Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 May 1

= May 1 =

Pasteur's height
I had an impression that Louis Pasteur was of medium height until spotted this photo where looks taller than 180 cm (maybe something around 190 cm). This source, however, says he was "of a medium height". Is it just me or he indeed looks taller than average here? Brandmeistertalk  13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just you. It's hard to tell how tall someone is in a 2D picture, where perspective can play funny tricks.  With the long smock on, it's hard to judge his proportions by looking for visual clues such as belt line and the like, and we have no way to know what the relative position of the shelves are in the lab; if we're expecting the shelves to be taller than they are, it might make him appear taller to you.  See Ames room for some of the ways that 2D perspective issues can mess with one's sense of proportion.  One of my favorite pictures for messing with people's sense of perspective, which has some of the Ames room type problems with it, is this picture of George Patton and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. from WWII.  Because of the particular composition of the picture, at first glance it makes Teddy Jr. look like a very small person.  You can see from other pictures, however, this isn't so:  or .  So, it's really hard to judge someone's height from a photograph, and you really shouldn't place any stock in your own perception of their height from a single image like this.  -- Jayron 32 14:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)I agree that the image gives the impression of a very tall person. But I think that's misleading. The "table" on the left is actually just a stool with a tray on it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Bank Losses
In today's paper it states that the Royal Bank of Scotland has lost £50 billion since it was bailed out by taxpayers (with £46 billion) in 2008. It even lost £446 million in the first thee months this year. With these continuing losses, how can it manage to pay its staff, pay its electricity bill, its suppliers etc. Where does it get the money from? Widneymanor (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From the taxpayers, evidently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Debt, some of which is underwritten by the Treasury, and some is actual debt owed directly to the Treasury (some of which they have paid off, some has I think been forgiven, and some outstanding). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) From the money held in the bank accounts. We give them our money to 'look after', and get very little in return. The banks invest the money, or use it to pay their staff and bills, etc., plus their ridiculously large bonuses for their top management. Only the bailout itself was paid with taxpayers' money. We don't pay tax to the banks. We pay it to the government. If everyone using RBS suddenly and simultaneously decided to withdraw all of their money from their accounts, there is absolutely no possibility that RBS would even be able to fulfill those requests, and the bank would immediately become bankrupt. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 14:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * KageTora is describing a bank run. In the UK, the government protects individual depositors against the negative effects of such problems with a form of deposit insurance known as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.  So ultimately, if customers of the bank decide they don't want their money in that bank, and there is a bank run, the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook for it.  -- Jayron 32 15:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. The FSCS fund is not funded by taxes. It is "funded by a levy on 'authorised financial services firms.' " according to the article linked above and my memory. --Llaanngg (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically what you're saying is, we are paying for our own money? KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 16:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You always are. In terms of real value, keeping money in a bank ends up with most people slightly losing money.  This explains it well, but the basic principle is that 4% interest is basically breaking even for most people.  Any account paying less than 4% is losing real value, while accounts need to be paying significantly more than 4% to make any real coin.  RBS is currently paying  0.40% annual rate (yes, 0.40%).  Meaning that, in real inflation-adjusted terms, you are paying the Royal Bank of Scotland to hold your money for you.  -- Jayron 32 16:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The general rule is that if "interest rate < inflation rate" you are losing money in real terms. The 4% figure is not some magic number for the purpose and current inflation rate in UK is very low by historical standards, even going into negative territory for short periods.
 * Secondly, apropos some earlier responses in this section, it's important not to forget the bank's assets when making "taxpayer on the hook" calculations. When markets panic, these assets can be priced irrationally low due to market liquidity concerns, and systems like the Federal Reserve System and deposit insurance were established just to prevent such kinds of self-feeding frenzies. The eventual cost of the US Troubled Asset Relief Program program depends upon how one calculates it but is by any measure much smaller tan the headline number of $700 billion. Similarly, the cost to the UK treasury of bailing out RBS is likely to be much smaller than the £46 billion cited above (and may even turn a "profit"). Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure the bank is still making money off of you. TANSTAAFL always applies.  The 4% figure is, of course, not a static number; but it also isn't based solely on inflation.  It's a good rule of thumb, because it takes into account not just inflation, but other issues such as taxes on interest and Bank charges, which our article does not adequately cover, but which also add up a lot.  Yes, the 4% number is not set in stone, but 0.40% interest is an account that is going to lose real money in the long term.  -- Jayron 32 19:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The bank can continue operations and meet current payables because it isn't broke. At year end 2014, it had equity (i.e., the net positive capital position of its shareholders, as reflected on the bank's books) of 60,192 million pounds (see p. 344 of its 2014 annual report), so it was able to absorb a loss for that year of 2,711 million pounds.  The reason it has significant equity is that the government bought large amounts of shares during the recession, giving the bank additional capital and diluting existing shareholders.  As of December 2009, HM Treasury owned 84.4% of the bank, although this had declined to 79.1% as of December 2014 (see p. 96 of the annual report).  The government bought these shares to protect the bank's viability, presumably calculating that its losses on the investment would be less than its losses from paying out on deposit insurance if the bank failed. Funding for these losses did not come from debt or from depositors' accounts.  John M Baker (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * +1. Also note that the current market capitalization of RBS is around £39 billion, which is the markets assessment of how much the bank is worth after taking into account all its assets and liabilities. The bank is far from broke. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Widneymanor (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

identify artist of painting of George Washington's first inauguration
There is no artist listed for the painting accompanying the page about George Washington's first inauguration. I need to know the artist, where the painting hangs, and if it is under the Architect of the Capitol for usage rights. This is the page where it appears. – 98.242.248.67 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this, the picture was painted by Ramon de Elorriaga around 1889. Wikipedia has no further information on the artist, from what I can tell.  -- Jayron 32 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This book indicates that the original painting is part of the "Granger collection" of New York. Wikipedia has lots of other images sourced to said collection:  But I don't know much more about it.  It also gives an 1899 date for the painting, rather than 1889 as reported by some other sources.  -- Jayron 32 16:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the main website for the Granger collection, and here is their contact information. If you contact them directly, they may be able to help you find more information yourself.  It seems like a well-referenced painting, and having a Wikipedia article about it and its artist may be useful.  -- Jayron 32 16:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And here is the item itself at the Granger collection. It has the 1889 date, FWIW.  -- Jayron 32 16:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the Granger Collection only sells images of paintings and does not hold the physical canvas paintings per se.--Cam (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Smithsonian Institution, the actual painting hangs in Federal Hall in New York City. It belongs to the National Park Service. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <Homer Simpson eying donut voice> Ooh, a red-link! </Homer Simpson> "Otro pintor bilbaíno, Ramón de Elorriaga, de treinta y nueve años, viajaba por los Estados Unidos de América.", but it doesn't actually say that in the snippet view. He was a Spanish painter of Basque decent. Working on it. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Basques are a very decent people. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Plummer v. State v. Bad Elk v. United States
(And yes, the title is a bit of fun, purposely confusing two different meanings for "v."...)

Plummer v. State says:


 * "a person [...] may not resist an unlawful arrest being made peaceably and without excessive force."

...but Bad Elk v. United States says:


 * "an individual [has] the right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest."

Which is correct? Which page needs fixing?

Please not that, as documented at Plummer v. State, there are a lot of political blogs that claim that "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary", and readers who run into that claim often end up reading our Plummer v. State page, so we really want to get this one right and make sure everything we say in that article is well-sourced. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Both cases indicate that the courts ruled, in each case, that a person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. Plummer v. State says "The case overturned a manslaughter conviction, ruling that the convicted defendant had been protecting himself from the illegal use of force by a police officer." Bad Elk v. United States says "The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, noting that a person had the right to resist an unlawful arrest, and in the case of a death, murder may be reduced to manslaughter."  They both seem to agree with each other.  Of note, the second case is both later and a U.S. Supreme Court Case, while the first is only an Indiana State case.  If there had been a conflict, the later and Supreme Court case would have primacy, being both later and U.S. Supreme Court.  But in this case, it seems both rulings are in agreement.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Plummer was decided under Indiana state law while Bad Elk applied federal criminal law, so they need not be fully consistent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Bad Elk article states: "This case has been widely cited on the internet, but is no longer considered good law. Most states have, either by statute or by case law, removed the unlawful arrest defense for resisting arrest."  (emphasis added)  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ashford v Thornton
In the case of Ashford v Thornton, the defendant was charged with rape, but "The prosecution informed the court that it had no evidence to offer on that count, and Mr Justice Holroyd directed the jury to find the prisoner not guilty of rape, which they did." At the time, did English law not permit the judge simply to throw out the charge? Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in the way you mean. The prisoner (once an indictment had been preferred by the grand jury) is being tried by the jury (not the judge), and only the jury can pronounce the verdict.  The judge may (as in this case) direct an acquittal - see No case to answer - and various judges over the years have attempted (and failed) to direct convictions, but the actual verdict has always been the jury's responsibility. Tevildo (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a difference between the English/Welsh system and the American one? I thought it was the case in the United States, at least in some jurisdictions, it was possible for the judge to enter a verdict of not guilty even after the jury returned a guilty verdict, and also that the judge could ordinarily simply dismiss the case for lack of evidence.  If you're the defendant, though, the best scenario is the one where the judge directs a not-guilty verdict, because it can't be appealed, whereas a dismissed case might sometimes be refiled if the prosecution discovers new evidence or a higher court overrules the dismissal, and I seem to recall that a judge's overruling the jury's finding can also be appealed.  But I'm not at all sure of any of this so clarification is welcome. --Trovatore (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See directed verdict and Judgment as a matter of law for our articles on the US position. This is not the same as in England and Wales - an unsafe jury conviction can only be overturned by the Court of Appeal, not the trial judge.  Since 2003, acquittals for more serious offences can be appealed by the DPP if "new and compelling evidence" is found.  In 1818, there was no formal system for criminal appeal - unsafe convictions could be overturned by the King (or, in practice, the Home Secretary) as an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, but this was an action of the executive rather than the judiciary. Tevildo (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Article title question
I would like to find out, if possible, the title of an article I read on Wikipedia some time ago, but I have since forgotten. It is a supernatural story about a man waking up in an environment which is not precisely identified in the story, but it is assumed to be a city. The man doesn't know who he is or what he is doing there and walks obesrving his surroundings. In the end it turns out that the place may be a cemetery and he may also be dead. The name of the city sounds morbid but I don't recall it. If anyone has any idea what the title of the story may be please let me know. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds something like the plot of the Elegy episode of the original Twilight Zone. ("Happy Glades" was the name of the cemetery.) StuRat (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you StuRat. It was not related to that Twilight Zone episode and there was no high-tech component like astronauts. It was actually more like a medieval setting and the actual name of the city sounded like a modified word reminiscent of something morbid. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These kind of partial rememberings can sometimes be solved by pouring over lists at TV Tropes - for example YouWakeUpInARoom or WakingUpAtTheMorgue. In fairness, you probably won't ever find what you're looking for, but you'll be lost in the TV Tropes hall of mirrors forever, which might be better than the (perhaps actually quite bad) thing you're vaguely recalling. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Finlay. That's too bad I guess. I thought it was a well-known story, but it appears I was mistaken. The article was about a story of the folklore, not a film of any kind. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You could try looking through Category:Science fiction novels or Category:Horror novels to see if anything rings a bell. There are quite a lot though.--Shantavira|feed me 09:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Judges with 'Ag' after name
Why do some people have [Ag.] after their name in the Caribbean leagl system? See eg http://www.eccourts.org/olvin-jn-baptiste-v-inspector-peter-ermay-ag/

Thanks 87.114.38.61 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The default interpretation would be an abbreviation for "acting". But that would normally appear slightly before or after the name of the office, not the name of the person, thus: Ag. Inspector Peter Ermay, or Inspector (Ag.) Peter Ermay. Also, while possible, it seems unlikely that an acting inspector would be appearing before an acting chief justice and an acting judge of appeal.  I feel I'm wrong about this being an abbreviation, but that's all I got.  I doubt it's short for "Attorney General".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just curious. Why is there a "g" in the abbrev for acting ? StuRat (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the obvious guess would be it's from the Latin for "acting", which I believe would be agens. However, I've just checked a bunch of online dictionaries and other web site and have found no support at all for this, only other people asking about it: for example, here.  But on Australian web sites I found two lists of abbreviations which both include this but with the spelling "A/g", as if it stood for a two-word phrase. --174.88.134.161 (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that it could be acting. Compare Albert Redhead - http://www.eccourts.org/montserrat/ and http://www.thestkittsnevisobserver.com/2011/01/14/high-court-judge.html Nanonic (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Those links do seem to suggest it means "Acting". The abbreviation might just be first and last letter; or might derive from a Latin word formed from ago (act, do) - probably the participle agens which would mean "acting". --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been seeing "ag." and "a/g", to mean acting, in Australian contexts for more years than I care to remember. I'm surprised these abbrevs are not more widespread.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack, can you explain what "a/g" might stand for? It seems a very odd abbreviation for agens or any likely inflected form thereof (maybe the ablative absolute would be the right case? that would apparently be agentī). --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never mentioned Latin in this thread. These are abbreviations of the English word "acting". I'm not sure why others are complicating matters by introducing an aringus ruber. It's perhaps understandable, though, since "ag." and "a/g" seem to be unknown in the UK, the USA and New Zealand, but are confined to obscure places like Mauritius, Kenya, Belize, the Caribbean and Australia, if the following refs can be believed:, , , .  But as I said up front, I'm not at all sure this is the correct explanation.


 * Another possibility is that, given that "ag" is the internet TLD for Antigua and Barbuda, it may well be a more general abbreviation for that country. The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court covers a number of countries, including Antigua and Barbuda, so that seems a much more likely solution.


 * But then I see pages like this judgment, where only the latter two of the three justices of appeal listed have "Ag." after their names, and given it includes a full stop (period), that swings my radar back to an abbreviation, so maybe it is "acting" after all. This was a matter involving Montserrat, nothing to do with Antigua and Barbuda.--   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're saying the g is the one from the word "acting"? That possibility had seriously not even occurred to me.  Reminds me of Calvin's club GROSS (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS).  --Trovatore (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how I've always understood it, yes. As I said above, "ag." and "a/g" have been widely used in Oz forever, and until now it never occurred to me that they're virtually unknown in the other major anglophone countries.  I've never seen anything (till now) to suggest the g derives from something Latin, but then, I've never seen any actual etymological exegeses of these abbrevs at all.  It's hard to search for, as you might expect.  I do agree that the form is somewhat unorthodox, but when you've seen a thing, like, 10,000 times, you sort of stop noticing that.  My hunch (and that's all it is) is that the "a/g" form is a relative of the military form "A/" or "A./" (as in "A/Sergeant-Major" for "Acting Sergeant-Major"). Maybe they included the g in these forms to distinguish them from "assistant" or some other word.  Such collocations do occur in the temples of bureaucracy: "Acting Assistant Deputy Under-Secretary".  (I'm reminded of Ray Bolger's character's title in April in Paris (film): "Assistant Secretary to the Assistant to the Undersecretary of State, and formerly Assistant Assistant Secretary to the Assistant to the Undersecretary of State".)--   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason I said Latin was an obvious guess was that the original question was in a legal context and of course the law uses a lot of Latin terms, some of them abbreviated. However, if the Australian usage in other contexts is frequent, that's another matter.


 * I just did a Google Books search on the words "acting", "abbreviated", and "ag". I didn't find any hits explaining the abbreviation, whcih is what I was looking for, but I did find a couple where the context was African rather Australian.  One was Abraham Esau's War: A Black South African War in the Cape, 1899-1902, where a glossary defines "Ag" as "acting" and the combination "Ag RM" (I don't know what that means) is used repeatedly.  I don't know if the author, Bill Nasson is South African or not; the publisher Cambridge University Press.  Another hit was A Casebook on the Law of Succession, by W.M. Musyoka; again I don't know the author's nationality, but the publisher is LawAfrica, based in Kenya.  Here Ag is used together with abbreviations of judicial titles, e.g. "Ag JA". --174.88.134.161 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the context, I can only assume that "Ag RM" means "Acting Regimental Medical Officer" although "RMO" would be a more familiar abbreviation. "RM" usuially means Royal Marines, but it doesn't work in this case. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The British Army abbreviation seems to be "A." added before the rank; see "Bt. Maj. (A./Lt.-Col.) Archibald Bentley Beauman, D.S.O." . Otherwise in the UK, it is generally spelt out in full as far as I know . The "ag" abbreviation isn't mentioned in our Acting (rank) article. Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Does this have nothing in common with the American position of judge advocate general? μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've referred the side question of why "ag" or "a/g" are used (in some places) to mean "acting", to the Language ref desk: see Reference desk/Language. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Man impaled Greek statue
I'm reading about Athanasios Diakos, a Greek soldier captured and impaled by the Turks in 1821, which reminds me of another story. As I recall, on a Greek island there is a statue of a man impaled. This man was a criminal, not a hero. It made an impression on me because it was such a horrific way to die. I read the story several years ago and the details are fuzzy, if not completely wrong. I went looking again for this story, but I have not found anything. Are there two such stories, or is there just the one and I am confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.244.141 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not an answer, but if you are interested in impaling, you might want to read up on Vlad the Impaler (the inspiration for the Dracula story). StuRat (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article titled Impalement. Perhaps it may lead you in the right direction.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you avail yourself of a search of google images. If the statue exists you will be able to pick it out quickly from hundreds of images. Just pick good search terms. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong stomach required if you follow this advice (I did). Alansplodge (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just got lots of pictures of satyrs - I'm not complaining, but that's not what the OP is looking for. Tevildo (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We must have used different search terms. I got lots of photos of people that had nasty accidents with railings or fence posts and lots of woodcuts of unpleasant medieval executions. Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's the sort of thing that would crop up in one of Simon Raven's books - can't place it specifically but could be worth you looking into. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)