Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 August 10

= August 10 =

27th Amendment to the US Constitution
I've never understood — why was the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution written to forbid all immediate changes in legislators' salaries? Why wasn't it written simply to prohibit immediate salary increases? Presumably nobody except the legislators themselves would suffer anything if the legislature reduced its own salaries effective immediately, and the article's "Background" section shows that New York suggested in 1788 that increases alone be prohibited, so it's not as if nobody thought of it. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A salary reduction could be imposed as a punishment of some kind, like if the wealthier representatives reduced the pay to zero, then the less-wealthy might have to resign. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't believe your statement "nobody except the legislators themselves would suffer anything if the legislature reduced its own salaries" is true. Low legislator salaries favour legislators with independent wealth and disfavour those without. Imagine a legislature split between wealthy capital holders and representatives from low- or middle-income groups who depended on salaries before entering the legislature.  If the first group gained control, however briefly, they could lower the salary to $1, making it difficult for their opponents to live and work effectively. The amendment doesn't entirely preclude this, but it means everyone has to go to the polls with a cynical stunt like this pending. 46.208.108.197 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My point exactly, and better-stated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It says "The laws ascertaining the compensation ...". I don't know whether it was a concern but depending on details (which tend to be complicated in laws), if you allowed decreases but not increases then you might get into discussions about whether something is an increase when it isn't a single law simply saying "You get $X". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone, for the input. The Ineligibility Clause refers specifically to "increased" instead of "changed" for salaries, and it's prompted discussions: not whether something's exactly an increase, but how to apply the word — see the Saxbe fix article.  Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's why it says "The laws ascertaining the compensation...", so that it's not practically possible to weasel around it by getting creative with what terms like "increase" and "decrease" mean. It's vaguely like the income tax amendment, which gives the Congress the power to tax incomes. Some purists argue that "income" is not the same thing as "revenue". The way the amendment gets around it is by adding, "...from whatever source derived." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

House of Châlon-Arlay
Who is the heir general of the House of Châlon-Arlay (more specifically Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay) which ruled the Principality of Orange? After René of Châlon the title passed to William the Silent, who wasn't a descendant of the House of Châlon-Arlay. Who stood to inherit Orange in 1544 by hereditary right as heir general of the House of Châlon-Arlay ?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify the question? According to our articles, the title passed to another House/family because there were no heirs. Philibert of Châlon (died 1530) had no children; the title passed to his sister's son René, who also had no children, thereby ending both male and female lines. Is the confusing because René took the name Châlon? He was the last female-line heir, Philibert the last male-line heir. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell I was asking were there descendants of Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay in 1544 who had a better claim than William the Silent. René was probably the last descendant of John IV of Chalon-Arlay and maybe even William VII of Chalon but definitely not of Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay. Wikipedia has really little to no info on this subject of the other children of these princes besides the one that succeeded. I was wondering if Louis II of Chalon-Arlay's two other sons Louis and Hugh had descendants? Or if the other children, only mentioned on the French wiki, of fr:Jean III de Chalon-Arlay had descendants.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Economics of individuals within firms
I wanted to read economic papers that deal with how firms are affected by the individuals within them acting in their own interests, and related situations, but my Google skills do not appear to be up to scratch. E.g. a firm wants to achieve a goal, so hires an employee to work towards it, but that same employee will be better off by working towards a mutually exclusive goal. --superioridad (discusión) 02:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really know, but maybe our articles Conflict of interest and Perverse incentive can be a starting point? Sjö (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Diseconomy_of_scale touches on this. StuRat (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, in a sense, this is a special case of tragedy of the commons/degradation of the commons, a very old problem, where a shared resource, in this case the company, tends to be used inefficiently, in this case by the employees, if they don't personally hold much of a stake in the preservation of that resource. StuRat (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * William K. Black's concept of control fraud is what you are looking for, if the individuals are the ones best placed to direct the firm's activities towards their own, mutually exclusive goal of self-enrichment at the firm's expense: the top management.John Z (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You might start with theory of the firm and the articles linked from there, especially behavioral theory of the firm. Control fraud is a special case of moral hazard. John M Baker (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See Principal–agent problem. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Husband of Mona Lisa
who was husband of mona lisa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.170.82 (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The subject of the Mona Lisa was Lisa del Giocondo and her husband was Francesco del Giocondo. (section header added.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is in the news currently, as they are in process of digging up her grave to reconstruct her face to see if it matches the Mona Lisa. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's only grave desecration if she's 534 years or younger!" Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 14:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, a the good news a Lisa is A'm a gonna paint a you face for free. The bad news is they gonna dig a you body up aroun a the year 2000 to use you face a bones as lego pieces. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your impression of Leonardo is uncanny. And speaking of Leonards, Lisa answers back, channeling Leonard "Chico" Marx centuries before he was born: "'At's-a no good!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

term for all atheists going to hell?
What is the term for the belief that good people of other religions can also go to heaven, but atheists will go to hell? Which religions/denominations hold such beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.101.131 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Universalism. See our article for the various attitudes that different faiths have taken towards this issue - particularly Christian Universalism, Unitarian Universalism, and Noahidism.  That being said, I don't know of any universalist viewpoint that regards atheism (simpliciter) as a mortal sin - there are plenty of religious groups that do so condemn atheism, of course, but none of those (as far as I know) are particuarly strong on ecumenism. Tevildo (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, though, there's nothing within the spectrum of "Universalism" (itself a slippery and poorly defined topic) that necessarily excludes even atheists from the afterlife. Still, it is the closest, and that's the only useful starting point for research I can imagine. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 14:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hell is very much part of the afterlife. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the core premise of Universalism is that "everyone is saved." So presumably it's all heaven and no hell. But that's as much of a guess as anything else is. I recall one of Rod Serling's TV programs (probably Night Gallery) in which a deceased hippie-type arrives at the afterlife and is assigned to perpetually listening to Lawrence Welk records or something. He's crying, "Bummer, man! Bummer!" and the death angel says, "Oddly enough, there's a place in heaven just like this... one man's heaven is another man's hell." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note also that Noahidism (guilty of that same poor definition and slipperiness I mentioned earlier) typically requires a great deal more than simple belief in God. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 22:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not according to everyone. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if he made up a term for it, but one of Raymond Smullyan's logic puzzle or philosophy books has the opposite idea - when only the atheists have an afterlife. He imagines a future with all his atheist friends enjoying bliss and mourning his absence. Though Smullyan himself still hasn't reached the decision point yet.John Z (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (No salvation outside the Church). μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But that excludes Muslims, Buddhists, animists, etc., as well as nonconformist Christians; the original question regards something that would accept Muslims, Buddhists, animists, etc., and all flavors of Christians, excluding only the atheist. It's such an unusual perspective that I'd guess that there's no name for it, in the rather-unlikely event that any organized groups have ever held such a doctrine.  Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I read this question when it was posted. It's because the Roman Catholic phrase is neither one word nor an exact equivalent that I waited before I answered it.  But given Jesus is a member of the Trinity I am not about to concede your objection--even though I am an atheist.  The OP is free to ignore the reference if he likes, but it would have been contrary of me to have withheld it. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the Unitarian Universalist website http://www.uua.org/worship/words/chalice/151521.shtml, there is no requirement to believe a specific creed to belong to the UU church. In fact, there's an old joke that Unitarian Universalists are basically athiests who have had children. OldTimeNESter (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Balliol and Coucy
House of Balliol indicate there was a marriage between a female Balliol and a lord of Coucy. Who are they? I can't seem to find any daughters in the articles of the Balliol who did.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * fr:Enguerrand V de Coucy married Christine de Lindsay, daughter of Ada de Balliol and William Lindsay, and granddaughter John I de Balliol (and therefore a niece of King John Balliol). Unfortunately we don't have an article about Enguerrand V, but his French article mentions it. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrs G and Mr W
In volume one, chapter three of Emma we are told Mrs Goddard "having formerly owed much to Mr. Woodhouse's kindness, felt his particular claim on her to leave her neat parlour". What did Mr Woodhouse do for Mrs Goddard? Yours, Cluelessly  almost - instinct 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Austen gives any more information than that. Presumably Mr Woodhouse contributed some money or property towards the establishment of Mrs Goddard's school.  Tevildo (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems the safest presumption. I was hoping that there might be some gossamer-thin allusion a couple of hundred pages later; I shall be keeping my eyes peeled for any hints of that this time I read it, and will report back if I come across anything!  almost - instinct 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)