Humanities desk
< November 23	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 25 >

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.

November 24

George III to Qianlong

Can somebody find the letter of George III to Qianlong rather than the one from Qianlong to George III?

Voilà! To be fair, it did take a lot of playing around with Google Books to find a few extracts from the letter quoted in secondary sources, and then running those back through Google Books to find a version in the public domain. Not impossibly tricky, but a little tricky... --Mr.98 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but have you an english language translation of the latin response from the emperor, which follows George's letter in the linked book? You've rather left us on a cliff-hanger. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the introduction of the letter from George, and I had no idea that George III still claimed to be King of France in 1792!!! From reading George III apparently the Kings of Great Britain only gave up that pretence in 1800! This is a long time to wait! --Lgriot (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was that before or after he went "mad"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was or wasn't in his domain was the decision of Parliament rather than the King, so his sanity isn't an issue. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Quick question, I don't understand something. After reading the Don't Ask, Don't Tell article, it mentions:

"The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service."

Doesn't that mean that repealing it means that the military can discharge or harass someone after asking their sexual preference? If not, why are people saying that repealing DADT will help with civil rights for LGBT people? 64.229.180.189 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Here's the full story:

Before don't ask-don't tell (DADT) the U.S. military could discharge anyone who was LGBT at any time. It could even investigate suspicions, and based on the results of those investigations, could try and convict, in court, military personel for being gay.
During the DADT years (Clinton, Bush Jr., first part of Obama's term), the military could no longer investigate, or even ask, if a service member was gay. The service member was not, however, allowed to be gay openly; if a service member volunteered their status, they could be dishonorably discharged exactly as before.
Currently, there are no restrictions on LGBT people serving in the U.S. military at all; service members may now serve openly and cannot be discharged even if they are publicly and openly gay.

Does that make sense? --Jayron32 00:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 describes the stated policy under DADT, but in fact even servicemembers who did not state their sexuality could be discharged dishonorably merely for having sexual relations off base. Despite the policy not to pursue or harass servicemembers based on suspicions or rumors, that is precisely what happened in many cases. See these documents: http://www.nlgmltf.org/leaflets/dontAsk_dontTell.html http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/americablog-breaking-lt.-col.-fehrenbach-asks-federal-judge-to-block-h/. I know we are not supposed to cite OR, but a friend of mine who is gay and not serving in the military was contacted at one point under DADT and asked to give a list of people he had seen at a gay bar he frequented who might be servicemembers. He refused, but obviously a witch hunt was underway, in apparent violation of DADT. Marco polo (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've known folks who were gay and who sailed through the military with no problems. The kind of treachery you describe was not a matter of official policy, obviously, but rather was randomly applied by random military men. DADT was arguably a necessary transitional step between outright discrimination and the current anti-discrimination policy. The new policy may also be here to stay. If it's come up in the many GOP presidential debates, it certainly hasn't gotten a lot of mileage, in contrast to other issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook revolutions

I keep hearing and reading from some media outlets that the Occupy Wall Street Movement, the Arab Spring, and other modern movements began on Facebook. Some people have called these movements “Facebook revolutions.” How in the world do such big revolutions and protests begin on Facebook, get organized, and get traction? Willminator (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook (and social media in general, not just to pick one brand) allows people to organize en masse for an event in ways that would have been nearly impossible in the pre-internet days. No need for face-to-face communication, or writing letters or pamplets. Make one post, and in 5 minutes millions of people know what's what. --Jayron32 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, some of the regimes are becoming aware of it. I heard in a podcast from The Economist that the Iranian regime's surviving the Green revolution was at least partially due to their awareness of social media. See 2009-2010 Iranian election protests for more. IBE (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historically revolutions haven't been "organised." The theory surrounding this is fairly dense, and highly contested. But most revolutions rely on spontaneous organisation by the repressed usually in the form of community organisations such as work place solidarity, foot ball teams, churches. These networks of class consciousness provide methods of organisation that lie beneath the gaze of the official powers that be, that exist as a counter hegemony. For example, during the recent British riots, workers used blackberry communication to network in a way unexpected by the bosses. For example, during the working class push to get radical Whigs elected around Peterloo, being drunk and in a public place on Saint Monday was a form of organisation that the elite couldn't comprehend. These networks are a result of the creative action of people in the world. Parties launch coups; people create revolutions. Jayron32's response above is also good, but one element left out is that people write to each other in ways they can read. Corporations and states don't. So when you get a tweet off your mate, you can believe the contents, because of the style (yet another "uncontrolled" aspect of life). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Stephen Justice, Writing and Revolution for how they did it in 1381. They used writing in English, which was a new communications technology. Although I think he doesn't sufficiently stress that they used written communications in conjuncture with older, oral means of communication, writing down the contents of speeches - oral to written - and pasting bills on church doors that could then be read aloud - written to oral. And today people use speech and writing in conjunction with new ICTs, downloading a leaflet and printing it out, for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a more dim view on the necessity or power of social media in particular in these revolutions, see Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion. Morozov sees this as media hype, looking for a new "tech" story. It's true that some members used twitter and Facebook but focusing on that is like focusing on the use of paper communications between folks in 1776 — it overestimates the specific importance of one communication system and misses out on all of the other more pertinent factors that overcome the more standard slacktivism. It also ignores the fact that on the whole, anti-democratic, anti-popular forces have managed to use the internet for their own means as well, so any narrative that suggests social media necessarily helps these kinds of movements is omitting the fact that it's also being used by The Powers That Be to shut them down. Morozov goes a little far in his pessimism, I think, but his general message that the focus on this particular aspect is overhyped is I think worth keeping in mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep telling 'em The Black Dwarf is just letting the Tories in on our plans, but they keeps publishing. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just that simple to start a revolution or protest through Facebook???? Just a click of a button and that's it???? So, there are no steps involved to start a revolution or protest out of Facebook. Is that right? It seems as if starting something as big as a revolution would not happen by mere luck. It's not as if an Egyptian would have posted on Facebook, "Let's take down Mubarak," and then all of sudden the whole country starts a massive revolution against Mubarak. Willminator (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody thinks it is that simple. But there spontaneous actions by people, in the sense that conditions do make it so that the catalyst for a given action can be quite sudden and unexpected. The fun part of history is the fact that sometimes things build up to a degree that quite a small thing sets off a big action. Facebook is just another medium and communication system. It amplifies some forms of revolutionary behavior, but it also discourages them (the aforementioned slacktivist effect, the fact that it can be used by reactionary forces as well, etc.). I'm not sure it truly tips the hand one way or the other in ways that might not have occurred in its absence. Facebook (or Twitter) did not cause the Egyptian revolution. They may have aided its growth, but the real causes were much deeper social and economic conditions in Egypt. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the home page says the Kennedy Assasination took place on Nov. 24th...that's WRONG...it was Nov. 22, 1963

This is listed under November 24th

1963 – Businessman Jack Ruby shot and fatally wounded Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, during a live television broadcast, fueling conspiracy theories on the matter.

This is wrong, JFK was murdered on Friday November 22, 1963

Please correct.

Margaret Brumm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.179.80 (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald was shot on the 24th, which is what the listing says. Bielle (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Magaret, you have completely misread the statement that you quote, it is not about Kennedy's assasination, it is about: "Jack Ruby shot and fatally wounded Lee Harvey Oswald". --Lgriot (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I wouldn't say it's not "about" the JFK assassination, but it's one of that weekend's dramatic events. Incidentally, I think only one of the three major networks actually had it live, the others were on video, and they all replayed it incessantly, in slow-motion (just like they would do with the WTC footage on 9/11/01). TV's first live "snuff film". One detail of some possible technical interest is that a flash of light is seen just as Oswald is hit. That flash of light was the flashbulb of Robert H. Jackson (photographer) who would win a Pulitzer for that photo. It's usually shown cropped. The uncropped version File:Ruby-shooting-oswald2.png is interesting to study. The guy on the left is oblivious, and the guy on the right is trying to hold back Ruby with one hand while messing with his cigarette in his other hand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I witnessed Oswald's shooting as it was broadcast live. NBC was the only network with a live feeder from Dallas. I wonder if the camera flashes momentarily blinded the cops, thus giving Ruby a chance to move in close to Oswald.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low German houses in America

Many farmers from Northern Germany emigrated to America, often settling in farming communities where other Northern Germans lived, keeping up a particular Low German lifestyle. Are there any examples where these people also imported their particular northern German style of farmhouse architecture, the Low German house? (Defining characteristics: timber-frame walls, gate in the gable end to allow carts to drive in, livestock living in the front part of the house, people living in the hind part, both under one roof [usually thatched], smaller entrance at the side of the house leading to the kitchen.) --::Slomox:: >< 10:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the house with livestock may be against health regulations in many places in the US, but perhaps some might have been built before such regulations were put into place. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning those particular houses I think we are looking at a timeperiod way before anyone had dreamt of health regulations, in both Europe and the US. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Low German house states that this kind of structure was in decline by the 19th century. Most Germans who came to America before the 19th century did not come from the North German Plain, where this kind of house was built, but from west central Germany (the upper Rhineland, Palatinate, Baden, and Alsace). Immigrants from North Germany did not begin to arrive in significant numbers until the mid-19th century, by which time this kind of structure may have been considered outdated. Also, German immigrants, aside from certain relatively small religious communities, did not generally form exclusive communities preserving Old World customs in America. Instead, they tended to adopt local practices. Marco polo (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the general parameters that make it unlikely that there was any large-scale application of this architectural style in America. But I think it's not completely unlikely that there was at least some small-scale application in smaller communities. --::Slomox:: >< 09:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is genealogy so difficult

in Ireland? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always heard it was because the central records repository was burned in the early 1900s, and that the only remaining records are in individual towns and churches. I googled [irish genealogy records] and various items came up, including this one,[1] which might be considered spam, but at least it has a vague general explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Northern Ireland records destroyed too? It seems to me a splendid project for a freeBMD.org.uk type of wikia. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that until partition, there won't have been seperate Northern Ireland registries. Material stored on a county or district basis won't have been affected, but records kept on an "all Ireland" basis - such as the census - will all have been stored at the Register Office in Dublin. Shimgray | talk | 13:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to research my Northern Ireland ancestors some years ago, I was told that most of the relevant records had been held in Dublin and had been destroyed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This happened in June 1922. Four_Courts#Destruction_in_Civil_War. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to trace a family in Ireland. A guy came though Ellis Island from Ireland named Robert Gay. Turns out that hundreds of Robert Gays came over at the same time from all over Ireland. So, with just a name, you can't do much. -- kainaw ™ 13:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there might be a posh line in the family, you could try the Irish-related volumes of Burke's Peerage. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Burke's Landed Gentry of Ireland. But the emigrants tend not to be posh. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latest series of "Heir Hunters" had a feature on Irish family history, and its advice was to go to Ireland and ask to view the parish registers, which by and large were still kept at the parish churches and mostly still existed. It may be possible to contact Irish genealogy researchers who will undertake this work for you, but you have to know what parish your ancestor is from. This seems like a good site to follow up. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Expensive. As I say, we need a freeBMD wikia Kittybrewster ☎ 16:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual ways to do genealogy are Ancestry.com or the Mormons. There is a great wealth of information online or that you can easily borrow from the Granite Mountain. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with relying on these sources is that they are unreliable, and records sometimes are not put on their databases because of religious objections. If records were destroyed before the Mormons got their hands on them, then they will not be found on either Ancestry or familysearch.org. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's much easier to trace Protestant ancestors from Northern Ireland. The civil war in the south not only wrought the destruction of the Four Courts building (where the records were kept), but many parish churches were destroyed as well along with their precious registers. Seeing as the Civil War was confined to the south, the church records in the north are pretty much extant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continued below - Loss of Irish historical records. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What form of making a living will not require a rigid schedule?

I find that I am not able to adhere to a rigid schedule in my college, so if I can't make myself comfortable with the schedule I have in my academic life, there doesn't seem to be a way that I can make a living with a schedule about as rigid as this one.

What ways to make a living would you suggest for anyone not looking for a rigid daily schedule? Someone who can do their job and earn whenever they decide to wake up; on their own times? Thanks in advance? --75.39.138.209 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you find a ridged schedule difficult because you're burning the candle at both ends and are thus seesawing.--Aspro (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may be in part, down to your sleep pattern not fitting in with the expected and imposed routine, which may change as you get older.[2]

Could you be more clear on what the real problem is? Is it getting up early, or generally having to do work when you don't feel like it? I either case, I would not expect too much sympathy form you surroundings. Unless you inherit enough money to to secure financial independence, you are most likely to end up in a situation where you have to get out of bed to work in order to put bread on the table. If you think student life is tough, I can assure you that professional life requires an even more rigid schedule. That said, freelancing, crime and prostitution may represent career options with a time schedule that suits you. 85.200.249.178 (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's both. --75.39.138.209 (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NEET or hikikomori might suit you. Generally the committed NEET or hikikomori will eventually try to get medical disability. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does my IP geolocate to the United Kingdom? Japan? Sorry, but in the US, how do I manage to keep a roof over my head under those criteria? --75.39.138.209 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is exciting and often involves black and grey market work, a heightened understanding of welfare rights, abusing your family, stealing out of dumpsters, and living on low grade food products or charity. But it does meet your criteria regarding rigidity. Also, have you considered sex work—it is a broad field involving more than simply prostitution. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could always do what a friend of mine is doing. She too has no rigid university schedule (3rd year Fine Arts degree), and she has taken a part-time job with fixed hours and wraps her art degree round those hours. So, for example, she works Monday - Thursday 3 - 7 pm, then she can work on her degree Monday - Thursday 7am - 2.30 pm, all day Friday, Saturday, Sunday. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for all the negativity in the replies you've received here. The responders seem to think that not wanting to work a rigid schedule means you're not willing to work at all. They are wrong. I, too, don't like a rigid schedule. I want to work when I feel like it and take time off when I want. As a computer programmer, I hate having to stop writing a program in the middle and try to remember where I was the next day. And my idea of hell is being jarred awake by an alarm clock only to park in a traffic jam on the highway during rush hour, and then arrive 2 minutes late to an irate boss. While there are certainly some jobs that must require a rigid schedule, many should not, but bosses continue to insist on it, anyway. I expect more to be supportive of flex time in the future.

Some type of free-lance work might also be a good choice (writing, art, computer work, etc.). There they give you work and a due date, but don't care what hours you work. They do sometimes have meetings or teleconferences, to assign the work, get updates, and go over the results. I suggest scheduling those in the afternoon, if you're not a morning person. You could even tell a little fib and tell them you aren't available in the mornings due to other commitments (just don't mention that the commitment is to your pillow :-) ). StuRat (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for a more flexible schedule for college, I suggest online classes. Many of them will allow you to watch a lecture, e-mail questions to the instructor, and take the tests whenever you want, unlike with a brick-and-mortar class. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, it usually takes a lot of hard work (and usually some luck) to get an employment situation where you can set all your own hours, but it is definitely possible and people do manage to do it. I know a guy who does freelance website design and maintenance, he is able to set his own hours except for the odd conference call with a client. He apparently makes enough to pay the bills, but it took him a little while to get enough business to be able to get to that point. He did it part time for a while and spent a lot of effort on his own learning the technical details before he was able to support himself full time on it. So he has a super flexible schedule, but still has really had to push himself. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What money-making endeavors are easy to start on (without regard to risk of life & limb?)

I thought of filming crimes in the worst part of a major city, but my research indicates that there may be no promise of a monetary reward once the evidence is turned in to police.

(I am not yet sure/trained on how to viralize a video, especially of a mundane, amateur surveillance on a break-in, mugging, drug deal, or what appears to be crimes that can be spotted from a street.)

The risk of being seen and shot by the ones I intend to film, was part of the idea. My life appears to have little prospects of improving with student loans approaching $90k and a 2.3-odd GPA (I wanted to quit college long ago, but I keep going just to keep the loans from coming back) not helping my case in future job interviews either. To say nothing of my anxiety disorder being picked up by human resource personnel in 30 seconds, who try to find every last excuse to reject as many applicants as they can in an economy like this.

If I'm injured, the added disability would make employers who (need to) hire disabled employees, more sympathetic to hire me. (Or Sallie Mae can cancel my loans based on disability.) If I'm shot and killed, it would be ruled as murder, so the life insurance would pay out.

(As if unseen forces are working actively against me in the first place. Despite an 85 on the ASVAB, I have anxiety meds, so I can't get in the military. Even if I lied to get in, they'd find out from the SSA that I have a disability check.)

The loans, from Sallie Mae alone, will total $557.15/month at this juncture. That wouldn't leave me enough for rent, and getting what little-paying jobs I could will cause the Department of Ed. federal loans to ask me to pay them back too. I'm still in college in order to borrow from Federal Peter to pay Private Paul but I know this can't happen forever; last I checked, the aggregate loan ceiling is $57,500, and with the budget woes the government already has right now, raising the aggregate ceiling would most likely be the least of their priorities.

I need to find endeavors that won't require interviews that are easy to be rejected from (like from traditional employers), that doesn't cost much to start on (so no $thousands in up-front fees to open a business, for example), that only risks my life/limb (so not a financial investment) but pays out good rewards in the end.

Since it seemingly isn't filming crimes from a street, what endeavor would it be that I'm looking for? --75.39.138.209 (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who work almost solely on their own terms include visual artists (any of fine art, cartooning, illustration, photography and/or films.) Sometimes there are deadlines to be met, or one has to show up at an exhibition, story meeting or award ceremony, but principally you work at the time and place you (and your Muse) decide. Many writers have similar open hours. If you are your own boss and you do all your own work, you can usually pick your own schedule, aside from times to meet clients, suppliers or service people. Keep in mind that if thins are easy to start (the barriers to entry are low) then lots of people will be attracted to the endeavour, competition will be high and rewards likely low. It is when barriers to entry are high (high cost, scarcity of supply, creative skill, long learning curve) that the rewards tend also to be high. Yes, there are exceptions. Bielle (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could live in the woods and hunt/trap animals.[3][4][5] --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like there is no easy way out with that level of debt, sorry. Some teaching and volunteer positions do offer loan forgiveness though [6]. (In case you're a vegetarian and don't want to hunt animals). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of a quote

Dear Wikipedians:

Does anyone know of the origin of the following quote?:

"There are three things that cannot be touched in Canada: God, Canadian Revenue Agency and the National Parole Board."

Thanks,

174.88.35.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

azeri national costume

Doesn't Azeris have their own national costume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.206 (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani people and Culture of Azerbaijan has some pictures of people in what might be "traditional" clothing. --Jayron32 17:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diffrent between a picture to a painting

Hi, I would like to know how the humans are able to identifiy the diffrence between a painting to a photograph. I mean, what makes one painting appearing more "real" than another. Exx8 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you yourself able to tell the difference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the difference is the degree of detail. However, hyperrealists (photorealists) can get near-photographic realism in their paintings. While such realism takes a very high degree of skill and patience, I wonder why they bother; that's what a camera is for, after all. Take a look at some of Chuck Close's early work, for example, where he re-defined photorealism, and then his later work where he moved further and further away from the photographic look, and, to my way of thinking, painted better portraits as a result. Bielle (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples in those articles are clearly paintings (to my eyes, anyway). The one item, File:Chuck Close 1.jpg, looks quite realistic, though still not perfectly convincing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One sign when looking at actual paintings (and not photos of paintings, prints, etc) is that they are almost never painted on photo paper. Pfly (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But photos are now being printed on canvas. You can even choose to have your photograph rendered in a specific art style.Bielle (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty nifty. Yet it's still possible to tell if it's a photo. One could argue that once they start messing with the digital image, it compromises it. But you can usually still tell if it's a photo or a painting. I'd like to see some examples from the OP, if he has anything specific, where it's not certain whether it's photo or painting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photorealism is apparently one of several "art forms that play with simulacra". Knowing that a photorealistic picture is in fact a painting can positively affect our appreciation of it. The opposite effect also sometimes occurs; there is a market for mass-produced hand paintings (sometimes sold on the street to tourists, in locations associated with art), which may be printed and then touched up by hand with a few brushstrokes - and of course awareness of this method of creation tends to make the viewer feel disdain for the painting, even if they previously admired it. Card Zero (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Card_Zero: There is the opposite effect. There are some artists who only use digital tools to create their art and thus there is no traditional "painting"; only a digital "picture". Is this still art? Some "traditional" art societies do not think so. Consider the 30 year-old Lloyd-Blindman who I happen to know personally. His art, because of his disability, is created on a computer. Does that make such art less satisfying? He has Type I Usher syndrome—In his case, no hearing since birth and very little sight now remaining --Senra (Talk) 14:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC

I can't quite tell whether you're agreeing or disagreeing, but if the latter, I wasn't making some facile distinction between digital painting and physical painting, you know. Of course an artist can be as creative with a virtual brush as with a physical brush. Card Zero (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things that would make one painting appear more 'real' than another. Mainly an accurate use of perspective, realistic use of light and the attention to detail. Photorealistic painting is a type of painting that seeks to make the painting look like a photograph. So the artist would emulate the kind of effects that the camera would create, such as focus blur. See the work of Gerhard Richter. I was in a book shop once and saw his work under 'photography' and had to tell the staff that it was actually paintings.2.24.235.165 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well, looking at it the opposite way, a painting is always exactly as the painter intended, the details are always clear, the lighting just so, whereas many photographs can be a little smudged or blurred or not quite right. I recently took a photograph, stretched it out and traced over it in Microsoft Paint, replacing every part of it with little blocks of solid colour, each slightly different to the next, and when I zoomed out, it looked better than the original because it was so much clearer and brighter and neater. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime minister belgium italy netherlands spain portugal france norway sweden and denmark

How many years does the Prime Ministers of Belgium, Italy, France, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Denmark serve in office like UK and Canada Prime Ministers can either serve four or five years in office before being re-elected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.186 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Prime ministers do not get "re-elected", as they do not get "elected" (yes, there are some exceptions, notably the Prime minister of Israel for some time, but they are rare). Prime ministers tend to stay in the office as long as they have the support of the Parliament (or President, as in Russian Federation or Weimar Republic). Sometimes they hold such support from one election to another, sometimes even longer, sometimes much shorter (until the coalition breaks down again). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium has parliamentary elections every 4 years (Politics of Belgium), France every 5 years or sooner (National Assembly of France), Netherlands up to 4 years (House of Representatives of the Netherlands), Spain every 4 years (Politics of Spain), Portugal every 4 years (Assembly of the Republic). Someone else can find the rest. Note that it's complicated because some countries have fixed terms, and others allow either the head of state (president/monarch) or prime minister to call an early election. Possibly this info could be added to List of legislatures by country or somewhere similar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, no Western European countries (afaik) have term limits for PMs. --Soman (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark (Folketinget), Norway (Stortinget) and Sweden (Riksdagen) all have 4 year terms. Norway apparently has fixed term parliamentary elections, Denmark and Sweden do not. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Grey - why was she never Queen of England?

Why was not Frances Grey, Duchess of Suffolk, herself declared queen in 1553 instead of her daughter Jane Grey? Furthermore: in her own article, she is given a place in the line of succession, but in the aricle of her daughter Jane Grey, it is stated that she was excluded from the succession. Which is correct? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, which you have linked, Frances was at one time in the line of succession. The will of Edward VI, however, later excluded Frances from the succession. Marco polo (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the article of Jane Grey say that King Henry excluded Frances from succession. This is confusing. --Aciram (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on the British monarchy, but... Jane Grey became queen (for a week or so) because Edward VI declared that she should succeed him. Why he chose her I don't know. I suppose that her being young would ensure that England remained Protestant for a long time. His father, Henry VIII, had altered the line of succession a couple of times. However, Henry had had Parliament pass laws to that effect, whereas Edward made his changes without parliamentary sanction. So when Edward died, both Jane and Mary claimed the throne. Or so I understand. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Jane was a pawn of the ambitious John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland who married his son Guilford to Jane. It was he who persuaded Frances to yield her place in the line of succession to her daughter, Jane. King Edward VI was dying at the time and completely under the control of the duke, who ruled England in all but name. Needless to say, he lost his head when Mary ascended the throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But the articles are still confusing as to when Frances actually had a place in the succession. Perhaps they should be clearified? --Aciram (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be of interest to clerify why she was not queen in her article? I have not seen any explanation in it there. --Aciram (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Frances Grey's article and it does explain why she was passed over in the succession in favour of Jane.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see it, I must have mist it. But it does not mention to contradiction mentioned before: In her article, she is included in the succession by Henry, and in the article of Jane Grey, she is excluded from the succession by Henry. Perhaps that should be clerified in her article? --Aciram (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry was already dead when the Duke of Northumberland persuaded Frances to give up her place in the succession in favour of Jane. Edward VI was reigning at the time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my question. Let me quote the article of Jane Grey. Quote: The Third Succession Act of 1544 restored Henry VIII's daughters Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession, although the law regarded them as illegitimate. Furthermore, this Act authorised Henry VIII to alter the succession by his will. Henry's will reinforced the succession of his three children, and then declared that, should none of them leave heirs, the throne would pass to heirs of his younger sister, Mary Tudor, who included Jane (for unknown reasons, Henry excluded Jane's mother, Frances Grey, from the successionEnd quote. The article of Frances say that Edvard excluded her, and the artcle of Jane Grey sa, that Frances was already excluded by Henry. This is confusing. If Frances was already excluded by Henry, why was she excuded a second time by Edward? --Aciram (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity? Why would the fact that Henry had alread excluded Frances stop Edward from also specifically excluding her? Just as no Parliament can contrain any future Parliament, Henry's will does not prevent Edward from establishing his own Will, and as such, Edward is not bound to assume that Henry's will is automatically valid. In other words, though Edwards exclusion is identical to Henry's exclusion, it doesn't mean that Edwards is redundant or unneccessary, or indeed, even if it were redundant or unnecessary, that he didn't do it anyways. The fact that Henry did it doesn't mean that Edward didn't also. --Jayron32 20:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is relevant to mention, in her article, that Frances was excluded by Henry. Her article say that she was included by Henry and excluded by Edward. If this is not the whole truth, should the article give that impression? If that is indeed the case? It confused me, and I am not by any means a stupid person. This is after all an encyclopedia, were clear and complete facts are important. Everyone and not only those who already knows everything about the matter should be able to read and understand it. Also ignorant people, who ara unaware of the things you mention, should be able to read it, anyhting else would be rather snobbish. In her article, everything relevant to her should be mentioned, should it not? --Aciram (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Grey was not "excluded" in Edward VI's will or in the letters patent that declared Jane queen; she was simply ignored. She had, however, been specifically excluded by Henry VIII, for reasons unkown, from the succession as laid down by him in his 1544 act: Ives, Eric (2009). Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery. Malden MA; Oxford UK: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9413-6. p. 35. This is mentioned in the act's text of course. Edward seems to have implicitly taken over this part of his father's will, as he did when implicitly excluding the Scottish line of the House of Tudor. There is no evidence that Frances was "persuaded" to waive any right to the succession; that's simply an assumption by popular writers. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mystic experience: witness to Jesus' crucifixion

What is the one word that describes the mystical experience (or hallucination) that a person has when they seemingly witness the crucifixion of Jesus? I think there is a one word answer, but I don't know what it is. I think the word is found in the Catholic tradition. 99.157.251.0 (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't spot such a word in the article about Anne Catherine Emmerich (or in links from it), where it might be expected. Are you perhaps thinking of Passion, which refers to the (supposed) actual events rather than to a vision of them? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.12 (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the same thing, but are you perhaps thinking of stigmata?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numinous?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]