Revision as of 02:03, 31 December 2013

• 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

December 26

Leeward Island missionaries

This book summarize the history of the London Missionary Society in the Society Islands mentioning accounts mentions by the missionaries like James C. Vivian. Where can I find the original accounts written by resident missionaries such as Vivian? Anywhere online? Would these papers be held with the records of the London Missionary Society at the library of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like SOAS is the best place to start. They definitely hold at least some original material written by Vivian from the field (examples here and here). The archivist can be contacted via docenquiry@soas.co.uk. -Karenjc (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Peterborough Katherine of Aragon

Why didn't Mary I of England legitimate her mother by reburying her in Westminster Abbey instead of leaving her shabby grave in Peterborough Cathedral?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The cathedral's website says it has been suggested that Henry made it a cathedral as a tribute to Katherine, so it's possible that Mary felt she couldn't move her mother's bones as they would make the cathedral a place of pilgrimage for her. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the opposite of that? Wouldn't they make the pilgrimage to the actual grave? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Tammy was suggesting that Mary wanted Peterborough to become a unique place of pilgrimage for her mother, and that's why she didn't move the bones to Westminster Abbey. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If so, Mary had changed her mind by the time she wrote her will, in which she requested that her mother be disinterred from Peterborough and reburied close to her own tomb. This request, like others in her will, was ignored. - Karenjc (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Did Ayn Rand ever address this question?

My understanding is that she advocated a pure Laissez Faire economy where government stays completely out of business, not regulating it at all. My question: are there any sources to her addressing questions as to how, if her philosophy were implemented, things like Henry Frick working steel workers into the ground and bringing the hired guns the Pinkertons to the Homestead Strike would not happen? Basically, why she thought her philosophy would not lead to Robber Barons everywhere? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

She doesn't allow the initiation of force by any party, public or private, businessman or laborer. See . Nor is she of the notion that crimes won't happen. That's the whole reason the government exists, to prevent, if possible, and punish them. She's neither for the businessman against the laborer nor for the laborer against the businessman. Her characters Mike in The Fountainhead and the Wet Nurse in Atlas Shrugged are some of her greatest heroes. If you want essays on the subject, read Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Rand doesn't think robber barons are a problem. If their workers don't like conditions, her view would be that they can and should strike out on their own. Furthermore, she would argue, I think, the robber barons' mastery of business entitles them to their wealth and power. The issue is the conflict between freedom and equality. Rand comes down absolutely on the side of freedom. The issue that she doesn't acknowledge is what happens when the only freedom available to some people is the freedom to starve. Marco polo (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Define what Ayn Rand means by "equality". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Equality 7-2521 is described as "six feet tall, 21 year old male." 20.137.2.50 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, that would not work as a standard for an entire population. The book, as described in the article, sounds pretty funny. A good satire in the Mark Twain tradition. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is an amusing book/short story. When Mr. Equality shows his rediscovery of electricity to the collective and how it could be used for light, they cry "What will become of all the candlemakers?!" :) 20.137.2.50 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Basically a nation full of Luddites. Like the story of the New England farmer who was turning 100, and a reporter commented to him that he must have seen many changes in his lifetime. The farmer answered, "Yep... and I was against every one of 'em." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• To answer the question, equality is equality before the law. Not egalitarianism, with hatchet, axe, and saw. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Whoa. Are you saying Ayn Rand was against equal justice under law??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "power"? Rand never says anything of the sort. Nor would she use a term like robber baron, which implies some unspecified crime of being a businessman. People don't just materialize out of thin air, starving to death on the estates of productive businessman. Let's stick to sources and quotes, rather than smears and supposition. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Henry Frick was Andrew Carnegie's chairman. After workers went on strike after being driven 12-hour shifts working hard in very dangerous conditions at the steel mill, he (Frick) hired the Pinkertons to shoot the striking steel workers. That's exercising some power in an I-know-it-when-I-see-it sort of definition of the term. List of businessmen who were labeled as Robber Barons.75.75.42.89 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a supporter of Ayn Rand who agrees with me that her conception of freedom includes the freedom to starve. That is not a smear, it is even a source sympathetic to Rand. And here is a source explaining why Rand lacks much credibility among serious economists or other scholars. Marco polo (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The "right to starve" someone else, presumably. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not a chat board or a soapbox. If you have requests for references, like the ones I have given, feel free. Otherwise there are plenty of places to express your opinions elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the references so far, Medeis and Marco polo. I'll try to find Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal through my local library system, as I'm not interested enough to buy the book. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What did Ayn Rand have to say about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, and what do the adherents of her philosophy have to say about the 2013 Savar building collapse? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The owners of the TSF would have been criminally negligent in the least for chaining the doors shut, if not guilty of manslaughter.

The owner of the Savar building is the son of a politician whom it would seem was able with his political pull to bypass the rules that applied to other owners, and who had industrial machinery running in a building certified only for commercial use. Without making a definitive statement, since our article doesn't go into the proper details, he'd presumably be liable to charges of criminal negligence in regard to the safety of those entering his building, and civilly liable to any banks or owners who suffered damages due to his misuse of the structure.

In the US, for example, one wouldn't get a loan on a property unless the building's use were described and its suitability to that use somehow certified. Issues like due care and attractive nuisance and such would apply based on common law. Businesses wouldn't be able to secure loans or make contracts if reasonable liability insurance were required, yet the standards of industry consultants like Underwriters Laboratories weren't met.

Rand's concern is always for the rights of the individual, which includes the homeless man, not for some class conflict, which is the Marxist obsession. Her politics is organic, federalist, and bottom-up. There's no desire to subject the poor to the rich, or to allow any one group to starve another. (Even the premise is silly, as if the rich could get rich by stealing the belongings of people who have no belongings.) I'd very strongly recommend Isabel Paterson's The God of the Machine, one of the most brilliant books on politics I have ever read, and one which Rand endorsed unreservedly, even though Paterson was a Roman Catholic. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Who pays (or, how does the government realistically raise enough money) for the courts and police to rule and enforce in Rand's world? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC) (IP deleted question after it was answered, I restored it for context. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC))

The people who use them? Rand isn't a rationalist or a utopian; she doesn't have a set agenda other than moving towards freedom and minimal government. Local jurisdictions would work out what was best, lotteries, user fees, taxes on contracts, loser pays/the court taking a percentage of judgments. This is covered in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

American history demonstrates that minimal government, minimal regulation, leads to the crushing of freedom for all but a ruthless, immoral few. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that a question? Or did you misformat your links and references, Bugs? Did you miss my lengthy response to your question on TSF and the Savar collapse? I am not interested in, and the OP didn't ask for unsupported, mere party-line assertions. Again, this is not a debate forum. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

See slavery for further info. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that's meant seriously, it is interesting that slavery can only exist where it is established by government regulation. (This is covered over chapter length in Paterson, cited above.) There was no slavery in the US North, or in the territories, where local government wouldn't enforce it. Only after statehood was granted to "slave states" did or could plantation owners expand into those territories, under slave constitutions.

The Dred Scott Case, decided by a Democrat majority and written by a Democrat chief justice, upholding slavery, required that free states submit to the federal government and enforce the fugitive slave act. They required the industrial capitalist North to countenance and collude in an institution they wanted no part of, and fond no profit in. It was the laissez-faire classic liberals in Britain who outlawed slavery, and they who prevented Britain from intervening on the side of the the South in the US Civil War. Note also that there never was any industrial slavery in the US, only the mockery of feudalism that existed on southern plantations. Again, how any of this has to do with Capitalism or Ayn Rand is, to say it charitably, unclear in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Independent and unaligned politicians in Australia

What's the difference, at least in a NSW context? Apparently Inverell Shire has a nine-member council with two independents and seven unaligned; I can't understand why they're not all grouped together. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked on the Australian Electoral Commission website? Asking this question at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian politics might get a better response. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's very common in Australian local government elections for members of the major political parties to stand, but claim that that are not representing their party, just themselves and the local people, and hence are independent. I think it's a load of hogwash, but maybe it's relevant hogwash. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old Flanders and Swann joke: My council is strictly apolitical - they're all Liberals. -- Jack of Oz 08:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

December 27

School forms

How do forms in British schools work? I'm reading Malory Towers and I am confused by the term 'upper fourth'. Obviously we still have lower and upper sixth (Yrs 12&13) but how do the rest of them work? Sixth Form states that secondary school begins with first form, and then each new 'year' equals one old 'form' except for sixth form equal to two 'years'. But how can that work with the idea of 'upper fourth' in Malory Towers, implying that the six forms, equal to twelve years of secondary education? This school seems to have lower and upper fifth forms, and lower and upper sixth, but 'only' one fourth form. How does it all fit together? Is first form the first year of primary school or of secondary school? 92.30.199.154 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is how it worked in its most logical and common shape. At entry to secondary school, children entered the first form. They progressed though the second, third, fourth and fifth forms, then if they continued, the lower and upper sixth. But Malory Towers as a private boarding school was free to make its own arrangements. I'd forgotten that it had an upper fourth. Similarly Greyfriars School had a "fourth form remove" that Billy Bunter was in. It's a kind of grade repetition and/or streaming. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are a couple of more references - scroll to the posts by havingastress and Rosina Rowantree who went to schools with a system like this. Secondary school seemed to start with the third. Another interesting discussion of a range of systems is here with a note that "upper" and "lower" came from the seating arrangements at Rugby. 142.134.220.49 (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems now to have been superseded by the use of Years and Key Stages. Here is a very useful table explaining the current differences between UK and US systems. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Many older schools had (perhaps still have) idiosyncratic naming. At Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood, where I went from 1967 to 1973 the youngest class (with the comparatively few entrants from state schools at age 11) was called the Third Form, then most entrants came from Prep schools at age 12-13 into the Upper Fourth, then successive years were the Divisions, the Fifth, the Lower Sixth and the Upper Sixth. There was a Lower Fourth for people entering in January or April rather than September. It was pretty standard that the Sixth Form meant ages 16-18 anywhere in England (and I think the rest of the UK), but below that there was a lot of variability, especially in independent schools. --ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. See also our Preparatory school (United Kingdom) article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I create an article on Shinzo Abe's visit to the war shrine?

Thank you. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHN13 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to find serious in depth coverage that showed it was more than just a routine poltical event, or it will be deleted pretty quickly. You are probably much better off adding a section to his article or expanding that if it already exists. If te section gets large enough it can always then be separated out into its own article. This is the reference desk, we help people find references or existing articles. If you need further help creating an article the place for future questions will be WP:HELP or, for beginning editors, WP:TEAHOUSE. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea per WP:NOTNEWS. This is covered in the already-existing Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine article. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the Greek myth about Alcyone who waited for her loves' return at Alcyonian Lake?

Venustar84 (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you unsatisfied with the account of the myth in the article that you linked to? Looie496 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This source suggests that the "Alcyonian Lake" (a name found only in Pausanias, as far as I know) was named for Alcyone (Pleiades), not for the wife of Ceyx. In any event, I don't think there is any myth about a woman waiting for her love's return at the lake, since Pausanias does not refer to any such story—he associates the lake only with Dionysus' journey to the underworld. Deor (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you be thinking of Narcissus, who was so in love with his image he spent his life staring at his own reflection in a pool, until he died, and later had the flower named for him ? StuRat (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well mythology can get mixed up depending on what version you hear. 13:15, 27 December 2013 Venustar84 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

NASCAR and Pickaninny

I seem to recall watching televised NASCAR races a few years ago, and the fellow who started the race would holler "Boogity boogity pickaninny! Let's go racing!". The many examples on the pickaninny page and my Google searching turn up no mention. Am I misremembering? Cthulhu42 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying that happened repeatedly on TV, I don't believe it. NASCAR is not known for a broad view of culture, but I don't believe something with such obvious racist connotations would be allowed to pass. Looie496 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody called Darrell Waltrip seems to use the words "Boogity, boogity, boogity, let's go racing boys!". --194.166.17.4 (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Ooops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's very unlikely Waltrip would ever use a term like "pickaninny" on the air. And I didn't find anything in Google. However, here's a compilation of Waltrip's variations on his "boogety-boogety" catchphrase. And in case you're unaware, that "boogety" (or various similar spellings) has been around a long time, and is kind of a cousin to "giddyup". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

British Consul at Tahiti who traveled to Raiatea

Who was this British Consul at Tahiti who traveled to Raiatea aboard a French man-of-war to convince the Raiatean not to raise the British flag, mentioned here? The year was either 1895, 1896, 1897.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like his name was Robert T. Simons. Here is a 1909 article saying he had been consul at Tahiti for 14 years (that is, since around 1895). The incident occurred in January 1896 (here is a French report from Feb. 1896 ).--Cam (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

December 28

out of curiosity, what could inventors do who didn't have enough funding for full patent application around the one-year mark after filing a Provisional Patent (which expires after one year)?

On Shark Tank (TV show where entrepreneurs pitch) I saw some inventions that weren't protected because a provisional patent application was filed but the inventor didn't have funding for a full application around the (I think) one year time when the provisional expires. Is there anything the inventors could have done in this case, like request an extension or file a provisional patent, or whatever else? That is, assuming that they would eventually complete their prototypes enough to raise funding for it, and use some of the funding to file full patent application - but just assuming this doesn't happen within the window of the first provisional patent, i.e. maybe they only get money 6 months later. I'm curious if they knew this ahead of time whether they still could have gotten a patent somehow. Curiositycatz (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this refers to the USA, our relevant article is United States patent law, which states that the time limit is 18 months, extendable "under certain circumstances for an additional fee." This is referenced to this page from the US Patent Office, which is a copy of the actual statute (and therefore not particularly comprehensible to a non-lawyer). Tevildo (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

the term of an obsessive dealing with beauty

I'm looking for the term of the people who have obsessive dealing with their beauty. (for example, I know that people who have an obsessive to deal with their health, they are called hypochondriac people.) 5.28.159.192 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The best I can find is just plain extreme narcissism (not Narcissistic personality disorder, which is just a newer term for megalomania, according to that article). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Celebrities. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sufferers of body dysmorphic disorder are obsessed with appearance, but in a negative way. Sjö (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Names of Rome

Apparently, the Roman Emperor Nero wanted to rename the city of Rome as Neropolis. Similarly, Commodus wanted it to be renamed Colonia Lucia Annia Commodiana / Colonia Lucia Aelia Nova Commodiana or Colonia Lucia Aurelia Nova Commodiana. Also, apparently, Ataulf wanted to abolish the very name of Rome and wanted what was called Romania to become Gothia. Considering the long history of Rome and the large amount of megalomaniacal and eccentric rulers (for example Julius Caesar, Elagabalus and Domitian), were there any other similar plans? --151.41.224.243 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The name under the Etruscans was Ruma, see this for associated forms. The meaning is unclear. If Etruscan is related to PIE, it may come from *(s)reu-mo-, cognate to English stream. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

After a search for "rename Rome" across web, books and scholar, I didn't find anyone other than Nero and Commodus mentioned as trying this specific feat. However, there are plenty of other cities named after emporers; see Grenoble (from Gratian), Augsburg (from Caesar Augustus), Cologne (from Claudius) anbd many more at List of places named after people; you'd have to check which were done during their lifetimes. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

December 29

Technical speaking is the African continent or any countries that third world considered to be western countries?

Does the phrase Westernize countries mean countries with new world or modern ideas? Perhaps south American or Africa aren't considered westernize than say Australia or New Zealand" even though the on on the western Hemisphere? Venustar84 (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, such terms are inherently vague, but many poor nations in the Americas seem to qualify as "Western", in that they are capitalist democracies. Also note that "third world" has somewhat lost it's original meaning of nations not aligned with either communist nations or the western democracies. This is because the Warsaw Pact is gone, and many former communist nations aren't any more (or only pretend to be, as in the case of China). StuRat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no African countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Definitions of the West? It suggests Latin America, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, and South Africa. It seems to be a combination of economic and cultural criteria. Certainly it is a debatable term. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Santa Chiara Church

Queen Joanna I of Naples was thrown into a well at Santa Chiara Church upon her death. This book states her tomb is visible at Santa Chiara Church today while this site says she buried in an unmarked ossuary. So did she have a marked tomb or not? Was her remains salvaged from the well at a later point? When was this? Does the well still exist?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You could fact check the tomb/ossuary question, as well as whether the well still exists, by contacting the church directly at . (Their website doesn't mention either Joanna/Giovanna or a well.) 184.147.128.82 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Excommunication

Can an excommunication be lifted after someone's death? If so what was the longest period between an excommunicated person's death and the year his/her excommunication was posthumously lifted.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't find evidence (on Misplaced Pages) of such a thing happening for a long long time. The only instance I could find was Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, whose excommunication was lifted in 1111, five years after his death. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Where would his soul theoretically have been during those five years? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The excommunication of Michael I Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople may be what you're looking for. He was excommunicated in 1054, died in 1059 and was rehabilitated by Pope Paul VI in the Second Vatican Council of 1965, i.e. 906 years after his death. - Lindert (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So where was his soul for those 9 centuries, as per Roman Catholic theology? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Church's standard is that God decides and that the Church recognizes. A saint is a saint, for example, when he dies and whether it is recognized or not. The Church recognizes sainthood after the fact based on various criteria. People whose excommunications are lifetd haven't been granted pardon by the Church after the fact. The Church has simply realized a mistake was made. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if it takes them 900 years to get the message. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well... that's the current teaching... Not sure if those answers accurately reflect the teachings of the Church back in Henry's or Michael's day. Back then, if someone was Excommunicated, their souls were thought to be relegated to Hell (or at best, Purgatory)... and you could earn a pardon. Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just like annulment. You are "married" in the eyes of the Church until the marriage is annulled, due to the discovery of some human error, at which time the Church recognizes you were never, in fact, married. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

1872 Round the World Tour

The Thomas Cook & Son article mentions A round-the-world tour started in 1872, which for 200 guineas, included a steamship across the Atlantic, a stage coach across America, a paddle steamer to Japan, and an overland journey across China and India, lasting 222 days. Is there any place I can find an itinerary for this tour? RNealK (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is most of it: "Route - US (New York - the Statue of Liberty wouldn't be built until 1886, Niagara Falls, Detroit, Chicago, Salt Lake City, Sierra Nevada, San Francisco), Japan (Yokohama, Nagasaki, Osaka, Hiogo/Kobe, Yedo), China (Shanghai, Hong Kong), Malaya (Singapore, Penang), Ceylon (Galle), India (Madras, Calcutta -, Benares, Agra, Kawnpore, Lucknow, Delhi, Jubblepore, Bombay - but before the Victoria Terminus was built in 1887), Egypt/Palestine (Suez, Cairo, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Damascus, Baalbek, Beyrout, Constantinople)".

This site displays a 1972 April Fool's Times article which (apparently) has a map of the complete route. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This article gives much more detail (e.g. "Cook’s party of eight set out from Liverpool on 26 September 1872"), but doesn't clear up the exact route back across Europe. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Why Are European Countries (With the Exception of Russia) Relatively Small?

On this Misplaced Pages article -- List of countries and dependencies by area -- it appears to show that other than Russia, none of the forty largest countries and dependencies by area are located mostly or completely in Europe (even Turkey, a mostly Asian transcontinental country, is only #37 on this list). What exactly are the reasons for this? I would think that the European balance of power politics which have historically been implemented played at least some role in causing this, since it prevented any one European country (with the exception of Russia) from permanently becoming too large or powerful. Also, I know that Europe is full of ethnic diversity and that its borders (unlike the borders in, say, Africa) are often more-or-less based on the locations of various ethnic groups. Which other reasons exactly am I missing here, though? Futurist110 (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

1. They came first?

2. A better question might be "Why Are non-European Countries Relatively Large?" HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

1. You mean because they were created first?

2. Perhaps. Futurist110 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason is that they have been populated for a long time by approximately the same people, with relatively little mobility until recently. Thus the European nations developed their own distinct languages, culture, etc., and want to keep those features, which generally requires a separate nation. Contrast this with the US or Canada or Australia, where all those distinct cultures (the natives) were supplanted by outsiders, resulting in a more homogeneous culture.

However, note that mobility between European nations has increased quite a bit in recent decades, and I believe this will ultimately lead to more European unity. Despite recent setbacks, the EU seems to be moving in that direction, over the long haul. StuRat (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Stu is on the money regards homogeneity. Europe was historically densely populated with many ethnic groups (see Ethnic groups in Europe for a current and historical overview), and this is not the sort of thing that was conducive to multi-ethnic nation-states after the rise of nationalism in Europe (see for example the disintegration of Yugoslavia). So what's the deal with the countries that are huge? Well, Russia is still today mostly uninhabited wilderness, China is amazingly homogeneous for its size (~92% of the country considers itself Han Chinese), and the US and Canada are also quite homogeneous. As Stu said, the local, ethnically diverse populations were supplanted through disease/murder/forced-relocation by a new, relatively homogeneous group. In the early colonial period, white English made up over half of the residents of the colonies that became the United States (two thirds of the unenslaved residents, see Demographic history of the United States). Homogeneous cultures, with shared language and values (and less mutual distrust), make stable democracy much easier. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

They are small at the present. England, Spain, France and Portugal were able to build empires, as they had the resources for it and there still was a wasteland to be occupied. Given a unpopulated space (like the Asian part of Russia), I suppose every country will expand into it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What wasteland? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to be using that term in a highly unusual way, as a synonym for a lightly populated region. I'd argue that many highly populated areas are more of a "wasteland". StuRat (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- if you think they're small now, you should look at a map of Europe before the Napoleonic wars. There were then many city-states and mini-states, and no effective centralized government in Italy or Germany. Before the Russians gained the military upper hand over the nomads in the 16th century, even many parts of European Russia were quite sparsely populated... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just rambling for fun here: Europe could have been engulfed by Rome. Before it did, this happened: Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire. The next close call was Charlemagne, who owned most of continental Europe, but this time it split up by the Treaty_of_Verdun. The_Golden_Horde did conquer a strip of land between the Japanese sea and Cologne in Germany, but after Kublai_Khan, the rich parts were divided up for spoils and the poor part (Europe) was left to rot. After the Investiture_Controversy the catholic church suddenly surged in power and prohibited wars in between christian countries ( Mongols and Muslims were fair game), thereby leaving small nations alive, and stifling attempts at european unification right up until the point when it made Spain and Portugal split up south america between them. By the time Napoleon came to conquer Europe, Nations that were a bit harder to dispose of had been entrenched by the Treaty_of_Versailles. Next attempts were WW1 and WW2 and you know what happened there - I think the US intervened. DanielDemaret (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Spread zones, characterized by low linguistic diversity, tend to exist in lowlands where mobility is easy, and in areas where there is a quantum leap in cultural level, allowing the swift replacement of smaller, less advanced groups by a single culturally advanced group. Spread zones we know about in Europe include the Italo-Celtic peoples, who first introduced the horse, conquering from Spain and Ireland to Anatolia. The Roman (Romance languages) spread zone followed Roman statecraft and military hegemony. The Slavs occupy a large area because their farming culture largely replaced the Uralic language speaking hunter-gatherers. Since late Roman times the population has been dense enough and the culture homogenous enough in terms of technology that there has been very little linguistic replacement, with Ireland being a prime exception. Europe, with its high land productivity and population density and mountainous landscape has become a residual zone. Unification into nation-states has largely followed linguistic diversity. Had, say, Nazism or communism proven the superior ways of life those ideologies pretended to, Europe might have become largely German or Russian speaking. But they weren't, and it didn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Might US states extend executive office terms?

State Governments in Germany serve five years and the current four-year-term for the federal government could be changed to five years in some time (at least it's being discussed). All US state goverments (governor, lt. governor, attorney general,...) except two are elected to four years like the president on the federal level. Might a state change it's constitution and extend a gubernatorial term to five years, or would that violate any federal law? (Senate terms would be extended to five years while assembly terms are 2,5 years. Midterm elections would then take place in early May.) --Jerchel (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

U.S. states can set the terms of state offices to be whatever they want. In the civil war Confederacy, the term of office for the CSA president was set at six years with no possibility for re-election, but I doubt whether today's state governments will do this. Five years is very pretty much right out, since once-in-five-years elections wouldn't have a constant relationship with the U.S. federal election cycles... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The only part that might be unconstitutional under Federal law is if they extend the terms of those currently in office, without approval from the voters (for example, if the state Senate decides they will stay in office for another year). Of course, each state also has it's own constitution, and changing the length of terms would likely require a change to those, in the case where the length of the terms is defined there. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where there would be any US constitutional issue with changing the length of term of state senators. The US constitution is pretty vague about such issues, except I think it says each state must have a republican form of government (e.g. not a monarchy). If the state legislature approves, then the citizens have implicitly "approved", in the same way that any other law is implicitly "approved" by the citizenry. That doesn't mean they wouldn't pay the conseqences come election time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that once they are allowed to extend their own terms without an election, they could do so again and again, thus squashing democracy. And if there are no elections or recall process, the voters wouldn't have any say in it. This type of thing happens in some other nations fairly often. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the state constitution would define the length of terms, and if the legislature tried to change it unilaterally rather than putting it on the ballot as an amendment, then it would violate that state's constitution, and that state's supreme court would eventually nullify that attempt. Where the feds might get involved is if someone tries to establish a dictatorship or an unlimited term of office, which would violate the US constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Historically many offices, especially judicial, had "life tenure." The Constitution of the US does not make any claims about state offices, so any extension would be subject to the rulings of courts in that state. Local offices seem to be an interesting issue -- where local elections were not held, or there were no candidates who got any votes, the usual result has been to retain current officeholders until the next election. Collect (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Many states allow for some process to modify their Constitution without a vote from the people. And once you allow a state's government to extend their terms without an election, where do you define a limit ? A 10 year extension ? 20 years ? There's a slippery slope argument that they shouldn't be allowed to start down such a path in the first place.

And the obvious solution to this problem would be for the extended terms to kick in after the next election, so the failure of a state government to do it this way would make it look very much like a power grab. StuRat (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's just that the feds won't get involved until or if someone asks them to, or Congress decides to take some action, and then a few years later issue will get a court ruling. But if there's already an appeal process going on within the state, that would be kind of brazen thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

During the WWII, were more decisive battles before 1942 or after?

At what shape was Germany then? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "decisive" ? Battles which made it clear who won the battle, or battles which made it clear who would win the war ? StuRat (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The latter, specially battles with huge losses and high symbolic weight. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, decisive battles don't usually happen 4, 5, or 6 years before the end of the war, so yes, I would say that after Stalingrad, most decisive battles happened. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, then what was the most important battle the US took part in Europe? Important in terms of morale, equipment, human losses? OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to say the D-Day invasion. After the allies had a firm foothold in France, it was obvious that Nazi Germany's days were numbered. Of course, that was probably already true after the Battle of Stalingrad, to most military experts, but the common man might not have realized it until D-Day.

Then I suppose the Battle of the Bulge could be seen as Germany's last hope, if not to win, perhaps to get some type of negotiated surrender. After that battle was lost, it was clear there would be no terms. StuRat (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Normandy Landings themselves, although an immense undertaking and a turning point of the war, involved a comparatively small Allied force; two British, one Canadian and three US reinforced infantry divisions plus one British and two US airborne divisions. The Battle of the Bulge included 23 US and 5 British infantry divisions plus 6 US and 2 British armoured divisions. However, as StuRat above says, there's a strong case for saying that the war was won in the east by the Soviets - at the Battle of Kursk in the summer after Stalingrad, 63 German divisions fought 136 Soviet ones and lost. Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd also give a shout for the Battle of Stalingrad but the Attack on Pearl Harbor, back in 1941, was the prerequisite for the crucial US involvement on the Western Front. The US ambassador and Churchill "sort of danced around the room together" and later Churchill wrote "Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful". See Consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Thincat (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of El-Alamein (which my grandfather was at) helped send the Germans (and Italians) back out of North Africa. The invasion of Sicily, and the subsequent capture of Rome and the hanging of Mussolini also helped to turn the Italians against the Germans. But the real decisive battle was The Battle of Berlin. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quoting Churchill again on El Alamein "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning". Thincat (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• The decisive battles actually happened in 1942. At the beginning of 1942 the Axis had the initiative. At the end of that year the Allies had all the momentum, and it was clear that they were ultimately going to win if they could stick together. The decisive events were the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Midway, and the turning of the tide in North Africa. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

December 30

Hearing, but not comprehending.

I recently replaced "hearer" with "listener", as in someone to whom a speaker speaks. Curious whether "hearer" is a word at all, I typed it into the search box and was sent to Pederasty in ancient Greece. It doesn't appear in the article. Is there a connection I'm missing, or should the redirect be pointed to something about hearing? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say so. User:Tyciol, who created the apparently senseless and vandalistic redirect in 2006, has been indefinitely blocked. I've redirected the redirect to Hearing. -- Jack of Oz 00:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Louis of Spain

Who was the Louis of Spain mentioned at Joanna of Flanders#Fight back? Was he a Castilian noble or infante of Castile?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm the person who just added his name to the article, I'll answer the question. It was Luis de la Cerda. I see that Louis of Spain currently redirects to Louis I of Spain. Perhaps it should be a disambiguation page. Paul B (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Modern War Criminals

Many in the German High Command in WW2 were sentenced to death for war crimes. Many of these people were executed by the British executioner Albert Pierrepoint. Now, in those days, the UK had the death sentence, but now we do not. Should there be another major European war, what would happen to the alleged war criminals, considering the death sentence does not exist in the UK, but does still exist in the US? This is complete speculation, and highly unlikely, but let's say it was a remake of WW2, just for the sake of the discussion. Basically, I'm asking about a possible European war in which both the US and UK are involved as the major western forces. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect if millions were murdered again, that the death penalty would be reinstated, at least for war criminals. StuRat (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am reopening this question, Andy, because it can be answered in light of the wars in the Balkans, during the 1990s. NATO was involved in peacekeeping, and there were war criminals in those wars, and in particular in the Srebrenica massacre. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you've apparently got your answer, no? μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

International Criminal Court? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As a practical matter, disposing of characters such as Isoroku Yamamoto and Osama bin Laden during war time saves the time and expense of these international courts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but doing it during wartime, someone else is guaranteed to fill their shoes. It's better to monitor the devil, than to risk having an even bigger devil take control. I was talking about post-war, anyway. How would they be dealt with in a war against multiple countries, which each have their own laws and views on the death sentence? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As we go further away from "conventional" warfare and nation-based enemies, the task becomes more difficult. Some said we should have captured Bin Laden instead of assassinating him. But then what do you do with him? However, we're still at war with al-Qaeda... and may be for generations to come. Supposing someone like Assad were captured instead of being killed, it would be interesting to see how it would be handled. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on the handling of Slobodan Milošević may provide some clues. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What seems very peculiar, really, is that though executions are often done unnecessarily based on "moral" considerations, any reasonable explanation for them would seem far more practically oriented. Neither execution nor life imprisonment is a good thing to do to someone; both are weighed against worse things that one supposes will happen if they're not done. (Utilitarianism of some variety) Organizations like Al Qaida and the Mexican cartels are simply very good at getting their people back out of jail; and I should think that executions would be the response of a weak government that lacks confidence in its ability to imprison an offender. However, in practice, it seems like the weaker governments often don't dare to do the executions, while the stronger ones often do with no conceivable benefit, let alone justification. I tend to doubt there's any science of it at all. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In America, at least, executions are done primarily for one practical reason: Permanent removal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Filip Jan

Does anybody know who these are supposed to represent? Louis IX of France had many brothers named Philip and John. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the church website; will let you know if there is a response.

In the meantime, perhaps someone will translate the Latin for you in case that helps. The original image is labelled: "TOMBE de cuivre jaune au milieu de choeur de l'Eglise de N.D. de Poissy. Elles est de PHILIPES et de JEAN DE FRANCE freres du Roy St. Louis, et autour sont escrites ces vers." (French: "Yellow copper tomb in the middle of the choir of the church Notre Dame de Poissy. They show Philip and John of France, brothers of the King St. Louis, and these verses are written around the edge.")

Bustorum Comitum cujusdam nomen avitum,

Gratia dat reliquo BLANCA nati et LUDOVICO,

Regibus hi nati, ne non Reges habeantur

Vite morte dati celesti sede locantur. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Latin doesn't really help, unfortunately...is it definitely Philip and John? How do we know? Could it be his twin brothers John and Alphonse, who died at birth? (These two don't look like babies, though...) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

N.W. Dible - Kansas City Star

Does anyone have an account to review the Kansas City Star archives? I am looking for any information on Napoleon William Dible and/or his construction firm, N.W. Dible Company which I believe is now called Hickok-Dible. I had a link to an article at the KCS but my link was deleted when the original stub & talk pages were CSD'd with an "A7" code just as I was starting to resume work on it. I also have found the following items so far:

• copy of a KCS article by Stacy Downs including vague attribution but not a verifiable link to the actual article

UPDATE: I have been able to identify that this article was published as "THE TUDOR REVIVAL: Old English design found a champion in Kansas City" on pages 10 & 12 of the 31 December 2004 issue of the Kansas City Star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly6697 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

THE ABOVE IS WHAT I NEED FROM THE KCS ARCHIVES plus anything else helpful would be appreciated.

• self-source identifies Hickok-Dible Companies as
  "...Kansas City's oldest and most prolific (7000+ homes built since 1904) homebuilder."
• blog article on "What's a Dible Tudor?"
• Historic Westheight Neighborhood Association (HWNA) newsletter article on Dible switching from Tudor style to Ranch style homes
• offline resource Biography of Napoleon W. Dible (1872-1960), Developer
• offline resource The Napoleon of Southtown: His Name Was N. W. Dible and He Built Houses, Thousands of Houses

F6697_TALK 04:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't get an answer here you could try over at Misplaced Pages:Resource requests. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good news: The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request page exists exactly for this sort of question and the folks over there are amazing. They have access to all kinds of paywall-protected databases. You can simply copy-paste this question there and they are usually quite prompt to respond. Good luck! 184.147.128.82 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Emotion of sympathy

People often see those who lack sympathy for given negative situations as cold or blunt but I've always thought that sympathy is something which only offers temporary comfort to someone who is suffering and does very little in the long term. Is there any documented scientific evidence to support this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover345 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sympathy means "feeling together." Define what you mean by "does very little in the long term." What would you prefer it to do in the long term? Do you have examples? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on the importance of empathy and sympathy (not to be confused with superficial sympathy).--Shantavira| 11:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And for further reading on the long-term effects of sympathy you could try these papers. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sympathy alone does nothing, but if it gets the person who feels sympathetic to help the object of sympathy, then it may do some good, and the situation may be reversed in the future, and both parties may well come out ahead. For example, if one person was starving while another had plenty of food, and decided to share some, perhaps later the giver will receive food. This could happen, say, if both people are subsistence farmers but grow different crops, and some years favor one crop while other years favor another. StuRat (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sympathy demonstrates empathy. Not showing it has potential to hurt the person who does not sympathize, depending on the situation. This article is discusses the issue: it mentions how a person with a lack of empathy can appear, as you say, cold and blunt. That type of attitude can burn bridges and hurt feelings, making it difficult for one to maintain potentially useful relationships, though it isn't necessarily always a bad thing. My feeling is that a little empathy can go a long way. Ultimately, treating people and emotions as logical just doesn't work. We aren't. Mingmingla (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It goes way deeper than that since it is bound up with mercy, something that is not just a suggestion but even a requirement according to some writings. 71.246.151.82 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Treating people and emotions as logical doesn't work if one is assuming that notions like sympathy and empathy are necessarily symmetrically together bound. Sympathy can be assumed in the abstract regarding a given situation, yet be wrong regarding the related persons' position, feelings and genuine interests in the situation. So yes, mercy is the manner to be able to find the way to some empathy deliberately; an other manner has all the chances of burying most of the have/have-not antagonism born from attention behind the anecdotic view and recalling of the encounter. --Askedonty (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I should however humbly admit, this was also somehow a little bit merging sympathy with superficial sympathy in non observance of Shantavira's previous prescription over above. --Askedonty (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

December 31

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