This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dweller (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 30 March 2016 (→Life expectancy in Medieval Europe: tyvm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

March 26

Why does the Roman Catholic Church not allow Mass on Good Friday?

Why does the Roman Catholic Church not allow Mass on Good Friday? I read the Good Friday article; it was not helpful for my purposes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Mass (Catholic Church) says: By long tradition and liturgical law, Mass is not celebrated at any time on Good Friday (but Holy Communion is distributed, with hosts consecrated at the evening Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday, to those participating in the Celebration of the Passion of the Lord) or on Holy Saturday before the Easter Vigil (the beginning of the celebration of Easter Sunday), in other words, between the annual celebrations of the Lord's Supper and the Resurrection of Jesus (see Easter Triduum).

Do you need a reference for that liturgical law? -- Jack of Oz 07:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My question was "why"? In other words, what's the reason/rationale? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I won't attempt to summarise or paraphrase them, lest I misinterpret, but some specific answers (which may or may not make sense to you) can be found at . Mitch Ames (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did a Google search. Came upon the same sites that you linked. They really didn't make much sense to me. Sounded like a lot of gobbledygook. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that, but the gist of it seems to be in the quote from Thomas Aquinas in the second link; "...this sacrament is a figure and a representation of our Lord's Passion, as stated above. And therefore on the day on which our Lord's Passion is recalled as it was really accomplished, this sacrament is not consecrated." In other words, on the day when the Passion itself is re-enacted in the liturgy, there is no need for a liturgical re-enactment of a memorial to the Passion. Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That sort of makes a little sense. It's like mental gymnastics. I will have to think it through and digest it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• See the Catholic Encyclopedia which says

  The omission of the Mass proper marks in the mind of the Church the deep sorrow with which she keeps the anniversary of the Sacrifice of Calvary. Good Friday is a feast of grief. A black fast, black vestments, a denuded altar, the slow and solemn chanting of the sufferings of Christ, prayers for all those for whom He died, the unveiling and reverencing of the Crucifix, these take the place of the usual festal liturgy; while the lights in the chapel of repose and the Mass of the Presanctified is followed by the recital of vespers, and the removal of the linen cloth from the altar ("Vespers are recited without chant and the altar is denuded").

  μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How do British gentlemen's clubs get away with discrimination?

There are many gentlemen's clubs (of the traditional kind, not those with the girls dancing) in the UK that are "men only." Some won't only bar female members, but won't even allow female visitors. Does this behavior collide with British anti-discrimination laws? Did they have a special provision due to the traditional nature of these establishments? --Scicurious (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, that used to be the case, but is no longer the case. The Equality Act 2010 now makes it illegal to discriminate (including excluding admission/membership) on grounds of disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race – this includes ethnic or national origins, colour and nationality, religion or belief – this includes lack of belief, sex, and sexual orientation. There are very limited exceptions - a club for deaf women could exclude hearing men, for instance. Further info. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See this from the CAB. Basically, if the group/club/association is created to only cater to one group (deaf people, lesbians, the over 65's, men) it can bar people who are not part of that group as long as it doesn't breach any other part of the act or related acts that it is not exempt from (by banning due to race for instance). Schedule 16 of the Equality Act 2010 is the relevant part "An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic." Defined protected characteristics are Age, Disability, Gender assignment/reassignment, Marriage/Civil partnership, Race, Religion/belief, Sex and finally Sexual orientation. Religions are excepted from certain sections of the law. Under the exceptions, it is also not discriminatory for the Women's Institute to exclude men from holding membership. Nanonic (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe the traditional comparison is with women-only swimming, which is also allowed under this clause. -- zzuuzz 18:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Not just swimming - there seems to be quite a lot of sports that men are excluded from. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for gender equality and I think my record proves that. The reason why I think Gentlemen Clubs still exist, is that Gentile Women find no desire to encroach into a club were members are more intent on discussing what Clive of India should or should not have done etc.. yet if a club has activities that they can relate to (i.e., golf), then sure, they ought to be included as one of the old boys. My only objection to that is, they exhibit this very unfair famine ability to hit the ball straight onto the green, despite a fierce cross wind against their favour . Men don't rely on the Greek Goddess Νίκη to help them out in theses situations. Very unfair and simply not not cricket. And the way they wave their four-irons at me is also very ungentlemanly. A mild difference in view point should only warrant pistols at dawn. Not a bloody duel with handbags flying everywhere on the ninth tee! That’s sacrilege. We (some of us ) are still English and hope to remain civilized. And what is about the ninth tee that gets women so fraught? Is this something to do with the Greek goddess Gaia? How does nine come into this? Gosh, I don't know what they teach them in these expensive fee paying schools these days. But I bet they don't have on their curriculum cricket. . Jolly hockey sticks is no substitute. --Aspro (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You won't find many Gentile women in a synagogue, either.  :) -- Jack of Oz 22:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean the temple isn't full of goys and burls ? StuRat (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's the same liberty which allows the Girl Guides to exclude boys. Alansplodge (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey type

Is there a single term to describe a questionnaire type that includes the following information: education levels, marital status, gender, profession?--Catlemur (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would consider those demographic questions (see , , and demographic analysis). clpo13_(talk) 17:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And they would usually be called demographic variables, or sometimes socio-demographics, but I don't think there's a name for a type of questionnaire which includes them. -- zzuuzz 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the term sort of slipped out of my mind.--Catlemur (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A census typically includes demographic questions. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Flat issue

A person possess a disability and is unable to work. If the following is not considered a legal advice, than, what are the possibility for him/her getting a flat in a quite area in UK under governments help without having to possess a disability badge? -- Apostle (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See Disability in the United Kingdom, Disability Living Allowance, and Housing Benefit. The range of accommodation available will depend (a) on where the person wants to live, and (b) on the nature of their disability - it's not a question that can be answered in general terms, but. yes, there is a statutory duty on local authorities to provide suitable accommodation. See also Disabled parking permit for disability badges - they're much easier to obtain than accommodation, so if the person isn't entitled to a badge, it's very unlikely they'll be entitled to a flat. Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any possible way whatsoever one-self can get an accommodation place/residential unit, pay off the government thereafter, if possible? -- Apostle (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

March 27

Japanese flag ratio

Flag of the Philippines says:

   The Japanese flag as it appeared until 1999: a red sun-disc, shifted 1% left of centre, on a white field.

Flag of Japan says:

   The law decreed the disc to be in the center, but it was usually placed one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist.

Which one is correct? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Before 1999, both. _Fortuna 12:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that "1% left of centre" is the same as "one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist", since the hoist (the side of the flag attached to the pole) is conventionally shown on the viewer's left. Alansplodge (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm having problem understanding the sentence "The law decreed the disc to be in the center, but it was usually placed one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist."

Does it mean:

1. The law says dead center. The law also says shifted 1⁄100 towards the hoist is fine.

2. The law says dead center. In practice though, it's usually shifted 1⁄100 towards the hoist, against what the law says.

I'm not sure which interpretation is correct. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The second interpretation is correct.--MarshalN20 04:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Then isn't the quoted part of the Flag of the Philippines article wrong? It should probably say something like: "The Japanese flag as it appeared until 1999: a red sun-disc centered on a white field. Though in practice the sun-disc is erroneously shifted 1% left of center in some flags." Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No, "Appeared" does not mean "as defined in law". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. My point is that Flag of the Philippines should probably be more about Flag of the Philippines as defined as law than The Appearance of the Flag of the Philippines. Of course the article should cover both de jure and de facto facts about the flag, but the de jure information should probably be mentioned first and foremost.Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This part about the dot moving 1/100 also intrigued me. What would be the reasons that -- in practicality -- they would choose to shift the dot a little? (1) It would seem to me easier to just place it dead center, no? (2) Also, it's such a negligible amount that I assume no one notices the difference. So why bother? Plus, (3) you are actually breaking the law. And who knows what affect that may have. What's the point? Why risk breaking the law? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's entirely in accordance with traditional Japanese aesthetics though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I have no idea what that means. I know nothing about Japanese aesthetics. Can you clarify what you mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Exact symmetry being the essence of beauty is very much a Western notion, from the time of Vitruvius. Much Japanese proportion is based on deliberate asymmetry and the choice instead of a pleasing ratio between differing parts. There is also an acceptance of imperfection (see wabi sabi) and an enjoyment of how it introduces interest into dull Western symmetries and uniformities. So even when "the circle goes in the middle", the Japanese approach would still be to shift it slightly. It doesn't even need to be visible, or to be recognised by the viewer: in some cases it's enough that the maker knows they're making something of more sophistication than barbarian symmetry. This isn't the Islamic notion that only God makes perfection, but rather an idea that simple perfection is too simple and thus uninteresting. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Thanks. OK, that all makes sense. Why, then, would the law itself dictate symmetry? Why didn't they just add in the "1/100 deviation" into the law? That seems odd, given what you say about how important asymmetry is to the culture. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the 1860s, Japan has been a tension between tradition and modernisation (i.e. Westernisation). There are many examples from the pre-WWII Shōwa era, a time of Japanese nationalist resurgence, where contradictions manifest themselves. This is very often the case around military matters, where the military were simultaneously espousing nationalist virtues and also seeking the efficiencies of Western modernism: so there were problems needing shorter dirks, rather than an officer's sword, in order to fit into modern aircraft cockpits, or (almost ludicrously) the requirement that the bridge of a first-line warship would be commanded in Bungo, despite the shortage of non-noble junior officers who were fluent in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a source too easily but the famous Itsukushima Shrine that's on the cover of many tourist guides of Japan was built with one minor mistake to avoid offending the gods or being as good as them or something like that. It's perfect except for one piece of wood under the roof I think that breaks the symmetry. Possibly that's why people do that to the flag. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than some orientalist mumbo-jumbo, I think it's far more likely that the sun disc is shifted because otherwise an optical illusion would result from the way the hoist end is attached to the flag pole that would make the disc look like it's off-centre, given the white background. Similar to the adjustment to the proportions of the tricolour in France. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do old people get judged faster?

For example, . Is his case processed faster, just in case he is indeed considered guilty but kicks the bucket before they can put him in prison?--Scicurious (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the name of your example; it's not necessary for your point, and there are no criminal charges in that case anyway. But basically, no, there is no mechanism of which I am aware in US law by which any trial would be sped up on such grounds, and in a civil suit, the estate can be found liable regardless of whether the defendant is a decedent. You might be able to get a judge to speed up gathering exculpatory evidence, but it is the defendant, not the plaintiff who has the inherent right to a speedy trial. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert on WP:BLP, but I don't see how mentioning the name of the individual in question violates it, in this particular case. We have an article on the individual here on wikipedia, the allegations have received widespread publicity in reliable sources (and are referred to in our wikipedia article on the individual), and the OP is not making any defamatory imputations. He does not suggest the person is guilty, merely "just in case he is indeed considered guilty". How does this violate BLP? Eliyohub (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, though, in a criminal case, if an accused person in that situation is out on bail, he or she is obviously going to have a huge incentive to delay the proceedings for as long as possible, to extract maximum mileage from the relatively "good" years they have left - and all the more so if a guilty verdict means they'll likely die in prison, given their age. Whilst judges have said that the concept that "justice delayed is justice denied" does not only apply to defendants (prosecutors, too, are entitled to timeliness, although this does not rise to a constitutional right), in practice, I don't see them speeding up cases simply to stop a person "escaping" punishment through dying a natural death. But like any criminal case, regardless of the age of the accused, the judge will insist that there be no deliberate unwarranted stalling by the accused or their lawyers if he or she (the judge, that is) can help it. Eliyohub (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In civil cases, I could certainly imagine a judge possibly giving such a case a "priority listing", so that the defendant can give sworn evidence before they die or start losing their memory. True, the plaintiff could sue the estate regardless even if the defendant was dead. However, the estate would be unfairly disadvantaged in attempting to defend any such claim without the defendant (the key figure) being able to give sworn evidence, and be cross-examined. So in the case of the man you mentioned (who's in his late 70's), for example, the judge may well try to hold a hearing of the defendant's evidence (the bit where he personally testifies and gets cross-examined) ASAP, in fairness to him. In some jurisdictions, such evidence and cross-examination can be given in court and officially video recorded, so it could be replayed to the trial judge or jury in the later event of a trial (e.g. in the interim, the defendant's memory or mental state has deteriorated due to dementia, or he is no longer alive). The rest of the trial itself need not be held at the time, and may have to wait for its' turn in the court system. The wheels of justice can grind slowly, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal matters, not civil ones, I think. Eliyohub (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer.

My understanding is the same as Eliyohub's: There is normally no special effort to speed up a trial just because the defendant is aged. After all, aged defendants are not all that unusual anyway, especially in civil cases. John M Baker (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of correcting what I assume to be a spelling mistake on your part. What about my question of fairness to the aged defendant, in civil cases, where any delay may allow them to develop dementia or die, and thus be unable to testify in their own defense? Am I correct in saying that there may be legal mechanisms for pre-trial hearings (in court, with a judge, with cross-examination) of the defendant's testimony? Or would the judge agree to speed up the trial to avoid this happening (the defendant dying or losing his memory)? The guardian (in the case of dementia) or estate (in the case of death) would be severely disadvantaged in contesting the lawsuit without this testimony, so doesn't fairness dictate that the judge take this into consideration? Eliyohub (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I suppose that this could happen in the judge's discretion, but it is not a normal part of judicial procedure when there is an elderly or infirm party. Sometimes a prosecutor takes steps to secure the sworn testimony of a key witness in a criminal case, but this does not require the involvement of the judge. John M Baker (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Senate approval for appointments to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors

The Federal Reserve holds enormous power. Its board of governors, particularly the chair (now that the position is held by a woman, "chairman" is gone), have huge influence on the U.S. and world economy. My question is, have presidential appointments to the board ever get stuck in the senate? When is the last time (if ever) that the senate actually held formal confirmation hearings (or put up any sort of fuss or delay) for either a presidential appointment to the board, or for a presidential promotion from the board to the chair? Or have presidential appointments to these positions always enjoyed pro forma senate approval? Eliyohub (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

As recently as last year the senate held up presidential nominations to The Fed. --Jayron32 14:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A better question might be, "When was the last time -- if ever -- the Senate approved a Fed Chair without first holding formal confirmation hearings; and, is such a thing even constitutional?" DOR (HK) (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance of U.S. politics regarding fed appointments. If you say Senate confirmation hearings for them are universal, I believe you (I was unsure of this). In fact, I see that every presidential appointment subject to senate approval in theory gets a confirmation hearing, even if only a "routine" one which takes minutes, or covers dozens (or hundreds) of potential appointees at once. But why in heaven's name would skipping them be unconstitutional? Firstly, the Fed, unlike the Supreme Court, is a legislative creation, not a constitutional one. There's nothing in the constitution which dictates the operations of the fed, is there? To quote the constitution, the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers (i.e. officers other than Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and Judges of the Supreme Court), as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. In practice, fed appointments legally need senate approval, but if congress were to pass a law abolishing this requirement, how would it break the constitution?

Also, even for the Supreme Court, do the confirmation hearings themselves have any constitutional status? If theoretically, the Senate simply went straight to a vote ("consent" in constitutional terms), without any debate, how would this violate the constitution? According to our earlier question on recess appointments, the President appoints some 7000 appointees subject to senate approval each year, and most are approved en masse in batches, first by the relevant committee, then by the whole senate. Why would appointments for the fed be any different, from a perspective of constitutional law - a simple, no-debate vote being all that's needed? (ignoring the politics). Or would the constitution oblige the holding of a "hearing" by the Senate banking committee, even if only a pro forma, routine, 5 minute one? Eliyohub (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As to your second question (whether the confirmation hearings themselves have any constitutional status), the answer is "no." Notably, Supreme Court justices were confirmed by the Senate without confirmation hearings for a hundred years. Confirmation hearings only really began in 1916 (see here, here). The constitution, in fact, does not mention congressional committees at all. The Senate can choose its own procedures, so they could easily skip straight to a floor vote on a nominee if they wishes. (It should also be noted that "only since 1929 has the Senate operated under the rule that its sessions are open to the public unless ordered closed by a majority vote. By contrast, from 1789 until 1929, the Senate with very few exceptions considered all nominations in closed executive session" Gephardt 1998). Neutrality 01:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March 28

Eugene V. Debs

In wiki article above it says that Eugene V. Debs got 919,799 write-in votes (3.4%)in the american presidency election 1920. I found no article that says he is a write-in candidate. So is the information "write-in votes" above reliable? DanGong (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This has the votes for that election, which is in turn cited to a reliable government publication. I would check the original U.S. government publication for the official results, and use that as the source to alter the numbers if you wish. --Jayron32 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Jayron, I'm sorry, that I have no access to that page. Please check if you can find the information that Debs a write-in candidate, or at least the votes are really write-in votes. I have translated the article Socialist Party of America into Vietnamese and want to be sure that the information is right. DanGong (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Write-In is never mentioned there. It only has total votes (and the numbers do not match the Misplaced Pages article). --Jayron32 19:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Are the fat printed parts from the article Eugene V. Debs acceptable? "He received 919,799 write-in votes (3.4%)," DanGong (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the second reference doesn't state they were "write-in" votes, I'd take that part out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Britannica makes no mention of write-ins for 1920. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Clarityfiend, thank you for your help. I will delete "write-in" if noone opposes it. It isn't a big deal if it not going to appear in "Did you know" in wiki vietnamese as it is a new article and it is something very unusual for us that someone is in prison and still candidates for a public post. DanGong (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Names for the Left

On the Republican side, far right is "conservative," center right is "establishment" or "reformican". On the left, it's liberal and progressive. Which one is farther left? --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree with your wording. Far-right is ultra-conservative, center-right is conservative and establishment, center-left is liberal or progressive and establishment, far left is ultra-liberal. For example, both John Boehner and Hillary Clinton are establishment. I would say that leftist also means far left, but some might say it also includes the moderate left. Loraof (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For far right, there is also the term "reactionary", which means wanting to return to the way things used to be (racial segregation, banning homosexuality, etc.) StuRat (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean for the USA? Terminology can be very different in different places. E.g. what is called centrist in the USA may be considered squarely to the right in EU. Anyway Left–right_politics#Contemporary_usage_in_the_United_States has some info, see also political spectrum. Using a single left/right spectrum is also very limiting, and based on historical happenstance of seating arrangements around the French Revolution. For a more nuanced take on describing political stances and platforms, see political compass. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I did phrase the question badly. What I really wanted to know was what you think."Liberal" is a term commonly used in the '60s in America to refer to the political left. In the '90s the Republicans succeeded in framing US politics and one result was that "liberal" was called the L word, and the Republican pressure caused the Democrats to stop using "liberal." It was replaced by "progressive." But now "liberal" is coming back, and "progressive" is still used. Now, maybe there is some sort of jargon web site that would address the issue, but I doubt it. So I was interested in what you would say. --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah. So you are primarily interested in the current meanings of "liberal" and "progressive" in American politics, yes? We are not really here to share opinions, but you might get some people offering them nonetheless. You are not alone in thinking that "progressive" is a mainly a new term for "liberal" after using "liberal" became seen as a liability in some circles. However, it is not necessarily that simple, and to conflate the terms may be doing a disservice to progressive politics. See our article on Progressivism#Contemporary_mainstream_political_conception, and here are some nice current discussions on liberalism vs. progressivism from journalists. Here's some nice CNN coverage of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debating what "progressive" means to them . Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In US politics, both "liberal" and "progressive" are just labels used by and about people to the left, mainly associated with the Democrat Party. The words have no real meaning outside that usage. Hence none of them are further left than the other. They basically just mean "left", on the sadly one-dimensional political scale in the US. We see this happening again, thanks to Bernie Sanders, people are starting to use the word "socialist" as somebody who supports Bernie Sanders, and the opinions that get attached to the word is the desire to have a welfare state, originally a conservative invention (while at that time many socialists correctly attacked the welfare state as an attempt of pacifying the workers to try to avoid a socialist revolution). The only real conclusion you can draw of all this is that US politics have a tendency of misusing words and using them as the direct opposite of their original meaning, leaving the words effectively meaningless. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"US politics have a tendency of misusing words ...", as when some people (mostly members of the Republic Party) insist on referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party". Deor (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh, lol, sorry for the misspelling. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you've ever watched Fox News, their editorial position is that Democrat = Liberal = Progressive = Socialist = Communist. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure I've heard Obama called a Maoist once. Iapetus (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably by the same folks who claim he was born in Kenya. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget = Traitors or gullible idiots. Come back, Jon Stewart. We insidious commies miss you. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

See Congressional Progressive Caucus. The CPC’s policy agenda includes such crazy far-left ideas as economic justice, national security, civil rights, peace, environmental protection, universal healthcare, labor unions, campaign finance reform, the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, legalization of same-sex marriage and energy independence.. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, those causes do sound crazy to the Mammonites of the world. If they were indeed "good for everyone" goals, they'd be achievements already. Lennon said, "You may say I'm a dreamer." He's not the only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Who is guilty of what? (Parable of the Six Welders)

There has been a lot of debate in recent years about when conspiracy cases against terrorist wannabes go too far. One principle I've been going by concerns a hypothetical situation leading to a gruesome accident. It goes like this:

A new hire, the Sixth Welder, walks into a welding shop, and the existing employees are upset. It is clear that he works for much less than they do, and knows nothing about welding, not even how oxygen works. One thing leads to another, and the First Welder tells him, "You know, acetyoxy is just acetylene fuel and oxygen fuel. If you take a toke of it and breathe out past a lighter, you can lay waste to stuff like a fire breathing dragon..." Being instinctively suspicious, he asks the Second Welder a few times if this guy is shittin' him, and each time he says no, no, that's how it works, everybody does this. The Third Welder doesn't say anything about the science, but starts folding up a paper chicken on his own and drawing rings with point values "10, 20, 30" on a backboard he sets up behind it. The Fourth Welder makes no articulate comment, but occasionally yells "Yeah!" and "Woo-Hoo!". The Fifth Welder, the former shop steward before the plant deunionized, says nothing, just stays seated, sipping his coffee and watching the proceedings until the Sixth Welder's lungs explode.

Now my personal impression is that all the welders, having been in some way present at this event and choosing to take no action to stop it, share culpability for the act. This is the basis for an idea that proper adjudication of conspiracy is not actually related to speech at all; that one can conspire without saying a word. A similar example would be that steering a drone to drop bombs on New York can be an entirely innocent activity if you think it's an online video game, but the moment you know it's real it's a crime.

However --- I have no idea what the law would adjudicate for such things. Is there a way to predict that without actually waiting for this exact thing to happen and seeing what they decide? Wnt (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I asked a question a while back , and I think some of the refs I got about how the law may deal with multiple dependent or independent causes may help you with this case too. In particular Breaking_the_chain may or may not apply to welders 2-5. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Crimes of commission" (where you do something bad) are usually punished more harshly than crimes of omission. However, the later are sometimes prosecuted, such as charging somebody with negligent homicide who failed to save a life when they could have. Note that good Samaritan laws are often needed to protect people who, acting in good faith, try to help. For example, so somebody who breaks a rib while performing the Heimlich Maneuver can't be sued. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

IANAL but here goes. Moral culpability and legal culpability do not always match up. The 'former shop steward' who may no longer be the welders overseer nor foreman should never the less be in a position of recognising dangerous behaviour. In Europe, one is considered to have a duty to intervene when dangerous horse-play takes place. Just by pointing out the foolishness is often enough to make the provitures realise, that at bad out-come will place their prior behavour under the scrutiny of both the police, coroner, and many other folk. Your next example of some naïve sole dropping bombs is not to my mind a good follow-on comparison. However, naïve he may be, he would still be considered one of the agents (that for all we know, may end up improving the New York skyline). He would have to plead mitigating circumstances – that he truly believed he was taking part in an innocent game. America likes its pound of flesh and if he is black and is no relation the Kennedy family or some such, then he has no hope with that defence either, however naïve. Remember, he will be tried in a court of Law not in a court of Justice. --Aspro (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What if no one wins an election?

I got to thinking about elections with only one candidate, such as the 2007 presidential election in Syria where Bashar al-Assad was the only candidate, and people could only vote "yes" or "no" for him. Of course, pretty much everyone voted "yes". But what if the result had been "no"? I imagine that in reality, al-Assad would still have been elected. But in principle, if such a result occurs, what should be done, at least in theory? JIP | Talk 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See Election fraud. That will never happen. --Jayron32 19:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I was asking, what was supposed to happen, if election fraud didn't exist. I know that elections in countries such as Syria are so rigged that this will never happen in reality, I was asking about the theory. JIP | Talk 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What is supposed to happen, according to the theory, is "election fraud". You have two different situations: 1) True representative democracy, which follows rules and allows for the possibility (and even the likelyhood) that those in power will eventually get voted out and their opponents will win, and we'll try something new for a while, and see how that goes. Then you have 2) Absolute dictatorship which has the veneer of elections, but the elections are supposed to be a sham, they exist merely to say "Look, we have elections", but the INTENT is merely to add a layer of propaganda to the illusion of democracy. Everyone knows that the purpose of the elections is to simply concentrate more power into the hands of the powerful dictator. That's what is SUPPOSED to happen according to those systems. They either cheat, or make liberal use of moving the goal posts (see, for example, Russian power-switching operation 2008) to ensure that the power of the elite is concentrated in their personal hands, without regard for democratic principles. What is SUPPOSED to happen in Syria, according to the way that those in power have set up the system, is that Assad and his cronies are to be in power forever, TYVM, and the entire system makes sure that happens all the time. That is the way it is designed to work. --Jayron32 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In some cases there is no plan. In others, there may be a formal or informal understanding that the leader will step down and allow others to run in a follow-up election. Thus, it appears somewhat similar to a no confidence vote or recall elections under legit democracies. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This answer was along the lines of what I was asking about. JIP | Talk 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In British tradition, some elections (mostly board or leadership elections within organisations like political parties and student unions) include a "Re-open nominations" option (RON), which is like the "NO" option but with a more explicit explanation of what happens next. Apparently RON has only won once in a student union election - just a few weeks ago at LSE. Smurrayinchester 11:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Uhm. In the past when UN officials have been invited to adjudicate over sensitive elections, they often find that when most X voters vote NO there is a magical appearance of Y voters who vote Yes. Adding two together gives a sum greater than the whole voting population. So, I think the procedure is to print more voting forms than is required and leave it to the winning party fill them in themselves, until they can justly and democratically claim a majority win on a very fair and open election.--Aspro (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My favorite story like that is in one election, where the winning side got 3 times the nation's population in votes, easily beating the losers, who only got twice the nation's population in votes. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Zimbabwe election: twice as many registered voters as people in some areas (July 2013). Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages has an article on EVERYthing. For legitimate, democratic elections where no one wins, see None of the above. Short answer: it's an option in a lot of ballots, but the 'none' vote pretty much never wins. Most ballot laws provide that if 'none' were to win, the election would re-run with new candidates. --M@rēino 21:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There are cases where there is legitimately only one candidate. Of the 13 elections for President of Ireland since the office was created in 1938, 6 have been uncontested - either all parties agreed on the candidate, or nobody was able to secure the required number of nominations to stand against the incumbent who was seeking a second seven-year term and could nominate themselves. In these cases the candidate is deemed to have been elected without there having to be a ballot (there was no contested election between 1973 and 1990, following the election and death next year of President Childers, the election and subsequent resignation of President Ó Dálaigh, and the election and re-election of President Hillery). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 29

Hoelderlin poem

Hi, could someone tell me where I could find Hölderlin's 'Friedensfeier' full poem? Thanks, Uhlan 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A quick Google search gave me this Rojomoke (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) In German? Here. An English translation can be found here, but I haven't checked whether it's any good. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 30

What are some of Rama's (Hindu god) special powers/abilities?

I've tried to search this online, but I haven't been able to find anything useful. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesewu (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Rama is an avatar, or Earthly incarnation, of the god Vishnu. His story is told in the Ramayana. I assume you've read all those articles? As an avatar, as opposed to the actual god, I don't believe he has any particular powers, except being a mighty warrior against the forces of Ravana, and later a just king over his subjects. Rojomoke (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Yale a (moveable) corporation?

Given our article Yale and this political article http://www.nysun.com/national/scheme-of-connecticut-to-lay-tax-against-yale-may/89514/, could a University like it either move or reincorporate in another state to avoid the proposed levy? For example, many corporations move to states like Delaware for the low corporate taxes. Do we have any sources that clarify what sort of entity Yale is, and whether it could just up and relocate, as has GE? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Universities can and do simply pick up and move, anyways. I can't, off hand, think of any that have moved across state lines, but Wake Forest University (currently in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, formerly some distance away in Wake Forest, North Carolina; Duke University (currently in Durham, North Carolina, formerly in Trinity, North Carolina, and the University of Michigan (formerly in Detroit, currently in Ann Arbor, Michigan). --Jayron32 01:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that moving to avoid a levy would probably not make economic sense, if the university had to leave behind a bunch of not-readily-saleable real estate, land grants, and so forth. Neutrality 03:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The university charter, available here, is detailed and quite lengthy. Any changes would need approval by the state, which they are unlikely to give to a proposal to move out of the state to reduce taxation. Warofdreams talk 03:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, there's lots of examples throughout time...Yale is a private school too..wouldn't need any state approval to do so...entirely unlikely it would ever happen, of course...Ave Maria Law School moved from MI to FLA in 2009..68.48.241.158 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It may not be a public university but it is still accredited by the state, and still has to follow many state rules and regulations. --Jayron32 11:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ave Maria School of Law has 270 students. That's about 45 times smaller than Yale, which would need many acres to fit in. Add to it, that you would not find a replacement for Yale's Collegiate Gothic campus' buildings. Unless relocating means relocating virtually to a new corporate headquarter. But the article linked above implies a physical relocation of the campus too.

Moving across state lines would also not make much sense, if taxes on college endowment and real estate is introduced nationwide, which appears to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scicurious (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My undergraduate institution moved interstate in 1880, but such relocations were much more common in the 19th century than in the 21st. Carthage College, located in Kenosha, Wisconsin, bears the name of the Illinois city where it was located until after the Second World War. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A milder way to reduce their tax burden is to open satellite campuses in other states or even nations, where taxes are lower. Of course, lower taxes are just one reason to do so. It might even make sense to open one in a location with higher taxes, if there are many rich students who would attend. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bullochites

Who were the Bullochites? They were a religious group active in post-colonial Maine; the Nathaniel Hawthorne Boyhood Home in Raymond was used as one of their churches for a time (source; it's at the end of the third page), as was the grange in Hollis (source; second entry, third page), but that's all I can find about them. I encountered them in the Hawthorne documentation and had never heard of them before: nothing about beliefs, history, government, etc. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The term is also mentioned Here but not elaborated on. Will try some Google-Fu and see what I dig up. --Jayron32 14:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Found it. It's likely an alternate spelling of "Bullockite", mentioned in one Misplaced Pages article Porter Old Meetinghouse, which also names the founder of the sect. This Google search turns up a likely connection to the Freewill Baptists. --Jayron32 15:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

According to this 1901 special report from the Bureau of the Census (with the lengthy title "Religious Bodies: 1906, Part II, Separate Denominations: History, Description, and Statistics"), the Bullockites were called "Freewill Baptists" but were not formally linked to the better-known, mostly Southern group of the same name:

"The movement started by Benjamin Randall in New Hampshire in 1780, which resulted in the organization of the body known as "Free Baptists," spread to Maine, where a considerable number of churches were formed. In 1835 there was a division, and some of the ministers withdrew from the Free Baptists. These again separated under the leadership of Jeremiah Bullock and John Buzzell, and their followers were freqeuntrly nicknamed 'Bullockites' and 'Buzzellites.' The latter have practically disappeared as an independent body, but the former continue to exist in Maine, retaining the earlier name 'Freewill Baptists.' They have, however, no denominational connection with the churches of the same name in the Southern states."

The report goes on to say that in 1906, the denomination had 15 "organizations" (congregations?), 13 of them in Maine and 2 in New Hampshire, with 8 church buildings.

Our article on Free Will Baptist distinguishes between the Southern Free Will Baptists ("Palmer Line") and the Northern Free Will Baptists ("Randall Line"), which developed independently. They apparently emerged in 1935. Neutrality 15:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I just looked up who Jeremiah Bullock was and found this report from the 1930s-era Federal Writers' Project. This indicates that "Elder Jeremiah Bullock and Elder John Buzzell" lived in the early 19th century. It describes their theology a little bit: they were fundamentalist dissenters whose church buildings were characterized "sincere simplicity." When the sect's church in Porter, Maine was build, "no provision was made for heat as it was the old-time belief that the love of God in the fervor of the congregation was sufficient to raise the temperature to a comfortable point" (they later installed a stove and piping). Neutrality 15:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article and added appropriate redirects to clarify the meaning of the term. GREAT find. Well done. --Jayron32 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks for updating the articles and making the redirects! Neutrality 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Life expectancy in Medieval Europe

This claim intrigued me. Are there reliable sources for medieval life expectancy? Our article on longevity doesn't have pre-Victorian era stats, although it does make the excellent point that any such statistic would need to strip out infant mortality to have any value when assessing the claims about the Templars. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• A 14th-century man in Halesowen, England would surved to age 20 could expect to live another 21-28 years, depending on social status. In the 15th century, this increased to 33 years after age 20 (i.e., 53 years of age total). Adult female mortality was greater because of death in childbirth and exposure to infections while caretaking for others. (see Gilchrist 2012)
• Various studies estimated the average lifespans for monks as: 29-30 years (Westminister Abbey); 33.12 years (primarily Christchurch Cathedral Priory, Canterbury), 31 years (some other houses) - apparently lifespan depended on the wealth of the monastery (Oliva 1998).
• McKitterick 2004 says that the records are better for men then they are for women and that "Fifty or fifty-five years was a lifespan readily attained by the greater and the powerful, who did not always take the best care of themselves. This would be true if kings or prelates ... and of fighting men active on the field of battle or in tournaments ... More telling still is the fact that, in 1194, an appraisal of the men at arms in the service of the king of France shows that 10 per cent of the sergeants were under twenty, 56 per cent were between twenty-one and thirty-nine, a further 20 per cent were in their forties, while 14 per cent were over fifty, each and every one of them still bearing arms."
• Butler 2014 writes: "the life expectancy of those in later medieval England was quite modest. For men who survived the perils of infancy and childhood, one might reasonably hope to reach ... around forty years of age. Because of the dangers of childbirth, women's life expectancy was even shorter. Archaeological data proposed an average date of death for adult women of around thirty-three."
  • Neutrality 14:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  That should be held up as the model Ref Desk answer: Loads of references, no personal speculation. Brilliant. --Jayron32 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks! Neutrality 14:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that's excellent, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Berlin/Bonn

Why was the capital of Germany made Berlin? I'm sorry if I don't describe my thoughts in a genteel way, I'm sorry. But if West Germany was taking East G. in then why not keep the capital in Bonn? Both cities had the infrastructure for a capital city and such, sure. But if the "prevailing" (maybe not the best word) gov't was going to be West Germany's, why not just keep the capital in Bonn? Was it done, maybe in part, to stimulate the economy of the East (which, I think, wasn't the greatest after the Russian ownership/occupation)? Dismas| 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Berlin was historically the capital of Germany. Moving the capital there was an important symbolic act, signalling real unification, not annexation of the east. And yes, stimulating the eastern economy was also a consideration. After all, the GDR government vanished, so there was a significant loss in the local economy of the united Berlin. Moreover, Bonn, while nice in parts, is really just an overblown village near the western border of Germany. Berlin is a metropolis.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) We have Decision on the Capital of Germany and German reunification. They point to the Reunification Treaty as embodying the agreement to site the unified capital in Berlin, but does not contain much information beyond that. We don't seem to have an article on the treaty itself or the process of negotiation that led up to it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, having a capital near the center of a nation, either geographically or by population, is often seen as a worthwhile goal. So, say Bonn voyage to Bonn. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bonn seems to have been considered a temporary solution from the start, with Berlin being the choice for the capital of a reunified Germany. Check the History since 1945 section of the Bonn article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I did a bit of Internet research on this a while back, but only noted my conclusions, not my sources, so I can't cite them here. The first point is that in the 1940s not many people expected Germany to remain divided for over 40 years. One reason Bonn was chosen as the provisional capital was that it was always intended that upon reunification Berlin should regain its historic status as capital, and Bonn, as a small city, was not the sort of place people (in Europe) would think should be a capital. The alternative choices were Frankfurt and Munich, and it was felt that if either one became capital of West Germany then enough people would want to keep the capital there that it would be a problem. Some sources even say that West Germany's official capital was actually always Berlin, despite the fact that de jure even West Berlin was not part of West Germany. (Apologies if any of this is mistaken or misleading.) --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you go further back, you'll see that the original reason that Berlin was the capital was that it was the capital of Prussia, which dominated the North German Confederation, which was the origin of the modern German state. Prior to that, there had not been any unified German state, excepting perhaps the Holy Roman Empire/Kingdom of Germany, the seat of power of which was usually either Vienna (which was left out of Modern Germany for political reasons, due to the Austria-Prussian rivalry, among other factors) or Prague, which isn't even culturally part of Germany, even back then. --Jayron32 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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