Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 10

= March 10 =

The rights of illegitimate children
I wonder about the legal rights of illegitimate children in 18th century France prior to the French revolution.

I am particularly interested in the legal status of illegitimate children of noblemen/noblewomen, who had been officially acknowledged by their parents. Did an official acknowledgement of the parent mean any change in their legal status? Did they have rights, or was their well being entirely up to the personal choice of their parents?

Considering that the rights were different depending on class in pre revolutionary France, I also wonder if their rights differed depending on of their parents were:


 * 1) Father noble and mother commoner;
 * 2) mother noble and father commoner;
 * 3) both parents noble.

Did their rights differ?

I would be very grateful if someone could be able to help. Thank you very much. --Aciram (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Who was the highest ranked servant?
My question is about the staff at a country manor belonging to a French nobleman in 18th century prior to the French revolution. Who would be the highest ranking male, and female servant? In a typical household such as that, who would be the highest ranking servant in the house, with responsible for the entire staff? Would it be a man or a woman, or perhaps one of each? I assume France did not have the same custom as Great Britain.

My question particularly pertains to a manor were the nobleman and his family is often absent, and the responsibility would fall heavily on such a person. I would be grateful if someone could help. Thank you very much. --Aciram (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't know about 18th-century France specifically, but a general term for a "high" servant who could be responsible for managing a household during the absence of the owner was "steward"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Try Defining servants in Western Europe (16th - 18th Centuries). Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Books about Socialist Party of France
Is there any books in English about the Socialist Party of France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.118 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you search google before posting in Wikipedia reference desk? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  04:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fellows, let's be reasonable, huh? This is not the time or the place to perform some kind of a half-assed autopsy on a fish... And I'm not going to stand here and see that thing cut open and see that little Kintner boy spill out all over the dock. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Francophonie Prime Ministers of Belgium
How many Prime Ministers of Belgium were Francophonies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.118 (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you mean "Francophones"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All of them? Do you actually mean "how many Prime Ministers of Belgium were Walloons"? The difference is that (from what I remember) all Belgium schools are supposed to teach Flemish, Walloons and English, but the French-speaking part of Belgium is Wallonia and its inhabitants called Walloons, as is its language. (Note I said "supposed". I am aware that this may not happen everywhere. I have Belgian friends of all persuasions...) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Language in Belgium and Belgian French . 109.170.169.29 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. I mean before Elio di Rupo becoming Prime Minister, who else became Belgium's Francophone PMs? Who were they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.33 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's get this straight then. Do you mean which PMs came from Wallonia and had Walloons as their first language? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at our article on him, you will find " (Edmond Jules Isidore Leburton 18 April 1915 in Waremme - 18 June 1997 in Waremme) was a Belgian politician and former Prime Minister. Leburton served as the 42nd Prime Minister of Belgium from January 1973 to April 1974. He was the last native French speaker to hold that office, disregarding the bilingual Paul Vanden Boeynants from Brussels, until Elio di Rupo took office in December 2011." Which helps in determining that you don't need to look later than 1974. I've had a look at those listed in Prime Minister of Belgium up to then, and while it doesn't say precisely, it may be possible to guess. If you need me to spell them out for you let me know and I'll have a go. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Belgium is a difficult country to understand.
 * all Prime Ministers of Belgium were francophone in the sense that they were speaking French but French was the first langage of very few of them.
 * at the creation of Belgium, French was the only official language (Flemish and Walloon, talked by the "normal" people were not).
 * Walloon is not talked any more in Belgium. All Walloon learn French at school. That is also the reason why this region fits roughly to what was until recently named the French Community. It was renamed Brussels-Wallonia Federation last year.
 * Flemish is still spoken in Belgium. It is the most spoken language in term of number of unhabitnats.
 * hopefully, Belgian people do not learn French, Flemish and English at school. Note that German is also an official langage in Belgium but not English. People are usually taught in their first langage (Flemish, English or German) and they can learn any other langage later. Of course, a majority of Walloon, who studied in French, then learn Flemish and a majority of Flemish, who studied in Flemish, then learn French.
 * Only two Prime Ministers came from the Wallonia and none from the German-speaking community. Most came from the Flemish-speaking community and the Flemish region.
 * 81.247.85.132 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but my Belgian friend whom I consulted earlier told me he had to learn Flemish first, then French/Walloon and English (he's from Dendermonde) and that all Belgian children learnt these languages. Except in the German enclave, and he didn't know whether they just did German/Flemish or what... He also told me that if you spoke French you could understand and be understood by everyone, if you spoke Flemish you would be understood by everyone, and if you spoke English you would be understood by everyone. If you spoke German everyone would reply in English. As a Belgophile I will bow to the natives every time! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Your Belgian friend is from the Flemish region. I am from Wallonia.
 * It is correct that at secondary school (13 -> 18), students learn 3 langages (their first langage and two others). Usually, people choose the other main national langage and then English but that's a choice. That is not mandatory. Personally I chose English and then Flemish, which I forgot because except at Brussels, the other national langages are not usually practiced. Few Flemish speak French and even less Walloons speak Flemish. Walloon is a dead langage. There is nobody any more who speaks this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.85.132 (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that we need to make it clearer at the top of our articles, that Belgian French and Walloons are two different languages, and that Walloons isn't an everyday language any more. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Documents showing amendments
Does anyone know whether there's a specific name for documents detailing the effect of amendments (or proposed amendments) to legal texts—usually marking deletions with italics, brackets or a strikethrough, and insertions with boldface or underlining (example here)? I have a vague recollection of actually reading a Wikipedia article on them, but I can't remember what they're called and can't find the article again. Any help would be much appreciated! —Alkari (?), 10 March 2012, 06:14 UTC


 * Are you thinking of revision tracking? That's what Microsoft Word calls it. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go for Codicil. Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... What I have in mind is akin to revision tracking, I suppose, but more specialized—it's a document specifically to illustrate the effect of amendments on a legislative text (bill, statute, constitution etc.). I don't think it's a codicil, since that seems to refer to the amendments themselves; this is rather a copy of the original text with the changes indicated. Thank you for your help, though. —Alkari (?), 10 March 2012, 23:07 UTC
 * I don't know if there's a common name for this process, but many statutes (state and federal) in the United States do show when amendments came into effect (although not always what had been there before the amendment). As you might imagine, this can be very important to those who litigate, judge and report specific cases (e.g. in tax law) that might have occurred before or after a particular amendment. See, for example, United States Code, California Penal Code, legislative history and Office of Law Revision Counsel. This example (the beginning of the Internal Revenue Code) from the United States Code Annotated shows what the amendments and annotations look like in the U.S.C.A. [N.B. this particular link will expire later this week as "GPO Access" switches to "FDSys".] —— Shakescene (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

contravarsy about indian national anthem!
what is the truth behind the Indian national anthem? was it made in the honour of king or our motherland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp9rocks (talk • contribs) 10:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We have some explanation about the difference of opinion at Jana Gana Mana (the complete song). MilborneOne (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

what is the 100% truth behind Indian national anthem?was it really written in the honour of king?or our motherland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp9rocks (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want 100% truth, the only sure answer is "Neither, either, or both". History rarely provides us with 100% certainty on the motives and thoughts of its protagonists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Marriage of clerics in medieval times
I'm given to understand that, in the early medieval period, it was permissible for church clerics to marry, so long as they had not been admitted to the minor orders and did not perform the sacramental liturgy. I would like to assert that in an article, but my source is not the greatest and I can't seem to google-fu a better one. I'm surprised we don't have an article, but my searches all come up with bits about the Catholic view of marriage or clerics that performed marriages, so it could well be that I'm using the wrong terms. Specifically, I would like a reliable source that talks about the situation in Europe in roughly the 11th through 13th centuries, but hints about what search terms to use might also be useful. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Matt Deres (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it that you've found our article Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church)? Some information at Celibacy and the Priesthood, Married Priests From the First Centuries Practiced Celibacy and ON PRIESTLY CELIBACY AND THE PRESENT CRISIS IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM although it's hard to find anything without an agenda. There's quite a detailed essay in the Catholic Encyclopedia: Celibacy of the Clergy - scroll down to "History of clerical celibacy". Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dammit, "celibacy" is the word I should have been searching for all along. Thanks for that. The links provide more context, but I fear they likely wouldn't count as reliable sources (the link for American Catholics seems to be confusing chastity and celibacy for one thing), but the article you linked seems promising. No, I hadn't found that; I was barking up the wrong tree. Thanks for the help! Matt Deres (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We also have a clerical marriage article, but that won't help much with medieval Catholicism. It was always sort of prohibited, as far back as the Council of Elvira, but it never really caught on. The First Lateran Council and Second Lateran Council forbade it in the twelfth century, but since they had to repeat the prohibition numerous times, and it had already been 800 years since it was first prohibited, obviously not much had changed. As a good and very recent source, I would suggest "Clerical Celibacy in the West" by Helen Parish. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

meditating
I have been reading online about meditating, and I don't understand how to do it. Some say that a person can enter deep meditation within 10 minutes. What do I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.71.230 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many methods of entering a meditative state, which are designed to make you stop thinking constantly. I don't understand why you can't find these techniques online, though.  What have you tried ? StuRat (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about online products like books and machines that claim to teach you how to get into deep meditation in 10 minutes? I think what you are talking about sounds a little bit too good to be true. If you want good quality meditation instruction for free, it's probably the easiest to check out online stuff from religious groups. A lot of religious groups really want to get people interested, so there is often a lot of free online materials.


 * If you choose to go that way, you should first decide what sort of religious group to look for online, but a lot of them have diferent goals. If you tell us what exactly you are trying to get out of meditation, then maybe someone could point you towards a form of meditation that will give you what you want. Rabuve (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But if you go to a religious group to learn meditation, and they offer you Kool-Aid, you might want to pass on that. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In this context "deep" is relative and can mean many different things. Ten minutes can be surprisingly long, but is short compared to hours, naturally. As with most practices the more often you do it and the harder you work at it the better you'll get, at least once you have a basic understanding of what to do (and/or what not to do). As StuRat said, there are many methods of meditating. The meditation page has a lot of info and links to more. Pfly (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just be wary of "working hard" when meditating. Anything to do with effort, striving, working and trying is anathema to meditation, just as it is to going to sleep.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * True. But just the same one should be wary of spacing out. Our page on shikantaza, for example, has a quote describing it as "...not sitting with nothing to do; it is a very demanding practice, requiring diligence as well as alertness". There's a strange kind of effortless effort that's hard to describe in regular language. Sitting there daydreaming isn't going to get you very far. But if you can go ten minutes without daydreaming, congratulations! Pfly (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of a saying about enlightenment: "Only when one ceases to seek enlightenment, and becomes content to merely be, can one attain enlightenment". StuRat (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Make sure you hear and see absolutely nothing, like you have cotton in your ears, noise-isolating headphones, and are on a quiet street. And it is night, you have no windows anyway in that room, the door is closed, and you have a blindfold on.  Focus on your breathing.  Imagine a deep-sea submarine.  Walk its length and maintain absolute quiet, lest you be heard.  Even your thoughts can be heard, maintain thought discipline.  think nothing.  quiet now.  --84.1.193.119 (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With due respect, that's not good advice. It is impossible to "think nothing".  You've asked the OP to imagine they're on a quiet street, then in a closed room, then on a submarine.  That's a lot of mental activity - and ipso facto a lot of thoughts - for a person who's supposed to be mentally inactive and having no thoughts.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And whatever you do... don't think about the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man! (damn... too late). Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are supposed to be sequential steps to isolate yourself from your current surroundings. I started numbering them 1)...you don't do them at once!  Sorry this isn't clearer.  Did you try following them by the way?  Maybe it just works for me, or I only think I'm meditating.  By the way, after you stop thinking about whatever pressing things you're not 'talking about' you can meditate on whatever you want. 84.1.193.119 (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Meditation is not just thinking nothing: only some forms of meditation make use of "the spaces between the thoughts". For example, maze meditation or labyrinth meditations are forms of walking meditation. Mindfulness is also a form of meditation, which relies on you being totally present and alert, taking notice of what is going on both inside and outside. Mantra meditation involves the repetition of phrases. I personally believe that anyone and everyone can meditate, but they need to try many forms to see which is right for them. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)