This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Medeis (talk | contribs) at 03:05, 27 January 2016 (→American preference for off-white versus British preference for bright pastel interior painting: thanks for the comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

January 21

What happens if the rich country you're in can't tell exactly which country to deport you to?

If they know, do they at least give a choice of which port of entry to his/her country to be kicked though? I'm guessing they might not acquiesce if a national of say Mexico is caught in say Brownsville and asks to be dropped off in Tijuana. Do they have to deport a dual national 20,000km to his further country if he asks even if he has a passport for a country that's 1 mile away and deporters' own visa stamp suggests he last came in from there? Does he get cash like a released inmate? Deporting country's currency or his own or his choice? Is there a obligation to give enough to return to his hometown? If he lies limp and refuses to stand would they like handcuff him and take him out of the vehicle and leave him on the ground and remove the cuffs? Do they leave him past the other country's border post or in between them? (though still over the line probably). If he blocks traffic by forcing them to physically block his reentry all day what do they do? If it's an airport where do they leave him? (the runway is not safe) Has a non-diplomatically sensitive non-criminal ever had to live in the "non-customs protected area" of an airport or border crossing for ages because their country wouldn't take them? (maybe they lost their IDs and were able to convince only the deporting country that they belong there, lol). That would really, really suck if you're a first worlder and the only country that'd let your documentless self in was one with Ebola or something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a ton of questions here. A general answer is that deportation is rarely done unilaterally; the procedure follows either an existing general agreement between the two countries, or one specific to the case at hand. The agreement will spell out things like where the person is dropped off, to what authorities, whether he's just put on a plane or escorted all the way back to his country of origin, etc. This is also important to ensure the person has the appropriate documents to re-enter his country of origin; the deportation will usually not go ahead if the country of origin refuses to accept the person. The procedure can be as simple as driving the person to the land border and telling him/her to get lost, or require a coordinated handover to the receiving country's police in the case of a dangerous criminal, and anything in between. In some cases, the person is simply told he must leave the country by a certain date, and he has to figure out how to comply; if he doesn't, he's liable to be arrested, jailed, fined, etc. The person would not normally be given any money, but basic living expenses would be paid during the time he is in the deporting state's custody. And yes, if you're sentenced to be deported, but the authorities are not sure what your true country of origin is, you can stay in limbo for a long time, usually in some form of detention. Most Western countries will also not deport someone to a country where he faces significant danger because of war or unrest, so these people can also stay in a prolonged state of limbo. --Xuxl (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And on the specific case of living for a prolonged period in the "non-customs protected area" of an airport or border crossing as you put it, it has indeed happened. See Mehran Karimi Nasseri. --Xuxl (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In most Western countries, if it is physically impossible to deport someone (e.g. because there is no functioning government, they can't determine what country they are from, or the receiving country refuses to accept them), they would not even try to deport them. Deportations usually happens in one of two cases: one, because it is part of the punishment for a crime under the criminal law, or two, because they have lost their immigration status (whether because of a past crime or not). In the first case, the person would probably end up serving their sentence in the deporting country instead. In the second case, there would be no justification to lock them up, and if there is no reasonable prospect of deporting them, human rights law would probably require them to be released (possibly with some kind of reporting / control procedure, so that they can be deported if the situation changes). This would be the kind of "limbo" Xuxl refers to.

If the reason they can't be deported is some kind of specific targeted danger (e.g. war, or they would be persecuted because they have converted to another religion while in the deporting country), then it's likely that they would get some sort of temporary protection status, or (if they qualify) refugee status, in which case they are likely to be able to legally stay for a further period or even permanently - in which case the person would have escaped limbo. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See for example of the problem the US faces deporting people because the country they're trying to deport them to won't accept them. In NZ, there's the fairly famous case of Ahmed Zaoui who wasn't accused of crimes in NZ and hadn't lived in NZ before he was detained, but who was released on bail while his case was decided although other than suggesting you can't detain migrants indefinitely simply because you don't want them, nothing much was established in the end because the NZ SIS withdrew their objections to his being granted refugeee status . The case of of Thomas Yadegary was similar relating to whether indefinite detention for no crime, pending deportation is allowed although that case also wasn't pursued to the fullest . There was another case which AFAIK never reached the bail issue as the person was granted asylum . As mentioned there and here , there were plans to change the law but I can't recall what eventually happened. It seems to be similar in Canada . However, although not indefinite, the Canadian case in particular but also the other cases establish you can be detained for a long time. I think the Thomas Yadegary in NZ and Canadian case highlight another issue namely that it can sometimes be problematic deporting someone if they completely refuse to cooperate. (As mentioned in the sources, the Canadian case the problem was only one airline would take him, but they required the deportee's agreement that he would cooperate. The sources don't make the NZ case clear but the Iranian authorities required an Iranian passport and so a passport application before they would accept the deportation .) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See Robert Jovicic for a real life example of an Australian who, to use your terminology, probably thought of himself as a "first-worlder", and then was suddenly dumped in Serbia with no money or even any knowledge of the local language. There are other examples of people who were deported from Australia to poorer countries in the "see also" section of that article (although, in the case of Sweden and Germany, only marginally poorer).--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There was also the case of a Chilean national who was an Australian permanent resident, having arrived very young in Australia, who was deported to Chile for a drug offence (I think). Similar cases also in the US: I have heard of a Khmer fellow in a similar situation, who had arrived in the US when he was about 1 year old, got involved in gangs, then committed some drug offences and consequently was deported to Cambodgia (after he finished his sentence) even though he knew nothing of that country and spoke no Khmer. In some continental European countries that could even happen to people actually born in the country as long as some strict version of jus sanguinis was the law (I don't think this is still the case). The argument against such practices is that this is a kind of an additional punishment, that citizens of the country are of course spared, and that this violates the principle of equality before the law. The question is though: why do those idiots never think of becoming naturalized citizens before they begin to get into trouble with the law? Contact Basemetal here 13:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In many of those sorts of cases I've read about, they claim they assumed they had acquired citizenship at a very young age when their parents made the switch. But in that case, where's their Certificate of Citizenship that they would have needed on multiple earlier occasions? They wouldn't have been able to get onto the electoral roll without proof of citizenship, because their birth certificate would show they born outside Australia, so they could never have voted. These days Permanent Residency does not entitle one to electoral enrolment, but it once did - see Australian permanent resident: They do not have the right to vote in federal or state/territory elections, unless they were registered to vote prior to 1984, but may vote in some local government elections. If that were the case, they would know that that was their status. Either way, it's virtually impossible not to know that you're not a citizen of the country you're living in. If that had ever bothered them, they'd have done something about it. -- Jack of Oz 21:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone is interested in voting, and you get most of the benefits of a citizen as a permanent resident anyways. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In my country, it makes no difference whether you're interested or not. Voting is compulsory, for those who are enrolled. Enrolment is also compulsory for those who are eligible to vote. -- Jack of Oz 05:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What about the serial killers and the comatose and the insane? Who decides who's too incapacitated to vote? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As with most things in life, ultimately the courts would if it comes down to that. However in all likelihood (again as with most things in life), the government would either not bother to fine, or will withdraw the fine themselves if a sufficiently good reason is given for not voting. It's my understanding, and this is supported by compulsory voting, enforcement can be a bit sporiadic anyway, especially the follow through if you just ignore the fine (although I presume it's still on record so could make problems). Somewhat like the case with the census in many countries where it's compulsory.

Note that I'm not convinced "serial killer" would be enough to convince a court they are exempted from compulsory voting. However wary of headlines from Murdoch etc publications like "GOVERNMENT WANTS TO FORCE SERIAL KILLER TO VOTE", it's likely it'll never get that far if the person is a known serial killer. (It's funny to imagine someone going to court over their fine and getting up to explain that they didn't vote because they're a serial killer giving a list of the people, times and places, when it wasn't publicly known that they were a serial killer; but I think we can agree such a scenario is unlikely.)

Of course, since Australia does currently practice Felony disenfranchisement#Australia, any prisoner currently serving a prison term 3 years or longer will not be able to vote but it doesn't matter if they are serial killers or something else. (Incidentally, that article looks like it needs. It means the High Court decision but not the law changes which lead up to that decision.)

As a minor nitpick, I don't think JackofOz's claim above is quite correct. implies that such prisoners still have to enrolled, but can't vote. Interesting the wording used there is "can" rather than "must" (or similar) for those in prison who are still eligble to vote. I wonder if this is simply a poor wording choice or compulsory voting is generally not enforced for prisoners.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(I have added a brief note that the total disenfranchisement of prisoners was enacted in 2006, before the discussion on Roach. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC))

My post was a statement of the general situation. Of course there will always be exceptions. -- Jack of Oz 19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Philosophers who write without jargon

I realize that it is debatable and subjective what does and what does not constitute jargon. I also recognize that philosophy is a discipline where precision of ideas and arguments is crucial and, as such, a certain amount of philosophical/academic jargon is probably necessary (as it would be in math or economics or many other fields where you have to prove or provide support for claims).

But even taking the above statements into consideration, which very notable philosophers have a reputation for using relatively less jargon than their peers? They can be from any historical era.

Not looking for figures like Ayn Rand whose followers consider her a philosopher but whose work has found little acceptance in mainstream academia (besides, she uses tons of her own jargon, at least in my opinion).--Captain Breakfast (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Descartes, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, Letters from a Stoic by Seneca, Essays by Montaigne, essays of Bertrand Russell, Plato, among others. Indeed, there is lot of philosophy which is pretty accessible for an educated and interested person.--Llaanngg (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Henri Bergson. Contact Basemetal here 13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

More simple language Stoicism from Epictetus. I'm not that well read in philosophy, but I've never read a Roman philosopher who did not use fairly simple language. My vague WP:OR is that the thing where one word is supposed to stand for a whole page of concepts didn't get started until much later. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think what really makes some philosophers unreadable is not that there are a bunch of technical words and phrases whose meaning must be understood before you can usefully attempt to read their works. So long as those are defined, or at least that their definition can reasonably be analyzed from the context. And that doesn't necessarily mean that you need to assimilate a whole dictionary of philosophical terms first. The deduction of the technical meanings can also be achieved through repeated exposure to their works, to the works that they depend on (they assume known and are responding too) and so on. For example thomism, or scholastic medieval philosophy in general, or neoplatonism, or analytical philosophy, or Kant, require a fair amount of assimilation of technical terms. Mathematics, or logic, or sciences, do too. But what makes things really hard is when language itself becomes really alien as a whole. You don't know if the language is still a "denotational" means to convey some explicit underlying meaning or if the language is the message, if you're reading some kind of poetry, or if the guy is pulling your leg, or if he is deluding himself thinking he's saying something really profound, or if there really is something profound to what he's saying and you're too stupid to get it. Try for example some Michel Foucault and you'll get a sense of what I mean. I started reading "Les Mots et les Choses" long time ago but gave up after 10 pages. Maybe it is a matter of getting into that guy's language, that guy's conceptual world. But life is short. Why take the risk that you'll find after 400 pages and hours of excruciating painful efforts that you still don't get it, when there's so much philosophy out there that you can, if not immediately get, at least immediately enjoy exploring, which, incidentally, increases the chance considerably you'll end up getting it. Anecdotally that kind of difficulty is usually, as far as I know, thought to have started with the Germans, specifically the guys who immediately followed Kant, i.e. German idealism. Not all German philosophers are like that (for example I've actually greatly enjoyed what little Schopenhauer or Nietzsche I have read; and let's not forget that analytical philosophy too was initiated by German speakers) but it is considered to be a trademark of German philosophy and of the French who have tried hard to ape them (pushing, incidentally, the French language in a pretty unnatural direction if you compare with the 17th c. and 18th c. and the trademark brevity and clarity of French writing French writers used to hold as a most desirable goal, "ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement" and all that). In the 20th c. they would be Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, etc. I was told even by some (otherwise pretty literate) native speakers of German that even they are not sure there's there such depth that it's simply beyond their grasp or if those guys are not pulling our collective leg. Contact Basemetal here 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've always found the works of Marcus du Sautoy accessible. I know he's a modern philosopher but still worth a look. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• John Dewey is very readable and I find his writings still applicable, even though most are over 100 years old. He writes in plain language, about philosophical solutions to real world issues (like living in a democratic society, or how to properly educate children to be active participants in a modern liberal democracy, etc.) I highly recommend him. --Jayron32 20:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I find Richard Rorty quite readable and light on jargon. Aristotle, in translation, is also light on jargon. Marco polo (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Russell literally wrote "Philosophy for Laymen". I've only skimmed it. Seems a little wordy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

David Hume is admirably clear, as is William James. At his stylistic best (he used a lot of technical language in the work that makes him a first-class philosopher), Charles Saunders Peirce, notably in How to Make Our Ideas Clear.

A contemporary classic, well-written, and fairly short exploration of the subject is Brand Blanshard's 1953 lecture, On Philosophical Style. He names names, quotes exemplars good and not so well received, posits reasons for both. Recommended reading. PDF -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mohéli

(From Talk:Main page)

Mohéli: On 11 August 1997, Mohéli seceded from the Comoros, a week after Anjouan. Mohéli's secessionist leaders were Said Mohamed Soefu who became President, and Soidri Ahmed, who became Prime Minister. Mohéli quietly rejoined Comoros in 1998.

Does anyone know the exact date of the reunification? I did not find any information in the various language-articles in Misplaced Pages, and I also couldn't find the exact date via Google.--31.17.156.195 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the declaration of independence was always rather limited - more about giving Mohéli's politicians more bargaining power than a serious desire for sovereignty. There was slow reconciliation over the next year, which culminated in Mohéli agreeing to the Antananarivo Agreement on Comoros's territorial integrity probably on the 23 April 1999 (which was eventually signed on 7 July 1999). Smurrayinchester 15:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sin cleansing

Do all religions have a sin cleansing ritual, repent and confess for Christians, Tashlikh for Jewish people, Kumbh Mela for Hindus? --Scicurious (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Satanism doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you could be guessing wrong. There is such a thing as sin in Satanism.--Scicurious (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

But there's no such thing as an afterlife there. No real reason to repent, and unless you were sure whoever you were confessing to cared to hear it, you'd be breaking Rule Two. If you complain about something you needn't subject yourself to (those nine sins), you've broken Rule Eight. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Our article on this topic is Ritual purification. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Erm, Tashlikh doesn't cleanse any sins at all. It's entirely symbolic and is supposed to help the participant enter the right frame of mind and do the right actions for proper repentance, which is altogether rather more tricky than saying a few words and perhaps throwing some crumbs in a river. Sadly, our article on Tashlikh isn't very good. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

January 22

Report on Country Information Guidance on Eritrea

Hi,

I am looking for the "report, published on Friday" mentioned here. Apokrif (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Odd, it doesn't seem to appear on the inspector's website. News reports like the one you link to normally include a link to the published report, as well. Maybe it'll be added to the website next week, I would check back then. --Viennese Waltz 16:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a report here , which matches the general thrust of the report described in the Guardian article, but it's from May 2015. It also doesn't contain the quotations given in the Guardian piece (such as "completely divorced from relevant objective evidence"). Possibly those are from a spoken interview or other form of communication with the report's author, and the journalists got the release date of the underlying report wrong? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like there is actually a recent report but it is not (yet) available (for free). Apokrif (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to say that I'm also looking for the "robust Home Office response to his report" :-) Apokrif (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Then why say it!", he snapped viciously. :) -- Jack of Oz 20:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ginseng

When I was in Appalachia, I was told that Ginseng were found in the Eastern North America and East Asia because these areas were once connected when the species evolved. But looking at a map of Pangea, these two regions were never joined together unless they meant Rodinia or another previous supercontinent. I heard this same story from a botanist in a plant exhibit in the Fernbank Museum in Atlanta as well. The ultimate question is how the Panax family evolved on two geographically separated places and where it originally evolved. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There are 11 species of Ginseng, AFAIK only one American ginseng, is native to Appalachia. American Ginseng is not native to Asia; finding two members of the same genus of plants on different continents is not surprising. See, for example, distribution of species of maple (genus Acer) or Oak (genus quercus). America and Asia have been directly connected many times in the past due to the Bering Land Bridge. --Jayron32 22:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Panax family of the 11 species you mentioned not just American ginseng; better question is where did the common ancestor of most modern ginseng species originate and how they have evolve and distribute across their current endemic regions. America and Asia have been connected by the Bering Land Bridge by Eastern Northern America and the Appalachian Mountains have never been connected to Eastern Asia. What was told to me was that the Appalachian Mountains were part of a larger systems including mountains in Eastern Asia. However, the remnants of the prehistoric Appalachian Mountains were only on the Atlantic coastline. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've always wondered how genuses like "Oak" exist in both Eurasia and North America when it's tundra even now. Trees can't survive there, much less deciduous ones. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that climatic conditions have changed dramatically over millions of years, such that the connecting areas may once have been good environments for the species in question, but no longer are. StuRat (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbelievably you're right that it was warm enough recently. The article says evidence of birch trees was found there which means that high latitude paleoclimatology is very freaky. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And over very long time periods, parts of continents now in polar regions may have been in temperate or even tropical regions. StuRat (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Though the longer it is the less likely that there wouldn't be divergent evolution. A few things are living fossils but they are the exception. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

January 23

First book written by an English monarch

What was the first book written by an English monarch?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Alfred the Great's law code or his translation of Gregory the Great's Pastoral Care, both thought to have been done in the 880s. Rmhermen (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The Law of Æthelberht by Æthelberht of Kent is older (about 610). However, although Æthelberht was an English king, he wasn't king of England. Tevildo (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither was Alfred, strictly. Rojomoke (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Alfred was notably literate, but The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible by Paul D. Wegner says that his translations were made "with his helpers". It seems quite unlikely that any king would sit down and write a legal code in the modern sense of an author writing a book, there would be advisers and scribes to do the donkey work. King Henry VIII famously wrote Assertio Septem Sacramentorum "Defence of the Seven Sacraments" which runs to some 150 pages of modern print. Edward VI and Victoria were keen diarists, but otherwise kingship and literary achievement don't seem to be common bedfellows. Alansplodge (talk)

Unusual but not completely absent. Richard I was a noted poet/songwriter. He wrote poems in both French (his father's mother tongue) and Occitan (his mother's mother tongue) and set them to music (as was customary at the time). Unfortunately none of it has come down, except for two poems w/o their melody. (Cf. ). Henry VIII (besides what was mentioned by Alan) wrote poetry in English and set it to music. (Cf. ). And it is not impossible that Henry IV (or Henry V, less probably though, as he couldn't have learned much counterpoint hanging out and getting drunk with John Falstaff?) was a composer capable of writing contrapuntal music good enough to be preserved in the Old Hall Manuscript. (Cf. Roy Henry). None of this amounts to "books". Just responding to Alan. Note none of them were particularly idle kings that didn't know what to do with their time. Contact Basemetal here 18:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The subsequent question has reminded me that James VI and I was given to writing diatribes, notably A Counterblaste to Tobacco. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to involve true Scotsmen, James I also deserves a mention. (Cf. The Kingis Quair). Contact Basemetal here 14:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by mentioning the king is queer, Basemetal, but Alansplodge already mentioned James I some 17 hours prior. μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL. You know he didn't. Contact Basemetal here 07:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Identify a quotation

Based on the above question. "Since writing of books has grown into a trade, it is as discreditable for a King to become an author as it would be for him to be a practitioner in a profession." This quotation appears in many anthologies and collections of bons mots from the early nineteenth century, some of which attribute it to "A certain eminent critic of James I." Can we track it down more precisely, in particular by identifying the author? Tevildo (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The google-hits I get, using that particular wording, seem to stem from the source, "Amenities of Literature, Consisting of Sketches and Characters of English Literature" by Isaac D'Israeli, 1868 (Google books, unable to get a direct link). No, wait, there's an older one: The Literary Gazette: A Weekly Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts. 1841 (Google books, unable to get direct link) Same author, and the statement is attributed to "others" (than the Cavillers). The phrase I searched for was "discreditable for a King to become an author" (in quotes) on Google. --NorwegianBlue 22:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It was James Montague, Bishop of Winchester and James I's chaplain, in his preface to the king's collected works; he was not speaking for himself, but rather paraphrasing unnamed opponents prior to rebutting them. Text from archive.org jnestorius 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Exact quote:

And since that Booke-writing is growen into a Trade ; It is as dishonorable for a King to write bookes ; as it is for him to be a Practitioner in a Profession.

jnestorius 23:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much! The substitution of "become an author" for "to write bookes" probably explains why the trail goes cold in about 1820 for my wording. My curiosity is adequately satisfied, but if we can find out who Montague was quoting, so much the better. Tevildo (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

January 24

Impromptu Masses

The recent major blizzard in the eastern USA stranded lots of people on lots of highways, and numerous news sources are talking about one specific incident: a group of Catholic students, with a priest from the Dakotas as one of the chaperones, wanted to worship together while stuck on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bedford County, so the students gathered snow to form an altar, and the priest celebrated Mass. Story, if you're interested. Questions:

1. When a priest travels outside the diocese of which his parish is a component, does he normally need permission from the local ordinary to celebrate Mass? And if so, is there an exception for extraordinary circumstances, like this one? Bedford County is in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, but given the weather and similar issues, I don't imagine them being able to reach Bishop Mark Bartchak just to get special permission for a Mass.
2. Given the number of items (candles, for example) used in a typical Mass, and the absence of ordinary altar materials along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I'm left wondering about the details. Does canon law make exceptions for "emergency" situations in which the faithful desire a Mass and some of the components are missing? And can the priest consecrate the snow pile as an altar? Altar (Catholicism) mentions the universal use of altars (I don't imagine that anyone's going to compare this priest to Theodore, Bishop of Tyre, celebrating Mass on the hands of his deacons), but I didn't see anything here about temporary altars.

Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick thought. Maybe they are using the word "mass" loosely? Not so much of a "real" mass, as much as it is a priest simply leading them in prayer? Perhaps? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you go,a full discussion of it.Basically,yes he can.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=798119 Hotclaws (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As to the paraphernalia required, see Communion Travel Kit. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I've just found a "value" version in cardboard and plastic for GBP 14.72 (= USD 21.00) with free delivery. Seems to be aimed at the Protestant market though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, per my informant, a mass has to be celebrated with an altar, as noted above, and an altar requires the presence of at least a third-order relic. First-order relics include body parts, second-order relics are things such as belongings, and third-order relics are "associated" with a saint. See Catholic relic. The source for this comment is my father, who was educated by Jesuits before Vatican II; so take my comment for what it is. But he says most priests carry third-order relics, and one can be assured Vatican II did not make that requirement stricter. Also, what news source is going to enquire whether the priest was carrying a relic? μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers

Regarding serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers: are there any examples of such killers that span a generation? In other words, as an example, the father was a serial killer, and the son ended up being one, also. I specify serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers simply to distinguish them from "garden variety" and "everyday" typical murders. I am quite sure there are a lot of parents/children who would fall into that latter category. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're counting those who were never arrested and just called the shots, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush come to mind. Dracula also had a son in 1943. Francis Paul Weaver's father and grandfather were both convicted of double murders, then he was charged with another. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

Caesar and his adoptive son Augustus? Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan? If you include state crimes, there are many examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And indeed, if you include organised crime (and the variant of it sometimes called "business"), there should be many examples. I'm quite sure that the business of the Atlantic slave trade was passed down the family line. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I never thought about organized crime and the Mafia, etc. I am sure they must run across generations of same-family killers. But, I guess that is more of a "business enterprise", rather than a random act of murder (like a Ted Bundy or a Jeffrey Dahmer). I think? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is all very witty (and true) but I doubt this is what the OP is looking for. "More matter, with less art", is likely to be more useful to the OP, if that's your goal. Now this is probably not going to satisfy the OP either, but I'll offer it anyway: Pándy András with his daughter (and incestuous lover) Ágnes. The problem with this case is probably that they were accomplices in one killing spree, not independent killers several years or decades apart. Contact Basemetal here 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious BLP violation in referring to our presidents as "serial killers", the definition of a serial killer is pretty specific and narrow. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant to imply they're mass murderers, not serial killers. They technically aren't, so I didn't technically refer to them as such. I'm technically innocent. Besides, BLP is looser about public figures, especially when the claim's already out there. Vincent Bugliosi is 21-0 at prosecuting murders, put Manson away for not technically killing anyone and wrote The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Um, they weren't mass murderers either. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this is one of the several cases of people with a liberal agenda trying to push their POV here. Scicurious (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not every liberal considers their president to be a serial killer. Warfare, capital punishment and abortion may be homicides of a sort, but legally they are not murder. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Most importantly, these are almost certainly not the kind of cases the OP was looking for. When about to give a query a clever and entertaining answer think whether it may not also take the whole thread on a tangent and in the end deny the OP answers that would have been of interest to him. Contact Basemetal here 16:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The legendary Sawney Bean was a 17th century Scottish alleged serial killer, whose whole family - wife, children and grandchildren - were said to have participated in mass murder. To be fair, the victims were eaten by the family afterwards, which seems less wasteful somehow. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. After reading the responses, I re-read my original question. And I guess I was not clear. So, to clarify: I am looking for multiple generations of the same family who committed the crimes a generation apart. Not family members who "worked together" on the same crime. For example, something like this: Ted Bundy was a serial killer in 1980; his son became a serial killer in 2000. Stuff like that. Not a father and son -- together -- went out and did serial killings. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ward Weaver Jr. killed two or more victims in multiple locations with almost no time break between murders. Seems to make him a spree killer, by FBI standards. 21 years later, his kid did much the same, just with a longer break between victims. If you need them to be serial killers, I know of no third murder for the latter, but it wouldn't be surprising, given all the times he was caught assaulting and raping girls over the decades. As for his dad, there's a certain vibe of habit one gives off when murdering young hitchhikers, rather than a garden-variety wife, business partner or drug dealer. Just hunches, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

As far as Ward Weaver III: the article says that the son only committed that one murder. Were there more? The article says: On February 17, 2014, Weaver's son Francis was arrested and charged with murder. He and three others had allegedly robbed and killed a drug dealer in Canby, Oregon the day prior. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I added that part yesterday, thanks to this thread. Nothing proven in court on him, so far. But Junior is III's dad, not his son. Those are the two I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the answer is that nobody has found one and they're trying to be helpful by mentioning cases that are similar to the one you're looking for. Dismas| 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yury Odnacheva, son of Andrei Chikatilo, was arrested for murder in 2009, but that was only one murder, not 109. There are a few father/son (and mother/son) pairings listed at Category:Criminal duos, but that doesn't satisfy the criterion of separate crimes. Tevildo (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

While violence "breeding" violence (and so to with sexual assault) isn't uncommon, one of the more extreme cases albeit not fitting the OP's requirements seems to be the case of Thomas Soria Sr. et al. Thomas Soria Sr. was molested by his stepbrother at a young age. About 10 years later his stepbrother then went on to sexually assault, torture and murder the stepmother (i.e. Thomas Soria Sr.'s mother) who's body was found by Thomas Soria Sr. A few years later, an uncle of the stepbrother killed 3 and wounded 9 after a minor dispute in a bar. Thomas Soria Sr. has a son who he sexually assaults. He later sexual assaults his son's girlfriends, and even gets his new wife to also have sex wih the son. Eventually he demands the son (now a young adult) bring him a girl and the son promptly obeys bringing him a young girl who someone probably Sr ends up murdering, a murder they both definitely tried to cover up . Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Crazy scenario! I only quickly scanned those links. I will read them more closely later. But who exactly is the Mozingo guy from your third link? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That is the uncle of the step brother. The step brother who murdered Soria Sr's mother. Some sources call him the step-uncle of Soria Sr, but I'm not sure whether they had much relationship even before the mother's murder however it's possible they did. From the surnames, I'm guessing Douglas was the brother of the stepbrother's father/Soria's stepfather. For obvious reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have much relationship after the mother's murder. (But I don't really know, although already an adult, the stepfather was part of Soria Sr's life for quite a while before the murder. So it's possible Soria Sr maintained seem sort of relationship with the stepfather and/or other members of the family after the mother's murder.) Douglas himself killed 3 people but this happened after the stepbrother murdered Soria Sr's mother. The story would probably be a little easier to understand if I used the other names, but I've avoided naming people who are possibly alive even those who are murderers. Both Soria Sr and Douglas are dead, according to official sources from suicide. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, what a crazy family tree. Hard to keep track of all the twists and turns. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In the middle ages, how did they enforce serfdom?

What stopped a serf from moving to another place? Obviously, he would be destitute, but couldn't he just go work to another feudal lord, or go to a monastery? What would prevent an exchange of serfs? If some manor needed a milkmaid and the other a strong peasant, couldn't they come to an agreement, if each of both serfs where at a place where they were not needed? --Scicurious (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Under English law, a villein could exchanged between lords (with both lords' consent). He would be free after living (openly) in London or a royal borough for a year and a day, but his lord could prevent this by force. A villein who went to work for a new lord could be retrieved by his previous lord in the courts, using the writ of neifty (de nativo habendo) against the villein's new lord. Tevildo (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the relevant section (in translation) from Comyns' Digest. Tevildo (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Serfs could be exchanged, but they would be included with the land to which they were attached - for example, if a lord sold a piece of his land to someone else (another lord, or the church), the sale could include the people who lived and worked there. I'm not sure if serfs were ever traded like modern athletes, actually leaving one territory for another, since they were considered to be "tied to the land". And sometimes serfdom couldn't be enforced, for example after the Black Death. See Consequences of the Black Death#Impact on peasants and the Peasants' Revolt in England. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Did serfs even consider leaving? Didn't they stay in the same restricted area their whole lives? Wouldn't anyplace else be terra incognita, strange and somewhat terrifying? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, I think this is really important, and very hard for us moderns to grok. Hard to find refs for this kind of claim though, maybe someone else can help out? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to find out what serfs thought about anything, since they typically didn't write things down, and the people who did write things down didn't really care to find out what the serfs thought. I don't think they were that much different from us though. You can imagine travelling to somewhere you've never been, so why couldn't they? They're still human. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but humans with no real knowledge about or experience with the rest of the world and without the resources and safeguards we mostly take for granted. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Most European countries had laws against vagrancy in an effort to stop people wandering about on the offchance that somebody might employ them. Alansplodge (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• The serf had no or almost no capital to bring with him, and the lord had no or almost no free land to give him. This is why the monasteries and free cities were so important. The Black death was hugely important in making day labor a liberating factor to otherwise serfs who'd've starved to death prior to the plague. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

January 26

American preference for off-white versus British preference for bright pastel interior painting

My observations may be totally nuts, in which case please tell me. But it seems to me that most American homes I have seen in person, and homes depicted in TV shows that I have seen, have off-white colored walls; while British shows, like Keeping Up Appearances and As Time Goes By have more saturated pastel colors. Is this an accurate perception about which there exists notable commentary? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not accurate. Most houses here are largely off white as well, apart from perhaps one feature wall. The colours you describe would be considered quite old fashioned. Fgf10 (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with Fgf10. Bland off white schemes are certainly prevalent in rented properties, but many owner-occupiers prefer bolder colours. It's difficult to find sources that aren't based on personal opinion or sales pitches, but this article at least attempts to give an overview: "According to George Home, 95% of Brits ‘take risks’ with their interior design schemes, and sales of coloured emulsion paints are up 495% from last year*. These impressive figures show that Britain is certainly ready to make a big, bold statement when it comes to their interiors. This surge in colour and ‘risk taking’ shows, in my opinion, that we’re ready to have more fun with our homes. It also means that bold colour doesn’t always have to be bright — darker, moody tones are fashionable too. Interior stylist Sally Cullen suggests that this rise in popularity ‘can be attributed to a rejection of the “blank canvas” look that has been popular in recent years and a move towards a new trend of customising homes in more colourful ways that truly reflect individual tastes, lifestyles and attitudes....". Without any direct comparisons of paint sales, though, it's difficult to be objective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bold colours and pastel colours are quite different things in my mind. Maye this where the disagreement comes from. I assumed the OP (given the references) meant the classic lilacs and light greens etc. I still say those would be considered old fashioned, and these days you would be much more likely to see either (off) white or full on colours. Fgf10 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said saturated. I simply meant boldly unwhite, such as lilac or sea-green, although I think Elizabeth & Emmet's main room is brick red, IIRC. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your observation of British homes is based on 2 programmes that are both quite old, both of which featured characters that are fuddy-duddy. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I am older and fuddy-duddier than those shows, FYI. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, fashions in interior design tend to change. Did American houses fifty years ago use saturated pastel colors? Dbfirs 15:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In the 1960s-1970s, many interiors were some combination of avocado green, mustard yellow, and burnt orange. You can see those colors dominate in these images here. --Jayron32 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those pics. I recognise the yellow and orange flowered wallpaper, but can't remember whose wall in the UK I saw it on. (Not sure that I want to!) Dbfirs 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's funny, Jayron, I forgot that the house my parents bought in the early seventies had wax-dripped wallpaper painted avocado green and had orange rugs. But they were very quickly corrected to off-white. (This may also have to do with the preference for colonials in the Northeast. There was a lawsuit involved when a neighbour a few blocks away painted his house violet.) My impression of British decorating schemes was not limited to the two shows I mentioned, they were only examples. But as I said, judging a foreign country by its TV shows may simply be nuts. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Typical lifespan among the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned between 1035/7 and 1504

What was the typical lifespan among the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned between 1035/7 and 1504? What was the most common age the majority among them (combined) died at? Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has articles on every monarch of both of those countries. See List of Castilian monarchs and List of Aragonese monarchs. If you then click on the name of each monarch, it will take you to their biography, each of which lists the birth and death dates, where known. See, for example, the first ruler listed at the Kings of Castile, Ferdinand I of León. If you look in the infobox on the right side, near the bottom, it lists his birth date, his death date, and the age at which he died. You can research each monarch that way, and then compile the information to answer your question. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was actually hoping the Misplaced Pages's reference desk could answer my question. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If someone were to come by to do so, they would have to do exactly what you would need to do. The information is all in each article, someone just has to compile it. I suppose, someone might get bored and eventually compile it for you, but the likelihood of that happening is low, as (so far) you are the person who is most interested in the information, you are thus the most likely to be willing to put in the effort to compile it from readily available sources. Thus, it would be faster, and take less time and energy, for you to do it yourself. It's right there. The work you're avoiding doing would be what someone else would have to do anyways. Of course, this is not to prevent anyone from doing it. Someone might. If you need the information yourself, however, no one here will prevent you from doing it. --Jayron32 00:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of characters

I was going to post this on the "Entertainment" Help Desk, since my question relates to TV shows and movies. But, it also relates to Literature and books, novels, etc. So I will post it here. Sometimes, a work of art (a TV show, film, novel, etc.) will have a lot of characters, and sometimes only a few characters. When there are a lot of characters (that is, "too many" characters), it is hard for the audience to keep track of things. And it is also harder for the writer to devote time/attention and character development to each character. So, are there any types of studies -- or is there any industry "standard" -- as to what constitutes a good number of characters versus having "too many" (or even "too few", I guess) characters? The conversation came up with regard to the old TV show Head of the Class, where there were about eleven (!) or more "main characters". And also the TV show Eight Is Enough, which had eight kids, plus the other adult characters. These both seem like "too much", and clearly each of the eleven (or eight) characters cannot be developed to any satisfactory degree. Any insights? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how much of a character's background is relevant for the story. I actually thought 12 Angry Men did a pretty good job in less than 100 minutes depicting 12 distinct characters. - Lindert (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good example. I haven't seen the film in a long time. Weren't there really only three or four jurors who were main characters? And the other seven or eight were much less significant? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "main". There really was only one main character; The Henry Fonda character. The rest probably got equal screen time and contributions to the script. I haven't done a word count, but I don't know that any of the 11 jurors NOT Henry Fonda had any dominant contributions. But the film does do a good job of developing each of those 11 so they all stand as fairly distinctive. I can picture each one and his key monologue (each has one) in the film, that's the point of the film: each on had some key personal history that made them misjudge the case; as each becomes convinced to change their mind, you find out that personal history. --Jayron32 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Insofar as one of them has to be the antagonist, I would say it was #3 (Lee J Cobb). But I agree that it wouldn't really work without (at least) #4, #5, #7, #9 and #10. See Ensemble cast for the relevant article. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It depends. More characters may be OK, as long as they act in groups. For example, on The Brady Bunch, plots frequently worked out to "the boys" against "the girls", or "the parents" against "the kids" (with Alice as a bystander or joining one of the sides). In that case, the viewer didn't need to keep all 9 characters' opinions on an issue straight. Other episodes focused on a single character or two, so again you didn't need to much worry about the rest. In a movie you can have more characters, especially if they are separated in space or time. That is, extra people from a character's childhood, like now dead grandparents, don't cause much confusion. Another example of a film series with multiple characters is Ocean's 11 and all the remakes/sequels. What really gets confusing is if they try to cast a "tall woman with curly red hair", and can't decide who to hire for the role, so hire a dozen of them, and create roles for each. (If you're going to have lots of characters, at least make sure they don't all look alike.) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Various 19th-century (and later) epic novels recognise the issue of "too many characters for the reader to keep track of", by including a sort of "who's who" list at the front, showing their connections one to another. War and Peace is the perfect example. It's been a long time since I tried, and failed, to read Les Misérables, but I think a remember the same list there. And anything involving the Roman Empire. -- Jack of Oz 21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If you mean non-fiction (or maybe "inspired by real life"), then yes, real life has too many characters to keep track of in a work of fiction. Sometimes this is handled by combining the features of similar people into one. Even when going from a book to a movie, this step is sometimes needed to simplify things. For example, the Wizard of Oz film combined the good witches of the North and South. (They didn't combine the wicked witches of the East and West, but since one was killed right off, there was no need to get to know her.) StuRat (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No hard numbers, but here is a guide to deciding if a work may have too many characters, based on primary/secondary status, how important they are, etc. You could apply this scheme to some of the examples here and see if they pass this "test". Here is someone else's opinion on how to assess if a work has too many (or too few) characters . Here's TVtropes' on "Loads and Loads of Characters" . SemanticMantis (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the OP's premise as far as TV goes. Over the course of a season or multiple seasons, there's plenty of time to flesh out the characters. I'm sure fans of Lost didn't get lost (at least not for that reason), nor did viewers of Taxi, Twin Peaks, Battlestar Galactica etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in a series you have enough time to flesh out more characters, but at the risk of confusing people who miss episodes. This may have been solved by view on demand (no link ?), though, so now you don't have to miss any. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You should demand a refund. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a satire of the sitcom phenomena called Too Many Cooks. Not a "real" family show, but does a good job of mirroring them. Aside from the gory part, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

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