Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 19

= February 19 =

Name this genre
Think of Dylan's Desolation Row or The Show by Joseph Brodsky: the narrator introduces a lineup of well-khown real and fictional characters, who are only accessories to his real message - they come and go without trace. At times is sounds like a ballade, but there's no storyline. It's just a long list of unrelated names weaved around something else.

Is there an English name for this genre? NVO (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is sometimes simply called "name-dropping", though as a technique, not as a genre. ---Sluzzelin  talk  11:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * List song?--Wetman (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to remember a Gogol story
At least I think it's Gogol. It revolves around an incident in which a military officer is surprised by a kiss in a dark parlour - the kisser is a woman who mistook him for another man with whom she had an assignation. Can anyone tell me the title, please?

Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you mean "The Kiss" (1887) by Anton Chekhov. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin - you're quite right. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Parallel time
Is it scientifically possible that parallel time exists in another dimension? Another question is where does time actually go? Is it kept alive by our own memories and documentation or does it also move onto a different plane where the past, present, and future can be observed by those watching light-years away? Sorry for such profound questions, but they came to me last night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Time is a dimension, do other "dimensions" as you conceive them exist? if it is parallel then why wouldn't it be the same thing? Anyways as you posted this in humanities I feel justified in [supplying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXeh742_jak] the most humane expression I know of such weighty questions  meltBanana  13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is possible. However it is kinda hard to prove or disprove. AFAIK, time doesn't "go" anywhere - it just is. There are "places" and they don't go anywhere - eg North 51deg 13.0min, West 0deg 33min is close to where I live and it is a fixed place on earth. Meanwhile 1923-Dec-17 is a date about 90 years ago and it is a fixed time. A different place has a distance from the first place. A different time has a duration from the first time. It doesn't "need" anyone watching. Because light travels at a finite speed, events that happened a long time ago are seen by us now - super-novae etc.That doesn't stop them having happened in the past. Imagine that you are in the laboratory (or whatever it is) listening to the Greenwich time pips being generated. You would hear them at "o'clock". If you tune your DAB radio and listen to them, you'll hear them again a couple of seconds later. That doesn't mean you have performed time travel (other than the normal advance of 1 second per second we all do), just that the pips have taken time to reach the DAB radio. Hope this helps. -- SGBailey (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So as I sit here typing on my computer keyboard someone 400 light years ahead could be observing me with a powerful telescope. Just like we could watch the Battle of Agincourt take place if we could view the earth from a vantage point 600 light years away.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A light year is a distance. So you mean 400 light years AWAY. So yes, if there is a 'little green man' looking through his telescope in 400 years time in this direction, then he will be seeing things happening here "now". Imagine a earthquake. Someone at the epicentre will experience the earthquake 'now'. Someone a thousand miles away will experience the tsunami perhaps 2 hours later. Of course for the little green man to see you, you'll need to be outside and not under clouds or tree cover. -- SGBailey (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I had meant to say away. Einstein's theory was that time was relative, hence time travel is theoretically possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that time isn't a place you can travel to. It's a measure of "how fast things happen", and when Einstein said it was relative that means that how fast things happen can be different for different observers. But it does not mean you can time travel. In order to time travel the previous state would have to continue to exist, but that is not how time works, and especially because different observers would see time at different states every single possible situation would have to be "stored" in order for you to "go there". So no, you can not time travel - there is nowhere to go. Ariel. (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Time is not a place, it's a "vector". Forward time travel is not only possible, but we're all doing it, i.e. we're all traveling on that vector. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Random observation - wouldn't this question fit better at the Science Desk? Exxolon (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

UK Gift aid
My understanding of Gift aid was that if you bought something from a charity and filled the form in that the charity could claim the tax you paid on the amount of the payment back from the government - thus increasing the charities revenue about 20%.

I recently donated a chair to a charity shop and they wanted me to fill a gift aid form in. No money changed hands. Any idea what was going on here? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * When you donate goods to a charity shop, the law regards their subsequent sale as converting one form of donation (giving something tangible) to another (giving money). Therefore, it makes sense for them to claim GA on the realised value of your donation. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but surely that only requires the purchaser to gift aid his payment. Why do I need to get involved? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * When you buy something from a charity you can't gift aid the purchase price. What you can gift aid are donations (which can include membership fees). So, when you gift a chair, the charity can claim gift aid on the value of your donation, and they assess the value by the price someone pays for it. They are claiming gift aid on what you gave them, not on what someone pays for it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c)Gift Aid donations must be voluntary donations, like your chair. The purchaser of your chair is not making a voluntary donation, but is being charged a fee. Whether they really can claim the money they receive for your donated chair against the tax you have paid on your earnings is another matter. (I am not a lawyer but that's the way I see it. You should really ask them, or a lawyer.)--Shantavira|feed me 13:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears the charity is using the Gift Aid clause about acting as an agent to get around the fact that your gift was in kind, not in cash. This guidance explains it thus:  Goods donated to charity for resale cannot be gift aided as they are not donations of money. However, the donor can agree that the charity sells the goods on their behalf as agent. Provided the donor has the option of keeping the proceeds on sale of the donated items, the donor can then give the proceeds to the charity under gift aid. HMRC provide guidance on their website on how these arrangements should be done and it is important to follow them carefully.  The paperwork you filled in probably included a form of words specifying that you had the option to claim the proceeds of the sale if you wanted, but were choosing to donate them to the charity and Gift Aid the donation, allowing them to reclaim tax on it. --  Ka renjc 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tortuous, but that makes sense now. Thanks. -- SGBailey (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"All men are created equal" and slavery
After American independence, how did white people in the US explain away the contradiction between AMACE in the Declaration of Independence and slavery? Thanks 92.15.16.146 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We have some discussion of this at All men are created equal. There were some who thought that it meant outlawing slavery; there were others who said it was just about rebutting the divine right of kings. Keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document, like the Constitution. Then, as now, people had a wonderful ability to interpret things in the way that was most favorable to them, however hypocritical it appears to be to those who disagree. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps slaves were not considered "men"? They were certainly regarded as lesser beings. Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, to refine the question, it isn't "white people" who needed to explain the contradiction, but rather "slave owners". Some American slave owners were themselves black, and many white Americans were anti-slavery (and many lost their lives fighting against slavery). Wikiant (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See Three-fifths clause. schyler (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"'Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another... I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects...  They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in 'certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.  This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.' -- Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1857"
 * -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The ultimate answer is that most people don't actually believe that all men are created equal... we are fine with the statement when it applies upwards (I am equal to anyone who claims to be my social/political/economic superior), but we have a lot more difficulty when it applies downwards (those who I see as being my social/political/economic inferiors are equal to me). Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reference for "most people don't actually believe that all men are created equal", Blueboar? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  16:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Madness! Anybody would think this was some kind of "reference" desk! 91.125.174.22 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope... no reference... just personal observation of human character. Thankfully we are not required to provide references ... even on a "reference desk" like this. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a specific reference, but I have noticed that people are, by and large, not totally identical to each other. With the myriad ways genes are expressed, I don't doubt for a second that no two people are completely equal at everything: this one's a little better at synthesizing vitamin D, that one's hearing is slightly more sensitive, that guy over there has a slightly warmer nose, and so on. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, some Italians are also more equal than other Italians... TomorrowTime (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also be interested in our Equality before the law article for more recent interpretations of the notion of "equality", in addition to some of the historical views mentioned by Mr98 above. WikiDao    &#9775;  01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also relevant that the Declaration of Independence didn't, and doesn't, have legal effect in the same way that the U.S. Constitution does. Shadowjams (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Mr. 98 said that way up above. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If only people had read it the first time. Maybe then RD questions wouldn't devolve into opinion fests Shadowjams (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proceedure for issuing palaces to the royal kids/grandkids
All the UK royal children and at least some of the grandkids live in their own palaces - ie very large mansions set in country estates that would cost many millions, likely tens of millions, to buy privately. I'm curious as to what the proceedure is/was for issuing them to their occupiers/owners.

1) Is there a stock of royal palaces held in reserve ready to be issued to offspring? 2) Were some or all of these palaces bought on the open market? 3) Is it possible to find out how much was paid? 4) Do/did their owners/occupiers have to pay for them? 4) Who technically owns them in law? 5) Do they have mortgages? 5) Where did the money come from to pay for them? 6) Where did that money come from? Thanks. 92.15.16.146 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * List of British royal residences is a good place to start looking. (It's not just the royals; Dorneywood and Chevening are for the use of cabinet members and frequently stand empty.) Marnanel (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And Chequers. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It may surprise you but many of these palaces are owned by the State rather than by individual members of the Royal family. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, those would be the ones marked "Official" on the list linked above; they are (rather luxurious) places of work. Those in the "Private" section have been bought out of their own pockets (like Highgrove House) or bought out of the pockets of their forebears (like Sandringham House or Balmoral Castle). An example of a private house which is currently unoccupied is the late Queen Mother's residence, the Castle of Mey, but it's rather out of the way. It's open to the public as a tourist attaction for most of the year. Holyrood Palace is not used much, but selling it might upset the Scots and it did give us somewhere to entertain the Pope on his recent visit. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Harewood Park. They can buy the land, persuade the local authority to give them planning permission, and put up a new house - just like anyone else. (LOL, as they say)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the gist of your question is, that if we became a republic, we'd have a property windfall to finance public services with - it may not work out like that. The President of France for example, has no less than five official residences. The President of Germany, who has fewer powers than our Queen, has two full-sized palaces at his disposal; the Chancellor has another two. If the new republic wanted to get its hands on the Royals' private homes, which it could be argued, are really the property of the State, they would have to enact a Bolshevik style edict stripping them of their personal property. The Russians took the precaution of bayoneting their royals in a cellar to prevent any expensive litigation. It's not going to attact many votes is it? Still, you could try an online petition at the 10 Downing Street website - see above. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are more than just the two options, as you are trying to suggest, of either a) bayoneting them or b) having to hand them £X00 million a year. Edit: Obviously the fallacy of a false dichotomy. 92.15.29.177 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. You'd better go and start a republican party then. Alansplodge (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or join an existing campaign. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Who said I want a republic?? You do not have to be a republican to to be unhappy with the huge amount of money that the richest/greediest family in Britain is taking from the taxpayer. (If they had any conscience they'd volunteer to decline it - think of all the libraries, schools, hospitals, police etc it could pay for). I don't particularly object to Liz's role as President, I just think she (including her family) ought to get paid no more, and occupy no more property, than the Prime Minister does (ie posh house in central London plus large country estate). Wishing for that does not mean you want to make Britain into a republic. 92.15.31.249 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:SOAPBOX might be of some use to you: "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." 91.125.174.22 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just reponding to the inflamatory and untrue putting-words-in-my-mouth "If the gist of your question is, that if we became a republic, we'd have a property windfall to finance public services with" which is not true. 92.28.245.90 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * List_of_official_residences is also relevant to people's discussions above: the UK seems to have many times more than anywhere else on earth. 92.15.29.177 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, what about the US? There seems to be at least one for each of the 50 state governors, for a start. Proteus (Talk) 14:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And the UK list contains some rather tenuous ones - the Archbishop of Canterbury's gaff for instance. Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Each U.S. state is technically a different government, so while it is true that the U.S. may contain over 50 official residences, that number really isn't comparable. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather off the topic, but the US has a population about five times that of the UK, and 10 would be a small number for the UK even after ignoring the Archbishops "palaces". 92.28.245.90 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The length of the UK list seems not especially meaningful in itself, since some of the entries are fairly unremarkable terraced townhouses, which don't really compare with a Presidential palace or a royal castle; I suspect a comprehensive list of properties used officially by any arm of government would be somewhat similar in the majority of similar sized countries. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disapointed that I have not had any proper replies to my questions, except for mention of Harewood Park. Can I remind people that I'm asking about the proceedure of how palaces are provided for royal kids/grandkids (and not eg how many there are of them, or about buildings with royal associations in general, which I had not asked about)? This topic has been rather hijacked by people soapboxing/trolling their own political views, which I had not asked about. So please stick to the questions asked. Thanks 92.28.245.90 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about it, perhaps none of it is very well known, which is why you haven't had a clear answer yet. Here goes for a state. 1) The royal family own and/or have access to many large houses. As little princes and princesses grow up, discussions are ongoing about who can live where. The young royals usually have spells in the armed forces or at university, when they don't need a home of their own. They spend holidays with parents and grandparents; the royals love family get-togethers at Sandringham and Balmoral. After that, marriage may be on the cards. All that time, officials from Buckingham Palace are working out with them and their parents where would be a suitable place for them to live. 2) the articles on the various palaces will tell you their history. None or hardly any were bought on the open market. Hampton Court was seized from Wolsey. Was Buckingham Palace bought from the Duke of Buckingham? Can't remember, but you can find out in seconds. 3 etc) All interesting. You just have to follow the history back to when the palaces came into royal hands. For a long time there was no distinction between state property and the monarch's own property, not sure when the distinction became clear, perhaps Tudor times. You might be interested in former palaces too, such as Nonsuch Palace, Eltham Palace and Palace of Placentia. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The answers to all 6 of your initial questions can be found by clicking around in the very first link Marnanel gave you. Some are official Crown property, some are leased, some are privately owned by the people living in them. There is not going to be a single answer about 'procedure' given the variety of properties which are owned in a variety of ways. Perhaps if you chose a specific property, researched it as far as you could, and then asked about any difficulties you had in understanding or finding the information you want? 86.161.110.118 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, "The answers to all 6 of your initial questions can be found by clicking around in the very first link Marnanel gave you" is not true - the answers are not found there. 92.15.2.17 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

images of Indian nationalist movement
I am looking for images of Indian nationalist movement (freedom struggle). Any collection (like British Library Museum collections)available online? --117.201.249.84 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Commons has a lot of media available at the Category:Indian independence movement there, if that is the sort of thing you are looking for.
 * You might also try asking here at Portal talk:Indian independence movement (though it doesn't look like that page has been too active for awhile). There are also probably various other online resources that someone here may direct you to soon.  Good luck! :)  WikiDao    &#9775;  16:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A section in the Bible
I'm looking for a section in the Bible that roughly says, those who make doubters out of true believers will receive the worst punishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.54.59 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was able to find these by knowing that the Catholic Church calls leading others to sin 'scandal', and was able to search the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the references they use when talking about this. Mt 18:6 1Cor 8:10-13 Lk 17:1. That is:
 * Matthew 18:6, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
 * 1 Corinthians 8:10-13, "For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."
 * Luke 17:1, " Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come."
 * There are probably others, but these are (I think) the biggies. 86.161.110.118 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

By extension, the true biggest sin must be encouraging mere doubters to become scandalous ones. Wait a second, didn't I just describe that Dawkins book? Guy is in more serious trouble than he realizes... 109.128.192.218 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks as if we are looking at another instance of translation controversy. What is the semantic difference between a mere doubter and a scandalous one, and is there really a text that makes this difference? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I went cross-reference hunting and Revelation 2:14-16 came up. Pretty much it's a warning from Christ to not follow false teachings or else he will "fight against them with the sword of [his] mouth." Of course the fulfillment of Jesus' statement at the above linked Matthew 18:6 is found at Revelation 18:21 where a strong angel casts Babylon the Great into the sea "like a great millstone." schyler (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But as far as I can see it is not a clear example of someone being made to "doubt" his original thought. It just sounds like the standard warning against people not following the faith. I would think that there would be something specifically targetting "doubters" as opposed to outright heathens. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also had Matthew 7:15, but that was more about the danger to the person following false prophets with their untrue prophecies than about the danger to the prophets themselves. What do you think, Schyler? Should I have also included this one, although it doesn't seem to directly fit the OP's question? 212.183.128.78 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

German hazmat team in orange?
I found a video on Youtube showing vehicles of a German hazmat team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rVEzAi8cGk. They are orange. Is this the usual color of such units/firefighters/emergeny responders in Germany? I thought they are red there. --84.151.195.63 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The de:ABC-Zug (Civil Defence) use orange suits for petroleum spills. Google shows multiple hits for images of other orange vehicles. Nanonic (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, most of the cars that can be found on Google for "ABC-Zug" are red. The cars of the fire brigades are red as well. That is why I wonder if the orange color of the cars in the video has a special meaning. --84.151.179.23 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the Safety orange article.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that the orange appearance of the vehicles in the video is due to the light conditions. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Which Irish party?
There's a general election about to happen in Ireland. I've never given a politician my vote before and I'm at a loss. Irish politics seems to me to be tribal. Is there a resource where I could answer questions and be guided towards the party that suits me? Stanstaple (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You could start with our article on List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland and follow the relevant links to get a feel for the policies of the various parties. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you tried ? --Saalstin (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)