I find nearly all of these answers profoundly unsatisfying. Where did the laws of logic and mathematics come from? It seems to me that the existence of things such as six specific perfect shapes (I mean Platonic solids - isn't that a valid term for them?) in four dimensions (if one accepts that) are the proof of the objective existence of some higher plan and order to Creation, which are not inferred from the world we see around us, and not susceptible to any possible change by any human or even advanced alien agency. A defining attribute, perhaps the most defining attribute, of God would be the ability to create such laws, which implies the ability to change them. I don't pretend this is an answer, but only a comment that I think the question still is not answered here. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There are only five Platonic solids. I suppose you're counting the spherical ball as your sixth? (Note that the sphere is not a solid at all, but a two-dimensional surface.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Trovatore: Nay, I said in four dimensions - like if you put four dodecahedrons at the vertices of a tetrahedron, then bend in the 4th dimension until they come into contact. When I was young I worked them out on my own, without ever having seen another source on them, and so I use them as my example of something that exists solely as an idea, but has an objective reality that can be discovered independently by other people (this seems like an obvious thing to me, but just try arguing it with a Marxist!)

If logic and mathematics had to "come from" somewhere then why not God himself? --Golbez (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see where the reference to Thomas Aquinas comes from. Mathematicians can solve problems by supposing up to ten dimensions. Although we can't see the majority of them, they follow the rules of dimensionality. Proof that not only does God exist, He is a mathematician. Many apparently impossible concepts may not be - cf Schrodinger's cat. As has been pointed out, a professor of philosophy is just a very slow - moving waveform. 78.145.22.185 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If theologians can consider something that is simultaneously all human and all divine, why not all copper and all iron: :) - Nunh-huh 06:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But does this all-iron and all-copper chair have one nature, or two simultaneously? We could have created a whole new heresy! Iapetus (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Brass is a monophysite alloy - the old twelve - sided threepenny bits were all - copper and all - tin. These dodecagonal (one for each disciple) heresies are going to be resurrected as the new pound coin. 80.43.224.191 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The boring answer to "Where do the laws of maths come from?" is that they are derived from a set of "axioms" - basic rules which seem to be obviously true, but which you can't really prove or disprove (for example "There is an infinite number of numbers" or "You can draw a straight line between two points"). Axioms are still human inventions, but what counts is whether or not they seem to accurately represent the universe (for a long time, we thought parallel lines never cross, until it turned out that space was curved, and a different mathematical system had to be used by physicists, and mathematicians still argue whether it's possible to choose from between an infinite number of identical choices). You might ask where the axioms come from, but the answer is probably "They just are" in most cases – there's no reason for there to be an infinite number of numbers, except that there's also no reason why there shouldn't be. Smurrayinchester 15:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is more or less the standard formalist line. I too once thought as you do.

Now I find formalism extremely lacking as either a description of mathematical practice or as an explanation for its successes.

The formalist considers the axioms to be primary and the objects the axioms describe to be unimportant. But (especially in set theory) this is just not so. The intuitive picture of the objects described by set theory is simple and clear (the so-called von Neumann hierarchy). The literal set of accepted axioms, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, is complicated to the point of being Baroque, and not even close to a canonical set of axioms corresponding to the picture (arguments can be made for both weaker and stronger systems, though the arguments for the stronger ones are ultimately more convincing).

The reasons for the axioms really don't have much to do with physics, certainly not in set theory, but really not even much in geometry. I have been told (I have not really studied them) that the Euclideans were explicitly talking about an ideal realm of geometry, and not about the physical world. However, being foundationalists, they hoped to reduce geometry to a simple set of axioms, and thought they should be able to prove the parallel postulate from their other axioms, though it's not entirely clear to me why they thought that was likely. As it turned out, they were wrong about that; the parallel postulate cannot be proved from the other axioms. But it is nevertheless true, in the sense that it holds in their motivating picture, which we now recognize as corresponding to manifolds of zero curvature.

Somewhat similarly, the axiom of choice is obviously true, in spite of not being provable from the other ZF axioms. If you give assent to the motivating picture of set theory, it is very difficult to avoid giving assent to the axiom of choice, notwithstanding its formal independence from the axioms of ZF. --Trovatore (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: The idea that the laws of math "just are" puts them in the position of the first cause or unmoved mover. My impression is that monotheists generally believe God is in that position; he is not just someone playing some crappy free game on the Web who can place an archery range or a tower but not a bordello or a concentration camp; he is a superuser, a programmer, not the captive of the parameters laid out for him by some impersonal and unaccountable "just is". Atheism need not make that placement, but it is a puzzle that it imagines that rules of thought are the prime mover, yet the prime mover is incapable of thought! Wnt (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Omnipotence paradox is a related article.--88.2.8.193 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Learning a second instrument

I know from experience that learning a third or fourth language (by instruction) is much easier than learning your second. After having formally studied French, I found taking German much easier, given such common phenomena as front round vowels and the use of to be with intransitive perfects.

I am curious, is there any such phenomenon with music? If so, is there a name for the phenomenon? And, if so, is there any particular instrument the mastery of which (say, the violin) has a greater reputation for making other instruments easy to learn, as opposed to, say, the saxophone? (I don't play any instruments, so those examples are just a guess on my part.) As a linguistic example, I would say that if you've formally studied Russian, Latin and German would be a breeze, while studying Spanish would not give you a leg up on Chinese or Arabic.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Some things, like solfège is common ground, so you won't need to re-do it, it's instrument independent - that includes pitch, rhythm, melody, notes. Piano is often considered a basic instrument. Low notes are on the left, higher to the right. If you press a key it generates the right tone, doing the same with a violin requires years of practice. Playing piano can be pretty gratifying from the beginning, which is certainly not the case of violins and the like. Scicurious (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you don't mind that I linkified that French word I had never heard of previously. The back story is that my second nephew has decided to follow his elder brother in taking up violin, after he has had his own study in drumming, and has performed Leroy Brown rather well in concert. My impression was that since the violin seems so much more difficult than instruments with fixed stops, that it would be a much better introduction to music in general. I appreciate the generous answer. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to give a general answer here. On all levels of proficiency there are examples on either side (flourishing multi-instrumentalists/explorers, versus those who really want/need to stick to the their one beloved instrument, and in-betweenies who vary within a closely related family (cellists/bassists, reed + flute players, ...) . I'm not sure the violin is necessarily "a much better introduction to music in general". It's certainly a harsh trainer of one's ear/sensory-motor coupling, but, again depending on personality, interest and inclination, more polyphonic instruments such as the guitar or piano might be equally, if not more instructive. A student of drums might also study percussion in general including pitched polyphonic instruments such as the vibraphone, marimba, ... with the potential of filling the tonal gaps ... There's no straight answer, and, in my very considered opinion, the pupil's own desire is by far the most important thing here. The combination you mentioned, in reverse order, reminded me of violin prodigy turned drumming showman (no offense, I really do love him) Joe Morello. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, what I guess I should emphasize is that my "sample" are my nephews, 8 and 10, both of whom have had a lot of exposure to music. (I can sing on key, and this fascinated them as infants.) And that they get free violin lessons from their school, but not free lessons in other instruments. The younger of the two picked up drumming on his own (he can drum all of imagine Dragons' hits), while the elder asked to be schooled in the violin, and they are now both taking the violin. I know a bit about music theory, and can sing on key. But what I am really wondering is, is their study of violin an advantage in music in the way the study of a "difficult" language might be in linguistics, and is there a name for this, or a source about the topic worth reading? Given that I know we have people like JackofOz posting here, I was hoping for an answer by someone with overlapping skills. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't add anything to what Sluzzelin has said. But i'll relate a story about Jascha Heifetz, a violinist without peer. He was once asked if he could play the trumpet, and he said "I don't know, I've never tried". A lot of people would answer "Yes" to the question "Can you play the violin?". But if it were "Can you play the violin like Heifetz did?", then it would be almost universally "No". So, it all depends on what one means by "learn an instrument". -- Jack of Oz 02:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just finished a 3 year Bachelor of Arts in Music, mostly with fellow students about 40 years younger than me, so can offer some observations from that. Firstly, there are clearly a number of transferable skills between any instrument: undersstanding of notation, rhythm, pitch, key, transposition, etc., etc. Therefore if you can play one instrument with sight reading, you're in a better position to play any other: you just need to gain the mechanical skills. Secondly, musicians find it relatively easy to move between insruments of the same type: if you can play the clarinet, you can probably pick up any saxophone and give it a go. Similarly, you'd be able to make a decent stab on a recorder. Brass players quite often play lots of instruments (trombone being a general exception). It's also interesting to note that some instruments come in different tunings (trumpet in Bflat and A for example) so you could count being able to play both as playing two instruments. Thirdly, most decent musicians can play the piano to some extent: it's used for practice, and again, once you understand the basics of music, you can always plonk a tune out on the piano. Fourth: any decent musician will play fair unpitched percussion: it's only rhythm and fairly basic motor skills. My instrument of choice (when I couldn't sing) was, of course, the triangle. Finally: violin seems to me to be a general exception to a lot of this. Most people who play violin stick to it as a single instrument: they don't dep on the cello when there's a missing cellist, whereas a horn player might fill in on trumpet, for example. HTH. --Phil Holmes (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This scholarly paper is mostly about practice, but mentions a bit about second instrument. More like this can be found searching /learn "second instrument"/ and similar phrases on google scholar. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My thanks for all the responses above. I'm going to unreoutdent since the rest of this post will be in response to IP 80. The two problems I run into with being a polyglot are examples of linguistic interference. I will sometimes create a word or invent a grammatical form in one language where it does not exist in a closely related language.

Examples of this in Spanish are my use of the non-existent word "fontana" based on the assumption that if it's called a fontaine in French, it has to be a fontana in Spanish (it's fuente) and my use of the non-existent idiom "no tengo que dos..." to mean "I only have two..." based on the French "je n'ai que deux..." Having spoken fluent street Spanish for most of my life but having studied formal French in high school I have sometimes tried to gloss the French onto the Spanish. A lot of time this works, and I was understood in the cases above even though what I was saying wasn't proper Spanish.

Having studied Spanish formally only late in life, I have often done things like used "estoy vuelto" to express "he vuelto" or wished there were some way to say J'y vais or N'en ai rien in Spanish when there wasn't.

As for Portuguese and Italian, and even French sometimes, I will think that I am hearing Spanish when I am not. This is most common with Italian, which I will often listen to for several minutes until I realise it is not Spanish. I have also watched films like La flor de mi secreto, Um filme falado and Sin noticias de Dios and heard French but not realized that they had switched from Spanish or Portuguese to French.

As for Spanish and Portuguese specifically, I can read the latter fluently, but rarely understand it when spoken colloquially. Portuguese is like English compared to German, or Russian compared to Croat. The reduced unstressed vowels of the former languages mean that what looks the same when written often sounds quite mumbled when spoken. When I was hospitalized for months with an infection that required major surgery, we were visited by Jehovah's Witnesses who were distributing Bibles. By the time they saw me, all they had left were the Book of Psalms in English, and The New Testament, but only in "Spanish." I told them I would much prefer the New Testament, but it was only after several pages of wondering where all the ells had gone that I realized it was the Portuguese, not the Spanish version.

I am not sure any of this is directly comparable in music, since mixing up vocabulary and sounds seems to me more like mixing up lyrics or changing accents than getting notes or chords wrong. I am curious at this point if there are any musical concepts that correspond to linguistic concepts such and interference which I mentioned above, or code-switching. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(undent)I suppose that sometimes there could be such interference. I don't play a lot of instruments. My main instrument is a 6-string acoustic guitar. Based solely on my acoustic guitar playing, I can also passably play electric guitar, ukulele and bass guitar, though each presents its own challenges. For example:

• Electric guitar: While the tuning is the same, there are distinct differences in playing techniques between acoustic and electric guitar, especially with regard to fretting, where an electric guitar is so much more sensitive, if you use the same left-hand technique for both instruments, the electric guitar notes either double-sound (because of accidental hammer-on and pull-off notes) or problems with note bending due to the MUCH thinner gauge strings used on electric guitar.
• Ukelele: I can play baritone uke the best, because the tuning is identical to the 4 high strings on a standard guitar. Other ukes have the same note spacing, but transposed 5 semitones down (plus an octave or two). That means guitar fingerings are often transposable for some chords, but others sound odd. For example, the "D" chord is identical on both a guitar or a baritone uke. But a "C" chord requires some rethinking: Because you've only got 4 strings, using open C major fingering on a baritone uke causes an odd chord inversion C/F, which ends up sounding very "minor", as this is the same fingering as Am/F, so you need to come up with an alternate fingering just for the baritone uke if you want a good major-sounding chord; many of the open chords on a guitar end up with inversions in the uke, because the root note on the guitar is usually on one of the two bottom strings, missing from the uke. So you either have to deal with the inversions, or come up with alternate fingerings.
• Bass guitar: Probably the easiest to play from a note perspective, as the notes are the same as the bottom four strings on a guitar (on a lower octave), but playing technique can be different, especially as bass guitar is often played very differently (using index and middle finger to pluck notes, which is almost never done on a 6-string guitar). I can play with a pick, and it sounds OK, but often doesn't match the technique of people who play bass "natively".

I hope that helps some, at least as anecdata... --Jayron32 20:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

μηδείς, the article "Cross-training" focusses on athletic training, and the entry wikt:cross-training does also, but http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cross-train is more inclusive.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I play lots of instruments (once you get into renaissance woodwind, there's a pile of stuff you can just pick up and blow), but I started on the violin. Fretless stringed instruments are murder (for the neighbours) while you are learning, finger positions simply have to be hard-wired into the hind brain by practise. This makes the violin a brilliant introduction to strings, and you usually play lead in small groups. You need to learn the language as well, and that comes naturally about 3rd/4th instrument. Doing the "book work", learning theory, really helps. The important thing for a young player is not to get bored out of playing by uninspired teaching. Encouraging a young player to work with friends, and to play material that they have chosen themselves, will usually get them hooked for life. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, my thanks in plenty to all the above very interesting answers. Both of my nephews are very enthused about their playing. The younger, who played Leroy Brown, had a few flourishes when he played solo in concert after less than a year of tutoring (even though his father is tone deaf) and the elder has played in concert (Led Zeppelin's Kashmir) orchestrally and also in solo with a somewhat famous local violinist. They both have MP3 players with a week's worth of music that I made for them for Christmas 2013, which they listen to constantly.

As for practice being murder, it's actually quite interesting to hear the elder nephew practice, since when he gets the notes right they are very right, and when he gets them wrong they are very wrong, and quickly corrected.

I suspect from a lot of the above comments that music can be analogized to language in the way that historical linguistics can be analogized to evolutionary biology. Some of the concepts overlap just about fully, and other concepts really don't translate. For example, one can easily analogize mutation between biology and languages, but adaptation doesn't quite get you anywhere in linguistics, since the success of a language is based on the expansion of the culture that uses it, not on the biological fitness of the words or sounds to any environmental constraints.

μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

One must be careful to avoid confusing the different motions of a baseball bat and a tennis racket and a golf club and a hockey stick. Likewise, one must be careful to avoid confusing the different fingerings for a piano and a flute and a clarinet and a trumpet.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess that explains why I keep knocking my teeth out with that damn toothpick. :) μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer once compared his piano to "an 88 string guitar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The little he knows. I currently own 2 pianos; one is a 120-year old Blüthner, with only 85 keys, which was standard in those days. -- Jack of Oz 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Austrian + German + Dutch ethnicity

How do you refer to the ethnic group of Austrian + German + Dutch? It's clear that two of them don't consider themselves ethnic Germans for obvious reasons. But how do your refer to the common ground of these groups?--Scicurious (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Germanic people, although that includes the Norse? Maybe West Germanic although that's linguistic and also includes the English? Dietsch was used to describe the Dutch, Flemish, Frisians and Luxembourgers by Joris Van Severen and others of a similar mind, although they never included the Germans and Austrians. Not sure any such specific term exists personally. Keresaspa (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• See Istvaeonic and Irminonic as opposed to Ingvaeonic, which is closer to English than Dutch or Austrian. 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how the set Austrian, German, Dutch can be an ethnicity. Not even linguistically would that make sense. Dutch people do not consider their language to be German. And what about the Swiss German? They would necessarily be a part of a German-speaking ethnic group. Add to this that all these four groups consider themselves to have a separate national identity, disregarding its common Germanic origin. --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a clear example of confusing a linguistic grouping with an ethnicity. They aren't the same thing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.185 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

However, Dutch is considered to be part of a dialect continuum with German. Rojomoke (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The spectrum goes from English to Friesian to Dutch to German (i.e. from Low to High German). Where do you draw the line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.185 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't go wrong with "European" unless you're trying to include English people :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that "European" includes even more ethnicities that are even less German than the Dutch or Austrian. --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the Holy Roman Empire which included people who are now Dutch or Austrian? These "ethnicities" seem only a little older than the "American" ethnicity, if there is such a thing. G. K. Chesterton railed against the dismemberment of the Roman Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire rather than the Prussian Empire after WWI. My great grandfather considered himself Austrian (and wrote in broken German) although he was Ruthenian. It seems absurd to me to call Austrian an ethnicity, when my Austro-Hungarian great grandfather was writing things like "Ja kupil haus". μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, ethnicity is not immutable, permanent, unchanging, or unitary. That is, ethnicities come and go, change over time, including across all of humanity, and in all subsets of humanity, down to a single person. The same is true of all culturally and socially defined traits, including race, nationality, heritage, culture, etc. --Jayron32 15:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

September 14

How to become lieutenant governor of California?

I'm working on List of Governors of California and an interesting question has come up. First, please see the official historical list of officeholders.

Up til 1887, whenever there was a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor, the senate would quickly elect a president of the senate, who would act as lieutenant governor. In the list, these (Broderick, Quinn, de la Guerra, Irwin, White) are noted as 'acting'.

But something changed between 1887 and 1895 (and possibly 1916; getting to that in a moment). On October 24, 1895, Spencer Millard died. The official list shows that on October 25, William Jeter became lieutenant governor. Not acting; full office.

Likewise, on February 28, 1916, John Eshleman died. William Stephens was nominated as his replacement by Governor Hiram Bingham. I have contemporary press saying just this. So by 1916, the process was no longer 'senate chooses a president who acts as lieutenant governor' and it had become 'governor nominates replacement to fill vacancy'. Furthermore, when Bingham resigns and Stephens becomes governor, the official list notes that the position became vacant - because, well, it was. There was no lieutenant governor. Which continues to show that there was no automatic or quick process as there used to be.

So my two questions are: first, does anyone have any idea when or why this process changed? Second, any idea who at the state I would email with this question? I thought about the office of lieutenant governor but that seems like it'd get lost in the crowd. --Golbez (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the Constitution of California, article V, section 5(b): "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, or Attorney General, or on the State Board of Equalization, the Governor shall nominate a person to fill the vacancy who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority of the membership of the Senate and a majority of the membership of the Assembly and who shall hold office for the balance of the unexpired term. In the event the nominee is neither confirmed nor refused confirmation by both the Senate and the Assembly within 90 days of the submission of the nomination, the nominee shall take office as if he or she had been confirmed by a majority of the Senate and Assembly; provided, that if such 90-day period ends during a recess of the Legislature, the period shall be extended until the sixth day following the day on which the Legislature reconvenes." While the original California Constitution may have been adopted in 1849, a new constitution was adopted in 1879. That would fit with the changes in L.G. nomination processes. --Jayron32 14:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's possible one of the post 1879 amendments (of which there were many) dealt with the question of lieutenant governor vacancy. You might want to contact the California State Archives, I've found them helpful in the past. Or the Secretary of State of California. Or even the LG's office itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Almost, and I'd actually forgotten about the new constitution, but that still leaves Stephen M. White, who is marked as acting from 1887 to 1891? I found a bio that states he was president pro tempore and became acting lt gov, which jives with how other people became acting lieutenant governor... but it doesn't jive with the 1879 constitution, which would have taken effect by then. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that "acting" on the official list is an error, as the California Blue Book from 1915 has no mention of acting status for him but does mention it for de la Guerra, et. al. I think I need to just email the secretary of state. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also helpful to remember that until the mid-20th century, the position of the vice president and analogous positions in state government was "no big deal" until and unless the #1 guy ceased to have a pulse, and it's still that way in a lot of states. The LG probably just presided over the Senate, and probably wasn't even in Sacramento the rest of the year unless he happened to live there. So the Senate president pro tem was acting lieutenant governor, but it likely was a distinction without a difference, since it was the same guy, doing the job he would have done anyway with no elected LG in place.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt was once a powerful governor till his "friends" encouraged him to jump on the steppingstone to oblivion. Wasn't all that bad, in the end, but still a risky move. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Most VPs up to Nixon and post the 12th Amendment were not presidential fodder. TR was an exception in that his ambition coincided with Thomas C. Platt's desire to find a nice way to make it clear to him he would not be renominated as governor. Combine that with a somewhat wacko pseudo-anarchist with a thing about McKinley (Czolgosz) and there you are.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, TR didn't need very much convincing to run. He was told all he had to do to avoid being nominated (as he was protesting he didn't want to be) was tell the convention in Philadelphia he would not accept the nomination. He showed up instead dressed as Rough Rider, if I recall, "that's a candidate's hat".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of advisors to the Governor of New York and people who were shot during early September musical celebrations and lingered about a week before making the assassination official, that's some odd timing. Apparently not an anarchist's bullet this time, just the gangs of New York (the older new kind, not the newer old kind). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

Just for posterity, I'm declaring the 2016 election early: Clinton and Cuomo, henceforth to be addressed as The New C+C Music Factory. Bet on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

September 15

US Politics question

Are the politics of Charlie Crist and Chris Christie quite similar? Are Crist and Christie ideologically the same? --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, because of their naming conventions, are they related biologically? --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the articles you linked.

Regarding politics: Charlie Crist is currently a Democrat, and Chris Christie a Republican. They are, when American politics is viewed in isolation, opposites. Charlie Crist supports President Obama's economic policies, Chris Christie disagrees with Obama on almost everything except the Federal government helping with disaster relief in New Jersey (Christie doesn't mind letting other states fend for themselves, however).

Regarding the name: No, Crist and Christie are different surnames, even if they're derived from "Christ." They might possibly share an ancestor within the past 2000 years, but it's still just as likely that I'm related to either of them. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we even really know what your family name is? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Crist only joined the Democratic Party in 2012 and was a Republican most of his career. As for differences, Crist is lean and slender, while Christie is . . . not. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No relation to to the Mr. Christie who made good cookies, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! I am from Slovenia so I do not understand USA politics too well. I love USA --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Enkratna kot prvi poljub! μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Unique as a first kiss"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

For anyone who's wondering: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 August 25#Slovenian question. Deor (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

satellite uplink pornography

What corporation uplinks pornography to satellites and what site is used for this?166.177.251.76 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who (if anyone) might do so today... but this LA Times article and this UK article discuss companies that did so back in the 1990s (and governmental reactions to them doing so). Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this Exxxstasy Network is a different one, but satellite TV is still one of its platforms. Part of TEN Broadcasting. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Could a US state declare its independence?

Without triggering a civil war, could a US state just become independent? --31.177.99.241 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume that by "just" you mean "without the consent of any other government".

Whether there would actually be a civil war is a matter of speculation, and we aren't supposed to speculate here.

However, it is true that nothing in the U.S. Constitution says the union is perpetual, and on the other hand nothing says that states have the right to leave. In 1861–65 the federal government fought the American Civil War on the grounds that states did not have the right to leave, and this may be seen as establishing a precent. Also, the Constitution superseded the earlier Articles of Confederation between the 13 original states, which did describe the union as perpetual, and it may be argued that this was the intent even though it was no longer stated explicitly, and still applies. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A right to Self-determination exists worldwide, including in treaties ratified by the United States. International circumstances also matter here. Other precedents exist, such as the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Declaring war on people becoming peacefully becoming independent would likely cause international anger against the US. It is possible the US would not recognise independence, but like areas such as Kosovo or Transnistria a state could become de facto independent. See also the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Scottish case is a good precedent for a more hostile case. Whatever the feelings and controversy, the government of the UK ultimately decided to allow such a referendum. They could have changed their mind after the result was yes, but even if they had, we have no idea how that would have played out. I don't think there can be any doubt that if the goverment (whatever part is needed, executive, legislature, whatever) agreed to allow the independence, there obviously could be independence. Catalonia is a better example, since the central government in that case is clearly still fairly hostile to Catalan independence. We still don't really know how that's going to play out, presuming they get sufficient support from within Catalonia. But one difference with that case, is that Spain is bound by the agreements they signed as part of the EU and the Council of Europe, including the European Convention on Human Rights and binding judgements from the European Court of Human Rights. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the "right to Self-determination" tends to be countered (officialy or otherwise) by the concept Territorial integrity. Over-seas colonies that are only part of another country's territory because they were invaded tend to get a lot of sympathy when they want to break away (these days at least). Territories that more obviously physically part of another country, and have been for a long time, less so. Also, to be cynical, it could be that lots of countrys are sympathetic to decolonization movements because they don't have colonies of their own. Whereas lots of countries have internal seperatist movements, and fear that supporting other such movements would encourage their own separatists. Iapetus (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• One friend of mine argues that the phrase "a more perfect union" clearly and unambiguously implies an intent of perpetuity. I retort, it's likely no accident that the perpetual language of the Articles was omitted in 1787: irrevocability would make ratification a harder sell. —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A unilateral declaration without triggering negative effects, up to and including a war? No. Any independence has to be carefully negotiated and multilateral. This applies to all countries, you simply don't get to leave without permission if you don't want a fight. Why? It's not just about being "owned" by the rest of the country, there are substantial rights issues and debt issues to be hashed out. For example, if Texas wants to secede, they have to negotiate things like citizenship rights, what happens to those who don't want to leave the U.S., what happens to sovereign debts held by the Texan government (and things the U.S. owes to Texas and Texans, like Social Security), what happens to U.S. military facilities and hardware in Texas, what currency Texas uses, where the border between the countries should be (especially important when dealing with Gulf oil fields), what agreements Mexico has with the U.S. that must now be renegotiated with an independent Texas, etc. This requires complex and careful bilateral negotiation. If they just declared independence, yes, a conflict, possibly a war, would follow, and logically so.

If a state can unilaterally declare independence without causing conflict, then the entity they were declaring independence from is a dead man walking anyway (e.g. the later stages of the collapse of the Soviet Union). --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Legally no, see Texas v. White. Jayron32 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The exact quote is:

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 725 (1868), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885).

So the answer is no. GregJackP Boomer! 09:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What about non-state US territories, such as Puerto Rico or Guam, could they leave the Union without major ructions? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm only aware of one time a territory tried to up and leave. It did not work out. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What the Supremes said in Texas v White could be undone by a later Supreme Court ruling, just as the Dred Scott ruling or Plessy v Ferguson are superseded. Similarly, typical wedding vows say "until death us do part" but a large portion of marriages in the US end in divorce before not too many years have gone by. If a state enters a union and no part of the ratification says it is permanent, then it is understandable they might think it can be abrogated or dissolved. The Texas v White terms were added to the contract after it was signed, and are therefore questionable. Edison (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Philippines eventually got its independence, though, without a real ruckus in the US. I think a territory could, though it is surpassingly unlikely by any military means. Congress could pass legislation granting the territory its independence or the Senate could ratify a treaty with the new country after the president recognized it. Territories, especially ones unlikely to ever get statehood, such as Guam, aren't really considered in the Constitution, which led to some opposition to their acquisition and the debate about whether the Constitution follows the flag. So their departure doesn't strain the Union.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Members of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands left but their status was always different. Rmhermen (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unincorporated territories of the United States are not really in the Union, they are under the jurisdiction of the Union. That's an important distinction: an imperfect analogy may be the difference between a company's employee, and an independent contractor hired by the company. There are legal distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of members of an group, and those who merely have a partial, temporary, or ephemeral association with it. --Jayron32 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

September 16

Monday's leadership spill

I just discovered Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015, and the situation left me somewhat confused on the formal procedure. When you lose a leadership spill, do you resign, or do you advise the G-G to replace you with the new guy, or is there a confidence vote in the House of Representatives, or does something else happen? I'm not seeing anything in this article, Abbott's article, or Leadership spill. I was confused to discover that the Liberal senators joined in the vote (apparently because they're among the most prominent members of the party, so they play a part in internal party matters?) and also confused that the Nationals don't even get mentioned; how is this a Liberal matter, and not a Coalition matter? Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, when Tony Abott is challenge as the leader of the Liberal Party, he has to prove that he has the support of the MPs in his party. If he loses the support, he is no longer the leader of the Party. He does not have to resign. He is automatically no longer the leader. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The prime minister is the leader of the political party that wins the election. If the leader of the party changes, then the G-G needs to be informed by the outgoing leader. And the new leader needs to under go the swearing in ceremony. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Despite the confusing wording in our article, the spill was for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia and would follow the rules of the Liberal Party as to who gets to vote. Because the coalition has a majority in the House of Representatives, and the agreement is that the Liberal Party leader will be PM, the winner will eventually become PM, but that is still a seperate matter from the leadership spill itself.

I don't know much about the coalition agreement with the Nationals beyond what the article says, but it's fairly unlikely it allows them to have an official say in the leadership of the Liberal Party. They do get the Deputy Prime Minister after all, and I fairly doubt they would be interested in the Liberal Party having a say in their leadership. If they aren't happy with the leadership, they could always break the coalition agreement.

In terms of becoming PM Australians will correct me if I'm wrong but having lost the leadership of the Liberal Party, Abbott resigned (handed in his commission) as PM as was expected of him . The Governor-General of Australia then appointed the (new) leader of Liberal Party as the new Prime Minister of Australia as was expected by convention given that the Coalition had the majority in the House of Representatives and the Coalition expected the leader of the Liberal Party to be the Prime Minister. If Abbott had refused to resign, then things would have been a bit messier, I suspect it's likely a confidence motion would have been called in parliament. Realisticly that was never going to happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all that. One thing that surprised me, though, was that the Coalition agreement had to be renegotiated between the Nationals leader Warren Truss and the new Liberal leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and certain new concessions were demanded by the Nats which had not been part of the agreement with Tony Abbott. I always believed the Coalition agreement was between the 2 parties for the life of the parliament, regardless of who their respective leaders happened to be at any point in time. The last time this was an issue was in 1967, when Liberal PM Harold Holt drowned, and the Country Party (as the Nationals were then called) under John McEwen immediately announced that they would leave the Coalition if the Liberals elected Holt's presumed successor William McMahon (whom McEwen despised, not least because he believed he was a homosexual). So they elected John Gorton instead. That was all about acceptance (or not) of the leader personally, not about any matters of policy. I don't remember the agreement having to be renegotiated when Gorton resigned in mid-term in 1971, but that's a while back. The Abbott/Turnbull turnover is the first time since then that a sitting Liberal PM has left the job (although there were plenty of such changes at the top when they were in Opposition). -- Jack of Oz 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Conversely, the Nationals changed leaders twice during John Howard's PM-ship, giving him 3 Deputy PMs (Tim Fischer, John Anderson and Mark Vaile), and again I don't remember any renegotiation going on when the Nats leader changed each time. Warren Truss is a sort of bland Mr Nobody to most Australians, but he knows political opportunities when he sees them. -- Jack of Oz 21:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason I asked about the Nationals' input: what if they had continued supporting Abbott? I'm just imagining the National representatives uniting with the Abbott-favoring Liberal representatives, choosing him to remain as leader of the Coalition. Or is this something that wouldn't happen, because it would violate longstanding norms? I'm familiar enough with the average Westminster system to understand its normal workings, but the idea of a party supporting a government (long-term, as opposed to temporary coalitions as seen all the time in countries like Israel) without having a voice in picking its membership is simply weird to my mind. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the issue was the leadership of the parliamentary Liberal Party, and nobody who was not a member of that select club, not even their Coalition partner the Nationals, had any say in the matter. All the Nationals could do was to seek to reaffirm (= renegotiate) the coalition agreement once the Libs had made their choice. But, as I say, even that seems to be a new development. And such discussions most certainly could not have extended to keeping Abbott as the leader of the Coalition despite not being the leader of either party. What happened in Queensland in April 2011 - when Campbell Newman became Leader of the Liberal Party despite the fact that he was not at that stage, and had never been, a member of parliament (he was first elected in March 2012) - was a crazy scenario that led to the party's defeat in 2015 and Newman ignominiously losing his own seat, and was an experiment unlikely ever to be repeated. That's the closest parallel I can think of to what you're alluding to. -- Jack of Oz 23:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

September 17

Chicago Style Tool

Is there any handy dandy tool either through Misplaced Pages or another site that will generate a google book as Chicago Style much like http://reftag.appspot.com/ ?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Zotero can do that for most any Web site, including Google Books, and output most any citation style - and all variations of Chicago 15 & 16th editions - you'll ever need. Firefox extension or standalone. No online tool gets details so precise for complex cites or offers you such control. Hit Google Books, press one Z to capture all metadata, right click and select Create Bibliography from item, choose Citation style and output (Note/Bibliography) to copy to clipboard (all of one click), done. Pasted output below. Integrated with Microsoft Office or Libre Office for cite while you write capability. Plus, full-fledge reference management software living in your browser always ready, free sync account for online access while away from your PC. Zotfile add on takes it to the next, stellar, level for document management, if you download PDFs and want auto-renaming. Of course it's open source.

Compare other tools to output below for Chicago 16th ed. citation style for: https://books.google.com/books?id=lUZnBgAAQBAJ

Full note, Bibliography: Mann, Thomas. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Full note, Note: Thomas Mann, The Oxford Guide to Library Research (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Author-date - Bibliography: Mann, Thomas. 2015. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press.

Author-date - Citations: (Mann 2015) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Zotero is a bit clunky on Misplaced Pages citation templates, needs hand edit, but still saves plenty of time. One click to capture Google Book (Amazon, Library of Congress, WorldCat, whatever book site you like) in Zotero, right click on item, select Export Item, OK for your set default of Misplaced Pages Citation Template, Save. 5 clicks. Open, copy, paste. Here it is in raw form from link above:

Misplaced Pages Citation Template exported from Zotero:

{{Cite book| publisher = Oxford University Press| isbn = 9780199931064| last = Mann| first = Thomas| title = The Oxford Guide to Library Research| date = 2015-03-27}}

Delete MM-DD extraneous metadata Google Books tosses in, then all good.

Mann, Thomas (2015). The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199931064. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"if you want to be rich you need to go to hollywood and become an actor..."

This stupid sentence is general said in Germany, but I found out that Sha Rukh Khan is the 2. most rich actor of the world with 0,6 billion dollars. Could you explain how Sha Rukh Khan could become so rich without hollywood? Are in india so many rich Regisseurs which are booking Sha Rukh? --ZinssätzigeTargobank (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting. I can find no shortage of media sites parading that figure around, but no one explains how it was arrived at. Several groups report this is a result of their own research, but then don't explain what they actually did to get the information. Not anywhere that I could find through five minutes of googling, anyway. But curious nonetheless, considering that nearly all movies Sha Rukh Khan has been in are very low budget by American standards ($5-20 million). Though we don't know what kind of royalty deals he has made with the producers. His films typically bring in around $60 million, so if he has collected a decent cut of the profits from his ~50 films, he could easily be as rich as he is described. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You can bet that the majority of the people here will have no idea who this person is. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan - if anyone is confused. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Which website will be most suitable for My Journey?

In this season I would like to visit India. So I need to book air ticket. I visited a website where I compared prices of ticket from Flight Ticket. But I am not sure that should I book ticket or not from this website. Please suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginsj1980 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a travel agency. Wishing you a safe journey to our page on travel websites. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Which travel websites you should use is not something Misplaced Pages can or should give advice about (we have to maintain a WP:Neutral point of view). Sample many, and choose the one you like best. Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Historical bondage

Were there any historical examples of shackled female galley slaves, wearing fetters and leg irons? --Pioneerspafeer (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This source seems to indicate in a parenthetical comment that galley slaves in the Ottoman Empire were almost exclusively male. No idea on other places and times, though.--Jayron32 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, inasmuch as rowing places a premium on upper body strength, so females would be at a serious disadvantage. The women would be put to other uses. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, many males + few females = Trouble with a capital T. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The French used prisoners as galley slaves until 1748, but again, it seems to have been men only. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why in divorce cases women are more likely to get custody?

Why are women more likely to win custody? What is it based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.70.25 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Because they are the ones who gave birth to the child in the first place. Other things being equal, the bond between a child and their mother is stronger than the bond between a child and their father. The courts respect this. --Viennese Waltz 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But if the father is the sole breadwinner and property owner, wouldn't he be able to support the kids better by providing them with a home instead of living with the mother who may be homeless or return to the house of her parents? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your statement about child custody after divorce isn't universally true and talking about averages when there are vast differences in implementations is pointless and confusing .

But even where it is true, the reasons will depend on jurisdiction. In some places, what VW says may be a significant consideration. In others, the courts will care far more about other things, like who was the child's primary caregiver before the seperation. For various reasons, this is most commonly the mother, but in cases of a working mother and stay at home father, it generally ends up being the father.

Anyway, these sources are primarily intended to establish the primary caregiver issue, I would treat any other conclusions or statements of fact with caution but see e.g.

Note also, the modern standard in places you're probably referring to is often "the best interests of the child" or something similar. The implementation of this varies (and may or may not be well defined in law). Whatever outcome there tends to be a lot of controversy about whether it's really in the best interests of the child.

BTW, in quite a few jurisdictions, both parents are required to contribute financially to the upbringing of the child if they can afford it, no matter what degree of custody they have. In cases of unequal custody, this may entail the parent with less custody paying something to the parent with greater custody to help support the child.

And for various reasons after a seperation or divorce, such as if one spouse limited their career advancement as part of the marriage, the other spouse may also be required to provide some financial support to that spouse seperate from any contributions to the raising of the child.

While these details will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the scenario you outlined about the mother being homeless is generally not supposed to happen if the father is of sufficient means. (In many of these, in most cases it's generally not supposed to happen point blank, no matter the means of the parents.)

As to living with the (grand)parents, this may not be considered harmful. Particularly since whoever gets custody someone is going to have to look after the children. And if there is an increase in working hours for one or both parents plus a reduction in parent-child time (which may arise whatever the custody arrangements edit: and regardless of any change in working hours due to reduction in time spent with both parents simultaneously), time spent with the grandparents may be considered beneficial. In some places, for various reasons such arrangements aren't uncommon even if the parents aren't divorced.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• While men do not commit 100% of domestic violence in the world, they do commit the majority of it, see for example this study, which notes that in every major statistical measure of domestic violence, men commit more of it than women. Being beaten by one's husband is a common grounds for divorce: this study notes that physical and emotional abuse are a very common cause of divorce in America. Abusive spouses are less likely to be granted custody of children, for what I hope are obvious reasons. So, it isn't a great leap of faith to understand that more men are abusive --> less men are granted custody in divorce. This may not be the sole factor, but it is a reasonable one. That conclusion is positively confirmed here, where it notes that domestic violence is the main reason why one partner is granted sole custody of the children. --Jayron32 02:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Philome Obin

This is Philip Robert Obin again. Can you tell me how my grandfather, Philome Obin, became Captain of the Haitian Army? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.105.40 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are the grandson of Philomé Obin you are probably closer to the source of that information than any of the contributors here. Our article says: "For example, it was not until after his death that his children discovered in his safe some documentation which stated that he was a commissioned officer—a Captain in the Haitian army before the American Occupation." If this unsourced statement is correct, those documents could still be in the posession of some of your relatives. --NorwegianBlue 22:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Gertrude Svensen" in The Dinner Party

The correct name for the person called "Gertrude Svensen" in List of women in the Heritage Floor is actually "Gertrud Svensdotter", as the article of her say, and the (Swedish) references also calls her. Gertrud Svensdotter was from Sweden, and her last name Svensdotter was a Patronymic meaning "daughter of Sven": the ending word "dotter" in the name meaning "daughter". I am from Sweden myself, and no references in her home country, were her story is well known, ever refers to her as "Gertrude Svensen" - which would also have been strange, as the name "Svensen" is also a patronymic meaning "son of Sven". Further more, "Svensen" is also a Danish patronymic rather than a Swedish, which would have been "Svensson". Her first name also has the wrong spelling, as the Swedish spelling of Gertrude is Gertrud without the e at the end, but that is a smaller matter.

My question is: is the name actually wrong in the art exhibition The Dinner Party itself (which means that it would have to continue being wrong in the article), or is it simply wrongly spelled only in the article (and can be corrected)? Thanks! --Aciram (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Added a line break better to separate your question from the context statement. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article reflects an error. See the Brooklyn Museum website, which gives her name as "Gertrude Svensen" and makes another spelling error in its description, "Gertrude Svenson". Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation and link. Yes, the museum indeed gives several errors: not only of her first and last name, but also of her year of life and death, which is 1656-1675, and the year of the accusation 1667/1668 rather than 1668/1669. But, as the exhibit was founded in 1979, if I understood it correctly, I suppose it was easy with such errors, as the story may not be so well known outside of Sweden. If the error is the same in the exhibition, than of course it must stay here as well - though it would be good to have the error pointed out some way, I suppose. This reminds one of one great thing with the internet!--Aciram (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

She doesn't appear to be the only one among the 999 women on the Heritage Floor whose name got misspelled: Tibors is spelled "Fibors", e.g.. See also "Writing Women Back Into history" by User:Alexandrathom (pinging her, as she might have something to add). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton transliteration variants

Both "YHWH" and "YHVH" are established transliterations for יהוה, but is there typically any significance to the use of one or the other in a specifically Jewish context? This page, a Karaite source, uses both transliterations; I'm not sure if it's a typo or if we should expect that they're indicating something by using both. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Would WP:RDL be a better locale for this query? --Jayron32 10:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There's some information on this in Tetragrammaton. See also Names of God in Judaism. FWIW, traditional Jews transliterate the word as "Adonai". --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, they don't. They translate the word as "Adonai". Actually, translate isn't the correct term, as "adonai" is still Hebrew. Since Adonai is the substitution for the actual word printed, which is done to avoid saying the word, strictly speaking the closest English word for that process is probably euphemism. They transliterate the tetragrammaton as YHWH or YHVH, transliteration is the process of rewriting a word from one script into another script. For example, the capital of Russia is Москва́, which is transliterated into the latin script as "Moskva", but translated into English as "Moscow". --Jayron32 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Adonai means "Lord", which is why at least some Bible translations will say "Lord God" where the translators ran into YHWH superscripted with the vowel points of Adonai. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And some readers, who didn't realise the superscript represented a different word rather that being a pronunciation guide, came up with the totally un-historical YaHoVaiH = "Jehovah" (although there isn't complete scholarly consensus about this). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, especially (probably) by those who use "Jehovah" a lot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Which Website Provides me the Cheapest Air Ticket?

Do You know that Which website can easily and effective guide to purchase the Cheapest Air Ticket? I have found some effective websites but quite confuse to select the most effective one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomesstella1980 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 18 September 2015

There is no single website guaranteed to have the lowest price for any one particular flight. You'll have to shop around. You can also try Comparison shopping websites which aggregate and report published rates from several other websites. You'll still need to check several, however, as there are some major discount airlines, notably Southwest Airlines (the largest discount air carrier in the world, I might add) does not sell its tickets anywhere except it's own website or by calling the company directly. Besides the fact that we don't know where you live or where you are flying to, AND besides the fact that a website guaranteed to have the lowest fare across all flights does not exist, recommending particular businesses is outside the scope of this desk. The best I can recommend is Category:Travel ticket search engines as a place to start looking for possibilities. --Jayron32 10:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Unreadable words in the Bible

From a not reliable source I got that some words in the Bible could not be understood. One of these is the 'daily', in 'our daily bread.' Can someone confirm or refute this hypothesis, if possible with sources? If this is true, what words in the Bible could not be understood so far due to the hand-writing. --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE. The word in Greek is epiousios, and the Lord's Prayer (in both Matthew and Luke) is the only place in the entirety of ancient Greek literature that it's found (and there's a phrase for that: hapax legomenon). We can only interpret it by how it was translated into Latin - as quotidianum ("daily", "everyday") in the Vetus Latina translation, and as supersubstantialem ("super-substantial", whatever that means) in the Vulgate translation.

If you look at most translations of the Bible, they'll have footnotes, some of which point out where, for example, the Hebrew is unclear and the meaning has been interpreted according to the Greek Septuagint. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Should probably add that it's rarely, if ever, to do with unclear handwriting. It'll usually be either because the word is rare and its meaning is not well-understood, as in epiousios, or, as Jayron points out below, variation in the manuscripts means we can't be sure which word is the correct one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, for one, you need to be clear on what you mean by The Bible. The collection of texts we call the Bible does not have one, definitive set of original manuscripts. Indeed, we don't have a single manuscript written by the original author of ANY of the works of the Bible, so we don't generally know what words the original authors may or may not have used. You can read more at Biblical manuscript about some extant, very old manuscripts. In many cases, when constructing modern translations, there will be differences in the exact wording between different manuscripts, such differences will be noted in the marginalia of modern translations, so the reader will know what the disagreement is. Specifically about "our daily bread", the phrase is most associated with the Lord's Prayer, which is found in two places, with slightly different wording, in Matthew 6 and in Luke 11. In Matthew, the original greek text covering "daily bread" is "τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον", in which the word "ἐπιούσιον" is used. This word is actually discussed in the Misplaced Pages article Epiousios, which notes that it is a unique word, and does not appear anywhere else in contemporary Classical Greek literature. The history and etymology of how the word ἐπιούσιον gets translated as "daily bread" is complex, and covered in some detail by the Misplaced Pages article. --Jayron32 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Then there's the "trespasses" question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Other peoples

Why is it that the uncultivated races (Hindoostanis, Mohammedians, those with negroid features) tend to breed more than the more desirable humans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgingtonshireton (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why haven't I heard fundamentalists say that minors shouldn't be taken to zoos?

Cause they might see animals mating? That sounds like something some fundamentalists might say. I've seen it said that some Victorians wanted animals to wear clothes too, though I think I've seen it refuted that anyone suggested that piano and table legs wear clothes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)