Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 February 25

= February 25 =

Actual case law on the fair housing act and discriminatory language
I asked a question a while back at [] regrading certain complaints (under the Fair Housing Act) of "discriminatory language" in housing ads which I saw as innocent attempts to attract the widest possible tenant or buyer base. jpgordon responded that I was assuming good faith on the part of the landlords (emphasis mine), and that such language may be part of a "code" designed to "signal" realtors into not dealing with the "wrong kinds of people". I found this interesting. Here at wikipedia we have a policy to assume good faith until we have reason to believe the case is otherwise. Should the courts do no less?

I'm sure there have been thousands of such complaints, but I would like in anyone could track down some actual case law as to how courts have ruled on this question. If a landlord says that there are Chinese eateries nearby, a church across the road, or the like, what tests have courts actually applied as to deciding whether the landlord is, in fact, stating a "preference or requirement" for a tenant or buyer of a particular race, religion, nationality etc - or is, dare I say it, acting in good faith? Is there a lot of case law where fair housing act complaints of "discriminatory language" have actually gone to trial? It need not be the higher courts, I'd even be interested in hearing how lower court judges have approached the question.

As a separate matter, has the fair housing act caused a heavy dose of political correctness in housing ads, lest someone take offence at any mention of such things? I thought this kind of thing was limited the the U.K. and Germany. Eliyohub (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a few different questions here. In general, a FHA defendant's good faith isn't dispositive. The essential test is how "an ordinary reader" or "reasonable reader" would read the advertisement. That's often a question of fact for the trier of fact.
 * Here's one case, involving the selection of models in real estate ads:
 * "[T]he statute prohibits all ads that indicate a racial preference to an ordinary reader whatever the advertiser's intent. To be sure, the intent of the creator of an ad may be relevant to a factual determination of the message conveyed, but the touchstone is nevertheless the message. If, for example, an advertiser seeking to reach a group of largely white consumers were to create advertisements that discouraged potential black consumers from responding, the statute would bar the ads, whether or not the creator of the ad had a subjective racial intent...
 * In advertising, a conscious racial decision regarding models thus seems almost inevitable. All the statute requires is that in this make-up-your-own world the creator of an ad not make choices among models that create a suggestion of a racial preference. ... If race-conscious decisions are inevitable in the make-up-your-own world of advertising, a statutory interpretation that may lead to some race-conscious decisionmaking to avoid indicating a racial preference is hardly a danger to be averted at all costs.
 * Moreover, the Times's argument would prevent a trier of fact from scrutinizing the selection of models and inferring from that selection and from the surrounding circumstances a race-conscious decision. The creator of an ad may testify, "Gosh, I didn't notice until this trial that all the models for tenants were white and the model for a custodian was black." However, a trier may justifiably disbelieve such an assertion in light of all the circumstances, much as triers of fact are allowed to draw inferences of racial intent in other contexts, or may consider such an assertion an inadvertent or unconscious expression of racism.
 * Given this scope for fact-finding, the present complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. It alleges a long-standing pattern of publishing real estate ads in which models of potential consumers are always white while black models largely portray service employees, except for the exclusive use of black models for housing in predominantly black neighborhoods. Finally, it alleges that this pattern reflects a targeting of racial groups. Given the ordinary reader test, it can hardly be said that these allegations are insufficient to enable plaintiffs to prove that the Times has published, and continues to publish, some discriminatory ads."
 * Ragin v. New York Times Co., 923 F.2d 995 (2d Cir. 1991) (citations omitted) see full text here. Another interesting FHA advertisement case is Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc. v. Connor Group, 725 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2013). In that case, the defendant posted a Craigslist ad that read: "Our one bedroom apartments are a great bachelor pad for any single man looking to hook up." The court held:
 * "[I]n assessing the motion for a directed verdict, we consider only whether an ordinary reader would find that the advertisement indicates a preference and not whether the ad would discourage the reader. We do not believe that the Connor Group advertisement violates the Fair Housing Act as a matter of law. To find that the advertisement violates the statute requires that we make inferences because the ad could be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, an ordinary reader could find that the ad, while badly worded, shows no indication that women or families would be unwelcome, but merely expresses an opinion about who would find the apartment appealing. In the alternative, an ordinary reader may find that the ad clearly suggests a preference for single men in the apartment complex. Such inferences are best left to the jury to consider."
 * Neutralitytalk 20:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for a well-researched answer. The second (connor group) case seems to directly address the issues I raised. Do you know what the jury's verdict in that case was, by any chance? Eliyohub (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. In the first trial, held in August 2011, the jury found that the ad did not violate the FHA (or an analogous state fair-housing law), but in the opinion cited above in 2013, the Sixth Circuit reversed because the jury instructions and closing argument were legally incorrect. The case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for a second trial. That trial was held in May 2014 and "the jury found that the advertisement did violate federal and state law. However, it found that MVFHC had failed to prove that the violation was a direct and proximate cause of harm to MVFHC. Accordingly, the jury did not reach the question of damages. Judgment was again entered in favor of Connor Group." full text. In an order on February 26, 2015, the district court found that "because the jury's verdict on the question of proximate cause was against the weight of the evidence, Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial, which will be limited to the issues of proximate cause and damages."  full text.  The partial new trial was set to begin on January 2016 (see here), but the action was voluntarily dismissed a few weeks ago because the parties reached a settlement (see here). Neutralitytalk 15:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A moth-eaten rag on a worm-eaten pole
Could anyone point me to the complete poem online? And confirm the author - I've seen it attributed to Edward Hamly, which redirects to Edward Bruce Hamley, but could equally probably redirect to Edward Hamley. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This link has the whole poem, although with a stray title in it part way through. From the date it seems that Edward Bruce Hamley is the author - see this source as well. Mikenorton (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's helpful. Now, the last line refers to the "ghostly array of the old Forty-Third" - presumably the 43rd Foot. The second link you gave talks of "Cornwall's regimental colours" - presumably the 32nd Foot. Hamley was Cornish, from Bodmin, and presumably familiar with St Petroc's, where the 32nd's colours (I think) hang. The poem is variously, from what I have seen, said to be about the colours of either regiment. Do we know if Hamley ever said which it was? Was he inspired by his home town, but went with "Forty-Third" to fit the rhyme and metre? Did he ever go to Monmouth and see the 43rd's colours there? DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Difficult to find anything definitive, but this gives two (hard to read) snippets if you search on "43rd" within the book, both of which seem to confirm that he did see them - agreeing with our 32nd foot article, which goes into it a bit. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. But - the first snippet says Monmouth Church (presumably St Mary's Priory Church, Monmouth), the second says Monmouth Cathedral, presumably Newport Cathedral as the seat of the Bishop of Monmouth. Do we know where the 43rd's colours are? DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your eyesight is clearly better than mine. The official website of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry explains something of the history, but unfortunately a lot of the other links on that page don't work, otherwise we might know where the colours are now. Mikenorton (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "In 1782, the government allotted each regiment a county for re-cruiting purposes. The 43rd was allotted Monmouthshire, and became the Monmouth Regiment, and in 1803 became the Monmouthshire Light Infantry. Neither then nor since has the regiment any particular connection with the county, and the Regimental Historian always refers to it as the 43rd. (Levinge-passim). In 1887, a pair of regimental colours were laid up in St. Mary's Church, Monmouth." (Sergeaunt p. 11). Gwent local history -  43 1977: MONMOUTHSHIRE IN ARMS''.  Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And 1887 is the date given in Mikenorton's link to the Army & Navy Illustrated as the date of composition, that's very suggestive. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * St Mary’s Church History doesn't mention the colours, so possibly the moths and worms finished them off at some stage. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Another pair of colours of the regiment may be seen in St. Mary's Church, Monmouth. They saw service with the regiment until 1887, in which year Lady Aberdare, at Shorncliffe, presented the regiment with new ones. The regimental colour, though in a very dilapidated condition, still bears the name 'Monmouthshire' and the number 43 ; also the names of two of the Peninsular victories in which the regiment took part — Vimiera and Salamanca. The Queen's colour is so shattered that it is scarcely discernible. The colours were deposited with great ceremony within the church by the officers of the 43rd, a colour party escorting them from Shorncliffe." MEDALS AND CAMPAIGNS OF THE 43RD FOOT, NOW 1ST BATTALION OF THE OXFORDSHIRE AND BUCKINGHAMSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY by MAJOR WILLIAM J. FREER, D.L., V.D., F.S.A. (pp. 293-294 or p. 31/52 of the pdf file).
 * Like the Gwent local history source, this is a quote from The Royal Monmouthshire Militia: Being a Detailed Description of the Regiment from the Year 1660 to the Time of Its Transfer to the Special Reserve by B. E. Sargeaunt (1910). Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say I'd found the same thing! It would be great if we could get a picture of them - Medals and Campaigns of the 43rd Foot says it has an image of them as the frontispiece, but this appears to have been omitted from the online copy. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a good look, but nothing doing I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Were any of the possibly BS things in Indiana Jones and similar real?
Or National Treasure (film), Tomb Raider, Goonies, Operation Condor, Entrapment (film), the Mummy films etc.

Things like

1. The room crushing visitors or filling with sand.

2. A convenient long trough of oil or torch(es) on the wall for theives to light.

3. Artifact(s) that'd kill the stealer unless he swaps it with an equal weight really, really quickly (or keeps the weight on the stone/plate within tolerances as the artifact's contribution decreases to zero/holds it down with gum/runs really, really fast)

4. Booby traps like trap doors.

5. Pits of dangerous animals like snakes.

6. Organs made of fingers that make parts of the floor collapse every time you play a wrong note?

7. Nazi doors that machine gun anyone who gets the code wrong.

8. That key.

9. The Entrapment lasers were realistic except for a few things though, right? Namely, anyone with a brain wouldn't make a grid someone could contort through (unless it was to keep the theives there longer while the square infrared grid silently called the cops?).

Did they even have technology for those things? Would lower-tech methods be easier and just as effective? (like dropping really heavy stones down the Great Pyramid shaft (which protected the gold I think over 3,000 years till the Arab exploded the hole in a different place). If you still want priests or whoever to be allowed in you'll need a better idea though. This also makes vetting your priests extremely important. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Booby traps are a real thing. Snake pits exist in legend and probably have been used in real life, although I don't know any specific examples.  Although lasers are used for security, those lasers do not use visible light, and if you can't see the light to avoid it doesn't matter how good a contortionist you are.  John M Baker (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you use visible light lasers or not - you still can't see where the beams are - only the spots of light where they end up.  Snake pits puzzle me because someone has to feed the snakes when there are no convenient victims around.  In the Indiana Jones movies, we're lead to believe that the snakes have been in a room for 2000 years...what have they been eating?  SteveBaker (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The local small critter population? Why do the small animals hide there for 2000 years if they keep getting killed and they probably couldn't hold enough grain for that amount of snake? Maybe if there's an animal that prefers the climate of the snake pit and there's a connection to the outside (too small for humans) they'll accumulate there? This might be easier in a hot desert with nothing around, if your temple has a spring or something. Choose a non-cannibalistic snake. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Straight Dope says "naah", at least to ancient booby traps. There are huge stone balls in Costa Rica (see picture in this otherwise mostly plagiarized article), but not ones that require legal disclaimers ("Warning: Management is not liable for injuries to thieving archaeologists"). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Elaborate traps just mean there are more things that can go wrong. KISS. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * When I was a kid, the explanation I had heard for the tunnel leading to the unfinished chamber in the Great Pyramid of Giza was that it was supposed to be a sort of trap. Though really, all that'd happen is any thieves wandering in would to say "damn, it's already been robbed," or (if they were good thieves) go "oh, it's just a decoy chamber, let's go check that funny wall we saw earlier."  Since our article doesn't mention anything about it, I'm inclined to think the Cub Scout master was (at most) pulling something out of a pulp novel (if that).  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Though it's wasn't a trap, the method envisioned in the classic movie Land of the Pharaohs for sealing the pyramid of Khufu (which winds up entombing the still living Princess Nellifer, played by a young Joan Collins) should probably be mentioned as another ancient elaborate mechanism that existed only in the movies. - Nunh-huh 07:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding SteveBaker's comment that "It doesn't matter whether you use visible light lasers or not - you still can't see where the beams are - only the spots of light where they end up", that's only true in clear, ordinary air. All it takes is a bit of Dry Ice or other Aerosol (or theoretically, fog or water mist) to fog up the air and make the laser beams instantly become perfectly visible. (If the movies would have wanted to be more realistic, wouldn't they have had the actors do this? It's dead simple, and doesn't require any advanced technology, just off-the-shelf stuff). Nightclubs and other indoor entertainment venues do this all the time. Of course, as John M Baker said, most lasers used in security use frequencies invisible to the human eye, so the contortionist trick would be a lot tougher to pull off - though you could probably still guess the location of the beam from seeing its' outlet and receptor. If you plan such a burglary, it's probably better to find other ways to trick the lasers, such as shining your own handheld laser of the right frequency at the laser's receptor outlet. Eliyohub (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Catherine Zeta Jones used makeup powder to make the lasers visible. I haven't seen the movie in a long time, though and the ones in the grand finale might've been easier. If I were protecting 8 billion 1999 dollars I would've at least put CCTV in the laser room and made the lasers shaped like prison bars. The movie couldn't have existed though if they did that though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The powder/mist approach to making a laser visible doesn't work for security systems because the receptor measures the INTENSITY of the laser at the target. So doing anything to scatter some of the energy out of the beam so you can see it would immediately set the thing off.  Even if it did a somewhat approximate measurement, putting anything into it's path would be an exceedingly risky thing to do.  Generally, non-visible lasers are difficult to use out in the open (legally) because of the risk to eyesight.  SteveBaker (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with most of those booby traps is that they would only work once, and then more thieves would get in and rob the loot, either right after or generations later. See Oak Island for an example of how more long-term booby traps might have been constructed. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much to be said about booby traps in Oak Island - there isn't one single scrap of evidence of booby traps (or anything else other than a very typical local sink-hole filled with natural debris and the artifacts of a heck of a lot of failed efforts to prove otherwise). SteveBaker (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There were many people who stated that they found a shaft with many layers of materials laid down by people. But, regardless, the idea of digging a shaft below the water table, such that it will flood on anyone who tries to get to the bottom, is a good one.  Of course, this requires that you can dig the shaft initially, perhaps by creating a massive dam to hold back the water, or perhaps by doing so during a rare drought which lowers the water table.  But the idea of using renewable forces of nature as the trap mechanism gets past the problem of a trap that only works once.  Of course, technology can eventually overcome any trap, even this type. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In Raiders of the Lost Ark they were looking for the lost city of Tanis, since the movie the city has become a lot less lost. HighInBC 16:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In my post above, I did not mean to suggest that booby traps or snake pits would still be functional after millennia, or that they would necessarily be used to protect tombs. There is one more sort of real thing I should mention:  tripwire guns are quite real (and are illegal, having resulted in several murder convictions).  I've never heard of the tripwire being hooked up to a machine requiring the input of a code, but there is no reason this couldn't be done (other than its stupidity, I guess - you make one mistake inputting your code and you've committed suicide?).  John M Baker (talk)


 * Another form of booby trap that might last for thousands of years is a biological weapon. Some spores might survive indefinitely in the proper conditions, and become active once inhaled.  However, the disease the spores would create would take some time to develop, so they might very well have time to loot the tomb before they become sick.  Thus, it might work more as a revenge upon tomb raiders than a way to prevent it. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate history
Could any industrial inventions have been held back from commoners even though they could afford it? Like how it was with earlier and lower tech-level things like literacy? (books were expensive but surely signs were not so peasants could afford to use literacy). I can think of a number of reasons why you might need large changes for the most advanced country in the world to have few factory workers but steel castles or steam engines. Charges to at least one of history, religion, geography, culture, epidemics.. And the vast majority still lives like hobbits and has to use wood heat and handmade clothes. Maybe they'd even want to keep the peasants as ignorant of industrial tech as possible like the Church did about the parts of the Bible that's not in the lectionary? (even banning non-Latin Bibles]]). If they can't make the peasants believe that they know magic or are supernaturally protected or whatever then making their conveniences more visible would just increase the risk of revolution. Motivations might be "desire to maximize the power differential between themselves and others", "national security", "conservatism", "nobles love the status quo".. I heard that this actually happened in Rome. An inventor showed the Emperor a steam engine and he just said "the slaves need to eat" and then killed the guy. He didn't even use it as a toy though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Check out Pyramid of Capitalist System. Although the illustration was drawn by Commies, it's how the world works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Romans had steam engines: see Aeolipile & Hero of Alexandria, so I think that story is using steam engines for the Flexible glass story.John Z (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)




 * The electrical battery may have been invented in ancient times. If so, the knowledge was kept secret, perhaps to impress the peasants with the priest's ability to make sparks on demand.  There are some interesting clues from the Bible that the ancient Israelites may have used this method, as the description of the Arc of the Covenant make it sound like a large electrical cell, with angels as electrical contacts with a spark gap between them.  That the Arc was to be kept in a dark room is also suspicious, as that would make any spark produced look far more impressive (darkness would also allow the priests to generate a spark on demand, by closing the circuit, without being seen).  What other reason would there be to keep the Arc in darkness ?


 * An electrical cell really only needs an insulator, like a clay jar, two different metals, and an acid, such as various fruit juices. Thus, any culture capable of metalworking could theoretically make one, if they knew how. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Re pre-modern illiteracy: that wasn't quite the case. Your average Roman citizen was probably literate, and even after it fell, literacy was still 30%-40% (not 1%).  Not in that article, but a documentary I saw explained that we assume they were illiterate because most of them didn't know how to write, but we now know that's like assuming that only programmers own and use computers.  The church actually would give out free lessons on the Latin alphabet, and a number of peasant rebellions were pretty good at targeting just tax records and only tax records (indicating that they knew what they were burning).  Then there's Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.  If only the 1%ers were literate, he'd've stuck to Latin or maybe French, and The Miller's Tale and The Wife of Bath's Tale would have been cut.  Instead, he wrote the medieval equivalent of Barbershop.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Coronation of the British Monarch
Hi, for university I recently had to complete a source commentary on the footage of the 1953 Coronation of Elizabeth II. It got me wondering about such ceremonies, and what purpose they serve. Given that she had acceded the throne 16 months prior and served as sovereign in that timeframe, with no challengers questioning her legitimacy, is there any practical need to have a coronation service, or is it mere pageantry. I can see the role they played in medieval and early modern times when one would be formally accepted as the sovereign as quickly as possible because of rival claimants etc. However, in modern times I hypothesised that it was unnecessary, and just implemented to provide entertainment, to provide a sense of legitimacy and to emphasise historical continuity. I guess my question is does the ceremony serve a practical purpose that I have missed - it didn't seem to mention her being consecrated as Supreme Governor of the Church of England - or am I right in my analysis. --Andrew 20:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you opposed to celebrations? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but this one in particular is fairly expensive - especially that of George IV - and all the ones before it were inaccessible to the public in a visual capacity, so it's interesting to see whether they are mere celebrations or if there is a practical purpose to them --Andrew 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On a personal level, I found the ceremony very beautiful and moving, that doesn't mean though that you have to have it --Andrew 21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have to make a big deal about the inauguration of the US president, either, but we choose to do so. I'm sure if Parliament wanted to impact the coronation, for example by imposing a budget limit on it, they could do that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

None of this unnecessary palaver is getting anywhere in terms of answering the OP's question: What practical purpose does it serve? I don't know the answer. I'll just note that not all monarchs have been crowned. Most notably, Edward VIII was never crowned (admittedly, only because he abdicated before the scheduled date of his coronation, which then became the date for the coronation of his brother-successor, George VI). His kingship, while it lasted, was never questioned. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "purpose it serves" is celebration. As with the presidential inauguration, or any ceremony for that matter, it has no tangible "practical" purpose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you can concede that for centuries that wasn't the purpose, most people would have not known anything about the coronation or when it was. And for a celebration it's a very solemn and sombre religious service. Perhaps the military parades, but I wouldn't have said the church service so much. --Andrew 21:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Have a read of Coronation of a British monarch which I hope answers your questions (if not, I need to do even more work on it). Note that the coronation on which all subsequent ones were based, that of King Edgar, was 15 years after his accession - nobody is really sure why. In the end, the answer as to why we have a coronation is "because we want one". Should that ever cease to be the case, and we shall be asking ourselves that within the next decade or so, then Parliament will decide to have a rather dull swearing-in like all the other European monarchies have. But I for one hope not. Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having skimmed that article, and from what I knew previously, I think the important aspects of the coronation ceremony are: 1) the religious aspect - to establish the monarch is ruling with the blessing of God and the Church (hence the anointment with holy oil, among other things); 2) the Oath - the monarch is bound by law and tradition to behave in a particular way; and 3) to establish that all the lords and great people of the realm (and possibly the common people as well) know that the monarch is the monarch (and in the former case, presumably by being present, to show that they accept this). Basically (OR) it's to emphasize that the monarch really is a monarch, with the right and mandate to rule, rather than just a jumped-up despot with a fancy hat. Iapetus (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I think a presidential inauguration (and any swearing-in of public officials, new citizens etc, even wedding ceremonies) is only partly celebration/entertainment, the actual solemn oath/affirmation and witnessing is also an important confirmation that the thing being celebrated is important to the participant and important to the witnesses and its importance to the former is important to the latter... etc. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As an Anglican Christian, the Coronation service personally has deep meaning as a compact between monarch, church and people before God. Even on those terms, at least part of the service is intended to emphasise the monarch's divine right, a concept which was abandoned for practical purposes by the Act of Settlement 1701. There is now a great majority in our country who are not Anglican Christians, a quite different situation from 1952. Therefore, expect that there will be considerable angst about the form of next Coronation; especially as Charles is known to be a reformer in that field. Should a radical politician be at the helm, such as Jeremy Corbyn, the change is likely to be even more profound. The beauty of the system is that there will be time for this debate when the need arises. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Celebrations are in effect a form of art, a means of giving directly visual reality to abstract facts. (Burt Wolf's PBS series of the 90's Celebrations was a cooking show, but it was founded in this reality.)  Weddings, funerals, baby showers, coronations and even religious observances serve that purpose.


 * Two people can just shack up, or sign a form at the clerk's office, but a wedding is a directly perceivable (i.e., sensory) demonstration of the abstract notion. To paraphrase an aesthetic writer:"Since man lives by reshaping his physical background to serve his purpose, since he must first define and then create his values—a rational man needs a concretized projection of these values, an image in whose likeness he will re-shape the world and himself. Art gives him that image; it gives him the experience of seeing the full, immediate, concrete reality of his distant goals. Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts."The abstraction that a coronation makes concrete (as does John of Gaunt's "scepter'd isle" speech in Richard II) is the glory and unity of the British realm.


 * μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Official name of the fireside chats?
What was the title of the radio broadcasts made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt aka the fireside chats? It doesn't seem to say on the page so I'm going to add that bit of info.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The official name of each of the Fireside Chats was Fireside Chat.  General Ization   Talk   22:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ?--Prisencolin (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there was one, it was probably something mundane like "president's radio address". The history channel says the term was first used in a CBS press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the first "chat" was on March 12, 1933, and the CBS release was issued before the second "chat" on May 7, 1933, I think we can assume they were known by no other name.  General Ization   Talk   23:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Although FDR himself didn't like the name, thinking it "corny". (link).  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 00:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)