Revision as of 04:39, 25 March 2017

• 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

March 20

Scalping

I have read the Wiki article on Scalping and know it was widely practiced in various contexts throughout history. My question is: would a bald person be scalped? A bald person does not have hair to grasp to pull the scalp off once the cuts were made. So, would there be a point in taking a scalp if it did not have hair? If not, then one would think that people would be inclined to shave their heads "just in case." 76.71.158.83 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

According to candid modern imagery a mostly hairless scalp would have looked less attractive within a row of trophies. It was in fact probably the reverse, that particular item prone instead to have attracted attention and to have been associated with supplementary tales of imposed humiliations on the original owner at the fatal moment. Sometimes or in some eras, under their helmet warriors had their head shaved, but the scalp still would have been a necessary completement to the headgear trophy, if and when the full set had remained in the manner of the times. --Askedonty (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable (or relevant) this is, but "Scientific observation has discovered that some tribes are apparently completely immune to the most common form of hair loss – male pattern baldness. Alansplodge (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Medical doctors as authors of pop science/health books

I know a couple of medical doctors who have written extensively on popular science and health. Dr. Lustig is one of them. He is known for his anti-sugar book, Fat Chance. He also has a cookbook, but the recipes are written by Cindy Gershen, not himself or his wife (even though he reports that he likes his wife's cooking). Dr. Campbell is known for The China Study book, and he has a cookbook that seems to be written by someone else while he only writes the foreword. Why do these people often have cookbooks written by someone else? What's the point in adding a different name on the cover? Why not just hire a ghostwriter to write all the recipes and let the doctor-author take the credit? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I somewhat doubt this can be answered on the RD (i.e. there's a good chance no one has commented on why these 2 medical doctors chose to do things that way so no references can be provided) but the obvious thought is that even if the 2 medical doctors are experts on nutrition and health, it doesn't mean they know jack about cooking or people will have a reason to think their recipes actually taste good. I'd also note these sort of companion pieces can be complicated marketing structures anyway with the person's who's name it was under and the owners of the trademark (if different) convinced to offer their support for an existing project or someone else's idea, for example.

Putting the recipes under the name of someone people think (for whatever reason) can make good tasting and hopefully easy & cheap to cook food with the advice for dietary issues allegedly coming from the doctors may make more sense from a marketing perspective than putting the recipes under the name of someone who's known expertise is on dietary issues. Based on your description, the wife may or may not fit into the later category, but there could be plenty of reasons (including a lack of desire on her part) why it won't work. It looks to me like Cindy Gershen already had some sort of profile probably predating the cookbook.

As for the second, well if you mean The China Study Cookbook: Over 120 Whole Food, Plant-Based Recipes ISBN 978-1937856755 then the foreword was by T. Colin Campbell who does not appear to be a medical doctor. His son Thomas M. Campbell II also has his name on The China Study and is a medical doctor but isn't the person who's name the foreword of the cookbook/recipe book is under, so your claim a medical doctor is involved seems suspect although that's not really here or there. More relevant, T. Colin Campbell's daughter is the person who's name the cookbook is under, so this seems to fit with your family idea anyway plus she also has a PhD albeit in education . One of the Amazon reviews says it's actually the same book as Whole Plants Cookbook ISBN 978-0983250913 with the same foreword and some different photos. BTW the author's name on that book combined with seems to give a big clue who the photographer is. That last source suggests there are more books associated with The China Study, with the daughter involved and other people who again seem to already have had a profile relating to food.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are caskets used to store dead human bodies?

Why are they used to store dead human bodies instead of burying the body naked and planting a tree above the corpse? Can a dead human body be dumped on a farm, allowing maggots to eat the flesh and chickens to eat the maggots and then the animal feces to fertilize the soil for the trees and shrubs that are going to feed other humans? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What about contamination of groundwater, as mentioned in Cemetery? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In Britain at least bodies are traditionally buried "six feet under". That would in the past often have been in a shroud rather than a coffin, and I think still may be in the case of a pauper's burial. Burying that deep means that the nutrients won't be available, even to trees (the long tap root is for stabilising not for takeup of nutrients). But it also minimises the possibility of dogs, other mammals, and birds scavenging the body and depositing pieces in places where they could quickly pose a serious health hazard. Having said that, woodland burials are increasingly popular in Britain, partly I'm sure because people like the idea of being returned to nature. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

New York City's paupers are buried in boxes on one of the most remote and restricted islands in the city. The boxes are stacked 3 deep in trenches of 144 adults, childrens' boxes are stacked 5 deep in bricks of 1,000 and the work's done by inmates who commute from the city's jail island bury severed limbs and babies and hopefully not severed babies etc. for $4/day. With 1 million paupers on 40 hectares they're running out of room so they're now also demolishing the bit of the island without bodies for more burial space (instead of buying new corpses on top of 25-50 year old corpses like they used to). Oh, and the entire island's in Hurricane Evacuation Zone 1 out of 6 (1's most easily flooded) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Caskets are for the transport and display of bodies during a funeral, not necessarily burial. In many traditions, the coffin has a loose base and is re-used, the body in a shroud being left behind. In Western practice of the last century, especially the US, see Jessica Mitford's The American Way of Death, Evelyn Waugh's The Loved One etc., the purpose of many funeral trappings is simply to generate profits. This is encouraged when the bereaved are also encouraged to stage a more spectacular show of the body. Some cultures use only a shroud - many of them also focus the funeral ceremony around the buried body, rather than a ceremony beforehand. In Ghana, exuberant fantasy coffins are popular. The last two coffins I used were a wicker basket (lighter to carry too) and cardboard, for a woodland burial. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hence a life insurance policy just large enough to cover a funeral, hence the term "burial policy". It is indeed somewhat of a "racket". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The practice the OP refers to is called excarnation, more information in the linked article. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the US the laws vary highly by state. Planting a tree over a corpse seems a bit space-expensive. But even the distribution of cremation ashes is based on state law. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The most obvious answer to "Why are caskets used to store dead human bodies?" is "Because unlike live human bodies, the dead ones don't object." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Our natural burial atricle could be expanded, buy will suffice to show that green burial options can be exercised. - Nunh-huh 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the country of Israel, bodies are buried merely "enshrouded", not in caskets. "The ancient Jewish custom of burying an enshrouded body without any casket ... is still practiced in Israel today". Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Same in Islamic burial. Fgf10 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And the first (zeroth?) Christian burial. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

As a purely practical matter, it's easier to deal with things that are packed into boxes. Coffin shaped cardboard boxes can theoretically be gotten pretty cheap, at about what you would expect for a heavy cardboard box, but funeral directors will sometimes mark them up ridiculously as part of a trendy "green burial" package. ApLundell (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Arab spring countries successful and unsuccessful polls and documentaries

Is there a website that shows the polls that ask the ordinary Arab people on why the Arab Spring was successful in some countries like Egypt and Tunisia and why it did not in others like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya and also is are there documentaries on the same topic? Donmust90 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me suggest an analogy. Is there a poll of English speakers that asks what the average person thinks was so great about the recent elections in England and Canada, but not the US or Australia? The question is so complicated, makes so many assumptions, and speaks of fictional "average anglophones" that you can't get a meaningful answer. There may be a set of various polls. A clearer request for discrete information might help. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Donmust90 -- your list of successful and unsuccessful countries is a little strange. Egypt went through several periods of turbulence and emerged with a military-backed ruler not necessarily too different than what it had at the beginning. Saudi Arabia never had much of a visible public movement in the first place. Tunisia is arguably the only one that had a significant protest movement and emerged with a semi-stable system seemingly overall better than what it started with. AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also important to note that we're only 7 years removed from the Arab Spring. By analogy, the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe were immediately all unsuccessful in the short run, but represented a tide-turning towards liberalism in Europe that took up to a century to realize. Seven years is far too short a time period to decide the success or failure of such an event... --Jayron32 02:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21

Was there any contemporary European analysis done of the Ming-Qing transition?

Was there any contemporary 17th and 18th century European analysis done of the Ming-Qing transition? How was it interpreted? How did it affect European relations with China? --Gary123 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The Dutch were certainly affected when Koxinga took Taiwan away from them... AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

More on-the-ground reactions: Jesuit China missions#Dynastic change. I am too interested in the European thoughts back in Europe of the great upheavals during this period.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing the answer. A possible approach might be to follow up on works about China by European authors who were in China during and immediately after the transition, such as Gabriel de Magalhães or Domingo Fernández Navarrete. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This paper: "A EUROPEAN DOCUMENT ON THE FALL OF THE MING DYNASTY (1644-1649)" looks helpful: it is specifically about a document which records a European view of the fall of the Ming, and also provides some historiographical context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Real first name?

Spider Robinson? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

His real first name is Spider. That's not the name he was born with, but it's his real first name. He was called Rob or Robbie growing up, but that's a contraction of his surname. He seems to not want the name he was born with known. - Nunh-huh 03:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

We know he was born in the Bronx in 1948, so it might be possible to find out his birth name once the US census details for 1950 are released to the public - in about the spring of 2022. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a person's real name is the name they tell you is their real name. The OP may be looking for birth name, but that's not any more real than a name a person has chosen to adopt; sometimes even legally as their official name. Name change#United States would cover Mr. Robinson, as he is American, if indeed Spider were not his birth name (which I'm not saying it isn't. People can and are given such names as birth names) --Jayron32 21:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

An interesting perspective; try taking that approach with a police officer who requires your name, if you've not changed it legally. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Organs of the state do not always act in reality. --Jayron32 17:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the bit in The Flying Sorcerers where Shoogar explains to the narrator that "the phrase 'My real name is' is a spell." —Tamfang (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Title in Beauty and the Beast

In the most recent movie of Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson and the other guy, the guy's title is "Prince of France". I know that Dauphin of France is the eldest son of the king. So, are the younger sons princes? I know it's a fictional story but I don't get why Disney has to make the Beast lacking in table manners while the Beast seems to be well educated due to an "expensive education". Also, if he's the prince, wouldn't the king be still alive? Or maybe, like in Romeo and Juliet, the prince is the one who is in charge of the town? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. An "expensive education" could be something, circumstantially, not matching a court's expectations. Education was a responsibility in ancient times often conferred to slaves, or people of lower extraction, all which, circumstantially could be punished. --Askedonty (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be thinking of crown prince, one of many princes. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The Dauphin was the eldest son of a French King, and therefore the heir to the throne. Other sons of the king would also have the title of Prince, and would continue to be princes even after their elder brother had become king. The same tradition continues in many monarchies today. In the UK, Charles is the heir - but his brothers Andrew and Edward are also princes, and will still be princes once Charles becomes king. Wymspen (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Fils de France has a good explanation of different ranks / titles of princes and princesses in monarchical France. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It looked to me like the "terrible table manners" were caused by the beast's inability to hold cutlery, etc. in his claws rather than anything else - Q Chris (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Google returns this article, which says "PRINCE Harry has terrible table manners and cannot even use a knife and fork, his dad Charles said yesterday", for "prince bad table manners". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Prince du Sang. --Jayron32 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Muslim women calling for reforms for women in Islam

Who are the women that are calling for reforms in Islam regarding women and their rights? Are they asking for women to lead prayers? Are they asking for women to have more inheritance than men? What are the reforms that they want to change Islam for? Donmust90 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your question reminded me of this article about a woman led mosque - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/26/women-lead-friday-prayers-denmark-first-female-run-mosque-mariam I suspect that your wider question has a very simple answer - they want the same rights as men already have - so not more inheritance, but an equal share with the male heirs. Wymspen (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Similar to Francafrique

Is France the only former colonial power to have this relationship with its former colonies in Africa? What about UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Italy? Is there a term in French that deals with France having its relationship with its former colonies Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Donmust90 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For the UK, see Commonwealth of Nations. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be looking for the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Rojomoke (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The French Union (1946–58) and French Community (1958–61) were closer French equivalents to the Commonwealth of Nations in the early years of decolonisation than Organisation internationale de la Francophonie has been since its foundation in 1970. jnestorius 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For Purtugal, see Community of Portuguese Language Countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the article - Equatorial Guinea was a Portuguese possession until ceded to Spain in 1778. Uruguay is not mentioned at all, although it was a part of Brazil until 1828 and has observer status (associate membership). 86.134.217.56 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW there is a stub article Verwantschapslanden for former Dutch colonies, which has an Afrikaans interwiki but no Dutch one.jnestorius 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the section title "African Elysée's cell" in Françafrique is a bad translation which does an extraordinarily poor job of conveying the idea that through the 1980s France's African policy was mostly run by a network of officials directly under the president, bypassing the French foreign affairs ministry... AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that Mozambique has jumped ship and joined the Commonwealth, despite never having a previous association with the UK. The Portuguese in the 1960s and 1970s attempted to prevent the independence of its African colonies, a brutal affair called the Portuguese Colonial War, which left those emerging states with little goodwill towards their former rulers. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure "jumped ship" is the correct analogy here. Mozambique is a founder member of the organization and no country has hosted its annual heads of state conference more times. I think "welcoming others aboard" would be a more descriptive term. For countries of the former Soviet Union see Commonwealth of Independent States. 2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:806B:F237:22E4:784A (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite right - the perils of a quick post :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Philosophers similar to Ayn Rand

Are there any philosophers with similar ideas to Ayn Rand that are less controversial?Uncle dan is home (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any philosophers that aren't controversial? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is less a synonym of not? —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Define "less controversial than Ayn Rand". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the articles on Objectivism and the Objectivist movement? Those would be an excellent place to start. uhhlive (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 

For a certain value of "similar". Rand is broadly associated with the American libertarian tradition, though she personally didn't have much love for libertarians, whom she saw as infringing on her intellectual property or something. Probably the most traditional-philosopher-sort-of-philosopher associated with that tradition is Robert Nozick. His reasoning was rather different from Rand's, but he came to similar conclusions on an array of issues. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Herbert Spencer: The Man Versus the State, Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom, Murray Rothbard: Power and Market and The Ethics of Liberty (once a Rand fan, who later rejected her) as some ideas. Besides American libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism is broadly similar to Objectivism. --Jayron32 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am curious why you are not interested in thinkers who are more incisive than Rand, rather than less controversial? Nozick and Rothbard (and Greenspan) are all just previous hangers on and second-hand knockoffs. You might look into Nietzsche and Spinoza, both of whom were extremely controversial. You might look into Stoicism. But you really have to ask specific questions about specific teachings or concepts. Otherwise it's like asking if there's any politician like but not Nixon. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I really don't think that's fair to Nozick at all. As far as I know he was never a follower of hers. He was in the natural law tradition. Rand never seemed to understand that there were other ways of arriving at the non-aggression principle besides incomprehensible claims about how it followed from pure logic and epistemology. And she never acknowledged predecessors like Auberon Herbert. --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I won't quibble over follower for Nozick, he was at first a leftist, then a member of he inner circle for some time; left or was ostracized; and she felt he took some of her ideas without crediting her. Herbert is a political thinker, she may or may not have known him, but she did praise Laura Ingalls Wilder and Isabel Paterson as well as Locke and other political thinkers. For her "politics is downstream of culture". I don't think you can attribute her aesthetics, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics to any other one philosopher, or claim that all her ideas were taken from others. I still find the "isn't there someone like Rand I can say I like without getting criticized?" notion a bit odd, and this is really not the proper forum for it. There are plenty of Objectivist fora on line where this can be discussed, but I won't endorse any of them or engage in further debate. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

      Herbert was a moral thinker. His central point was "that which one man may not morally do, a million men may not morally do". I think his politics all pretty much flowed from that.

      Rand's obsession with getting credit was one of the least lovely things about her, in my opinion. I mean, of course, in the academic sphere, naturally you want credit. But surely for a moral/political activist trying to change the world, changing the world must be more important than getting credit for it? And beyond that I think a lot of her claims to originality were simply incorrect. The original part of her philosophy, the logic/epistemology stuff, is mostly nonsense. A lot of the moral/political part does resonate, but is not original with her. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Resonates? Hmm. As in Trumps rhethoric resonates with a lot of voters? Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make all resonation automatically bad. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.80.28 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

John Hospers comes to mind. His mainstream, and otherwise excellent textbook, "An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis", introduced her ideas to a generation on Anglophone philosophers. See also his: Conversations with Ayn Rand 1 Conversations with Ayn Rand 2 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The two-part article is worth a read, and the first is a very accurate portrait. The second is accurate in dealing with her tendency to break with almost all her associates, indeed, it leaves out a lot of lurid details about her reprehensible treatment of friends and family documented in The Passion of Ayn Rand and more recent biographies.

But Hospers' descriptions of her beliefs on metaphysics, epistemology, causation and free will are inaccurate to the point of uselessness. Hospers does admit that Rand had not yet written her non-fiction works, and her ideas differ profoundly from what he admits are his not-necessarily clear remembrances.

(For example, she accepts the genus diffentia formation of definition, and does not hold that all the properties of all tables are part of the definition of "table". Rather than speaking of "true" definitions, she speaks of proper definitions, that identify what are the contextually most fundamental properties of a concept at one's level of knowledge. While a child might define man as a two-legged animal, an adult would have a more sophisticated definition, and neither definition would have anything to say about if men might be green.)

Those interested in what she actually held should read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed.) μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22

Roman Empire in German historiography

In German historiography, what is the normal name for the Italian-based polity in the West from 27 BC until AD 476, and what are its major subdivisions? de:Römische Kaiserzeit (what's the difference between "Kaiserzeit" and "Kaiserreich", by the way?) somehow covers just until the ascension of Diocletian in 284; de:Römische Tetrarchie covers just the years of the Tetrarchy (leaving a gap from 284 until 293), and I've not figured out what comes after 305, since Fall of the Western Roman Empire doesn't have a German interwiki link at all. Speaking no German, I can't just read the articles and follow the links. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For the "Roman Empire" in general it is de:Römisches Reich ("Römische Kaiserzeit" is more like the "Roman imperial era".) Like in English, "Roman Empire" refers to sort of an artificial period that actually covers several distinct kinds of government. The German Misplaced Pages also has de:Zeittafel Rom (a chronology of Roman history), de:Weströmisches Reich (the Western empire) and Oströmisches Reich (the Eastern empire, which redirects to de:Byzantinisches Reich, the Byzantine Empire. The fall of the empire is covered in de:Untergang des Römischen Reiches. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend --in English, some scholars distinguish between the pre-Diocletian "principate" and the post-Diocletian "dominate" (see "Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman Empire" by H.P. L'Orange, ISBN 0-691-00305-X). It seems that "Römische Kaiserzeit" is pretty much equivalent to Principate. We have articles on Principate and Dominate... AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I'm the Principate and Dominate divisions, but I've not much handled that time period in a good while, so that division wouldn't have come to mind. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Kaiserzeit is being used as the term for the Principate. But that means the German Misplaced Pages has overlapping articles about the Kaiserzeit and the de:Prinzipat. Seems a bit messy... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There's not necessarily a problem with having separate articles on the Principate as a Roman political institution vs. a general chronicle of the period of history when the Principate prevailed... AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Waiving our basic rights

Do we have a right to waive some basic right? Is there a law prohibiting me (or making it void) to waive my right to life, health, freedom (and be bought and sold as a slave) and so on? What philosophers (especially liberal ones) think about it? --Llaanngg (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Where? Aside from your philosopher question, the answer depends completely on what part of the world you're talking about. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the articles on Human rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Philosophy of human rights. I don't remember anything in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights about a right to die, be unhealthy, or to be sold as a slave. However many places now do have a law allowing voluntary euthanasia and I see a first world country is now going to remove provisions to look after the health of its citizens and there's still places one can go and get enslaved if one so desires. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There are other sets of less fundamental (but still important) rights that also can't be signed away that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, usually the rights granted granted under Labor Laws can't be signed away. You or your lawyer would have to do a lot of research to figure out the exact particulars in your locale. It can get complicated. ApLundell (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If you have an "inalienable" right you cannot give it to someone else, but I don't think it necessarily means you can't throw it away. jnestorius 14:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Human rights are a concept based on enlightenment ideas. One of the major thinkers of the enlightenment formulated it thusly: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. According to Jefferson, at least these three rights cannot be "alienated", i.e. you always maintain control over them. That might mean you can chose to not enforce them (as in the case of assisted suicide), but you can always reassert them (so you might submit to a Dominatrix, but your "slavery" ends with a simple act of will). Of course, Jefferson was a bit spotty on both capitalisation and implementation of his ideas... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In Jefferson's day, nouns tended to be capitalized, a carryover from German language roots. But he certainly used slaves - (some more than others. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You can waive certain rights by entering a contract, say one that allows you to be randomly drug tested, have background checks done by government agencies without a warrant on probable cause, agree to binding arbitration rather than suit by law, or a non-compete or non-disclosure clause. These are all entirely voluntary, so they don't so much count as waiving one's rights, rather than expressing them in a certain way.

There's also the much more controversial issue of plea bargains, which are fictions where instead of facing a thousand year jail sentence you plea guilty to something you may not have done and agree to suffer the otherwise relatively minor consequences. There are also the less odious abilities to waive the right to legal council, waive the right to a jury trial, and probably others, for which, see below. μηδείς (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think plea bargaining means pleading guilty to something you haven't done. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it often does. Many defendants are coerced into a plea bargain with the promise that they'd have a harsher sentence if the trial went forward, regardless of whether or not they actually committed the act for which they are on trial. There's very little accord given to whether or not the defendant is culpable for the act for which they are charged, and mostly given to the defendant accepting a lesser punishment instead of a greater one. --Jayron32 17:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ex-convict and Lord Conrad Black of Canada has a lot to say about the plea bargaining system, which is very peculiar to the United States. Something like 95%+ of a criminal trials end in a conviction, and a huge number of those are due to plea bargaining. It's a corruption that has entered our system through the war on drugs.

For example, here's a sixth-cicuit court decision that argues that the actual amount of coke in a "coke" sample doesn't matter from 2016.μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Boxing, among other colourful activities, depends on it. See Criminal consent. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Volenti non fit injuria in tort law.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Info on a science fiction short story where child reporters discover truth about Santa Claus?

Hi there, I was hoping that any science fiction short story aficionado could remember the name/author of a short story. It was set in a world where children, like 4-year-olds, have their own news channel and uncover the horrible truth that there is no Santa Claus. It triggers a national emergency but at the end I think there was a cynical understanding achieved between the children and the grownups.

I'm going to guess it was written in the 1970s because I think I read it (as a kid) in the early 1980s in a library book, surely a collection of science fiction short stories, if I know me. Thanks much.50.89.16.32 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You might have more luck searching yourself (some tips here, or somewhere akin to Reddit's /r/tipofmytongue. Alcherin (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Christmas Treason perhaps? Blooteuth (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you remember it from an anthology and not from a monthly magazine is a strong clue. You might try to find it in "Best of" collections from the 70s. A good database is isfdb.org, but sadly searching by "tag" is useless because most stories are not tagged.

My best guess is The Santa Claus Compromise first published in 1974. I've not read it, but it matches your time-frame and it wound up in a few anthologies like 'Best SF: 75' and 'The Year's Best SF No.9'.

Hope this helps. ApLundell (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's gotta be it! I remember the pyramid with eyes book cover now. Thanks so much.50.89.16.32 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 23

Origin of names: Khalid Masood

What is the origin of these names? Khalid Masood?--Llaanngg (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

See Khalid and Masoud. - Lindert (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice that Khalid Masood was from Kent, UK, not from the same place as these names are. His real name was Adrian Elms, but after becoming a Muslim convert he adopted a new one. Converts to Islam are likely to adopt a new one.--Hofhof (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean his birth name was Adrian Elms. People can change their names to whatever they like within certain limits, and their new name is as much their "real" name as their birth name was. -- Jack of Oz 03:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• I get your point, but his birth name was Adrian Russell Ajao. And he went by several names, including these three and Khalid Choudry too. Don't know which one was the prominent or used daily.--Hofhof (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

His birth name was Adrian R Elms (probably Adrian Russell Elms), as you can see by searching the freebmd website. At least you can find a registration in Dartford in the first quarter of 1965, consistent with the report that he was born on Christmas Day 1964. His mother married a Mr Ajao a year or so later, so he may well have been brought up as Adrian Ajao. I don't know why the papers are saying this when the birth and marriage records are easy to find. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I recall Jack Benny once referring to a "Kubelsky" and then adding, "that's my right name, you know." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, some years back, someone found an old driver's license once held by Marilyn Monroe. At the time, she was married to Joe DiMaggio, and the name on the license was "Norma Jean DiMaggio". Then there's sportscaster Jim McKay. His birth name was Jim McManus. In an interview, he said that the mailbox on his farm reads J. McManus, and as far as being addressed, he said, "I'm comfortable with either one." This is in contrast to Muhammad Ali, who publicly rejected his birth name Cassius Clay. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

But to answer the question; Khalid '...is a popular Arabic male given name meaning "eternal"' (Google also suggests "immortal"). Masood or Masoud '...is a given name and surname in many countries, meaning "fortunate", "prosperous", or "happy". Although some experts believe that the origin of this name comes from Arab countries, it is a very popular surname in Iran and Turkey'. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! I've just noticed that User:Lindert has already linked these WP articles. Apologies... Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Stage names are a rather different beast to a change of the name you use in your non-professional life or to a legal name change. MChesterMC (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 24

Captain Brinell

Who is the Captain Brinell mentioned here and here? I am guessing he was probably American, from New England and maybe a whaler. What was his full name and the name of his ship at that period (c. 1803). Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I could only find the two references that you have linked. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A spike on the steering wheel

A commonly-heard philosophical remark is that people would drive more safely if they had a spike in their steering wheel (ie. guaranteeing their death in even the slightest collision) than with seatbelts, airbags and othe devices intended to make them safe. The article Tullock Spike attributes this idea to Gordon Tullock, albeit with two extremely wishy-washy references. Does anyone know whether it was actually Tullock who came up with the idea and if so where I can read more about it from the guy himself? (Or alternatively who did come up with the idea and where they wrote about it?) Thanks Amisom (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This source cites The New World of Economics (1981) by Gordon Tullock and Richard McKenzie for the idea of the Tullock spike, though originally it seems it was a dagger. Here's a snippet view of a 1994 edition of that work. Actually The New World of Economics was first published in 1975 but maybe the dagger idea was only introduced in the 3rd edition. --Antiquary (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Risk homeostasis is the general idea and Peltzmann effect (ibid) as it applies to road safety regulation Asmrulz (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Professor Gordon Tullock: A Personal Remembrance by Richard B. McKenzie (Tullock's co-author cited above), it was originally a remark made during an informal discussion at the Public Choice Center at Virginia Tech:

'I remember, as a young graduate student in the early 1970s, listening to several faculty members in the foyer discussing the case for regulating the internal safety of automobiles, then an emerging hot political topic. They were refining standard arguments regarding mandates for the installation of seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, padded dashes, and airbags, all proposed to save lives. Gordon emerged from his office on hearing the discussion and insisted: "You have it wrong! Interior safety features in cars will reduce the costs of accidents for drivers and encourage them to drive more recklessly, causing more pedestrians deaths. To reduce deaths, the government should require the installation of a dagger at the center of the steering wheel with its tip one inch from the driver's chest. Who would take driving risks then?"'.

The article is viewable online but on a site blacklisted by Misplaced Pages (see the first result here). You may be able to get the block lifted for this specific article at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Satire, perhaps in the Jonathan Swift tradition. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• See also, The Comfy Chair. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That one isn't bad either. --Askedonty (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

As a kid back in the 50's & 60's, saw several very bad automobile accidents. Didn't really need a knife on the steering wheel, because steering columns where non-collapsible back then. The driver got impaled on the hub -driven into his chest on impact. Cars also had hood embellishments mounted on them which would cause serious injurious to a predestination even at low speeds, should the car hit them, (once ownd a 55 Chevy with a zamak casted airplane upon the hood. Because of being aware of its danger..though person observation... removed it). Will not elucidate on that further but you can image the effect it had on me as a child. Then Ralph Nader came out and published Unsafe at Any Speed which was a watershed. Nobody wants to be in and accident, and they happen when you lest expect them. Often when it is of no fault of your own but that of another driver. It takes me back to when the top-brass of Air Corps (for runner of the RAF) didn't consider parachutes were a good idea as it would encourage the air crew to abandon their aircraft. Oh. How times have change and enlightenment finally shone forth. You can be the safest driver in the world but what about the idiots on your same stretch of road?--Aspro (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Many traffic authorities have dispensed with kerbs, road markings and signs having discovered that when motorists and pedestrians have to watch out for each other the accident rate goes down. 2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:50DC:4A16:B6BA:9408 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Do interest-only forever mortgages exist?

Or longer than 40 years? For people who will never have children. Probably still cheaper then renting? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There are various schemes available. See, for example,

and . :2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:50DC:4A16:B6BA:9408 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

These links go to interest-only mortgages that have a finite maturity date, not "forever mortgages", which I doubt exist anywhere. Loraof (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Electronic Frontier Alliance

Are there any sources on the Electronic Frontier Alliance? Benjamin (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The Electronic Frontier Alliance appears to just be a list of organizations considered allies of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. See . It's not an organization unto itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Virtual filibuster

I'd like some information about virtual filibusters. The only thing that Filibuster in the United States Senate says is that their used to "remove the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster". Can you tell me what the rule was before 1975 and how the new rule is applied now? How is it invoked? Beside cloture (and the nuclear option), is there anyway to stop a virtual filibuster? Is there some table (similar to the one in Filibuster in the United States Senate#21st century) that lists talking filibusters versus virtual filibusters? Prior to 1975, would the Senator who started the filibuster have to remain standing on the Senate floor? There was some talk in Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate about a long speech isn't necessarily a filibuster. Does this rule about standing apply to virtual filibusters, which can last many weeks or months (I think)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

John D. Rockefeller's percentage ownership of Standard Oil

What's the approximate percentage of Standard Oil that was owned by John D. Rockefeller before the company was broken up? Even just a a rough estimate would be fine. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

At the beginning in 1870, Rockefeller owned 26.7% of Standard Oil of Ohio (with the rest of his family, it goes up to a cumulative 50%), according to A History of Corporate Governance around the World: Family Business Groups. The same book says it dropped to 25.7% in 1878. The History of the Standard Oil Company - Ida M. Tarbell's exposee (sic) of Standard Oil - extract says "probably nearly one-third was owned by Mr. Rockefeller himself" in 1899. Still digging for later percentages. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Some non-profit organization called the Constitutional Rights Foundation published an article that states Rockefeller owned 25% of the new companies arising from the breakup of Standard Oil, which sort of implies he owned the same percentage in the parent company, possibly, maybe. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, you two! Excellent references. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

He was 41% trustworthy in the '80s. Unless Misplaced Pages made that number up, it should factor in somewhere. People who run trusts still get to have and use the trust's stuff, even if their persons don't technically own it. They approximately own it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

March 25

Tax breaks and the Equal Protection Clause?

Large corporations get tax breaks for locating their factories in a certain state, e.g. Tesla. Why isn't this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Wouldn't the tax code be required to treat all corporate entities equally?

To clarify, I know that it isn't a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. I just don't know the specific legal argument behind it and want to learn more about it, i.e. the mechanism of how individual companies can have special exemptions in the tax code. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk