Revision as of 17:16, 16 October 2014

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 11

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

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

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

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

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

What was the form of village government in Imperial China?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poverty and resource rich countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is eimple. Check out the population of Saudi Arabia in 1960 and compare with the population today. Plus the fact that they did not spend money to increase the productivity of the citizens. From 4 million to 30 million, how could they wipe out poverty? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Blueboar: in which category would you classify the sort of warmongers who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan? They don't seem to fit any of those. Wnt (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You attacked me here, not on anybody's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did I hurt your feewings by objecting to an off-topic flame and/or (separately) suggesting that you tarred with too broad a brush? Darn, I hate when that happens and it explains the motive for your last crack, but it doesn't clarify the substance. —Tamfang (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No one on this website is capable of "hurting my feelings". I just wanted to see if you could put your money where your mouth is. Thanks for answering that question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of money were you looking for? —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lesbia - Clodia

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

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

OECD and Romania, finding data on economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Folks at Misplaced Pages:

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

“Who’s that knocking at my door?

Who’s that knocking at my door?

What’s that noise and what’s it for?”

Said the rich ship owner.

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

Said Barnacle Bill, the Sailor.

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

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

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

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

“I’ve sailed your ship through wind and fog

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

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

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

Many thanks for your help.

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

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

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

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

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

Diminished capacity to consent and sexual assault

Hi,

I'd like to know :

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am reading this question a lot on newsblogs at the moment. I suppose it does depend on US law. Per JackofOz there are other jurisdictions. In the UK women have been convicted of rape, e.g. for facilitating and egging on. This will have to work its way out through the courts but note the following. Having drunk something is not the same as being incapacitated through drink. if two parties in a sexual encounter were both completely incapacitated through drink and incapable of giving consent yet did take part in sexual activity, then yes, both could in theory be liable, but who is going to pursue this in law? Note that there is absolutely no reason why both should not be guilty. It would be the same thing if two people took part in a fight, neither acting in self defence. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Marxist Theological Dialectic

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

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

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

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

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

This is how I interpret your question. You note that Marx says that the "cause of labour is the hope of the world", which is not actually his words, but the sense of what he argued. However, although he saw the working class as constituting the majority of the population, and hence the victory of the working class would be the victory of all, he also delineated the working class to exclude the lumpenproletariat at the more excluded end and the petite bourgeoisie at the more privileged end. And that might diminish the universalist appeal of Marxism. Is that it? If so, you have a point but the solution, as always, is to read Gramsci. As Marx said, there is no royal route to knowledge. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to keep this factually correct - Proclus reports that Euclid said "There is no royal road to geometry", and Peirce (quoting Proclus) said "There is no royal road to logic". See Royal Road (which was an actual road in Persia). The phrase isn't (particularly) associated with Marx. Tevildo (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you should talk to your supervisor immediately about this. After you've done that: Your question is incoherent from what little I know of political science, and from what much I know of Marxism. "If we were to understand the political 'thesis' as such in regards to cultural agendas," there's a tendency going around to analyse 'anti-politics' as in 'anti-parliamentary politics' in the working class as the working class is. I'm not sure you're making that claim. I'm not sure what a political 'thesis' is for you. This is not standard or one of the major heterodox forms of marxist analysis. "Cultural agendas" means you might enjoy reading about the Frankfurt school. I certainly wouldn't. "Marxist theological and dialectic origins," well, the proletarian movement has a number of theological origins, Luther Blisset amusingly explores these in Q, though Umberto Eco could be said to explore them as well in In the Name of the Rose. These themes aren't as present in Marxism. I think what you're getting at is that Marxism has humanist origins, see Imre Nagy or Jean Paul Sartre for the pro, and Althusser for the con. You then seem to go on to ask, "if workers possess a praxis, as a positive cultural programme, ie: if there is a working class culture that prefigures proletarian and then classless culture, what then of the lumpenproletariat and petits-bourgeois?" My understanding is that Marx saw that little could come of these. My understanding of concrete organisational movements is that the class has always found its power from the seemingly most dispossessed, the IWW and Syndicalism in relation to the new fordist workers, and the somewhat pathetic hungering after a new precariat by post-Fordists would be the example. My general suggestion would be that if someone claims to speak for the proletariat, that they're not, my more detailed suggestion would be to read more concrete labour history as a basis for making judgements here. Lowenstein's _Under the Hook_ and _Weevils in the Flour_ if you were Australian. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 12

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

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

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

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

• US policy at the time was isolationist, we already have mechanisms in place by which to conduct international negotiations. We were already well on our way to becoming the largest national economy in the world. And which party would it have benefitted to do so? Party politics and the filibuster have prevented a lot of things that you might think would happen. For instance, the US would have been able to voluntarily annex or buy much land in the Caribbean and what is now left of northern Mexico. There was also strong desire to claim what is now British columbia. But doing so would have upset the balance of power between the free and slave states, so either of the factions, which were well enough matched, could block negotiations, war for or purchase of these lands. Both parties would have had to seen a large benefit. Plus, why bother, we were one of the world's oldest Republics, with the oldest constitution. It would be like Mr. Jones wanting to join a club consisting mostly of Mr. French's wards and Victoria's children. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The above responses are just weird in light of reality. A quick search for 'ipu united states' finds which links to this Congressional Research Service report. That says that the US was one of the original participants in 1889 although admitedly they didn't formally join until 1935. They stopped attending meetings in 1994. And left in 1999, at least partially for financial reasons (although I'm not sure this is the primary reason for their reduced participation).

I'm not denying that there would be opposition to the US participating nowadays, , and I'm sure there was at the time. But clearly talking about the US's isolationist stance at the time or the US not joining something because it looked like global government or the UN being a tough sell is just weird. As per the dates given earlier, the US was participating when the IPU was founded way before even the League of Nations and formally joined after the LoN but significantly before the United Nations or most start dates for World War 2. Similarly the comment about the US not being eligible because they didn't have a parliament.

While our article doesn't mention the US once being a member, it does give a big clue in that 3 of the meetings were held in the US. While I'm sure they don't require their meetings be held in member states, in fact 2 of the 3 were held in the US before they formally joined, it would be a little weird to hold their meetings in a place which was thoroughly disinterested.

That said, even the OP's original comment seems a bit weird. While I only quickly glanced through the statutes, I don't see anything about the parliaments having to be "democratically-elected representatives" or even elected. The main critireon appears to be that they the parliament are formed in accordance with the laws of the state whose people they represent. (One of their goals is to promote democracy, but that's a different issue.) As the member lists show, countries like North Korea, Cuba and China are members although I believe nominally all 3 do have elections for their legislatures whether or not you call them democractic.

I found the federal government comment a bit strange too, since one thing from above that is correct is that France and the UK (or the British Empire if you want) were the main founders and neither of these have or had federal government. But I guess the OP was just mentioning that they require the national parliamentary equivalent of sovereign states (albeit with some recognition of statehood ambitions), and the statutes in particular mention this means only the federal parliament can join in the case of a federation.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

EU's CEFR English Profile availability and licensing

Hi. Is the English Profile (http://www.englishprofile.org/) going to be available freely under an open content license, or will there be fees and/or restrictions? I can see the vocabulary profile preview (http://vocabularypreview.englishprofile.org/staticfiles/about.html) but where can I find the grammar skills descriptions and functional skills listings in development? Thanks for any help. 76.88.167.15 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It will be freely available to teachers and educationalists. I don't know about other people though.Whereismylunch (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone have a reference (e.g., URL or document/page) saying so? 76.88.167.15 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

When, Where and Who ?

Many years ago, around 1980, there was a news item on a massive bank burglary that occurred I believe in Italy, where a gang had tunnelled somehow into a vault and made off with so much loot they had to leave their equipment behind. A few more years later, about 1985 or so I saw in a section of the Christchurch Star called the Oddspot - about unusual or striking news, that some of those who did the deed were consulting on a Movie to made about them - something perhaps not so unusual these days with the kind of 'Natural Born Killers ' sort of Culture of the Bandit that exists today. So the men were caught, but for the life of me, and I did look on Google and here, I could not find the exact deed. I do not believe it is the 1976 French vault burglary I later saw portrayed on one of those Discovery Channel type shows with the reconstructions, where they welded the vault door shut from within and left a message in the vault for when it was opened eventually on the Monday. Those men were also caught. I think the job I am asking about occurred perhaps in Rome in about 1979, but cannot be sure, and I think the robbers were Italians. If anyone remembers this, please let me know. In addition, I once watched a TV Movie about a group, of all people, police officers - or at least some were, who did a similar thing. I think some time in the eighties, in Southern California, they broke into the Vault at a bank on a Labor Day Weekend - although it could have been July 4. If anyone knows this Movie, any help would be appreciated. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 10:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Elements of this sound like The Bank Job, a film about a bank vault robbed via tunnel that was based, somewhat loosely, on historical fact, but that was set in London, not Italy or California. John M Baker (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't quite meet the criteria but Albert Spaggiari did something similar in Nice, France during the Bastille Day long weekend in 1976 which inspired the film Les Égouts du paradis. Hack (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank You for those. I recall The Bank Job, with Jason Statham, who himself was four at the time of the real robbery. This event, in 1971, also inspired an episode of 'The Sweeney', starring John Thaw. The Albert Spaggiari job was the one I referred to, where they welded the doors shut, but I think they also left a lot of their equipment behind, which led to their eventual deserved capture. Yet I am sure that the one I am thinking of did take place later, at a time I would have watched the News, which I did not in 1976, being only eight, since I am sure most eight year olds unfortunately do not watch the News. This occurred in Italy, but since I understand a minimum of Italian, it would be hard for me to try the Italian Misplaced Pages. I might give it a go anyway, if I can work out the words for robbery and such. Also, still wondering about the American movie of the cops doing a bank job themselves - think I saw it up to 15 years ago, but could have been as few as nine, so the movie itself might be a minimum of ten years old, and I believe the events took place in about 1985 or so, but I cannot be sure. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing I did find, when I worked out the Italian word for robbery is rapine, is there was a robbery at the Chase Manhattan Bank in Rome on 27 November 1979, by those known as Banda della Magliana, who seem to be linked to the Mafia, but I cannot be sure. This depends on what they mean by robbery, since the original news story I remember is the men in question snuck into the vault after hours as they needed equipment, and took so much loot they had to leave the equipment behind. This could be the one I am after, but if anyone else has any other leads, that would also be good. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

South America

Which South American countries are crossed by the equator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.241.233 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See Equator. The countries are Ecuador, Colombia, and Brazil. The northernmost point of Peru is 4.5 km south of the equator. Tevildo (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

James Francis Edward Stuart

Was it ever considered to raise James Francis Edward Stuart as a Protestant?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Considered by whom? From the article you linked, probably not. Within six months of being born, his mother took him to France to be raised in the (very Catholic) court of Louis XIV of France. It seems unlikely that his mother considered raising him in the Protestant faith considering her actions in his infancy. Of course, there were likely many people within the English government who considered raising him a Protestant to be a good idea, however they didn't see that as happening, the Glorious Revolution was precipitated by the birth of James and the subsequent spiriting off to France. In reality, the Glorious Revolution was precipitated by James marriage to the Catholic Mary of Modena, though the fact that Mary had no living sons with James during the first 15 years of their marriage forstalled the Protestants for sometime. But James II had already formally converted to Catholicism himself, and the birth of a son to two avowed Catholic parents meant the son was going to be raised Catholic. Thus, the Glorious Revolution. --Jayron32 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Study and practice of modern medicine in China between 1940-1985?

Is it possible to get statistical figures on the number of Chinese women who earned MDs and became medical doctors/physicians during that period? What were the socioeconomic status of these women during this Communist era? Were they paid better than their unskilled labor counterparts? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You will find it hard to get good statistics. Note that your period begins in the middle of the Second World War and goes through the Chinese Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Hundred Flowers period and the Cultural Revolution. Chinese government policy was extremely varied, to say the least. From 1949 the urgent priority was to train enough doctors. They did collect figures for that,, and there should be international comparisons on density of doctors per head of population. You can assume that there was no legal bar for women to enter the profession. Official salary scales may be available and will show that China applied a system of differentials so that doctors were paid more than most other categories of workers. Only starting points, I'm afraid. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 13

Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof

Where in Warszaw has he lived? Is the subburb or the street known, where he spent his life? Is his House where he was born today still preserved? --Poker chip (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

According the book The Life of Zamenhof, he lived on Dzika Street in Warsaw.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dzika Street was later renamed Zamenhof Street, and there is a plaque at his house now. The house where he was born in Bialystok no longer exists, but there are lots of commemorative monuments there too. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Distances in Orange County

How far is Knott's Berry Farm from John Wayne Airport?74.66.90.189 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For most any two points, go to Google and say something like "knott's berry farm to john wayne airport". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Or go to Google Maps, or Bing Maps, and enter "from:John Wayne Airport to:Knott's Berry Farm" in the search box (it's 162½ furlongs) by public road. If you want as-the-crow-flies, go to Google Maps, click on the small "Maps Labs" link at the bottom of the sidebar, enable "Distance Measurement Tool", click on the ruler in the bottom-left of the map, and then click near the two points of interest. It's 103¼ furlongs. CS Miller (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That last figure is as the horse flies. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I once had a pet horse-fly named Pegasus. :) -- Jack of Oz 20:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Stock Market Investment class

Is there a legal sort of process in the United States that allows for the following scenario:

A class of students (all under 18) put real money into a shared account managed by a person over the age of 18. That person invests the money based on the direction of the students. At the end of the school year, the accounts are all sold and the cash, with all profits or losses, are returned to the students.

This is obviously an idea for an economics class at high school level. The idea is that the kids will take more interest if they invest real money. Over the last five years, they've done make-believe investing, but all they get is a sticker if they do well. They don't get real profits. So, I'm trying to figure out a legal way that the kids can invest and turn a profit (or suffer a loss) since they won't be over 18 and they won't be handing over their SSN to report profits to the IRS. I know that investment clubs are common - but they are normally all adults and they all report their profits/losses on their taxes (at least they are supposed to do that). 209.149.115.99 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your idea raises multiple issues.

With respect to the consent of the minors, which seems to be your main question: That's a request for legal advice, which we don't give, and it's going to be dependent on local law anyway. However, if the source of the funds is not the kids themselves (e.g., it's coming from their parents), you might be able to use Uniform Gifts to Minors Act or Uniform Transfers to Minors Act accounts. (Most states have adopted one or the other.)

You will need to limit the number of investors to 100 at most to avoid regulation under the Investment Company Act of 1940. In addition, you will need to make sure that the adult manager is not subject to regulation as an investment adviser under the applicable blue sky law. Again, you will need legal advice.

Taxes will be an issue. The investment club will be a partnership for tax purposes and will have some fairly complicated filing requirements. Better have an accountant on hand. And the kids will indeed be handing over their SSNs to report profits to the IRS. John M Baker (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the income to be filed under the parents tax return or is that not possible in an investment club case ? Also, it's possible some links here would provide background info on how others do it. Our investment club article also mentions some real world examples although I can't help thinking that in those cases the students may already be dealing with tax stuff even before the club. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Some nice links there, Nil. While the parents could choose to report the income on their own returns, that is a decision that is made by them and will not have any effect on the investment club, which will still need to file its own return and provide a Schedule K-1 to each kid. John M Baker (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have time to do a lot of reading, so I will read up on the relevant laws and paperwork you both mentioned. I want to cover as many hurdles as possible before I take anything as a proposal to the school board. Everyone wastes time with a "wouldn't this be great" idea, but they don't do the research. I just needed a starting point because I know nothing about stocks and taxes. 209.149.115.99 (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, you mean even if any income made from the investment is filed under the parents tax return, the children will still need to provide their own SSN to the investment club, rather than the parents? (Hopefully it's obvious this isn't a request for legal advice, I don't live in the US and have no interest in starting an investment club there. Actually one of the reasons I'm asking is because I always find US tax law fairly confusing what with the need to always file a tax return combined with one of the reasons probably being that there seem to be so many different exceptions, rebates, special conditions etc.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the investment club will need a Social Security number (or other tax identification number) from each U.S. investor. If the investor is the kid, or a custodian for the kid using a Uniform Gifts/Transfers to Minors Act account, the number will be the kid's SSN. The kid's parents, if they so choose, can then report the kid's income on their own return, making it unnecessary for the kid to file a separate return, although this usually results in more tax. John M Baker (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the name "Citizen Four" a reference to anything?

The film Citizenfour is named after the pseudonym, Citizen Four, that Edward Snowden used in his first email to Laura Poitras. Is this name a reference to anything in particular? WinterWall (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

76.88.167.15 (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a random hit for the phrase "citizen four" with no apparent connection to Snowden. I did some online searching but couldn't find anything. Maybe the documentary explains it. -- BenRG (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Random connection? Sheep are sacrificed for Passover. There are four fours in that holiday: Four Sons, Four Cups of Wine, Four Questions and Four Expressions of Redemption. The thing the Lamb of God was sacrificed on something like the old Brahmin symbol for four, and Brahmin is the fourth caste, above Kshatriya, which do the things Snowden did before becoming a liberation teacher.

Seems rational to me, but I'm crazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

Kwaggaberg

I have been told that in South Africa exists a town named 'Kwaggaberg', but there are no articles about this supposed town. I would have thought that virtually every medium size town in South Africa has an article here. So here are my 'questions' as such:

• 1. Where is Kwaggaberg within South Africa? (i.e what province)
• 2. How would one pronounce Kwaggaberg?
• 3. If Kwaggaberg does not exist, am I confusing it with another town/area name?

Thanks guys. --Staatsmende (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Kwaggaberg appears to be a city made up for the TV show Trompie (source). It appears to be about as real as Arlen, Texas or Mayberry, North Carolina. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The name might be a reference/pun on the Quagga, an extinct type of zebra that used to live in SA. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.mbendi.com/attraction/kwaggaberge-1713682.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it exists with an e. Photos here. Are those bad photos, or is that what a medium sized town looks like? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Those photos are taken in the general area, such as the towns of Carnarvon and Williston (hover your cursor over the individual pictures), not on the Kwaggaberge hill, which appears to be fairly barren—certainly of a town. Deor (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Painting seen in a TV episode

The backstory of episode 4 of the TV series Forever, involves a picture painted (apparently about 1950) by a "then-unknown Argentinian artist" named Fernando Costa who was a lover of one of the characters in the episode. I presume this would be a fictional artist; the only real artist by that name I've found mentioned on the Internet is French and was born in 1970. But now I'm curious about the painting used as a prop in the episode, because I rather liked it. Was it painted just for the episode? Is it actually a museum piece? Or what? Is the artist anyone we might have heard of? I didn't see anything in the TV credits to say, but of course they go by in a flash these days.

I'm posting here rather than on the Entertainment desk because it's possible someone who knows about art saw the episode and recognized the painting. Any luck there? --174.88.135.88 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 14

Free buffalo

From Steal This Book, obviously many years out of date, but reading through it again I found something really interesting...

Every year the National Park Service gives away surplus elks in order to keep the herds under its jurisdiction from outgrowing the amount of available land for grazing. Write to: Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone, Wyoming 83020. You must be prepared to pay the freight charges for shipping the animal and guarantee that you can provide enough grazing land to keep the big fellow happy. Under the same arrangement the government will send you a Free Buffalo. Write to...

And there ends the relevant bit. My question is, is the process as simple as Hoffman makes it sound? Was there really a time when the US government just gave out elk and buffalo, and if so, when did they stop doing it? Evan  00:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As recently as 2009 the National Park Service was trying to unload surplus elk meat for free. It isn't as simple as asking for it; it seems that there are usually more people than available elk corpses, so they hold a lottery. But it still is true (at least it was 5 years ago) that the National Park Service does periodically cull its elk herds and give away the meat for free. --Jayron32 01:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as buffalo goes, they do cull the population by shipping them off for slaughter. See here. According to that site, there are agreements with nearby American Indian groups who use the buffalo for food and materials (hides, bones, etc.). --Jayron32 01:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, and the Native American arrangement makes a lot of sense. Thanks, Jayron! Evan  15:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do I want to move to Milton Keynes?

My American company has offered to relocate me to their new office in Milton Keynes. I have been unable to determine what living expenses, lifestyle opportunities, and nightlife options would be available there. Is there some Milton Keynes guide site which can help me? 76.88.167.15 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The WP article has an 'External links' section at the bottom which includes the official visitor's website which might be useful, but don't expect unbiased info. Numbeo has stats relating to cost of living, etc. here:. -Which lists the CPI as 107.24 (quite high) and 'Rent Index' as 41.63 (quite low).  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a few opinions on this forum thread . Personally I don't like the place but YMMV. --Viennese Waltz 06:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For what my opinion's worth, Milton Keynes is an interesting experimental town but not really the sort of place I'd like to live. However, the two counties around there - Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire - are beautiful, quintessentially English shires which you might like to explore. It's close to Silverstone and quite a few Formula 1 carmakers are based round there. And it has excellent rail links to London and Birmingham. But a lot depends on you and your values and attitudes. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As Tammy says, it all depends what your expectations are. Are you relocating from the US or from somewhere else in the UK ? Milton Keynes is what is called in the UK a "new town" (our link for that term redirects to planned community), so it is not nearly as quaint as its double-barrelled name might suggest. It consists of a series of retail parks, lesiure parks, industrial parks and housing estates linked by wide roads, cycle paths and roundabouts. It is bisected by a busy A-road dual carriageway. It has a "non-hierarchical devolved city plan", which means there is no well-defined town centre and no suburbs (or maybe it is all suburbs). It used to be well known for its concrete cows. And it is about as far from the sea as you can get in England. On the other hand, as has been said, if you want to live and work in Milton Keynes but spend your lesiure time elsewhere, it does have very good road and rail links. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you are North American beware that "retail park" is what we'd call "mall sprawl" or "conglomeration of strip malls", and a "housing estate" is just a neighbourhood. I've been to Milton Keynes; its like an English version of Saskatoon, only a bit more depressing. However it's within easy North American driving distance from many very pretty villages and towns if you were willing to commute. --NellieBly (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Aren't they offering incentives? I'd wait till Ebola is over and ISIS is defeated, but it's England, Yeah Baby! μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in Milton Keynes Locations which highlights Stony Stratford as a nearby place with a bit more history and character (its charter was granted by Richard the Lionheart). Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle towing/recovery industry (A history): South Africa

14 October 2014

I would like information that will help me to write an article entitled, Vehicle towing/recovery industry (A history): South Africa.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.77.38.189 (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd probably get a better response at WT:WikiProject South Africa. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Economic, social, and cultural rights

I was just reading a paper that maintained that economic, social and cultural rights are derived from "socialist theory" or something like that. I suppose socialists might support those rights, but I'm not seeing the connection here. Anyone care to help me out here? — Melab±1 ☎ 04:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no connection. All thinking humans should support those rights. You should stop reading libertarian nonsense. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Libertarians distinguish such "positive" rights, which impose a duty on other people to create specific goods or provide specific services, from "negative" rights, which require others merely to refrain from certain actions. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Melab-1 -- The United States was formed within an 18th-century tradition of individual and political rights, and has not been affected too much by post-1848 European developments in the area of economic, social and cultural rights. Some political orientations in the United States strongly uphold individual rights, while strongly rejecting any form of "group rights" (i.e. people have individual rights not to be discriminated against because they may belong to a particular group, but groups themselves have no rights as overall collectives). In this context, "socialist" is probably a vague derogatory term which is not 100% accurate, but not completely irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Blood types and how it relates to race and ethnicity

How does the environment play a role in different people groups having different blood types like 100% of the Peruvian Indians having the O blood type and the Lapps predominantly having the A blood type? Despite of that, since many people believe that race is more of a social construct than a scientific reality, why would the relationship between blood types and race/ethnicity be insignificant anyways, or not clear and relative in other words as with other characteristics used to scientifically attempt to define race? Willminator (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Type B seems to be a disadvantage when the Black Death is about. Otherwise there's always founder effect. —Tamfang (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the founder effect. Races exist due to isolation of populations, and it stands to reason that isolation is likewise the cause of more specific genetic oddities, like everyone having the same blood type or the same shape of the nose or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's something about the disadvantage of type B when dealing with the plague in Black Death? Couldn't find it.Contact Basemetal here 10:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Pollution and privatization

Sorry for two questions within the same period of time. This time my question concerns the issue of pollution, environmental protection, and privatization. I've been told by some libertarians that pollution is only a problem because a commons exists and that without public property there would be no such thing as pollution. Does this making sense to anyone? They've also told me private property resolves disputes and that "balancing rights" wouldn't be necessary if public property was privatized. I think most of the kinds of arguments originate with the less than astute faculty at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. — Melab±1 ☎ 05:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no rule against multiple questions.

I've never, ever heard a libertarian argue that public parks are somehow the cause of pollution. You would need to find some citations for that claim before (or if) we could begin to discuss it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the parks, it's the air and water; some libertarians have argued that these ought to be private property, so that there's someone with clear standing to sue polluters for damage and a relatively unconflicted interest in doing so. (It's been thirty years since I read an exposition of that concept; I can't say what other legitimate benefits they imagine to accrue from owning air.)

Others would say it's enough to remove the limits on liability for pollution, which were imposed by legislation in the name of balancing the individual's interest in not being poisoned against the public interest in economic growth; such balancings customarily result in externalizing costs and thus throwing economic calculations out of balance. ("Will this factory's products be worth more than the pollution costs?" "Never mind, we're immune to pollution claims, thanks to wise legislation, so those costs don't exist for us.") —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Never underestimate the usefulness of payola. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Tamfang, you don't need ownership to hold someone accountable. 173.69.63.178 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure I didn't say you do. —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The number of lawsuits that would be filed would completely clog the system, if every polluter had to be sued by everyone who could individually be affected. How many people would be in the smoke fallout area of just one factory's smokestacks ? Now multiply that by the total number of factories. Using lawsuits as the primary way to regulate pollution is a patently absurd idea. Government is needed for some things, and this is one of them. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Police Driving Through Red Lights

Please can someone point me to the piece of legislation that allows police in the UK to drive through red lights? Thanks. 89.248.18.153 (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh are you 100% sure such legislation actually exists? This forum posting seems to imply that even police are not above getting whacked by the ol ts10 ~Helicopter Llama~ 11:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the response to this FOI request:

I will first confirm that traffic signals are prescribed for use by local traffic authorities in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD). Regulation 10 makes it an offence to disobey a red signal, bringing in Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Regulation 36 gives the meanings of signals, including red, and also sets out which organisations are exempt under certain circumstances. For completeness it’s fire and rescue, ambulance, bomb and explosive disposal, national blood service, police, Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and special forces. The exemption only applies when they’re on an emergency call. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC) That discussion appears to be about police running red lights in non-emergency situations. It's hardly uncommon that exceptions from normal law for police (or whatever other governmental personnel) only apply to the cases when they are deemed necessary in a lot of countries with a strong rule of law and where the government is also held to account. (See e.g. in NZ. And I recall reading many years ago of a police officer who was prosecuted, I think after running a red light after turning on their siren, despite there being no reason.)

Anyway such exceptions are AFAIK, usually part of the law which sets out prohibitions and offences in the first place. So after some searching I found the meaning of traffic lights is partially covered in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions which sure enough also provides the exception (which isn't just for police) . (Someone may want to tell that they're still referring to the old law 8 years or so after the 2002 one came in to effect.)

I said partially because as with a lot of UK law, this isn't UK wide law. According to our article (and other sources and Road signs in the United Kingdom#Northern Ireland, Crown Dependencies and overseas territories) it applies to England, Wales, Scotland and partially to the Isle of Man but doesn't apply to North Ireland and other parts of the UK. If you're interested in Northern Ireland, you'd need to check out The Traffic Signs Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 available here . A quick look confirms there is a similar or perhaps the same exception in regulation 33 of part V, which is coincidentally on page 33.

If you follow the stuff here , I expect you'd find the speed limit exception is similar. Of course, I don't mean there's exception for every possible road rule that the police may break, the Crown Prosecution Service or whoever may also use their discretion not to prosecute in cases where such an exception doesn't exist, but it's felt it was necessary and not sufficiently dangerous where it doesn't .

Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• In the two states whose laws I am familiar with, a police car or ambulance with its sirens on on duty has the right of way for all possibly opposing traffic, and drivers who would otherwise have the right of way (at, say, a green light) are required to pull to the side of the road and allow the official vehicle to pass. This makes sense only if we assume it means the police car has the right of way regardless of the light color in such situations. I have seen impatient cops stopped at red lights with no other traffic flash their lights once and proceed through. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like it, vote against it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Having once witnessed a group of police officers speeding at 80+ MPH through several red lights on the way to a Dunkin Donuts, I am convinced that some people exist solely for the purpose of reinforcing stereotypes. Evan  17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

On a related tangent, there's also the issue of the use of sirens and lights generally in police vehicles. Fernando Henrique Cardoso in his autobiography The Accidental President of Brazil theorises that the continuous use of sirens and lights by police vehicles during the Brazilian dictatorship was calculated to cause fear in the population. Hack (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cynics could also theorize that every country needs somehow its share of the legends of the modernity. London had had his Blitz. Fortunately with the help of technology (and progress) the citizen today is not anymore completely devoid of the means of defending democracy against dictatorship: Boombox. Tomorrow the drone:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8nFtTkpn24. --Askedonty (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Blind Corporation"

What is a blind corporation, is it the same as a "dummy corporation" or "nameless corporation"? I am specifically remembering it from the Swordfish film "listed by a blind corporation". Thanks. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Blind corporation" is not a standard term. Swordfish (film) seemed to use it to mean a dummy corporation whose real ownership cannot readily be ascertained. John M Baker (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but I thought it was somehow analogous to a blind trust, or even a blind experiment. The idea being that the operations (or even existence) of said corp. is obfuscated to outside parties. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

With blind trusts and blind experiments, information is kept from insiders - from beneficiaries in the case of blind trusts, and from the experimenters in the case of blind experiments. The context in Swordfish indicates that the existence of the corporation was intended to be known to outsiders, but not who owned or controlled it. Presumably insiders did have that information. John M Baker (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I agree with John M Baker that the context of the film is that insiders do know about it, seems just one of those Hollywood dramatizations, maybe even the writers & actors didn't even realize what they were saying just that it "sounds cool". _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Error needs fixing

Hi! Just pointing out that the article on 'Revolutions of 1848' says they ended "the Capetian monarchy in France." This is not accurate since it fell 300 years earlier. The Revolutions ended the Bourbon Monarchy. Would have edited it myself but couldn't figure out how. Best, RAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.47.4 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bourbon were a branch of the Capetians. The name that was given to Louis XVI at his trial was "Louis Capet". There is no error. The French Capetians dynasty in France is divided into several branches (a branch starts when the crown has to go not to a direct descendant but to a descendant of a collateral branch) but they're all ultimately Capetians, i.e. descendants of Hugues Capet. Btw 1848 did not end the Bourbon but the Bourbon-Orléans. The Bourbon were ended in 1830. Contact Basemetal here 15:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Revolutions of 1848 and raise the issue there. That's what Talk pages are for, and every one of our 4 million+ articles has its own dedicated Talk page. This page is where you come to to ask for help in finding published references for information. -- Jack of Oz 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Scopus-archived journals for ethnomedicine article

One of my friends is researching traditional Balinese medicine and hoping to publish in an American or Canadian journal which is included by Scopus. Are there any recommendations regarding journals to which he may submit? Or any journals interested in ethnomedical research? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's one . A journal on Ethnobotany might also be appropriate, depending on how strongly plant culture factors into the traditional Balinese medicine. Here's a list of journals like that . But really, your friend should be talking to their academic advisers about this. Sadly, if your friend is not already an academic and connected with a skilled mentor, there is only a small chance of ever getting work published in a journal indexed by Scopus. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fortunately, he is already a lecturer at Ganesha University in Singaraja, so it's mostly a matter of networking and language barriers (still nothing to sneeze at, I know). Thanks for the suggestions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I can't give any more suggestions for ethnomedicine per se, but some of this stuff often gets blended in with conservation of biodiversity, cultural diversity, land management, etc. So branching out into a conservation perspective might help the work get noticed/funded/published. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Age at which an IRA / Roth IRA is started

Since finance is listed as a sub-topic of the Humanities desk, i take that as sufficient evidence that this is the appropriate place to post this question.

Today i rolled over my Roth IRA from one bank to another. A bank employee at the newer institution remarked that i was getting a "Good head start!". I am 29 and think I've started at a reasonable, but not early time. I am curious to know at what age most people start an IRA!

I do not ask "What is the best time to start an IRA?", because the answer I've heard is as soon as possible. My question is what age people are at a real bank when they open their account. Obviously, some experience from an actual bank worker is especially appreciated. I tried to google this, but the only results i get only indicate what an IRA is, not what average/earliest starting ages have been from real world data.

Am i really that young to start an IRA? Thanks in advance for any help!

216.173.144.188 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, the longer time over which you save, the more time you have to accrue compound interest. But we don't know your medical condition or other factors. You need to contact a licensed professional. The Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer forbids giving financial advice. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Im not asking advice, i want to know the average age people are when they start an IRA. I already have an IRA and my action will not be changed by an answer on wiki reference desk

216.173.144.188 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask Éamon de Valera, or Gerry Adams? Honestly, I'd never heard of any IRA other than the Irish Republican Army. Please understand that this is an international website, and acronyms you're familiar with that apply only in your country may be meaningless to most other people. I'm now supposing that you're asking for information about an Individual retirement account. -- Jack of Oz 21:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't ask what the average age people were when they started Roth IRA's. Look above. You'll see you asked, "Am i really that young to start an IRA?" And comments by other people who can't google the term Roth IRA should be hatted--just not by me. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

... so the answer to the OP's actual question is "no". Perhaps someone from the USA can answer the implied question about the Roth IRA, but, like Jack, I immediately thought of the Irish meaning of the TLA. The British equivalent would be a SIPP (though that's a FLAB). Dbfirs 07:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

According to page 4 of this 2012 study, 36% of women aged 25 to 32 have an IRA (individual retirement account) or Roth IRA. The study does not similarly break men out by age, but men generally are somewhat more likely to have an IRA or Roth IRA. In addition, 36% of women in this age range have a 401(k) account and 6% have a pension fund account. So I would say it's extremely common for people in your age range to have a retirement account of some kind, though of course not everyone does. Incidentally, although the likelihood of having a retirement account does correlate with age, it better correlates with income. Households with annual income of more than $75,000 are much more likely to have retirement accounts than are households with annual income of less than $75,000. John M Baker (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Were African Americans allowed to vote in the 1960 US Presidential election?

Were African Americans allowed to vote in the United States presidential election, 1960, or did it depend on which state they lived in? --Plannerton (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Certain states had things like literacy tests that ended up being applied stringently to blacks and not so stringently to whites, depending on the polling place. No state that had been in or readmitted to the Union after the Civil War explicitly outlawed blacks voting. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So this happened as late as 1960? So it didn't matter whether I was an African American in New York or in rural Alabama, I could still face obstacles? --Plannerton (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility for voting is determined by state law. Such Jim Crow laws seemed to have occurred south of the Manson-Nixon-line. We can't really give you a full accounting of the history of fifty states here. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a lot worse in the South, where violence would be used on anyone who "didn't get the message". In many places in the North there was no attempt to stop blacks from voting. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Legally they were allowed to vote in every state. However, in many Southern states they were prevented from voting by a combination of violence, laws designed to make it difficult for them to vote, like poll taxes, literacy requirements, etc. Incidentally, the US Republican Party is trying to re-establish many of those legal barriers to minority voting today, like requiring a picture ID, which many minorities don't have, if they lack a car and hence a driver's license (although this could also be seen as an attempt to prevent poor people from voting, regardless of race). One method which was used was to close the office where you would register to vote, whenever a group of blacks arrived, and not re-open until they left. (If they refused to leave they would be arrested for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, after being beaten.) StuRat (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Republican-dominated northern states have also tried this voter-ID thing. Their official position is that it's to prevent "voter fraud". What they leave out of that is that their idea of "voter fraud" is voting Democratic. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article Voting rights in the United States, and notably the section on African Americans and poor whites, provides some good information, links, and references. - Eron 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Blacks would have faced few obstacles to voting in New York. The obstacles mainly occurred in states where slavery was practiced in the 1850s. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

MJ's ambulance

The photos and video show a red LA Fire Department paramedic car dispatched for the resuscitation of Michael Jackson. Why a Fire Department ambulance and not ordinary ambulance or the ambulance of UCLA Hospital? I thought 911, where the emergency call went, has medical ambulances. Brandmeister 20:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt if the reason is in the public record. Maybe the fire department ambulance was closer at the time, or the regular ambulances were all on other runs. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Jackson died in Holmby Hills, within the city of Los Angeles. According to this reference (the Epicenter LA - Los Angeles 911 System), "If a person needs to be transported via ambulance, the LA City Fire Department will use its own vehicles to do so." The LA Fire Department backs this up; in 2013 over 80% of their calls and responses were for emergency medical services. UCLA has its own EMS but they serve primarily the University and surrounding areas. - Eron 21:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Living in LA, my (limited) perception is that medical transport in life-threatening scenarios is (pick one: largely, mostly, partly, significantly, not unusually) in the form of Fire Department ambulances. I certainly see nothing unusual about it, and wouldn't assume (as I'd guess you are) that it was his celebrity getting him "special treatment" 75.140.88.172 (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Related question - Fire engines on medical calls

Not quite the same question as Brandmeister's, but this is something I've noticed in many (most?) of the places I've lived in the US — even when 911 is called for strictly medical purposes, the first of the first responders to arrive are typically in a fire truck. There are paramedics on board, of course, but it does seem odd that a fire truck would be the first choice in such a situation. Couldn't they as easily keep ambulances at the fire department and use these for obviously non-fire-related calls (say, someone showing symptoms of a heart attack)? Why the mixing of roles between patient-to-hospital transport and what ought to be firefighter-to-fire transport? Evan  15:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

They have lots of equipment aboard, and calls cannot be always trusted for giving all the necessary details about the context. There is always a short delay before deciding that nothing more should be done without driving the patient away. You do not see the ambulance be late that step in the process. Last that pattern is optimum in keeping firefighting staffs on the move (depends on the area). --Askedonty (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Development of neopaganisms in a post-Christian environment and ancestor worship

I was reading a Misplaced Pages article called "Veneration of the dead", and I noticed that ancestor worship, or veneration of the dead, was actually practiced in pre-Christian European societies prior to christianization. I think this is very interesting. It makes me wonder if these same neopagans who are descendants of the European Christians use their age-old family bibles in their religious practices, as many families did record genealogies in the family bibles. Are there neopagans that continue the All Saints' Day/Day of the Dead ritual and include that into Neo-Pagan thought? 140.254.136.170 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If I understand your question, it seems to come down to, "Would non-Christians use historically relevant documents written by Christians?" My follow up would be, "Why not?" Let me know if I am getting you wrong. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was expecting to see real neo-pagan communities that do such a thing. It may also tell me how individualistic or collectivist the religion is. If everyone does his or her own thing, then that will certainly paint a very individualistic approach to the practice of religion. 140.254.226.224 (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Concurring with μηδείς, and to enlarge on All Saints Day/Day of the Dead – Neo-pagans such as myself certainly observe various rituals on and around Samhain, of which we regard the Christian Halloween (the Eve of All Hallows/All Saints Day) or the Day itself as a Christianization of the original Pagan festivals of that time of year. {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about Halloween at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102013325. Point 3 indicates that there are.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

October 15

Gothic short story with lady in white

Back in the late 90s, I found a paperback book, probably published circa the 1970s (but I really don't know) that was a compilation of gothic short stories. I started reading one, and all I remember is a dark castle in which a woman who I believe was dressed in white, was walking around, all alone. I think there was wind. I remember reading quite a bit, but not much happening other than maybe just this: her walking around...? The story, if I remember some of the language, seemed like it was written in the mid to late 19th century. This is vague and a long-shot, but maybe someone here knows what story it might be. If I can find the story, then I can probably locate the book at a library as well. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 02:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps The Woman in White (novel)? --Mark viking (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you though. Too many people in that story. Maybe the lady I'm thinking of wasn't dressed in white. I hate to be so vague (I once worked at a bookstore and a lady asked me to find a book on alternative medicine with a green cover). It's definitely a ghost story or a gothic story (maybe no ghosts), but a massive castle or abbey type setting in the dark with moonlight. I just recall her wandering about, and a wind blowing through. Very romantic, eerie stuff. – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 03:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh! You got those as well, did you? Our best was an old lady, well known to us, who wanted another copy of a book she once owned "with a red cover." She didn't remember the subject matter, or if it was paperback, hardback, fiction or non-fiction, however.

Re your query, your description sounds to me so archetypal of the Victorian Gothic genre that it would be impossible to identify without more distinctive details. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you web-search for sites devoted to Gothic literature, where you might be able to both examine lists and descriptions of possibilities, and ask dedicated Gothic fans on any fora. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A few stories in Collings Collection --- Classic Victorian & Edwardian Ghost Stories --- have a woman, or her ghost, dressed in white. Omidinist (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A woman does appear in "The Fall of the House of Usher", though I don't recall if she's described as wearing white or not. There is definitely a lot of wind toward the end of the story, but in any event it seems unclear whether the woman would be more likely to be categorised by modern audiences as a ghost or something closer to a zombie. Evan  15:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Pluralism and distribution of power.

Does Pluralism accurately describe the distribution of power in a complex society, or are there more appropriate, rivalling theories? --Plannerton (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

See Pluralism (political philosophy) and Pluralism (political theory) - Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Museum of Berlin

Does anyone have an idea as to which "Museum of Berlin" the author of this paper is referring to on page 134, #40,41? (CTRL+F: in the Museum of Berlin.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this collection is now part of the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte in the Neues Museum. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

murderers and communion

For years people who remarried without the church's permission were barred from Holy Communion, perhaps the church's most sacred rite. Have there been any other groups, such as murderers, who were under a similar ban? --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think most would agree that murderers do not belong in church, but in prison. But the real issue here is that you seem to confuse categories. A murderer is someone who unlawfully killed a person. That is of course a mortal sin in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. Mortal sins need to be repented of. Once the sin is confessed and repented of, and the priest has absolved the person of his/her sin, that past sin is no longer a barrier to receive communion. The issue with (unlawfully) remarried people is that, in the eyes of the church, that person is living in continual sin. When someone continually sins by living as if married with a person who is not really ones spouse (according to the church), then manifestly that person is unwilling to repent and therefore unqualified to receive communion. This applies not just to remarriage but to also to people who habitually commit other sins such as drunkenness, fornication, idolatry etc., and obviously to a person who habitually murders people, such as an abortionist. As long as he/she is unwilling to repent of the sin, he/she cannot receive communion. - Lindert (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

'not ...in church but in prison' - they have chapels, and chaplains, in prisons, you know. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There must be a distinction made here, as abortion may be murder in the eyes of the church, but in the eyes of the law (in the US, at least), it is not. The likelihood of an abortionist also being a devout Catholic is another matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I don't think ref desk responders should say things like "a person who habitually murders people, such as an abortionist" - that is WP:SOAP in my opinion. The WP:NEUTRAL phrasing would be something along the lines of "abortion is considered a sin by the Catholic church" (if that's even true...). Of course OP doesn't even mention Catholicism per se, and other churches give communion, and some churches even support a woman's right to abortion access. At a quick skim, I see from Christianity and abortion that "Saint Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder." So even among Catholics there is not full agreement on the issue. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just answering the OP's question, which was clearly in the context of the Roman Catholic Church (so the laws of the USA or other countries are irrelevant here). He/she was specifically asking about refusing communion to murderers (obviously as viewed by the church), so I think my comment was directly relevant to the question, and not WP:SOAP. I was responding from the perspective of the Roman Catholic legal system, though I am not myself a Roman Catholic, and hence do not agree with all their policies. WP:NEUTRAL (like WP:OR etc.), is a content policy, and hence only applies to articles, not to editors' comments on talk pages or the reference desk. Augustine was of course not a Roman Catholic, nor does anyone believe he was infallible. The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reflects the current authoritative position of the Roman Catholic Church, states that an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, whose rights as a human being must be respected. I did not intend to make this a discussion about abortion, I just hope my response is somewhat helpful to the OP. - Lindert (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't want to make this discussion about abortion, then going out of your way to equate someone who has performed an abortion with a murderer is a funny way to go about it. I'm sure you know that abortion is a highly contentious issue. Additionally, "abortionist" is not the name of any profession, and use of the term is sort of a "dog whistle" that implies certain things (e.g. that anyone who would perform or receive an abortion is scum). Taking these things together, I inferred that your comments contained a needless, pointed aside, that denigrates people who perform or receive abortions. I apologize if I misconstrued your words, but that's how I initially read them. Inserting "according the the catholic church" with your later-provided link would have drawn no comment from me. On the topic of policies, if you search through the ref desk archives and talk pages, you will find plenty of users being admonished for ref desk content that is too OR,SOAP, or not NEUTRAL, though I agree that the standards should be a bit different here than for article space. This is far off topic, so if you (or anyone else) would like to discuss the matter further, please use the ref desk talk page or my talk page to do so. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Mention "abortion is murder" (which, btw, happens to be a valid opinion held by millions of people outside of Misplaced Pages) and everybody comes out of the woodwork to shout down the person while the edits like this and this (just to name a few recent ones) are simply glossed over and allowed to continue without reprimand. Is it any wonder that this once grand project is increasingly seen as being dominated by those of a particular political persuasion and losing it's claimed neutrality?--William Thweatt 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an opinion, but not necessarily a valid opinion. It's a misunderstanding of what murder is. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. In places where abortion is legal, it is by definition not murder, no matter who might wish it were so. And the same applies to capital punishment, which is also often erroneously labeled murder. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that taken in the context of this question and answer, ("other sins such as drunkenness, fornication, idolatry etc.,") I don't think the reference to abortion was particularly SOAPy. - Eron 22:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "everybody", I'm one person. And I didn't come out of the woodwork, I'm a highly prolific respondent here, with a long history of civil tone and providing scientific references. Bugs' comment above is a simple and polite clarification, I'm the only one making an issue of it. My comments above are perfectly WP:CIVIL, and I think you're making a straw man. I did not "shout down" anyone. It says right at the top of the page that this is not a forum for debate. Saying things like "abortion is murder" is inviting a debate, no matter who might believe that - it's a highly contentious issue, and weighing in on one side or another is not something we should do at a reference desk. Saying "abortion is murder" is certainly not WP:NEUTRAL, as I said above. It is not a fact, it is an opinion, and we aren't supposed to offer opinions here either. It is a fact that the catholic church considers abortion to be murder, and Lindert has now given clarification and references to that effect. I am amused that you interpret my request for neutral language as itself a violation of neutrality. Throwing up comments from Bugs as evidence that I'm doing something wrong is also a complete red herring. If you see a problem WP:SOFIXIT; nobody stopped you from commenting on the posts that you cited. Like I said, If you want to discuss the matter further, please take it to the talk page, this really isn't the appropriate venue. (post EC: Eron, all I asked for originally was better clarification that this was the opinion of the church. "Sin" inherently draws upon some religious doctrine in a way that "murder" does not. Stating contentious opinion as fact without qualification is clearly SOAP in my book) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Until very recently, Freemasonry was an offence punishable by excommunication. See Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons and related articles. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gay refused communion gets 813,000 hits. The sub-plot there is that gays have sometimes attended Mass in groups wearing prominent rainbow sashes, which is like a person standing up in the congregation and shouting "I'm gay and proud of it and you wouldn't want to know what my boyfriend and I get up to in bed at night, and I dare you to refuse me Communion". Priests usually happily take the dare, then get bad press for "refusing gays Communion". They don't refuse it to gays who don't make an issue of it, but just turn up and behave like ... well, "normal" people. In some cases, the sash-wearing was preceded by some actual inappropriate discrimination and the wearers felt sufficiently provoked to take a stance. There are no doubt rights and wrongs on both sides. -- Jack of Oz 19:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Halcatalyst -- I know nothing about communion, but a number of notorious mobsters have been denied Catholic funeral rites... AnonMoos (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps most notably, Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky. Seriously though, Paul Castellano and John Gotti were two. Still allowed in the Catholic cemetery, just no Mass. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, October 15, 2014 (UTC)

The distinction that needs to be made is that between Crime and Sin. Sin and Crime overlap, but are not the same... Some crimes are sins, while others are not... and some sins are crimes, while others are not. The Church is concerned with Sin. There are actually quite a few sins that are considered serious enough that the Church will withhold sacraments (at least until the sinner repents and is absolved). That said... see our article on Interdict for a more direct answer to the OPs question. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from Crimsin. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

See Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication. Staecker (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was looking for groups or classes of people. The Freemason example is a good one, though it's two centuries old. It's true that gays were condemned in the past, but now the church regards homosexuality as an "objective disorder" which is a sin only if it's practiced, and the teaching extends to individuals, not groups. (same citation as above. I'm sorry I mentioned murder; I was just thinking unclearly. --Halcatalyst (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it true that Singapore is the only surviving citystate in the world?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What about Vatican City? What about Monaco? There are several states listed at microstate which are urbanized enough to be called city-state. The article city-state includes those three as "most certainly city-states" and then also lists several edge-cases including several microstates whose territory is solely a single urban area and its hinterlands. --Jayron32 17:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

State could mean an independent country or a part of a federation (like the US states or the German "Bundesländer"=federal states). While afaik the US does not have any states that consist of just a single city - Washington is a Federal District - in Germany there are three: Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. 31.54.21.99 (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget Sealand. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"I may be small, but I've got a big heart! and a giant birthmark of a transistor radio" A quick Google search pulls out this list of 5 city-states, though, and though Singapore is at the top it doesn't seem to be alone. ~Helicopter Llama~ 16:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 16

possessives

I wonder if there is some meaning when a poet, in ancient rome, used a possessives for their lovers\friends\prostitute. --79.183.124.99 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an example? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about WW1 and WW2.

Which of the two world wars did more to effect social change in Britain? --Plannerton (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Which one killed more Brits? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say WW2: for several reasons:

1) Britain's existence was threatened, unlike in WW1.

2) Rationing was required until well after WW2, and that puts a spotlight on class differences.

3) The colonial system largely collapsed following WW2.

4) Britain was supplanted as the strongest military power by the US.

5) The emergence of the Soviet Union as a major threat meant cooperation with the rest of Western Europe and the US was essential, thus NATO and the EU was formed. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

StuRat -- A lot of those are geopolitical changes. On the social level, I think WW1 was more decisive (in Western countries as a whole, not just Britain), since it had the effect of permanently destroying Victorian restrictiveness. Just compare the women's clothing of ten years before the war (1904) with that of ten years after the war (1928) -- the corset was gone, and if a woman had stepped out onto the streets of a city in 1904 wearing a 1928 "flapper" outfit, she might have been arrested. The one-couple "date" did not exist as a recognized and accepted social institution in 1904, but was well established in 1928. World War 2 had many severe economic and geo-political effects, but it was not an unexpected and surprising shock to an apparently smoothly-functioning system the way that World War 1 was, and it did not up-end and transform social mores and ideas of social morality in the same way that World War 1 did. AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And the demolition of Victorianism was not confined to the British. American soldiers came back a lot more worldly-wise and relatively liberated. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Second World War completely reshaped Britain's infrastructure. Many parts of many towns were utterly destroyed, particularly the south-east of the country near London and the many airfields that defended the nation. Years of bombings from Germany, especially from V1/V2 rockets completely reshaped the way that most British people lived during that time, every day was a bonus. Rations and colonialism etc are all fascinating but the day-to-day life of the average Brit was changed irreversibly. The good ol' US, while they came in after the cheque arrived, don't have any clue as to the impact of the routine bombing of their livelihood, neighbourhood, etc. Claim "Pearl Harbour" but actually, try living every day of your life for years thinking that you'd be bombed to death... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Jane Eyre a Quaker, or is she Quaker-like?

Is Jane Eyre a Quaker, or is she merely like a Quaker but not really a professing Quaker? Could it be that her self-described plain dress is due to her relative poverty than to her religion? By the way, what kind of religion is that Rochester guy? As far as I know, his religion prohibits bigamy. Is he Anglican or Catholic or Anglo-Catholic? 140.254.226.224 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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