Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 9

Bodhi tree at Mahabodhi Temple = Tree of Knowledge according to Enoch?

There's a curious anecdote from one of the "Book of Enoch" versions floating around. To be sure, the enveloping context is fantastic, and the details variously confused, yet...^[1]

And thence I went towards the east, into the midst of the mountain range of the desert, and I saw a wilderness and it was solitary, full of trees and plants. And water gushed forth from above. Rushing like a copious watercourse [which flowed] towards the north-west it caused clouds and dew to ascend on every side.

And thence I went to another place in the desert, and approached to the east of this mountain range. And there I saw aromatic trees exhaling the fragrance of frankincense and myrrh, and the trees also were similar to the almond tree.

And beyond these, I went afar to the east, and I saw another place, a valley (full) of water. And therein there was a tree, the colour (?) of fragrant trees such as the mastic. And on the sides of those valleys I saw fragrant cinnamon. And beyond these I proceeded to the east.

And I saw other mountains, and amongst them were groves of trees, and there flowed forth from them nectar, which is named sarara and galbanum. And beyond these mountains I saw another mountain to the east of the ends of the earth, whereon were aloe-trees, and all the trees were full of stacte, being like almond-trees. And when one burnt it, it smelt sweeter than any fragrant odour.

And after these fragrant odours, as I looked towards the north over the mountains I saw seven mountains full of choice nard and fragrant trees and cinnamon and pepper. And thence I went over the summits of all these mountains, far towards the east of the earth, and passed above the Erythraean sea and went far from it, and passed over the angel Zotiel. And I came to the Garden of Righteousness, and from afar off trees more numerous than I these trees and great-two trees there, very great, beautiful, and glorious, and magnificent, and the tree of knowledge, whose holy fruit they eat and know great wisdom.

That tree is in height like the fir, and its leaves are like (those of) the Carob tree: and its fruit is like the clusters of the vine, very beautiful: and the fragrance of the tree penetrates afar. Then I said: 'How beautiful is the tree, and how attractive is its look!' Then Raphael the holy angel, who was with me, answered me and said:

'This is the tree of wisdom, of which thy father old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were before thee, have eaten, and they learnt wisdom and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden.'

And from thence I went to the ends of the earth and saw there great beasts, and each differed from the other; and (I saw) birds also differing in appearance and beauty and voice, the one differing from the other...

Now to be clear, most of the spices described are known from commerce in Palestine and Syria - then again, the author clearly is using familiar names sometimes in reference to unfamiliar plants.^[2] What I find intriguing is that the voyage described passes north of the Erythraean Sea, which is to say, the Indian Ocean near Iran; then further east away from it along a valley of water, which seems plausibly the Ganges. That seems to describe a physical voyage that could plausibly have come near to Mahabodhi Temple. Given the nature of that site, its connection of the tree with enlightenment, it seems irresistible for an ancient writer in the Jewish traditions to have seen an equivalence with the story of Eden. I wonder though if the relationship could be deeper, if there was more communication and more of an underlying relationship between the sites and their traditions, and thus between Abrahamic traditions and Buddhism, than is commonly believed? Has this potential equivalence been explored or dismissed by historians? Wnt (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I really doubt that any historians have ever explored that identification. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The oldest part of the Book of Enoch dates to 300BC. Prior to that are the boreal World Tree, the polar axis attributed to the Germanic and Uralic and other peoples, and the Tree of Life and the Apples of the Hesperides found in the near east. The tree of the Bodhi Tree tradition is probably a borrowing from thos traditions, equi-and pre-dating Eve and so-forth. μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to the other article Buddha dates back even further. I would have expected historians to consider it because, well, if you go north of the Indian Ocean you're most of the way through Iran, and after that, where do you go? There aren't all that many options - the author, or at least the singer of this particular segment of traveller's tale, didn't go into Nepal or he wouldn't have found the Iranian mountains impressive. Also note the description of the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge as being like grapes - from something like [3] the Sacred Fig seems believable. I'm not so sure about the leaves like the Carob tree - you can compare the articles and see what you think - obviously the little tail is missing, but I'm not sure if there was anything more similar that could have been used. So, I mean, it seems like somebody must have at least asked the question in all this time, shouldn't they? I can't be the first person in two millennia to read this section and take it at face value. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

THe Bodhi tree dates back to 750BC. Not before the Germanics or the World Tree or Tree of Life. The earlier concepts are world-astronomical, not self-ethical. μηδείς (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not the first person to note this; unfortunately, for subjects like this, the books that deal with it tend to be unreliably esoteric and not scholarly academic treatments. (Another example, the link between Abraham and Brahmins...) I suspect it has something to do with the tendency to treat Judaism (and by extension Christianity) as a hermetically sealed religion that had no outside influences, miraculously appearing out of nowhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. Tom Foley

Can someone help me find an image of Tom Foley with his wife, or just a photo of Mrs. Foley? I found this page with a wedding photo, but I'm looking for something from the 1990s, when Foley was Speaker of the House. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B9AC:BD21:3CDF:DE4E (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Google images is your friend. Try "Tom Foley with wife" next time. Her name is Leslie Fahrenkopf. http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/05/tom-foley-wins-gop-endorsement.html 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact just Google Images her name. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem — you got images of Thomas C. Foley, a Republican, while Tom Foley was a Democratic leader. I got the same thing when I tried a basic Google Images search; Mrs. Speaker Foley is/was Heather. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B9AC:BD21:3CDF:DE4E (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a so-so photo of Heather Strachan all by her lonesome. No idea when it was taken. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 10

Ambassador at large?

Is "ambassador at large" a correct way to refer to Richard Armitage's position from 1991 to 1993? The article says "Following that [1991], he was sent to Europe with the title of ambassador; his assignment was to direct U.S. foreign aid to the countries that had been formed out of the fallen Soviet Union." 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Our article Ambassador-at-Large suggests that this role would fit the general definition, but it seems from the "United States" section of that article that in the US "Ambassador-at-Large" is a specific title, and it may not be accurate to describe someone as an "Ambassador-at-Large" if that person was appointed by the US but not with that title. From my Googling, his official title seemed to have simply been "Ambassador": see e.g. [4] [5] or [6] --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

conspiracy to commit your own murder

kind of out-there question :) say you wanted to commit suicide, but through the mechanism of murder made to look like a suicide (you're chicken, whatever). so, while hiding your identitiy you attempt to hire a hitman to murder such and such a person - you give you rdescritpion, identificaiton etc. and (unbeknonst to the hitman who thinks you're just money) actually it's you.

Can you be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in this case - even though it's you? Is this different legally from attempt to commit suicide? Also, has it happened (references, please :)

Obviously this is a question about legal references - not a legal question. It's just a funny hypothetical. Not asking for legal advice,a nd also it's whimsical in that hiring a hitman would obviously be by far the most expensive form of suicide there is, as well as risky and totally stupid, as well as inaccessible to people.

--91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the source (it is the Daily Mail, so take it with a pinch of salt), it has been done: [7]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard or seen fiction where someone was a squeamish suicider and hired a hitman through a contact, then his girlfriend came back or whatever and he changed his mind, but had trouble stopping the hitman. It was an old TV or radio drama. Edison (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulworth had something along those lines. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

These are interesting actual cases! So, what about the legal references? Anything in case law? Again, not legal advice, just references. :) --91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See Accessory (legal term) for the relevant article. You've reached an agreement with the hitman that murder is to be committed, so you are guilty of criminal conspiracy. The precise charge you might face (whether you're charged as a conspirator, an accessory, or a joint principal) will depend on jurisdiction and the facts of the case, of course. Tevildo (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If you care about fiction, try reading The Man with the Twisted Lip, in which a police officer suggests (facetiously) that Mr St Clair be charged with attempted suicide (apparently suicide-by-execution) after making it look like he was someone else who had killed Mr St Clair. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The solution is simple; make attempted suicide a capital offense. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be "totally stupid" if your aim was to collect insurance (for your family) which would be invalidated in the case of suicide. In such a case the expense of the hitman might be reasonable. If the plot failed, I guess you could be charged with fraud. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't this the plot of Fletch? --Jayron32 19:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  Almost. See hat below. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

entire plot revealment revelation alert
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stanwyk attempts to make Fletch think that is the plan, when actually he plans to kill Fletch and leave Fletch's body (which has exactly the same bone structure as Stanwyk's) in the burning house, so everyone will think Stanwyk is dead, and he can go live on an island somewhere with his secret other family, without anyone trying to hunt him down. Fletch, undercover as a drug-addicted 70's California beach bum, isn't supposed to be missed (as Stanwyk like everyone else thinks he's just another drifter he can kill in peace). I forget the precise details, but somehow there's US$3M involved, in cash, which: everyone is supposed to think burned along with the house; Stanwyk intends to have as his exile nest egg; and Fletch actually winds up walking away with. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See also Suicide by cop. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In the article on Annery, Monkleigh, there is a reference to the historical case of an English judge, Sir William Hankford, who warned his gamekeeper to shoot intruders and was himself killed. It was widely believed to be an effective suicide. --Hors-la-loi 18:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Techniques in person centred therapy

Hi, I was reading up about techniques used in person-centred therapy and have a question. I get the whole congruence, empathy and UPR and core conditions thing that they have going on and I also get the fact that Rogers disliked writing down actual techniques as he believed these should come about naturally as a result of the therapy. But my question is what techniques do person centred therapists actually use during therapy? In order to become a person centred therapist some people take courses that take years to complete, and I can't see people learning about congruence, empathy etc for that long. I read that Rogers was apparently appalled to hear that some people regarded his approach as merely a "technique" rather than an actual school of therapy, but for lack of actual techniques I can't see what else it could be classed as. Does Rogerian therapy basically use relevant techniques it steals from other schools of psychotherapy when relevent and usable?

(Ignore this second part if it is incorrect)

One of my friends (who is studying psychology, albeit at the very beginning of his degree) said that he believed the following technique was employed in Rogerian therapy. He gave me the following example when I requested and example of how a person centred therapist could treat a patient. In addition to the whole empathy, conruence etc thing he said a therapist he knew that was person centred therapist used a model split into four subthemes: behaviours, cognitions, physiology and emotions. Each of these categories was then split into assessment, goals and treatment. E.g. the behaviour section showed that the assessment was the patient's inability to drive, due to the stress from being involved in a car accident. The goals section of this example stated the client should gradually get used to driving again, for example through running small errands or popping over to see friends located nearby. The treatment section said that she should make use of breathing exercises and mindfulness of situations learnt for specific situations.

If this is a correct interpretation of person centred therapy, then where can I read more about these breathing excersizes and the mindfulness?

If this example is false, would somebody be willing to give me their own example? Thanks for any replies on the matter.--91.49.50.115 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Person-centered therapy, mindfulness and meditation are of help here. What you describe seems to be a form of Desensitization therapy. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have read the person-centred therapy article and found it wasn't in-depth enough. It doesn't list any techniques or methods at all. Thanks for the tip about desensitization, that's really helpful. Is this a common method used within PCT? --91.49.50.115 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When I studied PCT 30 odd years ago now, there weren't techniques as such. It seemed to be that the therapist's role was to reassure the client that no matter what the client said they wouldn't criticise or judge them: no matter what the client wanted to do the therapist would support them (unless it involved breaking the law). There seemed to be a lot of talking about the client, with the therapist reflecting back to the client in different words and summarising what the client had said, so that the client could listen to themselves and have a dialogue centred on themselves. I remember reading the book "On Becoming a Person" by Rogers,which had a profound effect on me, and I recommend you go back to Carl Rogers' books and read them. I cannot speak for how practice has developed in the 30 years since, unfortunately. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Where might I purchase a particular antique chess piece?

Here's the story: My grandfather and I played chess almost every Sunday afternoon for the last several years of his life. As such, when he died, my grandmother gave me the set. He owned and operated a barber shop and would play chess with this set to fill time between haircuts. The pieces are wooden and old (probably from the 1930s) and they very well may have been a gift from one of his customers (possibly payment-in-kind during the Great Depression). The set never had (to my knowledge) packaging to identify who made it. In fact, my grandfather kept the pieces in an electric clippers box, and then kept the box inside a purple Crown Royal pullstring bag. Being packed with such family history, it is of immense sentimental value.
I (foolishly) have kept this set in our coat closet, up above on the shelf (I've been teaching my kids with it); under which is our recycling bin. (You see where I'm going with this.) A few weeks ago the basket was taken out, and the pieces accidentally spilled out. We gathered what we saw, but (also foolishly) neglected to count them to 32. A day or two ago, when we pulled it out again to play, we found that the black king (a rather important piece) was missing. We scoured the closet, looking in coat pockets, cubbies, purses, etc; but to no avail. We decided that it probably fell into the recycling bin, which was emptied into our larger bin, which was then taken away by the big truck. I called WM, our recycling provider, to see if there was any possible chance it might have survived. (It almost certainly didn't.)
My question: Does anyone here know of any place or shop or website that deals in antique chess sets, and may be able to sell me just the black king out of a similar set? My neighbor is a wizard with woodworking and is already on the case trying to lathe out a new one, but I'd rather pay for an identical piece than create a similar (but obviously different) one. Any resources/other ideas? Thanks! Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 20:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If cost is not an object, you could perhaps find a local craftsman with a lathe or something who could create you one from scratch? Using the White King as a template and the Black King for color, perhaps that would work for you? --Jayron32 20:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You mean, like my neighbor mentioned above? (Wink.) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sic transit gloria mundi. For everything else, there's EBay and Amazon.com. Wnt (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, but finding an indentical antique chess set (not to mention one particular piece of a particular set) on Ebay or Amazon when I have no information on its provenance would likely be like finding the cliché needle in a haystack of needles. (Shrugs.) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What's Gloria Mundy got to do with this? Does she play chess too?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if reverse image searches on photographs of the remaining king, or perhaps the white pieces set in their initial positions, from various angles, might yield a source of the same pieces. Perhaps the loss will serve to emphasize the association and memories as a silver lining in the long run. 75.166.197.187 (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea too. I'll pursue that. I'm not familiar with reverse image searches. Is it a website? Software? Can you recommend one?

Yes-- I keep telling myself that it's just a thing and it doesn't matter. I actually felt like apologizing to my grandfather, and I had weird little (but not seriously considered) daydreams of ritualistically burning the other 31 pieces on a funeral pyre. Ha. It will likely be a good object lesson someday in a Church talk or Sunday school lesson. Ha. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The two most used are Google Images and TinEye. Both allow you to upload an image from your PC and compare it with all the other images in their database. You'll probably have most success if you take a series of photos from different angles, in different light conditions, and against different backgrounds, then try each picture on both services. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be a downer, but it seems exceedingly unlikely to me that Kingsfold is going to be able to duplicate the setup/background to a high enough degree to match anything ever through a reverse lookup, let alone the one particular set he's looking for. At best - best - he's going to get a zillion chess sets. Kingsfold: forget uploading your own image; that's a wild goose chase; just do a Google image search for "chess set" (or similar) and comb through the results to see if you can find a match. Matt Deres (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I *did* try to comb through Google Images (it was actually the first thing I did after realizing I had lost it), and didn't see anything close in several hundred images. I sincerely appreciate your input (or any input, at this point) but a reverse image search seems no less like chasing a goose than anything else. (Shrugs.) Thanks-- Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Was it, by chance, a Staunton_chess_set? I'm not much of a player, but my understanding is that that style would have been near-standard for a very long time. Anyway, if it is Staunton, a suitably old replacement piece should be easy to come by! The knights seem to vary the most among Stauntons, but the kings vary very little. As for reverse image search: that may be tough to pull off with online tools, but a picture of the full white set, and a separate close up of the white king might help here. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't/isn't. In fact, (not that I'm an expert on chess sets, and not that it's a different or modernistic design, but) I've never seen another one like it at all. It looks rustic enough to make me wonder if it was hand-made (or home-made), but it looks professional enough that I doubt it. Thanks, everyone. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Stirnerian Novel

Does anyone know any novel with strong stirnerian ( philosophy of Max Stirner) background or theme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.222.239.159 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Expert witness in US courts

I get the feeling that expert witnesses in US courts are generally not someone that has a regular job as a scientist or technician, but being an expert witness is their job. Is that true? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you mean? Many expert witnesses are people like forensic scientists and criminal psychologists, who are frequently called upon because they have analyzed evidence and have genuine expertise in the area. That is, an expert witness in ballistics would have actually done the analysis on a bullet, and would be called upon to report their findings to the court; an expert witness in DNA analysis would have done the actual DNA match and be called upon to report their findings, etc. etc. That's who most expert witnesses are. People's whose job it is to analyze evidence and present their findings. The subtext of your question implies that you find this unacceptable. Why? --Jayron32 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You might have in mind cases like the West Memphis Three, where a quack (with a PhD from a degree mill) was appointed as an expert witness to testify about the occult. Cases like this are famous because the course of justice was perverted, but I would bet that most of them have some occupation related to the field but are not limited to offer their services as expert witness. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My point is that you often have expert witnesses on both sides of a case. The expert witnesses are paid by the side that uses them. Some seem to be professional "expert witnesses" and may interpret facts in the way that is helpful to the side that pays them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

on that. This is not the location to make points. This is the place to ask questions that direct you to references. If you are here to make a point, perhaps another place somewhere else in the internet would be more appropriate. --Jayron32 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The point of my question is that I'm asking if (in the US) there expert witnesses that is all that they do. The article mentions them as "hired guns" but doesn't go into detail. And will they take which ever side pays them, or are they objective? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you define "all they do". That is, are there people who literally do nothing else with their entire lives than show up at courtrooms and are expert witnesses? I can unequivocally say no, that would be ridiculous, as in order to be an expert witness, you'd need to be an expert at something, which would require you to spend some of your waking time doing that thing. Are there people for whom appearing in court to testify is a significant portion of their professional lives? Yes, I've cited two job descriptions above, along with police officers, pathologists, medical examiners, toxicologists, etc. There are many people whose job it is to frequently give testimony about what they do, because that's what they do: they are employed to gather and/or analyze evidence in criminal cases, and because that's what they do with their lives, they are very good at it, and are thus experts. But that's only because they do the things they testify about. That is, a DNA analyst is trained in, and experienced in, matching DNA samples, etc. etc. Now, does that mean that never, in recorded history, has there ever once been some nutjob that snuck past the controls and appeared as an expert witness in a trial where they had no business being an expert witness? No, I'm sure there are anecdotal examples of such events actually occurring, but they don't mean much. Most people who appear regularly as expert witnesses do so because they actually have a job that makes them an expert in what they are testifying in, and because they have that job, they appear frequently as an expert witness. The two states go hand in hand. But they do have to be genuine experts first. --Jayron32 00:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. By "all they do" I meant "as their career". But suppose it was something like a copyright case, hypothetically a music copyright infringement. An expert witness is called to say that it does or does not violate a copyright. Would they get a musicologist who rarely testifies or would there be a professional expert witness, who will argue for the side who is paying him? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know with regards to a copyright infringement case, but "as their career"; how does someone get a career as an expert witness without being an expert in some discipline first, you know, outside of being a witness. How does a court recognize the expert status of someone whose never studied or worked in any field? Again, I think we can dismiss such notion offhand as not likely enough to even try to refute it beyond its own self-evident unlikelyhood: people who get admitted as an expert witness have to have something on their CV to qualify them as an expert first. Now, the second part of your question, which is as to whether or not anyone has ever given testimony influenced by financial interests. Again, I'm sure its happened at least once. But it is not the normal state of affairs. --Jayron32 02:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Bubba73, would information about expert witnesses in the UK, as opposed to the USA, be of any use? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to hear a brief comparison. Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there are expert witnesses who do that as their main source of income. I was involved in a civil suit where, when each side introduced its witnesses, they questioned them on how much they were being paid and how often they testified as experts, in order to prevent the opposing counsel from asking the same question first and making the expert look even worse. (We ignored both experts when it came down to deliberation--about $10,000 wasted per side--video one expert took actually strongly supported the opposition's case!) There are also actual in-the-field experts like my father who testify as either uninterested third parties in a dispute the facts of which are known to them (he would testify as an engineer when the owner sued the architect in a project he worked as contractor) or on occasion when a lawyer who was familiar with him wanted him to testify on a case he was not involved in. He could have done that full time had he not usually found it so corrupt and distasteful. I know this is OR, but other than TV or expert witness I am not sure what references one is going to get for this question. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Also, there are certainly cases such as David Race Bannon where people have been charged with criminal fraud who have impersonated expert witnesses in court and elsewhere. (Warning, that site made my Safari browser crash.) μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Daubert standard. Is searching that hard for you all? Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to be like that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams' link is helpful, but it deals only with scientific testimony, not expert testimony in general. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Expert witnesses" by definition give the court assistance on technical matters. What distinction are you trying to draw here? As far as I can see Shadowjams' link is the most useful reference here, and is more generally applicable than the previous answers which narrowly focussed on criminal evidence, for some reason. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You have answered yourself: technical, not scientific. I know a famous painter who has testified as an expert witness in civil cases regarding artwork (boiling water is about the closest he ever comes to science) and my father has testified on such things as whether projects were properly scheduled to come in on budget, and whether desired changes required extra time, and hence money, and all sorts of things that required an expert opinion, but not a scientific opinion, per se. I am also unsure where I denigrated Shadowjams' link. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bubba73: for a UK perspective, you might be interested in Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which sets out the rules on expert witnesses in UK civil litigation, and the duties of such witnesses. The duties of expert witnesses were discussed in the Ikarian Reefer case: this page has a summary of the principles discussed there.

Basically, the expert is there to assist the court, and is not an advocate. While in practice each side to a case would select an expert witness whose views are beneficial to their case, those must be honest professional views, and lawyers have to make sure the expert understands that they must not become a partisan advocate.

Most expert witnesses are noted scientists and academics. Their professional standing lends credibility to their evidence, so someone who is an expert witness "by profession" without being backed up by "actual" credentials is less likely to be a good choice. Of course, some academics are in higher demand as expert witnesses than others, perhaps because they are good teachers who can explain complex concepts well in court, or because they can keep a clear head and not be confused in cross examination.

Expert witnesses are paid for their time just as academics on any consulting engagement would be (i.e. at a very high rate compared to mere mortals!) This might be called an honorarium. The more highly qualified and well regarded professionally your expert witness is, the higher would be their rates.

Because of the legal rules, and because (i) well respected academics face higher demand as expert witnesses and (ii) one is less likely to be well respected professionally if one gains a reputation for being an unprofessional witness, by and large there is significant pressure on expert witnesses to remain within the bounds of the impartiality required by the law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is quite informative. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

• Just an extra anecdote, since you particularly mentioned music copyright cases, musician Steve Race appeared as an expert witness at least once in his career, in a case on plagiarism of a tune (I wish I could remember which), and his evidence included his opinion that a very similar tune had appeared in an obscure work by a classical composer a hundred years before the claimed originator who was suing someone else for breach of copyright. Sorry I don't recall the full details, but perhaps he had learned his "expertise" after he had, earlier in his career, foolishly awarded a musical composition prize to a child who had plagiarised a tune by Mozart. Dbfirs 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but I wouldn't say that he was foolish for doing that - likely he wasn't aware that it was plagiarized. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Identifying picture on album cover

123.211.188.175 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Good Morning Hope all is well in your world! I noticed your description of Babaji that his picture was on St Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Album cover by the Beatles On looking at the cover I couldn't find him - would you kindly let me know where his face is in amoungst them all? I see Swami Sri Yukteswar face at the back left hand side from my view sitting at the computer but can't locate Babaji Thank you so much for all your wonderful information With my very best wishes Cheryl Batchelor Maleny Australia123.211.188.175 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See here. He's on the second row, immediately to the left of Stan Laurel, immediately to the right of William S. Burroughs, and two to the right of Marilyn Monroe, near the middle of the picture. His face is partially obscured by someone in the row in front of him raising their hand. --Jayron32 23:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The colouring inclines me to believe it's Babaji's own hand obscuring his own face. The hand doesn't obviously belong to anyone else in the picture. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The hand seems to belong to Issy Bonn. Paul B (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And it is the hand that, during the famous "Paul is Dead" mania, was said to be an Eastern religious symbol of death when held over someone's head. (Which of course, it wasn't). - Nunh-huh 13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

July 11

Stochocracy trial runs?

Are there any experiments, of any scale or duration, with stochocracy in an actual governance situation of some kind? I'm particularly interested in relative levels of corruption from representatives chosen by lot from a self-selected candidate pool versus those vetted by election voters. I can't see any reason why less reputable potential candidates wouldn't see the exercise as a bribe lottery, defeating the purpose, but ordinary election candidates have the same failings very often too, and perhaps ambition and corruptibility go hand-in-hand. I suppose it all depends on whether a large enough proportion of high quality candidates stand for ... selection. 75.166.197.187 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a successful attempt at it, on a small scale.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

European Communities Commission members

I have a picture of an unknown date (but probably early 1990s) showing US Representative Lee H. Hamilton meeting with some foreign dignitaries; there's a short note on the back of the image, but all it says is "James Curry - Deputy Head of Delegation - European Communities Commission". From this I have several questions:

1. Is the European Communities Commission simply the European Commission?
2. Do we have an article on this guy? Presumably a European Commissioner meets WP:POLITICIAN #1, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", but neither James Curry nor James Currie lists any European politicians.
3. Do we have a list of former commissioners? I couldn't find it.
4. Assuming the answer to #1 is "yes", what kinds of delegations did the Commission send? Should I assume it to be just another group of diplomats who got sent to the US to discuss whatever was an important matter at the time?

2001:18E8:2:1020:353E:172B:682A:D93E (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this [9] the same person in your pic? 174.88.9.124 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

[on a different computer, so different IP address, but same guy] Perhaps. Problem is that nobody in the picture (except Hamilton himself) has glasses or grey hair, so I guess that this shows the effects of nearly 20 years of ageing. I'd like to scan and upload the image, but even aside from copyright concerns, that's not an option right now. 2001:18E8:2:1020:1DC:B109:F51C:1F42 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, just wondered, since if it was, the misspelling of Currie as Curry suggests "European Communities Commission" could be an error too. And delving more into "Jim Currie" might give his specific job title at the time. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently he appears in this video, but I couldn't download it in full. [10] --Lgriot (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask 2001:18E8:2:1020:353E:172B:682A:D93E if he is the same user as was asking at the end of May about a picture of Lee Hamilton with the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of the British House of Commons? Because I have got the list of members of the sub-committee in 1971-72. They were Sir Harwood Harrison, James Boyden, Bernard Conlan, Maj-Gen James d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Geoffrey Finsberg, Dr John Gilbert, Dr David Owen, and John Tilney. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the same guy; there aren't that many people with IPv6 addresses working on Lee Hamilton :-) It's not too late to go back and update the thing I was working on in May, so I'll take care of that immediately. Thanks for checking back on it! 2001:18E8:2:1020:3851:4713:742B:BDCC (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• The EU was the "European Community" prior to 1993, and I suspect the title you have recorded is simply someone getting confused about the change! Until recently all diplomatic delegations were officially from the Commission (the executive body) rather than the EU itself. Your photo is of James Currie, a career UK civil servant who held EEC posts from 1982 onwards. From 1993 to 1996 he was deputy head of the European Commission delegation to the US . He retired in 2001 as Director-General for the Environment and Nuclear Safety. (There's a brief summary in Who's Who, which is usually good for senior-sounding UK administrators) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the details! I'd like to consult the printed Who's Who, but there are so many works of this sort that neither my university library catalogue nor Worldcat is helpful for finding just the A.C. Black publication, and (guess what!) my university doesn't subscribe to the online edition, since we're in the USA. Could you give me the ISBN, so I can use Special:BookSources for it? 2001:18E8:2:1020:3851:4713:742B:BDCC (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Never mind; I misunderstood my library catalogue and have found it. 2001:18E8:2:1020:3851:4713:742B:BDCC (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Slaves per capita

Which society have had the most slaves per capita? P. S. Burton (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The highest rates in our article Slave (all are sourced) include 95% of population of Haiti in 1789, 80% of the U.S. population in 1860 (if my math is right; is says 393,975 individuals = 8% of total population and number of slaves = 3,950,528), 75% of the population in 1649 Russia, 75% of the population in Crimea in the 16th century, 65 to 90% of the population in Zanzibar in the 19th century. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And this book [11] gives a 97% figure for the imperial household in 12th century China; not sure if that fits your society qualification, though. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In Russia at the time, the majority of the people were serfs — definitely not freemen, but not exactly slavery either. Serfs could be bought and sold (read Gogol's Dead Souls for a humerous treatment of the subject), but like Western European serfs in earlier centuries, they were normal peasants, bound to certain obligations but generally able to tend their lands and make daily decisions without the constant oversight that we normally think of as being attached to slavery. 2001:18E8:2:1020:1DC:B109:F51C:1F42 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe need to redo some of the math? The Wikipedia article 1860 United States Census opens:

The United States Census of 1860 was the eighth Census conducted in the United States. It determined the population of the United States to be 31,443,321, an increase of 35.4 percent over the 23,191,875 persons enumerated during the 1850 Census. The total population included 3,953,761 slaves, representing 12.7% of the total population.

This is a far cry from 80%. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the response of 80% was a typo... in the parenthetical that explains that number, 174.88.9.124 says the numbers come out as 8% (which is a lot closer to your 12.7%.) Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You're kind, but no, I was just totally confused by the article ("According to the 1860 U. S. census, 393,975 individuals, representing 8% of all US families, owned 3,950,528 slaves."). I thought that meant 393,975 people = 8% of the entire population, therefore entire population = 4,924,687 people. Clearly not. Will strike the US reference as it's obviously not in the ballpark. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Jamaica#British rule says; "By the beginning of the 19th century, Jamaica's dependence on slave labour and a plantation economy had resulted in blacks outnumbering whites by a ratio of almost 20 to 1" although not all the black population were slaves. Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it's quite possibly one of the Caribbean colonies between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries; they contained little other than slaves and slaveowners (mostly agricultural, no major free settlements or industry) and had a very high European mortality rate (so most slaveowners died fast or stayed away). Haiti's figure of 95% is matched by Dutch Suriname, which had a 25:1 ratio in the early seventeenth century. (Charles Mann, 1493, p. 470 my UK pb ed.) (The other possiblity is the Congo Free State, c. 1900, which was essentially an enslaved country, but I'm not sure of the actual numbers.) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• The problem with treating slave colonies here is they are not stable societies. They depend on an artificial isolation and suppression from outside, where the enslavement of an entire island would not continue after outside rule is removed. The OP might be happy with this, but figures for Greece or Rome or the US as a whole (since the South depended on the North's economy and antirunaway laws) might be better for "societies". μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Classical Sparta had 7-8 helots for every Spartan citizen (see Spartan hegemony). After the Battle of Leuctra this was higher, but I haven't been able to find a source that says how much higher. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just wondering if convicts on the First Fleet to Australia, establishing New South Wales as a British colony, would count as slaves? Of 1373 people to arrive at Sydney Cove, 754 were convicts and their children. That's 55%. The convicts didn't have a lot of rights. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Connell and Irving go into this in Class structure and Australian History. No, they wouldn't count as slaves. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Journalism

What topics are included in a course in Journalism (specifically at stanford University). Miss Bono^(zootalk)☆ 17:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See Stanford Department of Communication. They only offer journalism as a graduate degree. The general subjects are listed in Journalism school. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannot follow the links. Thanks anyway :) Miss Bono^(zootalk)☆ 17:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The list of required modules is:

Journalism Law

Digital Journalism

Perspectives on American Journalism

Digital Media Entrepreneurship

Public Issues Reporting I

Public Issues Reporting II

Multimedia Storytelling

Comm 289: Journalism Project

Graduate Journalism Seminar

Rojomoke (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rojomoke. Miss Bono^(zootalk)☆ 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Better community development, development of community interest, delegation of roles etc within the context of a minecraft community

Firstly, i would like to state that i hope i have placed my question in the right category. It deals with people and organizing efforts etc, which i feel falls more under humanities than miscellaneous.

I own a server on minecraft. Most if not all of my players feel its a very nice place to be. However, I am trying to give what effort i can to developing it to be greater. The main things i want to accomplish are these two:

- To gain wider player interest in being involved in the community. This goes beyond wanting to log in and play the game and means the player WANTS to invest their time in bettering the community, through whatever means are needed at the time, whether it be advertising, working on projects, becoming a person that promotes other players to higher positions, etc. I try my best to put forward a feeling that every player's opinion is worth something, and that their opinions greatly influence the feel of the server and community, which they do. However, people seem reluctant to do things like join forums etc.

- To organize things in a manner where responsibilities can be delegated, in order that we can do things more efficiently. The problem with this is the above involvement problem, along with the fact that some people are in and out, i have no means of massive incentive like payment etc, and it seems difficult to organize a structure that works in a community whose members change now and then based on people needing to attend their lives and or play the latest fad game before they come back for a while etc.

I have been trying various things for a while now in this matter, and i know what i am writing here can only scratch the surface without involving an in depth conversation with someone. However, I wonder if someone who has a successful organized minecraft community, or someone who has experience in community building and leadership in general could advise me, give some tips etc.

I have read a few articles in wikipedia involving Community Development, Participatory planning, etc etc, but most of these articles speak from the matter of a physical community of residents gathering in some grassroots governmental sense, so im not sure what i can glean from this.

If anyone has advice stemming from experience, or some solid truthful free resources i could access to help, i would appreciate it. I would prefer experienced advice, but anything will do.

Thank you very much in advance for your time. 216.173.145.47 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Two words: "GNU Minecraft". So far as I understand Minecraft is a proprietary game people have to pay for (the article says it's sold millions of copies); as such, no one should ever rightly feel an altruistic responsibility to help build them up. I haven't bothered to look into minecraft's policies, but the general nature of the software business as a whole nowadays is that if you want to be able to play something, you're supposed to show them an ID card, constantly be online from your registered address, have everybody from the NSA to Your Future Employer have access to when and where and how long you played at every session from the first to the last, and never let anybody else play it or lose your whole account. It makes for an environment where people are rightly hostile to the industry and would like to see nothing more than its final and irrevocable collapse. Incidentally, doing the search for my two words found minetest.com , which is LGPL, if that counts. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I play Minecraft, and it's not at all what you're implying. Minecraft is indeed proprietary, but for all intents and purposes, it is also open source. There's a very active modding community that takes decompiled Java source code and rewrites it to incorporate custom landscapes, blocks/mobs, and functionality. At the very least the Minecraft developers condone this modding and haven't said or done anything to suggest it is unacceptable. In actuality I think they highly approve of it, since almost every Minecraft server has mods that vastly improve playability and user-friendliness. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And you don't need to be online to play. --Lgriot (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Although its possible that the fact you need to pay might affect your attitude, and i agree more open source communities are more likely to help, this is beyond the scope of my post. My intent is to ask advice on community building and organizing ourselves. 216.173.145.47 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You do not say what you have looked at already. Some server owners post advice on getting and keeping a community of players, I suggest looking at minecraftforum.net if you haven't already. Googling for "advice for minecraft servers" and "growing a minecraft server" returned a few results that might help. My quick impressions from reading these: it's hard work, regularly post videos, website and forum content to maintain player communication. -84user (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tricksters in current pop culture

List of breakout characters says the following:

Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) in Pirates of the Caribbean, initially the character was written as a supporting trickster character, under Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann. Depp's performance and the character proved popular enough to warrant him as the protagonist of the series, shown in the fourth film.

Is "trickster" really appropriate here? When I hear "trickster", I think of a mythological or folklorish character, such as Loki, and the intro to trickster says "In mythology, and in the study of folklore and religion, a trickster is..." — this doesn't sound like it would encompass Pirates of the Caribbean. I know that WP:RDH generally doesn't offer opinions etc.; this is basically a question about the breadth of the concept of the trickster. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think Sparrow fits the mold at all. If you're looking for something in modern entertainment that hews a lot closer to the traditional myths, take a look at Q (Star Trek) or, perhaps a bit more obscure, Mister Mxyzptlk. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Trickster is common way to describe Odysseus-like characters, and Sparrow is clearly of the Odysseus archetype. He doesn't normally openly call out his enemies and fight them face to face like Achilles would, but rather he uses subterfuge and strategems to confuse and mislead them, or to use his surroundings against them, and frequently just plain retreats. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

True. Odysseus is more of a literary/dramatic archetype than the religious/mythical characters primarily discussed in our article, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How do reverse mortgages screw people (when they do)?

What's the typical sequence of events that happens when someone is ruined by one of those things? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

For those who haven't a clue what one of those is: Reverse mortgage. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont understand how a "reverse mortgage" can screw anyone as a person have to enter an agreement with a financial institution for a "reverse mortgage" and if that person did so of their own free will then nobody screw that person when did not pan out to their expectation. 220.239.51.150 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, most people who go into reverse mortgages don't know what they're getting into, since it's in the bank's favor to write the contracts in dense jargon that even English majors have to sit and think about. In plain English, a person getting a reverse mortgage borrows money from some of the money they've already paid on a mortgage (while a home equity loan is a loan where you promise to give up your whole house if you can't pay). The financial institutions might try to word it differently to hide this, but that's what it comes down to (which is why I can't get a reverse mortgage but my parents who have paid off their house keep getting spam for it). There's interest on the money, but little to no requirements as to when payments need to be made. (What experience I have with financial institutions, this is to intended to lull the person getting the reverse mortgage into ignoring the little-to-no warning of upcoming payments that the financial institution will pretend to send at some point). The financial institution will also do really big advertisements for the initially low-sounding interest rates, and hide fine print somewhere letting them jack it up over time. They will foreclose if given a change. Then there's still the taxes on the house. If those are not kept up with perfectly, the financial institution can and will buy your house from the government for taxes you owe (a percentage of the overall value of it), and then resell it for it's original cost. If they're less scrupulous, they might possibly write it off as if they sold it for the "real" devalued cost (after all, the reverse mortgage did decrease its value), and maybe even continue to go after you for the "difference" (not that that would/should be legal, but most financial institutions really do not care about the law, just profit, and they know that most individual homeowners aren't going to be able to put up the fight necessary to get out of it). Even if they don't do this, they'll still screw you if you die or want to sell your home. If the reverse mortgage is not paid off and you try to move out, you have to pay the reverse mortgage in full before you can sell the house (otherwise, they can just seize your house and sell it to make up the difference, giving you none of the money). If you die, the financial institution legally gets to seize pretty much your whole estate, sell what they "can" to "make up" the whole reverse mortgage plus interest, and only then do the beneficiaries of your will get what's left. Also, if you die or move out, anyone living with you (spouse, child, whoever) has to move out as well.

Even if you do manage to get a lender who doesn't screw you with the payments and you do keep up with your payments and taxes, and pay off the reverse mortgage before you die, the money you borrowed off of your home comes out of the home's value. If you do everything right and try to sell the house or put it in the will for your kids, you/they will get less money for it. Not that the bank will be screwed this way if they seize and resell it...

The only time that a reverse mortgage would not be a bad idea is if it's for a small amountin an emergency and that can and will be paid off completely before you leave your house.

Sources: here, here, here, and our articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Giving an appropriate answer to this question implies entering in legal consulting. This is not just calculating if a fixed rate fund vs. an index rated fund is better for you. It's about legal details. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say there's a difference between giving legal advice and discussing legal hypotheticals. If someone asked what the 5th amendment applied to spouses, that's a hypothetical. If someone asked if they could plead the fifth when testifying at their own spouse's trial, that'd be legal advice. Or, to go with medical hypotheticals versus medical advice, if someone asked "what effects does bleach have on the human body if ingested?" is answerable while "I just drank bleach, what's going to happen to me?" is not. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So, obtaining legal/medical advise is just a question of wording correctly? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm merely saying that the restriction against advice does not prohibit honest questions about medical/legal topics that are not requests for advice. If someone asks what amendment guarantees free speech, or what organ creates insulin, they shouldn't be turned away by the "no advice" rule if they are not asking for advice. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I've long speculated that if someone asked, "Is murder illegal?", the first response would be "Yes, see murder", quickly followed by someone saying "Sorry, we don't give legal advice." —Kevin Myers 18:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson

Is the study of Robert Louis Stevenson covered in most American school curriculum or he more studied in British schools? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the man himself or his books? His books are on many reading lists. Mingmingla (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In British schools only A Child's Garden of Verses and Treasure Island are regularly studied. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not universally though. I never studied any of his books (although I did read Treasure Island independently while I was in primary school). Falastur2 ^Talk 21:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although Treasure Island was recommended by an education minister who thought it was a way to get boys reading. And it ticks the box as a pre-20th-century text that has some hope of appealing to 21st century children. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that most folks in the U.S. run across Jekyll and Hyde in school at some point, whether that means the full thing or an abridged version or theatrical adaptation. NW (Talk) 18:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

City of Benares sinking

Can anybody find some reliable figures for the number of people killed in the sinking of the SS City of Benares in 1940, especially the child refugees. Our article contradicts itself, quoting in different places 77, 80 and 83 children killed. I've found several references in Google Books but none agree with each other. Alansplodge (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What would be reliable? Just wondering what to look for - obviously not another book.

• Apparently the official report is in the holdings of the Imperial War Museum. That site is making my browser crash (be warned) so I'm not clear on whether it can be read online.
• Another official option could be the records of the Children's Overseas Reception Board. Apparently these are available from the National Archives (maybe the Wikipedia Resource Exchange could help you there). This says 70 died.
• (FYI, re newspapers, The Guardian goes with 81 [12] (like you needed another number, sorry). From The Times I find only this letter from a survivor that says 13 survivors (=77) [13]. 174.88.9.124 (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be a bit confusing - The London Times first reported 83 but when news of the six survivors came in they changed the total to 79, with the 40 adult survivors the toll is said to be a total 260 killed, later reports say that 13 children a more adults were rescued. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A more recent BBC story from 2010 Remembering the SS City of Benares tragedy 70 years on says 83 children and 175 adults (258 total). MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW uboat.net gives the names of 82 children. (I added the list to the article talk page for info) MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I have found a different list of children involved in the CORB scheme who had 90 on the voyage (83 missing + 7 survivors), they were other children of passengers that died which is probably causing some of the confusion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the bitty reply but finding stuff all the time. They were 90 children in the CORB scheme and seven were rescued so the papers declared 83 children died, after eight days another life boat turned up with another six children. This then gave 77 children killed and 13 survivors (total 90). But other children were on the ship who also died bringing the total up to 83 children killed (although I can only find 82 names at the moment). All original research and may still be wrong but I will make some notes on the article talk page, so I will not reply here again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Good work - many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

July 12

Mayans and Long Count

I have 2 related questions:

1. How long did the Mayans think a year was? I know they at least got it accurate to 1 day, since their secular calendar has a 360-day cycle + 5 extra days. Some people claim that they knew the difference between a year and 365 days, but I've never seen supporting evidence to back that up.

2. How does the baktun numbering work? Our Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article claims that creation happened on 13.0.0.0.0, followed a few hundred years later by 1.0.0.0.0. This makes me think the cycle starts at 13 and proceeds to 1 (why does it not start at 0?). However, the same article gives the Long Count date for Mar 26, 2407 as 14.0.0.0.0, implying there's more than 13 baktuns. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Mayan mythology consists of multiple creations, and the Long Count calendar was reset with each creation. The Baktun numbering, like every other Long Count unit except the "Winal" (the second digit) is base-20 (the Winal, unlike the others, turns over at a count of 18). --Carnildo (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Co-Monarchs who were twins or triplets

What are some famous co-reigning monarchs who were twins or triplets other than Romulus and Remus and Procles and Eurysthenes?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Johnny and Luther Htoo?... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Amphion and Zethus.
• Agamemnon and Menelaus are described as twins in the Oresteia.
• Takalik Abaj Altar 8 (or Monument 5; the text isn't clear) depicts twin kings (unnamed?) per The Rough Guide to Guatemala.
• Traditionally, Ezana of Axum and his brother Saizana were twin kings. source
• Ybor and Aio, kings of the Longobards. source 174.88.9.124 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Trademarks - Acquired distinctiveness

Can anyone give a good example (preferably one that would be internationally recongised) of a trademark which has been registered due to acquired distinctiveness? There are plenty of examples going the other way (Asprin, Escalator), but neither our trademark distinctiveness article or the reference books I have give an example of a mark that has gone from generic to distinctive. MChesterMC (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of "Zero" to describe Coke's low-calorie soft drinks - discussed in this blog. "Windows" for software is widely given as a (slightly dubious) example; "Singer" for sewing machines became genericised, but has since been reclaimed on the grounds of acquired distinctiveness. Warofdreams talk 11:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Under CJEU jurisprudence, a colour, though capable of being a "sign", (almost) never has inherent distinctiveness. Therefore colours are only registrable if they acquire distinctiveness through use. So the colour orange for telecommunications services might become a registrable trade mark through acquired distinctiveness. A recent case where acquired distinctiveness for a colour was upheld was with respect to Cadbury's purple, though only to a limited type of product: see Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Limited. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

White genocide

DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
White Europeans globally are seeing falling birth rates and greater good incidence of race mixing, is there a conspiracy through immigration, promoting miscegenetion and anti-racism to dilute and wipe out the white race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.44.175.94 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the non politically correct answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.44.175.94 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Shhh ... it's supposed to be a secret conspiracy. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Maybe, but I heard it from a cab driver. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Are you sure he was just a cab driver? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Pomeranian architecture

An example of the style

In the context of the USA, what is Pomeranian architecture? The pictured house is an example of the style (according to the NR database), but I don't see what makes it different from other Greek Revival houses. I have a little offline documentation, but none of it mentions anything about being Pomeranian. It's not simply a mistake in this house's entry, because Pomeranian architecture apparently exists in Wisconsin, but I don't know anything more. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look around Google and only found John D. Krugler, Creating Old World Wisconsin: The Struggle to Build an Outdoor History Museum which says that the style was brought to Wisconsin in the mid-19th century by German migrants (page 29). I have posted a link to your question on the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and hopefully somebody who knows what they're talking about may follow it up. Alansplodge (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a chapter in a book at Google books that is about Pomeranian architecture. Perhaps that would help. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If you scroll down you'll see a blue link to page 936 in the book. That is the beginning of the chapter. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Read it, and I'm left thinking that it's basically an Allemanic style of heavy brick construction, and in this case seemingly it represents that heavy brick construction style's influence on the vernacular Greek Revival of rural southeastern Ohio. Do you read it that way or some other way? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Palatinate

The article Electoral Palatinate describes the area as a Palatinate, but unfortunately that latter article only discusses the palatinates of England. What was so distinctive about the government of that area within the Empire that singled it out for its distinctive name? Was the Count Palatine more independent than his fellow Electors such as the Duke of Saxony or the Margrave of Brandenburg? Rojomoke (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Originally, counts palatine had a special relationship with the Holy Roman emperor, though when the title became hereditary, it became no more than a title and no longer indicated such a relationship. The title did imply a higher rank than an ordinary count. However, the count palatine (of the Rhine) who happened to be an elector had no more power or status in the Holy Roman Empire's electoral college or the empire than other electors. Marco polo (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that the article Electoral Palatinate describes the area as a palatinate (linked to County palatine), whereas your question links palatinate to Palatinate itself. There is also a detailed explanation given in Count palatine. The importance of the Counts palatine of the Rhine is based on their office of Imperial vicar. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't ware of the vicarate, which renders my earlier answer partly incorrect and therefore confusing, so I've deleted it. My apologies. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Historical Territorial Purchases

Which other cases have there been of one country purchasing territory from another country besides the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska Purchase, the Gadsden Purchase, and the purchase of the Danish West Indies by the United States of America? I am only talking about cases where one country sold land to another without being heavily pressured or forced by this other country to sell this land (thus, the Mexican Cession and similar territorial purchases are excluded, since force and/or coercion was involved from the side of the country who bought this territory in order to get the opportunity to buy this territory in the first place). Is there a specific Wikipedia article about this, and if not, have there ever been any other similar territorial purchases? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean a cash-for-land exchange, or merely other forms of peaceful land exchanges, such as territory swaps? 1951 Polish–Soviet territorial exchange involved an exchange in kind (land-for-land) between the two countries. --Jayron32 21:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean a cash-for-land territorial exchange. Futurist110 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See German–Spanish Treaty (1899). Germany bought the Caroline Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Danish Gold Coast was sold to the UK and the Danish West Indies were sold to the U.S. --Jayron32 00:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have already mentioned the Danish West Indies in my original post here. Also, I managed to find this Wikipedia Category -- Category:Treaties involving territorial changes, where I found the Treaty of Petropolis. The Treaty of Petropolis is sort of what I was talking about here, in the sense that while it did contain a land swap, this land swap was extremely disproportionate (Brazil gained 60 times more territory than it lost) and Brazil also paid some money to Bolivia in exchange for acquiring this new territory. Are there any other examples which are not mentioned in this Wikipedia Category? Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Manhattan count? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If one country bought it (via cash) from another country, then Yes, it counts. Futurist110 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Lenape Indians (that's who I thought "sold" Manhattan but Wikipedia says unnamed American Indian people) can't be really be considered a country in the modern sense and they didn't sell the land only the right to use it and not even exclusively at that. I think the concept of a peaceful, non-coerced sale of land by a nation was a rarity in history (most countries were scrambling to defend or expand their territories not give it away) and the Louisiana Purchase might just be an unprecedented event. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can they not "really be considered a country in the modern sense"? This is what I'm tired of hearing. You know nothing of which you speak. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

By the early 1600s, the Pope and the kings of France and England had all passed "laws" agreeing that nothing in America could be considered a "nation" because they were not ruled by "any Christian prince" and all of the territory was therefore up for grabs to the first Christian prince who could seize it. It would seem such attitudes die hard. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many examples like the Treaty of Lancaster (1744) where the Haudenashonee Six Nations sold the Shenandoah Valley to the Virginia Colony in exchange for money. For some of the treaties, however, clear pressure was exerted, so they may be excluded by your original question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously a disjointed tribal unit isn't a constitutional state that can negotiate on an equal footing with other nations. The Iroquois League were united by the 1600s unlike the Lenape and some other Native Americans who were divided and had no form of government above the village level. I don't mean to sound imperialistic. Of course there modern descendant have organized into nations (within nation) but in the 1600s they were as much a country as the Pintupi Nine are today. During the time of the Manhattan purchase the natives in North America had no conception of selling or owning land (they recognized individual tribes' right to use the land but not exclusive ownership) but I guess they were forced to recognize such a practice by the time of the Treaty of Lancaster. You are comparing an event occurring during early contact and an event around 140 later.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not comparing the Treaty of Lancaster to anything, I mentioned it to answer the OP question. But it's a myth that you just stated (ugh, yet again) that the Natives had no conception of selling land. They all recognized tribal boundaries, they all expected to be paid for land given up to whites from the beginning, and they all had their own rulers, laws, and warriors. The main reason they were not considered sovereign "nations" by Europeans in the early 1600s would be the laws by the Pope and kings of France and England that I just mentioned above. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. It is a really controversial topic, the whole concept of the Native Americans and their relation to the land, but it is definitely more than just a myth. I read in Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History by Ted Steinberg, the argument for a different attitude to land ownership that the Natives understood what it means to have the right to use land and its resources while Europeans believed in the sole ownership of the land itself, a legacy of John Locke and Christian attitude toward nature. But do you agree no payment process existed before the whites came?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain no payment process existed, but I will have to rack my memory of early accounts to see if I can come up with a case of any evidence for that. It's true that land was more usually transferred between tribes during that period by conquest or simply migrating into unused land, but it's not impossible that a friendly transfer might be alluded to somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If it existed at all, it would have been a very marginal occurrence. The Native Americans' concept of land ownership was quite different from that of the Europeans. Even among the Europeans themselves, the notion was comparatively new, since exchange-based means of land transfer didn't really take off until the Late Middle Ages. The notion that arable land is something that could be bought and sold in the same manner as bushels of wheat or pounds of cheese would have been an alien notion to the typical European at the time of Columbus' contact with America. See doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77938-6_4 and doi:10.1017/S0268416008006668. Gabbe (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase (and probably the Gadsden Purchase, I'm not sure) were not simple "cash-for-land" exchanges. In both cases the vast majority of the land was controlled by Native Americans/First Nations, and much was not even explored by the imperial/colonial powers. It is better to think of these not as purchases of land so much as purchases of the claim to the land, as recognized by other imperial/colonial powers—along with the few actual colonial settlements (New Orleans, Sitka, etc). You sometimes hear things like "the United States acquired the vast land of the Louisiana Purchase for four cents an acre", which implies that after paying France the US owned all that land and could do with it as it pleased. In reality the United States recognized that most of the land belonged to the Indians living on it. The "Indian titles" were "extinguished" bit by bit, usually by a treaty process that at least pretended to treat the Indians as sovereign nations, and often involving paying much more than four cents per acre (though still far less than most of the land's "market value" and too often in the aftermath of violent conflicts). In other words, under European/US international law at the time, what the US really purchased from France was not "land" but the recognition by the other imperial powers that the US had the sole right to treaty with the Indians in Louisiana Territory. In Alaska the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 extinguished aboriginal title claims. Most of Alaska was still under native title claims, which the US purchased for $962.5 million, among other things in the treaty (a lot more than the $7.2 million paid to Russia in 1867, even adjusting for inflation).

People often argue that when Native Americans sold land, which they did in hundreds of the treaties, the process was different from European (and US) powers selling/buying territory, and/or that the natives did not understand what they were agreeing to. Apart from a few exceptional or early cases, by and large Native Americans were very much aware of what they were doing—what they were giving up and what they were getting. Sometimes Native American treaties became the basis for European territorial claims. The Two Row Wampum Treaty between the Iroquois and Dutch established the basis for the vast territorial claims of the Iroquois—with the Iroquois claims being similar to the European imperial claims: "within this territory we have sovereignty over whoever lives there, natives and Europeans alike".

Finally, as Gabbe pointed out, the concept of owning land outright, fee simple, was alien to Europeans well into the colonial era. In New Spain and New France there was little or no fee simple land ownership. Even in the English colonies old feudal systems remained in place for a long time, such as quit-rent in Virginia. Anyway, in short, this topic is complicated. Pfly (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

All that said, if you want another example of territorial purchases between imperial powers similar to the Louisiana Purchase, the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819 might be one. Spain sold Florida to the US, although under some duress, and a much larger territory: Spain sold the US all its imperial claims north of California—a huge area including the Oregon Country and Alaska. Until this treaty Spain had always claimed all of western North America. You might argue that this claim was rather empty, since much of the region had never even been explored by Europeans, but you could say the same about the Louisiana Purchase. And by 1819 the whole coastal zone was well known and a good portion of the interior was being explored. You could also argue that the claim was not very strong due to de facto Russian control of southern Alaska and British control of some of the interior and parts of the coast. Nevertheless, Spain had done its best to reinforce its claims, conducting "possession ceremonies" as far north as Unalaska, and the US used its purchase of Spanish claims to establish its own claim to the Oregon Country, north all the way to 54°40′N latitude (north of which the US and Russia had come to an agreement) and east to the continental divide, despite having almost no control or even knowledge of most of the territory. The US acted as if it had purchased all that territory, just like they had purchased Louisiana, at least until making a compromise with Britain. Pfly (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

July 13

Rohingya - Rakhine crisis in Myanmar: casualty toll?

From reading updates on several non-WP:RS alert websites, it was suggested that the death toll since the 2012 Rakhine State riots of Rohingya Muslims was higher than 35,000 individuals. However, a quick Google search reveals these purported figures are from July - August 2012, and have not been updated since. From reading the Wikipedia article and others, it would appear that the total casualty toll is between 160 (on both sides) up to about 5,000 (mostly Rohingya). Can anyone confirm whether any international agencies have updated an official casualty toll? Please try to find up-to-date information. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur and Eleanor

What was the situation like between Arthur I, Duke of Brittany and his grandmother Eleanor of Aquitaine? Did she feel any family ties to her Breton grandson or did she saw him as just her son John's enemy? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an impossible question to answer. We can't know her personal feelings. But bear in mind this is a culture in which families were regularly quite literally at war. Paul B (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly impossible...obviously we can't go ask her, but this is a particularly well-recorded period of history in both primary and secondary sources, and we can get a pretty good idea of what how she felt about a lot of things (with the usual caveat that what we know is only what the sources tell us). What she felt about Arthur specifically might take some digging to discover, but since Arthur was brought up at the French court, and was specifically put forth as a threat to John's legitimacy, and John and Eleanor both worked to destroy him in France, and Eleanor didn't seem to mind so much when John (probably) had Arthur murdered, I've got to imagine that she didn't feel particularly close to him. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

Regarding Edward Snowden, I read that he may seek asylum to some foreign country, but that he is not "allowed" to travel by airplane over US air space to get to that country. What does this mean exactly? If he were in a plane traveling toward some destination country that is granting his asylum, and he traveled over US air space, what would happen? How would the US authorities get access to him exactly? Also, as a side note of curiosity, what is considered US air space? How "high up" in the air does a nation have a right to claim that the air space is theirs? How does that work? What are the rules/laws? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The airspace article notes "there is no international agreement on the vertical extent of sovereign airspace". Various altitudes, such as the Kármán line at 100km, have been suggested. Countries certainly hold that the altitudes at which practical aircraft fly fall within their airspace, and seem to have accepted that orbital altitudes do not (overfly someone's country in your SR71 and they'll send you a nasty letter; do it in a space capsule and they won't). As to Snowdon, the concern would be, at least in theory, that an aircraft carrying him through US airspace could be compelled to land on US soil. Barack Obama has said he "no, I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29 year old hacker". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

An interesting paper discussing the origins and conventions around the legal basis of airspace is here. That points us to Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. This says a state is "entitled to require the landing ... of a civil aircraft flying above its territory". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but regarding Snowden, what is formally legal is not a good basis to predict what would happen, as shown by the Morales plane incident, which makes it clear that the correct tool to interpret US statements is Claud Cockburn's "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied." If he were known to be traveling over US airspace, that his plane would not be forced down, one way or another, is preposterous. This incident shows that for this purpose, US airspace must be considered to contain that of Austria, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy too. He wasn't on the plane, but Morales had every legal right to openly take Snowden to Bolivia. Snowden has already sought and been offered asylum in several countries, including Russia perhaps, where he is now. RT-TV Reports that Snowden has Accepted Russian Asylum Offer 'My asylee status now formal': Snowden declares 'acceptance' of all offers of asylumJohn Z (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, per the press conference he gave, he only wants asylum in Russia temporarily to help him take up one of the offers in Latin America. Putin made it clear a while ago Snowden would have to stop leaking US secrets if he wants to stay in Russia and I'm not aware Putin ever gave any suggestion of changing his mind. (Many sources have pointed out there's little point in Russian pissing off the US over this, I also heard on BBC yesterday and I'm guessing other sources have said the same thing. On a personal level, Putin may not like someone randomly divulging state in particular, intelligence agency secrets, even if they are for the US, particularly given his history with the KGB.) About the plane thing, there seems to be a lot of bluster and misinformation coming out of both sides and I doubt we'll know anytime soon what really went on. But while it seems something untoward went on, on the part of the EU countries involved, I don't think it's clear they really wanted to force the plane down. A more likely possibility and I admit this part of my reply is complete OR is they simply did not want Snowden traveling over their territory to reduce possible controversy and the need to choose between forcing the plane to land to look for and possibly capture him or not. This may have been made worse because they had no desire to search the plane of a head of state forcefully (and worse if he was on the plane) but may also apply generally. As for the US, as I remarked before with IIRC a source, the idea that the US would have to scramble jets to convince a civilian plane to land is just silly, so Obama's statement is disingenuous at best. The are of course plenty reasons why a civilian plane could be asked to land, let's not forget we already had HK finding 'non-compliance' in the warrant. The risks to traveling over the US and difficult getting to Latin America was of course something that was mentioned before the Morales plane thing even happened, basically not long after Snowden arrived in Russia and when flight to Cuba was booked, although at the time people only generally considered traveling over the US and landing in any country which may be willing to detain and hand him over to the US risks. I think the fact just flying over US allies may be problematic was a bit of a surprise. That said, it's also unclear why everyone thought he may be in the Bolivian plane, while I haven't actually looked i.e. this is my only other bit of OR, a test by someone trying to help Snowden must be one speculation (which probably worked better than expected as the reaction likely increased sympathy). Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As the links show, the possible Russian asylum offer is based on statements of Russian legislators; clearly not yet finalized, but it is possible the essential decision has already been made. It was the lack of fuel which forced Morales' plane down, and Portugal prevented it from landing there and refueling as scheduled. The states involved could simply have allowed him to refuel and pass through as usual. Analysis: Experts advise Snowden: fly commercial is an interesting view. But my point is that legalities are not the only thing to take into consideration.John Z (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it confirmed something I suspected but wasn't really thinking of properly when writing my first reply namely there's nothing wrong per se with simply denying permission to someone else's government plane. And that this doesn't apply to commercial flights.

I'm aware a lack of fuel which forced Morales plane to land, that appears to be one of the few details not in dispute. However precisely what was scheduled, and when and who (including those in charge of Morales's plane) was aware of what (including where they could and couldn't land and fly over and whether I was Morales's plane) and when is unclear as there are a lot of claims and counter claims (also about other things like fuel gauges). .

I don't really get the relevance of the statement, 'The states involved could simply have allowed him to refuel and pass through as usual'. I don't think this was ever dispute. As I said, the point is not about what the countries could have done (it seems clear that whatever else and IIRC the Morales plane incident happened after the EU spying revelations, the countries involved are friendly enough with the US and/or disagree with Snowden's actions that they have no desire to be seen helping him) or should have done under the law (as I think was clear from my post, I agree that there's more than legalities involved, although as with the HK case, there's generally some facade that can be used e.g. I believe the plane was generally denied for technical reasons).

Rather the point is that their actions are not because they wanted the plane to land, nor because they even wanted to stop Snowden traveling per se. Instead because they simply did not want to have to deal with Snowden traveling over their territory, even less so him being in a plane that lands in their territory.

In other words, it's a mistake to think of airspace of those countries like the US as your post suggested. Possibly the US would be happy and hoping he travels over their territory let alone makes a stop over there. I say possibly since I don't think it's definite the US will ask the plane to land, there's an obvious risk but on the other hand, despite the surprising Morales incident it's not really clear if they care that much. The other countries, more likely the opposite, they'd probably rather not have to deal with it, particularly Snowden stopping over in their territory. (Although I'm not saying there's no risk to Snowden and it seems unlikely they can really do much about flying over their territory in a commercial flight except hope it doesn't happen.)

BTW, the fact that it was Morales's plane complicates matters since on the one hand as a government plane it's not completely unresonable for them to simply deny permission. However denying the plane carrying a HOS for a friendly nation without a good reason is generally going to be seen as fairly unfriendly, particularly if existing permission is cancelled when the plane is already in the air (which doesn't seem to have been clearly established). And having given permission, it's rather unlikely they would want to try to get the plane to land. Similarly if it stoped for refuelling, it's unlikely they would want to search the plane let alone try to detain Snowden if he were on it. So there's little they could do other then let it through or deny permission. Of course, the Morales bit does help the in the sense that they could have said told anyone in the US complaining 'what exactly did you expect us to do with a HOS's plane?' but I don't think it's that surprising that they'd prefer not to have to deal with it. As I hinted at before HK appear to have done something similar by finding 'non compliance'. And even Russia is not that far by allowing him to hang out in the transit lounge and most likely only allowing him in when he promises to stop leaking, at least, temporarily.

Getting back to my earlier point, given the contradicting statements, and the unlikelihood of any clarity, we'll probably not know for sure what really happened but there have been quite a few suggestions the plane had been denied landing and/or overflight before it took off, and for some reason this wasn't properly accounted for. Personally I suspect that whatever else went on, every country thought the plane would find somewhere else (and perhaps before taking off) so it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. The entire episode eventually ended in a search of the plane for Snowden [14] and that is surely no accident. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ellis, georgia

georgia ellis starred in the show 'the red forest' in the escape series with william conrad and some other people. She played 'Miss Kitty' in the radio version of Gunsmoke. Could somebody please add this info to her article on Wikipedia? Thanks Larry Zimmerman (contact info removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.8.94 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for this info (i.e. not IMDB), why don't you add it yourself? Alternatively, the place to suggest it is the talk page. Rojomoke (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Fürst Koháry

Did Maria Antonia Koháry de Csábrág or her descendants the Koháry branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha used the title Fürst Koháry?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No. They are commonly referred to as the Koháry branch of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha dynasty and so, often but incorrectly, "Koháry" was appended to "Saxe-Coburg". But the title of Fürst ("Prince") was not heritable in the female line and died with the original grantee, whose daughter, Antonia, carried the family's vast wealth and lands to the Coburgs. In fact, the only reason Count Ferenc Koháry was made a Fürst in 1815 by the Emperor of Austria-Hungary was to elevate Antonia, Ferenc's daughter and sole heiress, into a Prinzessin, thus making her marriage to a cadet of the Coburg dynasty seem less like a misalliance. Since Koháry was a surname, not a realm, and the Coburgs were a reigning German dynasty whereas the Kohárys were merely rich East European landowners, it would have been a derogation -- a social step down -- for even a junior Coburg prince to append to his sovereign territorial titles the name of a patrimony -- which was all that Kohary really was. Antonia Koháry's marriage was part of a post-French Revolution trend that peaked in the fin-de-siecle era, to which also belonged the marriages of Vittoria dal Pozzo into the Italian royal family, Marie Bonaparte into the Greek royal family and Aurora Demidov into the Yugoslavian royal family: a ruling Euro-dynasty lowers its marital standards to welcome a wealthy heiress, of noble rather than of royal rank, in order to fund an appanage for a junior prince. In the 19th and 20th centuries, British peers and Continental noblemen often married American heiresses to "manure the family fortune", creating the so-called "Dollar Duchesses" (e.g., Consuelo Vanderbilt and Winnaretta Singer): royal families scraped the bottom of Europe's princely barrel for the same purpose. FactStraight (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

July 14

Have any Christian sects believed that the Virgin Mary was raped?

Today's featured article highlights the concept of Adoptionism, which was a Christian idea that the Virgin Birth never occurred. It strikes me that another possibility exists, which omits extreme divine intervention yet would seem to qualify, on its face, as a virgin birth: like the little Chilean girl "Belem", [15] perhaps Mary was raped. If rape is not sex, and we accept the reality of the innocence of a little girl and of her refusal, then she really can be virgin yet bear a child through no fault of her own, and through her unfaltering love through her infant, show herself to be particularly good-natured and virtuous even beyond the usual we expect of mothers. Yet among all the odd things Christian sects have believed... have they ever believed this? (Looking this up I find a recent filmmaker has - but this might reflect modern concepts that are fundamentally altered from those of centuries past?) Wnt (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Weird idea. How can rape not be sex? Presumably another possibility is that Mary was just a naughty girl who never told anyone who the real father was. I'm sure that idea must have been discussed somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised you are not aware of the Jewish claim Mary was raped. Jesus in the Talmud. How that would fit in with an actual "son of God" theology that would amount to a Christian belief is beyond me. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, all Christian sects and denominations have Mary as a consenting participant from the Annunciation on ("And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." - Luke 1:38). Individual Christians certainly do question that "offical" account, and come up with all sorts of suggestions on "How Mary got Preggers"... but I don't think there is any denomination or sect that posits rape (mortal or divine) as its dogma. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I was completely unaware of the Talmud story (which didn't even make the cut for Jesus in the Talmud) but there are various dubiously reliable sources which elaborate on it.[16][17][18] The first of these even makes the extraordinary claim that Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera was not merely the Roman soldier in question, after which Jesus is called Yeshu'a ben Panthera in the Talmud -- but that his tombstone is actually known in Bingerbrück from 9 AD (citing " Jesus the Magician, Professor Morton Smith, 1978, Dea. Lea. 1973-1974.") A truly spectacular lead (though obviously one has a bit of skepticism!) since the standard plan for trying to arrange the Second Coming through sequencing of cell(s) found on a sliver of the True Cross runs into the problem that you don't know for sure it wasn't one of the guys pounding the nails who hit his finger; but with (potentially) a sample to cross-reference...! I should note btw that the Annunciation doesn't logically conflict because if one accepts that Mary, not being willing, remained a virgin, it could have occurred after the rape, for example as she fervently prayed for guidance. Also note that the main term in the Biblical accounts is "Son of Man" - perhaps more after what Nietschze called the Superman or what we in modern parlance would call "Humanity 2.0"; the sons of God are apparently more numerous, notable for taking the daughters of men and finding them to be fair... Wnt (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that a question? μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nay, it's an "update" - a followup on the good answer I received above. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine any Christian thinking Mary was raped, unless they've got the story mixed up with "Leda and the Swan". On the contrary, He probably gave Mary one seriously Heavenly "Big O". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The 42nd Church of Christ, Para-Pseudoscientist, holds that Mary was raped by Elvis, who was transported back in time by aliens, one of whom walked among us as Jimmy Hoffa, to change history. Can I get an amen? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's don't be sexist: "Amen! and Awomen!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, given that Mary was definitely underage by modern standards, and that it is quite impossible to give informed consent to an omnipotent being, at least statutory rape is implied by the mainstream story... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

But that would involve retrospective legislation, something generally frowned upon. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

But that sentiment itself is an enlightenment idea and was not recognised at the time in question. So there! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to serve an arrest warrant on God would be an interesting thing to see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There was The Man Who Sued God. See also Lawsuits against God. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny stuff. The second article ought to at least give mention to the movie Oh, God! in which God (George Burns) actually appears in court and testifies on behalf of John Denver's character. However, His voice fails to register on the audio recording of the court case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the patent granted for the Go programming language?

Is there even a patent for it at all? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

[[19]] has the patent's text. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that's a licence grant under the patent (if any). The licence language is confusingly unspecific about the patent (if any) under which the licence is granted. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman ships for the New World

In 1492, Columbus traveled to the Americas in the Santa María. Had the Ottoman Empire decided to try the same feat that year, would have their best ships been able to reach the Americas? Thanks! 64.229.155.218 (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, almost certainly yes. Kemal Reis attacked the canary islands in 1501. With all ships at that time, there was a significant risk in an Atlantic crossing, but with a moderate amount of luck, it was possible. The problem was more a cultural and political one. The Ottoman empire was centred in the Eastern Mediterranean, and it already controlled much of the Asian trade with Europe through the Silk Road and via the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Suez. So the Atlantic was far from the Ottoman centre of gravity, geographically, logistically, and mentally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: the incentive for crossing the Atlantic was to cut out the Ottoman middle men from the spice trade. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the Ottoman Empire was surrounded by the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, most of its ships were galleys which are unsuitable for ocean voyages.
Sleigh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Alan hits the problem right on the nose... The entire reason for Columbus's voyage was to find a new, direct sea route to the wealth of the Indies (China, India and the spice islands of Indonesia). There was no need for the Ottomans to do likewise... they already controlled the old route (from the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, across the Indian Ocean, to the trading ports of India)... which was the shortest and most economical route. It would not have made economic sense to the Ottomans to go to the Americas in 1492.

It took some time people to fully realized that the Americas were an economic destination in their own right (full of Gold, Silver and other exploitable resources)... and by that time, it no longer would have made military sense for the Ottoman's to make the voyage. The routes to the Americas were dominated by Spanish and Portuguese (who were by then much stronger than they had been in 1492, and would have blocked any attempt). Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I'd hit something one day! Alansplodge (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

People needed more than ocean-worthy ships to cross the Atlantic and return to Europe, they needed a decent grasp of the wind patterns of the Atlantic. By the time of Columbus these patterns were starting to be understood by sailors experienced in the Atlantic, but there was still much uncertainty. Columbus had something like 25 years of experience sailing in the Atlantic and he knew the wind patterns fairly well. He certainly knew he had to take the trade winds from the Canary Islands instead of, say, trying to sail west from the Azores. But he took a significant gamble about being able to find westerly winds for his return voyage (from Japan, he hoped). He did manage to find the right winds to return to Europe, but not without difficulty. He didn't have a full grasp of the Atlantic wind patterns ([20]). Now that's Columbus, who was very experienced with the Atlantic. Could an Ottoman expedition could have had similar knowledge? Perhaps if they hired a navigator as experienced with the Atlantic as Columbus. WIthout good Atlantic wind pattern knowledge they may well not have even known where to start, let alone how to return. I think that would be more of a problem for the Ottomans than the ocean-worthiness of their ships—of course to sail across the Atlantic at the latitude of the Canaries you would want more than just an "ocean-worthy" ship—a lateen rigged caravel type ship was almost essential, although the Ottomans were probably quite familiar with such things—they were widely used in the Indian Ocean at the time ([21]). Of course as others have said, there was also no economic incentive for the Ottomans. The question is similar to whether the Chinese or Japanese could have crossed the Pacific to the Americas. They did not know the Pacific wind patterns enough to be able to sail across and return, and didn't have any economic incentive to try anyway. Ships could have been blown off course and reached America from China or Japan, and perhaps some did. If one of Kemal Reis's Ottoman ships got blown by a storm from the Canary Islands it could have reached America, as the Canaries are the ideal place to catch the trade winds. The sailors would have been hard-pressed to return though. Pfly (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Fa'amatai in American Samoa

Are there anybody trying to resurrect the title Tui Manuʻa in American Samoa? I know the treaties in the 1900s forcibily abolished it, but today the historic titles and positions of indigenous people in the US are being restored by descendants trying to reconnect with the past. And what is the status of the Fa'amatai hereditary chiefs in American Samoa (not Samoa)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Manua monument

Where can I find moder day info and pictures of this monument in this book? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You probably already know that she's the Tui Manu'a Matelita mentioned in our article Tui Manuʻa Elisala and was also known as Margaret Young. Unfortunately, Web searches for "Matelita" or "Margaret Young" with "grave" or "monument" don't seem to turn up anything relevant. Presumably her grave is on the island of Ta'u, but I'm finding zilch online. Deor (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pedro V of Portugal

Did Pedro V of Portugal (and his two brothers) die of typhoid fever or cholera in 1861?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The contemporary New York Times announcement here says that it was typhus. This book by one Douglas Wheeler (on whom we don't have an article, so I can't say how reliable he is as an historian) says typhoid. I've not been able to find a reliable source that says cholera, although there are plenty of unreliable sources that do. Tevildo (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

These sources say cholera.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we can safely say the following: Yes, Pedro died of either typhus, typhoid fever or cholera... but we can not say which. If you are asking so you can clarify the article, just note that the sources disagree as to cause of death, and present all the options. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. On a secondary point, although ENS's link seems well-formatted, all the results it comes up with on my system say "typhoid". Google searches are no longer deterministic, unfortunately. Tevildo (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

July 15

Joel Brand's arrest

I can't believe that Joel Brand is a featured article, considering its atrocious organization. In particular, the section called "Reasons for the arrest" contains no reasons for the arrest. Why did the British want to prevent Joel Brand from going back to Budapest, and why did the Jewish Agency help the British arrest him? What harm could he have possibly done to British, Jewish, or Allied interests? The article gives me the impression that the "blood for goods" plan was quixotic--nobody on the Allied side took it seriously, and it had no chance of succeeding. If that's the case, why did the British care at all what Brand did or where he went? --Bowlhover (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was promoted to Featured status seven years ago (you can see the article milestones at the top of the talk page, just below its archive search box). Over time, FAs tend to degenerate somewhat. If you check the version of the article that was promoted in 2006, there is no section titled "Reasons for the arrest". --Dweller (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The subsection did not exist under that title, no, but most of the content was in the featured version. It contains sourced discussion of the reasons for the negative response to the plan. Those are, in part, speculations by historians, so of course they are arguable. But the fact that you personally don't buy some of those argumants is not a reason why they should not be included. Paul B (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The section is titled "Reasons for the arrest", not "Reasons why the British didn't agree to the plan". Therefore I expected to read about reasons why he was arrested, not reasons why the British didn't buy the plan. I thought I made this clear in the question. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's because someone, sometime, decided to create a sub-section heading, probably because s/he though the existing section overlong. It's not a major issue, certainly not evidence of anything "atrocious". Change the title if you can think of a better one. Paul B (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly the only issue. Rather than explaining all the organizational issues, it would be a better use of time for you to read the article yourself, and for me to try to fix the issues. To do that, I want to know why Joel Brand was arrested. That's a major piece of the narrative, and it's missing from the article. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read it. If you think the article can be improved, improve it. If you want a question answered, ask it. Instead you presented us with a hyperbolic complaint about how "atrocious" something is. It would be a better use of time for you to do something useful instead of complaining about how you are somehow being failed. Paul B (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In 1944 the British were not likely to have looked forward to the idea of an individual running about all over Europe and the Middle East negotiating with the Nazis. And Britain's policy was not "stop the holocaust" but "defeat the Axis powers" (and thus stop the holocaust). Itsmejudith (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In general it seems to have been regarded as a strategem to create suspicion of the Western allies with Stalin. He was already very suspicious. If some sort of negotiation ended with a deal to cooperate with the Nazis and to give them supplies, that would certainly have had the Great Leader apoplectic with paranoia (if that's medically possible). I guess it's also just possible that Himmler might have genuinely believed that the Brits were contolled by "International Jewry", and that the offer would therefore be accepted Real Power behind the Western allies, to save "their" people. Such a deal would also prove to Stalin the Truth about the West. In any case, if Brand were apparently running back and forth between the Brits and the Germans talking up a 'deal', that's the last thing the Brits would want known at this stage in the war. So if the question is " What harm could he have possibly done to British, Jewish, or Allied interests?" The answer, is, potentially massive harm. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Racial/religious/cultural groups in countries

which countries have three to five main racial/religious/cultural groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.36.181 (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Define "main". Also, the USA has probably members of nearly every ethnic and cultural group you can imagine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if a country only has one, it would subdivide - based on something, anything - so none have one.

If a nation has six or more, then unless there is some stringent policy of political correctness that requires each one to be mentioned in any list, it should be able to say the top five are the "main" ones.

Which leaves countries that are divided strictly in half - maybe Fiji with native Fijians and Indo-Fijians. Perhaps you can think of a few others. The rest will qualify for your answer. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is Switzerland, with German, Italian and French Swiss. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Bosnia-Herzegovina with Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. --MF-W 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

history of anti-slavery laws and beliefs

Who were the first known people/culture/nation etc. to outlaw slavery? Or even the first people to teach/preach that it was wrong (not sometimes wrong, but ALWAYS wrong, in and of itself).--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)t

We probably can't trace it to the first known people, because at the time of contact with Europeans in Africa, for example, I believe that some peoples had an institution of slavery (The Mali Empire, I believe) and others (some of the peoples who historically lived in present-day Malawi, for example) didn't even really have a concept of slavery because it was just something they just didn't do. If memory serves, a people along the Ivory Coast stood up against the Portuguese because they found the idea of slavery to be very immoral, at least within their own territory. Falconus^{p t c} 18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In Politics Book I, Aristotle talks about people who oppose slavery on the basis that there is no natural distinction between humans who are free and humans who are slaves. Aristotle concludes that they are partially right and partially wrong—he says that the current institutions of slavery are not strictly based on nature, and so many naturally free people are enslaved wrongly, but he still believes there are some natural slaves who are better off being enslaved. So clearly there was debate about the morality of slavery in Aristotle's time. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I know this does not quite answer the question, but the idea that slavery is "unnatural" goes back at least to Roman law. I'm certain they got that idea from the Greeks, but it's probably much older than that. For example, the Institutes of Justinian, one of the codifications of Roman law in the 6th century, says: "...The law of nations is common to the whole human race; for nations have settled certain things for themselves as occasion and the necessities of human life required. For instance, wars arose, and then followed captivity and slavery, which are contrary to the law of nature; for by the law of nature all men from the beginning were born free." So essentially, Roman legal theory recognized that slavery was unnatural, but that was just how things happened among all humans (as far as they knew), so it should at least be regulated by law. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you include prehistoric hunter-gatherer bands who never practiced slavery, never heard about the concept of slavery, and didn't have the economic or social structures that would make slavery desirable? Are you only including societies that had a written law code that forbids slavery explicitly? Are you restricting it to societies that once had slavery, but then decided to outlaw it? --Bowlhover (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The racist plantation slavery we are familiar with in the Americas was also different from most classical slavery, which was often an alternative to dying in war. Epictetus was a slave. See Slavery in ancient Greece and list of slaves for some hints at the diversity of the phenomenon. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Apache

Why did the rapper apache die? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that information was ever made public, although there's some speculation about a heart problem. Rojomoke (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

is that normal information about why people die are secret, what can the reasons to that be? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The press is usually interested at the time a person dies. But cause of death is rarely of great interest, and the press will have moved on to new matters, and not follow up. A lot of times the information is available, but no one bothers to publish it. IN this case, Google came right up with this.μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the circumstances around the death, many families of dead people make sure not to inform the public about how a person dies. In many places, that information is never officially released by a hospital or morgue due to privacy reasons. Dismas|^(talk) 19:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Every state will have different laws about that kind of thing, but in my experience generally for a recent death, you may have to prove that you're a close relative. For many decades ago, death certificates can be had, sometimes for a fee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Insurance claim

I damaged my phone and intend to claim on my household contents insurance policy. Am I entitled to the price of this phone several years ago when it was bought or only the estimated worth of an obsolete, used phone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.159.111 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't give that sort of advice (even if anybody here knew the answer). Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Insurance rules vary widely. The only acceptable answer I can think of would be, "Call your insurance agent." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The term you need to check in your policy is whether your phone is insured for "replacement value". More important, the cause of the damage might be relevant. (And I agree with the prior responses: this isn't a topic covered at the Humanities Reference desk.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Original lyrics of Mozart's canon "Bona nox"

The unusual spelling "Ox" in the title of Bona nox, which I at first thought to be in error, made me realise that the given lyrics cannot be correct, as they have the usual German spelling "Ochs". However, the NMA and the Köchel catalogue agree in having both "Ox". There are more discrepancies which make me suspect that the cited source is not faithful to the original text, the autograph. Shouldn't the lyrics be quoted from a more reliable and higher-quality source? And where can a faithful copy or at least a version of the lyrics as close to the original phrasing and spelling as possible be found? Are the lyrics found in NMA really the most authentic, philologically accurate? Surely you would expect them to, as the NMA is – according to my understanding – the definitive edition (being a historical-critical edition intended to satisfy the demands of academic experts), and while not always reliably reflecting the available autographs, there is hardly a better collection, though there may be editions of individual works. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. The article says "The original lyrics are probably by Mozart himself; they include the words for "good night" in five different languages (Latin, Italian, French, English, and German)". Now, Bona nox is Latin for Good night. Are you suggesting it should be Bona nochs? What would that mean, and in which language? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasant conversation]} 04:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

BSD license question

We cannot give legal advice here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The BSD license says that the name of the copyright holders cannot be used to promote works derived from the original software. But what about using the name of someone having the same name as one of the copyright holders? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Depends on how genuine your use is. I doubt the court would have much sympathy if you argue "Oh I didn't mean that Bill Gates, I meant the Bill Gates who's the janitor at my school." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, in my work I specified "Bill Gates, Janitor at School X". Also remember that Microsoft is the king of closed source software. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Let's assume that the person I refer to who has the same name as the copyright holder is much better known than the copyight holder him/herself. 42.113.192.91 (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sociology in Stanford University

I wanted to know if at Stanford University offer Sociology as a graduate degree (like with Journalism). And how does a student get into that career. Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 13:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

They seem to have plenty of PhD students but not a Masters programme. Do you mean, how do you get into Sociology as a career? By doing a PhD in Sociology. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant how does a people do to get into College to study Sociology or any other career. Any exams that one must take or something? Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 13:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This question is confusing. Your first question is about graduate study at Stanford. ("Graduate study" in American English may translate to "postgraduate study" in other versions of English.) Then you ask about getting into college. ("College" in American English generally means undergraduate study.) Which do you want to know about? If you are specifically interested in Stanford, here is a link to their undergraduate admissions website, and here is one to their graduate admissions site. Marco polo (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot access to any of those links (Internet problems), sorry. And sorry for the misunderstanding, English is not my first language. This is the actual question: No, I meant how does a people do to get into College to study Sociology or any other career. Any exams that one must take or something? Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 13:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The answer will depend very much on which College or University you want to attend and where in the world it is (and whether or not it is in your home country). From the link that Marco Polo gave, here is a list of undergraduate admission requirements for Stanford:

• Official Testing (SAT or ACT Plus Writing) sent from the College Board or ACT
• School Report
• Official Transcript(s)
• Two Teacher Evaluations
• The First-Year Common Application
• The Stanford Supplement to the Common Application
• $90 nonrefundable application fee or fee waiver request
• CSS PROFILE (if applicable)
• FAFSA (if applicable)

For more information see our articles on SAT, ACT (test), CSS Profile and FAFSA. However, the admission requirements for a British University would look very different from this - see UCAS and UCAS Tariff. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If English is not your first language, you will likely have to also take the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) as well to be considered. Falconus^{p t c} 14:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you all. And Falconus, hehehe, I am not trying to get into Stanford... not even in my dreams, or with a scolarship, I am from Cuba and I know I will never get into Stanford or any of those Universities. It costs a lot. The information is for a novel I am writting. Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 14:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Pro-gay Christians?

How many well-known pro-gay Christians are there (besides Desmond Tutu)? 140.254.226.181 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Very many. See Homosexuality and Christianity#Favorable views and LGBT-affirming Christian denominations for some examples. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the predominance of Christianity in the western world in general... It is probably safe to say that the majority of Gay Rights activists in the western world are Christians. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Samaritan opinion of Jesus' parable about the good Samaritan?

What is the Samaritan opinion of Jesus' parable about the good Samaritan? Would it be considered a "good stereotype" of all Samaritans? These people do exist! 140.254.227.130 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The "good Samaritan" should certainly not be considered as acting stereotypically... The parable makes a lot more sense if you realize that (at the time when Jesus lived) Samaritans and Jews despised each other, and that they were unlikely to aid each other. See our article on Parable of the Good Samaritan for more. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Spanish equivalent of Sherlock Holmes and Arsene Lupin

Hi, We know the english-speaking world has Sherlock Holmes and the French-Speaking world has Arsene Lupin but who the spanish-speaking world has? Is there any character who has the same degree of influence as those two characters have on their respective literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.223.235.136 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The first one is a detective and the other one a gentleman thief. I'm not sure I understand your question. --Immerhin (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If you mean, a well known character in Spanish-speaking, I would point out Don Quixote Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 18:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The comparison is actually somewhat apt - despite being a gentleman thief, several Lupin books are about him solving mysteries and sometimes acting as a detective - with the additional twist that Lupin generally ends up ripping off the person he's solving the mystery for (so he'll find your missing jewelry, but might steal something else in return). Holmes (under the copyright-skirting moniker Herlock Sholmes) even makes a few appearances in Lupin stories. They're both influential and popular heroes from a fairly similar time period, who rely heavily on their intelligence and ressourcefulness and appear in multiple stories. You could add that they were (and still are) popular with readers of all ages. I don't know of an actual Spanish hero that would fit the bill though. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking but the Belgians have a museum dedicated to their fictional hero Tintin. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)