Revision as of 00:23, 24 June 2014

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 18

J. Ewing

Who was J. Ewing? Where was he from? When was he active? When was he born and when did he die? He created a set of charcoal artwork of Hawaiian royalty around 1909 with Honolulu photograph James J. Williams. Also I still have no idea how these images were reproduced. Were they retouched by Williams and then drawn with charcoal by Ewing or did Williams provide the photographs and Ewing did all the work? Some of the photographs used were not Williams work but by earlier Hawaiian photographers and Williams name is situated so prominently on the shoulders of the finished works alongside Ewing's.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also does anybody know the J. in J. Ewing's first name and James J. Williams's middle name stand for. Getting the full names would be nice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the Hawaii State Archives, this image is "Charcoal artwork by J. Ewing, on a photograph reproduced by J.J. Williams. Original photograph by Menzies Dickson, 1840?-1891." You can search the Hawaii State Archives collection for Ewing, but make sure you click on the "show all 24" button. "Leleiohoku, William Pitt, 1854-1877" is another example in this collection of the Ewing/Williams/Dickson combination. Then there is also "Kaahumanu, Consort of Kamehameha I, 1768?-1832" which is described as "Original artwork by Louis Choris. Reproduced photographically by J.J. Williams with charcoal work by J. Ewing." The collection includes several additional examples of charcoal by Ewing on photographs "reproduced by Williams," but no indication of the original photographer/artist.--Dreamahighway (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am already fully aware of every example in the Hawaii State Archives, the Smithsonian and Brother Betram's photo collection. Unfortunately your answer didn't help much. Thank you anyway.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Who was J. Ewing? Where was he from? When was he active? When was he born and when did he die? Does anybody know the J. in J. Ewing's first name and James J. Williams's middle name stand for. Getting the full names would be nice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, you've been asking these questions for months (at least), does anyone ever have any answers for you? If you've already gone through all the possible archives and sources, how are we supposed to be any help? (And how was anyone supposed to know you were already fully aware of the archives? You never mentioned that.) I don't want to discourage you from asking, but it seems that you are already the expert here, in this extremely obscure niche subject. You could be doing your own original research. You could be famous! You could be the one guy, who works on this stuff. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank?... In the past, I've found people here who have answered questions here that have helped me in my research and providing context for images I've upload on the commons including names and lifespans on obscure engravers, artists and photographers and dating entries in primary sources accounts of certain traveler. I assume that my link to the commons category J. Ewing would show that as the uploader of these images from the state archives and the Smithsonian that I've seen them before when I was uploading them. I guess I need to be more specific next time. I don't think they are unanswerable. Askedonty provided an excellent answer and gave me access to a source that helped me a lot in citing two articles I was cleaning up. I got an answer for Lunalilo for the height question from a non registered editor who couldn't edit because of the security on this page a couple of days ago. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

John McLaughlin, MSNBC

John McLaughlin hosted the McLaughlin Special Report on MSNBC for a little while in the late 1990s. Was it John McLaughlin (host) or someone else? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely the same person. The show was short-lived, but still warrants mentioning in the article. Kurtis 13:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, wrong link. Done. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Male Naming Order

My son is named exactly after me, making him a "Jr". Does that automatically make me the "Sr"? Do I need to legally change my name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.216.74 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Read the section on this subject in Suffix (name) and see if it makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Where does this bizarre US habit of giving your children the exact same name as a parent (mostly in the male line, I think) come from? It's so odd! In the rest of the western world the fathers name would traditionally be the second given name. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"US habit"? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A similar tradition does exist in France with the suffixes père and fils, as mentioned in the "suffix" article, but the numbering of kings and popes and such is a totally different matter. -- BenRG (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty common in Britain, or at least it used to be. I have a number of ancestors whose fathers and sons and grandsons and so on had the identical name - starting that tradition in England for several generations before they came to America. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's not unknown here, but it does seem to be more common in the USA. We certainly don't have ordinal numbers after the name, like William E. Smith IV that I picked out randomly from Google. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt if there's any legal requirement that the names be different. As a practical matter, though, it's probably best to use both "Jr." and "Sr." suffixes as long as they live in the same house. That way, if you get mail or a phone call specifying either, you know who it's for, and if it's not specified, you can ask, if on the phone, or take a chance on opening a letter, knowing it may well be for the other. If only "Jr." uses the suffix, then mail and calls with no suffix might either be for "Sr.", or for "Jr.", but with the suffix omitted. Most companies will be happy to refer to you by whatever name you give them, with no requirement that you use your legal name, so you could get by without legally changing your name. However, there may well be exceptions, like when dealing with the government (taxes, etc.), where you can expect them to follow formal rules. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding changing one's name in the U.S., see Name change#United States and Talk:Suffix (name)#Promotion (especially the last reply by Gx872op). -- BenRG (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And then there's George Foreman and his sons Jr., III, IV, V, and VI. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This link describes the traditional naming patterns used in Scotland but summarizing for those who are only mildly interested:

1st son named after father's father

2nd son named after mother's father

3rd son named after father

All other sons' names on preference of parents

1st daughter named after mother's mother

2nd daughter named after father's mother

3rd daughter named after mother

All other daughters' names on preference of parents

This was not always followed and tended to die out in the 19th century. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• In the U.S. as well, while it often happens that the post-nominal numerals follow in direct line (I.E. Jr., Sr., III, IV, etc. or I, II, III, IV, etc.) there are no hard-and-fast rules. Pierre S. du Pont IV's father was Pierre III, but Pierre II was Pierre III's uncle, and the first Pierre was the great grandfather of II. Henry Ford II was grandson of Henry Ford. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was the son of Theodore Roosevelt who was the son of Theodore Roosevelt, Sr.. Cornelius Vanderbilt II was the grandson of Cornelius Vanderbilt. Joseph P. Kennedy II was the nephew of Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. and the grandson of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. and so on. --Jayron32 23:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Slovakia/Slovenia

Why are Slovakia and Slovenia so easy to confuse? Their flags are almost identical - the only difference is the small coat of arms covering less than a third of the flag: Slovakia has a double cross, while Slovenia has a mountain range and three stars. The main motives of the flags - the coloured stripes - are identical. The names are similar not only in English and other European languages, but also in the local languages: Slovensko vs. Slovenija. They are situated very near each other, separated by only one rather small country (Austria). While Slovakia is landlocked, most of Slovenia's border is on land, and only a little part of it is coast. And both use the Euro. Are they intentionally trying to confuse us foreigners? JIP | Talk 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think it might have it's routes in an empire founded by King Samo in the Early Middle Ages, but there is little documented evidence to back this up. All we've really got to go by is speculation.

  If you ever get confused, just remember: Slovakia is near the Czechs, Slovenia is further south. Kurtis 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction, the Czechs happen to be near the Slovaks. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

JIP -- The flags are similar because they're both variations on the old Slavic tricolor or Peter the Great flag. The names are similar because they're both variations on words meaning "Slav/Slavic/Slavonic"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/news/17iht-flag_ed3_.html ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should Austria and Australia have all the fun? I must ask the next koala I see in the Vienna woods. -- Jack of Oz 02:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dominica is geographically close to the Dominican Republic.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos has the basic idea. Both names derive from the "Slav" root. For more information, see Slavs, Pan-Slavism, etc. You can see similar related (but distinct) ethnic or national groups that share names in words like Dutch (referring to the people/culture/language of the Netherlands) or the Pennsylvania Dutch (from Germany and NOT the Netherlands, where Dutch comes directly from Deutsche). Also words like Romania, Rumelia, Sultanate of Rum all ultimately derive from Rome, through the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. Byzantine Empire). All refer to different lands and/or peoples but still come from the same root. You can also have coincidentally similar names, such as Münster and Munster, which despite the very similar names, have nothing etymologically in common (the former derives from the same root that gives us "monastery" and "minister", while the latter derives from the name of an old Irish mythological figure, I can't recall which. But in the case of Solvenia and Solvakia, the names directly derive from the same root. --Jayron32 20:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also Slavonia. -- Jack of Oz 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Information storage

Before commercial businesses used computers, for how long did they keep their financial records and records of postal correspondence (sent and received)? Nowadays, for how long do computerized businesses retain electronic copies of their financial records and (printed or electronic) correspondence? (Some related topics are compulsive hoarding and digital hoarding and statute of limitations.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

For some, they kept them forever, moving them to a warehouse after they reach a certain age. As a practical matter, though, a fire or flood will tend to destroy paper records after a few decades, unless they've taken precautions like making a safe backup copy at an alternate location. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Especially if they're stored below the water line, as the Chicago flood of 1992 demonstrated. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, there is a legal requirement to "keep records for at least 6 years from the end of the last company financial year they relate to". after that they are generally shredded because storage space costs money and lots of it. In my previous occupation in the London insurance market, files relating to liability for personal injury were kept indefinitely because claims could made many years after the contract had terminated, asbestosis being a prime example, because you don't know that you've got it until years afterwards. They were generally microfilmed to save space. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Some companies choose former salt mines for super-secure long-term storage (see Strataca#Underground Vaults & Storage Gallery etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Retention periods vary by country, industry, and type of document. In some industries, retention periods are set by regulation. For example, the period of time that registered investment advisers in the U.S. must keep documents is determined by regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Retention periods are not in concept affected by the availability of computer storage. John M Baker (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

June 19

Tuha'a Pae

Can anybody fill me in on the history of the usage of the term "Tuha'a Pae" for the Austral Islands? Is it a historical term? Or a native slang with only modern context. This state it means the fifth part which doesn't sound very meaningful to me at least if it was a native historical term which dates prior to Western contact. It sounds like some sort of Tahtiian translation of a French colonial term for the island division. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Based on my research, "pae" means five in Tahitian. I think the book you cited is accurate, and the name was given in reference to the territorial division of French Polynesia. Kurtis 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I find a lot of references to "Himene tuhaa pae" meaning traditional songs of the Austral Islands, and lots of references to a cargo ship named Tuhaa Pae, that supplied the islands at least from the 70s to 2002. So I don't know where you draw the line between modern and historical, but the term has been linked to the archipelago for at least 40 years.

Although it is true that there are five administrative divisions of French Polynesia (of which the Austral Islands are one) I haven't found a reference in French yet to these being referred to by number rather than by name. However, I did find a tourism document that says (first sentence, roughly translated) In the polynesian language, the Austral Islands are usually called Tuhaa Pae, referring to the the five islands that make up the Austral archipelago. 184.147.135.33 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Medieval German equivalent

Since I'm not sure whether Herr and Meister are good candidates, what was the medieval German equivalent of medieval Italian messère and French messer (particularly, in the Holy Roman Empire)? Brandmeister 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but would you mind being a bit more specific in your question? It's hard to discern exactly what it is you are asking. Are you referring to archaic forms of address (similar to modern-day Italian "signore")?

  If it's a matter of linguistics, the language reference desk would probably be your best bet. Kurtis 00:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is the medieval Meister Eckhart, although that is an academic title in his case, the Latin magister, and not the equivalent of messer/monsieur. "Herr" should be the equivalent of that (for example, see Freiherr). I don't know how to spell that in medieval German though... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The direct literal translation of monsieur is mein Herr, which IIRC, is a bit formal in German, which usually just uses "Herr". Sieur in in French being the English equivalent of "Sir", as a title for a Knight originally, thus Herr is probably the best equivalent. --Jayron32 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Judging from de:Messer (Titel) its equivalents are Latin dominus, German Herr, Dutch heer, Middle High German hēr and hērre, Old High German hērro. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

June 20

Maoism before Mao

This Google Ngram, not surprisingly, shows an increase in the appearance of "Maoism" after about 1940, peaking around his death, and declining since. However, it occasionally appears in the 19th century, with a higher spot in the early 1840s. In what context would these six letters be appearing in this order in the 1840s? Is it perhaps just the result of mistakes in Google's OCR software? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant Daoism/Taoism ? StuRat (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this section, as it was likely to be offensive to many people from China. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I get that all the time. Occasionally Google mixes up archive dates, meaning something that pertains to the Qing Dynasty would show up in a search for "Mao" or "Maoism". Sometimes the search results are even stranger, although I can't list any specific examples off the top of my head. Kurtis 04:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If you do a Google Books search for "maoism" in the 19th century you'll find indeed that every single match is an OCR mistake. Some of them are way off, but "magism" can easily be mistaken for "maoism" if the 'g' is unclear. - Lindert (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating how far off they can be. One hit was apparently occasioned by the numeral 1889. How 1889 becomes Maoism is a bit hard to reconstruct. --Trovatore (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There's Mohism... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

US primary elections in the 19th and early 20th century for other offices than President

Dear everyone; I can't find any information about American primaries in the 19th and early 20th century for other elected offices than president. I am especially interested in governors and senators. Which way lead to the party nomination as governor or senator back in those days? --Jerchel (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but it's worth keeping in mind that senators weren't uniformly elected by popular vote until after the Seventeenth Amendment and although some states brought in popular votes before that the earliest was apparently Oregon in 1907 so in the 19th Century, the question with regard to senators is "how did the state legislatures choose the senator?" Valiantis (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Jerchel -- You should keep in mind that even when running for the U.S. presidency, as late as the 1950's primaries were not really decisive in themselves, but were a kind of a supplement to the main action of smoke-filled-room negotiating and convention-floor balloting. However the White primaries of Texas and some other states were notorious... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the modern Primary system really didn't become the way we know it today nationwide until the 1970s. Check out the picture to the right. These are the states that had primaries in 1968. In the 19th and early 20th century, delegates met at the national conventions and selected the candidates by ballot. Each state's party had its own procedure for selecting delegates, but once the delegates got to the convention, they were free to nominate and subsequently vote for any candidate they chose. That's how we ended up with so many Dark horse candidates in the 19th century: At the convention, it was often difficult to get a candidate who could get an absolute majority of the vote. There could often be a dozen or more rounds of voting before a candidate finally won their party's nomination. It was a gradual process through the 20th century that caused the transition from the old system (where the Convention itself chose the candidate) to the current system (where the candidate is selected through the primary process and the Convention is a mere formality). --Jayron32 20:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• The point should be taken that parties are private organizations, and that while they may back candidates there is no constitutional right for them to "have their candidates". Anyone who meets age, residency, and local petition requirements gets on the final ballot. How the state primary runs, if one is had, differs by states. Even though the NY state primaries are publicly funded the party bosses can reject candidates. In 1996 Pat Buchanan met the eligibility requirements for the state GOP presidential primary, but the party kept him off anyway since they wanted a unanimous choice for Bob Dole. The state court allowed this.

Recently rep (dem) Conyers forgot to get enough signatures to qualify by law for his primary. A lower court said the law applies to all, the state court decided the law did not apply to a powerful sitting politician. A decade back sitting (NJ, Dem) Senator Toricelli who was about to be arrested dropped out of the final race less than 30 days from the election. State law required all names on the ballot to be certified 30 days before the election--there was no legal way to replace his name. Retired Democrat Laughtenberg was put on the ballot after the legal deadline when the NJ supreme court decided along party lines that the people had a right to vote for a Democrat candidate regardless of the law.

Publicly funded primaries are part of a gradual "establishment of party" in the US. In the cases involving the Democrats above, the needs/desires of the parties were explicitly place above existing law. By the time the final election comes along, "the" candidates are named--you can vote for John D Corruption or John R Corruption, or go third party, and throw your vote away. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Engagement photographs

I'm interested in understanding photography sessions for couples who have got engaged to be married. This seems especially prevalent in the United States but I believe it's reasonably popular in the UK and other parts of the Western world. Who is interested in these photos? Why are they being taken, considering that the wedding is the real event and will occur with reasonable likelihood? They are often posed and horribly, awfully cheesy. I can understand perhaps one photo or two of a smiling couple for an announcement (local newspaper, facebook, etc), but entire extended sessions with multiple poses seems like overkill. Is there an appeal in this that I am missing? Or is it likely that only the couples themselves think it's important/are self-obsessed, just because they are happy with their own engagement? 2601:9:F80:1CA:4013:ED09:51D0:967D (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some couples (or at least one of the partners) will probably look back at least some on the photos later. My parents being almost old enough to be my grandparents, I only found out about people taking more than a couple of photos a year or two ago. I suspect part of it may be that the photographer is already hired for that time, or that they figure it's a better deal to hire a friend of a friend for multiple photos instead of just getting a couple. At least, that's what the polite part of me suspects, other parts want to make accusations of people confusing money, attention, and love; but it could be a spectrum, or even matters of degree for various reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As for them being "cheesy", telling them to "look lovingly into each other's eyes" is bound to make people wretch. A more imaginative photographer might have them dress up, say, as Bonnie and Clyde, complete with mock machine guns. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of wretch would misspell that word? --70.49.171.225 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Be quiet, or I'll hit you with a rench (or maybe a wench). :-) StuRat (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The bride-to-be, and quite possibly the groom and the families, are the ones interested in these photos. Whether such photos make unrelated, unromantic observers cringe is probably not on their list of things to worry about. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It could be two brides-to-be, or two grooms(-to-be). What then? -- Jack of Oz 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR here but since I know several photographers (many of them wedding photographers), I thought I'd speak up. Many couples use the engagement photos for their wedding announcements and invitations. Those are often two separate things nowadays for whatever reason. The couples also may already be living together and want photos of themselves before the wedding for putting on their walls or on their desk at work. The couple may also want photos of themselves which focus more on them as people as opposed to focusing on the event of the wedding. If the couple only has wedding photos, then everyone's eyes are drawn to the dress or the venue or whatever. If they intend on having children, they often also want photos of just them as they were without children. Then when the kids come along later, they get photos of the family together. Dismas| 02:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June 21

Manuella Kalili

Anyway to find out when Manuella Kalili died?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Coronation vs. enthronement

Can they be used interchangeably nowadays? 112.198.77.159 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh... Enthronements aren't necessarily royal, while coronations usually are (the Papal coronation being the only religious example I can find). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because in the former you get a hat, and in the latter you get a chair. --Jayron32 02:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

And many kings have definitely deserved to get the chair. StuRat (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This sort of comment seems highly inappropriate. 99.56.13.119 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, the King of Spain was neither crowned nor enthroned (the Archbishop of Canterbury is ceremonially plonked on the Chair of St Augustine during his enthronement), so it's all a bit metaphorical. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the King of Spain is simply sworn in. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm not looking for legal advice. I just want to understand the situation better. I use MuseScore, a free music composition and notation software, to create sheet music. MuseScore also gives you the possibility to share your created scores with the MuseScore community and therefore the whole Internet since Google indexes shared scores. I had created a score of a song by listening to it and had asked the community to find wrong notes, so it was unfinished. I never claimed it to be my own work and even put the composer's name on it. It was finally taken down after nearly a year with the argument: "This score is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Hal Leonard". Other people who had tried to upload their versions of the song received the same message. I would've understood if it had been the composer himself, but this company(, which I have never heard of before because I don't live in the US,) seems to publish only arrangements of songs. How does it own the rights of the original song? The company publishes everything from classical to pop and I doubt every composer is affiliated to it. It just seems that the company is very sensitive since you need a permission for pretty much everything. I'm sure there are other publishers who have published sheet music of that song. Let's assume I got the permission from one company to publish my score and the other company still sued me for copyright infringement. How would this make sense? Back to my real case. I have never seen the arrangement of that company and my version is similar (not identical) to theirs because we both refer to the same song and neither of us are the true owners. Why does Hal Leonard has the right to claim the content? Also consider the fact that it's just self-created sheet music, I did not copy the actual song. --2.246.24.41 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Several things 1) The song itself (that is, the actual arrangement of the notes) is under copyright. The hummable tune (more than just the expression of the tune) is itself what the copyright holder holds. So, when you create sheet music by ear from a song, and then publish that music on the internet, you are likely violating copyright against the original composition. That's like listening to a book-on-tape and then transcribing the book. You still violate the copyright if you publish the transcripts (copying for purely personal use, without showing it to anyone, may constitute fair use in some jurisdictions, however) 2) The sheet music published by a company like Hal Leonard is itself also copyright separate from the music it represents. Hal Leonard itself has a license to publish said sheet music from the original publishers. They may have exclusive right to publish said music under agreement with the publisher, and may have the legal right to defend that license against unlicensed competition from others publishing said sheet music for free (read: you). Copyright law IS very complex, which is why it needs lawyers to understand it, explain it, and defend it against problems, rather than people like me (that is, random strangers on the Interwebs).. --Jayron32 03:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A note on Hal Leonard: It is the largest sheet music publisher in the world, and as such, have a decent amount of resource to pursue legal action, warranted or otherwise. Mingmingla (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I rather doubt they'd actually pursue legal action against the OP, it's just not worth it - but, as the OP has seen, they will attempt to get the hosts to remove the material. It isn't worth the while of hosing services such as MuseScore to stand up for their users' rights, even when the purported copyright-holder's demands are legally unwarranted. (Not that I'm saying they aren't warranted in this case). My advice is to contact Chilling Effects - they may just be able to help on these sorts of issues? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that I'm in trouble. Everything is fine, the score got deleted and nothing else is going to happen. Just a minor issue. --2.245.66.223 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility is that Hal Leonard have a license to the work which allows them to pursue claims on the copyright owner's behalf for transcriptions of the music (either by an express term, or by some legal effect of another term of the license). It's unlikely we'd ever know for sure what their basis is unless someone decided to challenge it though. MChesterMC (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not A Separate Peace

Some book identification help, please. I thought that I was thinking of A Separate Peace by John Knowles, but probably not. What young-adult novel takes place in an all-boys boarding school during the Spanish Civil War? One of the students, a secondary character IIRC, goes off to fight in that war, and we later learn that he went to fight for the "wrong" side. Now that I think about it, the book may be British rather than American. I believe that I read it in high school (1989–1993) as assigned reading. A Separate Peace took place during World War II, so it is a bit too late. Thank you. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This actually sounds like The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (novel), in which a girl runs off to fight in the war. (I haven't read the book, but I did see the movie.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That does sound awfully like what I described about the war (and I would certainly call the Nationalists the wrong side), but I do not recall reading this book, and I could have sworn it was boys (of course H.S. was over 20 years ago, so maybe I'm forgetting). Thanks! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Could it be Winter in Madrid by C.J Sansom. Set during the Spanish Civil War, two of the characters are men who were at boarding school together with chapters in the book going back to their school days. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Cancel that thought -it wasn't published until 2006. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are mis-remembering which war is involved in the novel, might it be Goodbye, Mr. Chips? With the exception of your mention of the Spanish Civil War, all of the other details seem to match. Young-adult novel; all-boys boarding school; characters go off to fight in the war; British novel; British setting; often found on high school reading lists. Is this it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

SC justice recusal

What if all United States SC justices recuse from a case, do then the judges of the courts of appeals jump in? Or the case is simply dismissed? 112.198.77.214 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To know for sure, you would have to find out if it's happened before. I googled the subject and didn't find much. However, the article Judicial disqualification indicates that recusal could be overridden by the need for at least one judge to hear the case. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• OR, but if the judges recused themselves but with conflicting interests, they could be paired up: three justices who sold stock in the company, three who bought it. Plus, of curse, judges aren't recused, they simply recuse themselves. They could simply say, in a case like this I would recuse myself because of X which I have detailed in this 5 page report, but in these circumstances I will remain seated.

Finding half-remembered books

What are the best places online for finding books you can't remember the title or author of? Obviously I know some details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.139.70 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the best place, but we seem to do a pretty good job of it here. Why not give us a try? Matt Deres (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try it here, why not. Allow me to copy and paste:

• Children's fantasy series, possibly a trilogy
• The premise is that a dream world exists parallel to our own
• A major feature of the dream world is a spiral staircase that rises into the sky, made from/embellished with thousands of seashells. This was probably featured in the title of one of the books, but if it is I'm not remembering it properly.
• The plot of one of the books involves a villain that is kidnapping children through their dreams and using them as slave labour. The dreams would be false awakenings; the kids would believe they were going about their normal daily routines before ending up in his clutches. The only way to pre-empt this would be to realize you were dreaming before that happened. For example, one of the protagonists dreams he is waking up and going to school before seeing the moon shining brightly in the sky, realizing he is dreaming, and forcing himself awake.
• Another of the books features a prophecy that the villain would only be defeated by doing nothing and acting like you'd already lost. In the end, the protagonists sit back and allow the villain to consume enough energy to overload and destroy himself. In all honesty, I'm not 100% sure this is the same series, but I am MOSTLY sure. 90.222.139.70 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See The Neglected Books Page at http://neglectedbooks.com/.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Could it be Garth Nix' series The Keys to the Kingdom, which (apparently) features a magical staircase to everywhere called The Improbable Stair? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

How does ISIS know how to use sophisticated weapons they capture?

When the Iraqi army collapsed, they left their ordnance behind for ISIS to appropriate. How much advantage will ISIS be able to take of this windfall? The heavy vehicles and armaments are complex and require a lot of training to master. My nephew as a government contractor trains US marines to operate some of these vehicles. This is advanced training for the marines, and it may require weeks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy to make a tank move around, even without training. It's much more difficult, without training, to make it move around efficiently, quickly, smoothly, and without smashing into buildings, other vehicles, soldiers on your own side, or indeed off the edge of a deep canal or river, or ripping one of its tracks off or damaging the gearbox by not driving it in a sensible manner. ISIS fighters may not care much about some of this, but sophisticated tanks also require sophisticated maintenance, which would also be an issue in the medium term.

Likewise, it's possible to work out how to fire the tank gun of even a sophisticated modern tank, though you might do some damage to the tank or yourself or nearby friendly forces while working it out. Without training, though, it's much more difficult to make use of the tank's sophisticated optics and targetting, or firing on the move. One video snippet I saw apparently showed ISIS using a captured tank firing while stationary and with the gun reversed, which is maybe an indication of this. Without the ability to engage other armour at long range and the ability to fire on the move and otherwise maneuver how highly trained tank crews would, even the very latest models of captured U.S. tanks would probably be of little more tactical value than ye olde T-55. (And would probably break down sooner in the absence of spare parts and trained maintenance personnel.)

The Islamic regime in Iran inherited a large number of F-14 fighters - leading edge technology at the time - from the previous regime which was supported by the U.S. These were very useful during their war with Iraq, but are now supposedly incapable of even taking off due to lack of spare parts and maintenance.

Many other weapons systems have similar issues, for example I think Stinger missiles require (or required) particular sorts of battery packs that can sometimes be hard to obtain. So some of this equipment could be very useful - or very dangerous - in the short or medium term, but will likely be next to useless in the long term.

Islamic states tend not to develop their own indigenous technologies based on technologies they have access to, like for example Israel has. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And, when they capture the weapons they may also capture the soldiers who know how to use the weapons. They can then "convince" those prisoners to either show them how to use the weapons or to use them directly, although the later carries the risk that the prisoners will turn the weapons on them. StuRat (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A large number of those fighting for ISIS in Iraq are disaffected Iraqi soldiers. Even worse the top level Baathist generals under Saddam lost their jobs so they're directing the operations. There's a lot of murderous Islamist fanatics there, but there's lots more who couldn't care less about Islam but want to be in charge again. or are annoyed by becoming the underdogs rather than having a shared future in Iraq. It is becoming a sectarian civil war. You can see how fragile the bond between the fanatics and the Baathists is by for example , ISIS don't have a long term future there but will cause enough trouble in the meantime. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Things being the way they are, don't rule out the possibility that they found the instructions on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Free markets and efficiency -- any economists here?

I have a quick question about free markets and economic efficiency.

My textbook claims that free markets will generally lead to maximal economic surplus -- with the usual caveats about perfect competition, externalities, etc.

The proof my textbook offers goes as follows: first, it notes that "1. Free markets allocate the supply of goods to the buyers who value them most highly, as measured by their willingness to pay; 2. Free markets allocate the demand for goods to the sellers who can produce them at the lowest cost. Thus, given the quantity produced and sold in a market equilibrium, social planner cannot increase economic well-being by changing the allocation of consumption among buyers or the allocation of production among sellers."

So far, so good.

Next, the author asks if " social planner raise total economic well-being by increasing or decreasing the quantity of the good?" The answer, apparently, is 'no'. That is, "ree markets produce the quantity of goods that maximizes the sum of consumer and producer surplus." To prove this statement, the textbook uses the following figure.

The accompanying text is: "To interpret this figure, keep in mind that the demand curve reflects the value to buyers and the supply curve reflects the cost to sellers. At any quantity below the equilibrium level, such as Q1, the value to the marginal buyer exceeds the cost to the marginal seller. As a result, increasing the quantity produced and consumed raises total surplus. This continues to be true until the quantity reaches the equilibrium level. Similarly, at any quantity beyond the equilibrium level, such as Q2, the value to the marginal buyer is less than the cost to the marginal seller. In this case, decreasing the quantity raises total surplus, and this continues to be true until quantity falls to the equilibrium level. To maximize total surplus, the social planner would choose the quantity where the supply and demand curves intersect."

I really don't understand this supposed proof. Consumer surplus is defined as the difference between the willingness to pay and the price of the good. So while it may be true that "at any quantity below the equilibrium level, such as Q1, the value to the marginal buyer exceeds the cost to the marginal seller", I don't see what that has to do with consumer surplus (or producer surplus), because there's no reference to prices.

I would appreciate any clarification. TIA. 65.92.5.124 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need any reference to prices. You only need to know the maximum price a buyer would buy for, and the minimum price a seller would sell for. If I would buy 100 ballpoint pens from you for $50, and you would sell them for $5, regardless of the actual price, the total surplus is $45. If we trade at $5, I get all the surplus. If we trade at $50, you get it. If we trade at $27.50, we split the cookie. So if you artificially shift the quantity to the right, all the existing consumers and producers will still make a sale, and regardless of price, their total surplus will be the same. The marginal buyer (the extra person who bought some pens) and the marginal seller (the extra person who sold them) will have a loss of surplus.

You can proceed as follows: draw a vertical line from Q2, intersect the seller curve and the buyer curve. Suppose the point on the seller curve is $80, and on the buyer curve, $30. The point on the seller curve is actually the cost to the marginal seller at this point, because at that price, he stops producing. The point on the buyer curve is also the value to him, because at that point, he stops buying. So you can compute the change in total surplus using just the marginal seller and the marginal buyer.

Implicit here is at least one more assumption, that the marginal value is different for each unit produced. The first unit is reckoned to be cheap to the seller and dear to the buyer, because somebody really needs a ballpoint pen, and someone has already built a factory, and is desperate to sell. It is believed, or deemed by assumption, to change slightly for each unit produced. This gives us a clear enough theory, that is good enough in the long run. IBE (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 65.92.5.124 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly hope the text also explains the limitations of free markets. Without perfect competition, the theory all breaks down, and perfect competition is rare. For example, the free market works poorly in a medical setting, as the people who pay most of the bill (insurance companies, taxpayers, etc.) are rarely those who make the decisions on what to buy (doctors, patients, and hospital administrators). Also, buying discount medical equipment or meds is a bit scary, so many buy the most expensive ones, instead, in the hopes that they will be the best. StuRat (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I love it how, to illustrate the limitations of the market, people invariably point to the most heavily regulated and subsidized of all industries. —Tamfang (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Labour market monopsony is a missing article present in other encyclopaedia and an example of an imperfect market regardless of regulation that most people should be familiar with. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reisman who is an economist, and whose text is available by click at left , is available. Further search is waste of time. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You were not asked to recommend a textbook. IBE (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Where, in the OP's eight-paragraph "quick question", did it say not to recommend a textbook? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Any time you start an economics question, “with the usual caveats about perfect competition, externalities, etc.,” someone will inevitably point out that there is no perfect competition. This should signal that the opinion writer hasn’t fully absorbed the question. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June 22

Shadows in Flight download link

I've looked everywhere but I can only find downloads for the abridged version of Shadows in Flight, which is called the enhanced edition. Does anyone know where I can download the unabridged version? Any format is fine. 92.16.58.125 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume "everywhere" includes the Google eBook: , but I don't see where this edition is abridged or "enhanced". —  Card, Orson Scott (2014). Shadows in flight. New York: Tor. ISBN 1466843934.

This is the 1st edition: Card, Orson Scott (2012). Shadows in flight (1st ed.). New York: Tor. ISBN 0765332000.

There is also a Kindle edition:

— Hope this helps, ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A map of the Hawaiian Islands according to the latest surveys, 1838

Does anybody know where I can find the rest of this map made by Simon P. Kalama, a Lahainaluna student in 1838? It looks likes a corner of a larger map. I got it from the Library of Congress. I've check all the other maps in the Library of Congress linked to the side of this image but they all correspond to different time periods. There is a similiar map by the same student called Na Mokupuni o Hawaii Nei but it was made in 1837 and does not have the Lahainaluna School logo on the upper right corner. Google image searching it I see fragments with other islands such as Kauai and Niihau but not the complete thing. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This page says that there is only one existing complete copy, at the Royal Geographical Society in London, and that the RGS sells copies of it.--Cam (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Odd that the only institution to have it is British and that they sell it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

British Abdication

Who are the known monarchs of the British Isles who abdicated their thrones before Edward VIII? I know some Anglo-Saxons did. Were there any other Welsh or Norse-Gaelic monarchs who abdicated?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

See list at Abdication.--Shantavira| 11:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see that article draw some distinction between abdication and abandonment of the throne. While Parliament went to some lengths to declare that James II had functionally abdicated during the Glorious Revolution, an actual abdication requires the monarch to declare such; some monarchs have simply run off and left no explanation; perhaps the most famous of which other than James II of England was Henry of Poland & Lithuania who, upon learning that he'd inherited the throne of France, simply ducked out of town and told no one he was leaving. The Sejm sent repeated requests for explanation, and having got none, were left to declare the throne vacant. I'm pretty sure Henry didn't care one way or the other, and never officially abdicated the throne of Poland (though he also never complained when the elected a new king either). --Jayron32 03:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Architectural terminology (church)

Would this better be termed a pulpit or an Ambon? This is in a Protestant church, Blenduk, in Semarang, Indonesia. The interior of the church can be seen here. I'm thinking it's an ambon, but that article does not include Protestantism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a pulpit - the Ambon seems to be almost wholly confined to the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Have a look at Calvin's pulpit in St. Pierre Cathedral, Geneva for comparison. The canopy is intended to amplify the speaker's voice. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. The first paragraph of Pulpit#Ambon doesn't really differentiate between them. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this church is affiliated to the Dutch Reformed Church, Indonesia having been a Dutch colony within living memory. Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia, edited by Sheila D. Mulle says; "The primary liturgical center of the Reformed Church, on the other hand, was the pulpit..." (p. 62). Alansplodge (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reading the rest of that page, it sounds about right. When the current church building was built (1890s), colonial architecture would have still had a major influence, and the layout is pretty much just as the source describes (except for the individual chairs being in lines rather than arcs). Thanks once again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. The para that you linked (Pulpit#Ambon) suggests that some (pedantic) people might refer to a pulpit as an ambon, if there is "only one speaker's stand in the center of the front of the church". However, I have never heard the word "ambon" used in relation to a Protestant church, unless somebody else out there knows better. The only reference for that paragraph refers specifically to Greek and Russian churches. Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Mary Higgins Clark-Mother Salut book?

Your good article on Mary Higgins Clark mentions a book called "Mother Salut" from 1993. I cannot find information on that book on the internet. Who published it? Where is it available? Thanks.

VJ books has it listed under Non-fiction, but no info except: "Mother Salut - 1993 (with Amy Tan and Maya Angelou)"

Her website doesn't even mention it, but does include a 'Contact' page: .   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where the "Salut" came from, but Higgins Clark, Angelou and Tan worte a book called "Mother" in 1996. See here. Rojomoke (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"Salut" means "Hi" in French. Someone added that word after "Mother" in Dec. 2010. I suspect vandalism.--Cam (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June 23

NHS Constitution

At the end of a rabbit trail of link-following, I found myself at http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/NHSConstitution/Pages/Overview.aspx, a document discussing the NHS Constitution for England. I was confused by the following statement:

No government can change the Constitution without the full involvement of staff, patients and the public. The Constitution is a promise that the NHS will always be there for you.

How does this relate to parliamentary sovereignty? Couldn't a new act simply amend the can't-amend piece of the constitution, enabling amendments at will? Or are they meaning it informally, summarising the fact that it would be highly unpopular politically to make amendments without popular agreement? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it could. However, this change would be made by Parliament rather than the Government - the legislature rather than the executive. The Health Act 2009 requires the Secretary of State for Health to "have regard to" the NHS Constitution, so limits the power of the Government, but it doesn't limit the power of Parliament to amend or repeal the Act. Tevildo (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the Government are generally able to do whatever they want, I thought that this meant that the government wouldn't be able to announce pending changes without popular input. So without this Constitution or comparable provision, would the Secretary of State for Health be able to make massive changes to (or abolish completely) the NHS? Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what has happened with the passing of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's important (in this context) to distinguish between the Government as the executive arm of the State, and the Government as the party which commands a parliamentary majority. As Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt's powers are limited by the relevant statutes, so he can't abolish the NHS, and if he wants to close a hospital, there are elaborate procedures he has to follow, which are subject to judicial review if someone disagrees with his actions. However, as MP for South West Surrey, he can (and probably would) vote for a bill to abolish the NHS, if one is proposed. It's reasonable to describe such a bill as a "government bill", but it would be proposed by the Government sensu latu as the majority party, not by the Government sensu stricto as the executive branch. Tevildo (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Events in Macbeth

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, Macbeth kills King Duncan. Then, Duncan's two sons flee from Scotland in fear of their lives. How (and why) is it exactly that Macbeth himself becomes the next king, upon Duncan's death? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Macbeth was the next closest relative of the king. It's a bit of a stretch (Duncan's sons aren't physically present, but they're still alive), but that's what makes Shakespeare fun. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But, where did we get that information from (that Macbeth was the next closest relative of the king)? From the play itself? Or from actual ("real-life") history? What was Macbeth's relationship to Duncan (e.g., nephew, cousin)? It is a stretch that they "passed over" both sons (who aren't physically present, but are still alive). Of course, that is necessary to advance the plot. But, also, the two sons were suspected of being their Dad's (Duncan's) murderers. Does the commission of murder bar one from succession? I have no idea, but I would think so. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare based his information on Holinshed. The historical Macbeth was Duncan's first cousin, both being grandsons of Malcolm II - see Duncan I of Scotland, Macbeth, King of Scotland, and House of Dunkeld for our relevant articles. Tevildo (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that, historically at the time of the events Shakespeare was documenting, the principle of primogeniture was not fully ensconced in the inheritance of thrones in European tradition. The eldest son was often consider a strong candidate for inheritance of a title or throne, but it was by no means so expected as to be thought of as automatic. In the 11th century, gaining the throne by right of conquest (or to hold said throne in the face of the threat of conquest) was seen as a valid means of justifying one's right to rule. If you look to both France and England during the 10th-12th centuries, you find many examples of the throne passing to people other than the eldest son of the last monarch; being a member of the prior king's family seems to have been somewhat of a requirement, but it would not have been unusual for Duncan's sons to have been passed over for a more distant relative who showed more leadership qualities. --Jayron32 03:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, why were the two sons passed over? Was it due to their being strong suspects in the murder? Would that be "enough" to bar their succession? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't any "barring" anything. Macbeth was eligible, present, and had support of the nobility. That was enough in the 11th century to be declared king. That the throne did not pass to Duncan's sons automatically would not have been thought out of place, as that they were his sons was not considered a means to automatically grant him the throne upon Duncan's death. According to the Misplaced Pages article, Macbeth was declared king, and no one much argued. It would not have been seen as unusual; he did defeat the former king in battle, he did display the qualities necessary for a leader, and had the backing of enough of the nobility to be so crowned. The whole point is that you're viewing the ascension of Macbeth to the throne through the lens of a principle (primogeniture) that simply did not exist in Scotland at the time (if it even existed at all in other parts of Europe, it was only tenuously so). Of note, however, is that Duncan's sons did both rule in turn after Macbeth; Malcolm Canmore (future king Malcolm III), with the aid of the English. However, Malcolm did not inherit said throne despite his defeating Macbeth. The Scottish nobility offered the throne to Lulach, a member of a powerful noble family. Malcolm had to defeat Lulach as well before he was deemed worthy of the crown... --Jayron32 04:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

More: If you really want to understand how little primogeniture meant in Scotland at the time, look though the list at List of Scottish monarchs from the first kings until the Scottish Wars of Independence. Most of the house of Dunkeld (Canmore) before David I passed from brother to brother (often, though not always, after considerable fighting and war) even when the dead king had living sons, more often than not one of the kings brothers or cousins had the means to take the throne by force, and often did, despite the existence of said sons. Indeed the Macbeth/Duncan feud at the start of the 11th century was pretty much the norm for how the throne of Scotland passed around among the various members of the House of Dunkeld. --Jayron32 04:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge of the historical facts behind this play. I am simply going on the play itself and its text. (Obviously, Shakespeare often conveniently deviated from "true" history when it served his purposes as a playwright. He rewrote history as it suited him.) You are making a lot of leaps, when you make all these claims about Macbeth, his strong support from the nobility, and so forth (unless you are getting that from true history and not from the play's text). I don't see any of that in the text of the play at all. In fact, the play mentions absolutely nothing about his succession to the throne. There is the scene in which Duncan is murdered. Then, there are perhaps one or two minor intervening scenes. And, at the end of the next scene, someone (Macduff?) says "Are you going to Scone for Macbeth's coronation?" (or something to that effect). So, there is no discussion or action (in the play) about this topic. He just gets elevated to being king, just like that. In the scene where that someone (Macduff?) mentions the coronation, there is a side conversation. Someone asks "Did they determine who killed Duncan?" and another character replies "Yes, it was the king's chamberlains." The other character asks "Why on earth would the two chamberlains have any reason to kill the king?" And the other character says "He was bribed by the king's sons, who wanted the throne. They have fled the country, so suspicion is strong on them." So, in the text of the play, this implies that the sons were passed over due to the suspicion of them being murderers. Also, at one point early on in the play, Macbeth is told that he is getting "another even greater honor" from the king. (The first honor was that Macbeth received the title Thane of Cawdor.) Macbeth is hoping/thinking that he will be awarded the title Prince of Cumberland, which is a stepping stone to becoming king. However, in a brief scene, King Duncan makes an important public announcement in which he bestows the title of Prince of Cumberland upon his son. Macbeth is upset by this and basically says "this is a step that will become an obstacle to me or a step that I must o'erleap if I want the crown." So, the play strongly suggests that the older son is next in line for the crown and he does not get it due to his (supposed) complicity in the murder. Once again, I am going only by the text of the play, not by any historical facts that may or may not have been altered in the play. (Tangentially, the "even greater honor" that Duncan bestows upon Macbeth was that Duncan invited himself over to be a guest at Macbeth's – and Lady Macbeth's – castle at Inverness.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to know what happens in the play, read the play. If the play doesn't tell you the answer, then the question is unanswerable using the text of the play. If you want to know about the historical figures themselves, Misplaced Pages is a good place to start. --Jayron32 06:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am reading the play. I was confused as to how Macbeth became king. I was confused as to why the sons did not. Hence, my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Insofar as Shakespeare based the situations in his play on certain historical events, understanding said historical events may be helpful. Insofar as, in history, Macbeth became King before Duncan's sons did, the same thing happened in the play. --Jayron32 22:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A nation of pirates

I'm pretty sure I saw an article on Misplaced Pages not too long ago (and no, I don't think it was a hoax) about a short-lived and semi-legendary nation founded sometime in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century by European pirates, possibly in southern Africa. At first I thought the name was Piratica, but that seems to refer to a fantasy novel series, and I now seem to remember the name incorporating the Latin liber root (implying freedom). Am I imagining this? Evan  16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are, so is Misplaced Pages: Libertatia. It is "possibly fictional". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's it! Thanks! Evan  16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

People who leave the Jehovah's Witness denomination and become Atheists

Jehovah's Witnesses are known not to celebrate Christmas or birthdays. When people leave the denomination and become nonreligious or atheists, they may be free to celebrate whatever holiday they want, perhaps the mainstream holidays like Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, birthdays, and if marrying into a Hispanic family, may celebrate Saint days. Are there case studies or surveys on the lives of Jehovah's Witness atheist apostates? Do they adopt mainstream cultural holidays, or do they still not observe those holidays? What about using mainstream Christian symbols of the cross? Do these atheists identify Christianity by the Latin cross or by the Jehovah's Witness stake or watchtower? 140.254.136.160 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OSHA inspections

I know the general process in an OSHA inspection is for the inspector to approach the front desk, present credentials, ask to speak with the person in charge, hold an opening conference, walk through the work place with the employer and employee representatives, and hold a closing conference, but it seems that certain factors might require different handling, and I'm curious if anyone knows, for example:

• What happens in the case of a private outsourcing company like Sodexo or Aramark in a school, hospital, jail, or other institution? I assume they approach the front desk of the institution and ask for the representative of that company, is that correct?
• For that matter, if they are investigating a complaint focused on a single department in a hospital or similar facility, and that department wasn't outsourced, would they ask to speak with the administrator of the hospital, or just the head of the department in question?
• What do they do in places where there is no conference room, like construction sites and small restaurants with only a small manager's office and no break area? In the case of the latter, would they hold the opening and closing conferences in the tiny manager's office or would they hold them in the dining area in front of customers?

Just curious. 71.3.57.40 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How tough is Cthulhu?

Why is Cthulhu considered so powerful if all it takes to defeat him (in the original Call of Cthulhu story) is piece of jagged wood through the gut?

I recently read the wonderful A Colder War by Mr. Stross, and in that story (SPOILER ALERT) Cthulhu is awakened; the military then deploys a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons against the creature to no effect.

From this can we conclude: 1) that Stross was not being entirely faithful to Lovecraft's conception of Cthulhu's powers? 2) that in Stross's universe Cthulhu COULD have been defeated with a large splintered peace of wood, but it never occurred to the army to try that approach 3) that the Stross and Lovecraft universes are consistent but some iterations or versions of Cthulhu are more powerful than others, depending on mystical crap like the way the stars are aligned?

Your thoughts? Also, how hard is Cthulhu to defeat in other stories in the mythos?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC) To whoever deleted this question, this a LITERATURE question having to do with the nature of a mythical monster. It is no different from asking a question about the Greek hydra or the fish that ate Jonah in the bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.94.244 (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You yourself found proof that Cthulhu is depicted in a variety of contradictory ways, leading to any such "facts" like you're asking for really just being personal opinions on what's canonical for Cthulhu and what isn't. If you want to draw comparisons to the Hydra or Jonah's fish, then sticking with only the original source material of Lovecraft himself, you answered your question and then presented some later author's opinion to try and get other editor's opinions. If you doubt me, interpreting literature is pretty much the core of my degree, and a continued hobby. You are looking for opinions on this topic, even if you don't get it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. The question isn't whether or not Stross's story is "canonical". It's a factual based question about what stories have been written. I don't care whether the stories about Cthulhu are canonical according to some wikipedian's opinions. My question is, across all the LITERATURE (ie Cthulhu stories by Lovecraft and others) that exist, how powerful/tough is the creature depicted, and how easily can the creature be defeated. This is not a forum-type question calling for speculation and opinions, but question that can be answered via research and facts about the contents of stories that have been written.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Massive differences in prices for the same item, the psychological aspect

I was looking at this listing on eBay, for example, and see prices varying from $3.97 to $68.44. I suppose there are even more extreme price ranges out there. Why would anyone pay over 17 times the amount they could get the same book for? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the very site you linked, the $3.97 book is in "acceptable" condition, while the $68.44 book is in "Brand new" condition. The 3.97 book has writing in the margins, and could have other problems such as a cracked spine or loose (but not yet missing) pages. The $68.44 book is in brand new condition, possibly still in the original shrinkwrap. In effect, they are not the same item. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say. I use eBay all the time, and I notice the same wide price discrepancies on all sorts of items. And, 9 times out of 10, the difference in price is based on the condition of the item. The other 1 time out of 10 is usually a "new" seller who doesn't really have a good handle on the worth of his item (i.e., they overprice it, thinking that it is worth more than it really is). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Even though the example given was not a good one, there are cases where massive price differences exist for the same item, in the same condition. For example, US pharmaceuticals can cost far less when sold abroad or sold for animal use. And the same seat on a US flight can vary dramatically in price, too, depending on who you buy it from. The psychological effect is that those paying the higher price feel they are being "ripped off". I'm not sure they take this into account when setting such prices, that the result will be many disgruntled customers, who may well go elsewhere. Setting a consistent, moderate price might improve customer satisfaction considerably.

And, in some cases, price differences may be a form of illegal discrimination, where a car dealer offers customers of the "right" race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., a much better price, while those he doesn't like must pay the MSRP. This also applies to real estate agents, car mechanics, or any item where the price is negotiated after meeting the customer. I've often thought such haggling should be made illegal, to eliminate this potential abuse, and all prices should be set in advance. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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