnt, I would be more than happy to answer some of your questions, based on some of my reading and some offhand personal knowledge in dealing with the criminal element:
Mob Debts: Yes, people in real life do become heavily indebted to mobsters, but usually through gambling debts and loan sharking. In those cases, the debtor could be badly beaten, or be forced to cede over any real estate or percentage of business interests he has. In fact, that is the main way the mafia has infiltrated legitimate businesses. And yes, people who are genuinely in fear of mafia retaliation over gambling or loan shark debts sometimes do seek protection from law enforcement.
Inheritance of debts: Never heard of it. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I cannot think of a single case of it. That would be like a loan shark debtor having a "cosigner" or something, and I don't think I've ever heard of it in real life.
Terrorist attacks on mobsters: I have never heard of any in real life. Since the gang wars of the 1920's and 1930's, the mafia/mob is seen as the top dogs. The exception to that was Boston, where the Irish gangsters under Whitey Bulger were considered at least co-equal, if not superior (thanks in part to FBI support). However, in fiction, what you described is the plot of the 1980 film "The Long Good Friday," where the IRA placed several bombs in a London East-end mobster's (Bob Hoskins) hangouts.
Information on meetings, etc: Gangsters haven't operated openly since the mid-twentieth century. The whole essence of the mafia is a "secret society." However, the "legitimate world" has gotten quite a lot of information on the workings and meetings of the mafia through informers and "bugs" (hidden listening devices planted in a mafia hangout). These bugs can be placed by law enforcement illegally (without a court order/warrant) strictly for background information purposes, or legally (through a court order based on probable cause). Placement of these bugs involves the law enforcement agents breaking into the locations at night and hiding these listening devices. Such bugs were instrumental in convicting John Gotti in 1992 and Jerry Angiulo of Boston in the early 1980's. The details of such "bugging" operations can be found in trial transcripts and the memoirs of FBI agents. In addition, what you described as the mass-meetings do sound like Salvatore Maranzano's mass meeting he held at the conclusion of the Castellammarese War in 1931, and the infamous Apalachin Meeting in upstate New York in 1957.
Wearing a wire: A lot of the talk about wearing a wire comes from mob stories from the 1960's to the 1980's, where informers were actually wearing a "wire," or sometimes even a small tape recorder strapped to their bodies. In modern times, yes, the cops actually do have pretty high-tech hidden cameras with high-definition color video and audio. The cops are pretty secretive about this stuff, but if you have access to any surveillance/spy catalogues of companies that market their products mostly to law enforcement, you can see exactly what kind of equipment they use.
So, you've had personal knowledge in dealing with the criminal element, and you can't stand cops. I'm beginning to get the picture. You're the world's first criminal encyclopedist who's also a feature film. We should have a category for that. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]00:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look around the woman's head it says "ÆLGYFU REGINA", where Regina is Latin for Queen. The text is broken up, but that's how they did it back then. Falastur2Talk22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm inclined to think it's Emma rather than Ælfgifu. For those not au fait with the intricacies of Anglo-Saxon royalty (which includes me, as I had to look it this up on Wikipedia), apparently Emma was also, rather confusingly, known as Ælfgifu; as the Emma article says: "She was given an English name, Ælfgifu, which was used instead of her Norman name on formal occasions or on charters". I see the caption on the Cnut page for the image reads『Angels crown Cnut as he and Ælfgifu present a large gold cross to Hyde Abbey.』and in the Hyde Abbey article, it also says that Emma also donated the (purported) head of Saint Valentine to the abbey, which makes me think that it's Emma rather than Ælfgifu of Northampton. I'll look around for sources. FlowerpotmaN·(t)23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another link, this time to the British Library record for the New Minster Liber Vitae, which again goes with Emma. Of course, the book dates from the 1030s, and Ælfgifu of Northampton had been replaced by Emma in 1016; also, as the marriage between Ælfgifu and Cnut was of the handfast variety - without benefit of clergy, as they used to say - while it might have been recognized as legally valid, it was not recognized by the Church. An image of the two of them together in a book that was probably kept on the altar of the Abbey would have been problematic, to say the least. So, long story short, Emma. FlowerpotmaN·(t)01:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another diplomacy question
The news headlines about Diana Nyad's Cuba-to-Florida swim make me wonder: what kind of diplomatic hurdles did she need to clear? Presumably there's some kind of standard way that immigration officials deal with non-traditional methods of border crossing (i.e. by those who want to be legal, not counting illegal immigration), such as her Bahamas-to-Florida swim, but presumably this situation was complicated by the poor state of US-Cuba relations. I'm curious, but more importantly, sources on this question could helpfully improve her article. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article from three years ago[2] makes some comments about it, and it's probably still true. Compared with where things were a few decades ago, passage to and from Cuba is rather easier now - but it still requires negotiation and permission from both governments. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This and this refer to crossing by boat from Canada to the US but essentially, when entering the US the captain of the craft must report to US Customs officials. The second link says it just requires a phone call. I would assume that Nyad would officially be listed as a passenger of her support boat even though she didn't spend any time in it. Dismas|(talk)01:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the publicity, I doubt there's any issue on the US side. The issue would be, how does she get permission to start from a Cuban beach? The answer is there has to be some special negotiation between the two governments. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why. She's not Cuban. Cuba wouldn't legally care where she was going when she left. Her departing Cuba on its own has no significance at all to the US government. So no need for "special negotiation". HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In many countries, you need a valid exit stamp to leave. That could be arranged in advance in the case of such an endeavor (i.e. going to the nearest customs office, having all the team members passports stamped, and then leaving from a beach within a specific time period rather than from a port or airport); failure to comply could result in various problems if the persons ever wanted to re-enter that country legally. And it's not entering Cuba that's a problem for a U.S. citizen; it's returning to the States if you hadn't obtained the proper authorizations from the U.S. government beforehand. See this document from the U.S. State Department [3] --Xuxl (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the article I found from 3 years ago, the Cuban government had some misgivings about the symbolism of someone swimming away from Cuba. They would have preferred that Nyad swim toward Cuba. I expect when it became obvious how difficult such a swim is, their fears about "copycats" might have diminished. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How stupid do you think the Cubans are? It's been done before. I suspect they've known for a lot more than three years how difficult it is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is a sporting exhibition, not a case of immigration. It's not like someone swam to Cuba, walked ashore, and applied for their national health care. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
September 3
Earliest British queen consort to have worn a crown
The seal of Matilda
Wo was the earliest known queen consort in the British Isles to have worn a crown (either through historical inventories or depictions, etc.)? -- 04:52, 3 September 2013 The Emperor's New Spy
Sure, but Spy is asking about depictions, right? Matilda of Scotland (Queen of England as wife of Henry I 1100-1118) wears a crown on her seal (shown). I can't find a contemporary image of Matilda of Flanders. The Bayeux tapestry (c. 1070) does not put a crown on Harold's wife Edith. [4] And the image you have above of Canute and Ælfgifu is dated 1031 and shows the queen without a crown. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can plastic surgery substantially alter someone's appearance?
A standard trope in espionage thrillers is for someone to have extensive plastic surgery so that they are no longer recognizable. I had always thought this was just fiction, but our article on Sammy_the_bull notes that he had plastic surgery while in the Witness Protection Program to change his appearance. Is this type of thing common, and does it work (he doesn't really look all that different to me)? Thanks! OldTimeNESter (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can substantially alter your appearance, to the point where somebody who knows you may not recognize you (then again, dyeing your hair, changing your hairstyle, growing a beard, and wearing sunglasses can do that, too). However, the trope of one person having their appearance altered to match another is less likely to work. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any Australian cricket fan would nominate Shane Warne as a perfect example of this. It's a shame our article on him doesn't contain any early photos. Maybe comparing the one at the start of his article with something from here might give the idea. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can. I have undergone plastic surgery and weight loss and know I am unrecognizable from ten years ago. I have since run into several people I knew before the appearance change and they had no idea who I was, even after speaking to them in my same voice. It's a pretty impressive feeling, actually. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings
I have a doubt. In Spain, Cuba, Brazil and other countries, people usually give kisses on other people's cheeks as a way to say hello, but then I've noticed that people form UK or USA usually doesn't do the same, but they just shake hands. Why? Miss Bono [zootalk]14:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cultural thing. Latins (southern European origin) are generally more demonstrative than northern Europeans. And East Asians are even less demonstrative, hence the stereotypical bowing rather than handshaking. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article Cheek kissing that may be helpful. Kissing has become more widespread as a greeting here in the UK in recent years, particularly among younger people and metropolitan society. However, "to kiss or not to kiss" can still provide a moment of awkwardness in many greeting situations, with people we don't know well; we are a quite a formal bunch here compared to some nations - as Bugs says, it's a cultural thing. I am female and can mentally divide my acquaintance list into people I kiss when I meet them, and people I don't. The latter list is much bigger than the former.
May I ask you a question in return? I believe you're a native Spanish speaker and I was very interested to see how you phrased your question. On the Language desk we've discussed the well-established use of "doubt" as a synonym for "question" by Indian English speakers, but I just wanted to ask whether you're translating the Spanish phrase tengo una duda when you say "I have a doubt". Many thanks! - Karenjc14:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I expressed myself poorly. I meant that, to a standard British or American English speaker, I have a doubt and I have a question mean slightly different things, although in Indian English they are interchangeable and there is good etymological reason for this. Here's an old RefDesk discussion about it. I was interested to see you, as a Spanish speaker, using this construction, and I wondered whether it is because of the similarity between doubt and duda. But I don't want to distract attention from your question about cheek-kissing, which is the point of this thread, and I was not criticising your English in any way - just hoping you might help me understand a usage that I find interesting. -Karenjc18:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your preferred way would be Yo tengo una pregunta, right? And about "I have a doubt", it's something I've often heard Indian colleagues say, so it's not massively incorrect, it just kind of labels someone as an "Indian English" speaker - like this funny word "prepone", the opposite of "postpone", which we don't say in America. Also, "I have a doubt" may be deliberately ambiguous - a cultural device for challenging something without challenging it - saying "I don't understand" rather than "I think you've got it wrong." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Jack's perverse need to be contrary here, the first 100 hits for "this people doesn't" appear to be illiterate ranting. But hey, who doesn't want to teach Miss Bono how to be a ghetto chick as a grand international bad joke? μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far from perverse or contrary, Medeis, I was actually agreeing with you in my own special way. The point of mentioning "one or even two that would sound natural to a native speaker" (out of 940,000) was that, while your statement (people never doesn't) may not have been literally true, it's as good as literally true. Irony has many faces. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]22:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I watched the the TV series Spartacus and I wonder if it presents really the story of Spartacus. There many sex scenes and violence. Is true that romaines live like that (They like violence, nobles people organize parties with slaves fucking around, Strap-on really exists? ...etc and others many things I forget). Do the expression By Jupiter Cock really exists? I searched the net and I have found nothing. The story between Spartacus and his wife and Crixus and Neveia are really true?. Thanks.
Our article on Spartacus (the historical figure) covers what the ancient sources say happened pretty well, with links to translations of those sources in the footnotes. The TV series is obviously going to be fictionalised. The setting and background are hopefully going to be based on historical and archaeological research, but if specific events depicted go beyond what the sources say, that's just dramatic licence. The sources only go into so much detail, and to write a dramatically satisfying screenplay the writer is going to have to invent scenes and dialogue to convey information that's conveyed in a different way in the sources, fill in gaps from his or her imagination, and invent stuff to make the characters and action more interesting. Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happens to Caesar in the show, but as far as I know there's no evidence that he had anything to do with Spartacus' rebellion at all. He would have been elected military tribune around that time, but if he played any part in the campaigns against Spartacus, it's not recorded. Nicknack009 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Spartacus series Todd Lasance, much improved by what one blogger called a "Point-Break-Patrick-Swayze-Julius-Caesar" look, is stabbed with a far more appropriate implement than a knife. :) Wnt (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do schoolchildren in the developed world, 21st century, learn how to write letters or send e-mail or both?
Doschoolchildren in the developed world learn how to write letters or send e-mail or both? Are they taught how to type out or write out a formal/business letter and a casual/friendly letter at a young age, adding a postage stamp, finding a mail box, checking the address to make sure that the mail gets to the right place, looking for typographical errors in the e-mail, etc.? How often would the average schoolchild use electronics to send a message to another person? 164.107.102.38 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My son is 10 and goes to school in a "developed" country. He's certainly never been taught how to write a letter in the way you describe and somehow I doubt he ever will now. --Viennese Waltz15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My daughters, now 22 and 16 and schooled in the UK, were both taught the elements of letter writing at primary school (layout, content, register, etc.) It wa a required part of the National Curriculum. This article from 2007 confirms that children were taught this skill in or around Year 3, Term 3, ie at the age of about 8. Central diktats on what is in the curriculum change with every administration, but I doubt very much that this requirement has been abandoned. Primary age children also learn to write and send email as part of their Information Technology education. They have logins and email addresses within the school's learning platform and learn to compose and send emails to teachers and each other within a safe walled garden environment. -Karenjc18:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the early days of "Computer Studies", I taught children how to send an e-mail, but these days they all seem to learn to e-mail and text without needing to be taught. (E-mail is now considered old-fashioned, of course, for casual communication. It's all texting, and writing on walls, and the past tense of "to text" seems to be "tex'd" rather than "texted". </rant>) Dbfirs21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer what I call the "good old days" of e-mailing and letter-writing. Letter-writing and e-mail, especially in formal situations, take some time to think, plan, and write out, minimizing thoughtless comments. I'm not saying that people cannot show bad manners in letter-writing and e-mailing; they can, but I would think that being impolite or hurtful would be intentional. 140.254.213.99 (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My daughter is 11 and we live in Ontario. She was taught last year how to write a semi-formal style letter (salutations, stuff like that) and practiced a few between classmates. I don't think they talked about stuff like where to get stamps, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Viking boat launching
old boat launching
When the Vikings built their ships in medieval times, how did they launch them into the sea after construction? Is it similar to this picture? In other words, how did they get the big ship off the launch structure and into the sea?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Viking longships were much smaller than the ship in your picture. It was quite possible to manhandle a longship in and out of the sea; Scapa FlowinOrkney gets it's name from the Norse word "Skálpeiðflói, (which) was given to it by the Vikings and means ‘the bay of the ship isthmus’, as longships were dragged the short distance overland from Kirkwall Bay to Scapa to avoid the long sea journey."[6]Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article Figurehead (object), the theory is that "[t]he menacing appearance of toothy and bug-eyed figureheads on Viking ships also had the protective function of warding off evil spirits". The statement is sourced to the British Museum website. - Karenjc22:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even more details in Sea; perhaps we should add to that figurehead article. "James Hornell studied traditional, indigenous watercraft and considered the significance of the "oculi" or eyes painted on the prows of boats which may have represented the watchful gaze of a god or goddess protecting the vessel. The Vikings portrayed fierce heads with open jaws and bulging eyes at bow and stern of their longships to ward off evil spirits, and the figureheads on the prows of sailing ships were regarded with affection my mariners and represented the belief that the vessel needed to find its way. The Egyptians placed figures of holy birds on the prow while the Phoenicians used horses representing speed. The Ancient Greeks used boars' heads to symbolise acute vision and ferocity while Roman boats often mounted a carving of a centurion representing valour in battle. In northern Europe, serpents, bulls, dolphins and dragons were customary and by the 13th Century, the swan was used representing grace and mobility."184.147.119.141 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word "gargoyle" is unfortunate, though it is understandable why you made the connection. In Denmark, they are referred to commonly as "dragehoveder" (dragons' heads), but interestingly, a "dragon" only appeared on few ships. The Ladby Ship from Funen is one example of a ship that featured an actual "dragon", but we should probably see the figures as (sea) serpents. A famous Norwegian Viking ship was called "Ormen Lange" (The Long Serpent) and in Viking Scandinavia, an "ormr" could refer to a serpent, notably related to the sea, e.g. Midgarðsormr, Níðhöggr and the lindorm. Both the option that they should scare off evil or that they simply should look intimidating seem possible. Interestingly, Denmark has a number of runestones with so-called "masks", which are believed to be repellents of evil spirits, so it is not impossible that the "dragon heads" were believed to have the same function.
The Ladby Museum in Denmark has a bit more on the topic (my translation, quote) "Many people expect that the bow of a Viking ship must feature a dragon's head. But in fact only a few contemporary examples are known of dragon or animal heads in ship bows. The Ladby ship, with its iron curls found in the front part of the bow, belongs to a small and exclusive group, as long as we refer to actual Viking ship finds where the ship featured both a dragon's head and tail. In Normandy, at Ile de Groix, a ship's grave has been found with a similar bow ornament, and boat graves of smaller boats are known from Sweden from the 9th century; apparently they also show "curls" near the bow. In addition, we have a few images of dragon's heads from the Viking ear. On the Gotland image stones dated to the 8th-10th centuries, a number of ships are displayed featuring dragon heds, some of these with an open mouth. Often the ships have a curled tail. Some ships have heads both at bow and stern. An image stone from Sweden shows a ship's stern with indications of tail spikes. Some examples exist of graffitti inscribed on pieces of bone or similar, where a ship's stern features an animal head. Finally, the famous Bayeux tapestry features ships with dragon's heads in their sterns. The dragon that appears during the pre-Christian time in the Nordic countries is rather a serpent or a giant worm. It has no legs or wings, both are common for the Christian dragons. The [Viking] dragon's poison is lethal, and it is often associated with the collection and guarding of gold. Its role is always evil. It is filled with magic - toxic blood and enchanted organs. But at the same time, it is a cosmic being, which like an eternal orbit forms a circle around the world. If the circle is broken, the balance between chaos and cosmos collapses. This happens at Ragnarök." (unquote)[7]ValentinianT / C01:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having a career as a real estate agent for many years, I can say that houses right on the shoreline in the United states (especially California) are considerably more expensive than inland homes. --LordGorval (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this website there are at least ten U.S. cities where the average listing price for a home in the first six months of this year exceeded $1.2 million. The majority of these are located on or near the California Coast. --LordGorval (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you compare similar houses, the shoreline is considerably more expensive. When you compare average shoreline houses versus average inland houses, the difference becomes bigger. Shoreline lots are expensive and tend to get expensive homes. People who can afford an expensive lot usually don't want a cheap house on it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liechtenstein was elevated to a Reichsfürstentum by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1719, and was thus a fief of the Holy Roman Empire. When the empire dissolved in 1806, it no longer had any imperial overlord. Liechtenstein stayed on friendly terms with the Habsburgs both when they were Holy Roman Emperors, and when they ruled as emperors of Austria, and Liechtenstein is only accessible from Austria and Switzerland. At the end of the day, it is probably the isolatedness that saved its independence. ValentinianT / C01:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Germans probably had a hard time finding Lietchenstein on the map. As for Liechtenstein, it didn't border Germany proper, just Austria and Switzerland. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liechtenstein was proclaimed a member of the Confederation of the Rhine and hence a sovereign and independent state on 12 July 1806 by Napoleon. After the battle of Austerlitz Napoleon was at the culmination of his power and did not ask Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein or the Emperor in Vienna for advice on this matter. Hence it was Napoleon's strategy that made Liechtenstein survive the German mediatization. Interestingly the Wikipedia article on the Confederation of the Rhine has a figure of 4,000 soldiers to be contributed by Liechtenstein to the Confederation of the Rhine in case of war. This number is so extremely unlikely that I perused the original document: Article 38 of the constitution of the Confederation of 12 July 1806 states "... and all other princes shall contribute in case of war together 4000 men" (source text, source text). Hence all the figures for the smaller territories (each listed with 4000 men) are nonsense. Liechtenstein contributed say, about 40 men, not 4000 men. It contributed 55 men to the army of the German Confederation in 1818 (source text). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination against people on the basis of how they smell
in general most protected classes in discrimination are becuase it's not something a person really has that much control over: that would seem to me to mean that you can usually discriminate based on smell. (This is not legal advice). For example, if someone smells due to their refusing to shower, you can probably discriminate. However, I can imagine a situation where their "natural" smell, could just be an excuse or a proxy for really discriminating on a different basis; e.g. 'smelling like a woman'. (i.e. based on whatever moisterizer, shampoo, or whatever else a person uses - women's products can probably be differentiated by smell from men's products, for example.) I would imagine it's definitely illegal for an employer to state "I'm firing you because I don't like the way you smell" when in fact this is a basis for discriminating on an actual protected basis like being a woman. Otherwise anyone could decide they don't like the smell of women's products and successfully fire all their female staff on this basis, without actually firing anyone 'for being a woman'. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not coherent. Does the OP mean discrimination against individuals based on their actual individual body odor? Does he mean discrimination against groups of people on their collective ability to distinguish odors? If this is a serious question, it needs to be stated clearly. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly research on how we react to body odours of various kinds, positive and negative ones. See Pheromone. Many animals certainly "disciminate" using smell. However "odorism" and "odourism" get no google hits. The story linked by Sluzzelian does come up when you type in "smellism" [8]Paul B (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
financial projections
If for whatever reason we historically subtracted from each U.S. state budget the same proportion of that state's GDP, that the CIA and NSA have as a proportion of the national budget today, and we replayed history with this subtraction in place (no other chnage), from the founding of the United States until today, would America still have been able to grow 1) to its continental size, 2) a global superpower?
What I mean is that imagine that all the 13 colonies and then the states, each had to have the financial burden (no other change) of that extra cost.
That is the text of my question, for context I am thinking about all the stupid spying, intelligence, counterintelligence, coups d'etat (assassinating each other's congressmen and replacing them etc, protecting against same) etc etc etc that America saved by not having its 50 states have to have a budget toward each other the way it does today versus foreign powers.
This seems to me (along with border stuff) a HUGE savings!!! But how big...just a few percentage faster growth or America, or could America have risen as a power under that baggage?
Note: I am ONLY interested in the financial part. i.e. I'm not asking about actually creating those interstate departments; rather, what happens if that money disappeared from states' budgets
China, Brazil, Canada and other countries with multiple sub-national governments (states or provinces) don’t spend vast sums on one province spying on another or seeking to overthrow a rival governor. Hence, the basic premise needs to be rethought. On your implication that the activities of the US intelligence agencies are ‘stupid,’ I suspect that it is extremely unlikely that successful intelligence operations would be selected by those who revel such activities for the purpose of making ALL such operations appear counterproductive.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, neither China nor the US states spend money spying on provinces/states within themselves. I am asking about if they did... Ho wmuch would this have slowed their development as nations? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're asking... if, somehow, the individual states of the Union were paranoid enough toward each other that they would spy on each other, but not enough to levy funds to install border controls, interstate tarriffs, substantially larger state militias, and all the other baggage and costs they saved by subsuming those functions to the federal government as prescribed in the Constitution? So, pretend that the states have an interest in clandestine surveillance or even occasional wet operations here and there amongst each other, but that they nevertheless still have open commerce and migration and never need to fear war with each other? It's pretty hard to imagine a set of circumstances which would give rise to such a situation; the fears that would lead to spending money on intelligence would first lead to spending money on border protection and military capabilities. Be that as it may, we don't actually know what the true budgets of these departments are: a lot of it is hidden in extra incidental costs for other appropriations, black budgets, and the like (to say nothing of their extracurricular activities...). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠14:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - I'd like you to imagine the things you describe and come up with a number - then simply subtract that number from the states' coffers, without any actual change. (i.e. no actual paranoia, spying, etc.) Let me make an analogy. Obviously if every year one penny disappeared from each state's coffers, that would not have had a material affect on History. Now instead of one penny, I'm asking you to imagine the amount of funds disappearing that is the same percentage of each state's budget at that time, as the NSA and CIA are a percentage of the national GDP today. In other words, the only thing that interests me is the financial consequences of removing that amount of money. No ACTUAL policy consequences interest me. It would be as if I considered the NSA and CIA doing nothing but draining money and doing zero with it. If we multiply that for 50 (and one for each state historically) and replay history, would that 'drain' (without any benefit) have affected the state's capacities materially? (Due to their budgets being that much smaller with that money disappearing.) 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you postulated a reason why the individual states would feel the need to conduct (counter-) intelligence operations against each other? States, national or otherwise, tend to avoid spending money on nonexistent threats.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French revolution death
I want to know the approximate death numbers during the French revolution, not just those who were executed (not a guess but a number from a good source). All the deaths that were not natural must be included.184.97.201.174 (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Charles Issawi, The Costs of the French Revolution, 58 American Scholar 371 (Summer 1989), the number of victims was well over 100,000, perhaps close to twice that number. Issawi suggests that to this should be added the casualties of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, which were probably over one million Frenchmen, with the combined casualties of France's enemies probably of a comparable order of magnitude. René Sédillot, Le Coût de la Révolution Française (Paris 1987), which I have not seen personally, apparently put the human losses at about two million. John M Baker (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
red baiting/lavender baiting
You have listings on red baiting and lavender baiting, but you don't actually say what the baiting consisted of - how it was done. Has anyone more information on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The red baiting article describes it perfectly well. It's nothing more than the hyperbolic partisan trash-talking; whenever you hear some talking head on TV who claims there's no difference between Obama and Stalin, that's red baiting. 87.115.114.201 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or equating Bush to Hitler, which could be called blue-baiting, if there is such a term. But what's lavender-baiting?
Oh, I see - lavender scare. And having found that article just now, there's a bit of editorializing there: "Because the psychiatric community regarded homosexuality as a mental illness..." No, it's because there was a social and legal stigma that could lead to blackmail. What the psych community may have thought was only a part of that. And there's still a social stigma, despite the progress made in the last 40 years or so. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
German or American insignia
I have a picture from 1995 showing Lee H. Hamilton meeting with Volker Rühe in his capacity as minister of defence. In the background stands a man wearing what appears to be a military dress uniform (he has stripes at the ends of his sleeves), but other than these stripes and his buttons, the only distinctive element is an insignium, and that's what I'm trying to identify. There's an anchor with "arms" (or whatever you call the broad parts at the bottom) that are placed at a rather shallow angle: if the point of the anchor were placed in the middle of the clock, the arms would point between 9 and 10 o'clock and 2 and 3 o'clock respectively. The anchor is inscribed in a circle, and three short horizontal lines come out from the bottom of the circle; it's basically the following ASCII drawing, with an anchor included:
X X X
X | X
X | X
X | X
X | X
X | X
=========Xq | qX=========
===========X | X===========
===============X X X===============
The pipe characters are the vertical part of the anchor, while the arms go from the bottom of the vertical part to the spots where the "q" characters are located; they're only there for the illustration, since I can't draw the arms with ASCII.
All this being said, can anyone identify the insignium in question? As I noted above, it's a meeting of German and American leaders, so the guy could be from either country. He wears the insignium on his right breast. His sleeve stripes are a group of five stripes adjacent to each other, with two larger stripes above and separate from each other; it's basically like what you'd get if you mixed the two top stripes from File:US Navy O9 insignia.svg with the stripes of File:19 - kpt zs.GIF. I couldn't find anything relevant when looking through sources on American insignia (either military or otherwise), and everything on German insignia from Google talks about World War II, as if 1945 were the last time that Germany had any military or diplomatic ranks whatsoever. 2001:18E8:2:1020:E930:DADC:A843:594D (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic remark: I notice that you used the word insignium as the singular of insignia. Not a bad guess, but not correct — the actual singular is insigne. Third-declension neuter, I think, after a brief search to refresh my Latin declensions. --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've known several priests and I've never seen them pass up food just because it's too luxurious. In fact one priest I knew loved cooking and was pretty much the only one that cooked for all the other priests in the parish. Dismas|(talk)17:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe there is a blanket prohibition of any food item in Catholicism. Rather, food prohibitions in Catholicism tend to take the form of time-specific things. At least historically, there were a number of fast days in the Catholic calendar, where all Catholics were told to abstain from luxuries, particularly food luxuries. Lent was one of the big ones. With Vatican II most of those restrictions were lifted, at least for the laity. I would not be surprised, though, if there various fast days still in place specifically for priests. I'm guessing also that a fair number of older priests, who were ordained prior to Vatican II, still adhere to the old prohibitions even though they technically don't have to. (I know a few catholic non-priests who still do the whole-year no-meat-on-Friday thing.) Even younger priests may voluntarily fast for spiritual reasons. ("I will voluntarily give up sweets, using my small sacrifice to reflect on the greater sacrifice Jesus made.") - "To luxurious for the clergy at any time of the year" isn't really at thing in Catholic theology, though. -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add me to the "I never heard of such a thing, in general" list. Priests take a vow of poverty, but that doesn't generally seem to mean they're not allowed physical comforts. There might be some ascetic orders that would require abstinence from such foods, but I'm speculating there. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of monastic orders such as the Benedictines, Carthusians, and Cistercians for whom austerity is part of the vow, but the rules often tended to relax over time. Mendicants groups such as the Dominicans and Franciscans were also supposed to live a simple life, but became notorious for abuses. There is no rule of austerity that applies to Catholic priests in general, though. Looie496 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was the first movie and book to depict self-harm as it is known today. Religious self-flagellation and actual suicide attempts don't count. I'm talking about straightforward cutting.
Your distinction is arbitrary. "Cutting" is what they call it nowadays. There's no reason to think the psycho-physiological cause is different in things like wearing hair shirts or beating oneself with straps. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. That isn't helpful. My point is that it's easy to find depictions of religious self-flagellation, going back many hundred of years; that's not what I'm interested in. I am just interested in researching the history of depictions of secular self-harm and when were the earliest examples. Thank you.--24.228.82.34 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to draw your own arbitrary lines in the sand, but accounts of self harm are documented from Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead" through Hieronymus Bosch and early insane asylums. The fact that a source like Leviticus is a religious source doesn't mean it depicts a sacrament rather than a mental condition. I don't know what your interest is (you can explain), but my lack of knowledge of your context doesn't justify your making bodily noises. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a precise definition, but I believe our OP is looking for the cutting behavior that I will describe as so: A person, typically a teenager or young adult, cutting him/herself, on the upper arms or legs where the wounds may be hidden, not in an attempt to commit suicide, but as a way to deal with stress or depression. The person may report that he/she cuts him/herself "So I would feel something - feel anything". The OP is suggesting that this is distinct from people who are cutting themselves or religious reasons, or because they are so insane they do not know what they are doing. It is often associated with emo culture. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not unfamiliar with that depiction of it in the press, even though it occurred and was known publicly a few millennia before there was such a thing as goths, let alone emos. Even birds and mammals in distress will engage in this behavior in captivity. (Presumably animals not in captivity do so also, but get eaten by predators before being noticed by naturalists.) If the IP OP is not interested in this phenomenon before the 90's (or maybe 80's) when it became a topic under the name "cutting" in the modern press, that's fine. But it would be a disservice to let him think the phenomenon didn't exist before the name he gives it existed, any less than it would be intellectual fraud to pretend homosexuality didn't exist before the term gay did. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a big point you're missing is just because some stuff are related doesn't mean someone has to be interested in it, there's nothing wrong with being mostly interested in particular aspect of something. To use your example, a person who wants to learn about modern Western gay subculture isn't pretending homosexuality didn't exist beforehand just because they don't want to hear about what the ancient Greeks did. I also question your assumption that these behaviours are highly related, to me cutting as we're talking about here probably has more similarities to some cases of teens stealing their parents car and going joy riding at very high speeds (particularly those who don't want to get caught or invite friends) or some cases of a teen who regularly gets in to fights or who uses drugs to an extreme level than many cases of religious self-flagellation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, "self harm" was not something that I was aware of as a teenager in 1970s London; although there were some quite disturbed individuals at my school, it didn't seem to enter anybody's heads to cut their arms up. I don't remember hearing anything about it until well into the 1980s when it seemed to become a common thing for teenagers to do. I can't cite any references for this but it seems to fit in with the idea of a "contagion" quoted above. Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Catholic monks and nuns live in monasteries. The monasteries become their home, where they work and eat in simplicity and frugality. However, Catholic priests do not appear to be so confined to the spiritual retreats and would regularly interact with laypersons. So, do they live in the cathedral, and if so, what part of the cathedral? Is it possible for an orphan child to be raised in the monastery and grow up to be a monk or nun, working as a scribe and illuminating manuscipts all day long in fancy calligraphy? 164.107.103.94 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They can just live in a normal house like everyone else, but they usually live in a rectory attached to (or close to) the church (not inside of it). A bishop with a cathedral would have a larger house, although it's not inside the cathedral either. The richer and more powerful bishops typically used to live in a large manor, and we have several articles about Bishop's Palaces. As for orphan children, I don't know if that's possible now (monks do not usually copy out manuscripts all day anymore), but yes, that certainly would have been possible in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In some places, dioceses have mandated the construction of rectories. This happened in Cincinnati in the early twentieth century, for example. Go to Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches and read some of the parish articles that it links; some of them have sections on the parish rectories. Entry #2, Cassella, is particularly relevant because it talks about the pastor's change of residence. 2001:18E8:2:1020:E054:F577:E495:113D (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the method of socio-economic inquiry based upon a idealist interpretation of economic development, an empirical view of social change, and an analysis of ethnic/race-relations and conflict within a society? Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.252.216.220 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding what the word "collectivism" entails. What does it mean for a society to be "collectivist" or for someone to be a "collectivist"? How does this juxtapose with "individualism" exactly? It's meaning appears sort of dodgy. I've been reading some classical liberal/libertarian material (or rants) lately, and it seems like their use more or less means "authority". — Melab±1☎03:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "dodginess" you're talking about. Collectivism is just simply the opposite of individualism. A collectivist society or person values the group over the individual. What else do you want to know? --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there's a wide variability in whether the people are that way culturally, due to their religion, or are forced to act that way by laws. StuRat (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Kibbutz in Israel is a "collective," an economic entity organized among citizens in their place of residence with an entirely shared economy: ownership of the means of production and distribution of income.^ Internal policies are set by direct representation (a vote by all members on proposals presented by officeholders or committees). There are laws in the State of Israel pertaining to kibbutz members, e.g. prohibiting ownership of other land, the community covers the individual's tax obligation's, etc. The article here is largely historical, though, and may not offer much of an explanation. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^ (edited to add): The kibbutz is the employer of the resident-members, in production and service branches. The latter include a communal kitchen/dining room serving three meals a day, a communal laundry, onsite daycare from age 3 months and holiday day camp for school-age children. So much of the income is distributed in services: meals, laundry, child care, administration and landscaping, etc. AND housing plus maintenance is provided. The actual cash distributed is a monthly stipend based on number of family members and the children's ages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term "collectivist", if not entirely invented by, was certainly coopted and used extensively by Ayn Rand and her followers under objectivism in a purely perjorative sense to describe the exact wrong kind of philosophy that stood in opposition to her particular brand of strict intellectual individualism. To understand how the term is mostly used, one must become familiar with (not necessarily ascribe to, but merely become familiar with) her philosophy, if only because when you hear the term, it is most often used in the way she meant it. --Jayron3201:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think he had quite a lot in common with her. Not in details of policy prescription, no, not with Orwell being a self-proclaimed socialist. But both were uncompromising liberals in the broadest sense of the word.
That said, I don't agree with Jayron; "collectivism" is the standard antonym of "individualism" (the only other widely recognized choice, I think, would be "communitariansim"), and is not specific to Randian theory. --Trovatore (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of loyalism and republicanism in British Isles & North America
Is there anywhere I can find a comparison of Irish Unionists with Canadian Loyalists, vis a vis Irish Republicans and American Patriots? Or, is there a written comparison of Cromwellianism in England with the American Revolution, the British Empire a spawn of the Stewarts and the American Republic a spawn of Cromwell? Has anybody done a study of Franco-Scottish political relations in Canada (New France and Nova Scotia) stemming from the Auld Alliance, and Jacobitism in the context of the Seven Years' War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.133.231 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP seems to have his timelines crossed. The Irish did not arrive in Canada in significant mumbers until the early to mid 19th century, well after U.S. Independence; indeed, the population of Canada was still largely French before the American Revolution, in spite of the British conquest in 1763. Large movements of English colonists began with the United Empire Loyalists post-Revolution. Many of the first Irish to arrive, who settled in present-day Quebec, became absorbed by the local French population because the two groups shared a religion and opposition to the British. As for the Scots, important Scottish immigration to Nova Scotia took place after the mass deportation of the (French-speaking) Acadian population from the area; The two populations had little interaction and, in any case historical affinities between France and Scotland would have little weight compared to the Acadians' sentiment that the (British and Scottish) settlers had dispossessed them of their land. --Xuxl (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Irish and French troops fought in the 1745 Rebellion (against the Hanoverian government forces). Note that the Jacobites were mainly supported by Catholics (or at least High Church Anglicans); the Catholic leaning Stuarts having been deposed in the Glorious Revolution, whereas the Hanoverians were installed to prevent a Catholic succession. In Ireland, the Jacobites were opposed by the Williamites at the Siege of Derry; the present day Ulster Loyalists strongly associate themselves with the Williamists. So in a British context, the House of Stewart and the Loyalists were in direct opposition to each other.
There was a British caricature entitled "The Yankie Doodles Intrenchments Near Boston 1776" which shows a somewhat puritanically-dressed revolutionary saying "Tis Old Olivers Cause: No Monarchy nor Laws". However, I'm not sure whether too many people made such an association at the time... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My question was whether there has been a published political analysis comparing and contrasting the trends and forms of government between the British homeland and the British colonies. For instance, Ireland and Northern Ireland are both Irish, just divided by their form of government and religious affiliation. Ireland is Catholic and Republican, Northern Ireland Anglo-Presbyterian and Monarchist. America is Puritan and Republican, while Canada is Anglo-Catholic and Monarchist. This distinction can even be applied to the similarities and differences of Hawaii as part of America (Republican) and Australia & New Zealand (Monarchist) in the South Seas. I don't expect anybody to have written anything about that though--the colonial legacy of Captain Cook's discoveries, and the interaction between America with the Commonwealth, is a little too obscure for editorial punditry.
Other than religious and political differences, there isn't anything different between the two Irelands and the two Americas, or between Hawaii and the other Antipodean colonies. Patrick Henry compared George III with Charles I, and he with Caesar. I was not asking for the historical settlement of Canada, but it is true that the Scots have a bigger presence there, and not only Cape Breton but Montreal. The Irish went to Newfoundland. There isn't really any distinctly Scottish presence in America by comparison--most of the Presidents were English, for instance, aside from Monroe, Polk, and maybe Buchanan (via Ulster), or Arthur (again, via Ulster). Most Scots in America are Orangist and Presbyterian, being pro-English, assimilating into the English population. I could not see Jacobitism being at all sympathetic to the Americans, who described themselves as Whigs opposed to Catholic and Anglican absolutism. The Canadians, of course, were the Tories on the other side of the aisle. The English Whigs in America opposed pacifying the French, who just so happened to live alongside the Tory Scots.
I found; New Zealand Electronic Text Collection - The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 64 (p. 96)"The names of the various groups are somewhat confusing; in many instances I have given those by which they are most popularly known. It is difficult to name correctly the two groups, generally called the Society Islands. Captain Wallis, I believe, named them the Georgian Islands, in honour of George III. Cook called them the Society Islands, in honour of the Royal Society. Ellis calls the Eastern Group (Tahiti) the Georgian Islands, and the Western Group, the Society Islands. I think that Tahiti should be called the Society Islands, as it was there that Cook made his observations." This seems to date from the 1870s, but I can't pin it down exactly.
The Daily Alta, California, of 3 June 1880 says; "The term Society Islands, comprehends the Tahiti or Georgian Islands, the latter being under French Protectorate, with an area of 463 square miles, and a population of about 14,000, including several hundred soldiers, and about 700 foreign residents. The Society Inlands proper are independent, having an area of 213 square miles, and a population of about 4000."Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found a similar lack of consistent nomenclature looking at the historical maps of the Pacific collected here (which start from before Europeans reached the islands). Obviously there is varying level of detail, but here’s what I see:
Most maps from the beginning label the entire group (both Windward and Leeward) “Society Islands”.
The first mention of “Georgian Islands” in the collection is 1832 (PE Hamm) and it’s applied to the Windward group only (the Leeward group is unnamed).
The first map to name the Windward and Leeward groups differently is in 1844 (RC Smith), where the Windward group are called “Georgian Islands” and the Leeward group “Society Islands”. For the next hundred years, a few maps repeat this, but most continue to use “Society Islands” for both groups, including detailed maps of that region specifically.
(from 1873, a few label the Leeward group “Society Islands” while grouping the Windward islands under The Marquesas.)
The label “Leeward Islands” first appears in Adolf Stieler’s 1891 map. Both groups are still together called “Society Islands” and there is no separate label for the Windward group. The first map in the collection with both “Windward Group” and “Leeward Group” is Matthew Northrup’s 1902 “Islands of the Pacific Ocean.”[10]
Biography of Prince Al Waleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Bin Saud
The wikipedia page mentions the Prince's birth year as 1955 and claims that he was a finance minister in the early 1960s. Is this true?? Can the same be verified and corrected if the same is not true?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.95.214.13 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which state governor in the US has the strongest position? I mean the position within the state government and accross the USA itsself. The most influencal within the USA is likely the Governor of California or New York, because those states are very populous. But within the state government?--84.160.170.227 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Le Figaro is only available online from 1826 to 1840, 1854 to 1942 [13] and then from 1996 forward [14][15]. According to this article, the break is due to copyright issues.
You can buy issues from the 1940s for 4,99 € an issue but the sample front pages don’t let you read anything beyond the biggest headline. The only other thing I can think of is that you can get some front page images (usually of newsworthy events) by entering Le Figaro +”date” into google image search [16]. But perhaps others will have better suggestions.184.147.119.141 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recently went through my Mom's papers and came across her immigration card from Italy. She came to America on the Steamship Auguotus on 7/5/30. When she arrived in the USA a man by the name Ernest E. Evans signed as Counsul of the USA. He is already part of your history but no mention is stated about this position. Is he the same person who won the medal of Honor? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsismath (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, found your Evans. See here. It says: "Evans, Ernest Edwin (b. 1891) — also known as Ernest E. Evans — Born in Rochester, Monroe County, N.Y., April 18, 1891. Stenographer; U.S. Vice Consul in Madrid, 1917-18; Tangier, 1919-21; Mexico City, 1924; Ceiba, 1926; U.S. Consul in Naples, 1929-32; Bradford, 1938. Burial location unknown."184.147.119.141 (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can a legal system be so perfect that you never ever convict an innocent guy?
I wonder whether any system can reach that degree of perfection. I know that legal instruments like 'in dubio pro reo', presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, Miranda's rights, access to legal counsel and so on, will reduce the amount of innocents in prisons, but isn't a residual risk always a given? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy: don't convict anyone and you will really "never ever convict an innocent guy". That is a very low standard of perfection. Presumably, some failed states have such "legal systems"...
I don't know what you are talking about. But no, you are never 100% safe, although you can ignore the residual risk for all practical purposes. In the same way you can take for granted that you won't win in main prize in the lottery. 22:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I read 178's statement as an assertion that, since he never functions as an airplane, there is no risk stemming from his functioning as an airplane. I'm at a loss to explain what he's responding to, though. --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a person who is declared guilty can never be found innocent the condition is satisfied. In England people who are guilty but have a lot of evidence that says otherwise are pardoned rather than being found innocent therefore it has a perfect justice system. Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really follow what you're trying to say. The question is not whether a person who can be determined to be innocent might be found guilty. It's whether a person who really is innocent might be found guilty. --Trovatore (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only way of ensuring that an innocent person is never falsely convicted is to know with 100 percent certainty that a given individual did or did not commit the crime. And the only way to know that for sure would be to have every person monitored 24 x 7. I think the average citizen wouldn't be too keen on that approach. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mysterious symbol on bottle top
Anyone able to identify this symbol? It was found in an old theatre in Brampton, Ontario, Canada (vaudeville, then film, then community theatre and touring show), by a rep of the owner, so it could be real or a prop. (It's real glass.)
Being a bottle top that is green and in the shape of an elf/fairy/leprechaun in a place that dates back to the vaudeville era makes me wonder if it possibly has something to do with absinthe. (Perhaps it was a topper for a particular brand of absinthe at the time?) -- 71.35.99.22 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
September 6
Who was the freshwater economist who (in)famously mocked John Maynard Keynes, either at a conference talk or in a published paper, by saying something along the lines of "Keynes's name is not spoken today but with a snicker"? Robert Lucas is famous for his "Lucas critique" of Keynesian macro, but I cannot remember the quote well enough to attribute it to him, or anyone else. I'm pretty sure I've got the sentiment right, though. -- Branden (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do your own homework.
