Revision as of 09:29, 12 October 2014

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 6

Jimmy Dore said that a study determined that cops (when they were younger) were either bullies or were bullied

Is this true? I tried searching for it but I couldn't find anything. ScienceApe (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

How'd the whole joke go? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke per se, more of a rant. You can see it here around the 00:46 point. ScienceApe (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They've done studies that show people who say "They've done studies" to support a claim followed with "think about it" are trying too hard to convince us. And 60% of the time, it works every time. Think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A few years ago in my city a sporting hero and successful coach (manager) was killed when a punch from a bouncer knocked him out and he hit his head on a concrete path. In the very public discussions that followed in the media it seemed to be agreed that the last person you should recruit as a bouncer is someone who actually wants to be one. I'd say, however, that police are usually selected and trained a lot more carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A similar trope appears in Clockwork Orange. Alex's former "droogs" became police officers... --Jayron32 02:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Were either bullies or were bullied? Just how many people haven't been one or the other? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

8,014,000. The population of Switzerland. Seriously though, good point. I've been both. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

I seem to have been largely immune. —Tamfang (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I got pulled over in my home town for making a right on red where it was prohibited. The cop turned out to be a boy with whom I had been on good terms in elementary school, but who, while he was small himself, ended up being a sycophant of bullies all through high school. I can't speak to his personality now, and he did only give me a warning, not a ticket. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you want an actual reference, see table 3 here . Note that this study is not looking at childhood bullying, but rather bullying at work. At least it has some actual information about police and bullying. As IH alludes above, the burden of proof is on whomever says "studies show." SemanticMantis (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Public domain in the UK

Hello! I am trying to determine whether the short story "Young Goodman Brown" holds an extended copyright in the UK. Sources including Project Gutenberg tell me that the book "Mosses From an Old Manse" (from which the story is taken) has entered the public domain in the U.S., as would be expected given that it was published in the 19th century, but is anyone aware of a database that I can search to confirm that the story is not held under some other form of copyright in Great Britain? Thank you so much- 128.86.153.254 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

See Copyright law of the United Kingdom. Copyright extends seventy years after the author's death. Nathaniel Hawthorne, who wrote the story, died in 1864, 150 years ago, so you can be confident that anything he wrote is in the public domain in the UK. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no databases that contain all public domain works, or all copyrighted works. While we cannot give legal advice here, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (in its current, updated form) can be found on the UK government's official website. Section 12.6 may be relevant (See section 15A for what is meant by "country of origin"):

"Where the country of origin of the work is not an EEA state and the author of the work is not a national of an EEA state, the duration of copyright is that to which the work is entitled in the country of origin, provided that does not exceed the period which would apply under subsections (2) to (5).". . - Lindert (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 7

Is there a formula for how much rent to charge?

Something like square root of the ratio of square feet? 50.74.3.218 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You have given us entirely insufficient information for anyone to provide even a remotely useful answer - though in general, unless there are legal constraints to the contrary, rents are set according to whatever the landlord considers will maximise profits. Which of course depends on what is being rented where, and what similar property is currently being rented out at. And by the way, a ratio is a relationship between two numbers of the same kind - the square root of a number (for example an area, like square feet) is a number, not two numbers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I should've said "all other things being equal." The question should've been "how to use the unconstrained market rent of apartment(s) of similar quality but different sizes and the ratio of their square footages to yours to estimate the ratio of market rents (and therefore a good starting point for yours)". Since there's a Laffer curve and a formula to turn the age of an elephant to it's weight then there must be some startling accurate formula (given the fickleness of prices) that some sociologist or ecomomist found with a table that conveniently provides words like ultraluxury, bare-bones and numbers so you have an idea of what constant to use. 50.74.3.218 (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(Since you geolocate to Manhattan), the NYC Rent Guidelines Board's FAQ might (or might not) have link(s) that eventually lead to something resembling helpful info.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• You have to charge enough rent to pay for actual expenses like superintendent, heat, and maintenance, plus potential ones (insurance, liability) and to make a sufficient profit on top without driving your tenants to cheaper accommodations. Rent control doesn't apply to commercial space or to new buildings as such. Rent per square foot allows renters to assess cost, it is not a formula for what you should charge. You are the one who has to define for yourself what a sufficient profit is. I agree, a more specific question can better be answered. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• • I added a more specific question. Though first you have to see if your sufficient profit is realistic, possibly adjust your expectations of sufficient to the market (or leave if you really would rather do something else), hence a starting point would be nice. 50.74.3.218 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

At least here in Germany, rent are usually compared per square meter of usable space (which has a formal definition that may include parts of a balcony, but exclude parts of storage space, but in general conforms reasonably well to the plain area of the living spaces). This "base rent" is subject to some forms of regulation, especially in highly competitive markets. Landlords can also pass on additional costs (insurance, garbage service, electricity for common rooms, elevator costs, etc.), but they have to provide full accounting for that part of the rent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This article has instructions for determining how much rent to charge: http://www.biggerpockets.com/rei/fair-market-rent/ ZMBrak (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How would you factor in a view of the beach vs. one of your building's garbage cans? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are "you" (i.e., seller or buyer?) I would look at similar listings. Compare like apartment with airshaft view to beachfront view to like apartment by price in the newspaper or on line. This is shopping 101. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The OP specifically asked for a formula. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think there is one? Rents, like any other prices, are going to be set based on various factors, which are going to vary from place to place. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're missing my point. I'm saying it can't be calculated from a set formula. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So you said "The OP specifically asked for a formula", and your followup on that is "There is no formula." Right? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Einstein quote

What does "God is subtle, but He is not malicious" mean? --217.118.85.87 (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Check out Einstein on Wikiquote. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

See also Epicurus. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The actual quote was, "Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht". Which loosely translates to "God is subtle, but He is not malicious" or more recent translations have it as, "God is slick, be He's not mean". Einstein himself has been quoted with this explanation, "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse". My information can be found at: Dominic.johnson103 (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/35517/what-does-god-is-subtle-but-he-is-not-malicious-mean
2. https://en.wikiquote.org/Albert_Einstein#1920s
3. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins136884.html

October 8

What counts as a "native language" or "native speaker" in a bilingual household?

What counts as a "native language" in a bilingual household, where the children may be able to speak in their immigrant parents' mother tongues but completely fail at writing in their parents' language due to lack of formal education in the language? (This is entirely possible, if the script is not phonetic and in no way related to the dominant language!) Are they still bilingual completely or partially? Or maybe they are considered native speakers but their mastery of the language is less proficient than their second language? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an answer per se, but perhaps an interesting anecdote. I was raised in both Dutch and the Grunnegs dialect of Dutch Low Saxon (with English thrown in the mix for fun). Grunnegs doesn't actually have a codified spelling, making it quite difficult to write and read in it. This leads me to sometimes describe myself as monolingual (Dutch), bilingual (Dutch/Grunnegs or Dutch/English depending on situation) or trilingual. Your mileage may vary! Note that our article on Dutch Low Saxon calls it a dialect, which is incorrect, it is a seperate language group from Standard Dutch. Fgf10 (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't have an answer (other than to say that I generally find from my own experiences in Malaysia that talking about a "native language" can be confusing.

But note that it can get more complicated than simply being better with the language they used in school. I think it's resonably common for Malaysian Chinese to be able to speak their families dialect, and if it's different the local Chinese dialect (e.g. Cantonese in Kuala Lumpur). They may or may not be able to speak Mandarin.

If they didn't go to a Chinese primary school, and particularly if they can't speak Mandarin, their ability to read and write Written Chinese can sometimes be quite limited. (Some non Chinese primary schools do have Mandarin, both written and spoken lessons, but many don't or have them as limited weekend lessons. Of course with the rise of China, there is a renewed emphasis on Mandarin.)

They can generally speak and write English and Malay to some degree (as the later is the medium of instruction, currently for all subjects except English at school and the former is also a compulsory subject).

However depending on the school and location, the local Chinese dialect can sometimes be mostly (Manglish) the language they will speak among friends and outside. Malay will be what they used for communicating with teachers and for most school work and is more important at school. (It's problematic if you don't get a credit in your SPM.) But English perhaps with some phoentically written Chinese and some Malay may be what they use for other written stuff (such as on the internet, SMSes, books). It will probably be what they will use at university or other tertiary level education if they attend.

So their written Malay or English will be far better than their Chinese, hopefully at a level which enables resonable communication etc. But which one is better will vary, and the level will not necessarily be at a level you'd normally expect from a native user. And their spoken Chinese (whichever dialect) could potentially be better than their English or Malay.

(OTOH, some are more comfortable with English than with whatever Chinese dialect or equally comfortable with both. It does depend a fair bit on what they speak at home which could be any number of things including Manglish, getting in to the native language bit, but OTOH can also depend on a lot of other things. I think in some areas, some may also be more comfortable with Malay than with English for spoken and written. Meanwhile, some urban, afluent Malays may prefer English. They would often still have attended a normal government Malay langauage school. And may also still primarily speak Malay at home.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bilingualism refers primarily to spoken language. A person's "native language" is the language he or she learned to speak first. This is not necessarily only the language of the person's parents, since children learn language as much, if not more, from their peers than from their parents. If a person learned to speak two or more languages from the start (say the parents' language and the different language spoken by peers), then that person has more than one native language. It is possible to be illiterate in one's native language, and in fact millions of people are illiterate in their native languages. You could say "I am bilingual. My native language is X , but for reading and writing I prefer Y." Or, "I am bilingual. I am a native speaker of X and Y, but for reading and writing I prefer Y." Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I question the statement that "a person's native language is the language he or she learned to speak first". Of course that is usually the case but I know several cases of people who almost lost the language they'd learned first in the first years of their life and in any case are much more fluent in a language they had learned later in life. I even know personally one case where the speaker almost forgot the two languages he had first learned (one after the other, first from about 0 to 5, then from about 5 to 10) and the language he's most fluent in is his third language which he started speaking only about age 10. Since "native language" often implies "language one is most fluent in" one cannot reasonably say such people's first language is their native language. What should one say then, that such people have no native language? Contact Basemetal here 18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Native language means literally "language of birth", according to this source. Of course no one speaks at birth but in practice it does mean the language one learned to speak as a small child. A person can certainly lose the ability to speak his or her native language. My uncle's native language was Polish, but he can't speak more than a few words of it today because he also learned English as a child and stopped using Polish as an adult. My uncle's first language is English, and it his only fluent language. This blog suggests "dominant language" as a term for a person's most fluent language, especially when it differs from the native language. Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My late ex-father-in-law finished up with fluency in no language at all. He was born Russian in the Ukrainian part of Imperial Russia, but after his family was wiped out in 1917 he was taken as a 5-year old boy by the Red Cross to Yugoslavia, where his name was changed, he had horrendous experiences that played a large part in his later becoming a paranoid psychotic, and he forgot all about his early years, except that when he picked up Serbian he always spoke it with a Russian accent and many interpolations of Russian words and expressions. It was neither one thing nor the other. After the war he and his wife were stateless, and they spent years in camps in Germany, Belgium and Italy, knowing no German, French, Dutch or Italian. They migrated to Australia in 1950, and he gradually picked up some rudimentary English but he was never comfortable or remotely fluent with it till the day he died in 2001. They had Russian friends here, but his Russian was always infected with Serbian; and they had Serbian friends, but his Serbian was always infected with Russian. He spoke English only when unavoidable. Essentially, he lived his whole life in hostile linguistic environments. -- Jack of Oz 21:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I can add two cases to this gallery of non-standard linguistic situations. One is a guy that I once read about on the old Indology list back in the days: an Indian Tamil both of whose parents were Tamil but whose father chose to speak almost only English with him while his mother spoke to him only Tamil. Because the father had some sort of job for the central government (do they say federal?) he spent his childhood moving around the country (he was in fact, even though a Tamil, born in Kerala), from Mumbai to Calcutta, from Delhi to Kerala, etc. As a result as long as he lived in India (he now lives in the US) his most fluent language was neither his Vatersprache (English) nor his Muttersprache (Tamil), but Hindi, and with his siblings and friends he used mostly Hindi and English or a mixture of both (Hinglish). Apparently such cases are far from unique in India especially in families that move around a lot. My other case is that of the 17th c. French mathematician, physicist, philosopher, writer, etc. Blaise Pascal. There is a letter of his to another great French mathematician, Fermat, in which he explains a solution he found to the so called "problème des partis" (that letter apparently is one of the first examples of modern probabilistic reasoning but that's an aside). The letter starts in French, then at some point Pascal writes that he'll switch to Latin because he finds it impossible to talk about mathematics in French: "le français n'y vaut rien" if I remember correctly: "the French language is worthless for that" (ie mathematics). Note that was Pascal's opinion not mine and as generations of brilliant French mathematicians writing brilliantly in French can testify it is of course not true today, but it may have been in the 17th c. And indeed he does switch to and continues the letter in Latin. So in the 17th c. a fluent French speaker, a native speaker of French, a master of French prose in fact (if you know anything about Pascal as a writer), couldn't express his mathematical thinking in his mother tongue but had to switch to Latin. So "dominant language" seems to be a relative term. Contact Basemetal here 23:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V may or may not have said, "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll also use small letters for what is only a footnote and a bit of a correction to what I wrote above. While trying to find the text of Pascal's letter on the net I stumbled on Google Books into this: Dominique Descotes, "Blaise Pascal: Littérature et Géométrie". It seems Pascal's attitude to the use of French in mathematics was more nuanced than what he was telling Fermat in that letter and that he even wrote some of his mathematical works in French. Chapter II ("Des lettres et des chiffres) which can be read entirely in the Google Books preview (pp. 55-109), and especially the first section "Pascal et la langue des géomètres", contains a discussion of Pascal's contradictory attitude regarding the use of French for mathematics. As an aside it seems Italian and Dutch/Flemish mathematicians (Simon Stevin, "Wiskonstighe Ghedachtenissen") had started to use their vernaculars for mathematics much earlier on. Ironically it seems the Fleming Simon Stevin also wrote in French ("La pratique d'arithmétique", 1585) which would mean that the Flemings had started using French for mathematics before the French themselves! Almost hard to believe but the works of the French mathematician Viète for example, are all in Latin, and that as late as 1600. However please don't rely blindly on this data but double check it if it is essential that it be accurate as it all comes from Misplaced Pages :) As to English and German mathematicians they seem to have been even more late at the party. Newton I think wrote his works in Latin. Leibnitz wrote some of his philosophical works in French but as far as I know used Latin for mathematics. I wonder when the English started using English for mathematics. As to Keizer Karel and his linguistic division of labor (if he is indeed the author of "I speak Spanish to God etc."), not only did he forget to mention Dutch/Flemish (he was born in Ghent) and even though French is usually mentioned as his mother tongue (actually his mother was Spanish: and what was she doing in Belgium at the time? visiting with her sister-in-law? maybe you've heard the that "Charles V was born at his aunt's because his mother couldn't be there at the time") he was completely fluent in Dutch. More surprising even from that defender of Catholicism: Spanish to God? I thought at that time you could get in serious trouble in Catholic countries if you presumed to talk to God and to read God's word in anything other than Latin. Contact Basemetal here 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Numbering of English kings

Why is it that Edward Longshanks is called Edward I, when there had been three previous kings of England named Edward? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

See Regnal number. The English monarchy officially re-started at the Norman Conquest, and everything is numbered since 1066. Mogism (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I also believe English kings before 1066 styled themselves "Kings of the English". WP doesn't do that (see Edward the Confessor). That could be because I am wrong (I'm almost sure for Alfred the Great though) or because WP is wrong. Contact Basemetal here 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked the same question of my college professor many years ago, and she gave me the same answer Mogism gives above. I didn't buy it, but I didn't know where to look for a more plausible answer. Fortunately, Marc Morris in his recent bio of Longshanks gets to the bottom of it. Some chroniclers in Edward I's day actually called him Edward III (they miscounted, forgetting the forgettable Edward the Martyr), but most just called him "King Edward, son of King Henry". But after three King Edwards in a row, people felt the need to distinguish them, so they started calling the current king Edward III, and his father and grandfather Edward I & II. The numbers stuck. The idea that the numbering "started over" after the Conquest was a later attempt by historians to make sense of the oddity. —Kevin Myers 07:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting explanation and for questioning the established answer. However all of this is still rather too vague to decisively settle the question. If as you say most chroniclers did not give him a regnal number and only some of them called him Edward III, then that shows that for most chroniclers the Anglo-Saxon Edwards did not have to be taken into account. It is not necessary that those chroniclers had explicitly called him Edward I: by not giving him a regnal number it is obvious that to those chroniclers (and you say that's most of them) he was the first Edward. And to say that the real reason the first three Edwards (after 1066) are Edward I, II and III and not Edward III, IV and V (or IV, V and VI) is that "after three King Edwards in a row people felt the need to distinguish them" is an entirely incomprehensible statement to me. By that logic "after three King Henry (IV, V and VI) in a row" people would have felt the need to distinguish them and would have started all over, Henry Bolingbroke being thereafter called Henry I, etc. I guess this question warrants a longer discussion and will not be settled here at the RD. But what you have shown of Marc Morris's arguments does not convince me he's overturned the established wisdom, only that he's usefully questioned it, and that is always fruitful I'd say. Contact Basemetal here 18:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: Are you talking of Marc Morris, A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain, 2008 or something even more recent? Contact Basemetal here 18:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's the book. This is an interesting discussion. Your assertion that those chroniclers in Edward I's reign who didn't assign him a regnal number failed to do so because they regarded him as the first Edward seems like an anachronistic leap to me. My guess is that the simple explanation is probably correct: they didn't need a number because the previous Edwards had nicknames (Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor). Calling him "Edward, son of King Henry" was all they needed to distinguish him. That approach wouldn't work after the second "Edward, son of King Edward", so numbers became an easier way to distinguish the three recent Edwards. Almost certainly, restarting the Edwards' regnal numbers was a convenience, not a design. I imagine Henry III, who was devoted to Edward the Confessor and named his son after him, would have never dreamed that his son would be called Edward I. —Kevin Myers 08:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Regnal numbers outside Europe

Regnal number says before 1400 regnal numbers are anachronistic. But that article only deals with European monarchs. What's the situation elsewhere? For example in Ancient Egypt? Did the Egyptians themselves use regnal numbers or are they only applied retrospectively by modern historians? Contact Basemetal here 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian regnal numbers were only applied by modern historians. In the dynastic era, each pharaoh had five names, one of which (the nomen or "son of Ra" name) was his birth name and four of which were composed for him upon accession, sort of like personalized royal titles. The most important of the five names were the praenomen, or throne name, and the son of Ra name. The former was actually the most important to the Egyptians; if they referred to a king by one name only, it would be the throne name. I suppose modern Egyptologists find it more convenient to refer to kings by the names they held throughout their lives and then tell them apart by numbering them, especially because some kings reused predecessors' throne names.

The Ptolemaic kings of Egypt were a bit different. They were all named Ptolemy, and they used titles in Greek to distinguish themselves. Unfortunately, some of those titles were reused as well, and their subjects often told them apart by using unflattering nicknames. (Each Ptolemy had a traditional five-name titulary, but, except maybe the throne name, I would guess it showed up only in temple inscriptions.) When modern scholars give the Ptolemies numbers, you get messy names like Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II or Ptolemy VIII Physcon. Scholars also number the women of the Ptolemaic family. Most of these women did not reign in their own right, but I suppose giving them numbers is the only way to tell them apart, given that they were practically all named either Arsinoe, Berenice, or Cleopatra. A. Parrot (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you A. Parrot for this useful summary. Contact Basemetal here 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A question regarding hypothetical "Gogo" Emperors

Japanese emperors had no regnal numbers but if an emperor had the same posthumous name as a previous one the prefix "Go" (後) meaning "later" was added. For example Emperors Ichijou (986-1011) and Go-Ichijou (1016-1036) (the first example, I could find in List of Emperors of Japan), Emperors Shirakawa (1073–1086) and Go-Shirakawa (1155–1158), etc. The last such ones were Emperors Momozono (1747–1762) and Go-Momozono (1771–1779). Incidentally, if you want to watch the Machiavellian emperor Go-Shirakawa in action, I recommend "Yoshitsune" the NHK Taiga Dorama of 2005 whose 50 or so episodes are all on YouTube with English subtitles, but then you should hurry because you know how things go over there. But to proceed: it so happens that there's never been a third emperor with the same name as two previous ones. Is this a coincidence or were three emperors with the same name explicitly avoided for some reason? If it is just a coincidence what prefix could (hypothetically) be used to indicate a third emperor of a given name. Certainly not "Gogo" as above. That was meant as a bit of a joke. I hope no Japanese will take offense with a stupid joke. Nevertheless this is a real question. Talking of baka gaijin jokes here's another: you may or may not know that there are times where the particle (postposition) "no" (の) is pronounced but not written. For examples there are surnames such as 木下 (Ki(no)shita) or 井上 (I(no)ue) and I would almost be tempted to guess this is in fact the case for all Japanese surnames containing の (as I have never seen hiraganas used in writing a Japanese surname) but the truth is I'm not sure. In any case I was working at a place with both Japanese and Gaijin. A temp was hired whose name was Kinoshita. So the Japanese explained to the Gaijin that in writing the name of that lady you pronounce the "no" but you don't write it. So an Indian fellow quipped: "To write a の in her name is a no no! But to write no の in her name is also a no no!". Ha ha ha. Well, the cleverest people do not get sent to Japan. Contact Basemetal here 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 9

elected Cabinets?

In at least some of these several united States, most(?) cabinet officers are separately elected, rather than appointed by the chief executive; thus a voter in California punches a chad not only for Governor but also for Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer and so on. Is that true in any sovereign state? I'm interested in indirect elections (i.e. by a parliament) too. —Tamfang (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Cabinet of the United Kingdom are also appointed to their posts, but they are nearly always selected from among the Members of Parliament, and so must have been elected to parliament. (The "nearly always" is because occasionally they are members of the House of Lords, who are not elected). --ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any UK Cabinet that did not contain some peers, but I'd be happy to be corrected. There are always fewer of them than elected MPs, but I believe there have always been some. This split is reflected in most Westminster Cabinets, e.g. Australian Cabinets are composed predominantly of Members of the House of Representatives, but there have always been some Senators as well. Both Houses are fully elected in most bicameral Westminster systems; the UK House of Lords and the Canadian Senate are the obvious exceptions. -- Jack of Oz 20:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this misses the point. Sure, most cabinet members are elected as MPs - but if I understand the OP correctly, he wants to know about instances where a minister is elected into that particular office. As I understand in, in the UK, ministers are not individually elected, but appointed by the Prime Minister. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That was my understanding of the question too, Stephen. I just wanted to comment on Colin's comment. -- Jack of Oz 21:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, IIRC, in the UK, convention holds that Cabinet members should be also members of parliament, but I don't know that there's any law that requires it. The sovereign in law (and the Prime Minister in practice) is free to appoint anyone to such positions. That it never DOESN'T happen the way it always has doesn't mean there is a legal requirement to work that way. --Jayron32 00:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the answer: The second key constitutional constraint is convention: ministers are presumed to be members of Parliament. This is only convention: in theory there is nothing to stop a Prime Minister from appointing someone from outside Parliament altogether. (Putting Goats Among the Wolves: Appointing Ministers from Outside Parliament, p. 25). The "altogether" bit harks back to Gordon Brown's appointment of a Government of All the Talents (hence the acronym GOAT), in which he brought in people with no parliamentary experience and had them appointed to the House of Lords, and then had them appointed Ministers. The paper above is contemplating a scenario where the ministers appointed would not become members of either chamber. This seems never to have happened, at least for many centuries since the genesis of the Westminster system.

Btw, the Australian Constitution explicitly provides for appointment of people not in the parliament as ministers, but with the proviso that their appointment will lapse if they do not become a member of either chamber within 3 months. -- Jack of Oz 02:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure your last point is correct. A fully elected upper house appears to be the exception not the rule, in bicarmel Westminster system governments. Specifically the Australian Senate is actually the the only ones listed in our article which is completely directly elected.

The Senate of Pakistan appears to mostly elected by members of the Provincial Assemblies and does have some directly elected if I understand the article correctly. A few I'm not certain how they're chosen although our article does call them all elections. There is also the Indian Rajya Sabha which is mostly (it has 12/245 appointed members) indirectly elected (elected by the state and territorial reprentatives).

Next we have the Seanad Éireann of Ireland who are mostly (43/60) indirectly elected (elected by various representatives) from panels and with a small number elected by graduates of certain universities. But also includes some who are appointed (11/60).

Finally the Malaysian Dewan Negara nowadays includes a minority of indirectly elected members (elected by state legislative assemblies) and a majority who are appointed. Originally the majority were indirectly elected with the appointees being in the majority but this has controversially been changed over time. (I don't think the number of state reprenstatives has decreased, just the number of appointees has.) The constitution also has a provision for direct election of the (now minority) state representing senators but this has never been implemented.

Beyond that, other than the appointed Senate of Canada and the (appointed but fairly complicated) House of Lords of the United Kingdom, as per Westminster system#Current countries we have Senate of Saint Lucia, Senate of the Parliament of Jamaica, Senate of the Parliament of Grenada, Senate (Belize), Senate of Barbados, Senate of Bermuda, Senate of Parliament of the Bahamas, Senate (Antigua and Barbuda), Senate (Trinidad and Tobago) all of which are appointed according to our articles. The few references I checked seemed to confirm the cases I checked. In any case there seems to be a similar system for most of these Carribean nations of some of the appointees being by the Governor General, some on the advice of the Prime Minister, and some on the advice of the leader of opposition.

The large number of Caribbean governments obviously doesn't help the case, nor does the large number of unicarmel legislatures. Israeli Knesset, Parliament of Singapore, New Zealand Parliament, Parliament of Vanuatu, Parliament of Tuvalu, National Parliament of the Solomon Islands, House of Assembly of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, National Assembly (Saint Kitts and Nevis), National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, Parliament of Nauru, National Assembly (Mauritius), Parliament of Malta, House of Assembly of Dominica, Bangladeshi Jatiyo Sangshad. Although excluding all the Carribean ones, even if we include Australia, Pakistan and India (considering the appointed members represent less than 5%), we still have Ireland (18% is far from a majority but it's still enough that I don't think we can discount them), Malaysia, Canada, UK and perhaps Belize which are not fully elected.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The US: each presidential elector has two votes one for President and one for Vice-President. They don't have to vote for a President and a Vice-President on the same ticket. They could collectively elect a President from one ticket and a Vice-President from an opposing ticket if enough of them did that. But I don't know if that's happened ever.

Where they have both President (either elected by general suffrage or by the parliament) and Prime Minister they are not strictly speaking both elected separately as the Prime Minister is not directly elected (except for a short time in Israel) but is the outcome of legislative elections.

On the other hand in some presidential systems some members of the Executive, while not being elected directly, may have to undergo confirmation by a legislative body (e.g. the Senate in the US), which, while not as irrational as direct elections of members of the Executive over the head of the Chief of that Executive, can still interfere somewhat with the ability of the Chief of the Executive to assemble around him a team to his liking.

Contact Basemetal here 21:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In theory, the electors could have voted for, say, Obama for President and Ryan for Vice President. But that's not going to happen. The electors represent their party. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In a recent cycle, iirc, one Elector got mixed up and voted (say) Cheney/Bush rather than Bush/Cheney. —Tamfang (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

World Wide Win

With the Internet (hereafter referred to as the "World Wide Web", "the Web" and "WWW", irrespective of whether or not those terms are precisely accurate here) mankind has finally found a way to allow one to keep one's gender roun if one so chooses. This can (note that I said "can" and not "will") make some conversations that were once (due to certain fellows' perceptions) impossible, now possible, as well as some perceptions held by some fellows to be heard by those who would never have heard them before (this is both good and bad at times, one might argue). In addition, certain dialectal pronunciations don't have to be heard by those who do not wish to hear them, yet one can still hear the arguments and statements of speakers of those dialects and not have to be distracted by their pronunciations, and can more adequately take in what is being said by them.

Now, the Web isn't perfect in terms of communication, of course, as it starkly fails to express human emotion and tone. Nevertheless, it does improve upon certain aspects of general communication. This does not mean that it is a legitimate substitute for normal human interaction, but it can be a good supplement to it if utilised in certain ways.

Nevertheless, all of this begs the question:

Why did it take the World Wide Web to fangle a (functional) venue for (more-or-less) genderless communication and the like? Why couldn't such a thing be adequately put together long, long ago? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read about the Telegraph, for one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Whilst vaguely similar in the sense of its ability to communicate with many people, it was a pay-per-word system (IIRC. I didn't read the article because I don't think it has any information relevant to this discussion that I am not already aware of) and wasn't as widespread. It's far closer to the telephone than it is to the Web in terms of communication. By the logic you seem to be using, one could simply use a voice changer over a phone to achieve the same results. Not so, for what I was referring to in my question was the scenario that the Web presents, in which one can essentially do the many things one does in normal life, sans gender. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How is this any different from paper? Plenty of people throughout history have written under either gender-neutral names or as members of the opposite sex. Mogism (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just about any form of old-time communication that was possible to be used in a genderless way has been used that way.

Pen_name#Female_authors is the obvious example, but there are others. All kinds of written correspondence has been used throughout history in this way. Usually so that female authors could be respected in a male centered society, but not always. Ben Franklin famously wrote The Speech of Polly Baker which was originally published as non-fiction.

I suppose you're asking why there wasn't a two-way communication system that allowed gender concealment, in the way of Facebook or Twitter. The answer is that such communication systems didn't really exist. The closest analog are either personal letter-writing, or newspapers' classified and letters sections (which were very popular sections back in the day.) I don't have a reference to prove that people concealed their identity while debating local politics in public forum of the paper's letters' page, but I'd be astonished if it never happened.

APL (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There was at least one guy who wrote his own obituary, in the sort of anonymous voice those typically use. His local paper refused to run it, but two out-of-state ones did. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

As for letters to the editor, apparently it goes beyond local politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

In the olden days Letters pages functioned more like a discussion board than they do now. Now, most letters are either political propaganda or angry rants at the paper itself. But if you find a pre-internet newspaper, or better yet, a pre-internet magazine about a niche topic, the letters pages are often filled with back-and-forth discussion. APL (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Writing letters to the paper under genderless pseudonyms generated its own pre-internet meme, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, which apparently dates back to the 1950s. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is also a rather language-dependant (English-dependant?) generalization. In many languages (for example French, or Hindi, or Polish) the writer's sex cannot be concealed in writing, except through deliberate dissimulation. 184.147.132.209 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The same is true in Russian, but only when writing in the past tense singular. All past tense singular verbs have different endings depending on the gender of the referent. But present tense verbs do not (and the future tense doesn't have its own separate form anyway). If writing in the past tense, you can avoid disclosing your own sex only if you confine your writing to second and third persons, or plural. Even then, it can be tricky, e.g. referring to "my wife" sort of presupposes the author is a male, even these days. -- Jack of Oz 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Certain smoke signals in different cultures were undoubtedly functional forms of prehistoric genderless communication, e.g., "danger!" "here", "whale ashore: party time after butchering!" The scholarly community is divided (along predictable lines) as to whether or not the white smoke signalling "new Pope elected" is necessarily a form of gendered communication (i.e., "That's Mr. Pope, to you") or better thought of as a non-gendered declarative, akin to "danger!"

Other scholars note that the mere sign of smoke, when coming from a known location &/or accompanied by certain smells, was often interpreted as something like "mammoth's hot: BYOF! (Bring Your Own Flint)" - again, an inherently genderless signal, depending on cultural norms and gender stereotypes concerning the fine art of barbequing bison and other free-range meats.

That article on gender and language notes several hypothesized distinctive speech norms associated with gender, beyond gender pronouns and stereotypical words. Many are amenable to more-or-less automated empirical test, using the massive data sets made available thanks to the WWW and its unholy spawn, Facebook. Arguably (which I certainly won't here), modern communication technologies, like clothes, can help hide, but rarely totally obliterate, certain linguistic norms that mark male and female uniquely. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

October 10

Humor identification

Here are three events involving identification of humor.

• Recently, another editor expressed appreciation for an unprecedented expression of humor by me, when actually what I had stated was not intended as humor.
• More recently, a public personage made a comment about a current issue, and a news commentator said, in effect, that it was a failed attempt at humor. To me, the comment by the public personage showed no humor and no attempt at humor.
• More recently still, I made a comment to a group of acquaintances (with no attempt at humor), and one of them said to me that what I had just said was not funny.

Is exposure to mass media news and entertainment conditioning various people (a) to perceive humor where none was intended, and (b) to perceive an attempt at humor where no humor was perceived? I would appreciate links to reliable sources discussing this two-part question.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The third one is probably too close to home, but could you link to or quote the first two? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The first event is recorded at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 September 20#Collective term for "Indian-ish" people. I was avoiding linking to it, because I wanted to avoid embarrassing the other editor. I am hesitant to provide additional details about the second event.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. I think the problem was in bringing up Desi Arnaz in the first place. As for the second item, is that too close to home also, or are you just trying to spare a public figure? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid stating why I prefer to avoid providing additional details about the second event.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, how about explaining why you thought the linked term desi required an explanation that it did not refer to Desi Arnaz? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, someone reading the discussion could follow that link and see that it did not refer to Desi Arnaz. My point was that someone hearing the word spoken might confuse it with people having the name "Desi".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point as you've explained it. At the time, to me, it wasn't necessarily funny, it just didn't make sense - like, what has Desi Arnaz got to do with India? Now it makes sense. It just seems like overkill. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

[I should have posted "hearing the word spoken or reading it in a different context".

—Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)]

Maybe it's a cultural thing. Different cultures have very different ideas of what humour is. As an Australian I've learnt to think hard before writing something here that would go over a treat at an Aussie pub. I suspect a lot of Steady Eddy's humour would be regarded as offensive in other countries, but the put-downs are all at his own expense. And I'm not sure if a play called Wogs Out of Work would have universal acceptance. I've found when visiting America that if it's pissing down with rain and I say "Great day for the beach", a lot of people look at me rather strangely. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Things seem a bit funnier to some people if other people laugh. Try watching this laugh-free edit of The Big Bang Theory. There's another one on the same channel with "Indian-ish people", as luck would have it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

• I'd've sworn up and down the allusion to Lucille Ball's ex-husband was a joke. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Me too, but I don't think either of us is a typical American. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sense of humor seems highly subjective, as is how people deal with others' sense of humor and its expression, or the lack of such. Perhaps a corollary could be something like this: Are people increasingly uncomfortable with serious issues (especially via mediums in which they usually seek entertainment/distraction)? Intriguing questions, and for some reason I thought of the odd behavior some cultures have with smiling through nervousness, saving face, and how a visitor can too easily misinterpret that sort of reaction... Anyway, i looked for some psychological discussions of the value of humor and thus came upon a wiki article, Theories of humor which briefly mentions 3 main theories (relief, superiority and incongruity) of interest, if not applicable to this discussion, along with one possibly more fitting to this topic: Misattribution Theory. El duderino 08:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, some people might say "that's not funny" to convey the meaning "I disapprove of what you just said". I'm not accusing you of this but often people will try to play off racist/sexist and other offensive comments as a joke to avoid responsibility. I have no idea what you said, just thought it might be worth considering that the speaker knew what you said wasn't a joke, and wanted to express disapproval or disagreement. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I was sometimes on the outside of the cool crowd in grade school/middleschool/highschool and I remember once making a joke, and my peers just stared at me, but one said, "Well, it would have been funny if Denny had said it." The reaction to humor depends on the source. Identified source of humor: remark is a funny joke. Random person: remark is an insult or just something to cause a scoff or an eyeroll, a look of contempt or no response. Context is everything. If someone goes to a comedy club and the person on stage insults the hearer's clothes/girlfriend/haircut/skincolor/accent, a guy might laugh to show he is a good sport, but if the speaker had said the same thing to him on the street, he would have punched the speaker. There is in humans a "theory of mind." We hear an utterance, and interpret in light of what we think the speaker's intention is. Is he a likeable person making a funny joke? Then we parse the utterance differently than if he is a bully putting us down, or a pariah acting in an embarrassing way. The identical utterance, from two different speakers, can result in a laugh and "Oh, you are so silly!" or a cold stare and "Were you addressing ME?" Edison (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is he a she? As dumbass Fry happily remarked after the Futurama crew traded bits and pieces, "Now, when I say stupid things, guys all laugh and buy me stuff." (Things are also funnier seen and heard than read.) InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, October 11, 2014 (UTC)

A more reliable, gender-equal source. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, October 11, 2014 (UTC)

Election of the Philippine Senate through Panachage

Isn't also the selection system of the Philippine Senate through panachage? There, voters select out of a list of candidates' names up to 12 candidates. Looking at the definition of the term, panachage is then also used for senatorial elections in the Philippines. --112.198.82.200 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How/why/when did "European civilisation" become the global default?

When one thinks of major historical movements most seem to have been driven from/by Europe. For example, most of Africa and the "New World" was colonized by Europeans, not Chinese, though the Arabs got a few bits. There was a period of several centuries after the collapse of the Roman Empire when the Chinese could have rolled into Europe and colonized it much like the Europeans later did to the Americas and Africa, but they didn't. Middle Easterners tried but failed to colonize/dominate most of Europe. Descendants of the Inca or Maya never "discovered" Australia, Europeans did. In terms of other fields of endeavor such as sciences it's again Europeans (and the European diaspora) that dominates with concepts such as "Western medicine" being the "global default". Europeans adopted Arab mathematics and chemistry and used it sail around the world and blow away what little opposition they met. In politics it's Western style democracy that's held up as the "gold standard". Why is it that Europeans were routinely crossing oceans and conquering all and sundry when most Africans were barely into the iron age and the Far Eastern empires had lost the plot?

My gut tells me that there must have been a time when Europeans were no more likely to "Rule the World" than people from other regions/continents - but something happened that gave them a lead that they have maintained to this day. What was that "something happened"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

it was the invention of the mechanical clock. Honest Asmrulz (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Or the sitting toilet? Gave them time to think deep thoughts (and listen to their mechanical clocks)? Contact Basemetal here 20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See Guns, Germs, and Steel for one argument. In short (IIRC, though I may be getting confused with a few points from a couple of other authors), Europe has a large amount of waterways and mountains that create a balance between isolation to develop unique cultures and pathways to allow exchange, making it a matter of time before they shot off (shot up?) elsewhere.

Max Weber argued that the religions of each area had something to do with it. The Eastern religions have a more cyclical view of time, which makes innovation a bit pointless. The protestant work ethic, in Weber's point of view, is responsible for Western civilization being so common.

Outside of that, Islam spread from Malaysia to Morocco and Kazakhstan to Madagascar, so it's possible to argue that Arabic culture is still just as much a global default (at least for the Old World). They were usually a couple of decades ahead of Europe in terms of science and other developments up until the printing press. It was easier to do Latin letters than Arabic on a printing press, which gave Europe a boost.

Also, it wasn't so much that China fell behind as they managed to get into a more-or-less self-sustaining situation pretty quickly. The reason they didn't have the same sort of massive changes that were common to European history is that they didn't need them.

And, of course, there's also the argument that the West actually has it all wrong and assuming that the West is the global default is Eurocentric. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Great Divergence covers this subject and seems to be reasonably well sourced. A. Parrot (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was very worried about that article but it seems good now. The Pomeranz book of the same name is interesting but may be a bit too detailed unless you are used to reading economic history. Pomeranz' main argument is that Western Europe and the Yangtze Delta were the two "core regions" of 18th century Eurasia but England had an incentive to develop the steam engine to pump water out of coal mines, whereas in China the problem with mines was that they were too dry (hence the invention of various devices), and also long distant from the main industrial areas. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

12, September, 1683 μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

US Presidents, having won only a minority of states

I'm not sure, but after a quick check I think that in the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy became the first American President to carry only a minority of states (22/23:26), save for the very different 1824 election. Is this correct? It seems that this aspect of US presidential elections is rather ignored... why? --KnightMove (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Who says it is? And who says it matters? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Who says it matters" is an odd complaint on a Reference Desk which answers mostly questions of little interest to the general public. If a question matters to the person posing it, then we can individually choose to find an answer to it or we can choose to move on to some other activity which interests us more. Edison (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Which of those two options are you engaged in right now? >:) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe Baseball Bugs was not referring to the question itself ("Did JFK carry a minority of states?") but to the remark that this aspect of US presidential elections is ignored: "Who says it is?" i.e. "Is this aspect really ignored?" and "Who says it matters?" i.e. "Even if it is why does it matter given you're saying there are at most two such examples?" IMO the OP's question is a valid question and Baseball Bugs's reaction is also a valid reaction. Contact Basemetal here 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Did Abraham Lincoln win a majority of states in his first election? μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, he did. The article on the 1860 election shows that Lincoln's three opponents combined won fewer states than Lincoln, something like 15 to Abe's 18. He of course won the electoral vote, which is what really matters. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Who cares who did it second? Who climbed Mount Everest after Hillary and Norgay is a trivia question. John Quincey Adams was the MAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The only one since JFK was 1976, where Carter won in 24 states (including DC) and Ford in 27. Also, in 1960, JFK would have won two more states were it not for the rogues in a couple of deep-south states casting electoral votes for Byrd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's alright Bugs, the dead Chicagoans who took Illinois for JFK more than made up for the racist Democrat traitors. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That was a sign that the solid, segregationist south was starting to look unfavorably on the Democrats, but the Republicans weren't ready to fill that vacuum yet. Your mentioning of Chicago reminds me of this one which was circulating in the late fall of 1960: "Nixon, Kennedy and Daley are on a sinking boat, and there's only one life jacket. So they take a vote to see who gets it. Daley wins 7 to 2." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Who says it matters?" - I don't think that you can draw a clear line between information that matters and useless knowledge. Is my question less interesting than the facts mentioned in the "electoral milestones", and if so, why? --KnightMove (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not; I'm adding it to that section.

One source on this question is this NARA page where the electoral votes by state are tabulated on a series of subpages (but not as many as one subpage per election), unfortunately with varying table formats over time, making it nontrivial to produce a single table by computer. Looking through the tables by eye, I confirm what has been said above; but I also note that there have been two elections, ] and 1880, when each of the leading candidates won an equal number of states: thus neither a majority of states (as usually happens) nor a minority (as the question asked for). That seems notable as well, and I'll add it to those articles. --174.88.135.88 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Winning a majority of states has nothing directly to do with winning the presidency. You should note that Grover Cleveland had more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison in their election, but Harrison won the electoral vote, which is the only thing that matters constitutionally. So it may be interesting trivia, but it doesn't really matter. And keep in mind that the smaller-populated states are over-represented in the electoral college anyway. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Names of the Drekkanas, and/or other decans

I've been trying to find a list of names of the Drekkanas, the Indian version of the Decans. I've skimmed and searched the relevant sections of the Brihat Jataka and the Jaimini Sutras, done some Google searches, and even flipped through a couple of "how-to" books (ugh), and to date all I've found is the repeated assertion (never noting its ultimate source) that the 22nd drekkana is named Khara, and its lord is Karesh.

My main question here is about the Drekkanas, but I'm trying to assemble a list of the different names of the decans for a role-playing game I'm working on (and if I get particularly good sources, I'll probably improve some articles here as I've done before). If anyone knows of other lists of decans, I'd be interested in those as well. I'm aware of and have access to four Egyptian lists, those in the Testament of Solomon, the Liber Hermetis, stuff in Liber 777 for which I can't find an earlier sources, and some that Franz Bardon seemed to have made up. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Where in heaven is a drekkana list when you really need one? Can't choose my lucky number or next wife (lucky her!) without it, let alone predict the date of my death. Twenty commentaries on Brihat Jataka (yes, I read ch. 27) and no chart in Misplaced Pages? Unacceptable in this lifetime, however long.

Note, found nothing in JSTOR of immediate help, nor in search of several recent non-Western astronomy histories. Added better ref to (Egyptian)decans for your troubles. At a loss for wife. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

October 11

Sci-fi story about life-forms from the Earth's mantle

I've been trying to find this for days and it's driving me nuts-- years ago I read a sci-fi short story about creatures that lived in the Earth's mantle, and ventured onto the surface in pressurized suits. Anyone know what I'm talking about? 75.4.21.75 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There was an Arthur C. Clarke short story (probably written at least 50 years ago) about deep-earth creatures poking through the remains of human civilization, whose existence they had not been aware of until humans started conducting seismic sounding experiments. Can't remember the title... AnonMoos (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Fires Within. No article, but see this website. It's included in Of Time and Stars. Tevildo (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds about right! I'll have to get that book from a library. 75.4.21.75 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What was the form of village government in Imperial China?

What was the form of village government in Imperial China? I have always been interested in the Qin-Han State as the first bureaucratic centralized state. I'm currently reading Fukuyama's Political Order, and he sees it as the precursor of the modern state that would not be realized until the French Revolution. There is a long history of debate, about just how powerful the Imperial bureaucracy actually was, with theories like Witffogel's Oriental Despotism seeing it as having totalitarian powers. Other sources claim, that like all other pre-modern states, the medieval Chinese state was actually relatively weak when it came to influencing the lives of average villagers. The typical peasant would have no direct contact with the government other than paying taxes.

My interest is in how exactly did the central government in Beijing actually reach down to the village level, and how were the villages governed? Particularly in the Late Imperial era of the Song-Ming-Qing.

Jack Weatherford in Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World suggests that the Mongols introduced some semi-democratic elements on the local level during the Yuan Dynasty at least serving a consultative function.

The Dibao or Headman and its predecessor positions, trace all the way back to the Qin dynasty and were selected in a quasi-democratic fashion by the local village elites. They were chosen bottom up and then answered to the Center.

How were pre-modern villages in China governed, and what was their equivalent of 'mayor'? How were they selected? How did local government function in Old China in relation to the Imperial Bureaucracy? --Gary123 (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I found Arbitration in China: A Legal and Cultural Analysis by Kun Fan which refers to an edict in the reign of the Emperor Kangxi (1661 to 1722), saying that disputes should be settled by "some old man or the mayor of the commune". There are earlier mentions of "village elders". Alansplodge (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Village Governance in Chinese History, a background chapter from a 2006 thesis on Political Economy of Village Governance in Contemporary China has a few more references for you to dig into. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Poverty and resource rich countries

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this question so bear with me. I'm struggling to figure out how resource rich countries like Saudi Arabia are still so plagued by poverty. Now you could say that it's because the wealth is being concentrated in just a small minority, but how is that any different than America? Isn't the divide between the rich and everyone else just as bad over here? But yet we don't have the same poverty issues in America as they do in Saudi Arabia. What is it about their government that prevents the poor from achieving middle class status over there, that doesn't in America? ScienceApe (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for the claim that "we don't have the same poverty issues in America as they do in Saudi Arabia"? HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very broad-based and vague claim, that requires some evidence before the question could be taken seriously. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I just assumed we don't. I could be wrong. Taking a look at poverty a lot of the stats for Saudi Arabia are mysteriously absent. ScienceApe (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe -- Not sure Saudi Arabia is the best example. Just like some of the Gulf states, the Saudis have intended to use their oil revenues to jump-start economic development, and share the wealth with their citizens, but (partly because of their larger population) they've been less successful at it, leaving their economy in a somewhat middling muddling state, but without a large-scale burden of absolute poverty (as far as I'm aware). Better examples of resource-rich countries with significant crushing poverty are Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You may find our article on the resource curse relevant. John M Baker (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the slogan "We are the 99%" trademarked or in the public domain?

Is the slogan "We are the 99%" trademarked or in the public domain? It is used by the Occupy Movement for activism. It seems that the slogan has no official owner (non-proprietary) WJetChao (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

To try to trademark that slogan would sink under its own irony. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually... - "WE ARE THE 99%" was registered by one Ian McLaughlin of Brooklyn on October 7, 2011 for bumper stickers, bags, clothing and footwear, under serial number 85441931. The USPTO show it as DEAD/ABANDONED. Tevildo (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence, Ian's attempt to join the 1% failed. That's capitalism. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A better link. Tevildo (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WJetChao -- Trademark rights generally only protect commercial rights in a specific context, to prevent someone from making money using the same name or a "confusingly similar" name to the one you're using. In the United States, they cannot be used to restrict criticism and commentary, or non-commercial advocacy. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It would definitely get weird if that were the case, with boycotts against generic businesses, like ads for "big game" snacking requirements. Nobody would know where not to shop, only where. And many burned effigies would need to be replaced by non-descript sacks of straw. That's not civilized. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

How can you possibly be libertarian and socially conservative at the same time?

How can yu possibly be libertarian and socially conservative at the same time? It seems that many who say that they are for small government also want the government to regulate social issues. Wouldnt that require a nanny state? It doesnt make any sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.181 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 11 October 2014

People rarely fit into neat boxes that you can stick a label on. One can have a libertarian view on some issues, and not have a libertarian view on other issues. Few people are 100% libertarian or 100% social conservative (this goes for any other political label you may choose). Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the Libertarian Party in the US is a minor party. Thus, if they want to have a serious chance at being elected, in most places a Libertarian candidate would need to join either the Democrats or Republicans. The Republicans agree with them on some issues, like small government/low taxes, the right to bear arms, and the general "keep the government off my back" attitude. Of course, Republicans don't always hold to that, and are very much for government regulation when it comes to outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage, imprisoning people for possession of marijuana, etc. Also, Republicans are frequently for military intervention, which then requires massive taxes to pay for it all. Many Republicans also support "corporate welfare" like subsidies for US agriculture. But I've seen signs that the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party may be dragging the rest of the Republicans more in it's direction. The same may also be true of the Democratic Party, which no longer seems to support "the dole", at least not the old form where the recipients just get a check every week with no expectation that they will do anything to improve their situation. StuRat (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why the tea party chose its direction. Being a third party was a waste of time. Instead, they are slowly hijacking the Republican party. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Over simplification... not all Republicans think abortion should be illegal, or oppose same sex-marriage, or have a problem with the legalization of marijuana, etc. The Republican Party is really an alliance of three groups... 1) social conservatives, 2) fiscal conservatives, and 3) small government libertarians. These three "wings" of the Republican Party don't march in lockstep and frequently disagree. One of the things that made Bill Clinton successful as a President (and as a leader of the Democratic Party) was that he was able to (temporarily) woo the fiscal conservatives away from the alliance, by adopting some of the policies that the fiscal conservatives cared about. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The important thing to keep in mind is a libertarian is for limited government involvement, not no government (the latter bewing anarchists). Libertarians generally would permit the government to be involved in those things which are considered "core" government functions. This usually includes running a police force and prohibiting murder, for example. What they're against is the government making laws which, say, prohibit you from painting your house a color that offends your neighbor. The question you run into, though, is where do you draw the line between things like murder, which the government can prosecute, and painting your house, which the government shouldn't? Yes, the difference between them is obvious, but can you articulate that distinction precisely? That ambiguity is where the concept of a "socially conservative libertarian" can come into play. They're libertarians in the sense that they believe that government should be strictly limited to only the "core" functions, but they're socially conservative in the sense that they believe that regulating moral order is one of those core functions. For them, the social issues are being placed into the same category a murder - an offense severe enough that it deserves government regulation. -- That said, you may be talking about people like a number of Republicans in the U.S., who are for limited government but also for regulating social issues. I would say that often they're not really "libertarian", they're just pro-"small government". That is, limiting the size of government is not a core principle but rather it's more a practical matter to get government out of areas where it's doing harm by regulation. (Another way of putting it is they're for small government because of the observed harms big government does, rather than any belief that government is antithetical to liberty.) -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Limited government" is right-wing code for taking away the social safety net and reasserting white male supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does white male supremacy mean? Forced Mormon polygamy? No female news anchors? The leather guy from The Village People becomes president? μηδείς (talk) 12:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)

It means returning the USA's social pyramid to the "good old days", ca. 1950. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but Jim Crow laws were put in place by Southern Democrats (as a boy, my father was shocked to encounter such things in Maryland, as opposed to his native Pennsylvania), Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat segregated the military, and lynching was simply murder, not a libertarian policy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had 80% Republican support and 20 points less among Democrats. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence the "solid south", which melted once the Democrats became the civil rights party. Tell us, how did Barry Goldwater vote on the civil rights bills? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, do we have a break down per senator? I am not sure what you mean by "became the civil rights party". Some example like drafting more blacks proportionately to die in Vietnam, until Nixon ended the war and the draft, might help. In any case what this has to do with socially conservative libertarians escapes me. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

More often it's code for "Keep the taxman's greedy hands off my porkbarrel," but sometimes it's principled and sincere. Please don't throw bait here. —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it more convenient to use ‘libertarian’ as a relative term, meaning "preferring less government" than someone else. Libertarians generally want to abolish state functions that do net harm, and those that can be done better by the economic sector; if one concludes that this criterion leaves nothing, does one suddenly cease to be a libertarian? —Tamfang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• The unsigned IP's question is vague, patronizing to the point of debate fomenting, and rather unimaginative. A libertarian can think organized religion is a good idea without forcing anyone to participate in it, or even himself believing in it. He might oppose late term abortions as killing viable persons, while having no problem with birth control or early abortions. He might oppose institutionalizing gay marriage with the force of law on the grounds it deprives children of either a mother or a father, and forces others to recognize the union or have their property taken away. He can do this while being gay himself, and having no opposition to any religious ceremonies, or the right of a couple to designate each other heirs and next of kin. If he does have children he might prefer to homeschool them, or send them to a parochial school, and not allow them access to social media, or sexualized songs and videos, while allowing other people to do so. He might even not have a problem with a law that says you can't paint your house pink within an established neighborhood if it means damaging the neighbor's property value: see "coming to the nuisance" as alternative to zoning. This all follows quite easily under minarchist laissez-faire classical liberalism. Try the literature section at mises.org, although you will find plenty of anarchists at that website. They are a different sort of animal. μηδείς (talk) 12:20 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• The problem starts with "How can you possibly be...?" Anyone can have any set of viewpoints, hence anything is possible. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yea, if a Jew can join the KKK, then anything is possible: . StuRat (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds like Bobby Fischer. He didn't join the KKK, but he wasn't keen on his Jewish heritage. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And most people don't spend much time worrying about whether their opinions on different subjects form a coherent overall theory. —Tamfang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's quite clear that you don't. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to share what gives you that impression, kindly do so on my Talk page rather than here. —Tamfang (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

199.119.235.181 -- Historically there has been a lot of quasi-hypocrisy in the positions of various groups which have simultaneously wanted government to be centralized or interventionist in certain contexts and hands-off or laissez faire in other contexts. The popular 19th-century idea of a so-called "Night-watchman state" seemed to be designed to allow those government activities which helped rich people to hold on to their wealth and forbid all others. In the pre-Civil-War United States, southern advocates were fervently pro-"States rights" and anti-federal-government when it came to nullifying high tariffs or claiming a right to secede, but fervently anti-"States rights" and pro-federal-government when it came to preventing northern states from interfering with the federal fugitive slave law, or demanding that Congress pass a slave code for the U.S. territories. The modern Republican party has often been accused of being "big government" interventionist when it comes to policing sexual morality or abortion, but laissez faire "small government" when it comes to allowing rich people to increase their wealth and large corporations to operate freely without much oversight... AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-summarized. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I wasn't asking for a criticism of small government conservatives though.Maybe you thought that because I used the term nanny state instead of big government. I was asking how conservatives would resolve this paradox. Sorry to respond so slowly but I am quite busyWhereismylunch (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lesbia - Clodia

Does anyone know about a work\book dealing with the identity of Lesbia-Clodia only; I don't mean a commentary but a serious work, which examines all options that may have about the identity of this woman? --79.183.124.99 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

See Clodia#Identification with Lesbia for some references. Tevildo (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OECD and Romania, finding data on economy

Hello, Refdesk. How is your Saturday? I hope you're doing well.

I am currently a bit confused. Turns out Romania is not in OECD, so the wealthy database offered by said organization helps me not at all in finding economic indicators for Romania. I'm trying to find this out on my own, but perhaps some of you are uncharacteristically well equipped to offer advice? I was looking to esbalish nominal and real GDP, look at sectoral developments in regards to efficiency, growth, portion of GDP etc. Thank you in advance for any help, and a good weekend regardless.

80.212.65.241 (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

See Economy of Romania for our main article. Romania is part of the EEA, and statistics on its economy are available from Eurostat. Tevildo (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

International organisations with very broad membership such as the International Labour Organization, IMF and World Bank will also publish economic statistics for Romania. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

David Roediger, editor of The Little Red Songbook, compilation of Wobbly songs

Dear Folks at Misplaced Pages:

Can you help me? I am trying to find a way to contact David Roediger, one of the editors of the 2009 version of the 'Little Red Songbook', the collection of Wobbly songs. Specifically, I am trying to find an old labor song call Barnacle Bill the Sailor, fragments of which I include here:

“Who’s that knocking at my door?

Who’s that knocking at my door?

What’s that noise and what’s it for?”

Said the rich ship owner.

“It’s me,” says he, “I’m home from the sea,”

Said Barnacle Bill, the Sailor.

“I want more grub and I want more pay,”

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

“And more time off and a lot more say,”

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

“I’ve sailed your ship through wind and fog

And I’ve made you fat as a corn-fed hog

And I’ll live no more like a hungry dog,”

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

Many thanks for your help.

Barb Bernhardt <-redacted-> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tughillb (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on a David Roediger, a historian specialising in the American labor movement: I think it is safe to assume it is the same person. He seems to be currently teaching at the University of Kansas. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I've never heard of the labour version of this - only the rather more vulgar drinking song - which we have an article for here:Barnacle Bill (song). This would be good to add to the article. - Eron 14:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There are very similar lyrics to the ones above here. JMiall₰ 14:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And another copy of the lyrics here. This is a link to a scanned copy of "Waterfront Worker", Vol. IV No. 11, printed in San Francisco, March 16, 1936. On the last page are the lyrics to "The Awakening of Barnacle Bill," credited to Michael Quin and the note that it was reprinted from the "Western Worker". - Eron 14:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Diminished capacity to consent and sexual assault

Hi,

I'd like to know :

• how, under the "Yes means yes" rule, sexual assault allegations are handled when none of the partners expressed consent
• or (more generally) how these allegations are handled when all partners expressed consent, but had a diminished capacity to consent: for instance, all partners were drunk or had taken drugs. In this type of cases, are all participants in the sexual act regarded as having assaulted all the other participants in this sexual act?

Thanks.

Apokrif (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In both cases the male is by default the rapist as rape is defined by insertion of appendages into orifices, thus women cannot be guilty of rape in the eyes of the law. They may be guilty of lessor offenses such as molestation, sexual assault, etc. 111.10.44.20 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but my question was about sexual assult in general, not specifically rape, and my question was not imited to a specific jurisdiction (under the French definition, for instance, women can be guilty of rape). Moreover, even with your definition, a man can be a victim of rape (by another man). Apokrif (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) In any case, the previous answer was completely wrong. From our article Rape:

• In 2012, the FBI changed their definition from "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." to "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." for their annual Uniform Crime Reports. The definition, which had remained unchanged since 1927, was considered outdated and narrow. The updated definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men, recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape, includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, and recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. The definition does not change federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the federal, state or local level; it rather means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide.

And that's just the USA. There are other countries and jurisdictions. -- Jack of Oz 19:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Marxist Theological Dialectic

Hello, I am studying for Ph.D in Political Sciences and I am struggling to understand a political concept. If we were to understand the political 'thesis' as such in regards to cultural agendas, Marxist theological and dialectic origins could deserve admirable credit in regards to human application and thereof. However is it possible that such human application could be used to speculate social-economic tendencies within communities that adhere to the 'lumpenproletariat' or perhaps even the 'Petit bourgeoisie'? Marxists texts proclaim such articles as somewhat abhorrent, so I need this contradiction answered as it has left me a little confused. Thanks guys! --Saderette (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your question isn't easy to understand, I'm afraid. Am I right in thinking that English isn't your first language? I don't think "theological", "human application", "speculate" and "articles" are the right English words to use. You may be able to get a better translation of your question if you ask at WP:RD/L - we'll then be able to answer it properly here. Tevildo (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

English is my first language, however I have relayed the question to the Languages desk as requested. Thank you. --Saderette (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

From what part of the English-speaking world? Contact Basemetal here 00:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I get your question either, and I assume you've heard of Liberation Theology, but will mention the article. Also, you might want to contact User:Soman who's a resident specialist, either on his talk page or wait for him to see his name mentioned here. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

How successful were ostiaries in keeping non-Christians out of the church during the Eucharist?

Also, did ostiaries keep Christians who have not confessed their sins out? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Walmart greeters whose personal engagement is a shoplifting deterrent, the mere presence of a person at the door might make you think twice. A bit hard to find sources that aren't about the Pope's recent sermon about baptizing Martians where he says the job of the ostiary is to keep the doors open. Rmhermen (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ostiarius is our article, which is largely copied from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia. Tevildo (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That article says, "According to the 'Apostolic Constitutions' belonging to the end of the fourth century the guarding of the door of the church during the service was the duty of the deacons and subdeacons. Thus the doorkeepers exercised their office only when service was not being held." If that's still true, the answer is that the ostiaries didn't, and that the deacons did; as they might have been expected to know who the church members were. The ostiary's tasks seemed to be more about labor than about filtering the attendees. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article link Ostiarius (not to be confused with Ossuary). I imagine that they were more concerned with Catechumens than non-Christians... AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was confused by Ossuary, and thought that might work as well, except for the undead. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I confused an ostrich, an aviary and a cassowary. So I'm not going to be any help. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

October 12

Why isn't the US in the Inter-Parliamentary Union?

Why isn't the US Congress a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union? If I understand correctly, any legislative branch of a federal government that is composed entirely of the people's democratically-elected representatives meets the definition of a "parliament" (and that's a stricter-than-necessary condition, since voters only indirectly influence the composition of the Senate of Canada via the Prime Ministers' appointments); is that wrong, or is Congress not interested in joining the IPU for some reason?

Because the IPU is an "international organization of the parliaments of sovereign states". The Constitution of the United States of America does not include formation of a parliament, even if one attempts to redefine the term (Canada does indeed have a parliament); cf: Congress of the United States of America.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The United Nations was a tough-enough sell. Why would the U.S. join something that looks even more like a "global government"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

EU's CEFR English Profile availability and licensing

Hi. Is the English Profile (http://www.englishprofile.org/) going to be available freely under an open content license, or will there be fees and/or restrictions? I can see the vocabulary profile preview (http://vocabularypreview.englishprofile.org/staticfiles/about.html) but where can I find the grammar skills descriptions and functional skills listings in development? Thanks for any help. 76.88.167.15 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC) It will be freely available to teachers and educationalists. I don't know about other people though.Whereismylunch (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

Quick question Black People.....

1. 1 Would you ever respect a person, on an equal level, who allowed themselves to be enslaved for a few millenniums?

-Neither do White people. You thought shit was going to be sweet after they unchained you, didn't you? You thought the road to salvation was imminent, didn't you? Your ignorant ass thought the Emancipation Proclamation was a piece of paper that was created by arbitrary reasoning, didn't you?

You wake up today and what do you see around you? A poor community filled with people who look just like you, right? Busted ass apartments, project facilities, section 8 housing, and/or run down hood homes that look like trap houses, right? Even the mother fuckers who have a 4 bedroom home will have about 2 people living in it, right?!

Trash all over the streets, right? Not safe to walk the streets during the day and sure as hell during the night, right? Every type of illegal business is accessible right in front of your door step, right? You're an easy target for Police Officers because the US has already stereotyped you as a fuck up, right? The legal system understands your poor misrepresentation due to lack of resources but they still take advantage of you, right?

Your school is more concerned about you showing up for their own financial benefit rather than you showing up to receive a great education, right? Your school is one big fashion show and all your classmates are more concerned about who has the newest jordans or most expensive attire, right? You gather around all your friends/family and talk about shit that doesn't matter like Lebron James going back to Cleveland or who you like most on Bad Girls Club, right?

You wonder what is your purpose in life when you are catching that densely populated bus to your crappy ass job taking food orders or moving boxes, right? You try to understand why the hierarchy at your job always consist of a white guy as the boss who looks no bottom feeding employees directly in the eye, followed by a woman as his General Manager who preferably has a non-white ethnic background, all the way down to the Assistant manager who is some Illegal Mexican that works ridiculously hard at this dead end job only because he is happy that someone actually gave him a job in America that didn't require him to sit by Home Depot and wait for passerby's to give him odd jobs....right?!

You wonder why any way you look, whether you wear a natural or braids, you are still seen as a criminal, right? You wonder how the hell a people who are so talented physically and spiritually can be oppressed for so long, right? You wonder why the small amount of Blacks who do have wealth never help the less fortunate blacks out of their shambles, right? You wonder to the powers that be, why you are stuck playing for a team that is dire need of motivational speech, right?

....Well I do/am and I'm not a coward to admit it. You accept food stamps the same way a lion accepts being in a cage his entire life. The king of the jungle in a measly fucking cage on display like a pastry in the front window of a donut shop. You learn quickly that nothing is free and that the world has a thing against blacks, but you rationalize someone giving you free food when they recently had you locked inside a cage as well.....

What I'm really sick of is Blacks having nothing real to say. They get on websites like this and fuck around all day. Corny ass lame jokes being thrown around the comment section, and you know what? That isn't even the worst part! The dumb mother fuckers will shine light on a corny ass comment or troll, and the entire page will be filled with the stupidest shit from top to bottom. All it takes is the Top comment to be some goofy ass shit and the rest of you will follow. Even when someone writes something worth saying, some ignorant asshole with a small brain capacity will reply how long or complex the comment is, quickly turning it's relevance into bullshit.

My main reason for even writing this is to state the obvious to people who obviously don't get it. If I could come on WorldStar one day and see actual debates and/or arguments that were worth anything, than I know we still have hope.

First we must kill off the unnecessary and restart with some substance....I wonder if it could be done.....

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk