Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 April 14

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.

April 14

medical power of attorney for my adult disabled child while I am out of the country

I am trying to find out exactly what form I need to fill out to designate an individual to be medical power of attorney for my handicapped daughter while I am out of the country. I am her legal guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.218.138 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If so you need to contact a lawyer in your local jurisdiction. No one here at Wikipedia is qualified to advise you on such matters. --Jayron32 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A government web site can probably provide you with the form you need. In the US, the state government would have those. Try a Google search of "medical power of attorney <INSERT STATE OR COUNTRY NAME HERE>". StuRat (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This question is the archetype of legal advice, of which we can't give, and no responsible attorney would give [in this context]. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As others have already said, we cannot give legal or medical advice here. This is something that requires professional advice. It is likely that your daughter's doctor will be able to advise you. Good luck! RomanSpa (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There may be an interesting cultural difference here, by the way. I'm English, and my first thought is that a doctor will know how the system works; I suspect the earlier respondents were from the USA, and their first reactions were biased more towards lawyers! RomanSpa (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this being a request for legal advice. If the question was "Should I get a medical power of attorney ?" then that would be legal advice. But the actual question is "Where do I find the form ?". That is not legal advice, and any reference librarian would be happy to answer such a Q. StuRat (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No, read it again "I am trying to find out exactly what form I need to fill out to designate an individual to be medical power of attorney for my handicapped daughter while I am out of the country". The question is not just where to find the form, but which form they have to fill out for a specific purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying they need to hire a lawyer to tell them the form they need to request a medical power of attorney will be the one labeled "Medical Power of Attorney" ? StuRat (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you be prepared to pay perhaps $100 to attend a lawyer for 2 minutes, just to find out which form you should use? Their receptionist would give you that info for free, and they wouldn't be considering that "legal advice". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Then the OP should call an attorney's receptionist and let us know how it works out. Or, they could call an appropriate government agency, i.e. whichever agency potentially has to do with this topic. If they get the wrong agency, they should get directed to the right agency, who can tell them what form is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Exactly what form do I use to amend a de facto court order" is no different from "what sort of motion" or "what cause for civil litigation." Getting that wrong would be malpractice if a lawyer did it. If a lawyer can't get that stuff wrong with committing malpractice we certainly can't take the responsibility on ourselves. Contact the court that certified the original power of attorney, or get a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

But I didn't say anything about a lawyer, I simply said StuRat was wrong in claiming the question was asking where to find a form. I actually agree RomanSpa that it would make much more sense to ask someone in the hospital or whereever the OP adult daughter is likely to be treated who would likely have experience with these sort of things (after all, unless this goes to court for some weird reason, they will be the ones who need to know of and decide whether to rely on whatever form) and could likely advise whether the OP should speak to an attorney depending on their specific jurisdiction.

The people the OP shouldn't be asking is the RD or a library reference desk.

Of course this could be a cultural thing, in NZ I'm guessing if someone were to ask a library reference desk, it will be suggested they do similar (contact someone at the hospital their adult child is going to be treated at) or perhaps contact the District Health Board or Ministry of Health.

But for a more complex question, it's possible it will be suggested they contact a disability advocacy group or citizens advice bureau. I understand citizens advice organisations's are less common in the US than in a number of commonwealth countries. From some of the previous responses I've seen on the RD, it almost sounds like library reference desks in the US function like a CAB. Although I understand legal clinics and similar are also more common in the US and IIRC none of these claims have come from people with much actual experience with library reference desks.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Psalm 72:3

In the King James version, it says "The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness." I've taken that to mean the (symbolic) mountains bring peace by righteousness to the people and hills. But many other translations seem to think it means the mountains give the peace/prosperity to the people only, and the hills give righteousness. The New Living Translation, as usual, has its own view.

Young's Literal Translation says "The mountains bear peace to the people, And the heights by righteousness", but does anyone here have the skills to doublecheck that against the earliest version? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

See Robert Alter's translation and commentary - as the preceding and following verses show, the psalmist is using parallelism: in verse 1 he asks God to give the king justice and the royal son righteousness; in verse 2 he asks that the king will judge the people with righteousness and the afflicted with justice; in verse 3 he asks for the mountains to bring peace and the hills righteousness; and so on. In other words, the answer is in the poetic form used. Goldingay in his commentary says that the mountains and hills are not symbolic, but the real site of the prosperity of the kingdom (they were where crops were grown).PiCo (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Alter's $8.49 on Amazon. Not sure I'd read the whole thing, but I think I could gift it to my mom. Sold. But not wholly on that answer. Why would one translation be "by righteousness" and another not? Is there some sort of vague wording or messy writing in the original? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The David Allan Hubbard Professor of Old Testament in the School of Theology of Fuller Theological Seminary. That's a spiffy title, but I'm not buying the literal theory. Thanks for offering it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... so a modern translation might be "the mountains and hills shall bring peace and righteousness to the people" (where "mountains and hills" are a metaphor for prosperity). (Sometimes this still happens, and sometimes it doesn't!) The Hebrew seems to be slightly obscure ("by righteousness"?. Is there something more to be read into it? Experts please? Dbfirs 07:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw the mountains as metaphors for nations (or some big institution), and the hills for towns (or some lower equivalent). As rain trickles down the mountains to the hills to the people, so too does righteousness, and prosperity sprouts from those foundations. But that's poetry for you; always meaning something else to someone. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Word for word the verse reads "(they) will carry (יִשְׂא֤וּ) mountains (הָרִים) peace (שָׁלֹום) to the people (לָעָם) and hills (וּגְבָעֹות) in righteousness (בִּצְדָקָֽה). Now if the meaning of "to the people and hills" was intended, we would normally expect to see the preposition "to" (לְ) repeated in Biblical Hebrew, so it would read "to the people and to the hills". However, this is not an absolute rule, there are exceptions, (see this grammar which lists 1 Samuel 15:22 as an example where a preposition with multiple objects is not repeated.) Therefore, the interpretation you give in the original question is a grammatically possible translation.

However, it seems you're seeing a contrast between "mountains" (big) and hills (small). I don't think the KJV translation of "little hills" is warranted by the source text. I can't find in any lexicon that גִּבְעָה is a little hill. In fact, in many instances in the bible it is used more or less interchangeably with mountain (הָר) or at least in a parallel manner, e.g. Isaiah 2:2 "(...) shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills", 2:14 "against all the lofty mountains, and against all the uplifted hills", 54:10 "For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you" Deut 33:15 "with the finest produce of the ancient mountains and the abundance of the everlasting hills". All these use the same Hebrew words for "mountains" and "hills" I concur with PiCo that the poet is probably using a parallelism in this passage too. - Lindert (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I see more parallels than contrast between them. Different things (even without the "little", "hill" suggests smaller, rounder), but the Psalm focuses on the similarity and unity. Like how bad food is sometimes described as "fit for neither beast nor man." In other cases, like table manners, beasts and men are presented in contrast instead. And we likewise "make mountains from molehills".

The translation bit answered most of my question nicely. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Roadkill

A Roadkill is typically a nonhuman animal that gets itself killed on the road. Is there a human equivalent of a roadkill? That is, what do you call a situation in which a driver accidentally drives over and kills a human being who is jay-walking or cycling? A human roadkill? How long does it normally take for a dead human body to be noticed on the highway? 140.254.226.201 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S., if the driver is deemed negligent, they can be charged with Vehicular homicide, or if they leave the scene of the accident, they can be charged with Hit and run. I would imagine that a human corpse in the highway would tend to be noticed by the next motorist. --Jayron32 15:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that human bodies aren't normally left on the road to decompose. An exception was during the Bataan Death March, where POWs were driven over repeatedly and then left dead on the road. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In some parts, animals aren't left either. Roadkill cuisine! 75.41.109.190 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, Roadkill Pie. Arrrrgh. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A friend of mine actually had a t-shirt, in the style of "Hard Rock Cafe", called "Roadkill Cafe" ;) IBE (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

My cousin had this poster in his room for years. We used to debate whether the actual restaurant existed. He was pretty sure it did. Seems to be where that menu in our article got their slogan. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd use it for any corpse that was killed by a car, and willfully ignored by at least a few uninvolved drivers in a row. until it starts visibly rotting (and longer). If the police or ambulance deal with it, it's not roadkill. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How are those two situations mutually exclusive? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems I don't know. Changed my definition. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do non-Jewish White Americans ever hold ethnic weddings?

It seems to me that Chinese-American families may hold traditional Chinese weddings or opt for a more generic Western wedding with the white dress and the white veil for the bride and a tuxedo for the groom. Jewish-American families may hold traditional Jewish weddings. The bride may still wear the white dress and the groom a black tuxedo, but the ceremony is distinctively Jewish because of the chuppah and the Jewish music that plays during the reception. But what about non-Jewish White American families (German-American, English-American, etc.), or is it just a generic Western wedding without ethnic idiosyncracies? 140.254.226.201 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it fair to say that those are the ethnic idiosyncrasies of weddings for white people? (Why is that the "default" and the other ones are "ethnic"?) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the Western wedding is everywhere nowadays. Traditional Chinese weddings and Jewish weddings tend to be more localized to Chinese people and Jewish people, but they may adopt customs from the standard Western wedding. See a previous discussion here. 140.254.226.201 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes Greek weddings are big and fat. As far as "ever", know that the answer is "yes". As in, I am quite positive, without looking, that there has been at least one traditionally "white" American couple who has decided to have a non-standard, but ethnic-themed, wedding. That's for certain. --Jayron32 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. Stuff like that. 140.254.226.201 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam Bishop's comment gets to the heart of the question. Your (the OP's) assumptions are totally and one-sidedly Western-centric. From another point of view, the Chinese couple may be thinking "Let's not have the same generic wedding that a billion of our countrymen will have. Let's have an "ethnic" (Western) wedding instead, with one of those exotic white dresses and a white veil for the bride and one of those tuxedos they're so fond of wearing. It'll be grand!!!"--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 16:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But Western is not an ethnicity. British is an ethnicity. French is an ethnicity. How is the French wedding different from the British wedding? Do British Americans carry over their wedding traditions from Great Britain? 140.254.226.201 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

British is not an ethnicity. You are just making this up as you go along. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Says who? The UK census regards "British" as a possible answer to the question "What is your ethnic group?" [1]. Valiantis (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That simply means mixed. You're confusing government fictions with reality. You'd be hard put to find an Englishman who thought a traditional Scottish wedding with bagpipes and all the men in kilts, or a Welsh horseback bride kidnapping was the typical British wedding. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You're confusing your opinion with other people's opinion (and profiding no evidence whatsoever for your contention that "British" means "mixed"). As far as a person's ethnicity goes, that is a matter of their opinion and not yours. (And I say this as someone who if required to give an ethnicity puts "British"). And although the original question was about weddings, I'm not at all sure what that has to do with your contention that there is no such thing as British ethnicity. Some Scots wear kilts at weddings; a lot don't. People elsewhere in the UK without any Scots ancestry occasionally wear kilts just because. Bride kidnapping was a tradition in pre-industrial Wales. The custom is so defunct, it doesn't even rate a mention on the page you linked to. Having lived in and been to several weddings in Wales I can assure you they were identical in terms of customs to the weddings I've been to in England (and they were very similar in terms of specific traditions to mainstream American weddings). Valiantis (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The iconic Western wedding, with the groom in a tuxedo and the bride in a white gown, is shared by a number of ethnic groups, but it is ethnically marked. There are other ethnic groups to which it is foreign. I don't have time to research it, but I think (non-original) research would show that the traditional Western wedding was the result of co-evolution, especially during the late 18th and early 19th century, among members of the bourgeoisie of Western European nations, who were then as now somewhat mobile across national and ethnic borders. During that time, the American bourgeoisie more or less aped Western European customs, and so those customs became rooted in the United States as well. There are subtle ethnic differences even among white Americans who choose to have a traditional Western wedding. For example, at Irish wedding receptions, alcohol is nearly obligatory, whereas at Midwestern receptions hosted by people of German, British, or Scandinavian descent, it isn't. Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So, it really is an ethnic wedding then. Nowadays, I think the spread of this type of ethnic wedding is global localization. At one time, it's very localized in the Western European countries and then it spreads to other countries. 140.254.226.201 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Tuxedo? The traditional (ethnic?) English wedding has the groom in a morning suit. Of course the traditional Scottish wedding is different. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ColinFine's comment exposes the danger of commenting without doing research. But it also proves that there are ethnic differences in Western wedding practices. The English wear morning suits. Americans wear tuxedos. Scots may wear something else. Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a description of the practices of a traditional Scottish wedding. --Jayron32 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR here. The brother of a friend of mine got married to an Indian woman and they had, according to my friend, had quite a few Indian influenced aspects to their wedding including, but not limited to, how the bridal party was dressed. As far as I understand it, the wedding was more Indian than Western in most every way. But this just basically confirms what Jayron was saying. Whenever you ask "Has this not very unusual thing ever happened?", the answer will almost certainly always be "Yes". Dismas|^(talk) 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Often the wedding reception will include ethnic elements even if the the wedding ceremony itself doesn't. Foods, dances, songs, the little rituals, how many days the receptions last all vary. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the wedding ceremony depends on where you live. I've heard non-Jewish White Americans get married in church, and not so much for other places. In some cultures, it's standard to hold wedding ceremonies at home and without a best man or a bridesmaid or a matron/maid of honor or a witness or wedding officiant to solemnize the wedding. 140.254.226.201 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Many weddings are in churches but many weddings are also in parks, at homes, on beaches, on mountaintops, etc. This site claims that 80% of weddings are held in churches and synagogues. It may depend greatly on where the couple lives. If they live in a city and going to a more rural or scenic locale would be cost prohibitive or less preferred for any reason, then churches are readily available. Meanwhile, in more rural locations such as here in Vermont, there are plenty of scenic places such as the aforementioned beaches, parks, etc. Many resorts have spaces available for weddings which helps their business since the bridal party and out of town guests may stay at the resort for the weekend. Another factor that can keep people out of churches or synagogues is the religions of the couple. If one is Jewish and the other Christian, do they have the wedding at a church or synagogue? If they aren't religious at all, then they probably aren't going to go to a church. According to Religion in the United States, 15% of the US population is non-religious which rather neatly lines up with the earlier figure of 80% of marriages taking place in a church or synagogue. Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

St. Patrick's name

The notion that St. Patrick's "real name" was "Maewyn Succat" is all over the internet. Unfortunately, as anyone who has any familiarity with the sources knows, it's nonsense. The only name he uses himself is "Patricius". The 7th century Collectanea of Tirechán, which cannot be regarded as historical, mentions that, among other things, he was also known as "Magonus" and "Succetus", and later Irish lives Gaelicise these names as "Maun" and "Succat". So the spelling "Succat" at least has a source; where "Maewyn" comes from is anybody's guess. But none of these sources are historically reliable, and none of them claim that Patricius was not his real name, or that "Magonus Succetus", or any variant thereof, was. I'd like to include a bit in the article about his various names, where they come from and their reliability or otherwise, but as it stands it would all be original research based on primary sources. Is anyone aware of any recent reliable scholarly sources that discuss these matters?

I don't know enough about Welsh to say Magonus cannot be the Latinisation of a Welsh name whose modern Welsh form is Maewyn. —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Succus

I found this definition of succus which seems to be the root of the second name succus, succi N M [DXXCO] Late juice, sap; moisture; drink/draught, potion, medicinal liquor; vitality/spirit; Magonus may be a mis spelling of magnus which means great. I guess this could be great spirit,good medicine? I've looked everywhere including a very old missal and can't find anything definitive.Meanings range from friend to war-like.Hotclaws (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Magonus is presumably a Celtic name with Latinized ending. AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Tirechán, Magonus means "famous" and Succetus means "god of war". --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd also add that Tirechán was writing in Latin and he's unlikely to have felt the need to add a translation to a Latin name, so AnonMoos is correct that both of these names are likely to be Celtic. However that doesn't mean you can just take the "-us" off and be left with the Celtic name, as the ancient Celtic languages had similar endings to Latin. The two names are unlikely to add up to a meaningful phrase, because names don't usually work that way, and because they are not given as a two-word unit in the sources. But the main issue I'm concerned about is not the meaning of the names, but what scholars think about how likely it is Patrick actually bore them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked but didn't find anything. As you say, "Maewyn Succat" crops up in popular (ie, non-scholarly) books and websites without any explanation. One 1920 Irish hagiography translates "Succetus" as "Socket". The task of finding anything objective that isn't trying to prove a point about Catholic theology or Irish nationalism, or both, has defeated me. Alansplodge (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

British Cabinet: attendees and members

Apart from pay and the fact full Cabinet members usually head government departments, are there any differences in terms of power, duties or functions of full Cabinet members and those who 'attend' Cabinet? 93.96.88.245 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And, as an additional questions, is there any reason why government departments in the UK are sometimes styled Department (e.g. Department for Health, Department of Transport etc.), Ministry (e.g. Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Justice etc.), and sometimes office (e.g. Home Office, FCO, Government Equalities Offices etc.)?93.96.88.245 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A minister is the British equivalent of a US secretary. A ministry may consist of more than one department. An office would fall within the control of a department. An agency is roughly equivalent to a department but has important governance differences, such as more autonomy over human resources, etc. OttawaAC (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is all wrong. The Home OFFICE, the MINISTRY of Defence and the DEPARTMENT for International Development, for example, are all top-level government departments, equal in rank and each headed by a cabinet member. The only difference is in nomenclature. The original question is asking WHY is there a difference in nomenclature.

Secondly, a Minister is not the UK version of a Secretary; that would be a Secretary of State. E.g., the UK Secretary of State for Transport v. US Secretary of Transport; UK Secretary of State for Health vs US Secretary of Health and Human Services etc. In the UK system, a minister of state is the second rank, for those outside Cabinet, but senior in an individual department. For example, the Ministry of Justice is headed by the Secretary of State for Justice, who is a member of the British Cabinet. Reporting to him, are a number of Ministers of State, who do not attend Cabinet. They may have specific roles, i.e. Minister of State for HM Courts, Minister of State for HM Prisons, Minister of State for Probation. I suppose the British Minister of State is equivalent to a U.S. Assistant Secretary. 194.60.38.28 (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ETA: The Privy Council Office is an exception. It's kind of like a department in its own right, it's the prime minister's own department (technically it exists to provide advice to the Queen. I had a look for info on full members of cabinet versus attendees, and I believe the main difference is that full members have voting rights, whereas attendees do not. Attendees are there primarily in an advisory role. Cabinet votes don't happen very often, though. OttawaAC (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but again, you're not quite right. The Privy Council is an ancient body of councillors to the King/Queen. Every Cabinet member must be a member of the Privy Council, and they remain so for life. So former Cabinet members remain in the Privy Council even after they leave Cabinet. The Cabinet is formally a Committee of the Privy Council, and the Privy Council, by convention, only exercises its powers in the way the Cabinet decides. It is not the Privy council which is the Prime Minister's 'own' department, but the Cabinet Office194.60.38.28 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In a country where oddities and exceptions are actually the norm, one should still note that members of the Privy Council are generally called Privy counsellors (meaning people who provide counsel), rather than Privy councillors (people who are members of a council). See Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Composition, para 2. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Which ETA are you referring to, and why? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry--"Edited To Add". OttawaAC (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What is happening here?

Current Google Map: 52°22'35.6"N 5°11'54.0"E @ dock? (52.376552, 5.198303) 70.174.141.142 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything odd about it. If this is a real question (and not just a clumsy way to get hits) you'll have to specify what it is we should be looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy link: [2]. Appears to me to be a small platform built out over the canal for the benefit of sightseers in the park. Deor (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had indicated it was something on satellite view. --ColinFine (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Question update: Zoom in all the way on the dock. It appears that a person is dragging something to the edge. Note the trail thats left behind, all the way to the shoreline. Any ideas on what is being dragged out to the water? 70.174.141.142 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been going around the webs. It's a wet dog. Mingmingla (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

SOLVED. Thanks for the quick answer. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This was known at least as far back as July of 2013.[3] But there's some interesting stuff in the article about other stuff Google maps has captured, including a murder investigation near Oakland. There was a hue-and-cry about that once it was discovered, so it's possible Google has replaced the image by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For entertainment value, of course, nothing beats the occasional Google Street View mishap (some of my favorite examples of which The Guardian chronicled a couple of years ago). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Richmond? I didn't see any mention of an Oakland murder investigation (or anything relating to Oakland) in that article. (P.S. I have no idea if Oakland would normally be considered part of Richmond in US parlance although our articles don't seem to suggest so and this isn't intended to be nitpicky, I was genuinely confused as I didn't find any mention of an Oakland murder in the article. ) Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Check the link I posted at 8:19, and it should take you to an article about the Google Maps view that showed a murder investigation in progress with a body lying on the ground. Google said they were going to replace that item (or maybe fuzz it out), but I don't know if they did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This shows the "before" of that location. To "patch" it, they have replaced the detailed images such that you're merely zooming in on the lower resolution straight-overhead picture from before. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Richmond is near Oakland, they're both part of the East Bay area. Oakland is the better known city, so when describing where one is from, it's quite likely that people would say "Oakland" simply because more people have heard of it than Richmond, which is a considerably smaller city. --Jayron32 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to identify a painting

I've been trying for some time now to identify a painting. It features a woman picking flowers (though this may be me misremembering it; it may have been a crop of some sort) in a colorful field. She is bent at the waist on the middle-right portion of the canvas, with flowers piled on her back (I think), and she may have been wearing a hat. The left side features a cart or wheelbarrow of some sort, possibly filled with flowers. I've only ever seen it in a book of photomosaics, so it's difficult for me to remember the style, though it reminds me of Impressionism. The other photomosaics in the book were of fairly famous paintings, so I'm surprised I can't find anything about it online. MostRecentUser (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the sort of compostion sans cart. [4] This was very populer pose used by many artists. It reasured rich people that bought the paintings, that poor people are at their happiest when doing backbraking work for a pitance. So there could be a lot of painting that match your recolection. Can you narrow it down by providing more detail?--Aspro (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In the above example, the subject is plucking the sexual organs of plants and loading them onto her back. Water is in the background and the Water Lilys are associated by the Greeks with Hera. The whole painting teems with symbolism. There are subliminal messages here, is this why you ask? After all, artist are not like you and I but rather more like I and you!--Aspro (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• You're perhaps thinking of Andrew Wyeth's Christina's World? No trip to the lower Delaware Valley is complete without a trip to the Wyeth Museum. (Although Christina's in the MoMA.) μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, how do you do it? Apart from differing in almost every detail, Christina's World fits the description beautifully. —Tamfang (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, that sort of characterizes the actual painting too (see below). Sometimes we have to intuit and use our lateral thinking. MRU did mention possible mis-remembering and also that it is probably a famous painting. I thought both Medeis's and also Xuxl's suggestion below were valid long shots. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Girl in a field bent at the waist? Are you still holding a grudge from the last thread Tamfang? You really ought to come out with it, rather than this snide, girlish sarcasm. What did I say that so offended you that has recently poisoned your interactions with me? I am quite certain I have never insulted you. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Do I need a personal reason to be amazed at the wrongness? —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There's certainly something going on when of all the wrong guesses, including the OP's admitted wrong description of the image, my suggestion is the only one that's actually wrong. μηδείς (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In all the others, as far as I noticed, at least someone is harvesting something, which seems to me the most essential element. —Tamfang (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Seconding Aspro. There are many paintings of women picking flowers with those kinds of details. How big was the woman in relation to the size of the canvas? Some possibilities, all of which lack one or more of those details: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We have commons:Category:Portraits as belle jardinière, commons:Category:Portrait paintings of females with flowers, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

While waiting for more details, as requested, here's one more suggestion: La brouette, verger, by Camille Pissarro. She's not picking flowers, and the barrow isn't on the left (though the burro is). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Another very famous painting on the same theme, by Jean-François Millet [10]. --Xuxl (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We even have an article on that one: The Gleaners. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it'd be a longshot, but I really appreciate the effort.

Well, I've got an update for y'all. I don't know why it didn’t occur to me to try and find the book I originally saw it in, but after an hour of image-searching I've found a photomosaic of it, and I'll be damned if I didn’t COMPLETELY misremember the darn thing (got to love the limitations of the human brain, eh?). No wheelbarrow, two people in the center… Unfortunately, also no name. Anyone know what it's called? I don't know why this is bugging me so much, but many thanks for all the help! MostRecentUser (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It sort of screams Diego Rivera to me. That's all I got. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Jack is spot on: It's The Flower Carrier (formerly The Flower Vendor) by Rivera. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh, heh, I've still got it. Thanks, Sluzzy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Post-World War II Aims of Britain and France in 1939-1940

Does anyone know if Britain and France ever formulated a list of their post-World War II aims (in the event that they won World War II) in 1939-1940 (before the fall of France), similar to Germany's World War I Septemberprogramm? If so, then what exactly were Britain's and France's post-World War II aims in 1939-1940 (in terms of territorial changes/territorial gains, the post-war peace, reparations, et cetera)? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it was quickly apparent to all that Britain and particularly France were in deep trouble, so planning for a WW2 victory at that point would have seemed foolish. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The earliest well-known document I can find for allied plans for post WWII Europe is the Atlantic Charter issued in August, 1941. In the 1939-1940 time period, I'm not sure there was a cohesive plan for a post-war Europe, beyond "Push Germany back to pre-war borders". France had plans to deal with Germany before the war even started (see Maginot Line and Dyle Plan) but Germany didn't want to play along. Of course, after the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940 France's leadership split into two factions, Collaborationist France, which established peace with Germany and became a puppet state thereof, and the Free French Forces, which was France's Government-in-Exile in London following Dunkirk. Immediately after Dunkirk, only about 3000 troops were organized into the Free French Forces, it would take some time until the leadership was able to sign on to any specific plan for a Post War Europe. Free France was one of the signatories to the Atlantic Charter when it was adopted en masse by the Allies in September, 1941 (and later expanded in January, 1942). --Jayron32 14:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

At the London Conference (1939) the British Government failing to achieve any reconciliation between Arab and Jewish delegations proposed to end the British Mandate of Palestine and partition the country. That was done post-war in 1948. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That occurred six months before the outbreak of fighting (before even the "phony war"), and was not too connected with larger events in Europe. (And of course it followed the classic Mandate pattern of the Arabs refusing to negotiate, or to consider changing their pre-existing position by one iota, and the British rewarding them for this..) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The obvious and stated war aim in September 1939 was for Germany to leave Poland. I don't think that there were any further aims until later in the war. 09:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)