Humanities desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

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.

May 11

artist/painter A.F. Gerstmayr

Hello, I am having difficulty finding anything about an oil painter by the name of A. F. Gerstmayr. I have an oil painting signed A.F. Gerstmayr that belonged to my Grandfather. I first saw it in his home in the late 1950's in America. My Grandfather was well traveled so it may not be an American painter. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, lowkeyturner,<> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.182.243 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling around revealed no record of an A. F. Gerstmayr. Combinations with common first names also didn't reveal much promising material. (Someone bought a farm and someone else filed a patent.) That makes it rather unlikely that it was done by a talented amateur. I found an artist Hans Gerstmayr from Austria. He was born on April 14, 1882 in Rubring an der Enns and lived in Maulhausen. He died Oktober 1987. (Not a typo, he did get that old.) He would fit your timeframe. Problem is he didn't do oil paintings. He was noted for doing something called "stahlschnitt" (Steelengraving). Since it's also not a match on the first name, this might either not be the one or it's a one off. Maybe it was done in the course of his training. Given the fact that there were 2 wars there in his lifetime he might have done it by special request in exchange for something useful. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one Alfred Frank Gerstmayr, born 1893, naturalised 1907-24, died in 1968 in Florida, probably buried in San Mateo Cemetery, Putnam County, Florida. Additional info on him require signing up with www.ancestry.com. There is nothing I could find about the person himself, unfortunately.

A whole stack of Gerstmayrs seem to have immigrated to the USA (probably from the Mühlviertel / Upper Austria / Austria) early last century, settling mainly in New York and Chikago. Sorry, this is not much, but maybe it helps in your further research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guthrum II

Ahoy the ref desk! I have a problem with Guthrum II, supposedly a king of East Anglia in the time of Edward the Elder. The link to Johann Martin Lappenberg's book in the Guthrum II article takes you to the right page (87), where footnote 4 refers to "Anc. LL. and Inst.", or, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England; Comprising Laws Enacted Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings ... With a Compendious Glossary, Etc. edited by Benjamin Thorpe. The 1840 versions on Google books don't seem to contain the relevant material, the supposed "Laws of Edward and Guthrum", but the 2003 version does. The footnotes say that John of Wallingford mentions a Guthrum in Edward's time, but John of Wallingford is hardly to be believed over the evidence of Guthrum II's absence from modern lists of rulers and in any case John explicitly states that it was the same Guthrum (I) as in Alfred the Great's reign. (Yes, you've guessed, Google books also has a C19th edition of John of Wallingford.) In his defence, there was another Guthrum [PASE] active at about this time, an important man who witnessed a number of charters in the reign of Æthelstan, Edward's successor. Historians today are just as keen to reduce the size of the cast by identifying people. We can only hope that they're rather more successful.

So far as I can tell, at some point in the past historians banished King Guthrum II back into nothingness. The "Laws of Edward and Guthrum" were, so various modern books plausibly say, written by Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York a century after Edward died. My problem is that without some sort of statement along the lines of "Guthrum II didn't exist" we are left with an article which is patently wrong, but entirely unfixable. The only option would be to delete it, but someone would add Guthrum II back again eventually, and we'd be back at square one again. Someone, somewhere, and probably in the C19th, must have demolished the idea of a Guthrum II. But who, and where? Help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we are now in a murky mess. Your analysis is a work of (excellent, thanks!) original research assessing the veracity of our (problematic) secondary sources. As a matter of policy driven by the inherent structure of "an encyclopedia anybody can edit." we use original research and we cannot use original research. We must use citable secondary sources. but you are questioning our secondary sources, so we now have a meta-problem: how to handle OR about secondary sources. Ideally, you will publish your research in a peer-reviewed journal, and then we can use the result to modify our articles. -Arch dude (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite up with all the "policy" directives. This reminds me though of other pages where patently implausible things have the better sources than logical conclusions. I think what should be done is that Angusmclellan's proof should be included in a very carefully worded paragraph entitled something like "Inconsistencies in the historical records". Cite the sources you've mentioned, including a couple of the "various modern books." If you leave out any terms indicating any comparison or weighing of various sources you'd leave it to the reader to come to the same conclusion as Angusmclellan and could maybe avoid OR accusations. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is similar to what I said on the talk page, roughly: Perhaps we should create a category for Persons of Dubious Reality cf. The Fourth Bear, (or People of Doubtful Historicity) Honestly, I can't see what's seriously wrong with the article as of now, and would vote to keep it. In its current state it's neither wrong nor unfixable. The OR is optical rather than essential. It could be rewritten to make its source dependence clear, and the conclusions drawn obvious and/or cited, especially using the 'succession to Guthrum unclear' quote. Anyway, there's no such thing as a readable non-blank article without OR. At best there are only ones where making the accusation is impossible with a straight face.John Z (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything which says Guthrum II didn't exist, but I do have a 1998 biographical encyclopedia which claims he did, but with no direct bibliographic note to show the original source. "We know little about him, but it is evident that he remained a resistance leader aiding and abetting other armies intent on conquering England, just as had his predecessor." [etc]. Claims he died at Tempsford in 916, with no recorded successor. Ashley, Mike; The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens, London: Constable Publishers, 1999, ISBN 1841190969 The DNB only lists one Guthrum (our Guthrum I). Gwinva (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it does involve research, it can hardly be called "original" research (in the negative sense of WP rules) to identify the source of a published statement. That process is called Verification, which we are encouraged to do.

The question of when Guthrum II ceased to be considered historical presupposes that he must be mentioned somewhere, perhaps as Angus identifies, in 'john of wallingford' (one of the two of that name) in order for the very worthy Benjamin Thorpe to have cited him. Guthrum's historical/existential identity-crisis is therefore a scholarly-textual one. As there was certainly some interesting East Anglian data flowing around St Albans, Thorney, Peterborough, Ely, St Neot's, etc in the 12th century I don't see why we should discard Guthrum II from the record if he is from John of Wallingford. The record found by Gwinva above is enough to show that he is not yet 'dead', even if he was never actually born. I suspect he is omitted from modern lists as being 'too legendary'. He is not in Roger of Wendover, though the death of Eohric (s.a. 902) and the deaths of Togleas, Manna and his brother at Tempsford, are. I think the present article is good but should mention the paper-trail through Thorpe to John of W., and if possible should include whatever the original statement in john may be. Eebahgum (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have just absorbed the point about John of W's comment on G I and II. The source doesn't quite say what Thorpe implies that it said. So Ashley is just perpetuating a mistake by Thorpe. In order to avoid the OR problem of saying this in a wikipedia article, I suggest that the Guthrum II article should (after a brief explanation of the supposed historical context, as already seen) contain accurate quotes of the sources in question:

i.e. "Lappenberg says....and refers to Thorpe." "Thorpe says.......and refers to John of Wallingford." "John of Wallingford says......" with wherever possible ext links to the exact locations. If John of W is online he is a quoteable source in my opinion! Then the OR is in the mind of the reader, while the sources for the statements are plainly stated for everyone to see. That would be my approach. Eebahgum (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all who replied. I think I'll continue to look for a definitive solution, but at least I have a temporary one. Thanks again, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guthrum II is mentioned in the brief "Battle of Tempsford" entry in The Oxford Companion to British History (1997) p. 913. According to Kendrick, T. D. (1930) A History of the Vikings. p 246. he became king after Eohric of East Anglia was killed at the Battle of Holme c. 904 and quickly signed a peace treaty with Edward the Elder. Ramsay, James H. (1898) The Foundations of England or, Twelve Centuries of British History (B.C. 55-A.D. 1154). p. 269. cites (i think) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Symeon of Durham's Historia regum, and John of Worcester's Chronicon ex chronicis as mentioning Guthrum and the treaty, though the references are a bit difficult to read.—eric 20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the google books' digitized The Foundations of England Vol. I, maybe someone can do better decoding those two footnotes.—eric 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many hits for Guthrum II at Microsoft Live Search Books. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicon ex chronicis: "The Pagan army out of East-Anglia and Northumbria, finding that king Edward was invincible, made peace with him at a place called in the English tongue Yttingaford." Does not mention Guthrum.—eric 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Chronicle A 906 likewise mentions the peace but not Guthrum.—eric 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I have found that the "Laws of Edward and Guthrum" were put in doubt by de:Felix Liebermann (Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol III, pp. 87ff). Frederick Attenborough accepts Lieberman's view in The laws of the earliest English kings (pp. 96–97). These two seem to have favoured a date soon after Edward's death. It appears to have been Dorothy Whitelock who attributed them to Wulfstan II, an attribution which is now commonplace. So, that narrows it down a bit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COPPA compliance

OK, so I'm setting up a forum for Strawberry Shortcake fans. It's likely that kids are into joining such sites, but the problem is that the regulations require that parents need to submit a written, as in hard copy form, and I have trouble dealing with such stuff, fearing that this might raise confusion from my parents. Am I allowed to ask for an email form instead, provided that I'm following the guidelines, and I'm not into collecting data from kids maliciously? Blake Gripling (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to give legal advice here, I'm afraid. But I did notice that your userpage says you're from the Philippines. You do realize that US law only applies in the US, right? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. But it's an international forum, that's why I'm asking you guys something... Blake Gripling (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps COPPA's page on compliance can satisfy what you want to know. Like Mwalcoff said, US law only applies in the US. Most forum managing software, like phpBB, and vBulletin have special settings for COPPA compliance, so you can probably use those. Make sure to remove any fields during registration that you do not want children to have the opportunity to place personal contact information in, such as home address, phone number, email address. Mac Davis (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Su vegetarianism, Fruitarianism, and dharmic religion.

The article on Su vegetarianism looked like nonsense and I'd intended on fixing it, merging it somewhere. I redirected it to Buddhist vegetarianism, but since it's based on a traditional Hindu diet, I second-guessed myself.

I did some digging and found that some claim the traditional Hindu diet is fruitarianism -- to avoid bad karma from harming even plants, only fruits and nuts which can be harvested without harming the plant should be eaten. I also read, alongside with this, that there are the fetid vegetables (the Sanskrit term used is "tamas"). Any vegetables which are salty, bitter, or pungent are considered tamas, which includes things like garlic and onions.

Now, here's the question: What should be done about Su vegetarianism? Is Su vegetarianism distinct from Fruitarianism and, if so, is there a Hindu diet which advocates eating fruits and vegetables, aside from the fetid ones? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical understanding of static electricity

Hi all, before the invention of electricity, did people come across static electricity, and if so, how did they explain it?? 203.221.126.227 (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on static electricity which you may like to view. The Greeks applied the term ηλεκτρον (electron) to amber, known for this property, so the awareness of the phenomenon goes back to classic times. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To pick a nit or two, the name "electron" for amber predates the naming of electricity, and appears to be related to "'elios" (helios), the bright shiny sun. SaundersW (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I did have a look at the article, but couldn't find anything on the history of awareness of s.e. Thanks for your answer; any more stuff from anyone else, eg. about other societies, would also be most welcome. 130.95.106.128 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just picking nits here but electricity wasn't "invented". "Discovered" is better but still not quite accurate. Dismas|^(talk) 21:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Static electricity article has a rubbish History section. History of electricity is better. --Heron (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State and American Law

I am trying to solve a little conundrum, and hope someone out there can help. It concerns the Posse Comitatus Act

The act generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

The Kent State shootings of 1970 were committed by members of the Ohio National Guard, who were ordered to Kent State by the Governor.

So, were the ONG acting in a law enforcement capacity (in breach of Posse Comitatus)? OR was the deployment expressly authorized by the constitution or congress? OR, were they acting as a military force?

I thought the Insurrection Act might cover their deployment, but it states that the President has to order their deployment.

Am I missing something? (It wouldn't be the first time!) My interest stems from the fact that no successful prosecution for either murder or manslaughter has ever occured as a result of the KSU shootings.

Samilong (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a foreigner, I only know it from a historical point of view - surely the Posse Comitatus Act relates specifically to the former Confederate states? They don't include Ohio. Or was the application of the Act extended to the whole of the US? Xn4 10:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Posse Comitatus Act applies to all states and is still in effect. But the National Guard has been often used to put down whatever the local authorities call "insurrection" (I can remember passing through the National Guard lines at University of California, Berkeley when then-Governor Reagan called them out when he felt that the University was in danger (well, there HAD been a bombing...). Of course, the Guard's use of tear gas actually acted more to disrupt classes than the protestors did, but Reagan wouldn't admit that...Corvus cornix_talk 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the National Guard is a state unit, it's under the control of the state's governor as commander-in-chief, until such times as the President "federalizes" them, as when Guard units are currently being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there have been calls for some states, in particular Calfornia, to de-federalize the state Guard and bring them home. Corvus cornix_talk 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NG is Federally funded and organized, on loan to the Governors until otherwise needed. It'll be interesting to see how "de-federalizing" can work, after 1865! —Tamfang (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your answer is already in your question. Posse applies to federal actions but this incident was a state action by the state militia. Rmhermen (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, guys... you've helped me clear that up in my mind Samilong (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day saver for trains in the UK

In the UK if you get on the bus you can purchase a daysaver which allows you to get on any bus at any time during that day for a fixed fee, is there a same thing for trains because I really do not want to have pay like £60 to get to London from Birmingham then another £60 to get back again --Hadseys 13:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I typed "trains uk" into Google and then just followed the signs to this page about different tickets - if nothing else, you should consider getting a railcard since it gets you a third off and should cost less than a third of your travel (not to mention that its valid for 12 months) ----Seans Potato Business 20:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a 12-month railcard for one return journey is probably unnecessary unless you intend to do lots more travel by train. A quick check at nationalrail.co.uk for Birmingham New Street to Euston, revealed "Advance" fares for £10.50 each way, or "Cheap Day Return" fares for £39.50 (compared to £38.50 "Cheap Single"!!). The £60+ each way is only for fully open, refundable & changeable tickets. You will have to check out the specific rules for each fare type, but as far as I can tell the "Advance" fares are available if you book a few days ahead and the "Cheap day return" fare is only valid if you leave after the rush hour (10:30am?). Astronaut (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail tickets in the UK are a nightmare. I have been on a train where my company has paid £180 for a return and someone else paid £14 (admitedley they had to take the outward trip after the rush hour). The BBC article [BBC article 10 legit ways to get cheaper rail fares] shows how splitting the journey (even without leaving the train) can save you money. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltern Railways do cheap Brimingham – London deals, but that's on the slow line from Moor Street to Marylebone. In which case you might as well catch the bus: there are departures every 30 minutes and tickets cost from £1 from National Express or Megabus.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The Chiltern Railways service is not especially slow - most trains take between 2h 10m & 2h 20m compared with 1h 30m to 1h 45m on the Euston line - and its cheap deals are "walk-up" fares. In other words you can just turn up a few minutes before the train departs and buy a ticket. You are not obliged to only travel on a specific train so the ticket is flexible. If you're travelling after about 11.30 am and don't need to return during the evening rush hours the ticket is £18.00. To get a £1 ticket on the coach you have to book well in advance and specify a particular time - no turning up on the day, no flexibility. For an open-ended return bought on the day on National Express you can expect to pay £23.00 and the journey is around 40 minutes longer. Most people find train travel a good deal more comfortable than coach travel and if you are able to book in advance (about a week normally), can be flexible about exactly when you travel, and don't mind having to specify a particular train, an Advance fare on the service into Euston as meantioned above is probably the best deal in my experience. Valiantis (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictish History

Are the Picts still an enigma? I'm trying to piece their history together and it seems pretty much impossible... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.35.53 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to those academics who write about them, no, not really. Given the state of the historical and archaeological record there are very many unanswered questions. Actually, there are probably a huge number of unasked questions. This publisher's blurb for the delayed-again Caledonia to Pictland volume of the "New Edinburgh History of Scotland" will at least give an idea of what's in it. Picts appear in the Late Roman Iron Age, or even later. A little bird tells me that the author will argue for a 7th century origin of Pictish identity. Blame the ~~English~~Anglo-Saxons.

If you can't wait for Fraser's book, the second edition of Sally Foster's Picts, Gaels and Scots is pretty up-to-date. The early part of the second volume in the "New Edinburgh History", Woolf's Pictland to Alba, might be helpful. Google books has excerpts. The Picts article on Wikipedia is pretty rubbish.

The most "mysterious" things about the Picts - matriliny, weird languages - have been largely discarded, matriliny because that's not what Bede says and because it doesn't seem to fit the record, weird languages because non-Celtic place names are like hen's teeth and far more ogams can be read now than was once the case. The Picts, current wisdom says, were rather like the Irish and the Welsh. They appear in Irish stories and poems without any exotic elements. Great Pictish kings are given Irish origins. Pictland seems to have been a common destination for Northumbrian exiles from the sons of Æthelfrith in the 610s to ex-King Osbald of Northumbria nearly two centuries later. If Pictland had been an exotic place, some contemporary should have have told us, but nobody did.

[Added 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)] If by history you mean "narrative history", then yes, that is problematic. There are sources, mainly the fossils of an annal kept at Iona which survive in the Irish annals, which allow a narrative of sorts to be constructed for the seventh century and the first half of the eighth, and the end of Pictland in the time of Kenneth MacAlpin's son Constantine can be pieced together from external sources and later "Scottish" ones. But in between there's little can be said with much certainty. What, exactly, is it that you are trying to do? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I recently read of an assertion, based on a genetic study, that most of the British Isles gene pool (something like 3/5 even in East Anglia, higher elsewhere) is pre-Celtic, possibly Iberian. —Tamfang (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no Celtic genes, only Celtic languages. Anyway, the ancestors of people now living in most of Europe, and not just Britain and Ireland, had to have come from the outside as the whole region was empty 12 or 15 thousand years ago. With Mesolithic technology, it would have been much easier to travel from the Iberian peninsula along the coast to Britain, Ireland, northern France, the Low Countries, etc, and up rivers, than to move overland from the south, the east or the south-east across forests, swamps and mountains. Books by Brian Sykes, Stephen Oppenheimer, and, to a lesser extent, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, cover the (re)population of Europe and/or Britain and Ireland in varying detail and with different degrees of plausibility. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Room of the house

Assume you have a bondage dungeon in your home. When you come to selling your home, how would the Realtor describe that room? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most captivating area of the home, sometimes even breathtaking? 82.35.162.18 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to beat? -- Ka renjc 19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bondage dungeon can be just a nuclear bunker. Simply state that your house have that. 217.168.0.149 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something great for the kids? PeterSymonds | talk 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When selling a home, it's a good idea to remove any sense of yourself from it. Remove family photos, the kid's art projects, etc. Basically making it so that Mr. and Mrs. Anyone could live there. This makes it easier for potential buyers to think of it being their house instead of someone else's house that they're wandering around in. So the selling realtor would probably suggest removing all of the equipment and such, thus making it just look like another room, albeit empty. Dismas|^(talk) 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the "den"? --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal for entertaining irritating people. hotclaws 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully I'm not in real estate, but if I were, I'd be minded to call a spade a spade and describe it as a "bondage dungeon". I'm sure that would attract far more enquiries and visitors than some euphemistic alternative. Mind you, the police would probably be among the ones asking questions, so that may not quite work in your favour. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not illegal to have a bondage dungeon, unless you are assuming that having a special sex-play area means one is actually going to be kidnapping people, but my understanding was that the term "bondage dungeon" was only used by people who were referring to it in a sex-play sort of way, as an allusion. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what would be in such a dungeon would be furniture, which you'd move out with you just as you'd move out your sofa. It seems that all that would be left after you moved would be a gloomy paint scheme, and some mysterious hooks in the ceiling and walls that could easily be mistaken for plant hangers. I'd just count it in with whatever function the house's architect intended for it- 'basement,' 'attic,' 'spare bedroom.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plant hangers in the cellar? Have we been overindulging in our whipping exercices, your piscine Highness or is this a red herring? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside. Whether such things would be legal or illegal would greatly depend on the local jurisdiction. Although such laws, if still on the books, may be rarely enforced. If someone were holding a grudge against you, they might be able to get you into trouble. You might want to contact a lawyer before you "out" such use. You should also decide whether you don't want to rather spend a couple of "monetary units" on self-storage, furniture rental, spackle and paint, stage the place and get a better price on the house. Lisa4edit (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wine cellar or vintage photo darkroom (be careful not to get locked in, or you might die of exposure). Edison (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding progress of lawsuit, lacking news coverage

Following the UCLA Taser incident, the student Mostafa Tabatabainejad filed a lawsuit against UCLA, UCPD, and the individual police officers. Paul Hoffman, one of his attorneys, had said that a February 2008 court date had been set. February has come and gone, with no news coverage that I could find. What sort of reliable sources may exist? If the case was quietly settled, would there be official records of it being withdrawn?

I have a PDF of the complaint which was made available online at the time of filing in January 2007. The copy I have lacks a case number. It is headed United States District Court, Central District of California, and dated January 17, 2007. The lead firm is Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &Hoffman LLP. Flatscan (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get an account with PACER, where you can track the docket of and read documents from a case. You need a credit card because it's eight cents for each "page" of material, up to, I think, $2.40 for a single document. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been filed but not heard as of yet, see here for the case number. 84.68.174.214 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. PACER online registration was down over the weekend, so I had to wait to access it. I looked through a few of the documents, but I didn't find anything particularly interesting. Flatscan (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of 'either'.

Moved to WP:Reference desk/Language, where there are many language experts. PeterSymonds | talk 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darius

What inspired Darius the emperor of Persia to revised the Persian legal code? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know little of the Persian Empire, but I think our article Darius I of Persia will tell you enough about his life to give you a feel for his reforming drive. Xn4 01:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Persian history either, but I have studied Herodotus, who spends a great deal of time on Darius. I believe Herodotus wanted to show Darius as the sort of man who must rise in the political climate of the Persian Empire of the time. His story of Darius's ascension makes a great point of showing Darius 1) lying, and advocating the political use of untruth and rhetoric; and 2) essentially cheating on horses in order to win the curious test devised by the Seven to choose a king among themselves. These actions are very much in opposition to Herodotus' earlier account of Persian culture, in which he asserts that their education consists of three things: archery, horse-riding, and truth-telling. Hence, it looks like Herodotus wants to show Darius as a man who, on a personal level, is willing to divorce politics from culture, and his reforms follow the pattern of separating culture and politics. In fact, I'd be hesitant to call them reforms; he seems really to have established the first consistent political organization of the Persian empire along with currency and various other trappings of what we would call government.

As to the reason for this -- that is, why Darius and why at that particular time -- my speculation is that the non-formalized culture-based rule that prevailed under Cyrus and Cambyses came under greater and greater strain as the Persian Empire expanded. Although it's not explicit, I think this is suggested by the contrasts Herodotus draws with Cambyses and Cyrus in III.89. This strain, I would suggest, allowed for a man such as Darius, who would have been culturally out of step with earlier administrations, to rise to political power.

Sorry that's a bit long-winded. Herodotus' attitude towards foreign politics is fascinating, and if you haven't already I highly recommend reading the first three books closely. There are some very interesting thematic progressions in the kings of Persia, Media, and Ethiopia which I think shed a lot of light on how Herodotus is thinking about Darius. davidreed (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art of our time

What are the major concerns people will be able to discern in the art of our own time? Are we hopeful and Romantic? Materialistic and self-centered? Concerned about injustices and willing to sacrifice for change? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. hotclaws 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agressive.--Artjo (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Childish. Xn4 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schitzophrenic. Ninebucks (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonuniform. —Tamfang (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Charlemagne

Hello there, I have been trying to find quotes by Charlemagne, but have only found about two or three. Does anyone know where I can find more? 75.162.139.58 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote has a couple. Corvus cornix_talk 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those were the ones I found along with another one that was something like "having a second language is like having a second soul" but I was wondering if those were the only ones? 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)75.162.139.58 (talk)

Notker the Stammerer's life has a fair number of "quotes", but the likelihood of many of them being genuine is not huge. But the complaint about short English cloaks (p. 133 of the Penguin edition) has the ring of truth about it I think, the sort of story people might well tell for years and years. Alcuin's letters also include some quotes, and these are more likely to be authentic. For example, Alcuin says that Charlemagne was enraged when he heard of the murder of King Æthelred I of Northumbria and called the Northumbrians "that treacherous, perverse people...who murder their own lords". Asser's life of Alfred the Great reports a supposed conversation between Charlemagne and Eadburh, daughter of Offa of Mercia and sometime Queen of Wessex. Whether there's very much truth in Asser's stories of Eadburh is less than certain. Dame Janet Nelson supposed so, but Pauline Stafford and Barbara Yorke were less convinced. Even if happened, the chances of the words being the ones Charlemagne used are very small. Some of Charlemagne's diplomatic correspondence survives, but there isn't much of him to be found there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einhard may have recorded some quotes, although if there are any there the likelihood is small that they are genuine, as Angus said (which is true for every pre-modern quote, really). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]

Isn't there another quote by him saying that had he known the pope would crown him roman emperor, he would not have set foot in the church. I am looking for exact quotes, or places I could find them. 75.162.139.58 (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einhard, chapter 28, but Einhard's biography is a classicising piece. We would expect Einhard's Charlemagne to be a rather unwilling emperor, happy to remain a king and patrician. I skimmed through the Royal Frankish Annals, which Einhard may have had a hand in, but no speeches are reported there. Notker remains your best bet for quote mining. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Enterprises

I got a very good answer to a question I placed here earlier this month, for which I am most grateful. I'm sorry for not expressing my thanks sooner, as it seems that the main respondent has now left Wikipedia. I have another, related, question which perhaps someone else can assist me with. I need to know exactly how the SS profited from the wealth they acquired in the process of the Holocaust? They set up various industrial enterprises, I know, but how were the profits invested? In foreign banks, perhaps? I assume also that there must have been a high degree of 'skimming' and other forms of corruption? Thanks for any answers.Karl Hanke (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the following helpful, it's Clio the Muse's answer (from our 26 November 2007 archive) to a slightly different question. Xn4 01:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...it is a story of mass expropriation as well as one of mass murder. From the very beginning Heinrich Himmler had an eye out for commercial and financial opportunities, designed to support and extend his SS empire. There was a certain degree of necessity to this, inasmuch as the organistaion from the very beginning was expected to be largely self-financing. Even after the seizure of power in 1933 matters did not noticeably improve. Wilhelm Frick, the man who controlled state funds, was an old enemy of the Reichsfüher; and Franz Xaver Schwarz, the man who controlled party funds, was notoriously tight-fisted. Though the SS was given the task of running the new concentration camps, these were expected to be run at no cost to the state, with prisoners even required to buy their own bowls and spoons. Before the war it was even possible for those rich enough to buy their freedom.

The outbreak of war opened fresh commercial opportunities, with Himmler taking control of several confiscated enterprises. In 1942 he began a campaign against beer consumption in Germany, aimed, so it was said, at reducing drunkenness by promoting mineral water. The truth is that by this time the SS was the main distributer of mineral water in Europe. The more mineral water consumed, the higher the profits for Himmler; it's as cynical as that.

But the real break comes with the formal launch of the Holocaust. The purpose of the infamous Wannsee Conference was not to announce the mass-murder of Europe's Jews-that was already in progress-but to discuss and co-ordinate strategy and financing. Adolf Eichman was given the task of ensuring that the mass deportations would proceed with the minimum financial burden to the organisation. He did this by getting people to pay for their own transports. In other words, the deportees would be carried to the death camps with tickets paid for by themselves, at special excursion rates agreed with the Reichsbahn, half-price for children.

Of greater interest to Himmler was the disposable wealth that these people would leave behind, which is why, a few weeks after the meeting at Wansee, the SS Wirtschaft und Verwaltungshauptampt (Economic and Administrative Head Office) or WVHA was set up. With Operation Reinhard underway Odilo Globocnik was also given the task of accounting for the wealth that would naturally fall to the SS administration. Under Globocnik's direction the Reichsbank had to open seventy-six separate acconts to cope with the huge deposits accrued. By January 1944 he estimated in a report to Himmler that Aktion Reinhard had yielded up 178.7 million marks in cash and gold coins, as well as 16,000 carats in diamonds. What he did not say was that he, along with a great many others, was on the take, keeping one set of books for himself, and another set for the organisation.

But despite the skimming SS enterprises was now operating at a profit. The whole camp system was now functioning as one huge commercial enterprise, where wealth, if not stolen, was created by slave labour, worked to death in the process. Workers were also leased-out to adjacent businesses in the private sector, I. G. Farben being among the biggest of these customers. The whole thing was the economy of death. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]