Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 2

= February 2 =

Iran a parliamentary democracy?
According to the intro of its article, Iran's government "combines elements of a parliamentary democracy with a religious theocracy". Parliamentary democracy? As far as I can tell from its politics section, the president is paramount among the non-clerical officials, so not purely parliamentary, and the legislature doesn't appear to have much authority over the executive, other than approving vice-presidents, so not semipresidential on the French model, either. It sounds much more like a presidential system than anything else. Am I missing something, or is the intro wrong? Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Best overall term might be "Guided democracy"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm attempting to address. Take out the religious theocracy, and what do you have?  Or in other words, if you had another state with similar arrangements of legislature, executive, and judiciary, and if they were the only real branches of government, what would you call it?  Would it be a parliamentary system, as the Iran article's intro seems to be saying, or would it be a rather thoroughly presidential system, or something else somehow?

SNP post-referendum bounce
Hello, everyone. The Scottish National Party may have lost the independence referendum, but it has managed to bounce back, has seen a membership surge and is now polling stronger than ever for the UK general election, where it seems poised to take almost all Scottish seats. Is this sheer luck, or can it be plausibly attributed to certain measures taken by the party in the post-referendum setting? Thanks a lot.--Leptictidium (mt) 08:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A phenomenon also seen in the past in Quebec inter alia. People will vote for a "protest party" seeking secession far more than they would really vote for secession proper.  Collect (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any study that deals with Wikipedia's entries on fiction?
hi everyone, let me please give it another try: a new day, new people, new opportunites, and maybe some spot-on-results this time :-) Does anyone know any research results on Wikipedia entries about fiction? see here for previous roundabout answers in section "Sought: study on a certain group of entries (fiction)" --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If anyone knows of such studies it would most likely be the folks at WP:WikiProject Literature, try asking them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks, Roger (Dodger67), alas, no replies last time, so I thought I'd better opt for another try here :-) --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a few academic research studies that at least mention fiction on WP  . The last is a short review, so there should be plenty of refs within. A complicating factor is we don't know what kind of study you want. Do you want a statistical analysis of word counts and coverage? Do you want a humanist review of literary techniques discussed in our articles? These will be very different papers, in different journals, with different sets of terminology. But they will both "deal with WP's entries on fiction." Maybe you just want anything at all related to WP articles about fiction?  If so - do you know how to use google scholar to go through forward and reverse citations? This is a bit of a tricky thing to search for, so I think you'll do better off linking through references than repeated word searches. Anyway, google scholar is your friend here :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, good hints. Am looking for any kind of study, really. Mainly, I am interested in finding out what experts might say about theoretical slants in articles on literary works (NPOV slants, you see ;-), and since there seems to be none yet that has been made known (meaning: to the brand you name above) that deals with this topic heads-on, I was wondering what might be known (searchable/ retrievable) more generally. Thanks, SemanticMantis. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Tanzania Youth Empowerment Group( TAYEG)
Hi,

My name is NURU CHRISTOPHER NZOYA, Am a Tanzanian with 24years old. In Tanzania there is humanity problem especially to youth between 15yrs to 35yrs, which is POVERT which mostly caused by lack of empowerment and intrepreneurship education. As my wishes i dicide to create a volunteer group to provide education on different issues concerned with intrepreneurship, empowerment, and agricutural improvement to Tanzanian youth. My request to your foundation is to ask for the support mostly financial and equipments in order to make our group plan implementations. Please help the human as much as possible can, order to make the joyful life to every one.09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks,

It's TAYEG Secretary,

NURU CHRISTOPHER NZOYA

email: [redacted]

phone:[redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.192.135 (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the place to ask for information to help your volunteer group, not money and equipment. The Wikimedia Foundation is the place to ask for those things. (Do they have a page for such requests ?) StuRat (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Julian calendar date needed for Third Crusade
In Third Crusade it says Richard entered Limassol on May 6 and met with Isaac... Is this date of the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar, since it is 1191 they are speaking of? If it is not of the Julian calendar, then what date is that in the Julian calendar? An approximation is O.K. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's in the Gregorian calendar it will be a week later. You would need to go to the source because some historians change all dates to the Gregorian. The medieval year started on Lady Day, but that isn't a problem for a date in May. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need to convert the dates to the Gregorian calendar for 1191, since there was only one calendar then. It was May 6 in England and France and Cyprus. All dates are the same for everyone until 1582. As Itsmejudith says, we do need to adjust the year sometimes, since different places started the new year on different days, but May 6 was in 1191 for everyone. (Well, actually, for Isaac it would have been the year 6699 in the Byzantine calendar, but it was still May 6!) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that answered my question = May 6 it is.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Itsmejudith is right, you need to see whether the source used the original Julian dates or converted them to Gregorian dates. Although the Gregorian calendar didn't exist and wasn't in use anywhere in 1191, it is possible for a modern historian to make the conversion.  I think most historians don't make the conversion, but it's a valid question.  Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The source here seems to indicate May 6.--Doug Coldwell (talk)


 * Marco polo, any modern historian worth his salt would NEVER convert Julian dates earlier than 15 October 1582 to Gregorian. The Gregorian calendar was never meant to apply retrospectively, period.  Sure, it's possible to convert dates to what they would have been if the Gregorian calendar had been introduced earlier than it was, but it's also possible to work out what my age would be now if I had been born in 1903.  Both exercises are pointless and meaningless.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any reason anyone would ever do that, unless they were programming a time machine. I don't think I've ever seen an historian convert a Julian date from the Middle Ages. For the sources we're talking about here, the primary sources from the crusades and the modern history Doug is using, I can guarantee that none of those dates have been converted to the Gregorian calendar. That would make no sense at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There may not be any good reasons any historian worth his salt would do it, but the difficulty is that people do things for bad reasons as well as good, and it's not always possible to know if a given historian is or is not sodium chloride-worthy. That various people have found and do find a use for the proleptic Gregorian calendar is testified to by the fact that it has a name and an article :)  Actual primary sources of course, as Adam points out, don't use proleptic dates.  People who edit Wikipedia articles seem quite prone to inserting proleptic Gregorian dates where they have no business being, so it's good to raise the concern from time to time. Especially in the context of saint's feast days, which frequently undergo this sort of "modification" because of someone's idea about what celebrating the anniversaries of a death should mean.- Nunh-huh 19:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I take May 6 as the Gospel truth.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bless you, my son. :)
 * Yes, Nunh-huh, some people do confuse things. The classic one is Orthodox Christmas.  Orthos tend to say "We celebrate Christmas on 7 January", and others understandably wonder why.  The answer is that they've given only half the story.  The truth is that they celebrate Christmas on 25 December like everyone else, but unlike everyone else they use the Church Calendar, which is a slightly modified version of the Julian Calendar.   Their 25 December just happens to correspond to 7 January in the Gregorian calendar, but that's not the calendar they're following when it comes to Church events and activities.  I suppose they have to make it relatable to the rest of the world, for whom Christmas is now just a distant memory and who are now busy eating hot cross buns in readiness for Easter, which is still at least 10 weeks away.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope that Orthodox kiddies find a way to parlay this into a few extra presents, at least ;) - Nunh-huh 05:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I introduced an unecessary worry. It's always a good idea to look at the methodology your sources used (I hope). Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

how is a scratch-off ticket not just hard cash without all the security features, times a probability?
I don't get that if you can convert a scratch-off ticket into money at location, how is a scratch-off ticket not the same as an actual currency, just with far fewer security features, and multiplied by a probability? Please help me understand the distinction or what I'm missing - i.e. is there a centralized aspect, where scratch-off ticket numbers are checked against a central database? If so then is a winning scratch-off ticket (anything redeemable for cash) actually a stored 'secret' (in the cryptographic sense) that can be used once? Or is there some other centralized feature that makes this different from my mental model. Thank you. I am also interested in other aspects or qualities of bearer instruments of all kinds, centralized and decentralized. --91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * They aren't redeemable everywhere. Most restaurants won't take them, for example. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Euros aren't redeemable everywhere either. Most restaurants you're thinking of won't take them.  (I assume you have the US in mind or another English-speaking territory none of which are on the euro, to a first approx.) But all money exchange centers will, and give you dollars - just like scratch-off tickets.


 * For something to be useful as a medium of exchange, it needs to actually have a (more or less) known value. Though this is arguably true of scratch-off lottery tickets in sufficient bulk, it is demonstrably not true of individual tickets. Indeed, if it were true, logic would suggest that nobody would buy them in the first place, since their value (their expected mean payout) is less than their purchase price. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is simply incorrect. A 1% chance of $1,000 has an exact value of $10 per the argument expressed in my subject line. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidently people who purchase lottery tickets think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you made a typo. $10 is not an "exact value", rather it is an expected value. And while the math of expectation is incredibly useful, it has to be used carefully to give meaningful results. The expected value of a single roll of a fair six-sided die is 3.5=(1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 -- but you will never roll a 3.5 on a six-sided die! And as Andy points out, an expected value is not a known value of a specific item. A dollar bill is always worth exactly a dollar, but no lottery ticket that only pays out $1,000 or zero is worth exactly $10. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're simply wrong with "no lottery ticket that only pays out $1,000 or zero is worth exactly $10". To see why you're wrong, consider that obviously a lottery ticket that pays out either $1,000 or $0 with some probability, where that probability is 99.99999999999999999999999% the former, is worth exactly $1,000 not one penny less.  (Due to the number of 9's I included, which is 25 or less than 1 in 100 sextillion chance of being worth $0.)    Now in your mind decrease 99.99999999999999999999999% chance slowly but firmly toward 0.00000000000000000000001% and you will see that the value becomes worth exactly $0.00 - not even close to $0.00000000001 or even a trillionth of a penny.   As you do the push you can't help but reach arbitrary values.  You are just not thinking logically enough with your mind.  212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking (with my mind!) quite logically about this. What you've illustrated is that you're conflating expected value with real value or nominal value or purchasing power or some other type of value. The former is clearly defined mathematically, the latter terms depend on all sorts of economic considerations. Take care, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please answer in sequence: 1) does a lottery ticket with 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being worth $1000 and 0.00000000000000000000001% chance of being worth $0 still have to be scratched off to be redeemed? 2) Why does it have to be scratched off?  3)  Under this scenario what is the exact value after scratching and seeing a winner, and after scratching and seeing a loser?  Are both possible?  Finally 4)  Under this scenario what is the ticket worth before scratching, after scratching and seeing a winner, and after scratching and seeing a loser?  Can a ticket be in any of the above three states under the described scenario? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You still seem to be missing the point that others have made above namely that there's no intrisic reason why someone will value a single ticket with the expected value. Firstly, as has been pointed out below and to some extent above, lottery tickets aren't particularly accepted. This is more important than you seem to appreciate since if someone is going to give me a ticket, even if it has 100% chance of being worth $1000, there's reason I will want to accept in in lieu of a $100 x 10 notes, or a bank transfer or the other alternatives which don't require me to go to a store or something to redeem my money want possibly submit ID and whatever else is required. In other words, just because something can be converted to $1000 in a more transferrable format doesn't mean it's going to be treated as equally transferrable and therefore of equal value. Perhaps more importantly, even if we put all this aside and assume I can get my money instantly, won't be taxed (as happens in some places like the US), the government is going to provide me the same level of protection and assistance against fraud and whatever else, it still doesn't mean someone is going to value a single ticket with the expected value. Rather than using such insalely high odds which makes it more difficult to see, consider a ticket with a 99/100 chance of being $1000 and a 1/100 chance of being $0. Many people receiving a single ticket are not going to treat it as $990. Heck they may not even treat value it at $980. And not because they don't understand statistics, but because there is still a risk they will lose out. In other words, while it may be far more likely they ill be $10 better off, there is a chance they will be $980 worse off and this is too much of a bad outcome. (In a similar way as much as people joke about lotteries being a tax on the stupid, there are plenty of people who do buy the lottery despite understanding the statistics properly.) If they were receiving 10000 of these tickets a year, than because it will average out they might be fine with it (but a smaller number, e.g. 10 is probably still not enough for a person to give the expected value of $990 or eve $980). Of course by that token, it is possible that a system could develop where the tickets become basically redeemable for the expected value because banks etc will accept them for such (since they're doing the averaging), although why they'd want to do this is unclear. P.S. You yourself mentioned the Euro above. Consider that although I may be able to go to a money changer and convert by €100 Euro note to US$105 (may be), it doesn't mean I'm going to value the €100 Euro note as US$105. If you're in a store in the US and someone offers you €100 instead of $100 change, many people will reject it and so will the store as payment, even if they're fully aware of the current exchange rate and are owner operated. Perhaps if you offer to pay €1000 instead of $750 they some owner operated stores might accept. Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Most lottery tickets have a serial number, on a small-scratch off panel. You shouldn't buy a ticket if the serial number is visible. When you redeem a winning ticket, either the ticket is sent by the retailer back to the lottery, or the serial number is. If it's serial number, then it's unique, and the lottery only allow it to be redeemed once. This is similar to the bar-coded event tickets you get now - if you print of the ticket twice, and give one to a friend, then you shouldn't be able to use both. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So it is a secret embedded in a 'bearer currency'. How is this even remotely secure?  For example, since nobody checks serial numbers if the scratch-off shows no prize, what is to stop someone from buying rolls of tickets, manufacturing all the losing numbers onto a second roll (with covering over serial numbers) and redeeming all the winning ones?   Is there any independent verification that this isn't being done - for example, if 10% are supposed to be winning, does anyone randomly check rolls in grocery shops to see if in fact it isn't 5% in a statistically impossible way?  (Over 5000 tickets for example). 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be simpler just to forge real currency? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Forging of lottery tickets might not attract comparable penalties, however. The US Constitution permits Congress to punish people for "counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States", but it doesn't permit Congress to punish forgeries of anything else, and probably your average state would consider this kind of thing some sort of fraud, and its punishment might be significantly different from federal punishment for counterfeiting.  There's presumably no Secret Service analogue for lottery tickets, so you might be less likely to get caught.  Put all these together, and the chance of "losing" is probably less for forging lottery tickets than for forging money.  Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifically, in California, creating a fake lottery ticket is defined as forgery, which is punishable only by imprisonment from one to three years. A far cry from the federal penalty for counterfeiting currency. No Matter How Dark (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The companies involve would have their own fraud detection systems which they probably keep mostly secret, and may not always work . But they do have the advantage that they usually only deal with retail outlet they choose, and have many different games (including non scratch ones) and also generally require identification for large prizes, so can look for unusual patterns to try and detect fraud. Being cynical, while there may be some legal risks (including closure), I'm fairly sure most lottos don't rely on prizes not being redeemed that much. So provided people don't find out and stop playing because of it, it doesn't actually matter to them who's redeeming the prizes. P.S. I don't think it's true no one check serial numbers if the ticket has no prize. Some people may make a mistake, and for complicated games some people can't be bothered working out if they've won. Of course, in recognition of this, lottery operators need to consider how they ensure people aren't fooled by those checking the ticket (if it isn't self-service). That said, this doesn't necessarily help you detect the fraud of the sort you mentioned, depending on the systems in place. Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how many lucky $1 winners can you really pass, even at every store within driving range, before everyone recognizes you as the guy who only cashes tickets, never buys them, right as somebody at the lotto office is noticing an issue with the serial number? Not a chance, I think.  The big money should be for store owners who move a serious volume of tickets, if they can do forensic-style imaging to see which ones are the winners before the idiots customers have a chance to buy them. See also  It's not ethical to gamble unless you have a way to cheat! Wnt (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A treasury note is a treasury note as long as it wasn't forged, and as long as it was issued, regardless of deficiencies in printing. Lottery tickets have no guaranteed value, and are routinely discredited at the sole discretion of the issuer. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

followup question
what keeps a government from issuing a currency with very few security measures (versus a US Dollar) but being centralized and containing a 'secret' that was scratch-off evident? (OP here) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the point of such a currency. From an end user perspective, I don't see how it reassures me that the currency is safe to accept because the government can verify if it's genuine when I have little way to do so. Unless you meant the currency to be only used one time and the person with the currency and the person accepting will verify against a database at the time of acceptance but that would add great expense and time and is needless complicated compared to all the other things you can do with a centralised system. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the central one-time verification method be open to everyone? Then an unused secret could instantly be verified and transferred to another unused secret at which point only you would know that you were 'safe' with the piece of paper now in your hand - a fresh scratch-off ticket that still has a secret and that you just transferred a verified and used-once currency unit into?  Then all you would need to know is that you have a genuine roll of scratch-off secrets that are scratch-evident and hadn't been scanned (scammed) yet, i.e. a roll you get from the government.  Regarding 'what would be the point', have a look at Superdollar to see some of the massive amounts of physical security that have been put into US currency, which is a bearer instrument.  It's just a piece of paper, and if you can manufacture it for less than $1 you can start scamming people, and people do (and go to jail, and the secret service is involved, etc).  Tamper-evident scratch-off secrets are obviously relatively super-cheap to manufacture.  I was wondering if this solution actually works or what I'm missing.  Let's say for example that a very tiny organization wanted its own currency, without being able to afford good physical security for it - doesn't this work? If not why not?  Why isn't it used if it does work - am I the first to think of it?  Probably not. Scratch-off tickets are listed under bearer instruments. I must be missing something.  This is just a hobby of mine. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the question of the confidence of users in your substitute currencies. For example, the value of your lottery ticket with a 1% chance of winning $1000 would be much below $10 to me because I don't know you, you live thousands of miles away, and it would cost me much more than £10 to redeem my $10.  This is why many currencies in the past were backed by gold.  Scratch-off currency would be much more expensive to print and distribute because everyone would need to check the serial number and be issued with a replacement by the issuers.  It would also be much more inconvenient because people would need to check the validity before accepting it.  You might be interested in our articles on Bitcoin, Virtual currency, Alternative currency and Private currency if you haven't already read them.    D b f i r s   09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Once the panel has been scratched, it's no longer a secret. So you can't transfer it or anything to a third party. You could require a new note for every transfer, but as I already mention that would be expensive, time consuming and fairly pointless considering the plenty of alternatives which would work better since you are after all relying on a centralised system, or at least some networked system. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Have you considered that very often with a modern high security currency a lot of counterfeiting is actually detectable even without fancy equipment and without needing much training, it just succeeded because no one bothers, at least partially because it's time consuming? And you're proposing a person accepting a 10 $10 bills will need to scratch each one individually, and then check the number against a database (or alternatively not bother but have even less security than they do now)? Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I was more interested in the provable aspects, i.e. not the practical ones. like the scheme could be that, assuming you can check centrally, and assuming you can be sure a secret is still contained and hasn't been revealed, you can check and transfer a possibly already-used secret to the new secret, assuming you can establish a connection to the central Db that is secure.  In other words you can go from unverified money to verified money using an ssl conection and a $0.02 piece of paper that's scratch evident.  I'm sure dollars and other real currency cost considerably more than that.  I'm just asking in a cryptographic sense, not the common use of the word 'secret'.  it's just a mental exercise, I'm curious if such a scheme with such (pretty mild IMO) assumptions would have provably secure aspects.  I'm also interested in this for crypto currency reasons, as a hobby, since obviously in some sense the network/blockchain is an 'authority' that you 'connect to'.  so would this be a way to create bearer instruments (cash) based on such a concept?  Maybe this is the wrong reference desk for it though!  would math or computer science be better? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think requiring the printing and distribution (which you seem to have forgotten about) of 1000x or more notes each year because each one can only be used once and anyone receiving such notes to scratch 5 or whatever different notes depending how many they're receiving and manually enter the numbers (okay you could use a barcode, but this wasn't stated earlier) to verify each one, I'm not sure what world you're living in. I'm fairly sure even in most ultra low wage economies like various parts of Africa this wouldn't be cheaper. And of course such countries lack the reliable networks, or even transport systems to be able to do this anyway. Meanwhile countries which probably do have the networks and transport systems to do this to this to some extent (noting that it's not stores that need to verify the currency but the person in the store, as well as transactions taking place outside stores and networks go down, and so even in the most connected city where a large percentage of people have mobile phones there are still a percentage of transactions that occur without both parties having access to a device they trust), tend to have high minimum wages. So wasting time on scratching tickets is even more dumb. Of course you could develop machines to scratch the currency, but this significantly adds costs, remembering again it's both parties that need to scratch the currency since if you're using physical currency with a define value it's likely change will be needed. (Perhaps people will trust larger stores and not bother to verify their currency, but there will always be paranoid people, plus smaller stores or other transactions where people would be reluctant to trust the person, noting of course it may be difficult to prove or even remember where the currency came from once someone does scratch it and find out it's fraudulent, so you have to hope they do it enough someone detects them.) Of course the other point you still seem to be missing if even if getting people to scratch multiple new tickets for each transaction and the cost of doing this and distributing these is really lower than printing high security money and dealing with some level of fraud (not that the scratch system is going to be fraud free anyway), as me and others have said before there are many better alternatives which are already in use such as card transactions, mobile payments including perhaps cryptocurrency, which take advantage of such networks and devices you're I presume using to check these numbers. Rather than requiring a centralised system, yet for some unstated reason rather than primarily relying on the network and the devices, you're wasting time distributing a very large number of notes and requiring people to scratch and enter numbers. In other words, it's entirely unclear what's the point of producing physical notes if the only security of the note comes from the secret which you're going to have to scratch, reveal and check using a device which could just receive the info more directly. Nil Einne (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You might like our article security printing. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Bless the Maker and all His Water


In Dune (film), Liet-Kynes (Max von Sydow), upon seeing the Sandworm, utters: "Bless the Maker and all His Water. Bless the coming and going of Him ..."; see e.g.. Where does this blessing / prayer come from? Is it something Frank Herbert made up de novo? Or is it borrowed from -- or referring to -- some prayer or quote in an existing Earth religion or tradition? It sounds oddly familiar yet I can't remember where it comes from, and it's driving me crazy o_O. Dr Dima (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a conflation of two biblical verses:


 * Genesis 1:2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


 * Psalms 121:8: The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore. 86.179.203.104 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Herbert intentionally created religions for his universe which were syncretic in some way, List of Dune religions covers the major ones. The idea is that the religions in his time were evolved versions of religions we know today; they have some familiarity to the reader, but they have all cross-bred to create hybrid religions.  Check out the Wikipedia article List of Dune religions and you get a sense for how this worked (with religions like Mahayana Christianity and Zensunni).  -- Jayron 32 15:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anecdote alert. Any mention of Dune reminds me of the three hours straight that I sat on a bench outside Museum of Contemporary Art Australia waiting for my brother and sister-in law, who had missed their flight to Sydney and had to catch the next one. I left my mobile phone at home, of course, but I did remember to bring a book. And thus three hours of "Paul Muad'Dib" and "Bene Gesserit",  and the Dune universe syncretic religions, as Jayron explained. Is it only me, or does the "Butlerian Jihad"  bring to mind this Butler? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Tamara de Lempicka's boarding school in Lausanne
I'm having trouble tracking down the name of the boarding school(s) Tamara de Lempicka had attended in Lausanne. Anyone know (or can anyone dig it up)? Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk  20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I couldn't pin it down either, but found "La Casita, Le Grand Verger, Pensionnat Roseneck, Les Allieres, are among the better- known girls' finishing schools at Lausanne" The Spectator -Education in Switzerland (1927)


 * Still no luck here, but thanks for that, Alan! ---Sluzzelin talk  18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Itinerarium Cambriae
I see Gerald of Wales appears to have written a works by the above title. I assume it is a history. Would Matthew Paris have used this or any of Gerald's works as a reference for any of his works? Which ones?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Itinerarium is sort of a history, but is actually an account of Baldwin of Forde's trip through Wales (accompanied by Gerald), trying to raise money and men for the Third Crusade. I don't think any of Matthew's writings covered that period, did they? The parts of his history book that he wrote himself start in 1235, so he probably had no opportunity to refer to Gerald's works. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your answer Adam. It gets me doing a little more research. As I get looking into this further our article says: After admission to the order in 1217, he inherited the mantle of Roger of Wendover, the abbey's official recorder of events, in 1236. Paris revised Roger's work, adding new material to cover his own tenure. This Chronica Majora is an important historical source document...  In the Chronica Majora article it says: The work begins with the creation of the world and contains annals up to 1259, the year of Paris's death. To me it looks like perhaps material from Gerald of Wales could have been worked on by Matthew and at least put into one of Matthew's works = Chronica Majora. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, although I don't know the extent of the additions that Matthew made to Roger's book. Matthew himself wrote in the Chronica that everything before 1235 was copied from Roger. Another possibility is that Roger used material from Gerard which Matthew then copied into the Chronica. We will have to investigate further... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in anything you find along these lines. I see our article does say, ...Paris revised Roger's work... which to me indicates that he used Baldwin of Forde's work as reference material for Chronica Majora. Perhaps time and further research will verify this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? There were dozens of historians in England and on the continent that he could have used as a source. We don't know what parts he revised. It's a big history, touching on centuries of European history. We have no idea if any of relates to the Itinerarium Cambriae or not. (That is, me and you don't know - I'm sure someone has written about it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just curious. Yes, he could have used dozens of historians in England for reference material and I suspect he did for his Chronica Majora. Matthew Paris was a very good historian and quite thorough.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely believe in the historical work of Matthew Paris and believe he did an outstanding job on his historical works. He gathered material from many sources to get his historical records very accurate. He would be a reliable source. Agree?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would say he's generally quite reliable. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration
As a result of this question, I have created a stub article at Itinerarium Cambriae. Feel free to build on it. What's the tag for the talk page, to show it was prompted by a Ref Desk thread? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it:

Origin of the archetype of the immortal beautiful man
It seems like every year there are a few different television series running which have the same general premise: there is a beautiful man, muscular with long dark hair, who has exceptional capabilities because he has died, and come back from the dead not quite human. Other immortals of his kind exist who lack his humanity, and he fights them in battles to the death. Usually, the loser takes the winner's head, and perhaps with it, his power. He relies on his human companions for key assistance, and spends his life helping those in peril. There can be only one... or at least, I'd say that if there weren't so many of them. I'm thinking The Crow series, The Highlander, Angel (TV series), Sleepy Hollow (TV series) and (more dubiously on the attractiveness, but to each his own) Doctor Who (TV series) and Forever (TV series). On the fringe, Supernatural (TV series) (with two, who started off human) and Vampire Diaries (without the heroic part). I'm sure you could name many more.

I feel like I'm seeing the same archetype illuminated from many angles until it seems almost to have a reality separate from its implementations, and so I wonder at the explanation. Is this an adaptive radiation, where TV screenwriters each copied the same basic idea because it worked, each putting their own little spin on it? Is it convergent evolution, because when writing a story the screenwriter finds that he has to eventually kill the character, who has to come back, that he has to look a certain way for the best audience, that decapitation is the only plausible way to kill an immortal, and because the need to establish conflict requires others of his kind and so forth? Or is there some sort of collective unconscious aspect to this, tapping some Dreamtime revelation, or reassembling the elements which unconsciously permeate our society from some ancient epic like that of Gilgamesh or Orpheus? Wnt (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See: The Hero with a Thousand Faces and Jungian archetypes; perhaps also The Golden Bough with this partial explanation. And I've almost finished The Count of Monte Cristo which comes quite close to the trope that you set out. --86.179.203.104 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I can think of some good ways to kill an immortal besides decapitation. How about a nuclear bomb ?  Or will the atoms reassemble themselves from wherever they are blown ? StuRat (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)