Humanities desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 26

Question about an Italian monk (or priest) who built an aqueduct in the 1960s in Africa

Good day,

A while ago (may be even 4-5 years) I have seen a show on Discovery Channel that I faound truly inspirational, and I would like to sk you if you could help me find the title or the name of the people it was about.

It was about an Italian catholic monk (or priest) who in the 60's or so went to an African country and started to build a water collection system, made of bamboo trunks, that would gather the morning dew from the leaves and transport the water down to villages. Eventually this thing grew into a rather big enterprise for that community.

Please help me find the name of this person and materials about this truly inspiring story.

Thank you

98.220.168.190 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)MT[reply]

Slayer rule for titles?

Does the slayer rule apply to hereditary titles as well as property? Could it apply to the British throne? Neon Merlin 05:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't happened to the British monarch for a few centuries, so I don't think it's clear what would happen and there would probably be a constitutional crisis. It definitely doesn't apply to the Nepali monarchy, though. Algebraist 08:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the reason why Nepal is not a monarchy any more. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably cause a constitutional crisis. The law would have to be changed (without royal assent, hence the crisis) to deal with the problem. Since the heir ascends immeadiately, there wouldn't be time for any kind of hearing to determine whether or not to invoke the slayer rule, so it would end up being a matter of whether to strip the monarch of their title, rather than simply stopping them inheriting it, and there's certainly no provision in law for that. One option would be for the monarch to be declared insane (murders are often somewhat unstable mentally, so this wouldn't be much of a leap) and the country would ruled by a regent with the monarch kept confined for the rest of their life in a nice palace. --Tango (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just opinionizing, but I wouldn't expect a regency. ~~That would (I think) require an act of parliament anyway, so it wouldn't be any easier, and~~ Parliament has in the past shown itself willing to get rid of monarchs it disapproves of. I assume simultaneous regicide and kinslaying would be considered worse than wanting to marry a Nazi divorcee. Algebraist 19:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A regency following insanity wouldn't require any new laws, the Regency Act 1937 should do the job. It allows certain people to declare the monarch incapable of performing their functions as monarch and they are replaced by a regent (it's supposed to be used for temporary incapacity, but I don't believe there is a specific time limit). --Tango (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I should have remembered that. Thanks. Algebraist 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the British monarchy, the need for royal assent to Parliamentary acts isn't the only constitutional issue. See Statute of Westminster#Implications for succession to the throne. --Anonymous, 22:07 UTC, August 26, 2008.

Christian Universalism

Apart from Unitarian Universalism, what other Christian Universalist churches and denominations are there? Bowei Huang (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. From our article on Christian Universalism: "There is currently no single denomination uniting Christian Universalists, but a few denominations teach some of the principles of Christian Universalism or are open to them. In 2007, the Christian Universalist Association was founded to serve as an ecumenical umbrella organization for churches, ministries, and individuals who believe in Christian Universalism." --Allen (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Trinitarian Universalism -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan sculpture story, please

In Podil, Kiev, right near St Andrew's Cathedral, there is a lifesize metal street sculpture, of two people in something like Victorian clothes. He is on bended knee proposing to her, while she looks bemused, and something like a scarab beetle crawls up his back.

We had it down as a Gogol or Chekhov farce, but what is the story behind this statue? Theediscerning (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this statue? See Andriyivskyy Descent#Monuments for the description; we do indeed say it's from a play, though Starytskyi, not Chekov. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Descriptions of the story behind the play here and here, described as "Za dvoma zaitsiamy" (Chasing Two Hares), 1883 by Mykhailo Starytskyi and as an adaptation of the story "Na kozhum'yakakh" (In the District of Kozhum'yaky) by Ivan Nechuy-Levytsky. The bankrupt, gambling hero proposes to both a poor woman whom he loves and a rich woman (portrayed in the statue) who does not realize he is only interested in her cash. Neither description mentions the role of the beetle, though; perhaps another contributor will know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJedits (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how HR is profitable to any company````

i would like to know in detail exactly how HR in a company is profitable for that company```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.180.63 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See human resources. It is possible that your understanding of what human resources does is not accurate. -- kainaw ™ 12:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps referring to Human resource management? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HR doesn't itself make any money, but it's essential if the business is to exist. Likewise, accounting doesn't make money, but it's also essential. The cleaners don't make the company any money, but they're essential too. It's not at all unusual for a large portion of a company to not be directly involved in making money. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such parts of the business may be called cost centres. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A company with a high turnover rate, due to poor personnel policies (or, none), will incur higher costs than one with a well-managed HR policy or department. Advertising, interviewing and training cost money, and depending on the jurisdiction, dismissing the wrong people may cost a whole lot of money (or, not be legally possible). DOR (HK) (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian politics

I am struggling to understand the Canadian political system. According to this article in today's Globe and Mail, Harper might call a "snap election" if Liberal leader Dion fails to meet with him by September 5. Now, I understand that Canada has a parliamentary system on the model of Britain's system and that in an election, voters do not vote for the Prime Minister directly, but instead for an MP of a given party, and that the party that commands a majority or that can win a vote of confidence in Parliament elects its leader (also an MP) as Prime Minister. I think that I understand the following, but please correct me if I am wrong: 1) The Prime Minister of Canada can call an election at any time he or she chooses, though presumably as in the UK he or she must call an election no more than five years after the last election; and 2) Harper would justify calling an election if Dion won't meet with him by September 5 by claiming that Dion's resistance to meeting was a sign that Harper and the Conservatives would be unable to govern during the upcoming parliamentary session due to Liberal resistance. Again, please correct me if this is wrong. What I don't understand are 1) What is a "snap election", and how does it differ from other kinds of elections? 2) The article implies that Harper wants to avoid some by-elections on September 8 (I know what a by-election is) and could do so by calling a national election; why does he want to avoid those by-elections? 3) Presumably, Harper wants to call an election in order to return a Conservative majority to the House of Commons and thinks that he would win a majority by calling an election next month; if so, does Dion recognize that the Conservatives would win, and if so, why won't he meet with Harper next week? 4) What if the Conservatives don't win a majority? As it stands, they form a minority in the House of Commons (right?), and the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc Québecois are all clearly to the left of the Conservatives. Why don't the opposition parties unite and form a governing majority coalition on the left? Marco polo (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) see Snap election.

2) possibly he thinks he's more likely to lose by-elections than to lose in a national election - if there are some major opposition figures expected to run in the by-elections, he may prefer to have them running in safer opposition seats. Or else he thinks the Conservative will get more votes in the seats in question in a national election than in a by-election.

3) opinions may differ - Dion may think the Conservatives would do badly, either because voters prefer his policies or because the snap election may be unpopular with voters like the 1990 one in Ontario was.

4) probably insurmountable differences between them, or it could be that some of the opposition prefer to have the Conservatives in power for the moment in the hope that they may be able to improve their position later.

AJHW (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much right. I don't think anyone really wants to have these particular by-elections because no one knows who will be elected. No one really knows who would win a national election either, but Harper would be wise to take advantage of Dion while he isn't doing much of anything again. The Liberals have consistently avoided bringing down the minority government because they knew they couldn't win an election, and right now they don't seem very strong. This means the Conservatives can basically govern as if they are a majority; the NDP think the Liberals are Conservative puppets, and any attempt to work together after the last election was ruined by Liberal dilly-dallying or whatever you want to call it. It would be pretty amusing if the Bloc worked with any other party; remember, the point of their existence is that they want a sovereign Quebec. It would be more likely for the other parts to unite against them. Anyway, this will go on and on, probably with Conservative minorities, until the Liberals find a better leader than Dion, or a better platform than the environmental stuff they are currently grasping onto. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snap elections are sometimes called when the PM of a minority government wants to be perceived as a strong leader, and hoping to get enough public support to transform his/her minority government into a majority government. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One correction: the prime minister does not have the right to dissolve Parliament and call for an election; the governor-general does that on behalf of the Queen. The GG normally does this routinely at the PM's request, but if she thinks another party's leader might have a chance to attract confidence of a majority, she could offer the PMship to that leader. See King-Byng Affair. Similarly in Ontario after the 1985 election, the provincial PCs attempted to form a minority government but failed on a vote of confidence, and were succeeded by the Liberals with no election intervening. (I don't know whether the outgoing premier, Frank Miller, asked the lieutenant-governor for an election or asked him to name the Liberal leader David Peterson as premier, though.)

This doesn't seem likely to matter in the present situation, as the Liberals have not expressed an interest in forming a government without winning an electin first. --Anonymous, 22:32 UTC, August 26, 2008.

Thank you so much for explaining this! Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God's Kingdom and Islam

This question applies to Muslims only. Sorry for being racist. Christian used the term "God's Kingdom", to refer heavens and as a Muslims, how do we view this term and does the quran say about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.192 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Jannah help answer your question? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, the term "Kingdom of God" (or God's Kingdom) in Christianity does not usually refer to heaven. For example Luke 17:21. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you're asking a religious question as it pertains to a certain religion doesn't mean that you're being racist... Dismas|^(talk) 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's not the case that a Muslim is automatically a member of a semitic ethnic group. Such an assumption could be racist in some circumstances. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't mean that only a Muslim will have the information you have requested. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observing the splinter in the I of the beholder should not blind us to the beams. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, we should remove the splinters (and logs, lol) from our eyes. -LambaJan (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Bible?

In Islam, the Qur'an has been commentated by different scholars. What about the Bible? is it been commentated by different Christian scholars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.192 (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Biblical commentaries, Exegesis, Biblical hermeneutics, Biblical studies and Biblical criticism. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is an oevre of two volumes (currently; mine is not published, yet). Only one of those is a Christian ducument. Start with Maimonides and St Augustine of Hippo / Thomas Aquinas and check the list of Biblical scholars. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be picky, it's two collections. The contents and status of the Hebrew Bible (which Christians tend to call the Old Testament) and of the New Testament vary; see Biblical canon. There's also a table of books of the Bible that illustrates this. Heck, the three groups can't even agree on the ten commandments. — OtherDave (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, not even Protestants and Catholics can agree on what they are! But yes, there are many commentaries on the Bible; some well-known versions of the Bible with notes, etc. are the Scofield Bible and the Ryrie Bible. --Alinnisawest(talk) 02:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is used in making Plaid Decorator Glaze?

I recently found out that there are a few metals and chemicals I may be allergic to, but I love to paint. One of the main brands of paint I use is the Plaid Decorator Glaze, but I looked on their website and on the paint bottles, but neither say what is in it. Does anyone know what is used in making Plaid Decorator Paint? 98.132.207.41 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Tara[reply]

I don't know how to move this question, or I would. First, I suggest you would get better answers at the Science Ref Desk. Second, each paint colour, never mind type or brand, will have different ingredients. You would likely be best to write to the company telling them to what you are allergic and asking which, if any, of their paints has these ingredients. The exact composition of a paint is normally closely guarded information. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, You should ask question like this in the science ref desk. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image at royal.gov.uk, Two kings shaking hands

On [[1]] who is depicted on the stainglass window? --217.227.127.216 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a stained glass window on that page. Fribbler (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the sites banner image at the top, here it is on it's own. Nanonic (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would be difficult without knowing what building this stained glass window comes from. Looks more like a game of ID the picture. --Kvasir (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stained-glass window, by the way. It's part of an illuminated initial in a medieval manuscript. I haven't been able to identify it, though. Deor (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if we could read more of the text. Is it Old French? Is the name "Louys" on the second line? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second line looks to me like "ion". I was taking it as part of a third-declension Latin noun of the -atio sort, but I don't think there's really any way to tell. There's just too little text, too fuzzily reproduced, to go on. Deor (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Edward III Black Prince 14thc.jpg image on our article Edward III strikes me as being very similar. Don't know if that helps at all. --Cameron * 08:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software Trademark Law

Alright, I don't think this counts as giving legal advice per se so here we go:

Say I wanted to make a website where I rated and reviewed computer software. In this example it would be the software CCleaner. Which of the following would be legal to do? Which would be required?

i)Provide a link to the creator's website
ii)Provide a link to a third-party download site (like FileHippo)
iii)Link to an image of the software (like a logo)
iv)Link to an image of the software (like a screenshot)
v)Show an image of either the logo or a screenshot saved locally to my website
vi)Allow others to download the software from my website
vii)Provide a disclaimer saying I don't own this software

Also, for which of these would it be required to contact the creator of the software and get specific permission?

This is all assuming that I sell absolutely nothing on this website, and make no personal claims to the software's copyright. Also assuming that it would be correct for a general software program, not just CCleaner individually.

Thanks! Hpfreak26 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could that possibly not count as asking for legal advice? You're intending to do something and you want to know if it's legal or not, that's legal advice... --Tango (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I'm in trouble legally, I'm just having some trouble understanding a specific area of copyright law. The whole scenario was an example to understand my questions. Hope that helps clarify. Hpfreak26 (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law varies by country. I'll go out on a limb, though, and say that to store images created by others on your website, without the permission of the creators / owners of those images, is pretty much a violation of copyright anywhere. Ditto the downloads. Copyright is, at heart, the right to make copies. If it's not your software, how do you think the "disclaimer" changes anything? (Your mileage may vary, this is not legal advice, I'm not a lawyer, you're gonna do it anyway, etc. ) — OtherDave (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about what I expected. I'm seriously not planning on hosting software that doesn't belong to me. I'm just wondering about the others. Would it be okay (in the US) to link to and provide images from the official site? Or show screenshots of my experience with it? Thanks. Hpfreak26 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Linking to a home page is fine. "Deep linking" has been legally challenged before, and I don't think its legal status is very clear. (ii) Fine unless FileHippo objects to it. (iii,iv) Do you mean inline linking? That's very impolite if not actually illegal. Don't do it without asking. (v) See fair use. Screenshots are probably fine as long as they add substance to the review and aren't just for decoration. I wouldn't use the logo without asking. (vi) Only with the copyright holder's permission. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to ask; the license might give permission to redistribute. (vii) I don't think you need an explicit disclaimer as long as you don't create the impression that you own the copyright or trademark or that the owner endorses what you've written. I am not a lawyer. -- BenRG (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just hosting software. In the U.S., the 'fixed expression' of an original idea -- as text, image, recording -- is automatically protected by copyright at the time it's fixed (e.g., written down, saved). There has been no need for the statement "Copyright 2000 OtherDave" or the C-in-a-circle symbol since the 1970s. The widespread myth that if it's online, you can copy it is just that -- a myth. The widespread myth that if you can't find something to say the thing is copyrighted, you can use it is also a myth. (In the U.S., nothing will enter the public domain until 2023 unless the copyright holder specifically puts it there, thanks to the Sonny Bono law.) In general, the attitude someone has about copyright changes quickly when he or she has produced something that could benefit from copyright protection. Talk to a lawyer, or avoid storing on your site text (like software) or images that are not expressly licensed for your use. (I am a big fan of CC Search, but even then I have to check the CC license for any image I use so that I comply with the requirements of the license -- e.g., attribution for the creator, link back to the original image, whatever.) — OtherDave (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you've described so far sounds like obvious fair use in the US, but without seeing the actual implementation, no one could really say based on the vagaries of your description. That doesn't mean it necessarily is fair use, but it sounds close enough to it that you can say, in good faith, that you think you are within your fair use rights. If that's the case, then you don't have much to fear in the short term—if a copyright holder wanted to challenge you, they'd have to send a takedown notice to you (or your ISP) that would explain their specific challenge, and you would have a safe-harbor period in which to take it down before getting sued. (See fair use, Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I understand it now. Thank you all for your help. Hpfreak26 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]