Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 3

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.

March 3

Americans Accepting Foreign Honors

The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) states:

"9.8 No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Aside from that narrow restriction, I know of no other law regarding the acceptance of say, a Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth (via her government or not). Many Americans have been awarded and have accepted Knighthoods, including Alan Greenspan, Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, and a whole slew of American entertainers. And while it’s a widely held view that they may not use the title “Sir” in their names, I know of no law which prohibits it.

So my question is why do most people (including journalists) believe that say, Colin Powell cannot style himself "Sir Colin Powell?" —Preceding Old Rogue comment added by 173.53.170.111 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He can call himself whatever he likes, but it's not recognized in the USA. If those folks were knighted while still in office, it's theoretically against the law, for the obvious reason that it could be a bribe attempt. So from the legal standpoint, accepting a knighthood has about as much significance as if the queen sent the guy a postcard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The journalists are correct. British knighthoods held by those who are not subjects of the Crown are honorary and do not carry the title "Sir". This is because of the honorary nature of the knighthood, not any matter of American law. See Debrett's on the matter. Marnanel (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't stop Powell from calling himself "Sir Colin" if he wanted to. In America, you can call yourself pretty much whatever you want. That doesn't mean the press has to buy into it. And Powell, being an honorable sort, wouldn't do something like that anyway. But by making it only "honorary", it is indeed roughly the value of getting a postcard from the queen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. There's nothing stopping him calling himself "Sir Colin", and there's nothing stopping me calling myself "Sir Marnanel", and it's about as meaningless either way. The point is that he has no reason he should be called "Sir Colin", since he doesn't hold a substantive knighthood. Marnanel (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's spot on. The only American I've ever heard of who is sometimes seriously referred to as "Sir" by virtue of a knighthood from a foreign power is the conductor Gilbert Levine. Despite being Jewish, he is the recipient of 2 papal knighthoods. Pope Benedict XVI in his wisdom called him "Sir Gilbert Levine", although such a title has never been promulgated for any papal knighthood. This was either a mistake or a joke - but for some people, the pope's word is law and they duly insist on calling Levine "Sir Gilbert". His talk page is pretty much all about this issue. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It must be very frustrating to make jokes as the Pope, since everyone apparently takes it literally. I've heard a couple of accounts of the current Pope saying something that was clearly a joke (the most obvious being a comment about dogs in the crowd when he visited the UK being "Catholic dogs"), and there's always been some people regarding the stories terribly solemnly. 86.163.4.134 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone tell Sir Allen Stanford. We need a picture of him too. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but (the ex-Sir) Allen Stanford is a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda and therefore a subject of Her Majesty who is the Queen of that country. Makes all the difference. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, it did when he was a knight. But now that it's been revoked, he's back to Mr Stanford, everywhere. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Embassy/Consulate in Salzburg, Austria

Reading through Nazi denaturalization cases, I found out that in the 1940s and 1950s, the US had an embassy/consulate in Salzburg, Austria, but that embassy/consulate has apparently closed. What happened to it? 98.116.108.191 (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Salzburg Consulate General closed in 1993, a Consular Agent was put in place which remained until the Summer of 2005 and was closed as part of cost cutting measures, all consular services transferred to U.S. Embassy, Vienna. Nanonic (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

US Court outcomes

Is there a way to track US court outcomes? I'm trying to find out how this lawsuit ended. It was filed in the Manhattan Federal Court, if that helps. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you know the name of either party's lawyer, a short telephone call might reveal the answer. Lexis and Westlaw, commercial legal research programs, will have the status of the case. PACER will have the same results plus an indication as to whether the case was settled. (I think). These programs are very expensive. Often law schools allow nonstudents who are acting pro se to use their library for short periods. My first step would be to call a party or lawyers.75Janice (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)75Janice.

Here's a link for PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), which is a service of the U.S. Courts. Depending on the documents you seek, the cost may not be all that high:

Access to court documents costs $0.08 per page. The cost to access a single document is capped at $2.40, the equivalent of 30 pages. The cap does not apply to name searches, reports that are not case-specific and transcripts of federal court proceedings.

By Judicial Conference policy, if your usage does not exceed $10 in a quarter, fees for that quarter are waived, effectively making the service free for most users.

PACER is available to anyone who registers at the site. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Lexis, there has been no court opinion for the case. Either the litigation is ongoing or it has been settled. Given that the description from the article indicates a voluntary withdrawl of the albums from the market, this may have been a settlement as the allegedly infringing material is no longer on the market. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pacer is the way to go on cases like this, since Westlaw and Lexis only have reported opinions. The case was dismissed with prejudice, by agreement of the parties, on October 12, 2007. If you want to go on Pacer yourself and see the court documents, the case is 1:07-cv-03067-RMB, The Royalty Network Inc. v. Columbia Recording Corporation et al, and you can access that particular court (the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) at https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl. John M Baker (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! To clarify, do I cite as follows? And what do I enter in the "court" parameter? {{cite court |litigants=The Royalty Network Inc. v. Columbia Recording Corporation et al |court= |date=October 12, 2007 |url=https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl}} Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you the bluebook citation, and maybe someone else can convert that to an appropriate Wikipedia format: Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), Royalty Network v. Columbia Recording Corp., Case No. 07 Civ. 3067 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2007). John M Baker (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

typeface or not

I've seen Silver Streak. The opening and closing credits featured certain font styles. I asked someone on YouTube about them. The user told me the font styles were Serpentine Series. What I'm trying to ask is are there really Serpentine Series font styles? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just Google "serpentine font" and you will find plenty.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Identifont is a good site for identifying fonts and typefaces - here is Serpentine. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was trying to find Serpentine font stencils as well, along with Cooper Black font stencils and Peignot font stencils. Could somebody point me in the right direction, please? Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent educated Man fears losing connection with teenage Son & seeks scientific approach

I am not apposed to opinions but feel science holds the help I need. My Son lives almost 2 hours away by car. I'm in the process of trying to obtain residency in his school district so we can be together a few days a week. I won't get into Family politics because I don't think this is the proper forum. I will focus on facts. Please allow me a quick introduction before I state what help I'm asking for;

I need my Son to be well for me to be well & happy. My Son is basically well. Well adjusted,an honer student,outgoing,friendly & on his high school football team which is a AAA (triple A) division. We hope to regain our AAAA ranking this next season. (sorry, I like to brag about my Son). We are not able to connect well on the phone. I just started driving out to take him to dinner once a week. I can not afford to do this every week & strongly feel my Son needs more. I'm a self employed contractor & struggling. The area he lives in will be harder. I have calculated my savings & feel I may be able to hang on until he graduates high school in June 2012. I don't mind if this leaves me broke & obviously it will surely yield a difficult beginning to paying for his college. I have a contingency plan for college I won't get into at the moment. I have moved to be closer to him once before & was able to stay 2 years. Now he lives in a more economically challenged area that may surprise me with prosperity. My interest is in investing in my Son not my bank account.

Here is my request for help;

I don't know how to handle negative influences in his life. Significant people to him that love him & care well for him but are not honest. I do not discuss this with him unless he brings it to me. He has only brought it to me a few times. I feel attempting to bring this up with him would be crossing a boundary & put him in the middle of something he doesn't need or deserve. I know I play a part in this but can't see what it is. I am too close to this situation. I have & continue to try & find someone I can talk to who can give me professional scientific help. I have done some reading but need direction.

I'm open to suggestions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Pinter (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. You say you need professional scientific help, you may well be right but unfortunately this is not really the place to get such help. I think you really need to contact a professional counsellor or therapist in your local area whom you can talk to about this. Don't just pick the first one you find in the Yellow Pages, contact the state or national association of counsellors (sorry I don't know what exact body that would be, someone else here may know) and find someone reliable and reputable. You may have to pay for their time but such things don't come free. Good luck. --Viennese Waltz 09:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What state, country? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Without straying over the limits here, I can suggest the following:

• get accustomed (and get him accustomed) to using video conferencing over something like Skype, instead of the phone. if you don't have computers, it will be worth the investment of buying him and yourself low-end, video-camera enabled computers and setting up DSL connections (even a $500 iPad would work well for this, if the new ones have cameras). Being able to see the other person's face when you talk should clear up the phone problems - people who don't connect well over the phone are usually suffering from the loss of visual feedback (from facial expressions, body language, etc.). This should help alleviate the distance problems.
  • I'm not convinced this skype suggestion has any value (video, especially crappy, laggy video, doesn't make me feel any closer to the other person), but in any case a yuppie toy like the ipad is not needed for it. A $100 laptop from craigslist with a webcam can do it fine. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not perfect, but if you have trouble with personal interactions over simple audio lines, the visual cues (however crappy) do help. and yeah, any webcam-equipped laptop will work; I'd just never by a $100 laptop, myself. --Ludwigs2 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• don't worry too much about *helping* with negative influences. Mostly kids in that age range (I'm assuming teenager) need stable sounding-boards. they can figure out the right thing to do on their own, but they can't necessarily do it in their own head - they need to say it out loud (in that vague teenagerish sort of way), and once they hear themselves say it they'll be able to focus on it better internally. "what's going on?" and "what do you think about that?" type questions are useful to get them to start talking about what's going on in their heads, and then just normal conversation and normal parental love and support are enough. don't worry if they get hoodwinked by dishonest people - learning how to understand and cope with people who are dishonest (with you or with themselves) is a normal part of life for teenagers. Buying into misinformation is sometimes the only way to learn that it is misinformation, and the only thing you can really do to help with that is ask the "do you really think that's true?" type of questions that get them to think it through on their own. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps your son just wants a bit of privacy and the chance to begin running his own life. I certainly did when I was around that age, and I know others did too. Apart from you saying that you are both living in economically challenged areas, and that you do not like communicating by phone, you have not said what the problem if any is. 92.24.178.153 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A two hour drive doesn't seem so bad, to me. Depending on your fuel economy, it might well cost more to move closer than it does to do the long drive, especially if that will result in you driving further to work and other places. However, if you need to do a 4 hour round trip drive, you might want to do more than just dinner when you get there. Make a day of it, maybe do fishing or canoeing or go to a sporting event. I would say that 7 hours together on one day a week is as good as an hour together every day. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you all for your suggestions. I live in NY & my Son lives in PA. I do agree spending an entire day with my Son is better than dinner & maybe we will soon. Right now he says he wants to socialize on Saturday & Saturday night & I think he should. He spends much of his free time with his best friend who I like very much. Sometimes they visit with me but now that they drive & date their priorities have shifted. I feel that's a healthy shift. I like the skype idea but don't have high expectations for it. A 4 hour drive is a small price to pay if My Son's needs are met. I may have secured temporary housing in his school district by bartering with another contractor. I may rent a room out & use that income to secure a room to rent in his school district if I can find a level of privacy conducive for to just be. To connect without forcing anything. Someone stated interest in who these negative forces are. I'm trying not to mention anyone. I'm trying to keep this on me. I suspect by now this may be obvious. It seems my x-wife will try & hurt me without considering what it does to our Son. Facts have come out that she is not honest when she speaks to our Son in reference to me. Although this has put a rift in our relationship, my Son & I have been able to mend a lot of the rift these past 2 weeks. I will continue to be a consistent honest force & do a lot of driving. When my Son did touch on some of this I have tried to keep the conversation on me & told him what goes on between me & his Mom is between me & his Mom. He did say "that's what they do, that's what they do". He was referring to an out right lie. I told him he has had the same Mom he has always had & that she loves him very much. We both felt better. Myself & my x-wife were not good at being married but are both good parents. As he grows through college this (I hope)will have less & less significance. I am still looking for a good therapist. Thank you all !

Is this true?

Is this true? If so, in what states? http://www.ratemyfunnypictures.com/index.php/6033/rate-my-valid-stop-signs/ Reticuli88 (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked with SC and IN. In both states, this is complete BS. As I typed this, got a reply from MO. Again, complete BS. So, feel free to run a stop sign and then try to explain to the judge that you saw a picture on the Internet that said you didn't have to stop at the stop sign. I'm sure it will get a good laugh. -- kainaw™ 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you don't stop at stop signs just because it's "the law." You do so because if people ran stop signs all of the time, we'd have a lot more pointless automobile accidents. People in my neighborhood routinely run a number of stop signs (why, I have no idea) and it creates an incredibly dangerous situation for other drivers, pedestrians, even the people running the stop signs themselves. I'm often tempted to yell (if I were someone who yelled at other cars), "if we were both as dumb as you are, we'd both be dead by now!" after narrowly avoiding one of these yahoos. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not nearly as simple as that. It depends on state and local laws and even private contracts with the police department. There is no easy way to know whether it is legal or not in any individual case.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was a response to me or not, but I've added a just to qualify what I meant above. I'm not trying to imply there aren't laws... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As for British Columbia (Canadian road laws are largely the same as US ones), you have to stop at every stop sign, even if they are "fake" (put up by private citizens), even on private property. They, however, can be charged with an offence for putting up fake signs if it's on public property. I'd post a link, but the BC Highways Act is not online.

Also, Traffic Control Persons carry those portable stop signs, and you have to atop for them. I doubt they have that sticker, since the other side of the sign says "slow". Aaronite (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with 98 on this one. If there's a stop sign, there's a good reason it's there, and you should stop. Safety first! It's also worth pointing out that in many residential areas there are no stop signs at all, but the rules of the road compel you to yield to traffic and pedestrians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to stop at stop signs because the Federal government has mandated uniform traffic laws as a condition for federal highway money. Alternative laws and signs would result in the loss of millions of dollars. It's in the federal law, and the Supreme Court has decided that this is constitutional. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, 24, you're going to have to cite a source for your claim that you have to stop at stop signs because of the Federal government's arm twisting. All states had stop signs before there was Federal highway money. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to stop at stop signs to check this sticker at the back of it. Quest09 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit short on references, are we? Try this, from an actual lawyer! Some states specifically include publicly accessible driving areas (but privately owned) as subject to traffic laws, others are less explicit. Here's a case of a guy who got off for a ticket issued for running a stop sign on private property, in Colorado. He had to verify that there was no agreement between the store and the local police department to enforce private signs (there was none), and that the sign was on private property (it was). So it depends. Buddy431 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to have a familiar ring. I think there was a question a year ago or so, about whether one has to stop at stop signs within privately owned parking lots. And the short answer was, "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that if you had actually bothered to read the references that I just supplied, the answer is "not always" and "it depends on the circumstances". Buddy431 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Muslim polygamy; more than four wives?

Hello! After having read a little about historical sultans and their harems, I just realised something which made me confused. I have always heard, that a muslim man was allowed to have four wives at the same time. Four, but never more than four. Despite this, however, there was many more than four women in the old harems of the sultans. The harem of the Ottoman sultans contained hundreds of women with whom he had sexual relations and issue. How could he have hundreds of women when a muslim man was not allowed to have more than four wives? Is it because he was not married to them? But that is still confusing. How could he have sexual relations and issue with women without being married to them, when sex outside of marriage was forbidden? How could he have concubines? Does Islam allow concubines, despite the fact that sex outside of marriage is forbidden? And wath is then the difference between a wife and a concubine? Was he simply allowed to break the rules because he was royalty? Can someone explain this contradictions to me? Thank you. --85.226.41.143 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you eat bacon? Do you shop on the weekend? Do you look at Megan Fox (or Orlando Bloom, depending on gender and orientation ;-) with "unclean feelings"? All over history, people have ignored inconvenient religious strictures left and right, even if they otherwise earnestly believed in their religion. Also, the modern public image of Harems is very much tainted by Victorian romanticism (and Flash Gordon), and the modern public image of Islam is very much tainted by Fox News and the Taliban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you assuming 85 is Jewish? Googlemeister (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, why? You might argue about the bacon (that was a restriction very conveniently dropped early on), but keeping the Sabbath holy and not committing "adultery" even in spirit are very much Christian demands (see Matthew 5:27-30, where the big J reinforces some of the commandments with a vengeance). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Five points for working the phrase "Fox News" into an answer. Negative ten, though, for neglecting to add, "It's George Bush's fault." Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's good to be the Sultan! ... It is not at all uncommon for people in positions of power to feel that "the rules don't really apply to me"... and if they are powerful enough they get away with it. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd generalize that to the "rules don't really apply to me" rule, engraved in people's mind. Powerless people, however, don't get away with it. Quest09 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is all guesses. Does anyone know what the rules said? Was there a rule about concubines? --85.226.41.143 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The hundreds of women in the harem of the Ottoman sultan where not muslims, they where non-muslim women kidnapped and sold to the harem, and the sultan genereally did not marry any of them. They where his concubines. Perhaps the rules where different in the case when the woman was a non-muslim? What did the rule say about non-muslim concubines? Surely they must have given some sort of oficiall excuse? --Aciram (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Christian monarchs in Europe normally had only one wife at a time, but also several mistresses (or mignons) – and everybody knew – even though this was forbidden by their religion. In both Christian and Muslim cases, one reason could have been – as mentioned above – that they felt to be "above the law" (even God's law), but it may have been also because their marriages were usually political and they often could not marry a person they were actually fond of or loved. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do not that. But what I am asking here is if someone actually KNOW about the actual rules, as I do not. If we start making comparassions about Christian and muslim nations, then this discussion will never end and it will change subject from what the question is all about. For example, I could say that muslim countries was after all more strict in a sexual sense even than the Christian nations in the middle ages. I could say that the officiall mistresses of Europe were women the monarch choosed of his own initiative. The muslim harems where institutions; harem buildings was erected with hundreds of rooms ready and built to hold hundreds of women. The hundreds of rooms in the harem where automatically filled up by the royal cort functionarys with women, even if the sultan did not want them himself; it was mandatory, every sultan had them, he did not take any personal initiative, as the Christian kings did, he was espected to accept a ahrem filled with hundreds of women even if he did not want them. But if I do that, that discussion will continue several pages. What I am looking for are someone with knowledge about what the rules actually said. --85.226.41.143 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think European royalty kept mistresses any more than the rest of the aristocracy (and possibly the rest of the population, although their history is less well recorded and I haven't don't the necessary research into it). It was just a normal part of the culture (albeit a largely unspoken part). --Tango (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

different regional and ethnic groups have different social conventions. several points to consider here:

• Most muslim sects are non-polygamous - they see polygamy as as an artifact of the old testament much the way Christians do.
• In those few areas where polygamy is practiced (saudi arabia, some tribal regions in north Africa), they have adapted to modern conditions. The original validation for polygamy was the high incidence of infant mortality and childbirth death among women - wealthy men would take multiple wives to increase the odds having some children be born and survive to adulthood. There were no limits on the amount of wives a man could have, but a man was unlikely to have more than a handful of surviving wives. With the advent of modern medicine those problems disappear, of course, and places like SA placed limits on the number of wives a man could have to prevent bizarre social inequities (where rich men snap up all the women they can possibly get just for status purposes). I suspect they chose four because four would have been something like what a rich person under primitive conditions could expect to have left after child-birth deaths.
• The Ottoman harems were a Ottoman-specific occurrence that was more political than connubial. Like Solomon in the bible, the Ottomans made political alliances through marriage. Most of the women in a harem were there to establish a blood tie between the ruler and some person of import, with the hope that the woman would produce a male child who would gain a position of power and benefit the family. Concubines were more a pragmatic matter. intra-harem politics was (I assume) brutal - women would get their status from offspring, so negotiating for the ruler's sexual attention was probably a full-time job. concubines could provide sex-for-pleasure, without the political angle. Being a concubine was actually a fairly desirable and well-respected position for a commoner in the Ottoman empire, and probably a lot more pleasant than being a wife. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This was very interesting, Ludwigs. But if I look at the women in the Ottoman harem, they where not from political important familys. They where often non-muslim women kidnapped from peasant villages. Women from Russia, Ukraine, Greece, etc, with unknown familys of no importance, kidnapped and sold as slaves to the harem. Look for example at Turhan Hatice, who was a Russian girl sold as a slave to the harem: her parents was unknown. They where just inslaved peasant girls, so they would have no dynastical political value in the fashion of European dynastic marriages. I can understand the real reasons - sex, status, a need for many children, etc - but what I wonder about is the formall and officiall excuses and rules.

And what I wonder about is:

1. If the rule was four wives, which excuse did he give to break the rules?

1. If he was in fact not actually married to them, then what did the rules say about concubines?

1. What was the excuse for concubines when non-marital sex was forbidden?

1. Was it important that such women were non-muslims? Was that the reason to why the rules where different? Could muslim-born women also be given as concubines rather than wives?

--85.226.41.143 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

First, have you read our article on Harems? Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article Imperial Harem seems to answer the original question regarding having more than four "wives", particularly in the article section about the role of the concubines. Only four women in the harem were wives. The rest were "concubines" or "favorites", both being ranked below "wives" in the hierarchy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thansk, I read it - but it did not say how the sultan could have concubines when non-marital sex was banned: it say why it was done, but not how it was excused and justified officially to the public. --85.226.41.143 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't. I think I found answers for your other questions. The imperial harem: women and sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire by Leslie P. Peirce says on page 30, "Under Islamic law, the male owner of a female slave enjoyed lawful sexual access to her (unless she was married to another); any unmarried female slave of a male owner was thus by definition a potential concubine." It goes on to say on page 31, "Since the enslavement of Muslims was forbidden, concubines, like other slaves, came from outside the Islamic lands or (although technically illegal) from non-Muslim communities in Muslim-ruled states" ... "Slaves were converted to Islam and frequently manumitted after several years' service". This wasn't just a royal prerogative; a household harem (the book says elsewhere) could include up to four wives, yes, and an unlimited number of concubines. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see! So, a muslim man could in fact have sex outside of marriage and commit adultary, as long as the women he had sex with was non-muslims? He could only have four wives, but he could have as many concubines he wanted, as long as they where non-muslim slaves? Is this correct? Then, could a muslim woman have sex with a non-muslim male slave? --85.226.41.143 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, adultery is not sex outside marriage. Adultery is sex with a woman married to a different man. Ariel. (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Who says? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

See Adultery, which says it used to mean that, but doesn't anymore. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To Ariel: Adultary is of course not only "sex with a woman married to a different man", but also, as in this case, "a married man having sex with some one else than his spouse". --Aciram (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that a direct quote from somewhere, Aciram, as the quote marks might suggest? If so, I'd rather question their wording. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all; I was rather questioning the idea that adultary in general is impossible for a married man, because that looked like a general comment to adultary rather than an answer. If Ariel's meaning was "in the muslim culture, a married man can not commit adultary according to religious definition", then I have no knowledge about it. Is that the case? Can married men be unfaithfull with unmarried women according to muslim belief, because it is not regarded as adultary?--Aciram (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In polygamous (or more strictly polygynous) societies and religions (even those that no longer practice it like Judaism) adultery only occurs if the woman is married to someone else, even if the man is married. In strictly monogamous societies and religions, adultery is any sex outside marriage. Polyandrous societies usually restrict marriage to bothers, so I guess adultery would be with a man who is not a brother (but I don't really know). Ariel. (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Great Freudian connection there, Ariel (marriage <--> bothers).  :) But that aside, I don't know what you mean by "polyandrous societies usually restrict marriage to [brothers]". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

?? In polyandrous societies (i.e. one woman marrying multiple men) it's usually only multiple brothers, not multiple unrelated men. Not sure what Freudian connection you mean. Ariel. (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, you misspelt "brothers" as "bothers", and when you juxtapose "bothers" with "marriage" ... well, maybe you need to have been there and found out for yourself what this means. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Even after you pointed it out I didn't see it. :) Ariel. (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend browsing through that book; it goes on at length about the societal functions of the Imperial Harem; sex and reproduction were apparently only a small part of its function. (As our harem article states, it was only in the age of Romanticism in Western Europe when writers started fantasizing about harems as sensual dens of hotties with oiled bodies lolling around the swimming pool, waiting to please their master.) To answer your questions immediately above: Sex with a female slave was lawful and was not considered "adultery"; the woman with whom he wanted to have sex had to be his slave, not just be an infidel or one of the people of the book; yes, it was 4 wives plus unlimited slave concubines, though the rule was that the man couldn't favor any wife above another, nor provide better for one than for another; and no, women didn't enjoy the same sexual access privileges to the slaves as men did. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In the book about the Oufkir family, Malika Oufkir mention that the harem of the former King of Morrocco contained hundreds of women for the king, given to him by his family, and they where muslim women and still concubines. What was the circumstances there? --85.226.41.143 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder; where there no female servants in the muslim world? The seclusion banned women from meeting men outside the family. Did female servants exist? Or, for that mater: did male servants working in the household exist? By servant I mean a non-slave working in someone elses home for salary. --85.226.41.143 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

People may wish to see Ma malakat aymanukum and sex, which addresses sex with female slaves by their male owners, although that article is in poor shape and is horribly-titled. The right is not limited to sultans. I believe Ludwigs2 is mistaken about at least a couple things. Polygamy may not be common in practice among most Muslims, but it is recognized as legal under Islamic law. I'm not familiar with any Muslim groups that would say it is haraam, and they would probably get flak for saying so if they did. The rationale Ludwigs2 gave for polygamy may (or may not) be true in some sociological sense in hindsight, but such a reason was not stated by Muhammad. Muhammad said God said go ahead and do it, and that was enough. It has some relevance to Human trafficking in Saudi Arabia, not that it's noted there. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And in case anybody was wondering An-Nisa, Quran 4:3 contains the rule about four wives. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any particular organisations that argue polygyny is haraam but I strongly suspect there are some. Commonly these arguments pertain to whether it is possible to treat all wives equally (and what is meant by that requirement). In terms of Muhammad, it's easy to see arguments that he was special as god's messenger, god ensured he could fulfill his requirements. Polygyny in Islam mentions Shukria Barakzai although doesn't say whether she regards it as haraam. More commonly perhaps are groups and people who don't say it's haraam but argue the restrictions and requirements are not being properly enforced and that men are taking multiple wives for the wrong reasons and in particular that while polygyny is allowed, it's also discouraged by the Quran. E.g. Sisters in Islam is known for this stance [2] [3] [4] [5]. It's true many don't agree with such arguments e.g. [6] [7] but I think it's important we recognise there is a wide range of opinions on polygyny in modern day Islam rather then simply differences in how common the practice. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the range of opinions is important to be recognized. 4:129 doesn't discourage polygamy, though. I see how it could be interpreted that way, but it is an interpretation and there ought to be a source for that particular reading, and indicating how common or uncommon it is. Sunnis largely view Aisha as Muhammad's favorite wife on the basis of various hadith which would seem to indicate he didn't treat them entirely equally. He was also exempted from the limit of four wives (see Muhammad's wives, but offhand I'm not sure I know what justification was given for that by him. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

German Parliament

What does happen when a member of the German parliament resigns like in the case of Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg? Does his party have a seat less or does he get a substitute MP? Quest09 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would expect there to be a special election in the Bundestagswahlkreis Kulmbach for a new MP, but I don't know for sure. —Angr (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends. Germany uses a mixture between direct and proportional representation. Normally, when an MP resigns (or dies), the next candidate from the election list substitutes for him. However, in this case, the Bavarian CSU has won more direct MPs than than it would deserve by vote proportion. The elected MPs can still all take their seat, but there will be no substitutes unless the party actually drops below their proportional number of seats. There are no special elections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

income tax laws

Some US states apparently count Federal income tax refunds as income that the state can then tax. My question is, how is it logical that the money you overpaid the federal government during the year and is being returned to you income in any sense? Googlemeister (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Which states do that? The federal counts state income tax refunds as income, and also counts state income tax payments as deductions, which is all fair. If a state is doing that with federal it doesn't seem right, as it seems like double-taxing, unless they are counter-balancing it some way, such as allowing you to deduct federal withholding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if a state allows you to deduct your federal income tax, as I believe some do, then when you receive a refund, it means you deducted too much and need to pay state tax on the excess. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, suppose you earned US$100,000 last year and sent the IRS a check for US$20,000, and you have no other deductions (for simplicity's sake). Your adjusted gross income as far as the state is concerned is US$80,000, so you pay taxes as though you had earned US$80,000. When the IRS ends up sending you a refund check for US$5,000, you have to go back and tell the state that your adjusted gross income was actually US$85,000, and so you're going to have to pay taxes accordingly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Copland

What instruments did Aaron Copland write for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.130.11 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Musical ones. Specifically, the ones mentioned at List of compositions by Aaron Copland. —Angr (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For example, a perennial favorite called, "Holiday for Accordions". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Was Hindu harems less strict than muslim harems?

I once heard, that the hindu women of India lived more freely before the Muslim conquest of India; that the hindus begun the veil the hindu women and put them in harems influenced by the muslim conquest and the customs of the new masters. Is this correct? And I also wonder; what was the difference between hindu harems and muslim harems? Where the hindu women more free? Where they just as secluded as the muslim women, or where they allowed a little more freedom of movement? Where hindu women in 19th century India allowed to met men and participate in social life, at least inside the palace? Where they allowed to meet male guests? Were there any difference between the seclusion of muslim and hindu women?--85.226.41.143 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A few comments:

1) Only a portion of India was conquered by Muslims, the majority remains under Hindu control.

2) Most Hindu women don't wear a veil, or at least not the same type as strict Muslim women wear, that covers their faces entirely. I have seen transparent veils, similar to what you see in Western wedding dresses, but those seem like more of a fashion choice than a religious obligation. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

85.226.41.143 -- the main Wikipedia article is (or should be) Purdah. By definition, the women in a harem have rather restricted mobility, but in traditional societies, only a relatively small number of upper-class males can afford harems, and general social sex-segregation can pervade a society far beyond harems. Old Hindu norms, such as the Laws of Manu etc., laid great stress on a woman's subordination to her husband and the family she marries into (often a joint family structure), but I'm not sure there was any widespread emphasis on rigorous social seclusion before Muslim and/or Persian influences became strong. In the 19th century, there were some social reformers who were trying to lessen the then-traditional purdah system (all I can really find on Wikipedia is Brahmo_Samaj#Social_.26_Religious_reform). -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the article does say that the hindu harems was instituted after the Muslim conquest of India and thereby not originally a hindu practice. But what I am curious about is: Was the hindu harems exactly the same, or was the hindu harems less strict than the muslim harems?Was upperclass hindu women in the 18th- and 19th century, in contrast to muslim women, allowed to meet male guests and participate in social events, albeit only in the home, or were they secluded just as strictly as within the muslim harems? In short, was the hindu harems a little less strict?--85.226.41.143 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you will probably make very little progress in further understanding the matter until you grasp that purdah is not really the same thing as harems. AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If I knew the answer, I would not make the question. It is uneccessary to argue about words. I have no wish to argue, just to ask a question. Purdah and harem are both words describing a similar cultural phenomena; physically isolating women from men. Both, as I have understood it, can also refer to the wider meaning of separating the sexes in other ways, for example through veiling. Please do not be arrogant; I do not think that is a constructive attitude. I think most people can understand the meaning of the question perfectly. What ever word you preferr to use, I am referring to the habit of isolating upperclass hindu women in the household to prevent them from showing themselwes unveiled in public and meeting men they are not related to. This is the very same thing as a harem, even if you use a different word for it. The differences are exaclty what I am asking for, and thereby I can hardly be expected to know the answers to what I am in fact asking for. I used the word harem because most people would understand what I mean, and because I am an uneducated individual and did not know which word to use to describe what I meant. I thought that people in wikipedia would be kind enough not to expect people asking questions to already knowing the answers. Does someone else actually have the answer to the question?--85.226.41.143 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that in 19th-century India, purdah applied to very many cases where every man in an extended family had at most one wife (and zero resident concubines), there were no eunuchs or guards, and the women weren't locked in -- something which would have been impractical given the range of household tasks or chores that they were expected to perform (though one part of the house where non-family adult male guests rarely or never came was reserved for their special use). This type of situation is rather remote from a classic Arabian Nights type of harem, and I'm not sure how lumping everything together which departs from modern European practices as a "harem" adds much useful clarity to the issue... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hindu women from the upperclasses where hardly expected to perform household tasks different from what was expected from upperclass muslim women. Working class muslim women where not placed in "harems" either. Muslim upperclass women where separated from every contact from men they where not related to, and kept in an isolation which is identified with the word "harem". I have the impression that aristocratic hindu women where also kept in such isolation from men they where not related to. But I do not know if the gender separation was quite so strict as it was or muslim women. The article about purdah say that hindu women where physicially gender segregated after the muslim conquest of India. It was therefore not originally hinduistic, so it is possible that hindu women where not as quite as segregated as muslim women, at least within the walls of the house. I could imagine, that upperclass hindu women where, for example, alowed to meet male guests and participate in social events indoors, in contrast to muslim women. But I do not know if it was so. Does anyone know the answer? Was hindu women of the upperclasses as segregated as upperclass muslim women? --85.226.41.143 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)