Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 12

= September 12 =

Lady of Mann
Have the spouses of the Lord of Mann ever used the title Lady of Mann other than Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Derby who was Lord of Mann? Also how about the title of Queen of Mann? See List of Manx consorts for wives of the rulers of Mann.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Charlotte Murray, Duchess of Atholl did in an order to the officers of the Island: "I, Charlotte, Lady of Mann and the Isles, Baroness Strange, with consent of the Honourable John Murray, of Strewan, my husband." (An Abstract of the Laws, Customs, and Ordinances of the Isle of Man, ed., With Notes (on 'The Supposed True Chronicle of the Isle of Man'), James Gell, vol 1., 1866, p 103). ---Sluzzelin talk  07:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For a discussion about the title Queen of Mann, see. Alansplodge (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Differences
Why are there such extremes between people? Some are extremely nice, others are horrible and once step away from punching you in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAELLKTPIN (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Read things like Nature versus nurture - there's arguments about how much of our behaviour is 'learned' (nurture) and how much is 'inherent' (nature) for a start on 'why' people turn out different. ny156uk (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the people who are extremely nice may not be extremely nice all of the time, and the horrible ones might have better days. The circumstances under which you meet them probably matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You could also look at personality type and personality psychology. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It helps not to describe people as "nice" or "horrible" or anything in between, based merely on their observed behaviour. It's the behaviour itself that can be so described.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A very "nice" neighbor, all smiles and friendliness, turned into a snarling asshole when I asked him to remove a tree which was likely to fall onto my house. Do not be deceived by appearances. Edison (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. People's behaviour varies.  We've all done bad things, but does that mean we're all bad people?  No, it doesn't.  Who we are (whatever that is, and it takes more than a lifetime to find out) is not the same thing as what we do.  That neighbour is no more an asshole today than he was a nice person yesterday.  Criticise his behaviour if you need to, but deciding that he himself is an asshole is not your right, because you don't even know who you are.  (Jack of Oz =)  202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Amendments to the US constitution
In what sense is the word amendment used in regards to the amendments to the US constitution? I understand amendment to mean change. Were the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights changes or additions? Was there an original US constitution which was changed and added to? What brought about the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights? Shouldn't the people that drafted the original US constitution have thought to have included them?

I've tried to read the articles on Wikipedia, but with little success. The articles are written, quite understandably, from an americentric point-of-view. They assume that I should be au fait with the basics; but I'm not! The articles become quite heavy, quite quickly. As an Englishman, I would really appreciate some help. Don't forget: K.I.S.S. Thanks is advance. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  14:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically they drew up the Constitution (the one with Seven Articles that explain how the government works) and ratified it by 1789. Then some people said, "this isn't enough, we need a Bill of Rights!" So the Bill of Rights were drawn up as Amendments to the original Constitution, and these were ratified and went into effect by 1791. United_States_Bill_of_Rights is the relevant section. The distinction between "changes" and "additions" is not really relevant here; they are both, in a sense. As for whether they should have thought to include them, well, there was a long debate about that. The Constitution in general says, "here's what the government can do." The Bill of Rights on the other hand is more along the lines of "here's what the government cannot do." There was strong disagreement about whether the powers of the government should be defined positively or negatively; the Constitution (positive powers) + Bill of Rights (negative powers) was a compromise, of sorts. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfect; I love it! Thanks for your time. You hit the nail on the head. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  17:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As to this question, "Were the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights changes or additions?", there was some disagreement about this when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Some initially believed that amendments were changes to the Constitution, and so the original needed to be reworded to reflect these changes. But in the end it was decided that it would be impractical to rewrite the original document every time an amendment was passed, and so amendments have always simply been tacked at the end of the Constitution as additions. These additions often change or invalidate earlier language, but that earlier language is traditionally not removed from the original. Instead, editors usually use brackets, italics, footnotes, etc. to indicate that an amendment has made the original language obsolete. —Kevin Myers 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One correction to Mr.98's description. The Bill of Rights wasn't an afterthought that was first discussed after the original Constitution was ratified.  It was a central part of the debate on whether to ratify the Constitution at all; see the "Background" section of United States Bill of Rights.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That article is a bit convoluted; I can see why the original questioner requested clarification. It really needs a rewrite. The article also downplays the varied agenda of those who advocated a bill of rights. Some wanted a bill of rights to protect individual rights, as the article says. But there were many, like Patrick Henry, who supported a bill of rights merely as an expedient to block adoption of the Constitution. George Mason gets credit for being a "Father of the Bill of Rights", but his primary motivation was not the promotion of human rights. (This is a myth, according to a recent biographer.) Instead, Mason used the bill of rights issue to oppose the Constitution because he feared that a strong central government would have the power to abolish slavery, a possibility that he, like many wealthy slaveowners, greatly feared. —Kevin Myers 19:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty ironic then that both the constitution and the Bill or Rights were ratified and then later his exact fear was realized. Rckrone (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That which we resist, persists. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not irony! He suspected that if the constitution were ratified, slavery would be abolished, and then exactly what he suspected turned out to be the truth! That's the opposite of irony. APL (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A fascinating aspect of the "original constitution" is the signing statements various states included with their ratification letters. Various states ratified but with some reservations, which in some cases would fit right into today's controversies, or those at the time of the American Civil War. I can't find the collection of communications from the various states which ratified the constitution in 1788, but some were quite libertarian, others were wary of the government asserting the right to seize and hold or to assassinate citizens without process of law as the US government presently claims the right to do. The wariness of various states would be consonant with the views of many Tea Party or progressives or civil libertarians today. Edison (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the Federalists, led by Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Washington, won the political battle, the impact of antiFederalists is downplayed. The newly formed states refused to ratified the original Constiution without an express bill of rights. The idea was debated during the drafting of the Constitution. James Madison argued strongly that all the rights and liberties specified in the basic Constitution included the civil rights and liberties later amended. The battles on the state level are very interesting. The Bill of Rights truly originated from the people more than a political elite in Philadelphia. I find it sad that almost every college educated American is familiar with the Federalist Papers. The entire story includes the local ratification conventions at the state level. Many patriots who fought bravely during the Revolution opposed the U.S. Constitution on liberty grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to supplement what others have said, while I don't think the wording has been changed (there are "typos" in the constitution; there was a West Wing (TV series) where Toby says he found one in the constitution...) there could be a distinction made between the Bill of Rights' general additions, and other sections that expressly modify certain sections. For example, the 17th Amendment directly changes Article 1 Section 3. Similarly 12th changes Article 2 Section 1. Others, like the 11th, change the Court's interpretation of the constitution, but don't specifically apply to any section (this could be said for the Bill of Rights too).


 * The fact they don't blackline change the constitution is not as strange as it might first appeal. Codification is a specific and intentional process: most laws aren't ever codified into a specific code (like the U.S. Code). Shadowjams (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Der Prasident Des Landesbezirk Baden Heinrich Kohler Weihnachten 1947 1948
I have two plates dates 1947 and 1948 with this exact writing on them. Upon doing much research, I learned the history of Baden and a bit on Heinrich Kohler.

I am trying to find out whom made these decorative plates, which are very large in size. There are crests (designs) on these plates but I am not sure if this indicates whom the maker is. The front of each decorative plate I have been unable to match to anything I have researched. I would be happy to attach photos if allowed. Perhaps someone can give information of point me in the right direction. Maggyscratch (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to help other readers, we have an article on him at Heinrich Köhler. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Photos would certainly help. Have you looked for marks on the back? Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to contact an antique or antiquities dealer in your area. There are people who specialize in these sorts of things, and its a very small group of people.  This is the sort of thing that you'd want to be directly appraised by an expert, rather than research yourself.  -- Jayron  32  02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictures of the back will be more useful than pictures of the front as far as identification is concerned. There almost certainly won't be any identifying marks on the front. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

is it still rape after the murder?
I now yous not loyers, but hypotheticly is it still rape after a murder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.49.133 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. 86.133.63.196 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * can culd you be more Specific? what if you wait and how long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.49.133 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I take the question to mean, if a man murders a woman and then has sex with her dead body, would that constitute rape? The answer is that this will depend on the criminal laws of the specific place where it happened, so it's not possible to provide a general answer. It might be a different crime such as "committing an indignity to a dead body". --Anonymous, 20:25 UTC, September 12, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.104.133 (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a non-legal opinion; at some point what you've done is so heinous that it's likely death penalty/life imprisonment. You can't really put someone in the electric chair twice...-- Jayron  32  02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Necrophilia does not currently provide information about this hypothetical action taking place in Germany, but it's probably similar there to what is described for other places.  Wiki Dao   (talk)  02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Those answering this question appear to be under the assumption that the question is asking if it is rape if the same person both murders and has sex with the corpse. The question literally asks if it is rape if a person has sex with a corpse that happened to be murdered previously.  This is nothing more than a question about necrophilia, which WikiDao answered as best as we currently can.  If anyone has a better answer, he or she should add references to the necrophilia article. --  k a i n a w &trade; 05:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely to me that any legal system would consider sex with a dead body to be "rape". There are probably laws against it, anyway, but that wouldn't be the heading they'd come under. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Culture of poverty traits
Oscar Lewis wrote: "In the introduction to The Children of Sanchez, I listed approximately fifthy traits which constitute what I call the culture of poverty." What are the traits he listed please? Is a list of them available on the internet anywhere? Thanks 92.15.30.158 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can read the introduction online on the Amazon page for the book as part of its "Look Inside" feature. I didn't see a systematic, numbered list of traits, but the introduction itself does contain lots of observations sprinkled through it. I was able to read the whole thing online. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Painting based on Petrarchan conceit
I'm trying to find a painting which matches this description: a portrait of a woman based on various Petrarchan conceits taken literally (e.g., the metaphors used in Shakespeare's "my mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun"). So her cheeks are literally roses and her eyes are sunbursts. I would at least like to know the title and artist's name, if the image isn't readily available online. 68.123.238.146 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Giuseppe Arcimboldo is most famous for his portraits in vegetables, though he did at least one, Flora, in flowers. Did the portraitist you are searching for actually use the sonnet to which you refer, or was it just "something like"? Bielle (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't recall that the artist referred to a specific sonnet, just that the painting was based on these poetic metaphors in general. 68.123.238.146 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)