Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.
Humanities #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #36b #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia How can I get my question answered? Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question. Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Post your question to only one desk. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days. 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. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia: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.

skip to bottom Choose a topic: Computing desk Entertainment desk Humanities desk Language desk Mathematics desk Science desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help manual

March 20

Confused about satire

Hi there. I read an article (link) on a usually serious news website and I'm not sure if it's satire or serious. I can't find anything on Google. Perhaps somebody here is better than me at using Google and can enlighten me. Thanks for your help--Asker of questions (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's serious.
Sleigh (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure it's usually "serious"? I can't see the point, if that article is satirical. Flippant, sure. The one it links to is what I'd call serious, though I reach the page in error. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Destruction of copyright-infringing works

Let's say I'm an obscure photographer, and I publish some photos that get copied (without permission) and sold by a more famous artist whose works sell for large amounts of money. If I sue him for copyright infringement and win, why would destruction of the unsold copies be ordered by the court? See Cariou v. Prince: I don't understand why the district court would order the destruction of the unsold prints, rather than ordering that all royalties go to the original photographer or something of the sort. It's not like a professional photographer would be likely to request destruction if the alternative was being awarded potentially large amounts of money. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

They didn't order the prints destroyed. They ordered the defendants to "within ten days of the date of this Order deliver up for impounding, destruction, or other disposition, as Plaintiff determines, all infringing copies of the Photographs, including the Paintings and unsold copies of the Canal Zone exhibition book, in their possession, custody, or control and all transparencies, plates, masters, tapes, film negatives, discs, and other articles for making such infringing copies." (Emphasis added.) It is, of course, within the rights of the copyright holder to decide how many copies of his work will exist. --65.94.50.15 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Swapping sisters

I am attracted to the sister of one of my friends. But my friend is also single and so are two of my sisters. So a thought crossed my mind. He could introduces me to his sister, and I introduce him to either of my sisters. I don't date so I'm only interested in marriage. So is such a thing common, and is there an article about it on wikipedia? Recent questioners12 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The closest article I can find on wikipedia is arranged marriage. Here are two articles about "sister swapping" that explain a little about the practice, who does it, what the problems are, etc [1] [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes also known as "parallel marriage" or "parallel weddings", here's an academic paper on the topic [3], it also discusses cousins marrying cousins, and other types of marriage arrangements done in Baragon. This [4] says that "sister swapping" is also a Kurdish tradition, known as "Berdel." SemanticMantis (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the brief stub article on Berdel from the Tr Wikipedia [5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

See also double cousin, the term used to describe the relation between the children of such marriages. -- ToE 23:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonas in the Whale

In Moby-Dick, chapter LV (Of the Monstrous Pictures of Whales), Melville wrote:

In old Harris's collection of voyages there are some plates of whales extracted from a Dutch book of voyages, A.D. 1671, entitled "A Whaling Voyage to Spitzbergen in the ship Jonas in the Whale, Peter Peterson of Friesland, master." In one of those plates the whales, like great rafts of logs, are represented lying among ice-isles, with white bears running over their living backs. In another plate, the prodigious blunder is made of representing the whale with perpendicular flukes.

Are Harris's collection and the Dutch book authentic historical works, and do they survive today? -- ToE 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any information about the supposed Dutch book, but Friderich Martens published a German book in 1675 that does describe that voyage, which is definitely historical. It can be found on google books, but I don't see the described plates in that book. - Lindert (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Side question, is Jonas a normal variant or a misprint? I always thought, and google seems to confirm it's normally Jonah. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Jonah, some say "Jonas". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Apparently a misprint/variant of the Dutch rendition. The Statenvertaling, or "States Translation", from 1637 used "Jona", as does a modern translation. So, not "Jonah", but not "Jonas", either. — Lomn 00:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The King James Bible apparently uses "Jonas". That's the Bible I use, and I hadn't noticed. Maybe because they use "Jonah" in their Book of Jonah. Same guy, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Probably Greek influence. One can find "Zecharias", "Elias", and other hellenised forms of Hebrew names in its edition of the New Testament, because (not surprisingly) the original Greek text uses hellenised forms. That's also why Silas appears under a Latin name sometimes, "Silvanus": the KJV translators sought to produce a word-for-word translation, rather than producing something with English usages such as consistent names. Newer translations seem more often to present the names consistently; after all, the NT text includes a translation of the original Hebrew names, rather than its names being original. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

In the same place Jesus' sentence is translated as "Jonas", He also calls it a "whale", whereas the usual translation in the story of Jonah itself is a "great fish". Does Greek vs. Hebrew also account for that discrepancy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Hebrew and Greek are different, but neither is very specific. The Hebrew just used the normal word for "fish" (דָּג) in combination with the adjective "great/large" (גָּדוֹל). The Greek κῆτος means "any sea-monster or huge fish" [6]. It doesn't appear that people in ancient times made a clear distinction between fish and fish-like mammals; even in English, "whale fish" used to be a common term, and Dutch still uses the cognate "walvis". - Lindert (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Hebrew text switches between the fish being male and female, leading to Midrashic exegesis that Jonah actually went through swallowing/regurgitation twice. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Melville himself in Moby-Dick considers the arguments for a whale being a mammal, but finally decides that whales are actually fish. Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hah, now you're discussing my name! And yes, some call the biblical prophet “Jonas” and some call him “Jonah”. – b_jonas 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What a wonderful undertaking is Archive.org - see Spitzbergische oder groenlandische Reise Beschreibung gethan im Jahr 1671 in nice blackletter font; I wish I could read German. Here is the picture of the polar bears having a walk on the whales' backs, and this must be the representation of "the whale with perpendicular flukes". I'm not so sure that this is entirely fair, the artist has possibly shown them twisted into the vertical plane so that their size can be illustrated; what appears to be a little sketch of the view from the nose (marked "e") shows the flukes in their correct position. I also like the previous page, which shows a very jolly walrus. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all, particularly Alansplodge. I've long been intrigued by Jonas in the Whale being named not just after a person, but after a person at a particular place and time. (Might they have named its tender Jonas Lying Fainted Next to a Worm-Smitten Gourd?) I don't know of any other ships named similarly. -- ToE 16:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Germans in the US was often called "Dutch", I am wondering whether Melvilles usage of "Dutch" couldn't be similar here? It seems especially likely since Moby Dick is written in that peculiar blend of archaic and "folkish" American-English. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dutch occasionally refers to Germans, mostly the Plattdeutsch, which the Mennonites/Amish largely are, but in most cases it refers to the Netherlands, and the Dutch were far mare noted for their sailing than the Bavarians. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Saddhiyama; "...it is a fact that in the English of the 18th and 19th centuries, the word "Dutch" referred to anyone from a wide range of Germanic regions, places that we now distinguish as the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. At that time "Dutch" was a broader term that meant what we today call Flemish, Dutch or German. The terms "High Dutch" (German) and "Low Dutch" (Dutch, "nether" means "low") were used to make a clearer distinction between what we now call German (from Latin) or Dutch (from Old High German)." [7] Further to User:Thinking of England's point about the peculiarity of Jonas in the Whale as a ship's name, the only comparable phrase I can think of is "Daniel in the lion's den", however I have been unable to find an actual ship of that name. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Finally, I have found an English translation published as part of John Narborough's An Account of Several Late Voyages and Discoveries, London 1711, rather badly digitised by the Internet Archive. Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 21

History of average number of years getting formal education

How has the number of years that we spend getting an education grown along the centuries? How many people studied and for how long at all back at the days of the Roman empire, Middle Ages, Modern era and so on? --Fend 83 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure the question can be answered... because the very concept of what "an education" means has changed. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but we do have some articles that might help - Education in ancient Greece, Education in ancient Rome, cathedral school, monastic school, medieval university... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Raising of school leaving age has some information, but focused on recent decades. Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales goes back to the 19th century in regard to England and Wales, and similar things occurred in other countries, especially English-speaking ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Beavis and Butthead

Why are Beavis and Butthead always shaking and kind of laughing constantly? They are doing this all of the time and I wonder why they both do this. --Gaffearedding (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussions have established that this is not a discussion forum for asking opinions or speculation about unspecified character motivations. If the information you want is not present in the series (which would make this question unnecessary), there's little chance we can answer this question. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Primarily, because they're drawn that way. Aside from that, they're hyperactive and stupid. Beavis in particular eats way too much sugar. They both watch too much TV, and take a lot of shots to the head. That much is in the show. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Jessica Rabbit already got it right in her popular quote: "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way." The same applies to Beaves and Butthead. --Noopolo (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit, I stole it from her. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Some cultural critics have commented and attempted to analyze the "heh-heh-heh" and "huh-huh-huh" of B&B-H:

For example Paul Lewis in the chapter "Joking Criminals and Criminal joking: Killers and Copycats in Beavis and Butt-Head, Bumfights, and Jackass", pp 56ff in Cracking Up: American Humor in a Time of Conflict (University of Chicago Press, 2006, ISBN 9780226476995)

"a laugh track for fantasy escapes from nuance, reflection, subtlety, and, perhaps most of all, empathy" / "the sadism of their humor flows [...] from and amoral disregard for the consequences of their actions"

or Douglas Kellner in the chapter "Beavis and Butt-Head: no future for postmodern youth", pp 143ff in Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between the Modern and the Post-modern (Routledge, 1995, ISBN 9781134845705)

(their laughter) "may signify that in their space they rule, that Beavis and Butt-Head are sovereign, that they control the television and can do any damn thing they want".

Both authors are more nuanced in their diagnostics than these quotes might suggest. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

To add a bit of OR to that last point (thought it may have been published, too), Butt-head rules the couch zone. There, he's the cool, smart, leader. Hence, he has the lazier, confident "huh huh huh". Beavis, as his sole subject, shares in his glory and wisdom, but is also the only one around to take the whippings. That, and the lack of confidence in his own stupid ideas, is why his "heh heh heh" is a higher, faster nervous laughter.

When they're in Todd's zone, Butt-head's laugh kicks up a notch and his willpower drops, almost to Beavis levels, because Todd is the coolest guy in the world. Beavis doesn't think so, but defers to Butt-head's judgment.

It may be the only reason Beavis laughs at all, this fitting in. And Butt-head may just find it amusing. But that's for the highest judge to declare as fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

And yeah, at the south pole, there's Stewart. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

After a couple of hours of watching old episodes, I've found two things that stop the laughter: Bad standup comedy, in "Comedians", and mass nudity, in "Naked Colony". In the first case, Butt-head started up again after getting the idea to become a comic, and Beavis immediately followed suit. In the second, they were paralyzed for hours. Beavis comes to first, asking "Hey, Butt-head. Did you see that?" Butt-head says "Yeah...huh huh", again starting Beavis' "heh heh".

Suggests again that Butt-head's the catalyst. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

March 22

Learning performing arts

Any open course sites where course content pf performing arts (acting) can be accessed ? Where can I download class lectures ?

Learnerktm 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried iTunesU?

Typically, most performance artists learn most of the important stuff on the job. The essence is in connecting with people, and figuring out what does that best comes with trial, error and listening to criticism. Even if you just intend to work in film, you'll need to impress in auditions and on-set. Best to train with people, too.

That's not what you asked, but it's a free mini-lecture. I'm not certified to give paid ones, so take it as you will. Here's WikiHow as a bonus. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Age of Cambridge University Press Bible by edition notice

I have a Cambridge University Press Bible whose leather is impressed with "French Morocco", which would imply that it was printed between 1912-1956. However, its edition notice does not include dates. It says:

Published by the Syndics of Cambridge University Press
Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB
American Branch: 32 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022

Printed in Great Britain
at the University Printing House, Cambridge

This is clearly not the modern form of edition notice. I was wondering whether that fact could help me further rein in the possible printing dates: Does anyone know when the modern edition notice, which contains copyrights, ISBNs and printing dates, first became the standard in British printing? --2.98.123.111 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Postcodes in the United Kingdom, modern 6 character alphanumeric post codes in the UK didn't exist until 1959, so the 1956 date seems too early. In fact, if I'm understanding the article correctly, the NW1 post code probably didn't come until 1970. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

And the American ZIP codes weren't introduced until 1963.Taknaran (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, and French Morocco is a name for imitation (made of sheepskin) Morocco leather, says that article. Also, some information in Copyright notice might be relevant - though a Bible is public domain - it says such a notice was required up to 1989 in America (so I suppose it's unlikely a big company would omit it) and has been optional since. There are also some interesting dates give in How to Identify Simon and Schuster First Editions - I could not find something similar for Cambridge University Press but the dates in that article possibly reflect standard practice in America. Taknaran (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, was going to say something similar to the ZIP code point. Further evidence, take a look at this from 1962 [8], with neither ZIP code nor post code (and also a Nigerian office). As for the copyright notice, as you mentioned if it isn't a modern translation, there may be nothing anyone can claim copyright over. The example above does include a simple claim of copright which may have been sufficient for the US and most other countries. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems the 1970 date is probably right. None of these, probably from 1968 [9], 1969 [10] [11], 1970 [12] [13] [14]; have the UK post code. Meanwhile these probably from 1971 [15] [16] do not. While these also probably from 1971 [17] [18] do have the UK post code. So I expect the bible is 1971 (perhaps 1970) or later. Note that these tend to have simple claims of copyright too except for one which sounds to be a bit old, some I'm guessing it may be similar, no claim of copyright. Interesting these do tend to have standard book numbers and often US Library of Congress numbers. All 1971 ones seem to have ISBNs. It may be they didn't bother with that for a bible. Note that they all have some date, generally the copyright one, or often a reprinted date. Again, I would guess they didn't bother for a bible. (This is also the reason I say probably. I'm assuming the latest date is the date of printing, but I could be wrong, e.g. if someone forgot to update it (although this would probably mean they didn't update the other stuff anyway so it's a moot point for out purposes). Also depending on how it was implemented, they may not have be entirely consistent in stuff either. So it wouldn't be completely surprising if a book printed in February 1971 has a UK post code, but one in November 1971 doesn't. Hence the possibility of 1970. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Final quicky comment. These probably from 1974 [19] [20] as with these probably from 1975 [21] [22] have the same addresses as above only. These probably from 1975 [23] [24] have an Australian and Cambridge, UK address. Bearing in mind the above caveats (they may not have been entirely consistent, can't be sure of dates), I would suspect 1975 or may be a bit later would be the upper bound year. I did try looking for the Australian address in 1974, couldn't find anything but results which weren't from 1974 (reprints or Google error), except for one I wasn't sure what year. Of course there's also OCR difficulties and the the unknown sample of books Google even has indexed, but it wouldn't surprise me if 1975 was then they started with the Australian and Cambridge addresses. There is a slight possibility that they went back to the same 2 address at some stage later, but probably not. (I saw a small number more examples besides the ones were I particularly looked for it with Australian or Cambridge addresses.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne, I think that you misread our "Postcodes in the United Kingdom" article which says; "On 1 May 1967 postcodes were introduced in Croydon.". I grew up in London in the 1960s and we certainly didn't use any post code other than the London postal district until the end of the decade. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Alansplodge, do you mean the date of 1970 for the NW1 post code is wrong, or the (October) 1959 date for first trial use of 6 character alphanumeric postcodes in the UK (in Norwich) is wrong or something else? I don't particularly get the importance of Croydon in relation to this question. While that may have been the beginning of the proper rollout, it also postdated the first trial introduction. If we're looking at 6 character alphanumeric postcodes in general, they already existed in trial form in Norwich at least as per our article, albeit in slightly different form to the above (2 numbers rather than 1 after the first 3 characters) since October 1959. So if the above address was a Norwich one, it probably could have had a 6 digit post code if it was any one of the 150,000 places that we part of the trial. I guess since if you take the above postcode, it does have only 1 number after the first 3 digits so we can see offhand it's not trial one. But I didn't look carefully enough to rule out Croydon following the current format, although looking now, it sounds like it did. However if we're going to look more carefully at the post code, we might as well look at the fact it doesn't seem to be either a Norwich (NOR) or any of the Croydon postcodes. So the perhaps more important point if we're going to look at the postcode beyond the fact it was a 6 character alphanumeric one was the introduction of the NW1 postcode which was probably in 1970 at least if I'm understanding our article correctly when it says "1970 codes were introduced to the London W and North Western postal districts". Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Many apologies, I somehow misread your post (that Monday morning feeling!). 1970 seems to be a plausible date for full London postcodes, although of course the NW1 part has a much longer history. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Non Home Office Police Forces in England and Wales

Do police officers and PCSOs in non home office police forces, such as the BTP and the CNC, have the same powers as their home office counterparts? Given the specificity of their remit, do they have any additional powers when compared with home office forces? Thanks. asyndeton talk 21:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you read British Transport Police#Powers and status of officers and Civil Nuclear Constabulary#Legal jurisdiction? Rojomoke (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Police powers vary, for a start. 'Police powers' are mostly the same for any constable, from Special Constable to Chief Constable (best example, power of arrest for up to 24 hours). Other examples (eg. extend an arrest to 48 hours) needs to be a senior officer, such as Inspector. PCSO powers are simply set out by the Chief Constable of the force. I doubt the Civil Nuclear Constabulary or Ministry of Defence Police have PCSOs at all, because they are very specialist forces (uniquely, they're armed). Military police officers do not have the power of 'constable', because they have jurisdiction over military personnel/property only.

Some exceptions worth noting: Royal/Diplomatic protection officers in the Metropolitan Police have UK-wide jurisdiction. Special Constables have only had England & Wales-wide jurisdiction since 2006 (?), before which it was their own force and ajacent force areas only. The BTP are Great Britain-wide (not Northern Ireland). The trump card for police powers is the NCA, whose officers have a catchall toolkit of constable, customs officer and prison officer (?).--92.17.0.197 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Further: constable/rank specific powers are set by law. PCSOs only have whatever powers their Chief Constable says they have. The law on arming police officers is the same, it varies because forces set different policies. An Authorised Firearms Officer is an AFO; simple as. It just happens to be that the CNC and PSNI have opted to arm all constables, the MOD Police most of them, and the BTP none whatsoever. --92.17.0.197 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The BTP now have firearms officers: [25] Proteus (Talk) 17:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon discriminated as a Corsican

Our article about Napoleon Bonaparte says that he always spoke with a Corsican accent and was teased at the military school. He even had an early period of Corsican nationalism. My question is: Was his Corsican origin used later against him by his revolutionary or Bourbonic rivals or did they find other issues to attack him on? --Error (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I found World Military Leaders: A Collective and Comparative Analysis by Mostafa Rejai and Kay Phillips (pp. 78-79) which has more detail. Apparently, it was not only the Corsican issue, but also his comparative poverty and lack of self confidence and patrician manners. I couldn't find much about his Revolutionary rivals, but I imagine that his skill on the battlefield overcame most objections. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DKSYXLenyugC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=Napoleon+discriminated+as+a+Corsican&source=bl&ots=_2gMMyHO5q&sig=bi5JkDuaJyvRLDClnx_dVcahhts&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=Napoleon%20discriminated%20as%20a%20Corsican&f=false does not get me an excessive use block.

--Error (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

March 23

A "credit bank" that gives interest on postive balances?

Is there such a thing as a "credit bank", where withdrawal overdraft fees do not occur, there's a credit limit, and a two way interest that charges the customer on negative balances but provides FDIC protection and deposit interest on positive balances? -- DMahalko (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't say where you are, but in the UK such an account is commonplace. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The FDIC is a US organisation apparently, so presumably that's the country of interest. But yes, should have been mentioned. And yes, I would agree, that sounds like a pretty normal account to me? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that it's widely available in the US, but I found one such while searching for examples: "Checking Line of Credit" As this is a credit union rather than a bank, it's probably NCUA-insured rather than FDIC. I may be misreading this, though, as all other "line of credit" examples that I found were clearly not a restrictionless hybrid of checking account and credit card -- nearly all had per-overdraft fees and/or per-month transaction limits. — Lomn 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

n-archies

Are or were there octachies, ennearchies et ecc?--95.244.55.239 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about collective government leadership, akin to a troika or a triumvirate or the Diocletian tetrarchy. Technically, Switzerland is a heptarchy. See Swiss Federal Council. There is no single Swiss head-of-state. The entire seven-member council serves as a collective head-of-state. There are also situations where the land of a country has historically had divided sovereignty, where multiple monarchs ruled effectively independent states within what had historically been a cohesive country. In that case, you have situations like the Heptarchy of the island of Britain during the early middle ages, or the Herodian Tetrarchy of the Levant in antiquity. Under that notion, China has been a decarchy during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, while Korea had been a Triarchy for quite a while. --Jayron32 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? You appear to be based in Italy? Is that the country you are talking about? LongHairedFop (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The OP never used the pronoun "we". Are you responding to the correct question? --Jayron32 16:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No,I speak in general and not only about italy.--79.56.181.190 (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooops show how I managed to read 'were' as 'we', and then parsed the rest of the sentence around that. Mia culpa. LongHairedFop (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep Mia out of this. It's mea culpa. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We have the Five Eyes watching and flying over us, wherever "we" are. Pentophthalmocracy, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

It seems that anything with more than sever rulers is an oligarchy. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

March 24

brother jonathan

How can I contact the author of the article on Brother Jonathan?

Grafton Tanquary The Jonathan Heritage Foundation The Jonathan Club Los Angeles, CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grafton tanquary (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Each article may have hundreds of authors. If you see a flaw in an article, bring it up on its discussion page, e.g. Talk:Brother Jonathan. —Tamfang (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

To see who has edited an article, (and what they did), visit Brother Jonathan, and click on View History in the top-right. This will bring up a summary list of all edits, and who made on them. Click on the Talk link to leave that person a message. To see what the edit changed, click on the "prev" link. Also, if you click on the article's Talk link, you are taken to a page where you can leave comments/queries/corrections etc about the article. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to edit the article go ahead, just make sure your source is reliable. If your are adding new information, the easiest way is to add <ref>[http://www.example.com/new-england/brother-jonathan.html]</ref> immediately after your change, this provides a footnote to the webpage you took the information from, and allows other editors to check that it is factually correct, and other readers to look up more information if they want. See WP:CITE for more information about references, but don't worry if you make a mistake; it will be corrected soon enough. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want to contact the author(s)? If you think there is an error that should be corrected please just identify it. If you want to know where a piece of information in the article came from, you will have to go through the edit history to find who added it. If you tell us what it is another editor may be able to help. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This wonderful tool tells us that the most prolific author, both in terms of number of edits and amount added to the text, has edited anonymously. You're unlikely to be successful in contacting them. #2 on the list is User:Wighson. Click here to liaise with them directly, although note that they've not edited regularly in over a year. Please do not edit the article yourself, unless you're confident you fit into the exceptions in this essential Wikipedia guideline. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)edited --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how representing the Jonathan Club makes one COI for the Brother Jonathan article. The two have no connection beyond the fact that the former is named from the mythological latter figure. Paul B (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Amended. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the brothers Hopper (first brother, second brother) in their book The Puritan Gift, the phrase, 'Art thou troubled, brother Jonathan?' was a mocking question, lifted from the Bible, and used by Cavaliers to mock Puritans, ultimately resulting in the term 'brother Jonathan' being applied to Puritans and, by extension, Americans. Before Uncle Sam, apparently, there was brother Jonathan as a caricature embodiment of a generic American (rather than 'the national emblem [sic.] of the glorious states of New England'). Apparently various trains and steamers were named after this character.

I have my doubts about this assertion; the wonders of the internet allow me to check the bible quickly, and the nearest that I can get to the phrase is from 2 Samuel 1 v. 26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 37.25.46.84 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The actual quotation from The Puritan Gift is "How did the expression originate? The most likely origin is the Biblical saying 'I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan'. Used as a term of abuse for their Bible-thumping Puritan opponents by Royalists during the English Civil War, it was applied by British officers to the rebellious colonists during the American Revolution" (p.63). Paul B (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'd misremembered the quotation and given my book away. From memory, isn't there a bit more about the term in the book? I seem to remember that John Bull came into it somehow. 37.25.46.84 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Pirates and venereal diseases

I watched a documentary on H2 (TV Network), and the documentary was about pirates. One thing that lodged in my mind was that European pirates of the 1700s could not bring women on board of the ship. At the same time, there were venereal diseases, and the treatment for them was pretty crude and painful by modern standards. Could it be that the men had sex with each other, as men would do in modern-day prisons? Or could it be that the men had sex with local women on land? Or could it be that the venereal diseases had spread around non-sexually? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all those things could be, though diseases that are "spread around non-sexually", are not typically called "venereal diseases", even if they affect the genital area. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant that a venereal disease that someone acquired by sexual means landed on someone else by non-sexual means (i.e. sharing drinking cups, sharing clothes, poor sanitary conditions in the 1700s). I am wondering which one could have been the most likely culprit of the venereal diseases? Did the male pirates in the 1700s had sex with each other? Is it still called "gay sex" when you merely have someone of the same sex sexually stimulate you by performing fellatio? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ye scurvy swab! Ve poirates hast no truck viv 'gay sex' an' 'fellatio' - nae, ve leave such foul practices to foreign curs - arr - ven good Sir Dick zed Let us bang these dogs of Seville 'ee baint talkin' 'bout 'avin' sex vith each utha! Ye got a durty mind, ye. Arr! 37.25.46.84 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some historians, notably B.R. Burg in B. R. Burg (1995). Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth Century Caribbean. NYU Press. ISBN 9780814712351. , have suggested that homosexuality was common amongst pirates. As you will see from our article on buccaneers, other historians question this position. We certainly know that homosexual behaviour is common in other environments where men are unable to meet women for extended periods of time - see our article on situational sexual behavior. It is certainly possible for venereal diseases to spread in such all male populations. RomanSpa (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As a pirate myself, I can assure you that we pirates are not interested in gay sex at all, other than, of course, lesbianism, which is entirely normal and a delight to everyone. We are, of course, highly-sexed, as this documentary makes clear. 37.25.46.84 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Rum, buggery, and the lash" referred to the British Navy rather than pirates, as I understood it. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This and this give some indication that the Cabin boy had some additional relevant duties. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That reminds me of a Cheech and Chong bit from a few decades ago. They're watching TV and there's a pirate movie on. One of the crew (perhaps a cabin boy) is to be punished:

[sound of whip} Oh!

[sound of whip] Oh!!

[sound of whip] Oh!!! YES!!!!

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the general question of venereal disease on sailing ships (regardless of whether they were legally licensed and registered or pirate ships), the article History of syphilis may be an interesting read. --Jayron32 00:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect British Empire Medal List

I am writing to you concerning this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_the_British_Empire_Medal

I find this page incorrect and incomplete as there are 293 people awarded the British Empire Medal as of June 2012.

I would like to add my deceased grandfather to this page.

My grandfather was Staff Sergeant John Farrugia who served in the Royal Army Service Corps.

He was awarded the B.E.M medal and I have an army statement showing this and the initials B.E.M atfer his name on this statement.

Therefore please update this list at your earliest convenience to include his name.

If you do not update your records accurately concerning this matter I will look to seek legal advice and also bring this to the attention of the local media how you are not giving the recognition to those honoured by missing their names of this list.

Thanks

Mr Matthew Farrugia

193.62.24.120 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 24/03/2015 at 14:57 GMT

No threats of legal action have any validity here. It seems strange that the name and Corps you mention doesn't have an entry in the British Forces war records site but perhaps your grandfather is one of the John Farrugias mentioned there. You are powerless to make Wikipedia include any names, but all you have to do is find an official site that mentions your grandfather's award, or a press report, and we will gladly add his name to the list. If fact, you could do it yourself. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Dbfirs 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I should add that the Category:Recipients_of_the_British_Empire_Medal is not an article giving a complete list of everyone who received the medal. It's a category. Its role is to group together everyone with the medal who has an article on Wikipedia. We also have categories like "People from London", but that's not a list of everyone alive or dead who ever lived in London (which would be impossible). If your grandfather is not independently sufficiently famous in his own right he will not have an article about him, and so will not be in the category. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I missed noticing that it was a category not a list. Your grandfather must be notable in his own right to have his own article. Even if we created a list, the only surnames beginning with F would be Fenwick, Ralph; Filer, Ernest Francis; Files, George Edward; Formby, John Raymond; Foster, Ronald Charles; Fry, Arthur Ernest; according to WW2 awards but perhaps the medal was not a wartime award? Dbfirs 15:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

John Mary Farrugia, listed as "Clerk of Works, Air Ministry Works Department, Kalafrana, Malta", was awarded the BEM on 2 June 1943, according to the London Gazette. It was in the Civil Division, though, not the Military Division. If that is him, then neither his position nor the fact that he was awarded a low-level honour would appear to indicate on their own that he meets the notability criteria. Proteus (Talk) 14:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

293 were awarded the medal in June 2012. See British Empire Medal#From 2012. I don't know whether a total count is recorded. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Women's Headgear

Did the headgear common Christian women wore in earlier centuries have a religious meaning? Like Islamic Hijab? Thanks for comments. --Omidinist (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It was never quite the same as hijab, but our article Christian headcovering makes it clear that all or most churches required women to cover their heads, until about the 1960s. Indeed, until then, women in Christian-majority countries routinely covered their heads in public. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the headcoverings worm by the laity, there's also the wimple, worn by many current nuns as part of the religious habit. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

See also the mantilla for Catholics (more common in Mediterranean countries I believe) and the wedding veil. Alansplodge (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Masculine versions of female names

A la "Julia" (feminine of Julius) or "Pauline" (feminine of Paul). The thought occurred to me while discussing Vin Diesel's naming of his daughter after the late Paul Walker. What masculine names are verifiably derived from older names for females? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried looking through any of those "lists of boys names" that would be all over the internet, and see if any of them look like masculized feminine names? I was thinking Mario (given name) was a good candidate, but it really isn't - it has a separate origin from "Maria". I would suspect that if there are any, it's a pretty short list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hymen ? (I bet Hymen Lipman had trouble with bullies growing up. Maybe some of them called him "pencil neck" and gave him ideas ?) StuRat (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hymen is the Greek god of marriage - god, not goddess.[26] Hymen also is or was a fairly common Jewish given name. I don't know what that version's origin is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

According to this, "Hyman" as a Jewish name comes from "man". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That's no consolation to Misty Hyman. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 July 3#Given names (male from female).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Unconscious thought theory

Many years ago I discovered that my brain solves problems quite efficiently in the “backoffice” whilst I am consciously thinking about something entirely unrelated. Presumably my experience is no exception. As a consequence, I now often just analyse a tricky problem and synthesise one / more solutions (there are cases where none of the solutions is without major disadvantages and there are cases where there does not seem to be a solution in loop 1 of the analysis / synthesis phase) and then just ignore the matter.
At some random time later - during dinner / in the shower / whilst asleep / whilst sitting in my favourite wine-bar idly gazing at the Gothic vaulting - a solution (not necessarily the best) pops up unexpectedly paralleled by some “Eureka” surge of cerebral bliss.
I suspect that there is a term for this, but googling does not get me far. We have an article on Unconscious thought theory, but this seems to imply that UT is best at solving trivial stuff / that it does not exist / that it is not superior to deliberate mental processes.
In my case I have been / am solving problems in database design and digital 3D modeling, many of which I would not consider to be trivial. Of course, the last point may well be correct, but why waste time and effort on conscious thought when you can “outsource” it to neurons lazing around in the subconscious.
Sorry about the lengthy pre(r)amble. Question: 1) which other WP references may be useful to research that? 2) is there a less clunky name (colloquial) than unconscious thought theory? 3) POV and anecdotal, but is this “phenomenon” experienced / utilised habitually by other ref deskers? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There might be something about stress and how it affects thinking. I think this was explored on Brain Games recently. Notice how you come up with these answers in non-stressful situations, or at least when you're focused on something else. Anecdotally, after a long day at work, solutions will often occur to me on the drive home, when I'm focused on traffic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Q.3. All the time. All my life. See Recall (memory) @ Involuntary memory retrieval. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You're talking about the subconscious, although our article on it is horrible. The phenomenon is universal, if not universally recognized. It's the source of expressions "on the tip of my tongue" and "sleep on it." If you can't think of a term or name, often the best thing is simply to leave it aside. It will then pop into your head unbidden after a while. It's the reason why people say not to make big decisions on a hurry, but to sleep on them. The subconscious can work at the problem and find solutions and objections that might not come to mind during a short focused effort of concentration.

Here are a list of [sources http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sleep+on+it+the+power+of+the+subconscious&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8], some of which may be poor, but it will show the commonness of the idea. As for myself, I often think of various things that have been at question during the day as I lay down to sleep, and it does help. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you confusing "subconscious" with "unconscious"? The word "subconscious" is certainly common in self-help books, but I don't think it's scientific. -- BenRG (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am using subconscious to refer to those parts of the mind not immediately the object of (or ofttimes immediately recoverable by) focus: below consciousness. I am using unconscious to refer to either the lack of consciousness at all, or those regulatory processes mediated by the brain but not accessible internally by the mind. The subconsciousness would be the place where the words we speak are spontaneously generated; we only become conscious of them when we say them or vocalize them to ourselves. BenRG has posted some great links below which I highly recommend.

I'm certainly not selling Freudianism or any New Age stuff. I'll mention the novelist and playwright/screenwriter Ayn Rand's The Art of Fiction which mentions "subconscious" 28 times, and which also defines the subconscious as the contents of your mind not currently accessible or accessed by conscious focus. She speaks of "stocking" the unconscious by taking time to consider notable events, actions, and subjects as you go about daily life to provide a source, sometimes only used much later, as artistic inspiration. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Denying you are "selling" widely-discredited bullshit psychological theorists only to then cite a widely discredited bullshit political theorist on a neuroscience concept. Interesting ploy. --Jayron32 02:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron that's three highly hostile edits in a row, across the desks. You may not know it, but Rand wrote almost no political theory, and the book I mention has nothing to do with politics. It's a well-reviewed book on fiction writing and nothing else respected even by non-libertarians and Rand-fans. You're even confabulating strawmen, at whom you throw obscenities. What psychological theorists did I advocate? I said our article was terrible. This is uncharacteristic of you. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Creativity#Incubation and Sleep and creativity may be relevant. -- BenRG (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The basic phenomenon is discussed under varying rubrics in contemporary psych literature: incubation, sub-/un-/non-conscious problem solving, mind wandering etc. So try those as search terms. Keep in mind though that while there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for such unconscious processing, there is yet no universal agreement on the mechanism, effect size, or whether it is a net negative or positive if consciously employed. And as you can expect the field is saturated with pop/outdated psychology, self-help/new-age literature. Here is a 2009 review article that provides a broad overview. Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Taddea Visconti's cause of death

Is there any source saying why Taddea Visconti died at age 30? I couldn't even find whether it was natural cause or not (maybe there's some Italian source, more familiar with that than those in English). Brandmeister^talk 21:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia doesn't say but following its sources, this one says she died in childbirth. [27]

P.S. NB both the German and Italian wikipedias contract the English re the place of her burial; both say it was in the Munich Frauenkirche, though her grave has never been discovered. [28]

See also [29] (page 539) which I think says something like (I'm not good with old fonts): Anno dni MCCCLXXXI. obiit dna THADAEA fila de Mediolano, ducissa Babarie (Vxor I. Stephani I. Ingolstad.) 184.147.117.34 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

March 25

I seek data on ancient Hx, and find nothing prior to the 1600's for ancient native Americans in NJ's Seacaucus area from where I have a 3,000 plus era stone axe-head.

How can Wikipedia improve posted data?? I've searched your site with no avail. Data for my inquiry, which I have sent and requested is non-engaging and responsive. It shouldn't take an hour to ask a question or suggest an idea!.

I seek data on ancient Hx, and find nothing prior to the 1600's for ancient native Americans in NJ's Seacaucus area from where I have a 3,000 plus era stone axe-head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.25.192 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You question as stated is unclear. Can you define "ancient Hx"? Googling that term I get flashcards for words that deal with ancient Near Eastern civilizations, and the archeology of Halifax. I see your IP geolocates to Parsippany, and you mention Secaucus. The indigenous people during that time were the Lenape people and their predecessors.

This desk is run by volunteers who cannot necessarily guess what you are looking for without a better explanation, and the guidelines at the top of the page advise you to expect an answer within days (if possible), not "while you wait". μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about ancient hand axes? If so see Hand_axe#History_and_distribution - our article says they were used in North America since the Pleistocene, but doesn't have many good examples or citations for that. There's some related info at Folsom point - but those are knapped projectile points, not axes. It does look like our article on hand axes could use some attention and citations for North America, if anyone wants to help with that. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hx is typically an abbreviation of "history", at least in a medical context (although not in the field of history itself). So I suppose the OP is asking about ancient history. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's unAustralian

In Australia, there's a catchphrase/ catchcry/ not sure what you'd call it, but it consists of calling something "unAustralian". The meaning is that the other person is not very laid back, and is taking rules too seriously, or just being plain unfair, or something like that. I've asked others about their national "word" and what it means, and heard one surprising answer: apparently in Singapore, it has a negative meaning - if you show you are obsessed with money, "that's very Singaporean." Can anyone tell me what the national word means around the world? IBE (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly what you're after, but you may be interested in No true Scotsman. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No true Australian would complain about that answer ;) IBE (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We have articles on un-American and un-Australian. The latter, perhaps surprisingly, considerably predates the former. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "un-American" was presumably already established when Mark Twain spoke of the unfairness of condemning Satan without hearing his side of things: "To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American; it is French!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting, Jack. I would add that "unAustralian" had a simpler meaning, before being politicised, and was more about a "fair go". I first remember it in serious (so to speak) discussion in the media, on a current affairs show. Pubs were going off at restaurants for serving liquor without a meal, against the licensing conditions. Now restaurants pay something like $1000 a year for a restaurant liquor licence; pubs, maybe 10 times that. So at a restaurant, you can't order alcohol just on its own; it has to go with a meal. Bummer if the restaurants ignore it, but the pubs were complaining, obviously. But a restaurant spokesperson called that "unAustralian," with an obvious vested interest that sounds, well, very Singaporean. IBE (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I Am Canadian may be interesting. --Jayron32 16:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I speak German and have heard Germans describe something as deutsch in a disparaging way, often implying that the thing in question is rigid, narrow-minded, or authoritarian. Marco polo (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that German one really interests me. From the Xenophobes' travel guide (or similar such title): "Contrary to popular belief, Germans are very funny people, in fact, Germans take their humour very seriously." IBE (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Germans can be very funny, and this usage is an example of self-disparaging irony. Marco polo (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a possible view. I'd prefer to understand it as a shortcut meaning "un-federal", "un-tribal" among the younger generations.--Askedonty (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• The essence of un-American would be counter to what makes us distinctive, especially the principles of the Declaration and the Bill of Rights, and less so a dislike of July 4th and Thanksgiving. Meriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/un-american. Of course there's HUAC, which many consider to have itself been un-American. I'd assume the other major anglophone countries would share this sense of fair play for the defendant as a common English heritage. When I was young, one also used to hear "It's a free country" all the time, but I don't think I've heard that since the '90's. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, HUAC was a committee which engaged in un-American activities. Rarely has a political group been named so honestly. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• • I do recall Bob Novak once saying "there's too much freedom in America." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Former Prime Minister Sir John Major brands Ukip 'profoundly un-British in every way' ahead of key by-election" [30] "Un-British" seems to be rather similar to "UnAustralian" except without the "laid back" part, although the related virtue of sangfroid is highly valued. Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Given recent talk page debates... I can only assume that someone will soon complain that all of these answers (at least the ones that don't simply point to references) as being unWikipedian... or unReferencedeskian... or un-something like that. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The negative version is called a cultural cringe. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Did Nietzsche commit coprophagia?

I have read a few articles that briefly mention it, but haven't found a definitive answer, I have always been interested, and have considered writing an essay based around coprophagia and its correlation to Nietzsche's illness/philosophy JacobSmiley (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)JacobSmiley

Cite some sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion (with some sources) at Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche/Archive_10#Nietzsche.27s_scatological_breakdown. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If Nietzsche went crazy, that would seem to be the main story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was looking for, thank you, Sluzzelin. JacobSmiley (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusion of Priorities

I see that a school of 400 in the middle of Saskatchewan has its own page, however the page of an influential and respected professor has been twice removed. I would like to understand the process behind that specific case, as well as other related cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidic Biscuit (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Who? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As I think BB means to imply, it‘s hard to say much without linking or naming the articles to which you refer. But I guess you’re after the notability guideline found at WP:N. Beyond the general principles there are specific criteria for various categories of topic; see in particular WP:ORG and WP:PROF.—Odysseus1479 04:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

True, and what I'm really getting at (not stated well) is that we need to know who he's talking about and whether there was a deletion request page so that we could review the specifics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just about to add that articles are often deleted for e.g. copyright violation or complete lack of sourcing, without prejudice to the creation of policy-compliant replacements.—Odysseus1479 04:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

BB and questioner, it's not for the Ref Desk to review deletion decisions, if that's what's happened here. There's a WP:AfD process for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:JackofOz that it is not the job of the Reference Desk to question or review deletion or other content decisions. However, the reader may find it useful to be aware that he is not the only person who has concerns about this problemfeature. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's "schools" policy was, and to some extent remains, a vexed subject. About 9 years ago the policy was one of the principal battlegrounds between two different factions within Wikipedia, each of which had a different interpretation of the concept of "notability". Unfortunately, this debate occurred at a time when there was a large influx of new editors to Wikipedia, many of whom were less experienced and highly enthusiastic, and many of whom were readily persuaded that their own high school was notable (because, hey, they went there themselves and so it was obviously notable, and it got the necessary media coverage in the local newspaper). Further, there was a small but determined group of editors who felt for a variety of reasons, some expressly political, that schools were educational institutions on a par with major universities, and who were determined to add as many schools as possible to Wikipedia. Finally, participation in "deletion debates" about schools was highly co-ordinated by the people who wished to retain such articles - mailing lists were maintained, both within Wikipedia and in private communications between editors outside the Wikipedia environment. As sometimes happens in such cases, the debates became polarised, and compromise became difficult. Unfortunately, the better organisation of the side who wished to ascribe notability to all schools prevailed, and thus we now have the rather unfortunate precedent that all high schools are more-or-less automatically notable. There is no easy solution to this problem. I myself was involved last year in a proposal to move most schools into a new "educational supplement" to Wikipedia, but, like other attempts to address this problem, the proposal came to nothing.

As for the many, many articles on schools themselves, they have become a wasteland. Inspection of their edit histories shows that these articles are now largely out-of-date, with an unfortunately high number of edits consisting of vandalism and assorted personalia. As you'll see from my personal edit history, from time to time I've expended a lot of effort in attempting to clean up these articles, but it's a thankless task, and the Schools Wikiproject is utterly overwhelmed by the volume of work required to keep them at an acceptable standard. (The proponents of retaining all these articles have mostly vanished, of course.) My personal approach is, as far as possible, simply not to think about the problem. Wikipedia isn't perfect, so the best approach is to just accept things the way they are and move on. RomanSpa (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The other day I came across this. Note the speedy tag clearly says "Note that educational institutions are not eligible under this criterion." and of course I declined the speedy, which was a bit of a surprise to the tagger. I pointed out Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7and Wikipedia:Schools#Notability. And now it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learnium International School. At least nobody has accused the nominator of anything. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)