Revision as of 20:29, 25 May 2015

• 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

May 20

Proof of Alabama rejoining the union on July 13, 1868?

The Internet has a consensus that Alabama was readmitted to the U.S. Congress on July 13, 1868. Yet I can find zero primary sourcing of this. I have skimmed the Congressional Record for that day, and checked the US Statutes at Large for 1868 and while I find the omnibus bill of June 25 that provides for readmittance of several states, once certain conditions are met, I can find no specific mention of Alabama being readmitted on the specific day of July 13. You'd think at least the Congressional Record would speak of it. I could have missed it, it's rather dense, but it didn't leap out at me. None of the sources I'm finding that state July 13 mention any primary sourcing either; it's almost as if a chain letter has become circular. I'm not necessarily doubting that Alabama was readmitted on July 13, but I would like to have more solid evidence of this than what is beginning to amount to hearsay. Note: This might also apply to the other states mentioned in the omnibus bill (Florida, Louisiana, North and South Carolina; Georgia was specifically readmitted later) but I haven't done the same research on those yet.

Anyone know where I can find this, or at least know where everyone else is getting their information if not from each other? --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. The omnibus bill (15 Stat. 73) of June 25 states that Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina will be readmitted once they ratify the 14th amendment, and sure enough, the ratification dates for each of those states other than Florida are the dates they are typically described as having been readmitted (Florida ratified it earlier, so its readmission date is June 25). So I know now where the date comes from. And I forgot that things moved slower back then. The White House didn't learn of the ratification until July 20, and this proclamation was then passed to the House, which didn't speak of it until the next day, where I find mention of this in the congressional record. Whew. --Golbez (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Internet has a consensus"??!? Really? On anything at all? --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dostoevsky: origin of quote?

I copied this quote as it appears (including spelling of Dostoevsky) but I cannot find a source. It may be a translation issue but i cannot find anything close to it when I search for Dostoevsky quotes.

Quote as originally copied:

"Love me-still when I am dirty, cause if I were clean, everyone would love me."

Dostojevskij — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monotrien (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Northanglia?

If you Google 'Northanglia' or 'North Anglia' (there's also 'Nordanglia') you get results that suggest it must be roughly synonymous with that part of East Anglia comprised of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. How old is the term? Did anyone invent it? Why can't I find a definition of it anywhere? Contact Basemetal here 12:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The earliest google (ngram) result is from 1837 . However, I don't see that the results are necessarily pointing to a place name. It seems a mystery writer by the name of William J Palmer is using "University of North Anglia" for his fictional university . And there was a ship named the "North Anglia" in the early 20th century . Spelled Nord Anglia, you're looking at a chain of private schools . See Anglia for why people might coin such terms. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

East Anglia is Norfolk and Suffolk. The governmental region of East Anglia is not widely known in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Cambridgeshire? Contact Basemetal here 13:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Could the term be a neologism for Northern England? --Jayron32 13:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Judging by Google results no, but that must be only a minute part of its uses since 1837. The disambiguation page Anglia mentions that it can also be a way to refer to the eastern part of England. Note for example ITV Anglia. See also College of West Anglia: there West Anglia does not refer to the western part of England. Contact Basemetal here 15:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe Northanglia went the way of Norsex... --Jayron32 15:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Because there was No-Sex, the population died out pretty quickly. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Norsex had a long run in Westex. There are Suffolk and Norfolk; why aren't there Effolk and Weffolk? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's absurd to suggest the British have no sex. Not only do they have the two, they also have a Middlesex. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• That's where all the Thai ladyboys live, mate. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 17:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There'ſ plenty of evidence in Early Modern Engliſh that there waſ a lot of ſex happening.

As the earlier ſlick Willie wrote in A Midſummer Night'ſ Dream:

<sings> "Where there bee ſucks, there ſuck I"

And ſo on.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why on Earth would it refer to the North? The Anglia bit of it would give it away..... Now regarding the term, I lived in Norwich for many years, and never heard it there. Fgf10 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Secession from the U.S.?

As is well known, in the American Civil War, the Confederate States claimed they had the right to secede, while the Union claimed they didn't.

The claim of the South seems, at least for those states that had ratified the Articles of Confederation of 1781 (namely South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina), to go against that document (unless one argues the Articles had been superseded by the Constitution, which, contrary to the older document, did not specifically state the union was a perpetual one).

But leaving that aside, it seems there is a significant distinction that needs to be made in the argument for secession, namely that some states had joined the United States from the outside (South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina) while some had been established on territory that was already part of the United States (Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee).

It seems that for those, secession could only mean (at least without further justification) dis-establishing themselves as states and reverting to the status of territory, but not leaving the United States.

So my question is: did the South ever note that difference in their argumentation and propose a special justification for the secession of those states and their joining the Confederacy?

Contact Basemetal here 13:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Secession in the United States is the proper article at Misplaced Pages, and answers a lot of your questions regarding the issue. The actual acts of secession themselves were more acts of Realpolitiks than on carefully constructed legal arguments: the states just did it without regard for whether or not they legally could. They, of course, asserted they could. But the Union armies marching across their territory denied that assertion, as did the later Texas v. White decision, which formally (after the fact) declared the secessions of the states legally invalid, and thus did not happen. --Jayron32 13:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I had only one question and that article does not answer it. I do understand that secession was a political not a legal act but I thought the states, and later those people who supported or still support their position, must have come up with some sort of formal justification. Whether such a justification made any sense, legally or logically, was not what I was curious about, but only if they ever thought of noting the difference between the two situations I mentioned. Maybe a place to go look are the declarations of the various states when they seceded, if such declarations exist. If they do, where can those texts be found? I would be curious, for example, to see how Mississippi justified its right to secede. It would have had to be rather different from the way a state that had been one of the original thirteen colonies, such as South Carolina, or one that joined the Union as a state, such as Texas, did it. Contact Basemetal here 15:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I googled "declaration of secession", or something like that, and here's what turned up for South Carolina. In effect, they declared that the federal government was violating states' rights, so they're leaving the Union. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And here is an item that covers Mississippi, among others. Anyone who denies that the Civil War was "about slavery" should read this. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, This and This seem to have the actual documents the OP is looking for. They can peruse them at their leisure to see if they answer their questions or not. --Jayron32 15:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You may want to look into what South Carolina was saying in 1828, when they were talking about seceding over the Tariff of Abominations (it was a big deal nationally, even prompting Joseph Smith to predict that South Carolina would rebel when he was writing LDS scriptures four years later), or into what some of the New England states were saying at the Hartford Convention of 1814, when they were considering secession. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

More articles in the vein of what Nyttend is talking about: Nullification Crisis, South Carolina Exposition and Protest, John C. Calhoun. --Jayron32 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• You may take as a side note the fact that the US Constitution itself was technically invalid under the Articles of Confederation since the former required unanimity for amendments, while the Constitution asserted it would take effect as soon as 9 out of the 13 states had ratified it. Of course all the existing states did ratify it, as it was obvious the opposition was going to lose. An interesting question is, do the legislatures of new states have to ratify the US Constitution before they are admitted? μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  AFAIK, no, they do not formally ratify the U.S. constitution before being admitted. Admission to the Union covers the process; in order to be a state the state needs to organize a constitutional convention to write their own state constitution, and then apply for membership from Congress. Congress admits the state, and that's all that's required. Acceptance of the Constitution itself, is probably implicit in the act of application for statehood itself. --Jayron32 18:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Regarding the contention the Constitution can be seen as an amendment of the Articles of Confederation and is thus technically in violation of their provisions, I just don't see how. Article VII of the Constitution states that "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." (My emphasis). So no one was forced to ratify the Constitution, it was going to come into effect between those states that had chosen to adopt it while those that would refuse to do it could continue as before under the Articles (in principle at least, although I don't know if that was a realistic possibility that was discussed during the process of ratification). How could anyone argue that the Articles of Confederation legally prevented a group of states from voluntarily making their union closer (or as the preamble says "more perfect") while not forcing anyone to join the process? Now Article VI of the Articles of Confederation does state specifically (among other things) that "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue." It seems to follow that the Constitution would not have been in violation of the Articles as long as the "United States in Congress assembled" (i.e. the Confederation Congress) was going to eventually (unanimously) authorize those states that had chosen to pursue a closer union to do so. In theory, what could have happened was that say twelve states could have ratified the Constitution and one state could have objected to those twelve states entering into this closer union. In that case those twelve states would have been in violation of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. But since nothing of the kind ended up happening... Contact Basemetal here 22:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• So, if the secessions were null and void, meaning they never happened at law, why was it necessary for those states that claimed they'd left to be readmitted, if they never legally left in the first place? If secession is legally impossible at law, why would there ever be a need for a readmission protocol? -- Jack of Oz 20:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It was simply a condition of the congress, as only the victorious North had any federal power. The states were ruled as territories, just as if they had not yet been admitted to the union, but were US land. This is simply how it worked out given Northern victory and control of congress. The big incentive for the Southerners to comply was to get their representatives back seated in congress. In the meantime the GOP faced no opposition passing the 14th amendment ending slavery and enforcing the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses (Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution) and the 15th amendment guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of color or past servitude. See the 14th amendment article for specifics. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz 20:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Medeis uses some words that I would not have used. The 13th forbids slavery; the 14th contains the "equal protection" clause and the second "due process" clause.—Tamfang (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Henri Giscard d'Estaing (historian)?

The article on Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy attributes writings on the Dreyfus affair to "Henri Giscard d'Estaing". Searching a bit online, it seems that would be the book D' Esterhazy a Dreyfus written by Henri Giscard d'Estaing and published in Paris in 1960. Our Esterhazy article links that to Henri Giscard d'Estaing (son of the President) who was only 4 years old in 1960; obviously that's the wrong guy. So who was this other, older Henri Giscard d'Estaing - and was he related to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing? I note that fr:Famille Giscard d'Estaing lists one Henri Marie Antoine Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who it describes as being a "colonel d'artillerie" (hey, just like Dreyfus) - was it him? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

An aside: The Dreyfus Affair By Leslie Derfler, which mentions the above book in passing, gives 1950 as its publication date (Google Books itself finds a 1960 edition). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the Bibliothèque nationale de France's online catalog, the book was published by Plon in 1960. No dates are given for the author and no other books are attributed to him in its catalogue, so it seems it was his sole published work. The only plausible Henri in the genealogy of the family is the one mentioned by the OP, whose dates are 1900-1972. The family is not large (at least, those using the twin last names) so he is indeed very likely the book's author. Here's a review of the book from Le Monde diplomatique of May 1960 . Access to the full review requires a subscription, but from what's available for free, it doesn't seem as if it delves much into the author's biography. --Xuxl (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Are any developed countries solvent in the long run?

Here in the UK, after five years of budget cuts which have somewhat slowed the rate at which the national debt increases, the reelected government claims they can get that rate leveled off in about three years. Which would leave us treading (still very deep) water, if you ignore all the unfunded pensions for a rising number of old people, growing cost of healthcare, low productivity at work, and the inevitable next recession at some point. Hard to believe we're not eventually facing bankruptcy, even if it's several decades away. Are any other developed countries in a better position, counting all their liabilities and advantages? 213.205.251.60 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

One way to solvency is economic growth that outpaces growth in government spending. That happened in the US during the latter Clinton administration, with a productivity boom and divided government with Clinton and Gingrich that kept the growth of government spending in check. Note that as soon as Bush came into office with a friendly congress the Republicans went on a huge spending spree. There's also devaluation and debt repudiation, but (in)solvency by that route causes massive, long-term damage. Look at Argentina, which used to be the seventh richest country in the world, and is now 24th. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Any country whose debts are denominated in a fiat currency that it controls is by definition solvent. This is the case for the United States and the United Kingdom, but not for the euro-zone countries. (Though individual euro-zone countries may be solvent despite their lack of control over creation of the euro.) A country whose debt is denominated in its own fiat currency can create as much money as is needed to cover its debts or other obligations. Of course, such debt monetization can lead to inflation, but it is consistent with solvency. Argentina's case is not relevant because its debt before its default was denominated in U.S. dollars, over which it had no control. Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not just inflation, but hyperinflation, causing the total collapse of the economy. So, just printing money to pay off your debts is not a serious option, or they already would have done so. Even defaulting on those debts would be less of a disaster. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I am not just talking about current Argentine problems, MarcoPolo, see Economic history of Argentina: "The economic history of Argentina is one of the most studied, owing to the "Argentine paradox", its unique condition as a country that had achieved advanced development in the early 20th century but experienced a reversal, which inspired an enormous wealth of literature and diverse analysis on the causes of this decline. Argentina possesses definite comparative advantages in agriculture, as the country is endowed with a vast amount of highly fertile land. Between 1860 and 1930, exploitation of the rich land of the pampas strongly pushed economic growth. During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina outgrew Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income. By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest nation per capita."

Also, you are simply saying in other terms that unilateral currency devaluation is "solvency" by definition, but in that case Weimar Germany was solvent. A more normal definition of solvency would be the ability to pay creditors and secure new debt. (This was written before but saved well after Stu's comments, which I echo.) μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No, solvency is merely the ability to pay one's bills, not necessarily the ability to borrow more money. Also, monetization of debt need not lead to hyperinflation. Central banks in the Western world have, in effect, been monetizing debt through their quantitative easing programs. In recent years, the Bank of Japan has been most aggressive at this, and yet inflation remains at very low, and sometimes negative, levels in these countries. There are probably limits on the rate at which the debt can be monetized, depending on the broader economic context, without sparking runaway inflation. Weimar hyperinflation is another red herring here, because it was caused by Germany's debts in a currency—gold—over which it had no control, unlike nations with their own fiat currencies. Anyway, none of this bears on the question of solvency, per se, as raised by the questioner. Marco polo (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That would seem to imply that a company in a structured bankruptcy was solvent, because it could pay its settled bills, yet still not incur new debt. Your use of red herring seems to imply I am trying to pull something over on you, Marco Polo. I don't think we need to talk that way. Are you suggesting that countries with fiat currencies can't undergo hyperinflation? Is there something beyond either growing out of debt or devaluation that allows countries with huge debts and deficits to address their budgetary imbalances? For example, austerity and sale of territory, neither of which seems to fit the spirit of the OP's question?

A read of Red herring will demonstrate that a red herring doesn't have to be intentional. Also Marco Polo explicitly acknowledged that there are probably some circumstances where a country with a fiat currencies can get runaway inflation. I suspect this was meant to include hyper inflation. The point seems to be that it's not helpful to talk about hyper inflation in countries where the debt wasn't in a currency the country has control over when trying to understand how things may work in a country whos debts are only in currency they do have control over. Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The core problem is as this old saying: In "the long run", we're all dead." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Equality equals quantity, whereas equity equals quality

This very nice little quote is easily found on the internet, and the most commonly referenced source is: (http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-equity-and-equality/) ... or differencebetween.net . I've really tried, but so far am unable to find a more appropriate original source, with an author, or a more academic reference. I have to think there is one, so would really appreciate if anyone could point me to an original source that I could cite for this gem (which is also quite a potent tongue twister...try it). I do know how to cite a webpage if I have to, but that isn't the point...Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.220 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

First, maybe you could explain what it means, or is supposed to mean. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's explained rather clearly in the link provided (though I make no assertion that the distinction being drawn is useful or correct). We also have articles on equity and equality. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Equity (finance) is a dollar amount. That's quantity. As for the link, I always assume unfamiliar website links are to malware sites. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it's not equity (finance), but equity-fairness, as covered by several of our other articles that you can find from the disambiguation page. The basic idea of the quote is understandable and could be paraphrased: both earning the same = equality; it feels fair = equity. I wonder if there actually is an original source for the observation or whether it is a simplification made by the author of the page of differencebetween.net. Academic sources on equity stress that there are both qualitative and quantitative measures that need to be made. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Something "feeling" fair is going to vary widely across the population. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't take that maxim - or differencesbetween.net, for that matter - too literally. After all, what is "quality"? (Equality: condition or quality of being equal - Webster's 1913). Now you have another tough distinction. It is not likely relevant to socio-political-economic debate outside of a court empowered to consider equity law (as opposed to only a strict interpretation of common or administrative law) and such maxims are not legally binding by themselves in any case. If not original with the unsigned article on differencesbetween.net, it would most likely be an old legal maxim (our article uses dated sources exclusively), not yet documented on Misplaced Pages's page specific to legal maxims of equity. Source perhaps most easily found through the greatly expanded appendix on (Latin) legal maxims in the the latest (2014) 10th edition of Black's Law Dictionary (not found in my 9th ed.), or one of the public domain sources cited on one of the first three linked articles, maybe on archive.org or elseweb. Might help to have presumed Latin original. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, just to finish the thought, as the original poster... Below, from the paper I'm drafting which provides the context. The quote then shows up in the footnote, also provided below, and I was hoping to properly cite the quote (because colleagues don't always appreciate the purpose and need for that), and if I could find the original source, I think there might be additional interesting content to consider. As some of you pointed out...without the context, there is less to make of the quote, however elegant. What I was writing:

"Gender inequality, inequality of opportunity, and wealth/income inequalities are three symptoms of unsatisfied human needs. Just as problematic are structural inequities (footnote here). Both inequality and inequity result in insecurity, injustice, marginalisation and alienation. (Our organization) places particular emphasis on gender inequality, considering it a root cause of fragility...

and the footnote: "To consider the difference between inequality and inequity, one can puzzle over this pithy observation: 'equality equals quantity, whereas equity equals quality' . The point being that equality often refers to a quantitative measure of something, whereas equity refers to fairness. This is a subtle but sometimes critical distinction." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.220 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as you're making a hyperlink reference to that quote, you might like to sharpen the distinction for your purpose and context with the pithy, accurate, and apropos definitions and sample sentences from Oxforddictionaries.com:

• equality: The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities: 'an organization aiming to promote racial equality'
• equity: The quality of being fair and impartial: 'equity of treatment'

Needless to say, the two words, sharing the same root of "equal" in Latin, have led to a great many specialized distinctions in specific contexts by different writers, as here, "The Many Faces of Equality" (pp. 7-8) in Ulf Blossing, Gunn Imsen, and Lejf Moos, The Nordic Education Model: 'A School for All' Encounters Neo-Liberal Policy (Springer, 2014).

Point being, your audience may or may not accept your distinction at face value, or may want you to make further discriminations. Context rules rhetoric! Hope this has been of some help. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

C.C.D. in case citation

The case citation for Folsom v. Marsh is 9. F.Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841). What does C.C.D. Mass. represent? Was there a circuit court that oversaw just the District of Massachusetts? I know that the Supreme Court justices of the period had circuit responsibilities (the case was heard by Joseph Story), but would there really be a circuit court overseeing just one district? Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just spitballing here, but according to United States circuit court (on the system of courts used until 1912), "Although the federal judicial districts were grouped into circuits, the circuit courts convened separately in each district and were designated by the name of the district (for example, the "U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts"), not by the name or number of the circuit." Very nice of them to use the exact situation you asked about :) --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Circuit court for the district of Massachusetts. At the time, there were not federal appellate circuits like today, but were staffed with a SCOTUS justice and the local district court judge. When the circuit court was cited, it was cited to the district (and thus state) that it was hearing the case for. GregJackP Boomer! 17:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't found the United States circuit court article; I wondered why United States courts of appeals was really only the current system, without much history. Thanks for the pointer! Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Title of this painting

In a hotel I had a reproduction of this painting: http://imgur.com/p5Yeg3W I really liked it but I was unable to find the author/title. Tried searching on Google Images, with no luck. Anyone can help? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.11.74.163 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@37.11.74.163: please contact the hotel. They will be able to give you more information about the work, the artist, and a contact name. Many artists make their work available for sale through the hotel where their work is featured. This particular piece of work is quite striking, and I like it very much. If you correct the levels in your image and then search Google Images with it, one result will come up, but it is not the original work you have presented here, but a bad imitation. I have chosen not to link to it to here because there are quite a number of disreputable companies who exist to steal the work of local artists and pass it off as their own. I have no idea if that is the case here, but the one result in question did not give an artist name. It did, however, offer title key words, including "two sisters" and "medieval dress". I don't think that's going to help you, so the best thing to do is call the hotel. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Another legal terminology question

I can't remember and can't find the term that refers to the distinction between an office and a person that holds it. For an example, if I understand rightly, the Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) is sworn to the institution of King or Queen (or perhaps to The Crown), not to Mrs. Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor. As well, Jones v. Clinton and the related Clinton v. Jones was Paula Jones' lawsuit against Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband, not against the President of the United States, and if you sue a US state attorney general claiming that the state's violated a constitutional standard, you're suing the attorney general, not the guy who holds the job, and the suit will continue if he resigns and gets replaced by someone else. Corporation sole isn't quite the concept that I'm looking for, because governmental offices often aren't corporations sole. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

They aren't? From the article you just linked it states "Some lawyers consider The Crown in right of each Commonwealth realm to be a corporation sole, which may possess property as the monarch distinct from property he or she possesses personally, and may do acts as monarch distinguished from her or his personal acts." It then goes on to list a bunch of legal and political offices in the UK. --Jayron32 23:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No, they aren't. I gave this disclaimer precisely because the Crown is an exception. If you disagree, find me the name of the corporation sole that exists for the President of the United States, for the attorneys general of various US states, etc. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the status of the President of the United States is, but your statement "governmental offices often aren't corporations sole" is directly contradicted by the text in the article titled Corporation sole which lists numerous governmental offices. I have no pony in this race, and am not disagreeing with anything. I was merely noting the existence of the disagreement between your statement and the text of the article you linked. The article and your statement cannot both be simultaneously correct. --Jayron32 17:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No fair. Can't even one of them be simultaneously correct?  :) -- Jack of Oz 23:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's no incompatibility between "many are" and "many are not", if there exist at least two manies. —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Augustus ... acknowledged he could not make a new Latin word"

That's a quotation from the third book of Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and apparently refers to a story Locke would have expected his readers to be familiar with. I, on the other hand, am not familiar with it. Can I get some clarification or a reference to an outside source? Thanks in advance. 72.250.240.100 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've only ever seen that referenced from Locke. My understanding of the meaning is that although Augustus was leader of the most powerful empire on earth, he could not create a new word in Latin and make people use it, and use it in the way he intended. It is an acknowledgment of the limits of his power and the fact that a language, and more generally, independent thought, is made by its speakers, not issued by dictates of its leader. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that Locke's story is not historically correct, however Suetonius does recount the following incident in his book about grammarians, reaching a similar conclusion: 'When this same Marcellus had criticized a word in one of Tiberius's speeches, and Ateius Capito declared that it was good Latin, or if not, that it would surely be so from that time on, Marcellus answered: "Capito lies; for you Caesar, can only confer citizenship on men, but not upon a word."' --Suetonius, De Grammaticis, XXII (Latin text) - Lindert (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Novel about woman in medieval time

Hello,

I read a book around fifteen years ago that was about a woman living in a sort of medieval era. In the beginning she was living in some sort of castle in the countryside and then later there was a tournament which she entered. In the tournament everybody wore a scarf over their face and the goal was to use your sword to cut the other person's scarf off without actually hurting them. The woman was in the competition and won many rounds until the final round, in which I think while cutting the other person's scarf off, she accidentally cut their cheek slightly. It turned out that her adversary in this final round was some sort of prince or something, and they may have gotten married I can't remember for sure but after this she went off and had some sort of adventures with the prince. She had entered the tournament without anyone knowing who she was because the scarf covered her face. Later in the book somebody was swinging a sword to test out how it handled. That's all I can remember, I think it was a book oriented toward teenagers but I'm not sure. Has anyone else read this book or know the name of it? I have never been able to find it again. Thank you Elpenmaster (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like fiction. If so, this Q should be moved to the Entertainment Desk, as this Desk would only be for real historic figures, or perhaps ancient works of fiction that have had profound effects on society. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Table of Effects for s:The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996

(Legal disclaimer noted).

Does anyone here happen to have access to a UK Law library that would be able to assist in compiling a "Table of Effects" (i.e what measures made changes to this one) for the period between it's enactment and 2002 which is where legislation.gov.uk's tracking begins?

If I can find this information, I can add a suitable note to the front-sheet at Wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Re your first question, may I suggest you ask at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request where many people with access to databases hang out. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Noted, but was asking here first, in case there was a specific publication that covered this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course! A net casts widely catches more fish or some similar proverb that I am making up on the spur of the moment. Just mentioned it as a back-up since there have been no answers so far. I do hope you get a proper answer. There are some people knowledgeable in the area here. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Haven't read it through but this 2009 publication ] may give you the information.--Bill Reid | (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

May 21

How to pronounce the "v." in court cases?

Is Roe v. Wade pronounced "Roe vee Wade" or "Roe versus Wade"? My other car is a cadr (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it pronounced both ways in various news stories. Dismas| 03:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup... it's pronounced both ways. Blueboar (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What Blueboar said. Lawyers and those involved in legal fields are more apt to use "Roe vee," but either works. GregJackP Boomer! 03:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In at least some countries it's also pronounced as "'n", meaning "and". I was talking to a niece of mine who's a lawyer in Canada just the other day and noticed her using this pronunciation. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In England, lawyers would refer to the case as 'Roe and Wade'. Sometimes you get a case with multiple defendants - for example, R. v. Dudley and Stephens - which is referred to by the name of the defendants only - ie. 'Dudley and Stephens'.

How non-lawyers would refer to such a case is up to them; there is no right or wrong answer. 81.141.215.133 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember when Kramer vs. Kramer was a current movie and a frequent topic of conversation. A friend of mine was a first year law student at the time, and whenever the movie was mentioned, he would be certain to pointedly call it "Kramer AND Kramer", which always stopped the rest of us in our tracks. He, with his decades of legal training, would explain that that was the one and only correct way to say "vs". Well, maybe so in Commonwealth countries, but not so in the USA. -- Jack of Oz 07:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, the conventional system is to say "and" for civil cases: Rylands v Fletcher = "Rylands and Fletcher", and to say "against" for criminal cases: R v Wallace = "The King against Wallace". (Geoffrey Rivlin (2012), Understanding the Law (6th ed), Oxford, p 21). Tevildo (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Although criminal lawyers generally just refer to the case by the name of the defendant. So to use your example, R. v. Wallace would usually be referred to (other than in formal settings) simply as Wallace. (The practice mentioned by 81.141.215.133 above is broader than just cases with two defendants.) It can sometimes be difficult, without context or knowledge of the case in question, to know whether a case referred to in speech as "Smith and Jones" is the civil case of Smith v. Jones or the criminal case of R. v. Smith and Jones. Proteus (Talk) 11:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tevildo and everyone else who knows about these things: The UK civil terminology has from time to time become contentious at Jarndyce and Jarndyce and there has been a RM at Talk:Jarndyce and Jarndyce#Requested move. Could someone supply a reference to a reliable source for the terminology at this article and otherwise help out? Thincat (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:JackofOz, whilst your law student friend ("with his decades of legal training" in "first year law") might have substituted "and" for "versus", it certainly isn't how "vs" is pronounced. Aside from that, the name of the film is properly pronounced however its title is officially marketed, which was quite definitely "Kramer versus Kramer", irrespective of what the 'proper' parlance might be in legal circles. So your pedantic friend was just wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As we told him at the time. But he knew better, and there was no telling him. -- Jack of Oz 11:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's and in England. That's how I was taught at law school; and in criminal cases R is pronounced The Queen. It is short for Regina because crimes are officially prosecuted by the Crown. Hence, R. v Brown becomes The Queen and Brown.149.254.224.222 (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, R is sometimes pronounced The King. DuncanHill (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Visa Waiver Program

The visa waiver program seems to favours Europeans. Previous US visa policy were openly racist when they favoured Europeans. So is the current European favouring eligibility also due to racism or something else? 78.144.251.38 (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The article tells us that (after markup-stripping):

The criteria for designation as program countries are specified in Section 217 (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 U.S.C. § 1187). The criteria stress passport security and a very low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate: not more than 3% as specified in Section 217 (c)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as ongoing compliance with the immigration law of the United States.

If you ask whether this is due to racism, it seems to me that you're inviting mere opinions. Are you asking whether these apparently impartial standards are actually interpreted in a racist way? -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

According to this article, Qatar, Oman and South Africa should have been offered the program. They are more stable and employed than many listed European countries. This makes me wonder if their majority African and Asian ethnicity has something to do with it as it had in the past. Is my racism-theory correct? 78.144.251.38 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not answer requests for opinions. Including opinions as to whether your theories are correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide citations for your claims. The source you linked to doesn't say "Qatar, Oman and South Africa should have been offered the program". It simply mentions that these 3 countries meet one of the criteria. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you say its racist, why would you want to go there anyways? Almost a moot point methinks. btw- many CARICOM countries, for example, don't need visas in places such as the uk and even Switzerland.120.62.7.103 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

America

What was the term for America before Vespucci and the European came over? Was there a unified term for the entire continental island (many traders did cross what are state borders today)? Of course all the tribes and societies have/had their own language, so they may be more than one term, if any.120.62.7.103 (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Charles C. Mann covers this in his excellent book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. The answer is "nothing". The people who lived here before European contact had no common culture, and no common understanding of the entire planet, with concepts like "continents" and the like. They had ideas like "land" and "sea" and "sky", but concepts like "Europe" or "The Americas" did not exist for them in any meaningful way. --Jayron32 12:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Same, incidentally, for all the other continents. Note the anomaly when it comes to the notion of "Europe", though, which is a "continent" that is not actually a continent, geographically speaking. That by itself should give away who it was that did the naming. Btw, Vespucci did not discover America. He simply claimed to have been the first to identify that area as a new continent (as opposed to it being the eastern edge of Asia) and someone who apparently took his claim seriously used a Latin form of Vespucci's first name to designate that new part of the world. The use of a first name was a bit unusual (except for monarchs) but in hindsight it was a good choice: just imagine "the United States of Vespuccia (US of V)". Contact Basemetal here 12:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, except that the old world had a (to them) natural continental division: the Mediterranean Sea (lit. "The Center of the Earth"). From the Mediterranean point-of-view, you could divide the land into continents based on cardinal directions: Europe to the North, Asia to the East, and Africa to the south. The lack of a Western land upset their sense of symmetry, which is why some had to invent a "lost" continent, hence, Atlantis. The continent never existed, but the name for it persists today in the Atlantic Ocean. As far as they were concerned, each of those lands extended on from those direction in an indeterminate manner. The division between Europe and Asia had natural water boundaries (i.e. the Black Sea) as did Asia and Africa (the Red Sea). The lack of a convenient body of water beyond the Black Sea to divide Asia from Europe certainly upset that original plan, but at the time, it worked well for them. --Jayron32 13:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The people living in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans were unaware of other landmasses. In fact, individual societies were generally unaware of any lands more than about 1000 km from their own, so they did not have a concept of continents. Marco polo (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

They weren't aware of kilometers, either. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

They still aren't. Kilometers are French. Contact Basemetal here 15:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No, kilomètres are French, kilometers are American. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Canada has Natives and kilometres. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

And it refers to the Yupik as Inuit, which they aren't. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Federally, yeah. But it also lets both groups largely disregard federal stuff, and officially call themselves anything. So there's a moral balance. Wait, no. Only "First Nations" get band governments. We're evil after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

See "Turtle Island (North America)".—Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not exactly the same thing, and I don't really like the phrasing in the article that it is the name for North America. Native American cosmogony is certainly not developed enough to recognize what a continent is. Turtle Island is merely the World Turtle concept as manifested in the Northeastern United States. It's the name for the world as opposed to this chunk of land. --Jayron32 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

At least I've had a longtime question answered: does "Turtle Island" mean island with turtles, island shaped like a turtle, island that is a turtle, or something else again? Each of these would be translated differently to at least some languages. —Tamfang (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Can or will formal language replace ordinary language in the literary arts?

According to philosophers, poetry and mathematics both seek truth and beauty. Moreover, these two disciplines operate under constrains of precision, rigidity and logical validity. This deep and intimate connection became the foundation of “mathematical poetry”.

This is an example of a minimalist mathematical poem by LeRoy Gorman entitled “The Birth of Tragedy”:

                                   (!+?)^2

Does mathematical poetry signal the literary turn to using formal or symbolic language in creative writing? Are there any critics to this kind of poetry?Rja2015 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 15:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about criticizing that kind of poetry, but the St. Louis Poetry Center saw something wrong with that particular poet's language thirty years ago, because he came in second. But, as artists do, he didn't let it get him down and by 1990, he was big in Japan.

No on the first question. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

There are the best math poems, as decided by the (probably) esteemed critics at PoetrySoup.com. By binary logic, the rest are simply not the best. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

I have read all the poems included in that site's list of "best" math poems. All are execrable, as you'd expect from a site largely targetting doggerel-mongers. Some of Piet Hein's grooks express entertaining mathematical thoughts, but all are expressed in common language (either English or Danish). RomanSpa (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is one of those areas where "philosophers" have (as is very common) expressed themselves unclearly. Mathematicians are to a large extent concerned with statements that are "mathematically true" - that is, can be deduced from an agreed set of prior statements by a clear sequence of intermediate statements. A mathematical truth is often regarded by practitioners as beautiful if it is of great significance or generality, and/or has been deduced using a non-obvious sequence of intermediate statements, and/or tells us something unexpected or useful about the real world that the mathematics is being used to model. Poets, on the other hand, are not concerned that their statements are in any sense literally true, but seek to induce particular thoughts or states of mind in their audience through the use of language such as metaphor and simile, and such oral-language tools as assonance and rhyme. The "truth" of a poem is largely the affirmation or contradiction of pre-existing tendencies within the human mind, and is largely uninteresting except as an examination of mental states. When a poet writes "Proud the hull and dark the prow, of sweat and steel it forged..." he is not giving true information about ship construction, and when he writes "North the fulmar through the smoke, the ship in silence led" he is not suggesting that ship navigation be based on bird behaviour: he is seeking to evoke a state of mind that is "true" in its emotional satisfaction. To put it another way, the "truth" that mathematics is concerned with is different from the "truth" that poetry is concerned with. It isn't meaningful to compare the two. RomanSpa (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Harcourt's kidney

According to John Aubrey, when Thomas Harcourt (our article is at Thomas Whitbread), was executed and his bowels thrown into the fire, "a butcher's boy standing by was resolved to have a piece of his Kidney which was broyling in the fire", later it was in the possession of one "Roydon, a brewer in Southwark". Aubrey says he saw it, and it was absolutely petrified. Do we know if the kidney has survived? Is it now a relic? Where is it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This review of 1973 Review of the Patrick Garland/Roy Dotrice's one-man play about the life of Aubrey (noted in our article) claims that among the props used in the play are "the actual jawbone of Thomas More and the .petrified kidney of Sir Thomas Harcourt". No idea if the report is accurate, but if it is, then the kidney still existed in 1973. No idea how it, and More's jawbone, were obtained to be used in the play. But it's a lead. --Jayron32 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Broiling a kidney petrifies it? How does that work? I think I've eaten broiled kidneys, though not human ones. Or was it liver? Contact Basemetal here 16:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The obvious explanation is that it was a giant kidney stone, such as this 2.5 pound specimen: . The fire would merely removed the remaining flesh. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Flesh will petrify just fine. Mummification, for example. So long as it is kept free from the sort of microorganisms that would eat it, flesh can survive almost indefinitely; certainly a few centuries is not unreasonable. --Jayron32 16:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't mummify something by "broyling in the fire", as described in the Q. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Aubrey says "The wonder is, 'tis now absolutely petrified. But 'twas not so hard when he first had it. It being always carried in the pocket hardened by degrees, better than by the fire". Thanks for the Patrick Garland/Roy Dotrice lead - Unfortunately they are both dead, so I can't approach them for information. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh how very silly of me, Roy Dotrice is not dead, I'm glad to say! DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely relevant, but here lies Grigori Rasputin's alleged penis. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

A detail of the boundary between Minnesota and Wisconsin

I'd have said the boundary between Minnesota and Wisconsin consists of part of the course of the St. Croix river going as far south as its confluence with the Mississippi River, and downstream from there it's the Mississippi River, and north of the point where the St. Croix forms the boundary it's a straight line going northward until, or almost until, it reaches the western extreme of Lake Superior.

Looking at this map a few miles southeast of Prescott, Wisconsin, I see the boundary appearing to leave the main channel of the Mississippi and following a narrower channel southwest of the main channel and rejoining the main channel about a half-mile downstream from there. Zooming in, it appears to be labeled "Big River". But the Big River is supposed to be a river in Wisconsin flowing into the Mississippi somewhere near there. This channel labeled "Big River" seems to be on the wrong side of the Mississippi to be a river in Wisconsin, and it looks like a channel a half-mile long rather than a river 13 miles long in Wisconsin. What exactly is happening here? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Rivers change their courses but legal boundaries don't always follow. The border may be defined as the middle of the waterway as it existed on a certain date. Rmhermen (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This sort of thing happens often along state boundaries defined (at the time the state's boundaries were first drawn) by the Mississippi River in particular. For most of its course, the Mississippi meanders over a broad floodplain, resulting in relatively frequent changes of position, especially before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began working to stabilize the course of the river in the late 1800s. Marco polo (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The principle is that when the river drifts gradually across its floodplain, the state border drifts with the river. When the river abandons it's old channel and completely cuts a new channel (see Meander cutoff for example), then the state border remains with the former channel. This has happened all over the place, and resulted in geographic oddities like Kaskaskia, Illinois (caused by river channel jumping) and the Kentucky Bend (caused by a drifting river channel which moved the border). --Jayron32 00:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the linked article, the Kentucky bend was not formed by a "drifting river channel" but arose accidentally from the way the boundary was specified, similarly to Point Roberts, Washington. I'm not aware of any cases where a drifting channel formed that sort of anomaly (which certainly is not to say that there aren't any).

Another notable example of natural channel jumping is Carter Lake, Iowa, which since 1877 has been on the Nebraska side of the Missouri River. A similar example where the channel was moved artificially is Marble Hill, a part of the New York borough of Manhattan that's been on the Bronx side of the Harlem River since 1914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.135.200 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No, when originally mapped it was contiguous with the rest of Kentucky. The New Madrid Earthquake caused the river channel to drift dramatically (without leaving its channel as in a cutoff). See and . Both sources cite the movement of the river channel caused by the earthquake as the reason for the bend. --Jayron32 04:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In the second source, "Kentucky Bend" is written in capitals and small capitals, indicating a cross-reference. That is to page 491, where you will see the enclave explained as the result of a surveying error (which is what I should have said above, rather than referring to the original specification). It is, of course, possible that the earthquake moved the river far enough that, when the states agreed to use the surveyed line as the boundary, that decision created the enclave. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, check out this 1775 map of the river. If you mouse over the map, a gray scale icon appears and you can click "+" to enlarge, then click and drag to see the part you want. Unfortunately it's hard to relate the map to a modern one because so many place names have changed, but near the top you can see the confluence with the Ohio River. If you scan south from that point, you will see Wolf Island: see Wolf Island, Missouri. South of that the river makes an N-shaped double bend, where some islands are labeled "Sound Islands". That has got to be the Kentucky Bend, with New Madrid at the point where the map shows a "Cheponssea or Sound River" flowing into the Mississippi. (That river doesn't seem to exist today as shown on the map, but perhaps it's what Google Maps shows as Saint John Bayou, and the mapmaker mistook what direction it flowed from.) Anyway, if this interpretation is correct it means that while the New Madrid quakes may have altered the exact configuration of the Kentucky Bend, they clearly did not create it. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the above appears to explain why that channel is labeled "Big River" when the Big River is supposed to be a river in Wisconsin that is a tributary of the Mississippi. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is possible that that's just an error in the Google Map—such errors are hardly unknown occurences. The USGS topographic map for the area does not have a label for that side channel, and I'm not seeing a "Big River" label on any online map other than the Google one. On the other hand "Big River" is an extremely common name in the U.S., and it's possible that someone calls that side channel Big River; but it's apparently not a name recognized by the U.S. government. (From the Google aerial image, it appears that the channel may be silting up and losing its connection with the Mississippi, turning into an oxbow lake.) Deor (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It could even be an intentional error. Google only recently turned off a number of user submission features in Map Maker due to such intentional errors or misuse . (This allowed people to make changes on the map, I presume it include modifying names of features.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

May 22

Please identify this nasheed

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=551_1431627699 This is a video from Army of Conquest. I haven't been able to find the nasheed, and google deleted the youtube channel so I can't ask them either. Does anyone know the nasheed, or can an arabic speaker search the lyrics for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 05:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

City of London pub history

Does anyone know where online I'd be able to see anything about the histories of pubs in the City? I've discovered the Golden Fleece on Queen Street (51°30′48″N 0°5′33.5″W / 51.51333°N 0.092639°W / 51.51333; -0.092639), a block away from One New Change (which is apparently by the site of the pre-Blitz street "Old Change"), and I'm trying to figure out whether it could be the place of publication (or related to the place of publication) for Thomas Edwards' book The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan, which was "Printed by T.R. and E.M. for George Calvert, and are to be sold at the golden Fleece in the Old-Change, 1647". Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The London Encyclopaedia has some information about Old Change (p. 598). Londoners don't really talk about "blocks" as there is no regularity to our streets especially in the City. Queen Street is actually four junctions further down Cheapside from the site of Old Change (about two or three hundred yards) as you can see on the 1936 A to Z of London. New Change was built "a little to the east" of Old Change, which is now the site of a (rather ugly) sunken garden in the Festival of Britain style where I used to eat my sandwiches sometimes. So no, I don't think there's a connection as there are several pubs in between. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually looking at a photograph of the Old Change garden, it doesn't look as bad as I remembered. Either I or the garden the garden or I must have mellowed with age. By the way, in 2011 there were 28 English pubs called the "Golden Fleece", so it's not a particularly rare name. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Golden fleece" is a good name for any business, which is of course there to fleece you of your "gold". The only more appropriate British business name I can think of is the gambling group, Ladbroke. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a small world: the "Golden Fleece" website that the original question linked to is actually in Forest Gate some six or seven miles east of the City, overlooking Wanstead Flats in Epping Forest. My sister used to rent a flat nearby and I've had a few enjoyable pints there. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I originally had several "Golden Fleece" webpages open and closed all of the tabs, so when I went to ask the question, I apparently pulled up the wrong one. I think this is the right one. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding trite, yes there are lots of historic pub guides: a simple Google search on "history London pubs" brought up several online. Rather than recommend them to you, please have a look yourself. (The reason I'm doing this is because I'm quite a beer and pub fan and if I started looking through all these sites myself now, I'd miss the event I'd got planned for this evening!) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of ones that are reliable? I ran such a search, but the first reliable-looking one didn't show up until the seventh page of results, and much of the book isn't displayed. All I'm seeing otherwise are a mix of random popular websites, with a couple newspaper columns, and they're not reliable for seventeenth-century history. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realise you were writing an academic paper on this, I thought you were interested in visiting pubs! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, sorry; I'm in the US, working on MARC cataloging a collection of 16th-through-20th-century books, and when I can't find an authority file for the publisher, I've been doing my best to add a free-text note connecting the publisher to something currently in existence. That's why I wanted something online; our print reference collection definitely won't have anything on the subject, and I doubt I could find anything relevant in print in any regional libraries. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried approaching the Museum of London? (or for that matter the https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/london-metropolitan-archives/Pages/default.aspx Metropolitan Archive?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've managed to trace the Golden Fleece at 8 Queen Street back as far as 1971 which given the short life span of many City pubs isn't bad going. In 1919, the same address was the registered offices of the London Coal Trade Clerks Association (a trades union) , but that doesn't preclude it being a pub as well. There is a mention of a pub called the "Golden Fleece" in the Post Office London Directory, 1843 (p. 122), at 3 Little Knightrider Street. Knightrider Street connected with Old Change at its southernmost end; however our article says that much of the street was demolished in the 1860s. Note also that this area was devastated by the Great Fire of London in 1666; however another pub in Knightrider Street, "The Horn", was rebuilt afterwards and is still in use as a pub today, although under a different name. This 1775 map shows how far away Old Change was from Queen Street, and Knightrider Street is partly shown on the western margin as "...riderS." Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sniffle-less Žižek?

Has anyone come across audio/video of Slavoj Žižek with the sniffling removed? That should be technically feasible, shouldn't it? It's absolutely unbearable. It makes it impossible to concentrate on what the guy's saying. There's also his speech impediment, a kind of "bilateral lisp" (is that the correct term?) but I can deal with that. (If you don't know who/what I'm talking about: here and here, but you probably won't be able to help me then.) Contact Basemetal here 16:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

From a quick glance at his article, I'm not sure whether not being able to concentrate on what he's saying is a bug or a feature. --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming he doesn't talk while sniffling, careful editing could mute the sound whenever he sniffled, without interfering with the words. However, you would lose any ambient sounds during each sniffle. Depending on the volume of those ambient sounds, the muting might be quite obvious. There are also more complex ways to try to remove the sniffles without the ambient noise, but that would require lots of work and expertise. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If this is something that would take a lot of work then it probably doesn't exist. I had Googled things like 'Zizek sniffling removed' etc. but nothing serious came up. He doesn't have the reputation of being a very profound thinker but, despite his sniffling, has gained some notoriety globally. I was curious what it was all about, but, because of that sniffling, never managed to sit through even a 5 mins video. Contact Basemetal here 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are the infamous tampon commercials with a wheezing actress (1982) parodied here by SCTV, see minute 1:30. The real commercial was fixed to remove the breathing sounds after it became the subject of parody. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Twice the same link. You did not provide the link for the parody. Contact Basemetal here 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• • • Oops, sorry, Basemetal, sometimes cut doesn't always work on PC's for some reason; never have that issue with Macs. I have fixed the link above, and here it is again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN64UooGiXw. First there is a jean commercial and its parody, then the tampon commercial at 1:30 followed by the parody. Oh, and I looked, but I couldn't find the filtered version of the actual commercial where the wheezing goes away. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have a solution to the problem of <CTRL> C not telling you if it worked or not. Do <CTRL> X, instead, followed by <CRTL> V. If the highlighted text disappears, then reappears, you have confirmation that it made it into the cut buffer. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Stu, that is actually what I did, and the text did disappear. In this case it was between browsers, so perhaps that was the specific issue. Nevertheless it has been my experience that with PC's running Windows 7 there's no guarantee the cut will take or that the paste will be the most recent cut. I've had this issue on multiple PC's running anything from XP to Windows 8, so I think its a Windows fault. I have never had this problem with a Mac, but mine is now 10 years old and I am not in a hurry to spend money to replace an Asus I bought in 2013 and love for just that problem. Of course it's embarrassing when you end up posting... well, you can imagine. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, crumbs, Žižek again. Can someone please think of the domo-kuns and upload a YouTube video entitled, I dunno, "Cultural Marxism for Dummies", consisting of <redacted> and <redacted> repeatedly hitting <redacted> over the head with paperback first editions of "The Sublime Object of Ideology"?--Shirt58 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Been done. Some ... is repeatedly hitting ... over the ... though possibly not with a ... that will satisfy all .... Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like there's something very weird with your computer which few other people experience. Windows by default has only a single clipboard and no clipboard history. Certain applications like Office do have their own history but even if the application is running, this should generally only affect the application unless you majorly screw up the settings. You can install clipboard history applications, but if you did that, you should know about it unless the computer is managed by someone else which it doesn't sound like it is.

The point of all this is that if you cut something and it was successfully cut it's not possible to paste something else by default on Windows. So either you're running an application which is messing around with the clipboard, or you aren't actually cutting.

As StuRat said, cutting will generally give feedback that it worked, which was the point of StuRat's suggestion. The exceptions is something which can't be modified. In which case you should still know that there's no feedback (i.e. the content is still there). In fact with I think most applications cutting won't work with something which can't be modified. So "content is still there" does usually mean "cutting didn't work" whatever the reason.

Since you highlighted something, you could delete it instead of cutting but unless you have a very weird keyboard, or major hand motor problems, it should be very difficult to do this without noticing that you did so, when trying to cut using the keyboard. If you fail to push ctrl or it otherwise doesn't register, you should see the x which replaced the highlighted text. Even if you push space you should see the space if you are paying proper attention (and with most keyboards it isn't easy to push space anyway). And besides you'd have to not only push, but push space and fail to push x. Pushing backspace or delete will generally appear little different from a successful cut, but these would generally be even harder to push then space, plus again you'd need to fail to push the x.

Different browsers should generally irrelevant since the clipboard itself is a Windows function, unless the browser messes around with the clipboard in some way or doesn't know how to use a core Windows function. (The clipboard is part of Windows, but the application obviously has to know how to interact with it.) Internet Explorer, Firefox and Chrome should not have any problems using the clipboard properly without having installed weird plugins or something. I suspect Opera shouldn't either. No idea about other browsers although it would IMO be a silly or specialised browser that does anything like that by default.

(Certain web services like online document editing services have their own way of interacting with the clipboard, but this is even less likely to affect anything other than the service itself.

P.S. In a limited number of cases, you may get undesirable results if one application copies content formated in one way, and the other application can't handle that format properly. Although this will depend significantly on the interaction since many applications with such formatted content particularly text will include plain text and perhaps some other formats, as well. But in that case, you should simply get weird results rather than "cut one link but an older link appeared".

Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit off topic and stale, but in appreciation for your effort I will explain that while I did ctrl x from the address field, I didn't do ctrl v to see if it pasted back, as Stu suggested, which would have been determinative. I took the disappearance of the address after the ctrl x as indicating that the cut had taken. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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