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

August 7

Proposed Images

I have taken two low-quality photos (the cover and the inside) of a C4M leaflet that was put through my door. I'd like to upload these images to this article. I believe that they fall within the Fair Use category since the photo itself is mine, and C4M itself distributed this political leaflet widely across the country, free of charge. The leaflet illustrates part of the 'Campaigning' discussion in the article and does not have any images included in it (other than one of the C4M logos) that could upset any individual. Could someone advise on whether they think these images would be appropriate to upload? I am keen to put them up, but do NOT want to be banned for breaking Wiki rules. Thanks! Wander Woman (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by Jenova20 who doesn't know the answer relating to article Coalition for Marriage but would like to. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The best place for questions like this is WP:MCQ. RudolfRed (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try there ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

mundane and worldly

I get confused with the sentence: "Footpaths are mundane in the best sense of that word: 'worldly',open to all." I'm not sure what "that word" actually refers to,"worldly or "mundane". And is there any difference between the two synonyms? I would be much obliged by your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.251.216.209 (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain that it refers to the word 'mundane'. I know of three definitions of 'mundane': ordinary/plain/boresome; the speaker must then know of another definition. It does not seem unreasonable to me, for a slightly different perspective of the word to lead to that definition. Something that is beyond ordinary is exclusive, and by extended logic, 'not open to all'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries list a second, less-common meaning - of this world, as opposed to heavenly or spiritual - which is what the writer is apparently trying to say. I question whether that is a good choice of words though. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The words "mundane" and "worldly" started out as synonyms, but their usage has come to mean "ordinary" and "wise" respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not so good sir on the latter word. To be wise, is to remove oneself from the worldly perspective, such as to become an insightful audience to one's own life. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

'Wordly' is the very antonym to 'wise', to be worldly, is to follow along the common path without regard to things greater than oneself. It is often considered folly - to be shortsighted. Wisdom entails to think: why should I bear a grudge, what does it possibly profit and to whom? Worldliness entails to think, I shall bear a grudge because such is my want, or rather no thought upon the matter at all. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, if you are instead implying the other definition of worldly - 'experienced', then neither does that equate with 'wise'. One can be an experienced fool, as much as it is possible to be an experienced in wisdom. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, who should I believe? You? Or the author of that quote? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Both, because I am not being contrary. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense, it's a non sequitur argument. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, if it was contrary, then it will always remain so, chance does not play a factor. Secondly, even if 'might' was the correct word to use, it is contradictory to then also use 'would'. Thirdly, how does the self-evident conclusion relate? I don't really care for an elucidation on the above rather meaningless statement, however, I would still like to know why you think that I am contrary. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say you were contrary? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So, what were you saying? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Do the definitions given here help at all? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

To reenact the Civil War, while I have a 1/2 Asian background...

I don't hear anything about Asian immigrants having fought the Civil War because it was a few decades before Asian immigration to the U.S. took off.

Given that I'm 1/2 Korean, 1/4 White, 1/4 Jewish, I would look less the part than most other reenactors. Races can and do matter in Civil War reenactments for the sake of historical accuracy.

Would it be that I'd best reenact a Native American civil war soldier? (Since I could theoretically look that part?) If so, is it easy to start or do I have to succeed an audition? And what extra preparation would I need as a Native American heading into battle? (Wearing a feather/headdress behind my uniform hat, etc.?) And were Native American soldiers integrated into otherwise "normal" regiments?

If they weren't integrated into usual regiments, would it be acceptable to roleplay as a "runaway" who decided to abandon the tribal life to live the life of the white folk?

I'm not sure I could pass off as a "normal" soldier with my complexion, so I'll need potential solutions. Thanks. --75.39.128.83 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There were quite a few Civil War veterans of Asian ancestry. This article talks about an effort to give about 200 veterans posthumous citizenship. Hack (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a Voice of America article about (apparently) those same 200. According to the article, at least five fought for the South, including the sons of Chang and Eng Bunker, the original Siamese twins. Thus, you can authentically participate on either side. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Military history of Asian Americans#19 century names a few more names. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As for Native Americans, check out Thomas' Legion of Cherokee Indians and Highlanders. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Also see Native Americans in the American Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few re-enactor groups. Have you contacted any of them about this question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you look like, but if it's not too Asian, why not put on some makeup to make yourself more white? You're not an actor, and in an reenactment with dozens (hundreds?) of people, nobody's going to pay enough attention to you to notice that your skin color is wrong. --50.47.84.246 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Buffalo Soldier is interesting, particularly given the wide range of skin colours present in indigenous Africans. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The OP seem quite enthusiastic and I would assume that would matter more than the colour of your skin. Astronaut (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right. I think of opera singers like Leontyne Price, Grace Bumbry, Mattiwilda Dobbs, Jessye Norman and others, who sing in operas in roles where the skin colour of the occupant is never specified but is obviously assumed to be white (such as an 18th-century Italian Countess or the wife of a 19th-century German Field-Marshal). It doesn't faze anyone involved, including the audience.

Curiously, though, when white singers play black roles (such as in Otello or Porgy and Bess), they do make an attempt to look the part. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Coloring

Does anyone have any information about the practice of coloring in maritime commerce? Any clue will help me, and make thankful. --Omidinist (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

See "International maritime signal flags".

—Wavelength (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but it's not what I'm looking for. You see, through this practice, custom charges at ports changed. It was used regularly by the agents of East India Companies. Omidinist (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell exactly what it is you're looking for. Can you give us a better explanation? And, I'd suggest that if you're searching the web, you may do better by searching for "colouring", the UK spelling. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a (deceitful?) practice called colo(u)ring, by which mercantile ships could cause a reduction in the custom duties they paid at foreign seaports. What is this colo(u)ring? Omidinist (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Domestic (U.S.A.) only and not the term you're looking for, but avoiding a transport toll by misrepresenting the shipment content is the topic of the traditional song, "Rock Island Line". See the lyrics to the first verse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A good hint, though. Thanks. More help, please. Omidinist (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The OED has "to colour strangers' goods: to enter a foreign merchant's goods at the custom-house under a freeman's name, for the purpose of evading additional duties". That seems to accord with the usage in the heading of the last paragraph on this page, for example. Deor (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much, Deor. Omidinist (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Flag of convenience what you are looking for? Ships fly an Ensign (a flag usually flown from the stern) which sometimes referred to as flying the colours - though "colours" is usually a military term rather than a commercial term. Astronaut (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Helpful information. Thanks. But there's no mention of coloring in the whole article. Omidinist (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

False colors redirects to False flag. Sounds like the same sort of thing as in the Naval Warfare section, just in a peacetime context. Except raising your true colours before entering a commercial port would defeat the purpose. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to be confused with True Colors InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Or any of these true colors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess, for neutrality's sake. I didn't want to appear too deceptively unbiased on a topic like this, and my pro-Lauper stance is generally more tolerable than my Anti-Flag stances. No offense meant to Level 42, whoever they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

WHAAOE. Level 42. Quite a substantial article, really. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Type of shredder allegedly used by Saddam Hussein

The article Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder mentions that it supposedly was a plastic shredder, but I heard some claim that it was a wood chipper. Should it be mentioned that this shredder that probably didn't exist may have been a wood chipper? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The place to discuss this would be on the article talk page, but "I heard some claim" is not what we call a reliable source.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

He might have Saddam mixed up with the bad guy in Fargo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Or "Way to Go Donnnnieeee" in The Big Lebowski, oops mixing film worlds here. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I can cite sources that claim it may have been a wood chipper. Here, it has been claimed to be a wood chipper. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Flin Flon: one city, two provinces

I always assumed Flin Flon (which is partly in Alberta and partly in Saskatchewan) was technically two cities because it's in two Canadian provinces, but the Wikipedia article is quite clear that it is just one entity. I only want to ask if this complicates its relationships with its provincial governments - not just by doubling the paperwork but in terms of conflicting policies or grants or laws and such? Do any provincial laws or anything make life different on either side for border? Hayttom 14:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

You may be thinking of Lloydminster. Flin Flon is Manitoba/Saskatchewan, and much smaller. The Lloydminster article has much more detail on the situation. Mingmingla (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that's interesting, have a look at Beebe Plain, Vermont and Beebe Plain, Quebec: "Access to homes on Canusa Street is made through the Canadian border. U.S. citizens residing there have to report to their customs if traveling south, and to the Canadian customs if traveling elsewhere in Beebe." - I don't rightly know how it works nowadays, but when I was a kid you could go down that street and all the cars had Quebec plates on one side of the street, US plates on the other side, and everyone could cross freely into the other country. After 9/11 and subsequent increase in border security, it appears to have gotten a lot more complicated, with even a building that is cut by the border and which "Canadian citizens are not allowed to access [...] without reporting to the U.S. customs first, and then to the Canadian customs when going back." Effovex (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And if you think that's complicated, go read China Miéville's The City and the City. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite so complex, but a real-world example might be Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog. Astronaut (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Flin Flon" has not (yet) been categorized in Category:Divided cities.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Now it has.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What happens if con artists commit flim in Flin, then flam in Flon? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Lihyan

Hello,

what was the area of the kingdom Lihyan in 325 BC?

Was it just the region around Al-Ula or did it even extent to the Red Sea?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Failed/Unsuccessful United States Historical Territorial Acquisition Attempts

I know that the United States of America successfully acquired many areas/territories throughout its history, but in which cases did the U.S. fail in attempting to acquire areas/territories which it (the U.S. President and/or a large part of the U.S. Congress) sought? Off of the top of my head, I can think of:

• The U.S. possibly being open to acquiring a part of (British) Canada during the War of 1812 if the U.S. would end up winning this war.
• The U.S. being open to acquiring the Baja California peninsula in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but ending up letting Mexico keep it.
• Maybe the All Mexico movement in the 1840s (U.S. President Polk opposed acquiring all of Mexico, but many members of the U.S. Congress might have supported doing this).
• The failed efforts of U.S. Presidents Polk and Pierce to acquire Cuba from Spain (such as with the Ostend Manifesto) in the late 1840s and in the early 1850s.
• The U.S. wanting to acquired much more of northern Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase, but ending up only purchasing a small amount of Mexican land.
• U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant's failed attempt to acquire the Dominican Republic in the early 1870s.
• The possibility that many members of the U.S. Senate supported annexing Cuba in 1898 (the Teller Amendment, which prohibited the U.S. from annexing Cuba, only narrowly passed in the U.S. Senate).

Which other cases of this am I missing here?

For the record, I am only talking about areas/territories which the U.S. wanted to permanently keep. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There have been occasional disputes, such as Oregon boundary dispute, and the situations with Maine and Lake of the Woods in Minnesota. Do those fit your premise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Northern Oregon Territory could work here if at least one U.S. President and/or a large part of the U.S. Congress ever supported trying to acquire it. What is the story with the Lake of the Woods in Minnesota? As for Maine, I will need to read more about it--I know that it has a dispute with British Canada over its northern boundary until 1842 or so, but I am unsure if any U.S. President and/or a large part of the U.S. Congress ever tried to acquire more territory for Maine's northern areas. Also, I prefer that other cases which I am missing here discuss relatively large amounts of territory, not very small amounts of territory. Futurist110 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

See Lake of the Woods. That is but one of many weird things about the US-Canadian border, including at least one still-disputed territory. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading in The Presidents and the Prime Ministers by Lawrence Martin (ISBN 9780770107901) that the annexation of Canada in its entirety was seriously considered several times after Canada's independence in 1867. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I previously read the Wikipedia article in regards to this topic, and I don't remember it saying that any U.S. President and/or any large part of the U.S. Congress ever made a serious effort to try annexing all of Canada after 1867. Futurist110 (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The government never seriously considered it, but the army apparently had a hypothetical plan for it (War Plan Red). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• William Walker (filibuster) was an American adventurer who had himself made president of Nicaragua 1856-57 and who was executed in Honduras for trying to set up American colonies with the goal of annexation.
• At the time of the 1994 Mexican bailout 1994 economic crisis in Mexico it was half seriously suggested we buy the states of Sonora and Baja California. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Walker could work, since a large part of the U.S. Congress might have (at the very least privately) supported his conquests. As for the 1994 Mexican bailout, I will need to read more on this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Scottish vs. English vs. UK legal system in a bankruptcy or reorg situation (major)

RBC Group - a huge, systemically important bank, is legally domiciled in Edinburgh Scotland. If that huge bank got into financial trouble, what court (Scottish, English or "UK") would hear the case and administer it (i.e be in control of the resolution). I understand that despite the unification under the UK, Scotland never gave up its own independent legal system. If an individual in Scotland goes bankrupt, I believe only a Scottish (not English) court would preside. I also understand that 80% of RBC is in fact currently owned by the UK government. However, in in times of trouble the legal location is typically controlling for where the case is heard.

RBC gets into trouble - what regulator is in charge, what court is in charge, who bails them out, and who pays? That's the basic question. Are Scottish nationals in control of that, or is it really the English who would be in control?

A few short years ago RBC was the largest bank in the world and it remains easily in the top 20.

Rick (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The main financial regulator for the whole of the UK is now the PRA, a part of the Bank of England (despite the name, it has UK-wide responsibilities). The bank would never be allowed to go bankrupt; jurisdiction for more plausible proceedings would depend on the issues involved. Bailouts would come from the UK, which is sometimes controlled by English, sometimes by Scottish politicians. Henry^Flower 23:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rick I presume you are asking about Royal Bank of Scotland not Royal Bank of Canada. From memory RBS did own RBC years ago but there is no current relationship. Sussexonian (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Courts are not really as intimately involved in bank failures as they would be in a firm's or individuals bankruptcy. Banks don't go bankrupt. By their very nature, (modern) banks are public/private enterprises and fall under the administrative agencies of the state. They are reorganized, and only when the banking authorities decide. As long as the Bank of England or the Fed, and the Treasury departments and central governments behind these central banks decide to not reorganize a bank, decide to keep backing the bank with (the credible promise of) government money, the bank can keep on going. Forever - or as long as the state exists. For example, the big banks of the USA and China right now and Japan after its crisis are/were all "in financial trouble", "insolvent", "bankrupt", "zombies". Would have been shut down/ prosecuted / reorganized under earlier / nominally valid but not currently effective regulatory regimes. (An essential difference is that the big US banks are now run as control frauds for their managements' benefit, the Chinese banks as vehicles for disguised state fiscal policy, Japan perhaps somewhere in-between.)

The Banking Act 2009 seems to be the current UK legislation, and covers Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland. So the financial system seems unified in that regard. If Scotland were to become independent, who would back an insolvent bank's liabilities and to what extent might become a ticklish matter of negotiation between the two governments. United Kingdom banking law UK Financial Investments , Nationalisation of Northern Rock, 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package, UK Asset Resolution and Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 may also help.John Z (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

August 8

Introduction to Thomas Clark

Could anyone introduce briefly to me Thomas Clark, who is the author of the prose-poem "In Praise of Walking"? Are there any other important works that he has written? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.251.216.209 (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Here you go: Thomas A. Clark biographical note, Thomas A. Clark at the Scottish Poetry Library. He’s published at least seven books and Wikipedia has an article on his publishing company, Moschatel Press. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Fashion: "Double belt loops" ?

"Double belt loop" - narrow belt

"Double belt loop" - wide belt

Greetings!

(a) What is the correct term for those nifty belt loops which can be used with narrow as well as wide belts?

(b) When and where (a brand ?) did they appear?

(c) Are they found exclusively on mens pants?

Thanks for answers and suggestions! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, they are just called "double belt loops" and have been around for at least a decade; The Straight Dope discussed them in 2004. They appear on women's skirts and trousers as well. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! "doubled belt loops" does the job. However, with womens pants this is also used for two loops right next to each other (which I also still need for the article, as well as those two which are "crossing". Lets see, whether some more Followers of Fashion drop by... GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 14:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just have to ask, what unbearable tragedy occurs if one dares to use a narrow belt in wide belt loops ? StuRat (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

One will be dressed unfashionably, the most horrific fate that can befall anyone between the ages of 12 and 25. Tevildo (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A smaller belt in larger loops would make the belt tend to slide around more, to be less stable. Belt loops approximating the width of the belt work better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

From personal experience, it does slide a bit, but not enough to make things weird. That is, the buckle stays in the general front and the pants remain up. It very well may be terribly unfashionable. I've never had anyone tell me so, but I don't hang around the types of people who'd care. If there's any doubt in your situation, narrow belts should probably go in narrow loops. Wide belts definitely in wide loops. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Or buy clothes that fit and make a belt unnecessary? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That definitely could work, for many. In my case, somewhat like The Incredible Hulk, I shrink and grow a few notches within a year. A belt just makes financial sense. And thanks for reminding me I forgot that monkey in my sandbox! Poor thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talking about sex, is it sexual harassment?

If men are talking about sex in a non-demeaning manner in front of women, is that sexual harassment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.170.130 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you read our article on sexual harrassment? We can't really tell you what can or can't be construed as sexual harrassment, you might want to consult a legal professional for specifics. uhhlive (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, and maybe even more importantly, consult your company's policy manual, and ask HR if you still have questions. Keep in mind it's not just "talking about sex" - harassment has to do with "creating a hostile work environment". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

When Nations Acquired Radar

Are there any reliable sources, or ways of approximating the relative dates at which each nation (or at the very least, the major ones) during and after World War II acquired operational radar? I recognize that this is a fuzzy, vague question to propose, as credible opinions may vary both on what constitutes operational capacity and what historical circumstances constitute a nation reaching even agreed-upon standards, but so far I have been unable to track down any source that neatly organizes and presents anything even approaching approximate dates; rather, most sites seem focused on the history of radar in a piecemeal fashion that isn't organized around relative time differences.

I'm not expecting anyone to go digging up these dates for me; rather, I am interested in whether or not this has already been done in a book or article that I am simply not aware of. Thanks! LanceSBush (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We have quite a lengthy and detailed article on the history of radar. Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Court judgement

Please advise where I can read the (preferably translated) court judgement of this fascinating recent case. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/10231556/Man-who-created-own-credit-card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html Links to legal analysis of this case would also be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.119.208 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

August 9

Shamir during Peres premiership

Yitzhak Shamir#Prime Minister notes that his Likud was in a national unity government with Labour from 1984 to 1986, during which time Shimon Peres was the prime minister. What was Shamir's title at the time? I'd suspect that the immediately past prime minister would be in the government, since he was (presumably) still the leader of a coalition-member party. I'm the Lee Hamilton guy; I'm asking because I've found a picture of Shamir and Peres together in Washington DC, seemingly from the part of 1986 when Peres was still the prime minister. Deputy leaders of Israel says that Shamir was Acting Prime Minister, but it also notes that the Acting Prime Minister title is normally given to someone who's already a government minister. 2001:18E8:2:1020:C1E5:6484:A227:E78F (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the date you want in 1986? You can search the google news archive for specific dates. I plugged in "Yitzhak Shamir" for January 1986 and all the newspapers are referring to him as "Israeli Foreign Minister". The search results. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; I didn't think of Google News. I don't have a specific date, but Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel) says that Shamir was Foreign Minister from 1 January until he returned to the Prime Minister's position. 2001:18E8:2:1020:C1E5:6484:A227:E78F (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nations with history of civil rights for minorities

Which other nations also have history of civil rights movement by minorities like African Americans and Hispanics Americans in usa, Mizrahi in Israel and Maghreb Arabs and Africans in France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.244 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the category Minority Rights and the category Civil Rights Movement. I see at least Turkey, South Africa, Iran, Syria and Russia. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, China, Japan, Australia and India come to mind.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 10

27th Amendment to the US Constitution

I've never understood — why was the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution written to forbid all immediate changes in legislators' salaries? Why wasn't it written simply to prohibit immediate salary increases? Presumably nobody except the legislators themselves would suffer anything if the legislature reduced its own salaries effective immediately, and the article's "Background" section shows that New York suggested in 1788 that increases alone be prohibited, so it's not as if nobody thought of it. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A salary reduction could be imposed as a punishment of some kind, like if the wealthier representatives reduced the pay to zero, then the less-wealthy might have to resign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe your statement "nobody except the legislators themselves would suffer anything if the legislature reduced its own salaries" is true. Low legislator salaries favour legislators with independent wealth and disfavour those without. Imagine a legislature split between wealthy capital holders and representatives from low- or middle-income groups who depended on salaries before entering the legislature. If the first group gained control, however briefly, they could lower the salary to $1, making it difficult for their opponents to live and work effectively. The amendment doesn't entirely preclude this, but it means everyone has to go to the polls with a cynical stunt like this pending. 46.208.108.197 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly, and better-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It says "The laws ascertaining the compensation ...". I don't know whether it was a concern but depending on details (which tend to be complicated in laws), if you allowed decreases but not increases then you might get into discussions about whether something is an increase when it isn't a single law simply saying "You get $X". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the input. The Ineligibility Clause refers specifically to "increased" instead of "changed" for salaries, and it's prompted discussions: not whether something's exactly an increase, but how to apply the word — see the Saxbe fix article. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

House of Châlon-Arlay

Who is the heir general of the House of Châlon-Arlay (more specifically Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay) which ruled the Principality of Orange? After René of Châlon the title passed to William the Silent, who wasn't a descendant of the House of Châlon-Arlay. Who stood to inherit Orange in 1544 by hereditary right as heir general of the House of Châlon-Arlay ?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify the question? According to our articles, the title passed to another House/family because there were no heirs. Philibert of Châlon (died 1530) had no children; the title passed to his sister's son René, who also had no children, thereby ending both male and female lines. Is the confusing because René took the name Châlon? He was the last female-line heir, Philibert the last male-line heir. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell I was asking were there descendants of Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay in 1544 who had a better claim than William the Silent. René was probably the last descendant of John IV of Chalon-Arlay and maybe even William VII of Chalon but definitely not of Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay. Wikipedia has really little to no info on this subject of the other children of these princes besides the one that succeeded. I was wondering if Louis II of Chalon-Arlay's two other sons Louis and Hugh had descendants? Or if the other children, only mentioned on the French wiki, of fr:Jean III de Chalon-Arlay had descendants.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Economics of individuals within firms

I wanted to read economic papers that deal with how firms are affected by the individuals within them acting in their own interests, and related situations, but my Google skills do not appear to be up to scratch. E.g. a firm wants to achieve a goal, so hires an employee to work towards it, but that same employee will be better off by working towards a mutually exclusive goal. --superioridad ^(discusión) 02:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know, but maybe our articles Conflict of interest and Perverse incentive can be a starting point? Sjö (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Diseconomy_of_scale#Office_politics touches on this. StuRat (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, in a sense, this is a special case of tragedy of the commons/degradation of the commons, a very old problem, where a shared resource, in this case the company, tends to be used inefficiently, in this case by the employees, if they don't personally hold much of a stake in the preservation of that resource. StuRat (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

William K. Black's concept of control fraud is what you are looking for, if the individuals are the ones best placed to direct the firm's activities towards their own, mutually exclusive goal of self-enrichment at the firm's expense: the top management.John Z (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You might start with theory of the firm and the articles linked from there, especially behavioral theory of the firm. Control fraud is a special case of moral hazard. John M Baker (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

See Principal–agent problem. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Husband of Mona Lisa

who was husband of mona lisa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.170.82 (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the Mona Lisa was Lisa del Giocondo and her husband was Francesco del Giocondo. (section header added.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is in the news currently, as they are in process of digging up her grave to reconstruct her face to see if it matches the Mona Lisa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"It's only grave desecration if she's 534 years or younger!" Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, a the good news a Lisa is A'm a gonna paint a you face for free. The bad news is they gonna dig a you body up aroun a the year 2000 to use you face a bones as lego pieces. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your impression of Leonardo is uncanny. And speaking of Leonards, Lisa answers back, channeling Leonard "Chico" Marx centuries before he was born: "'At's-a no good!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

term for all atheists going to hell?

What is the term for the belief that good people of other religions can also go to heaven, but atheists will go to hell? Which religions/denominations hold such beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.101.131 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Universalism. See our article for the various attitudes that different faiths have taken towards this issue - particularly Christian Universalism, Unitarian Universalism, and Noahidism. That being said, I don't know of any universalist viewpoint that regards atheism (simpliciter) as a mortal sin - there are plenty of religious groups that do so condemn atheism, of course, but none of those (as far as I know) are particuarly strong on ecumenism. Tevildo (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, though, there's nothing within the spectrum of "Universalism" (itself a slippery and poorly defined topic) that necessarily excludes even atheists from the afterlife. Still, it is the closest, and that's the only useful starting point for research I can imagine. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hell is very much part of the afterlife. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, the core premise of Universalism is that "everyone is saved." So presumably it's all heaven and no hell. But that's as much of a guess as anything else is. I recall one of Rod Serling's TV programs (probably Night Gallery) in which a deceased hippie-type arrives at the afterlife and is assigned to perpetually listening to Lawrence Welk records or something. He's crying, "Bummer, man! Bummer!" and the death angel says, "Oddly enough, there's a place in heaven just like this... one man's heaven is another man's hell." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Note also that Noahidism (guilty of that same poor definition and slipperiness I mentioned earlier) typically requires a great deal more than simple belief in God. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not according to everyone. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if he made up a term for it, but one of Raymond Smullyan's logic puzzle or philosophy books has the opposite idea - when only the atheists have an afterlife. He imagines a future with all his atheist friends enjoying bliss and mourning his absence. Though Smullyan himself still hasn't reached the decision point yet.John Z (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (No salvation outside the Church). μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• But that excludes Muslims, Buddhists, animists, etc., as well as nonconformist Christians; the original question regards something that would accept Muslims, Buddhists, animists, etc., and all flavors of Christians, excluding only the atheist. It's such an unusual perspective that I'd guess that there's no name for it, in the rather-unlikely event that any organized groups have ever held such a doctrine. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I read this question when it was posted. It's because the Roman Catholic phrase is neither one word nor an exact equivalent that I waited before I answered it. But given Jesus is a member of the Trinity I am not about to concede your objection--even though I am an atheist. The OP is free to ignore the reference if he likes, but it would have been contrary of me to have withheld it. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Balliol and Coucy

House of Balliol indicate there was a marriage between a female Balliol and a lord of Coucy. Who are they? I can't seem to find any daughters in the articles of the Balliol who did.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

fr:Enguerrand V de Coucy married Christine de Lindsay, daughter of Ada de Balliol and William Lindsay, and granddaughter John I de Balliol (and therefore a niece of King John Balliol). Unfortunately we don't have an article about Enguerrand V, but his French article mentions it. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrs G and Mr W

In volume one, chapter three of Emma we are told Mrs Goddard "having formerly owed much to Mr. Woodhouse's kindness, felt his particular claim on her to leave her neat parlour". What did Mr Woodhouse do for Mrs Goddard? Yours, Cluelessly almost-instinct 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Austen gives any more information than that. Presumably Mr Woodhouse contributed some money or property towards the establishment of Mrs Goddard's school. Tevildo (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems the safest presumption. I was hoping that there might be some gossamer-thin allusion a couple of hundred pages later; I shall be keeping my eyes peeled for any hints of that this time I read it, and will report back if I come across anything! almost-instinct 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 11

Luxembourg royal burials

Where are Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg buried? Their articles indicate they've been buried in Schlosskirche (“Castle Church”) in Weilburg since 1953 while a category to Burials at Notre-Dame Cathedral, Luxembourg is also linked. Were they originally buried in Luxembourg than transfer to Weilburg in 1953? Also the article Weilburg indicate Schlosskirche is of the Lutheran denomination but the Nassau family have historically been members of Reformed Church not the Lutheran Church. Isn't that as bad as burying them in a Catholic cathedral.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

According to de:Schlosskirche (Weilburg) the church is a union church belonging to the Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau. According to the same article more than 30 princes of Nassau and Luxembourg are buried there in the burial vault, and it mentions explicitly the two princes in question. Another surprising feature: the article states that the burial vault is under the sovereignty of Luxembourg. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what happened in 1953? Also what denomination was it before the union of the Reformed and Lutheran churches?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Americanization of the BBC

BBC programing seems to have become Americanized over the last decade or so. Is there any critical commentary on this? And if so, could responsibility for it be laid at the feet of any specific individual or policy? I have read our basic articles on the BBC and its history but I have had a hard time even determining who is responsible for programing decisions, or whether they are independent between the various channels. (In the US it's easy to identify eras in the programming of the big three (now four with FOX) networks and point to eras like NBC's domination of thursday night programming during the Brandon Tartikoff period.) Is there any evidence or explanation for this at wikipedia or in reliable sources? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by Americanization. Do you mean actual programmes, or style in the news broadcasts? Mingmingla (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I rarely watch the US thing called the BBC News since it is not on at a convenient time and is shown as a 42 minute long broadcast interrupted by 18 minutes of commercials. I get my news from google, WP and aggregators. I am thinking more of things like The Weakest Link. Like the dumbed-down, hyperemotionalizd, super-effects over plot-lined Doctor Who. (What prompted this was the recent cringe-making BBC special announcing Capaldi's casting.) Even to Top Gear, which is not that new. Footballers' Wives. Or Sherlock, (starring the weirdly sexual Cumberbund Bandersnatch) which reminds me very much of the perverse Dexter. Of course I'd still be interested in hearing about the news if there is good level commentary. Just to mention, the fact that the Daily Mail is now the most widely read newspaper in the US is also interesting, but a bit tangential. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that dumbed-down and hyper-sensational content is typical of the US, but not of the UK or other countries? Otherwise, Americanization might more accurately be described as dumbing down, sensationalizing, etc, and you might get more results by searching these terms. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking about the BBC that shows in the UK or the thing called BBC America which is not the same? RudolfRed (talk)

I am an American, and am asking about BBC shows regardless of venue. I see them about half on PBS and half on the internet and I seriously don't think ever in full on the BBC America thing. What is relevant to my question is the distinction between shows from the 70-90's and shows in the last decade, not what venue they were viewed in. (The trend to me seems the same on ITV --footballers wives-- and Sky --the cafe-- as well, but that's harder to tell from over here.) It seems rather reasonable to describe them as having gotten more Americanized. The changes in Doctor Who, for example, all seem to be in the direction of Americanization: format, special effects, show tempo, the end of the world at least once a season. Some of this dates back even to Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. Is this trend limited to Doctor Who? Is it general? Am I imagining it? If I could answer this myself I wouldn't be asking. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who is certainly Americanised. When Russell T. Davies revived it in 2005, he looked for examples of sci-fi/fantasy shows that had been successful in recent years for inspiration - and the examples he followed were US shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Smallville, because they were successful. Also, it's an expensive show to make, and as the BBC is a non-commercial broadcaster it can't make its money back in the domestic market, so it relies on selling it abroad to defray costs. The US is the biggest and wealthiest market for anglophone TV, so it makes sense to tailor it to appeal to American viewers. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments seem very likely. Unfortunately I have only seen the commercials for Buffy and Smallville. I suppose I will have to watch the former at some point if I want to keep my passport. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a reference for you, but US TV material has become increasingly popular in the UK; House (TV series) and CSI New York for example. Therefore, if producers want their output to be watched by British viewers, I suspect that they will tend to follow the most popular formats. I like to think that US shows have sometimes been influenced by British productions too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny. You do realize Hugh Laurie's an Englishman? :) (Honestly, his American accent is better than any American's I have ever heard.) A lot of US shows are remakes of British shows. The only ones I can think of that are obviously British are things like American Idol, which I don't watch, as it is too American. μηδείς (talk)

It is difficult to answer this encyclopaedically, but, being a british resident and having seen the similar BBC Entertainment in Switzerland recently (which was mainly The Weakest Link) I think I understand what you are talking about. The BBC is an enormous organisation with a £5 billion income and is nearly 100 years old. It held a state monopoly on all broadcasting until 1955 and the tradition here has been to regulate all broadcasting. The CEO and Chief Editor of the BBC, who is supposed to be responsible for all output and answerable like the editor of a newspaper, is called the Director-General of the BBC, and two that are perceived as 'era-definers' are Lord Reith and Hugh Carleton Greene. But nowadays, the BBC has four television and at least 6 radio channels broadcasting continuously, and there are a number of management positions in a Byzantine arrangement, who have overlapping responsibilities for various aspects of the output. The running joke is 'there's a crisis at the BBC, deputy heads will roll'.

BBC Worldwide is a separate organisation which buys in programming from the BBC (and others) for rebroadcast on its various channels, including BBC America. Although this provides an income stream for the BBC proper, the lion's share of its income comes from payments by UK residents of the Television licensing in the United Kingdom. The terms of the regulations that the BBC must operate under are renegotiated with the Government every 10 years when its Royal Charter is renewed. This system means that the BBC is not directly tied to advertising revenue and viewing figures for its income, and can afford not to budget each programme directly on the advertising that would be sold during that programme (the domestic service is not allowed to advertise at all). But, in successive negotiations, the Government, which at first was focussed on maintaining the appearance of independence from Government control, has increasingly put pressure on the BBC to produce popular programmes or risk losing some licence fee income to the competing broadcasters (who somewhat resent this subsidy). So the BBC produces popular programmes on high budgets, designed to maximise viewing figures, and also slips in cheaper but more worthy programmes where it can afford to, hoping to maintain its reputation as a high quality broadcaster while also satisfying itself and the Government that it could manage with advertising income instead of licence fee income.

It should also be noted that some national newspapers consider themselves to be in competition with the BBC in the area of news; there is a BBC News website which competes directly with the newspapers' sites, which is also paid for by licence fees, and is free to use. At least three newspapers are owned by organisations that also have british broadcasting interests: Channel five is related to the Daily Express and the Sun and (London) Times are part of the same corporate structure as BSkyB, a major satellite broadcaster. The newspapers have been accused of using their position (they are allowed to take a biassed viewpoint) to attack the BBC's (who have an obligation to report news in an un-biassed way, whatever that means). These biassed sources have chronically accused the BBC of bias, and some might say (who? Well, Private Eye for a start) that these attacks have succeeded in reducing the BBC's willingness to enter 'controversial' waters.

It has been widely reported that Mrs Thatcher was incensed by the BBC's decision to report on the Falklands War in terms of 'British soldiers' and 'Argentine soldiers' rather than 'our brave lads' and 'Argie madmen' which led to a sticky Charter negotiation in 1986 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 and that the BBC has been on the back foot since then. If you want a single moment that the rot set in, that's as good a point as any.

See also John Birt who introduced 'blue sky thinking' to the BBC, and Greg Dyke who might have been capable of improving the situation, but he was felled by the scandal surrounding the death of David Kelly (weapons expert). There have been other scandals and errors of judgement, all of which lead the Corporation to err on the side of popular, family-friendly (lowest common denominator, dreadful) entertainment. For some reason this is further emphasised in the selection made by BBC Worldwide in its output.

You might be able to get "BBC World News" bulletin at 2pm Eastern time, which isn't too bad; Doctor Who holds many nostalgic 40 and 50 year-old brits in its grip and we still watch no matter how dilute it becomes. I think the producers know that they can Americanise it to their heart's content and we will still follow loyally. Perhaps an analogy would be if the producers of the Wire made CSI:Sesame Street with the original puppets and sets, but new voices for the characters. The chances are it would be awful, but the temptation to watch would be very strong...TrohannyEoin (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great comprehensive answer, and with the links quite useful. I'll be reading for quite a while. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• It works both ways. See The Office, Pop Idol, Weakest Link, Top Gear (1977 TV series) etc. for British shows that later showed up in American versions. --Jayron32 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the typical hollywood "copy what is successful, just do it worse" thing. Thinking about it in detail I think "class" and "reticence/reserve" are the two especial characteristics of British broadcasting. Those seem lost in things like Torchwood, unfortunately. Even Jean Hardcastle has become an Air Elemental. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when I think of "class" and "reticence/reserve", The Benny Hill Show is always what comes immediately to mind. Deor (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think British TV shows being like American shows is a recent thing. Take Are You Being Served?, from the 1970's-1980's, which had sexual innuendo very similar to that on Three's Company, of the same era. The BBC has also had it's share of cheesy sci-fi, from Space: 1999 to Red Dwarf. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Islamic republic article

The article Islamic republic does not include Sudan. Sudan is a republic that has a legal system based on Islamic law. Should it be included in the article? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Our comments on the article will have no standing there. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The other countries listed are called Islamic Republic of Place while Sudan calls itself the Republic of Sudan.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I just took it to the article's talk page to continue the discussion. I know it isn't called the "Islamic Republic of Sudan", it jis just that Islamic law is practiced by the Republic of the Sudan. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Product placement in movies

Is there a source anywhere that goes into detail on product placement in movies and how much advertisers pay for product placement in various types of movies? Our product placement article has a large list of movies and TV shows that include some product placement, but doesn't have a single figure for how much it costs. Bononoko Clavier (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's likely highly variable. If you can watch The_Greatest_Movie_Ever_Sold, it covers this topic, but I can't recall how much detail they disclose. RudolfRed (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The smell of bacon

For observant Muslim and Jewish people who have never eaten pork, what percentage think the smell of bacon is disgusting instead of mouth-watering? Bononoko Clavier (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

People who abstain from pork for religious reasons may do so, because they believe that the pork is not halal or kosher. If they find pork tasty, even though in their worldviews, they know that the pork is dirty food, then that still means that they still shouldn't eat it. Put it into perspective: would you eat food that has been tossed into the garbage and has weird mold growing on it? IIRC, a Christian would fast during Lent and avoid meats (except "fish"), because the meats are believed to be related to a sensual appetite. So, meats are avoided by Christians during Lenten season. I'm not sure if the same concept applies in Islam and Judaism. According to chabad.org, Jews are allowed to eat fish with scales and fins, so aquatic mammals are forbidden, which seem to contrast the Christian eating of aquatic mammals (i.e. capybara) during Lent in Latin American countries. Sneazy (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The above doesn't address the question at all. Probably good statistics on this do not exist, but google for "jews like the smell of bacon" gives several results. Here's one which suggests that Jewish people do indeed like bacon: http://forward.com/articles/139697/the-bacon-problem/ Staecker (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You might as well ask: how would a lifelong vegetarian (or convert) respond to the smell of cooking meat? People who choose to follow dietary restrictions related to a belief system or ethics, probably haven't evolved some physiological response but rather a subjective one. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pork... So juicy so irresistible... I think some smells, like bacon's, are undeniably awesome-smelling and anybody who smells it will like it. But in a split-second reaction, the devout Muslim will turn away and stick to his discipline. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

mom-and-pop shops

Recently, I watched a PBS Masterpiece Theatre making of the Great Expectations, and I noticed that Pip was called "boy of the forge". So, that got me thinking. Would a forge be considered as a mom-and-pop shop, or is the forge the place where metal is made but not where metal is sold? How small is this "small business"? Can this small business become wealthier over time and buy out other competing small businesses, transfer its resources to one location, maintain the same private owner(s), and still call it a "small business" or mom-and-pop shop? At the end of the film, Pip returned a shilling or a guinea to his brother-in-law, and said that he did not deserve it, because the money was all that his brother-in-law could earn. Seriously, how much can a shilling or guinea buy in those days? Sneazy (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mom-and-pop shop" is not a usual expression in British English. Nor is "Mum-and-dad shop", which would be the translation of it into British English. A "forge" would not be considered any kind of "shop" in British English - a shop is where you buy things, not where things are made. (There are certain contexts where "shop" can be used for "workshop", but this is not one of them). The arc you have described could certainly happen, and did so, but the classification "small business" would not have meant anything in particular in the era of Great Expectations. Neither a shilling nor a guinea exists today: in 1971 a shilling became 5p (£0.05) and a guinea became £1.05. Obviously their buying power was many many times greater than those sums today. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, a guinea was 1-2 weeks wages for a full-time laborer during the time period when Dickens was writing. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In 19th century rural England most communities had a forge, also called a smithy or a blacksmith’s shop, where the smith worked. Normally he sold his output then and there to the locals. I don’t think village smithies expanded into chains but stayed, like farriers, under a single craftsman. I don’t understand your reference to a shilling or a guinea, both of which have significance for Pip and Joe. They are very different things of course. In 1830, for example, a shilling was equivalent to about £3.67 today and a guinea about £77. --Hors-la-loi 16:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

John, Duke of Beja

Could someone help me find Portuguese secondary sources or or even primary sources calling John, Constable of Portugal Duke of Beja? My hypothesis is a mistake in this book led to his being Duke of Beja becoming a fact. This only stands if no Portuguese sources or even primary sources call him "Duque de Beja." Please don't mention other wikipedias.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia has John, Constable of Portugal, as Duke of Beja. Are you looking for an explanation that John, Constable of Portugal, may be falsely named the Duke of Beja? Sneazy (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. I am trying to find evidence that calling him this was a mistake. Portuguese sources or primary sources would indicate this was a mistake arising in the English sources which was later proliferated into other secondary English sources.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the English Wikipedia has John, Constable of Portugal as Duke of Beja. But going to the Portuguese version of the site and translating that version instantaneously to English bring results that John, Constable of Portugal is not the first Duke of Beja, because the title was created for the king's brother, the man who is in second place on the English Wikipedia. This discrepancy proves your point: that John as the Duke of Beja is a questionable fact. Sneazy (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my "Please don't mention other wikipedias"? Bringing up Wikipedia articles doesn't prove anything and doesn't answer my question. Saying other wikis has this or that isn't much of a good prove because I can just say that those articles have been written with a false understanding of the subject and that this new fact/addition on the English wiki is the actual correct fact, especially since the Portugeuse article is written without sources. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the old "Do not think of the number 8" trick. The human brain is not wired to exclude something without first thinking of it. The moral is "Do not give negative instructions". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon name for British royals

Has there been any British royal with Anglo Saxon names other than Edward since the Norman Conquest?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Define "Anglo Saxon name" and "British royal". I guess the other English/GB/UK monarchical names (Henry, Richard, Stephen, John, George, James, Charles, William; Anne, Elizabeth, Mary, Victoria) are not AS, but there was a King Edgar of Scotland, and one of Edward III's sons was called Edmund. Rojomoke (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Any name with an Anglo Saxon origin and English and British royals from 1066 to present. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So both my examples qualify. Rojomoke (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't notice the Edmunds.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You can ask an editor in Category:User ang.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, William is of AS origin (Willelm). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not according to William (name). Germanic, but from Old Norman.
If you cast the net a bit wider, we almost had a King Roger (Hroðgar). Rojomoke (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Matilda an Anglo Saxon name? Warofdreams talk 10:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are counting royal family members in addition to monarchs (as with the Edmunds), right? What about Alfred, Albert, Maud? 184.147.136.32 (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Pittsburgh Fire of 1845

I'm curious where the info on the Great Pittsburgh Fire of 1845 came from. The article says that only two people died and it names them. In a brief paper that my father wrote, he says that my great, great grandfather had a canal boat and tried to save it during the fire. He died in the fire in the failed attempt to save his boat. His name was Patrick McCambridge. Wondering how to check the information of yours and his. Any help you can give would be appreciated.

Sincerely, John E. McCambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.250.188 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

At the bottom of the article Great_Fire_of_Pittsburgh, it lists the sources used. The information on the deaths came from books written by Cook and Hoffer. RudolfRed (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 12

Possible Updates for Two Wikipedia Entries

Hello - I am not sure if this is the right department to write to, but I have two suggestions for updating two Wikipedia Entries.

For the Entry about Cagliostro - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Cagliostro - you have a section 'Appearances in Fiction'. I have found numerous references to Cagliostro in the novel 'He Who Whispers' by John Dickson Carr (aka John Carter Dickson), one of his Dr Gideon Fell mysteries. In this book a French professor, Georges Antoine Rigaud, has written a history: 'Life of Cagliostro'. The name 'Cagliostro' gets mentioned 23 times.

For the Entry about the Sandyford Murder Case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandyford_murder_case - you mention various appearances in fiction of this case. I have found two references to this case in 'Seeing is Believing' (also published as 'Cross of Murder') a Sir Henry Merrivale novel by John Carter Dickson (aka John Dickson Carr) and in Chapter 20 there's quite a long account of the Sandyford Murder Mystery.

I hope that the above has been useful.

And by the way in the entry about the Sandyford Murder Mystery the word 'published' is spelt wrongly: "…novel, When Last I Died, publilshed in 1941…"

Yours sincerely - Duncan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.89.254 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know you can edit articles here yourself (except for cases where they are locked down due to repeated vandalism) ? A spelling error you can fix and just put "Fixed spelling error" in the comment line at the bottom. For the other cases, it would also be nice if you could add a reference, which in this case would be the books themselves. So, list the books, publish dates, pages, authors, etc. Just pick "Edit source" above the section you want to edit. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Duncan. I've left a message on your user talk page explaining how to make these changes. As StuRat mentioned, it's best you do it since we need to know the book details and you have the books. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Midfielders

Would midfielders in association football be able to run at 10,000 metres events? Footballers run 11 kilometers a game [1] and midfielders especially run a lot.Pass a Method talk 08:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not without additional training. The running that football players do is quite different than distance runners. Football players run in fits and starts, with occasional sprints, lots of turns, etc. Distance runners run a straight line at a constant speed, building towards a sprint finish. Football players may have the necessary endurance, but would likely need training on pacing etc before they could be competitive. Now we just need some references. --Xuxl (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sociobiology and fashion

As opposed to today's fashion, suntan wan't fashionable in ancient times. For insance, the Bible writes

Look not upon me, that I am swarthy, that the sun hath tanned me; [...]

— The Shulamite, Song of Songs 1:6

It seems to make sense from an evolutionary point of view because tanning was common mostly among rednecks. But this is just one feeble evidance that evolution affected perceptions of beauty so accurately, and it makes one wonder: how significant is the role of evolution in fashion, especially in ancient times?

Also, I heard that the Japanese culture (or was it the Chinese?) used to accept chubby people as more attractive. Does that make sense according to evolution?

Thanks, 84.109.248.221 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "sense according to evolution" on the numbers and timescales you are considering here. To put this into the common metaphor of "not seeing the forest for the trees", you're trying to understand the whole forest by examining a tiny patch of bark on one tree. Genetics certainly plays an important part in people's social behavior, but genetics is not purely deterministic in this way. Fashion is fickle, and drifts and changes at FAR to short a time scale to be subject to evolutionary pressures. --Jayron32 11:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have probably emphasized that I'm talking about any type of evolution, and thanks to you I noticed that this is probably an example of memetic evolution. 84.109.248.221 (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)