Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 May 20

= May 20 =

Proof of Alabama rejoining the union on July 13, 1868?
The Internet has a consensus that Alabama was readmitted to the U.S. Congress on July 13, 1868. Yet I can find zero primary sourcing of this. I have skimmed the Congressional Record for that day, and checked the US Statutes at Large for 1868 and while I find the omnibus bill of June 25 that provides for readmittance of several states, once certain conditions are met, I can find no specific mention of Alabama being readmitted on the specific day of July 13. You'd think at least the Congressional Record would speak of it. I could have missed it, it's rather dense, but it didn't leap out at me. None of the sources I'm finding that state July 13 mention any primary sourcing either; it's almost as if a chain letter has become circular. I'm not necessarily doubting that Alabama was readmitted on July 13, but I would like to have more solid evidence of this than what is beginning to amount to hearsay. Note: This might also apply to the other states mentioned in the omnibus bill (Florida, Louisiana, North and South Carolina; Georgia was specifically readmitted later) but I haven't done the same research on those yet.

Anyone know where I can find this, or at least know where everyone else is getting their information if not from each other? --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The omnibus bill of June 25 states that Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina will be readmitted once they ratify the 14th amendment, and sure enough, the ratification dates for each of those states other than Florida are the dates they are typically described as having been readmitted (Florida ratified it earlier, so its readmission date is June 25). So I know now where the date comes from. And I forgot that things moved slower back then. The White House didn't learn of the ratification until July 20, and this proclamation was then passed to the House, which didn't speak of it until the next day, where I find mention of this in the congressional record. Whew. --Golbez (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Internet has a consensus"??!? Really? On anything at all? --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dostoevsky: origin of quote?
I copied this quote as it appears (including spelling of Dostoevsky) but I cannot find a source. It may be a translation issue but i cannot find anything close to it when I search for Dostoevsky quotes.

Quote as originally copied:

"Love me-still when I am dirty, cause if I were clean, everyone would love me."

Dostojevskij — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monotrien (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Northanglia?
If you Google 'Northanglia' or 'North Anglia' (there's also 'Nordanglia') you get results that suggest it must be roughly synonymous with that part of East Anglia comprised of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. How old is the term? Did anyone invent it? Why can't I find a definition of it anywhere? Contact Basemetal   here  12:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The earliest google (ngram) result is from 1837 . However, I don't see that the results are necessarily pointing to a place name. It seems a mystery writer by the name of William J Palmer is using "University of North Anglia" for his fictional university . And there was a ship named the "North Anglia" in the early 20th century . Spelled Nord Anglia, you're looking at a chain of private schools . See Anglia for why people might coin such terms. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * East Anglia is Norfolk and Suffolk. The governmental region of East Anglia is not widely known in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Cambridgeshire? Contact Basemetal   here  13:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Could the term be a neologism for Northern England? -- Jayron 32 13:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Judging by Google results no, but that must be only a minute part of its uses since 1837. The disambiguation page Anglia mentions that it can also be a way to refer to the eastern part of England. Note for example ITV Anglia. See also College of West Anglia: there West Anglia does not refer to the western part of England. Contact Basemetal   here  15:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe Northanglia went the way of Norsex... -- Jayron 32 15:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Because there was No-Sex, the population died out pretty quickly. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Norsex had a long run in Westex. There are Suffolk and Norfolk; why aren't there Effolk and Weffolk? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's absurd to suggest the British have no sex. Not only do they have the two, they also have a Middlesex. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's where all the Thai ladyboys live, mate. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 17:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There'ſ plenty of evidence in Early Modern Engliſh that there waſ a lot of ſex happening.
 * As the earlier ſlick Willie wrote in A Midſummer Night'ſ Dream:
 * "Where there bee ſucks, there ſuck I"
 * And ſo on.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would it refer to the North? The Anglia bit of it would give it away..... Now regarding the term, I lived in Norwich for many years, and never heard it there. Fgf10 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Secession from the U.S.?
As is well known, in the American Civil War, the Confederate States claimed they had the right to secede, while the Union claimed they didn't.

The claim of the South seems, at least for those states that had ratified the Articles of Confederation of 1781 (namely South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina), to go against that document (unless one argues the Articles had been superseded by the Constitution, which, contrary to the older document, did not specifically state the union was a perpetual one).

But leaving that aside, it seems there is a significant distinction that needs to be made in the argument for secession, namely that some states had joined the United States from the outside (South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina) while some had been established on territory that was already part of the United States (Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee).

It seems that for those, secession could only mean (at least without further justification) dis-establishing themselves as states and reverting to the status of territory, but not leaving the United States.

So my question is: did the South ever note that difference in their argumentation and propose a special justification for the secession of those states and their joining the Confederacy?

Contact Basemetal   here  13:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Secession in the United States is the proper article at Wikipedia, and answers a lot of your questions regarding the issue. The actual acts of secession themselves were more acts of Realpolitiks than on carefully constructed legal arguments: the states just did it without regard for whether or not they legally could.  They, of course, asserted they could.  But the Union armies marching across their territory denied that assertion, as did the later Texas v. White decision, which formally (after the fact) declared the secessions of the states legally invalid, and thus did not happen.  -- Jayron 32 13:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually I had only one question and that article does not answer it. I do understand that secession was a political not a legal act but I thought the states, and later those people who supported or still support their position, must have come up with some sort of formal justification. Whether such a justification made any sense, legally or logically, was not what I was curious about, but only if they ever thought of noting the difference between the two situations I mentioned. Maybe a place to go look are the declarations of the various states when they seceded, if such declarations exist. If they do, where can those texts be found? I would be curious, for example, to see how Mississippi justified its right to secede. It would have had to be rather different from the way a state that had been one of the original thirteen colonies, such as South Carolina, or one that joined the Union as a state, such as Texas, did it. Contact Basemetal   here  15:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I googled "declaration of secession", or something like that, and here's what turned up for South Carolina. In effect, they declared that the federal government was violating states' rights, so they're leaving the Union. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And here is an item that covers Mississippi, among others. Anyone who denies that the Civil War was "about slavery" should read this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, This and This seem to have the actual documents the OP is looking for. They can peruse them at their leisure to see if they answer their questions or not.  -- Jayron 32 15:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to look into what South Carolina was saying in 1828, when they were talking about seceding over the Tariff of Abominations (it was a big deal nationally, even prompting Joseph Smith to predict that South Carolina would rebel when he was writing LDS scriptures four years later), or into what some of the New England states were saying at the Hartford Convention of 1814, when they were considering secession. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * More articles in the vein of what Nyttend is talking about: Nullification Crisis, South Carolina Exposition and Protest, John C. Calhoun. -- Jayron 32 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You may take as a side note the fact that the US Constitution itself was technically invalid under the Articles of Confederation since the former required unanimity for amendments, while the Constitution asserted it would take effect as soon as 9 out of the 13 states had ratified it. Of course all the existing states did ratify it, as it was obvious the opposition was going to lose.  An interesting question is, do the legislatures of new states have to ratify the US Constitution before they are admitted? μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, no, they do not formally ratify the U.S. constitution before being admitted. Admission to the Union covers the process; in order to be a state the state needs to organize a constitutional convention to write their own state constitution, and then apply for membership from Congress.  Congress admits the state, and that's all that's required.  Acceptance of the Constitution itself, is probably implicit in the act of application for statehood itself.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the contention the Constitution can be seen as an amendment of the Articles of Confederation and is thus technically in violation of their provisions, I just don't see how. Article VII of the Constitution states that "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." (My emphasis). So no one was forced to ratify the Constitution, it was going to come into effect between those states that had chosen to adopt it while those that would refuse to do it could continue as before under the Articles (in principle at least, although I don't know if that was a realistic possibility that was discussed during the process of ratification). How could anyone argue that the Articles of Confederation legally prevented a group of states from voluntarily making their union closer (or as the preamble says "more perfect") while not forcing anyone to join the process? Now Article VI of the Articles of Confederation does state specifically (among other things) that "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue." It seems to follow that the Constitution would not have been in violation of the Articles as long as the "United States in Congress assembled" (i.e. the Confederation Congress) was going to eventually (unanimously) authorize those states that had chosen to pursue a closer union to do so. In theory, what could have happened was that say twelve states could have ratified the Constitution and one state could have objected to those twelve states entering into this closer union. In that case those twelve states would have been in violation of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. But since nothing of the kind ended up happening... Contact Basemetal   here  22:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So, if the secessions were null and void, meaning they never happened at law, why was it necessary for those states that claimed they'd left to be readmitted, if they never legally left in the first place? If secession is legally impossible at law, why would there ever be a need for a readmission protocol?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It was simply a condition of the congress, as only the victorious North had any federal power. The states were ruled as territories, just as if they had not yet been admitted to the union, but were US land.  This is simply how it worked out given Northern victory and control of congress.  The big incentive for the Southerners to comply was to get their representatives back seated in congress.  In the meantime the GOP faced no opposition passing the 14th amendment ending slavery and enforcing the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses (Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution) and the 15th amendment guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of color or past servitude.  See the 14th amendment article for specifics. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will. Thank you. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Medeis uses some words that I would not have used. The 13th forbids slavery; the 14th contains the "equal protection" clause and the second "due process" clause.—Tamfang (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Henri Giscard d'Estaing (historian)?
The article on Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy attributes writings on the Dreyfus affair to "Henri Giscard d'Estaing". Searching a bit online, it seems that would be the book D' Esterhazy a Dreyfus written by Henri Giscard d'Estaing and published in Paris in 1960. Our Esterhazy article links that to Henri Giscard d'Estaing (son of the President) who was only 4 years old in 1960; obviously that's the wrong guy. So who was this other, older Henri Giscard d'Estaing - and was he related to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing? I note that fr:Famille Giscard d'Estaing lists one Henri Marie Antoine Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who it describes as being a "colonel d'artillerie" (hey, just like Dreyfus) - was it him? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An aside: The Dreyfus Affair By Leslie Derfler, which mentions the above book in passing, gives 1950 as its publication date (Google Books itself finds a 1960 edition). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the Bibliothèque nationale de France's online catalog, the book was published by Plon in 1960. No dates are given for the author and no other books are attributed to him in its catalogue, so it seems it was his sole published work. The only plausible Henri in the genealogy of the family is the one mentioned by the OP, whose dates are 1900-1972. The family is not large (at least, those using the twin last names) so he is indeed very likely the book's author. Here's a review of the book from Le Monde diplomatique of May 1960 . Access to the full review requires a subscription, but from what's available for free, it doesn't seem as if it delves much into the author's biography. --Xuxl (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Are any developed countries solvent in the long run?
Here in the UK, after five years of budget cuts which have somewhat slowed the rate at which the national debt increases, the reelected government claims they can get that rate leveled off in about three years. Which would leave us treading (still very deep) water, if you ignore all the unfunded pensions for a rising number of old people, growing cost of healthcare, low productivity at work, and the inevitable next recession at some point. Hard to believe we're not eventually facing bankruptcy, even if it's several decades away. Are any other developed countries in a better position, counting all their liabilities and advantages? 213.205.251.60 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One way to solvency is economic growth that outpaces growth in government spending. That happened in the US during the latter Clinton administration, with a productivity boom and divided government with Clinton and Gingrich that kept the growth of government spending in check.  Note that as soon as Bush came into office with a friendly congress the Republicans went on a huge spending spree.  There's also devaluation and debt repudiation, but (in)solvency by that route causes massive, long-term damage.  Look at Argentina, which used to be the seventh richest country in the world, and is now 24th. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Any country whose debts are denominated in a fiat currency that it controls is by definition solvent. This is the case for the United States and the United Kingdom, but not for the euro-zone countries. (Though individual euro-zone countries may be solvent despite their lack of control over creation of the euro.) A country whose debt is denominated in its own fiat currency can create as much money as is needed to cover its debts or other obligations.  Of course, such debt monetization can lead to inflation, but it is consistent with solvency. Argentina's case is not relevant because its debt before its default was denominated in U.S. dollars, over which it had no control.  Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not just inflation, but hyperinflation, causing the total collapse of the economy. So, just printing money to pay off your debts is not a serious option, or they already would have done so.  Even defaulting on those debts would be less of a disaster.  StuRat (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) I am not just talking about current Argentine problems,, see Economic history of Argentina: "The economic history of Argentina is one of the most studied, owing to the "Argentine paradox", its unique condition as a country that had achieved advanced development in the early 20th century but experienced a reversal, which inspired an enormous wealth of literature and diverse analysis on the causes of this decline. Argentina possesses definite comparative advantages in agriculture, as the country is endowed with a vast amount of highly fertile land. Between 1860 and 1930, exploitation of the rich land of the pampas strongly pushed economic growth. During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina outgrew Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income.[3] By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest nation per capita."


 * Also, you are simply saying in other terms that unilateral currency devaluation is "solvency" by definition, but in that case Weimar Germany was solvent. A more normal definition of solvency would be the ability to pay creditors and secure new debt. (This was written before but saved well after Stu's comments, which I echo.) μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, solvency is merely the ability to pay one's bills, not necessarily the ability to borrow more money. Also, monetization of debt need not lead to hyperinflation.  Central banks in the Western world have, in effect, been monetizing debt through their quantitative easing programs.  In recent years, the Bank of Japan has been most aggressive at this, and yet inflation remains at very low, and sometimes negative, levels in these countries.  There are probably limits on the rate at which the debt can be monetized, depending on the broader economic context, without sparking runaway inflation. Weimar hyperinflation is another red herring here, because it was caused by Germany's debts in a currency—gold—over which it had no control, unlike nations with their own fiat currencies. Anyway, none of this bears on the question of solvency, per se, as raised by the questioner.  Marco polo (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That would seem to imply that a company in a structured bankruptcy was solvent, because it could pay its settled bills, yet still not incur new debt. Your use of red herring seems to imply I am trying to pull something over on you, Marco Polo.  I don't think we need to talk that way.  Are you suggesting that countries with fiat currencies can't undergo hyperinflation?  Is there something beyond either growing out of debt or devaluation that allows countries with huge debts and deficits to address their budgetary imbalances?  For example, austerity and sale of territory, neither of which seems to fit the spirit of the OP's question?
 * A read of Red herring will demonstrate that a red herring doesn't have to be intentional. Also Marco Polo explicitly acknowledged that there are probably some circumstances where a country with a fiat currencies can get runaway inflation. I suspect this was meant to include hyper inflation. The point seems to be that it's not helpful to talk about hyper inflation in countries where the debt wasn't in a currency the country has control over when trying to understand how things may work in a country whos debts are only in currency they do have control over. Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The core problem is as this old saying: In "the long run", we're all dead." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Equality equals quantity, whereas equity equals quality
This very nice little quote is easily found on the internet, and the most commonly referenced source is: (http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-equity-and-equality/) ... or differencebetween.net. I've really tried, but so far am unable to find a more appropriate original source, with an author, or a more academic reference. I have to think there is one, so would really appreciate if anyone could point me to an original source that I could cite for this gem (which is also quite a potent tongue twister...try it). I do know how to cite a webpage if I have to, but that isn't the point...Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.220 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, maybe you could explain what it means, or is supposed to mean. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's explained rather clearly in the link provided (though I make no assertion that the distinction being drawn is useful or correct). We also have articles on equity and equality. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Equity (finance) is a dollar amount. That's quantity. As for the link, I always assume unfamiliar website links are to malware sites. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's not equity (finance), but equity-fairness, as covered by several of our other articles that you can find from the disambiguation page. The basic idea of the quote is understandable and could be paraphrased: both earning the same = equality; it feels fair = equity. I wonder if there actually is an original source for the observation or whether it is a simplification made by the author of the page of differencebetween.net. Academic sources on equity stress that there are both qualitative and quantitative measures that need to be made. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Something "feeling" fair is going to vary widely across the population. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take that maxim - or differencesbetween.net, for that matter - too literally. After all, what is "quality"? (Equality: condition or quality of being equal - Webster's 1913). Now you have another tough distinction. It is not likely relevant to socio-political-economic debate outside of a court empowered to consider equity law (as opposed to only a strict interpretation of common or administrative law) and such maxims are not legally binding by themselves in any case. If not original with the unsigned article on differencesbetween.net, it would most likely be an old legal maxim (our article uses dated sources exclusively), not yet documented on Wikipedia's page specific to legal maxims of equity. Source perhaps most easily found through the greatly expanded appendix on (Latin) legal maxims in the the latest (2014) 10th edition of Black's Law Dictionary (not found in my 9th ed.), or one of the public domain sources cited on one of the first three linked articles, maybe on archive.org or elseweb. Might help to have presumed Latin original. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, just to finish the thought, as the original poster... Below, from the paper I'm drafting which provides the context. The quote then shows up in the footnote, also provided below, and I was hoping to properly cite the quote (because colleagues don't always appreciate the purpose and need for that), and if I could find the original source, I think there might be additional interesting content to consider. As some of you pointed out...without the context, there is less to make of the quote, however elegant. What I was writing:

"Gender inequality, inequality of opportunity, and wealth/income inequalities are three symptoms of unsatisfied human needs. Just as problematic are structural inequities (footnote here). Both inequality and inequity result in insecurity, injustice, marginalisation and alienation. (Our organization) places particular emphasis on gender inequality, considering it a root cause of fragility...

and the footnote: "To consider the difference between inequality and inequity, one can puzzle over this pithy observation: 'equality equals quantity, whereas equity equals quality' . The point being that equality often refers to a quantitative measure of something, whereas equity refers to fairness. This is a subtle but sometimes critical distinction." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.220 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as you're making a hyperlink reference to that quote, you might like to sharpen the distinction for your purpose and context with the pithy, accurate, and apropos definitions and sample sentences from Oxforddictionaries.com:
 * equality: The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities: 'an organization aiming to promote racial equality'
 * equity: The quality of being fair and impartial: 'equity of treatment'
 * Needless to say, the two words, sharing the same root of "equal" in Latin, have led to a great many specialized distinctions in specific contexts by different writers, as here, "The Many Faces of Equality" (pp. 7-8) in Ulf Blossing, Gunn Imsen, and Lejf Moos, The Nordic Education Model: 'A School for All' Encounters Neo-Liberal Policy (Springer, 2014).
 * Point being, your audience may or may not accept your distinction at face value, or may want you to make further discriminations. Context rules rhetoric! Hope this has been of some help. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

C.C.D. in case citation
The case citation for Folsom v. Marsh is 9. F.Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841). What does C.C.D. Mass. represent? Was there a circuit court that oversaw just the District of Massachusetts? I know that the Supreme Court justices of the period had circuit responsibilities (the case was heard by Joseph Story), but would there really be a circuit court overseeing just one district? Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just spitballing here, but according to United States circuit court (on the system of courts used until 1912), "Although the federal judicial districts were grouped into circuits, the circuit courts convened separately in each district and were designated by the name of the district (for example, the "U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts"), not by the name or number of the circuit." Very nice of them to use the exact situation you asked about :) --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Circuit court for the district of Massachusetts. At the time, there were not federal appellate circuits like today, but were staffed with a SCOTUS justice and the local district court judge. When the circuit court was cited, it was cited to the district (and thus state) that it was hearing the case for. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't found the United States circuit court article; I wondered why United States courts of appeals was really only the current system, without much history. Thanks for the pointer!  Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Title of this painting
In a hotel I had a reproduction of this painting: http://imgur.com/p5Yeg3W I really liked it but I was unable to find the author/title. Tried searching on Google Images, with no luck. Anyone can help? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.11.74.163 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please contact the hotel. They will be able to give you more information about the work, the artist, and a contact name.  Many artists make their work available for sale through the hotel where their work is featured.  This particular piece of work is quite striking, and I like it very much.  If you correct the levels in your image and then search Google Images with it, one result will come up, but it is not the original work you have presented here, but a bad imitation.  I have chosen not to link to it to here because there are quite a number of disreputable companies who exist to steal the work of local artists and pass it off as their own. I have no idea if that is the case here, but the one result in question did not give an artist name.  It did, however, offer title key words, including "two sisters" and "medieval dress".  I don't think that's going to help you, so the best thing to do is call the hotel.  Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Another legal terminology question
I can't remember and can't find the term that refers to the distinction between an office and a person that holds it. For an example, if I understand rightly, the Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) is sworn to the institution of King or Queen (or perhaps to The Crown), not to Mrs. Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor. As well, Jones v. Clinton and the related Clinton v. Jones was Paula Jones' lawsuit against Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband, not against the President of the United States, and if you sue a US state attorney general claiming that the state's violated a constitutional standard, you're suing the attorney general, not the guy who holds the job, and the suit will continue if he resigns and gets replaced by someone else. Corporation sole isn't quite the concept that I'm looking for, because governmental offices often aren't corporations sole. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They aren't? From the article you just linked it states "Some lawyers consider The Crown in right of each Commonwealth realm to be a corporation sole, which may possess property as the monarch distinct from property he or she possesses personally, and may do acts as monarch distinguished from her or his personal acts."  It then goes on to list a bunch of legal and political offices in the UK.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't. I gave this disclaimer precisely because the Crown is an exception.  If you disagree, find me the name of the corporation sole that exists for the President of the United States, for the attorneys general of various US states, etc.  Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the status of the President of the United States is, but your statement "governmental offices often aren't corporations sole" is directly contradicted by the text in the article titled Corporation sole which lists numerous governmental offices. I have no pony in this race, and am not disagreeing with anything.  I was merely noting the existence of the disagreement between your statement and the text of the article you linked.  The article and your statement cannot both be simultaneously correct.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No fair. Can't even one of them be simultaneously correct?  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no incompatibility between "many are" and "many are not", if there exist at least two manies. —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Augustus ... acknowledged he could not make a new Latin word"
That's a quotation from the third book of Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and apparently refers to a story Locke would have expected his readers to be familiar with. I, on the other hand, am not familiar with it. Can I get some clarification or a reference to an outside source? Thanks in advance. 72.250.240.100 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've only ever seen that referenced from Locke. My understanding of the meaning is that although Augustus was leader of the most powerful empire on earth, he could not create a new word in Latin and make people use it, and use it in the way he intended. It is an acknowledgment of the limits of his power and the fact that a language, and more generally, independent thought, is made by its speakers, not issued by dictates of its leader. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it appears that Locke's story is not historically correct, however Suetonius does recount the following incident in his book about grammarians, reaching a similar conclusion:  'When this same Marcellus had criticized a word in one of Tiberius's speeches, and Ateius Capito declared that it was good Latin, or if not, that it would surely be so from that time on, Marcellus answered: "Capito lies; for you Caesar, can only confer citizenship on men, but not upon a word."'  --Suetonius, De Grammaticis, XXII (Latin text) - Lindert (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Novel about woman in medieval time
Hello,

I read a book around fifteen years ago that was about a woman living in a sort of medieval era. In the beginning she was living in some sort of castle in the countryside and then later there was a tournament which she entered. In the tournament everybody wore a scarf over their face and the goal was to use your sword to cut the other person's scarf off without actually hurting them. The woman was in the competition and won many rounds until the final round, in which I think while cutting the other person's scarf off, she accidentally cut their cheek slightly. It turned out that her adversary in this final round was some sort of prince or something, and they may have gotten married I can't remember for sure but after this she went off and had some sort of adventures with the prince. She had entered the tournament without anyone knowing who she was because the scarf covered her face. Later in the book somebody was swinging a sword to test out how it handled. That's all I can remember, I think it was a book oriented toward teenagers but I'm not sure. Has anyone else read this book or know the name of it? I have never been able to find it again. Thank you Elpenmaster (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like fiction. If so, this Q should be moved to the Entertainment Desk, as this Desk would only be for real historic figures, or perhaps ancient works of fiction that have had profound effects on society. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Table of Effects for The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996
(Legal disclaimer noted).

Does anyone here happen to have access to a UK Law library that would be able to assist in compiling a "Table of Effects" (i.e what measures made changes to this one) for the period between it's enactment and 2002 which is where legislation.gov.uk's tracking begins?

If I can find this information, I can add a suitable note to the front-sheet at Wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Re your first question, may I suggest you ask at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request where many people with access to databases hang out. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Noted, but was asking here first, in case there was a specific publication that covered this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course! A net casts widely catches more fish or some similar proverb that I am making up on the spur of the moment. Just mentioned it as a back-up since there have been no answers so far. I do hope you get a proper answer. There are some people knowledgeable in the area here. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Haven't read it through but this 2009 publication [] may give you the information.--Bill Reid | (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)