Revision as of 16:27, 19 July 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

July 14

How do Western parents give blessings to their sons-in-law prior to marriage?

I was watching this video on Youtube, and it was the last part that caught my attention. The part where the little girl said something about a blessing. I looked up "blessing" and found that it was like a permission for marriage - a traditional Western marriage custom, I guess. Then, I checked out this website, and it mentioned that the blessing was the last part. How is the actual blessing given? What does the father actually say? Is there some sort of special formula for a blessing? Is it supposed to be like one of those blessings in the Bible - a wish that has magical but real powers (or at least people assume that it does)? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no formulaic "blessing" that I'm aware of. If the father is a believer, he may say something like "may the Lord bless your lives together". --Trovatore (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Blessing" in this context just means approval, and it is usually somewhat pro forma. It is generally understood that, except in cases where the young lady is under-age, the father has no right or ability to keep the wedding from going forward. Rather, the prospective groom goes to his future father-in-law to ask for his consent as a sign of respect. While the father might say "Marry her with my blessings," or words to that effect, there is no standard answer and the words "bless" or "blessing" may never come up. John M Baker (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that, contrary to what the OP implies in his title, only the father is asked for approval. The implication is that women are the property of their father, but not of the mother (because the latter is also a woman). Not surprisingly, some women consider this tradition highly demeaning, while others think of it as a harmless traditional formality (which it is, in most families). --Bowlhover (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case anyone might be confused - the tradition of "asking the father for his daughter's hand in marriage" may be traditional, but is also widely seen as sexist and antiquated, and in practice happens less and less. This article gives a more up-to-date picture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sexist and antiquated it may be, but there's nothing to lose and possibly much to gain. The plus side is that any suitor who does ask the prospective father-in-law would probably earn an uncountable number of brownie points, and since one marries not just the girl but the whole family, this can only be a good thing. By nothing to lose, I mean that if the father refuses his blessing, you can always say "Fuck you, pal, we're getting married anyway". He'll still secretly respect you for having asked. -- Jack of Oz 10:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

My father-in-law wouldn't have had any respect for me at all if I'd asked for his permission to marry. He'd have said something along the lines of, "Why on earth are you asking me rather than my daughter? What kind of sexist dinosaur are you? I was quite happy for you to marry her before, but now I'm not so sure." --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

At which point, the young man might tell his erstwhile fiancée, "Your father's a lunatic. See ya." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to apply much more to any father who does expect a request than it does to OpenToppedBus example. (If you wanted to do it, a better option may be two ask both parents simultaneous.) Also it seems we're talking about two related but different things in this thread. The stuff mentioned in Ghmyrtle's about.com relate to a blessing or father (or parents or family) giving his daughter away during the ceremony. This may still happen to some extent but AFAIK, it's been somewhat proforma for a long time anyway (as the wedding either wouldn't be happening or the father simply wouldn't be there or at least the father wouldn't be asked if it was known he would refuse). As mentioned in that page, nowadays it will likely be planned by the couple, in consultation with the family and celebrant so similarly, it's basically a formality.

The "asking the father for his daughter's hand in marriage" is seperate and AFAIK was supposed to happen before the man even asks the woman, with the man considering whether or not to propose if the father says no (of course further back, if the father said no it may not even be an option). Of course it still happens to some extent although as others have said even when it does would generally be pro forma (although it's obviously not something planned with all parties involved, so you can't be sure what will be said any more than you can with the proposal itself). And I think this happens less than some form of blessing or giving away during the ceremony.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The young man tries to be polite and the old man rebuffs him. That's a deal-breaker. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

But the "deal" is hopefully between bride and groom, with asking the father merely a polite formality. Why would you forgo the bride just because the father does not conform to your expected stereotype? Is this some kind of original sin or a curse down onto the seventh generation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Because you don't just marry the spouse, you marry the in-laws. If the father is that much of a jerk when you're just trying to be polite, what's he going to be like later? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

But typically, the father would have been well aware of the two young people's mutual attraction well before this point, and if he had any misgivings, particularly if he thought it was heading towards matrimony, he would almost certainly have expressed them. To have no inkling of any paternal concerns before asking, only to be denied his blessing, is the stuff of Gothic novels. -- Jack of Oz 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, OpenToppedBus only mentioned the father in laws potential negative response to just asking. We should also remember the woman herself may not be very happy with the man having asked. All in all, I think it's clear there would be plenty of cases when there is something to lose simply by asking. Of course the man would hopefully have some idea beforehand, although I suspect in some cases the person may be wrong (particularly when it comes to the father although even with the bride, the level is going to vary a lot from person to person). Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to lose? Really? Imagine going up to a black man and asking "sirrah, I would like to purchase you from your master; how much would it cost?" Anyone with minimal self-esteem and a non-negative knowledge of history would find it highly demeaning. If a man treats my daughter as my property (and by extension, as his property after marriage), I would have suspicions about whether he considers her as an equal, and about what sort of other demeaning treatment she can expect during marriage. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

to me, that'd be an indicator that the guy has honor and will destroy anyone who tries to f** with her. also, he'll do nothing to her atleast as long as I, or for that matter any male relative of hers, are around. And still, sometimes, when I’m in my egalitarian relationship with an American guy, and I’m freezing my a$$ off in a mini-skirt outside while being eyeballed by some pervert and my boyfriend is giving me the “You’re an independent woman and you can handle this yourself” look, I can’t help but long for the protective paws of a Russian man, can’t help but feel torn between what I learned at my feminist university and what I grew up with in my patriarchal community, can’t help but feel an internal battle between my rational beliefs and my emotional desires(...) Y'all know what are realities of life and what is feminist crazy talk in no later than 50 years, after they (or they, or they) have managed to do away with police, the nation state and all the remnants of the public sphere Asmrulz (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please consider consulting a psychiatrist. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

yeah, whatevs Asmrulz (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Connected to this is the tradition of the bride's father "giving her away" at the wedding ceremony, which consists of the bride and her father entering the church or other venue hand-in-hand at the start of the proceedings. In the traditional Anglican Book of Common Prayer wedding service (and probably other Christian traditions too), the priest asks "Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?" before taking the bride's hand from her father's and placing it in the groom's hand. In more modern liturgy, this is optional or ignored altogether. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's the sort of thing mentioned in the about.com page linked by Ghmyrtle which is why I found the response somewhat confusing. Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The custom is, as others have said archaic. Here is how Emily Post described it a century ago: as soon as he and she have definitely made up their minds that they want to marry each other, it is the immediate duty of the man to go to the girl’s father or her guardian, and ask his consent...Usually her father, has a perfectly good idea of what has come to say...' It goes on to say they discuss the suitor's finances and the father decides on the date (usually immediate) when they can announce an engagement (please read the link, there's a lot more detail). The modern similar etiquette guide linked by Ghmyrtle shows how much things have changed. 184.147.140.76 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

At my brother's (Anglican) wedding when the celebrant asked "Who gives this woman..." all the bride's relatives present stood and said "We do". The priest recovered well from the surprise when he responded by asking "Who gives this man?" and the groom's family also replied together. Afterwards we found out that the bride's family had planned the "stunt" but told no one, even the priest was surprised. The break with tradition worked well and apparently the precedent has been followed in subsequent weddings in that congregation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Different scenario: In a case where an Anglo-American man proposes to his non-Western (Eastern European, Asian, African, Hispanic, Middle Eastern) wife (who may be first-generation or one-and-a-half generation or second-generation), would the same etiquette rules as stated above apply? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely that depends on the woman's personal beliefs and culture, as well as those of the parents? There is no generalization you can make about all non-Western cultures that is even remotely accurate. I'm first-generation Chinese and consider myself thoroughly white (a banana). Most other immigrants cling to their culture even at great personal expense. Even within China, by the way, there are 56 recognized ethnic groups, each with their own culture; within the majority Han group, marriage customs vary province by province. You're essentially asking "what etiquette rules apply on Earth?", without considering that Earth is made up of thousands of ethnic groups and 7 billion individuals, each with their own preferences and moral standards. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account of the woman's personal beliefs and culture is one way. Just being yourself and knowing about your own cultural norms is another way. If the woman or her family gets offended or confused, then I don't think it would hurt to give a explanation of your behavior. 164.107.182.111 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

July 15

Louis II and the Jagiellons

King Casimir IV Jagiellon of Poland fathered Sigismund I the Old of Poland, who fathered Sigismund II Augustus, who was without issue, causing the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Casimir also fathered Vladislaus II of Hungary, who fathered Louis II of Hungary, who died in battle at Mohacs without issue.

Now, had Louis II survived the battle with the Ottomans and outlived his extended relative in Poland, Sigismund II Augustus, as the last member of the Jagiellon dynasty, could have Sigismund realistically declared Louis as the heir of Poland (and Lithuania by extension) and Louis' potential son after him, or is it likelier that Sigismund would have gone the route he did historically and established the Union of Lublin? Thanks for any help. 70.54.115.75 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the article titled Union of Lublin, the Union would have happened anyways. It does not appear that dynastic concerns had very much to do with the formation of the Union itself, the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania had been the same person for generations, and the Polish nobility had been growing in strength and was asserting its power. My understanding from reading the relevant articles is that the Union was likely to occur in some form, even if the Jagiellon dynasty hadn't died out. --Jayron32 00:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

George F. Wright

Was George F. Wright a Republican or a Democrat? I am finding some sources indicating he was a Republican instead. I need more sources, possibly something more direct, just be sure. Any help finding these sources would helpful.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What leads you to doubt the cited information at the article page saying he was a Republican? John M Baker (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Langton, near Warlington, England

Where in the world is Langton, near Warlington, England. There is a lot of English towns and cities called Langton but none called Warlington?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a Langton near Darlington. Perhaps a typo? Deor (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your link mentions that he was associated with the Wesson foundry, which seems to have been in Walsall. I can't find any Langton near there though.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2009/07/03/historic-foundry-closing-its-gates/

I did think of Warlingham but, again, I can't see a Langton in the area. Dalliance (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nor is there a Langton near Warrington, Cheshire. CS Miller (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It might be Darlington. His wife was born there.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

William Wilson Wright's parents and siblings were apparently still living in Langton, County Durham at the time of the 1881 census. The Find a Grave website also has "Birth: 26 JAN 1846 Langton, Durham, England", although the source for that isn't quoted. Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Tolkien question

This is a question about the writings of JRR Tolkien. Did the Elves of Doriath ever fight dragons in the first age? I think I remember they withdrew behind their borders before dragons were invented and reading the articles about the battles of Beleriand I can't find if they came out and joined in any of the battles with dragons. Thanks. 184.147.140.76 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Quenta Silmarillion, chapter 20 says that both Mablung and Beleg joined the fifth battle (Nirnaeth Arnoediad). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess if those two were mentioned by name it implies that no one else went. Is there any mention of the survivors of Doriath joining in the war of wrath? 184.147.140.76 (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that Mablung and Beleg were commanders of soldiers; if we as readers of the fiction are supposed to pretend that the Silmarillion is a quasi-historical account from this ancient world (and I think that's right)—and so therefore make some background assumptions about what is happening—I think an implication would be that the soldiers under Mablung and Beleg's command went with them.

Chapter 24, prior to the War of Wrath, says that the remaining sons of Fëanor destroyed the "exiles of Gondolin and the remnant of Doriath", so I guess that was the end of them. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And to problematize that last point: In the Unfinished Tales, "History of Galadriel and Celeborn, Appendix B". Talking about the realm of Thranduil, it says Oropher and "a handful of Sindar" (maybe including Oropher's son, Thranduil—the text is not definite) "(and other similar adventurers forgotten in the legends or only briefly named) came from Doriath after its ruin". So I guess "legends" here refers to the Quenta Simarillion, and there were Elves of Doriath who survived both the ruin and the destruction of the "remnant" by the sons of Fëanor, despite the suggestion that they were all destroyed. What's doubly interesting for your question is that this part of the text may be saying that Thranduil was an Elf of Doriath. I know in Peter Jackson's Hobbit, Thranduil claims to have battled the dragons in the First Age. I'm not sure if Jackson made this up, or if it's based on something in Tolkien's materials. If it is accurate, then this bit in the Unfinished Tales would mean that Thranduil was another Elf of Doriath who fought dragons (assuming that Thranduil would have lived with his father). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such a thorough answer. That indeed was the source of my curiosity, since the claim didn't fit what I remembered of the books but I don't have them to reference myself. 184.147.140.76 (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If that's the question: There were other Sindarin elves who became Elves of Doriath after fighting in the fourth Battle of Beleriand (the Battle of Sudden Flame), even though they were not Elves of Doriath during the battle (Quenta Silmarillion, chapter 18). It's conceivable that Thranduil could have been part of those elves. And, as mentioned, it is also conceivable he went with Mablung or Beleg to the fifth Battle, in which case he would have fought as part of Fingon's forces. Apparently some of Fingon's forces survived, even if most died (it says that "Turgon took...all that remained of the host of Gondolin and such of Fingon's people as could be gathered...towards the Pass of Sirion" and, of course, "Turgon had escaped...and marred victory"). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 16

What's the procedure for a province to break away from a turmoiled country and declare independence?

Let's say a country is in a turbulent and confused situation due to no functioning government, and one province wants to break away from this country. How can a province proceed to break away from this turmoiled country? What is the procedure and how can the United Nation acknowledge a break-away province as a separate, independent nation formally? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Usually it involves declaring war. Shadowjams (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe see Québec. No United Nations recognition as a state, but the Québécois are legally their own nation within their state. Further than any other province here has gotten. The federal government functions, but it's confused. There was something like a war, but not so bloody as many countries had. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

That's a very poor example; the federal government in Canada functions fine, even if one doesn't like its political direction. This is not what the OP was asking about. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for disappointing you, I guess? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

It's going to depend on the laws in that nation. However, many have no process for this, so they would have to make it up as they go along. If the central government has broken down, though, it might be as simple as declaring independence. That is, if there's no central government to oppose the separation, it will, de facto, become a reality.

As for the UN, I believe the UN Charter includes the right of self-determination. However, the devil is in the details. That is, just how small of a portion of a nation has the right of self determination ? Does a province ? How about a city ? A village ? Or one family's house ? StuRat (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If not war, it will surely involve declaring independence, at least. But the UN isn't going to admit a country unless that independence is recognized by a majority of the existing UN member countries, also including a majority of the 15 Security Council members and all 5 permanent Security Council members. And when there is turmoil in an area, they typically won't do that unless they think it benefits their own interests. See Member states of the United Nations. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Some dude from the US state of Virginia declared himself King of North Sudan just recently. He's seriously asked Sudan and Egypt to stop disputing this large patch of desert and hand it over so his seven-year-old daughter can feel like a princess. He just put a flag down and claims that's good enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

There's a big assumption is the bit 'one province wants to break away from this country'. How does anyone know that? In fact what will usually be the case if the political situation is turbulent is some faction wants to grab power and the people in the area are just terrorized by them. It is when the country is peaceful as a whole but there is trouble in one province that it is more likely that there is some actual problem and desire for independence there. Having someone declare independence is not the same as there being a real desire for independence or that being in any way good for the majority or even a wonderful idea for a minority. Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It worked for The Baltic States in 1919 during the breakup of the Russian Empire; they declared independence and established themselves as autonomous republics. When the Soviet Union felt that they could act without foreign interference due to the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact they took them back again. The unfortunate people of those states had to wait until the Soviet empire began to fall apart in 1990 before they could stage the Singing Revolution. In the case of Lithuania, the government of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic passed an Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania on March 11 1991. After that, Western nations slowly began to recognize Lithuania as a sovereign state, starting with Iceland on 11 February 1991, UK on 26 August, the USA on 2 September and the Soviet Union themselves on 6 September. It became a member of the UN on 18 September 1991 and has since joined the EU and NATO in 2004. Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Those last were likely recognitions of the new government as the government of Lithuania. The USA and some other countries did not recognize Soviet control of the Baltics and recognized them as independent states throughout the Cold War era.John Z (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The official wording is: "The U.S. recognized the restoration of Lithuania’s independence on September 2, 1991, in an announcement by President George H.W. Bush." from A GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES' HISTORY OF RECOGNITION, DIPLOMATIC, AND CONSULAR RELATIONS, BY COUNTRY, SINCE 1776: LITHUANIA. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Modern examples are Somaliland and Puntland, which have broken away from Somalia - surely the textbook example, for many years, of "a country.. in a turbulent and confused situation due to no functioning government". However, neither self-proclaimed state is recognised by any country or international organisation, and the two states have had some conflict with each other. You would need to read the linked articles to get the background and details. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Can a province split away from a communist, turmoiled country and form its own independent country? Is it possible or would it face a similar problem like Somaliland? 199.7.157.39 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Communist countries in practice tend to have strongly centralised administrative structures and military command, so "turmoil" would be less likely to be allowed to develop to the point where separatist movements can achieve their goals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Communist countries can descend into turmoil just like any other type - for the usual reasons. And provinces could break away in periods of chaos. There is no speacial Communist or non-Communist "procedure" other than the ability to make it stick by force, achieve internal stability, and seek international recognition. Paul B (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

George R. Carter

Can anybody help me find a book source about George R. Carter's resignation in 1905 as Governor of Hawaii? I assumed he changed his mind later on since he was governor till 1905, but there definitely seems to be a period where his resignation seems serious in 1905.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• "June 23. — Gov. George R. Carter of the Territory of Hawaii, resigns office." (from Review of Reviews and World's Work, vol. 32 (1905), p. 158)
• "July 24. — President Roosevelt declines to accept the resignation of Gov. George R. Carter, of Hawaii." (op. cit., p. 283). Moonraker (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Temporal solaces

I am reading Jeremy Taylor's The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living, which is a sort of self-help book from the 1650s. In the chapter about marriage and sex he mostly hints at things rather than saying them, but in one clause I am puzzled about what he's hinting at.

5. A widow must forbid herself to use those temporal solaces, which in her former estate were innocent, but now are dangerous. (Context here; "sue" on that page is a copyist's error for "use".)

What kind of a "temporal solace" is permissible for married women but not widows? He can't be saying "don't go out and have casual sex", because he's already said that more directly. He presumably isn't talking about masturbation, because just above he says that widows shouldn't think happily about sex with their late husbands in case they become lustful. Any thoughts?

I suspect that this is not about sex but more about alcohol, socializing, and other such "temporal" (non-spiritual) sources of comfort. I don't think that sex would have been thought of as a "solace" in the 17th century. Things like drinking or lighthearted interaction, particularly in the presence of males, might be "dangerous" to a widow because they might lead her to carnal desires for which she no longer has an "innocent" outlet (i.e. her husband). Marco polo (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In traditional European cultures, there was often a "merry widow" stereotype, because young widows were sexually experienced, under fewer social restrictions than unmarried young women, and sometimes in charge of wealth they had inherited and more or less in control of their own lives (as relatively few women were then). In the early 20th century, the merry widow stereotype gave way to the merry young divorcee stereotype (both of them pretty much defunct now)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't fathom the whole meaning here, which no doubt is deliberately obscure, but Marco polo seems to be on the right track, and I agree with him that the meaning of "temporal" is "non-spiritual" or "worldly", because that is how it was almost invariably used at the time. Moonraker (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Influence of EU membership on English law

Has English law experienced significant changes since the formation of the European Union, as a result of UK's membership in the EU? If the answer is yes, are there themes in the changes and what are the most significant specific changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.49.104 (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. CS Miller (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as English law. There is British law, and Welsh and Scottish law. See West Lothian question. And yes, I know I"m sort of ignoring NI here. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is such a thing as English law. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

... even though there is no such thing as purely English legislation. Legislation is not the sole source of law. —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really my field, but see if The effect of European Law helps. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If the OP is probably studying for an LLB Bachelor of Laws at a university in England or Wales, his question is properly phrased. The UK has been a member state of the EU since 1973 , by referendum. In practice, English law has existed for perhaps 800 years . The law has always been changed incrementally; there has never been an overnight revolution in the law. The UK Constitution is partly written and uncodified. Other EU countries adopted new constitutions in one go; many have legal codes or at least criminal codes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.238.188 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if the crazy filter bot isn't going to let me finish giving this guy a bit of groundwork, it's my loss too. WP:DBN 92.25.238.188 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is this?

is an overview of Sarajevo during the siege, circa 1994. Where was it taken? I'm trying (and failing) to figure out the building or mountaintop park (or whatever else) where the men are standing; at least two are Americans (Frank McCloskey, second from left, and the soldier at right), so it's possible that they're in a no-man's-land or in Serbian lines under some sort of flag of truce. The hill at left appears near the left of File:Sarajevo panorama.jpg, but the two are plainly taken from different angles. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In the panorama picture, look about 1/7 of the way in from the left, halfway down, and you see a white tower about 10 stories high standing on top of a lower base building and dominating its surroundings. If you look just to the right of that (as seen in the picture's perspective), there's a square 4-story building with a brown ground floor and yellow above, and a reddish roof that is not flat. My theory is that the same two buildings are in the mystery picture just behind the head of the bearded man (third from the left), but the lower building is in front, so they're being seen from almost exactly the opposite direction.

Now, we know the panorama was taken from the Avaz Twist Tower, and the railway structure near the tower is easily picked out in Google Maps "satellite" imagery. Tracking along the streets from there, I think the white tower is the building at coordinates 43.8579,18.4117 and the lower building is at 43.857,18.4111. Therefore if I have identified the buildings correctly, then in the mystery photo we are looking at them from the southwest. I wondered if the location was Vraca Memorial Park, but in this photo taken in 2010 the high points of the background hills don't match well enough. Still, it could be somewhere near there. In particular, in the nearer range of hills, the shadowed valley behind the head of the second man from the left looks to me a lot like the one to the right of the highest sunlit hill near the top right corner of the 2010 photo. Some discrepancies in the buildings could of course be explained by construction and demolition over the years.

Or else I'm completely wrong.

--50.100.189.160 (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bicorn tapestry?

I have a sneaking suspicion that File:Bicorn-tapestry.jpg may be a fake (photoshopped or the like), not least because I can find no indication of a museum in Dresden that might plausibly be called the "Museum of Archeology" in English. Google searches for tapestry bicorn Dresden and the like are turning up nothing. It was uploaded to Commons by a user who has uploaded nothing other than another dubious image of a "bicorn" and who has made no edits to en.wp except to insert these images in and make some other suspicious edits to a previous version of our article Bicorn (monster). Can anyone help me prove (or can anyone disprove) that this was something created to support a hoax. Deor (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your suspicion should be heard. The uncropped unicorned original shows the Body of Saint Stephen being exposed to the beasts, one of the twelve tapestries of Tenture de l'histoire de Saint Etienne hanging in the Musée national du Moyen Âge (in Paris, not Dresden). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin. Shame on me for not finding the St. Stephen image right here on WP. I'll nominate both the "bicorn" images for deletion on Commons. Deor (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Too late, Deor :-) Since Sluzzelin proved that it's a hoax, I've tagged the tapestry for deletion, but since the lithograph isn't necessarily a hoax, I've instead filed a DR. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And thanks to you, Nyttend. You caught me trying to figure out the process for filing a request for deletion at Commons (and trying to see if the "lithograph", which looks more like a woodcut to me, was also based on an image there). Deor (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for completeness (and for the opportunity to pose as the smartass I wish to be): I wasn't familiar with this particular work of art (though I love The Hunt of the Unicorn), but no artist of that time would have depicted two completely identical horns, whether Gaultier de Campes, to whom the ensemble has been attribued, or anyone else. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I've even visited that museum in Paris—admittedly, about 40 years ago—but I failed to recall that particular tapestry, perhaps overcome by the stunning Dame à la licorne ones (and I'm a fan of the ones in the Cloisters, too). Though trained in medieval literature, rather than art, I certainly thought that the image seemed bogus. Your smartassery is much appreciated. Deor (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Deor, you're welcome. Filing a DR is really simple — just click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox to the left, a few lines below the link to Special:WhatLinksHere. Type your rationale (include tildes, as it doesn't automatically sign for you) and hit "Proceed", and a script will create the DR, add it to the log, and notify the uploader. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How did the American concept of evangelicalism change from Lutheranism to conservative Protestant Christianity?

So, I was reading Martin E. Marty's book, "Lutheran Questions, Lutheran Answers", and in it, the author described how his family became Lutheran. A long time ago, his Swiss ancestor (great-grandfather) arrived to the United States and Reformed in theology. When choosing a church, he picked "Evangelical", probably thinking it was Reformed. As it turned out, it was Lutheran, and so from then on, his descendants - including the author of the book - was Lutheran. The narrative illustrates that early Americans recognized that "evangelical" meant "Lutheranism". How did the connotation of "evangelical" broaden to include conservative Protestant American right-wing voters? 140.254.136.176 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a background bit — note that "Evangelical" is in the names of many Lutheran churches. You really would do well (if you don't already have it) to gain an awareness of the general development of American Protestantism through the last few centuries; the explosive growth of Methodism, the rapid spread of the Baptists, and the rise of the Restoration movement in the early nineteenth century frontier changed the statistics greatly, causing American Christianity to have a strong Arminian flavor and much more like the evangelicals you're thinking of than the confessional Lutheran and Reformed churches. Lutherans have never been a large percentage of the American Christian population, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Those groups have engaged in a lot of evangelization in the US, which would make evangelical a reasonable descriptive word for them and related groups. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, don't put the cart before the horse: Many American southerners are both evangelical and politically conservative, but those concepts are not necessarily related. Being a conservative evangelical is kinda like being a red apple. Sure, some apples are red, but not all red fruit are apples, and not all apples are red. That there are many red apples doesn't make appleness cause a fruit to be red, nor does redness cause a fruit to be an apple. They are coincidentally correlated facts... There are many evangelical Christians who fall on the left side (some fairly far to the left) of the American political spectrum. --Jayron32 22:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

John Carter: "evangelical" isn't the adjectival form of "evangelism". At least, I'm sure some people informally use it that way, but in the names of churches it refers to evangelicalism, a quite different thing. Of course evangelicals evangelise, but so do most other kinds of Christian. Marnanel (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How common are Christian-to-Buddhist family conversions in the world?

I've read stories about entire Buddhist or Taoist families converting to Christianity. I am searching for stories about (multi-generational) Christian families that convert to Buddhism (that is, the whole family converts). 140.254.136.176 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

While I am sure that did happen historically (the Nestorian church in China, and many former-Kirishitan families in Japan), I'm not sure there will be any stories. Christianity tends to be more individualist (Jesus told the disciples to reject their families if they did not join) and exclusive (what with the rather common belief in a permanent hell), while Buddhism doesn't exactly support individualism (as fixating on the self is considered problematic) and is usually more inclusive (since mistakes always can be solved in a later incarnation). If a member of a Buddhist family converts to another religion, it's not too much of a problem. If a member of a Christian family converts to another religion, it's going to cause some stress. If a mostly Buddhist family has a member who hopes everyone will convert to some other religion, there's less reason to not go along for the sake of family harmony. If a mostly Christian family has a member who hopes everyone will convert to some other religion, that's going to cause some conflict. Christianity also tends to focus more on proselytism than Buddhism, and one claim enjoyed by many members of proselytizing religions is "we got a bunch of people to convert at the same time." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

First, you need to define a "family". Then define what it means for a whole family to convert. If two parents convert, and then say that their five children aged under ten now believe in a different thing, to me, that's nonsense. A true religious belief cannot exist before the teenage years. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've always understood that Buddhism and religions are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Christian Buddhist or a Jewish Buddhist or an atheist Buddhist or whatever, so no "conversion" is necessary. Is this understanding wrong? -- Jack of Oz 23:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong. It's belief system, and there are no immutable laws of physics that say you cannot follow such a hybrid elief system. See syncretism. --Jayron32 23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(e-c)That would depend I think on whether you define Buddhism as the basic teachings of Buddha hiself or as the religious system developed by his followers. Also, in some cases, where the "god" worshipped is not the omnipotent, omniscient, etc., monotheistic creator god, they might be more easily compatible, but the impersonal ultimate Nirvana and the personal ultimate god of monotheism are generally harder to make compatible, but I imagine there are groups which have at least tried to do so. I've heard of Jewish Buddhists too, but Judaism's status as an ethno-religious movement is as I remember involved there. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this will be a swine to research due to the the many strains of Buddhism on the menu. The Theravada of Lanka and Thailand has drawn in many Europeans who have settled there, some of whom would describe themselves as Christians beforehand, often for want of a better description. Mahayana Buddhism has many flavours, including Zen, which actively proselytise in the West. This gives a fragmented database which I have not seen collected into the sort of research you are looking for. However, they are a helpful lot, and I suspect that a bit of Googling and a LOT of emails could give you a useful research paper. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

140.254.136.176 -- My hunch is that you should start with South Korea, a country where Buddhism and Christianity are the two main religions, where the culture places great importance on the family, and where sometimes people have been known to change religious affiliation depending on circumstances... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 17

Historical names for the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, etc

What were the historical names for the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations? I'm guessing it was originally just called "the Subcommittee on Crime" before buzz words like "terrorism" and "homeland security" got tacked on. So I'm wondering when did the name extensions happen.WinterWall (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For this kind of thing, the Congressional Directory is invaluable; it lists all committees and subcommittees and their membership, as well as tons of other things, ranging from the office of each member of Congress (location, phone numbers, senior staffers' names) to miscellaneous things such as the name, telephone number, and full address (with ZIP+4 code!) for the head of the field office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Lubbock, Texas. The Government Printing Office has Congressional Directories online for each Congress since the 105th (which was elected in 1996), and the 105th's section on House committees confirms your guess that it was then the Subcommittee on Crime. Check the GPO website for more recent Congresses, and check Worldcat to find printed copies of older editions in a library near you. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! By going through the Congressional Directories I found that it was still the "Subcommittee on Crime" on October 2002. By July 2003, it became the "Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security". WinterWall (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did the "coffee" in the Coffee Club come from?

Uniting for Consensus is nicknamed the Coffee Club. Where did the coffee part come from?

Among them only Indonesia is a significant producer of coffee and none of them are major coffee consumers on a per capita basis.

So far, I found only two explanations online and neither of them make a lot of sense:

1. "They are known as the Coffee Club because it is reminiscent of the powerful lobby opposing the expansion of permanent membership in the early 1990s."

2. "The group was nicknamed the "Coffee Club", supposedly because its members would rather disrupt the meetings on the subject than engage in effective negotiations."WinterWall (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• See wikt:Kaffeeklatsch

Historical person obsessed with clocks

I remember my father telling the story of a historical person (king, perhaps) who spent the last years of his life trying to keep all the clocks in his castle or mansion synchronized. I've not been able to identify the person through a web search, and remember little else than what I've written above. Does this fragment of a story ring a bell with anyone? --NorwegianBlue 12:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Charles I of Spain. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't explicitly state that he tried to keep all his clocks in sync. But is it possible he was just trying to get them to clang all at the same time, to avoid what I might call the "row-row-row your boat" effect? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a million Nyttend! That was fast. --NorwegianBlue 14:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

See also Sandringham time, instituted by King Edward VII of the UK, maintained by his son George V, and done away with by his son Edward VIII. -- Jack of Oz 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

An early attempt at "daylight saving time", it would seem. Had he made it an hour instead of a half-hour, maybe it would have stuck. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, nice story. I'm sure that Carlos I is the person I'm looking for though. There are many things in the article that fit with what I remembered from the story, but so vaguely that I didn't include them when writing the question. The king had abdicated or been thrown out of office. He lived in a house where there were many clocks. The fact that he was a Habsburger also fits, my father had a special interest for the Habsburgers. Now, all I need is a source for the "keeping in sync" part of the story. I'll do a targeted search in my father's bookshelves at the next opportunity! --NorwegianBlue

I found a website that tells the story pretty much as I remember it:

The attempt to make his clocks keep time together is said to have been one of the daily occupations of the retired emperor, and the adjustment of his clocks and watches gave him so much trouble that he is said to have one day remarked that it was absurd to try and make men think alike, when, do what he would, he could not make two of his timepieces agree.

From Historical Tales Spain (Heritage history). --NorwegianBlue 23:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"My Grandfather's Clock" isn't quite in sync with everything else here, but sort of coincides with a lot. Figured I'd mention it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Don't similar harmonic oscillators such as pair of pendulums lock phase when they are loosely coupled? I swear I've heard descriptions of pendulum clocks keeping in sync due to the vibrations carried through the wall they are mounted on. A quick search didn't find actual stories of it happening, just mathematical descriptions of the phenomenon and some simulations. Of course, once you have hundreds of them in your home, especially with different pendulum periods, it isn't the same situation. Katie R (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian airline crash in Ukraine

I was shocked to see the air space over the active war zone in Ukraine is not off limits to commercial aircraft. What are the standards the European agency that regulates air traffic uses, to determine where planes can fly safely ? StuRat (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I just came here to ask this very question. Is it ever considered standard operating procedure for civilian planes to be flying above a war? If so, I'm amazed. Obviously, the blame lies with whomsoever issued the order to open fire without knowing what they were looking at, but I'm genuinely surprised that the plane was even there in the first place. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been discussed on the news. The view was that commercial aircraft fly at such high altitudes that normal weaponry would not affect them. Only highly sophisticated weapons of the kind normally used only by governments would by a threat. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, but it seems like a big assumption was made in deciding that the Ukrainian government side wasn't going to decide to be trigger-happy idiots and assume that it was a Russian plane in their airspace supplying the separatists or something... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How likely is it that a Russian plane would be flying west to east? Regardless, CBS was showing some type of made-in-Russia missile launcher which is capable of hitting targets that high, along with the assumption that Russia has been supplying arms to eastern Ukraine. Far as I know, there has been no official determination of who or what caused the mid-air explosion, i.e. a missile vs. a bomb vs. a fuel tank fault as per that one off Long Island in the mid-1990s. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"How likely is it that a Russian plane would be flying west to east?" - if it was flying back where it came from, having already dropped some stuff off it would be, rite? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

See and hear https://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/abc-news-plus-special-report-220000361.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant from western Ukraine to eastern Ukraine. And if it already dropped off its cargo, why shoot it down? Anyway, news reports are now saying it was definitely a missile. If they can prove it was a Russian-made missile, there will be hell to pay. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On the bright side, it may lead to technological safety advances. Like last time, with GPS. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Actually nothing much seems to have come from last time Nil Einne (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. I meant the last time the Russians did it. If Russians did it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Then there's the possibility that Malaysian Airlines itself is the target. Two mysterious incidents within months of each other. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a target. Maybe unlucky. Maybe, like the Washington Post acknowledged that other last time, the pilot simply saw no reason to not live dangerously. The only thing that's certain is we're going to hear a lot about maybe again. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the Burrows family of Queensland are being targetted. -- Jack of Oz 21:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If I were an Aussie, I'd only fly where Qantas could take me, since they have a much better safety record. Hopefully they know not to fly over war zones. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Rain Man. Although, to be fair, nobody is suggesting that Malaysian Airlines is in any way responsible for what happened yesterday. Were any of the passengers concerned about their flight path over Ukraine? I doubt it, because I doubt any of them knew. Is this the sort of information airlines normally volunteer to intending passengers? I doubt it, because nobody could have predicted that such an unspeakable crime would ever have occurred, except in hindsight, and we know what predictions in hindsight are worth. -- Jack of Oz 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that nobody could predict it. Certainly nobody could predict an attack was 100% certain, but predicting that there is an increased risk in flying over a war zone where 3 aircraft had already been shot down is a no-brainer. Qantas chose to avoid the area, for this reason: . They didn't obtain their excellent safety record by taking unnecessary chances. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Most everyone chose to divert around the war zone. As noted in this, posted farther down by another editor, the reason that's liable to get the blame is money - it costs more to fly around Ukraine than over it. So it seems that the bean-counters overrode good sense at that airline. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sort of like the Jessica Ghawi story. Poor folks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

Air Canada had apparently been "proactively" avoiding the area for a while. Seems to suggest it's the sort of decision an airline makes, rather than a regulator. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine joined Eurocontrol in 2004. However, Eurocontrol only directly controls air traffic in the MUAC area (basically the upper airspace of Benelux and a part of Germany). Deciding on air space design and opening and closing of air spaces is mostly left to the member states. And of course the airlines decide which route they want to fly within the areas they are allowed to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Even the FAA only told their airlines to avoid Crimea and the surrounding sea so it doesn't seem that unique to European agencies.

It seems everyone is going to avoid the area now. Some may have been avoiding it before, although it's worth remembering it depends on the route. From comments on the news and elsewhere, I suspect it's a route more commonly used when travelling from/to parts of Europe to/from Asia, particular SEA (and perhaps also Australia/NZ). It may be easier for airlines travelling from/to Canada or the US to/from most destinations to avoid it without either noticeably increasing fuel usage and travel time or travelling over equally risky areas.

Perhaps everyone overestimate how much control Russia has over the breakaway region militants (at least those showing up with sophisticated weaponary), as Russia themselves have been saying all the time, and so believed it was safer than it was.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Airliners routinely fly over Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe. Or did until recently, in the case of Iraq - not sure about now. Instructions to pilots dictated that the aircraft remain above 22,500 feet at all times. Note that Man-portable air-defense systems, even recent models, cannot hit an airliner at full cruising height. (Those incidents where airliners were targeted by MANPADs generally involved takeoff and landing). Only fixed, semi-mobile, or vehicle-mounted systems could do it. Most insurgents don't have access to such systems (they're quite hard to hide). Obviously, the rebels in eastern Ukraine are an exception, as the airliner was apparently at full altitude. It's suspected a Buk missile system was used. 118.138.218.142 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The evidence seems to point toward it having been a Russian made missile launched from the rebel controlled area of the Ukraine. This certainly suggests it was Ukrainian rebels who launched it, presuming the target to be a Ukrainian military plane. They may have obtained it either covertly from the Russians, or perhaps they captured it from Ukrainian military depot.

Note that 2 Ukrainian cargo planes and one Ukrainian fighter were shot down by the Ukrainian rebels in the last few weeks, although I'm unsure of their altitude. So it's pretty clear that the rebels have anti-aircraft weapons, and if those planes were at the same altitude, it's clear that they had AA weapons capable of shooting down civilian jets. If so, then allowing civilian jets to fly over that area seems incredibly stupid.

Also, are civilian jets flying over other war zones now ? Syria ? The Gaza Strip ? Iraq ? StuRat (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Pierre Jeanniot, a former Air Canada CEO, they did fly over Afghanistan at those heights, and do for Iraq, Syria, Iran and Egypt. Without the precedent of a disaster, he thinks there was little reason for concern. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like the classic tombstone mentality. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For a classic, that sure has been unsourced for a while. Should I delete it before or after someone is misled? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Find a source for it, instead. Here's one from the New York Times: . StuRat (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just leave it be and pass the buck on to you if any catastrophic confusion occurs. Your "advance-knowledge" seems more advanced than mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

What does a 9-11 conspiracy site have to do with anything ? StuRat (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's actually Misplaced Pages. Figured it tied into the tombstone mentality, the general expert-in-hindsight vibe the news gets in times like these and my telling you about a potential Wikiproblem that you and I are willfully ignoring. Nothing to do with 9/11, in particular. I'll just shut up. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

CNN showed the missile that struck the plane broken it two. It was at least 25 feet, perhaps longer. Not a shoulder mount. It must have come from a specialized truck. What is a probability that a person who pulled the trigger did not know what he was doing? Such hardware are operated by a crew of ten. Put yourself in the shoes of the commander, perhaps a lieutenant junior grade. Before you fire you take binoculars and look at the aircraft. Aren't civilian aircraft distinguishable? Again if you are a commander of such a machine, would you do it alone? No, you will wait for an order from a superior officer. What is the motivation for the Ukrainian military to do it? Zero. Have they shot down any aircraft yet? No. The Russians have shot down Ukrainian planes in this area. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't distinguish planes at 33,000 feet from the ground with binoculars. I believe those were pro-Russian rebels who shot down the other planes recently, although there may be actual Russian military interspersed with them. It will certainly not help either the rebels nor the Russians out to have this on their record. Indeed, I suspect that much stricter sanctions will follow, unless Russia stops providing such high tech weapons to idiots. This fact does bring up the possibility that the Ukrainians did it, to blame it on the rebels, but that would be a very difficult thing to bring off, even if you assume they were immoral enough to do so. They would have to somehow get into the rebel controlled area with the missile launcher, shoot the missile, and get out, without being detected. Also, the serial numbers on the missile may be recovered, from which it could be tracked, and satellite surveillance of the area would likely spot any movements into or out of the area.

If recent news reports are correct, the missile launcher is a "point and click" system, where the radar finds a target, just displayed as a blip, and the operator then decides whether to launch or not. The missile launcher itself does not distinguish between targets, they would have to use other system for that. The rebels may not have access to those other systems. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick review of various reports and commentaries on cnn.com bear out the essence of what you're saying. The (unconfirmed) account of voice traffic indicates the rebels mistook it for a transport plane, and they (along with many others) are asking the same question as the OP here: What on god's green earth were they doing flying over a war zone? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And suddenly the chat room becomes Sturat's own "I believe... " blog. There's a lot of crap here. Worth just reading the mainstream news sources, and avoiding these chat/conspiracy boards. All they do is perpetuate limited understanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits will be filed in a short order. A bunch of lawyers already count their fees. Russia will be defending those lawsuits in European courts for the next decade or two. Some properties will be impounded. A lot of headache for Mr. Putin and company. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to also be spurring Poland on to increase continue the sanction headache. Not that Poland needed any help in anti-Russian sentiment. But the rest of Europe may need a little help jumping to conclusions about their energy relationships. And who better for relationship advice than this odd couple? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Poland seems to have already been officially pissed (via Radoslaw Sikorski) a day before the plane exploded. I apologize if I implied they were easily manipulated. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

This Štefan Füle guy has had an interesting few days. The day before he appeared in the story above, he was concerned with rumours and today he's helping annex former Soviet republics. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

• Why were commercial planes still flying over Ukraine? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• There was a similar sentiment in a cnn.com editorial. AboutFace suggests lawsuits coming against Putin. Don't rule out the possibility of lawsuits against the airline also. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines may not survive the double disaster. Kind of unfair for them but at the same time the second one is a product of poor judgment. Who is going to purchase tickets for their flights now? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You must be channeling Jason Biggs! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Those who don't remember their Tweets are doomed to retweet them. Or maybe he's the killer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Are these notable in England

There is currently an AFD discussion about an Englishman named Nicholas Padfield, however, I'm finding it difficult to vote on him because all of his supposed accomplishments are that are unfamiliar to me as an American. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on whether or not these things are a big deal in England. He's listed in Who's Who (UK), is that something special? He played hockey at Oxford and for England. There are so many athletes in America, it's hard to know how big a deal that is. The article also says: He was called to the bar by the Inner Temple in 1972. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1991 and was elected a bencher of the Inner Temple in 1995. He was appointed a recorder in 1995 and a deputy judge in 2008. Are these big achievements? Bali88 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If he played for England, I'd say that's instant notability right there provided sources can be found to verify it. There is no higher level in any sport than representing your country at international level. Mogism (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.

Being called to the bar just makes one a barrister (a lawyer permitted to address certain slightly higher categories of court, balanced out by not being permitted to do some other things that lawyers in the British system do), and there are many of them, most of whom are not notable (and some of whom claim to be very poorly paid). A Recorder (judge) is a local judge (more important than a magistrate because it requires detailed knowledge of the law.) Not sure about deputy judge but I doubt it would confer notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so the barrister thing is out as a form of notability. As for representing your country at international level, does that typically count as notability for British BLP's? Because I'm not sure it would be a notable feat for American athletes. There are 530 athletes who represented the US at the 2012 summer Olympics alone. More than 10K from all countries in 2012 total. Add that to all the athletes in the winter olympics and all the various international sporting events around the world and that's a lot of people! That's what's kind of giving me pause. I don't really know how big a deal hockey is and if being on the national team makes you a celebrity over there. Is that typically accepted for British athletes? Also, I kinda feel like if that is the thing that is making him notable, the article should be focused on that instead of it being sort of a side note. Say what year he played, what notable things he did on the team, etc.

Also, does anyone know anything about the who's who list? Is that something that is notable? Bali88 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister, and a bencher is a senior member of an Inn of Court, taken together I think that they would argue towards notability, as would representing his country at the top level in any sport. (Hockey, by the way, means the one played on grass or artificial pitches, not the sort played on ice. Britain is generally seen as being in the upper ranks internationally). Who's Who would also argue towards notability. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also see Who's Who (UK). People it lists are by definition notable in some sense (which may or may not agree with Wikipedias sense). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure about Who's Who, but WRT the athletics stuff, see Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports). To wit " The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Misplaced Pages's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." You are free to interpret that, and apply it to this situation, as you see best. However, if you are seriously interested in saving the article, your best shot is to find source text about his life. What Misplaced Pages needs to write articles is reliable source text, and while the other, supplementary notability guidelines are nice, they are usually debatable as to whether the presumption of notability the supplementary guidelines provide really is there. However, actual, real, reliable, in-depth source text is unassailable. The more of that you find, the more rock solid your case comes in keeping the article around. If no in-depth source text exists anywhere in the world, it becomes harder to defend the existence of an article even if the subject of the article meets some arbitrary criteria, like holding some job or having appeared in some competition. --Jayron32 21:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I really don't have a dog in the fight in terms of keeping it, I just wasn't sure what to do with it!

• Having looked this over, the term "deputy judge" may be British understatement. As I understand it, the Queen's Bench Division has only 15 judges - and all but the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales are "deputy judges". These are judges that hear cases at the highest level of the judiciary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, he's a Deputy High Court Judge, which is pretty senior as judging things go. He'll get his K when he's made a full High Court Judge. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you guys think of a reliable source for this? I don't think the "Who's Who" book is going to count since it's self-written. If I can I'd like to add it to the article. Bali88 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. The content of a Who's Who entry is written by the subject, but the fact of inclusion is decided by the editors, so it seems to me that it should count towards notability. --ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added six reliable sources, so the page should now meet the general notability guideline of WP:N. Moonraker (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

July 18

What was Rhode Island's status before it ratified the Constitution?

The U.S. Constitution took effect on June 21, 1788, when it was ratified by the ninth state, Connecticut. But what was the status of the other four members of the original Articles of Confederation from that point on - Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island - before they ratified the Constitution? Were they part of the United States? Were they part of a separate United States? --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution was simply an illegal treaty between the states. "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." Congress had authorized the Constitutional Convention for the purpose of writing amendments to the Articles, not a whole new constitution, and amendments to the Articles were only allowed to be adopted if "such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." The various governments simply found it convenient to ignore those provisions and treat the new Constitution as legitimately adopted—in effect, a bloodless revolution in favor of the new-style government. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You can read in, for example, History of Rhode Island, its refusal to ratify the constitution led to it being treated as a foreign nation by the other 12 states in the union. As far as the other 3 states you mention, those that ratified after the ninth state (New Hampshire, FWIW) necessary to ratify the Constitution and bring it into the force of law, it is likely that they were not treated as independent nations; remember that communication in those days went as fast as a horse could carry it, and as such, there was not an expectation of "instantness" that we have today. See History of the United States Constitution#Ratification of the Constitution, by the time that they got from the "It's been ratified" to "We need to organize and hold elections to form our first government, two additional states (bringing the total to eleven of thirteen) had ratified the constitution. The twelfth state, North Carolina, ratified on November 21, 1789, eight months after the government had started meeting on March 4, 1789, what had been the official inauguration day, though even on March 4, there was not a quorum in either house of Congress, it took some more weeks for representatives and senators from enough states to make it to New York to do so. It wasn't until the end of April that the President and Vice President had been sworn in. I can't find any information to indicate if North Carolina was treated as a foreign nation (or threatened to be) during the months of 1789 between when Congress started performing official business and they ratified the Constitution, but Rhode Island was under that direct threat until it ratified almost a year later. --Jayron32 06:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I had the book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier out of the library a while back. If I remember correctly, the delay in implementing the new government after New Hampshire ratified was not only due to slow communications and the time to organize elections but also because it was hoped the remaining states would fall into line quickly and avoid any problems such as they actually had with Rhode Island. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm. So it seems like the best method is to just consider them all in the U.S. and not do any trickery. (I'm working on new versions of Territorial evolution of the United States etc. and was wondering how to handle this) --Golbez (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In essence, Rhode Island was "gently" coerced into joining the Union. Being surrounded, they were not really in a position of strength. Now, if Virginia or Massachusetts had failed to sign on, it could have been serious trouble. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you were doing a progressive map like File:US states by date of statehood.gif or File:Non-Native American Nations Control over N America 1750-2008.gif, you could use three similar but distinct colors to show the "US under the Articles", "US states that ratified the Constitution before it took effect", and "US states under the Constitution". --50.100.189.160 (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

jurisdiction & admissibility

What 's the difference between jurisdiction and admissibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.166.186 (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See Jurisdiction and admissible evidence. Moonraker (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Low population density of central inner Spain

Why is central inner Spain (apart from the Madrid region) so sparsely populated? It's rather comparable with Scandinavia or northern Russia, than with Italy or France.

• File:EspDens2.jpg
• File:Population density Europe.png
• File:EU_NUTS_2_population_density_2007.svg

--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the map in Climate of Spain, a large portion of the center appears to be classified as BSk - cold, semi-arid climate. So the rain in Spain stays mainly ... elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You might be right but the precipitation and temperature do not strictly correspond to the density.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That area appears to be known as the "Meseta Central" or "Inner plateau" (no separate en.Misplaced Pages article)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Geography_of_Spain#The_Inner_Plateau_and_associated_mountains Katie R (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Mountains are also difficult to farm, necessitating building and maintaining ledges, which is rather labor intensive. Also, you can't bring in heavy machinery to harvest such crops, so that is also labor intensive. This has been done in places, such as parts of Asia, where the mountains get enough rain, the labor supply is plentiful, and there is a lack of more accessible farm land. In other areas mountain pastures are used to feed livestock, but those support a lower population, since much of the food energy is lost when it's converted into meat. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Our article describes the landscape as "barren rugged slopes". So probably not very productive as pasture either. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but pasture doesn't need to be as productive, as goats, etc., have a knack for finding a tuft of grass here and there, which would be impractical for humans to try to harvest. Obviously more productive pasture will support more animals and thus humans, though. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Spain also experienced a decent rate of urbanization during the 20th century, including during and after the Franco period (an increase from 61% to 77% between 1965 and 1985, "slightly higher than the average for the advanced industrial countries" Spain: A Country Study, Eric Solsten and Sandra W. Meditz, editors. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1988). Of the top ten cities of Spain, and with the exception of Madrid, as noted by Любослов, only Zaragoza is not at or near the coast, and it's still not in central Spain. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

File:EU_NUTS_2_population_density_2007.svg (linked by OP) shows a similar pattern in Greece and Turkey. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking pets to war

I'm wondering about this World War I photograph (1917) showing "Two American soldiers about to embark for duty, with their pets, a dachshund and a racoon. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" Were soldiers officially allowed (or even encouraged) to bring along pets at the time? Was it still allowed in WWII? What about nowadays? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The comma seems to suggest these two soldiers about to embark on duty are with their pets, not about to embark on duty with their pets. I don't know of anything allowing or forbidding it, but it seems like a hassle to take them along. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

In Britain, when WWII was coming, many people seem to have figured their pets would be better off dead, at the government's suggestion. Seems unlikely those soldiers would be allowed. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, big green unpalatable one (I actually saw the pic in a local magazine reminiscing on WWI, and the caption claimed it showed the two soldiers after disembarkment in Europe, which isn't what the linked caption says). Sorry, by the way, if the link doesn't work. It's one of those patronizing links that automatically redirects to my country web domain (.ch) and language (de), so I'm not even sure that changing it to .com would work. But people can view it by image-googling American + soldiers + dachshund + raccoon. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. I can't understand all the German on the right, but I can guess by the context that it's not so relevant to the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

There was the case of Sergeant Stubby, the most decorated war dog in the first one. But he wasn't technically a pet (or a sergeant). Somewhere in between. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

Also Wojtek, a private in the Polish artillery (and a brown bear) who allegedly carried ammunition to the guns at the Battle of Monte Cassino. 08:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Unlike Sergeant Stubby, Able Seaman Just Nuisance has an official rank. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but speaking of war dogs, the Russians tried to use dogs with explosives on their backs to attack German tanks at the Battle Of Kursk. Unfortunately, it backfired (pardon the pun), because the dogs had been trained using Russian tanks, so they blew their own tanks up. KägeTorä - (_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 19

Coin Act 1696

Where can I find the full text? "Google" isn't the answer. I'd like to know about section 8 of the act, which isn't mentioned in the article. Section 6 prohibited the mixing of copper and silver. Did this apply in all circumstances, or just in a numismatic context? It would be a shame if natural philosophers were prohibited from carrying out chemistry experiments on the properties of the two elements. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the virtual Parliament, your paper is somewhere behind this hyperlink. I'm not sure. I don't have Javascript on. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

As for Part 2, I'll just guess it only meant coins. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Found the text through your link, and expanded the article. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Passports during aircraft accidents

Why the passengers' passports aboard the downed Malaysian MH17 flight (and some other accidents) didn't burn out (if they were inside passengers' cloth, which burned together with the bodies)? 93.174.25.12 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What's the basis of your premise? Who says all the bodies burned? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

They must not have, since there are apparently lots of intact bodies (and body parts) on the ground, along with lots of intact baggage and plane parts. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The missile would have fractured the plane and lots of people could have simply fallen out. The fireball occurred when the fuel tank portion hit the ground. There is a widespread debris field, so a lot of the entities probably did not burn. I wonder, though - on an international flight, do the passengers keep their passports, or are they stowed in a safe or something? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

On an international flight, passengers keep their passports with them at all times. I can't imagine why it would be otherwise.--Shantavira| 12:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen footage of a witness describing seeing bodies falling out of the sky. And there's plenty of unburnt personal effects in amongst the burnt wreckage. -- Jack of Oz 11:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP has seen pics, similar to those I've seen, which are passports piled up after tragedies like this. I think there's a term for news photographer setting up pictures like this but I can't remember what it is right now (e.g. deaths of young children so the photographers set up a scene with a teddy bear) 87.113.181.226 (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the term is, but I'm fairly certain I saw a clip of seemingly pristine passports being shown kind of the way you're describing. Actually from the crash, or file footage, I'm not totally sure. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

When I've travelled long haul, I tend to keep my passport in a shirt or jacket pocket, or if I'm not going to sleep, in my hand luggage nearby. There are plenty of pictures of intact baggage from MH17. There's no reason to believe that passports stored within such intact baggage would have been spontaneously destroyed. Therefore passports can and regularly do survive such accidents. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_current_constituent_African_monarchs

Hello,

first, I must commend this article and other articles about traditional rulers.

Does anyone have any information about how many traditional rulers (kings, sultans, emirs etc.) that exist in the world today? I am sure they must be some sort of list that contains such info as it is known how many tribes/peoples there are.

Thank you,

with best regards

Morten Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortennorway (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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