Humanities desk
< February 15	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 17 >

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.

February 16

Ismaili Mustalis and Nizaris

Is there any Arab Shi'a Muslim who is either belongs to Mustali or Nizari? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.7 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Nizari article, there are "about 15,000 [ Ismā'īlī ] in western Syria" that do not follow the Aga Khan IV, so I'd assume that there are others that do. I'd guess there would be some Arabs in that group. NJGW (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Mustaali... AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling to Death

The question on the science desk reminded me of a newspaper story that I want to find but frustratingly cannot remember any proper nouns/specific details about. A teenage girl was abducted by a man hoping to extort money from her parents. Her father, believing the kidnappers would not kill her because doing so would eliminate any chance of financial gain, engaged in brinksmanship. He adamantly refused to pay the sum demanded unless it was lowered significantly (by 80%?). After finding out that even torturing the girl wasn't even enough to get him money, the kidnapper threatened to boil her alive. To the father's surprise--he said something like "Oh? So he doesn't want the money?"--he carried out the threat.

This story is from around two years ago. I read it on the Internet, so it might have happened virtually anywhere in the English-speaking world. Can anybody find it? --99.237.96.81 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perplexing why it would have had to happen in the English-speaking world, unless that's all your news sources cover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.97.16 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bite. If you have no answer for the question, remain silent. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is simple: this news story is from an English article that I believed was describing a local event. I could be wrong, though, considering that I don't remember enough details to find any related information. --99.237.96.81 (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's biting. It's a valid question based on the phrasing of the OP's question Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a father. Are you sure that it wasn't an urban legend? There are many stories of very brtual crimes like that on the Internet which usually began as chain emails: ...and if you don't send this to 15 people by midnight, their ghosts will come and boil you! That kind of thing Library Seraph (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been an urban legend, but I don't remember doubting the legitimacy of the website; it looked like a site of a newspaper. About the comment "what a father"--well, not everybody has millions of dollars to spare, and not every kidnapper can judge how much money the victim's family is financially able to pay. Taking a hard line may have been the best choice for both parties with the information they had. --99.237.96.81 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you just hand over the money this time then you are encouraging others to do the same thing. (That's the reasoning behind "don't negotiate with terrorists" policies.) --Tango (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no boiling involved but the brinkmanship sounds like the story at the bottom of this page--Digrpat (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think cutting off fingers to prove you are serious when someone refuses to pay is particulrly uncommon when it comes to kidnappings sadly Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical forms of address

A&C Black's Titles and Forms of Address (for example) is a useful summary of modern customs regarding titles and addresses. But when did these customs become established? We now have a very strict hierarchy and order, and would never address a knight as "my lord", or an earl as "your grace". Were these distinctions always as rigorous, or might a man have called his master "my lord"? Also, how might kings and queens be addressed in the past? I know "Your Majesty" is not an old form, and while Queen Elizabeth II is addressed "Ma'am" (after the initial "Your Majesty"), I can't imagine anyone addressed Queen Elizabeth I so familiarly. And were there similar forms and traditions in other languages, or did they develop independently? (I did try to search Wikipedia for these answers, but the various title pages seem to discuss only the current forms.) Thank you in advance for your comments. Colours Blazing (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that the rules in Tudor times were more variable and less elaborately codified than in the 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching a programme (UK television - may have been Channel 4) which claimed that "Your Majesty" was invented by Henry VIII. Before that, monarchs had been referred to as "Your Highness". On another TV programme about the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, the staff referred to them as "Your Grace" to their faces - saying "Yes, your Grace" in reply to a question, for example. The staff at Longleat (on the BBC's Animal Park series) seem to refer to the Marquess of Bath as "Lord Bath" and "Sir" to his face. I know you're not really interested in current forms, but it seems instructive here. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forms_of_address#United_Kingdom and Forms_of_Address_in_the_United_Kingdom. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, the formal English usage to do with titles has changed very little since the late 17th century, but the medieval uses were very different. "Your Highness" and "Your Majesty" came into general use in English in the mid 16th century. Elizabeth I was often (but not always) called "Your Majesty", and Shakespeare uses "Your Majesty" in addressing some of his kings - even King Lear. Xn4 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your answers are all very interesting, particularly the Shakespeare reference. XN4 - what were the medieval uses? Colours Blazing (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That calls for quite a long essay, but to give you two examples, in the later Middle Ages the wife of a knight was commonly called 'Dame Joan' (or whatever her Christian name was); and before about the end of the 17th century the daughters of English and Scottish monarchs weren't 'Princess Joan', they were usually 'the lady Joan', unless they took on some other title, by marriage or whatever. Both of those uses are so old-fashioned that they can't be looked on as correct any more. Xn4 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too have read somewhere-or-other that it was Henry VIII who adopted Majesty (in imitation of some other court) in preference to Grace. I would like to know when/where the whole Your Abstraction pattern got started. —Tamfang (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Floods

Is there a website on resources for Australian floods where I can find detailed information on the causes, reactions, causes, analysis, the responses of emergency services, the processes involved and a timeline about the history of Australian floods that is as detailed as possible?

Thanks in advance. Fuzzymugger (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a short article on Floods in Australia, but it does have a reference to a book titled Flooding in Australia. this page contains links to places where you can possibly find that book. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Australia have something like FEMA? They should be able to provide such data. (I would assume they are public record, but you may have to go to their archives to get at it.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16th-century Latin

Can anyone help in translating this phrase from an engraving by Dominicus Custos? Que conspecta nocent, manibus contingere noli, ne mox peiori corripiare malo ciao Rotational (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They who do harm in gazing refrain from touching with the hands, lest they soon compound the sin." --Wetman (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "refrain" in Wetman's traslation should be taken as imperative (or hortatory subjunctive) rather than indicative. Deor (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more meaningful? "Do not grasp in your hands those things which are harmful, once you have seen them, in case you are soon seized by a worse evil." 196.2.124.248 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "Having seen things that harm, do not touch them with the hands, lest the sin soon becomes worse" Rotational (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that - sounds a bit like Jimmy Carter's confession of adultery in his heart! Could you please take a look at these as well? They are all part of representations of the five senses, the illustrating of which seems to have been a popular - or lucrative - pastime of the period. Rotational (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The second one (taste) is "Sweet things are often harmful when tasted with a greedy palate and as wanton pleasures of damnable gluttony"; the third (smell), "Although a flowery garden is pleasing to the nostrils, often gall is hidden beneath the sweet odor." Note that each "caption" is an elegiac couplet. (Also, it occurs to me that the translation of the first one, above, might be clarified by having it begin "Let them who do harm …") Deor (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as 196.2.124.248 has it: "qu(a)e" like "conspecta" is neuter plural, and "conspecta" is passive (being seen). "Don't touch with your hands things which it hurts to look at" (something to do with the blemishes on the upper lip of the couple? or is that just a fault of the engraving?) N p holmes (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this story?

I read a short story many years ago. The main characters are a boy and his governess. The boy keeps stealing nutmeg for use in an occult ceremony involving a wild animal, possibly a mongoose, which he keeps in a cage or perhaps a shed. The governess' curiosity eventually leads her to investigate, and she is mauled to death by the animal. Lantzy ^talk 19:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sredni Vashtar," by Saki. Deor (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And an excellent story it is too. All children should be encouraged to read & learn from it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Duncan, your comment reminds me of another Saki story. Deor (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of Saki and a polecat-ferret would make an excellent present for any small boy. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small boys indeed have an affinity for ferrets, but isn't Saki a taste we acquire with maturer years? Xn4 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deor. That had been bothering me for a while. Lantzy ^talk 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sredni Vashtar" culminates in shredding of vascular tissues, it seems. Edison (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns a car dealer's cars?

My local authorised Honda dealer has gone bankrupt, and I've been shocked at how quickly and thoroughly the lot has been cleared - every single car has been removed from the dealership, leaving only a few desks and one very bored security guard. I'd expected to see the cars still there, heavily marked down by the receiver, and probably with some of the sales staff retained to shift the remaining inventory. This leads me to think that maybe the dealer didn't own the cars, that they're in fact owned by Honda (or some Honda-associated dealer-financing company), which has withdrawn all the unsold cars to its own storage facilities (which appear to be several old airfields dotted around the UK). Wikipedia's car dealership doesn't help answer this; for the US the Car dealerships in the United States says the vehicles are owned by the dealer, but financed by the manufacturer - I guess if that's the case in the UK too, and the dealer has run up a big debt with the manufacturer, then I'd guess the vehicles are collateral. So, who actually owns the cars on a UK (manufacturer branded) dealer's lot? Thanks. 87.112.81.29 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the usual case you described, where the dealer is the registered owner of the car but it is financed by the manufacturer, then the dealer has the legal interest in the car and the manufacturer has an or the equitable interest in the car. See equity. The precise nature of that equitable interest will probably depend on the terms of the arrangement between them.

This is similar to the situation when you mortgage your house to the bank in England and Wales (under registered title). You are the legal owner of your house - still - but the bank now has an equitable charge over the house. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said that most goods in the possession of most dealers (including food in supermarkets and so forth) are sold before the suppliers have been paid for them, but for a dealer to be able to pass on a good title to a car, he must surely have it, unless he is acting as an agent for the manufacturer? I'm not sure about the concept of "registered owner" - registration of cars in the UK is to do with keepers, not owners, and although the keeper is often the owner, what is registered is not ownership but physical possession. Actually, it seems to me rather unlikely that the OP's question has a clear answer, as arrangements will surely vary from one business to another. Xn4 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case where a retailer like a supermarket sells a good before actually having paid for it, ownership would still have been with the supermarket. The payment would just end up a payable (liability) on the supermarket's books and a receivable (asset) on the wholesaler's. Account will be settled by payables/receivables clerks based on an agreed upon timing structure. There will usually be a discount for early payment (less than 2 weeks) and a penalty for late (greater than 1 month). This allows the purchasing company to minimize the working capital needed to run the business by aligning receipts with expenditures. The opportunity cost of the money in the bank (working capital) has been minimized.NByz (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that doesn't help the OP's question, unless car dealerships operate in the same way. I don't know :) NByz (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember messy equity cases about lawnmowers and whatnot where the question was who "owned" them when the dealership went bankrupt. The results there depended on the terms of the agreement and also their timing. Will need to check them up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That must be right. When such agreements are drafted, suppliers need to keep a keen eye on the occurrence of retailer bankruptcies, which have always been a constant problem, to a greater or lesser extent. With relatively expensive items such as new cars, there's a balance to be struck between the risk of not being paid and the risk of losing sales. It seems likely that some dealers can get easier terms than others, at least from some suppliers. Xn4 (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting news item, apropos this question: [1] Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional question

Would the Treaty Clause enable the US to accede to a supranational constitution that had legal supremacy over that of the US? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely technical point of view, I don't know, but in practical terms it doesn't matter. The US constitution can be changed if there is a large enough majority in Congress, and I can't see such an accession happening without a large majority even it it were legally possible (it would be a political nightmare). --Tango (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US constitution can be changed if there is a large enough majority in Congress -- uh, not so. A large enough majority in Congress can offer an amendment to the states to be voted on for approval. Much harder. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad (not my country!). My point stands, though, I can't see such a treaty being signed without such widespread approval that would allow for a constitutional amendment. In fact, I would expect a referendum to be held. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmm... I have to disagree. There is rarely "widespread approval" on anything in the US, and certainly appealing to direct popular votes as in a referendum would not get you that in most cases. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why the US in unlikely to accede to a supranational entity. --Tango (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, I think there are deeper reasons for why that is unlikely that are unrelated to its treaty process. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could imagine similar questions coming up, though, in certain other agreements. For example, let's pretend the US agreed to the Baruch Plan in 1946, and now, 60 years later, the International Atomic Authority (or whatever it was they called it) decides that occasionally it might need to search places at random in order to determine whether forbidden nuclear activities are going on there. Does that violate the 4th amendment? Only the courts could tell, of course, but it would set up a tough constitutional question about whose authority has authority. --140.247.243.148 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courts have ruled in the past that treaties themselves cannot contradict the US Constitution — that is, you couldn't sign a treaty that violated the first amendment in some way in its implementation. (In other words, treaties and statutes are treated in the same way, constitutionally.) Other than that, I don't think there are any limitations. Whether the supranational constitution was constitutional is an independent question (it might be, it might not). Courts have never (yet) ruled treaties unconstitutional, to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean they can't. More legalistic discussion here. --140.247.243.148 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a contrary argument that foreign parties can't be expected to know the nuances of US constitutional law and therefore treaties must take precedence over the Constitution so that foreign parties can be confident of no "gotcha". I don't buy it, but there are lots of things in settled constitutional precedent that I don't buy (such as the "insular cases"). —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The totality of the U.S. Constitution deals with establishing national sovereignty and states retaining their sovereignty in the proper spheres. I cannot conceive of any circumstances that would lead the U.S. to legally establish intranational sovereignty over U.S. sovereignty. Such a move would run counter to the intentions and dreams of the Framers and every generation of Americans since then. Still, the U.S. Constitution may be amended through ratification. Only the section dealing with two Senators per state is not amendable. In Star Trek time, though, it appears that the former U.S. ceded such power to the United Federation of Planets. So, it is feasible with science fiction.75Janice (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice[reply]

I must confess, I am asking the question for science fiction writing purposes. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTO The WTO has been used to supersede US law in some cases, and seems to have bypassed the Treaty clause in it's passage/adoption. Search for wto us constitution for all sorts of takes on this. NJGW (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the US enforce WTO rulings? Aren't they enforced by the rest of the world on the US, whether the US likes it or not? --Tango (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTO treaties or rulings don't supercede American law. However, the US is obliged to, in some cases, change its laws and practices to comply with WTO treaty obligations (and rulings are a part of these treaty obligations). Though the WTO is a voluntary organisation, the importance of trade makes its rules pretty much enforceable in practice: don't comply with the rules, and other countries wouldn't trade with you. However, where the laws are changed to comply with WTO rules, it is not the WTO acting by legal paramount force - it's US lawmakers voluntarily choosing to comply with WTO rules in order to avoid adverse trade consequences. This is different to the situation envisaged by the OP. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this isn't always the case. In the on-line gambling story, the result so far is "don't comply with the rules, and the other countries will break your intellectual property laws." So far there's been no resolution, but congress isn't about to pass a law permitting the gambling.[2] We'll see what happens. NJGW (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]