Humanities desk
< August 27	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 29 >

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.

August 28[edit]

writing by Ann Freedman[edit]

could you link an example of a blurb or any other writing on a piece that Ann Freedman wrote. reference

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/exclusive-interview-with-ann-freedman.html

The article says "She was so convincing", and I'd like to see a sample of the writing. It seems incredible for me that someone can write a story that convinces real museums of out-of-the-blue fakes being genuine. What did she write? Like, "art criticism" (deep analysis), or, I would like to see the writing. It just seems too incredible to believe that museums would fall for whatever it was, just because it was "so convincing". can anyone find a sample? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why writing? as a salesperson, the story implies she was convincing in speaking to people. “My enthusiasm for the art was contagious and won people over." However, she did write a book, The Collector as Patron in the 20th Century which you could request from your library ([1]). 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I really mean any quotation that I could access. Per the article she prepared catalogues, didn't she? Isn't at least one paragraph from a catalogue text that she wrote available somewhere online where I could read it now? (Perhaps quoted in some article)? Or, indeed, couldnt some article from that time have quoted her verbatim speaking about the merits of the works?

I would just like to get a sense of her writing style (e.g. very factual, "twice on the weekend of April 12-13 of 1967 and again, by way of Pittsburg, on January 15 of 1968" or very visual "dripping mango flavor over the crisp starch of dry cleaned Tuxedo"). Can you find anything at all that I could look at now? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, running the search string catalogue "by ann freedman" through google and google books and just plain "ann freedman" through google news archive brings up a number of items [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] but nothing readable online; that’s why I suggested the library. Of course there’s also her website, but no way of knowing if she wrote the copy on it herself. But don’t give up – there are better searchers than me around here and there’s still a chance one of them will turn up something for you. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll wait around to see if someone can post a web-accessible reference here. It's not something I would go to the library (or pay money) for. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

writing a letter to the pope[edit]

sorry if this is already covered somewhere, but I don't know what search terms to use - it's for an spistolary story set in the present day, from an Australian cardinal; so the question is, how would he address the Pope? - what pleasantries would the letter open with? Does anyone know of any actual examples i could look at?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the start of Ted Kennedy's letter to him, in which he addresses him as "Most Holy Father". This letter from Pio of Pietrelcina to Pope Paul VI uses "Your Holiness", as does David Cameron's. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Clarity - just what I needed. Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of address from Debrett's. Hack (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's great - thanks - Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second succession to the presidency by Gerald Ford[edit]

President Gerald Ford would have been term-limited in 1980 had he won the election of 1976. As he loosed, he was mentioned as Ronald Reagan's running mate in 1980. Had Ford became vice president again instead of GHW Bush and as such succeded the presidency a second time in 1981 (for example had Reagan not survived the attack in March), had Ford been able to run for the presidency in 1984?- Or is that impossible because he became head of state twice? It would bring his total time in the White House to a little more than 10 years (2 1/2 years from 1974 to 1977 + almost 8 years from 1981 to 1989).

And the following scenario is also possible: VP Ford succeeds Reagan in mid-1983 after more than two years of the term passed. In this case, Ford would have been allowed to run in 1984 and 1988 (just as President Johnson two decades earlier). Or would his "first" term (1974-77) prevent him from running in 1988? That would made him president for 12 years.

I know it might be impossible or difficult to answer, perhaps in real life the Supreme Court would have to answer it. Thanks in advance anyway. --84.160.174.180 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of question has come up more than once on the ref desks, and the stock answer is that we don't really know until or if such a scenario arises, and it is likely the Supreme Court would have to decide. Such a scenario would hardly go unnoticed, as the media have historically been all over the question of a given candidate's eligibility, even before the presidential term-limits amendment was passed. This would all be rendered moot if the term-limits amendment were repealed, but that would require bipartisan support, which is unlikely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of the US Constitution is Section 1, sentence 1 of the 22nd Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

That's all it prohibits. So since Ford served more than two years of Nixon's term, he could only subsequently get elected once, whether in 1976 or whenever. If he had been elected president in 1976 and then was vice president while Reagan was president and Reagan was assassinated, Ford would have succeeded to the presidency since it would not involve getting elected. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's one other thing at issue, however. The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes the following provision:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

We don't need much speculation to agree that controversy over the application of this clause would arise if a term-limited former president sought the vice presidency. Presumably some would say that the 22nd Amendment only addresses election and not eligibility for getting the office another way, while presumably others would say that the point of the 12th Amendment is to set equal standards for election to the two offices. 2001:18E8:2:1020:81D0:BA98:6347:210A (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see any harm noting this under the wider discussion, note however this doesn't seem to matter to either of the OPs scenarios as they only seemed interested under what scenarios Ford could or could not be President, not under what scenarios he could or could not be VP. Now obviously Ford could not succeed Reagan to the Presidency if he was not VP but the OP didn't seem to mention any scenarios where it could come up. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US presidential schedules[edit]

Found this document while researching Adriaan Pieter Roetert Jacobovits de Szeged, who appears on the first page. I was surprised by the sentence beginning with "The following list...", because apparently different parts of the president's schedule were announced in different places. Is there anywhere in which GPO or the Executive Office of the President prints a complete public schedule (i.e. his complete schedule minus whatever doesn't get published at all) of the president's actions? 2001:18E8:2:1020:81D0:BA98:6347:210A (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's The White House: President's Schedule - is that the kind of thing you mean? 184.147.119.141 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rush and bankruptcy[edit]

In 1994 "Time" magazine stated that by 1994 Rush Limbaugh had declared 7 bankruptcy by that time, is this accurate?Tap1960 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and not seven bankruptcies. Neither is true per google. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they meant he was morally bankrupt by that time. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean he was unable to pay his moral creditors? What form of moral currency would he use if he had any? Do they take EFTPOS? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

To see what they actually (may have) said, you can search Time magazine's archives here [8], though not all the content is freely available. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be this story from Jan. 23 1995 (since there are no results for a 1994 story), but you need to be a subscriber to read the story. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can monks and nuns still perform experiments within monasteries?[edit]

Can monks and nuns still perform experiments within monasteries, like Gregor Mendel? 140.254.45.34 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of what the participants can and cannot do tends to vary by monastery, or maybe more to the point, by Monastic order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything that would stop them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they were conducting experiments on aborted human embryos, I think the church authorities would have something to say about it. But if it's about gardening, I'd be surprised if there were rules against it - assuming the given monastery has a garden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can grow beans on a window sill - or was it peas? Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peas. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing stopping anyone from experimenting, in general. Science is free (though not in a dollar sense). But yeah, depending on the nature of the experiment, there may be specific internal or external rules against it. A monk (or you or I) can't fiddle with plutonium or vivisect without explicit permission from a (secular) higher power, for instance.

Very time-consuming experiments would probably be frowned upon in a monastery, since it would eat into the monk's schedule of praying, sleeping and whatnot. But if one's gardening already, no harm in learning some botany. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. They must do what they're told to do, and must not do what they're told not to do. This overrides some of the previously mentioned considerations. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical scenario: assailant deliberately causes a woman's miscarriage - is that murder?[edit]

If an assailant deliberately causes the miscarriage of a pregnant woman, could this be found to be murder? Is the length of pregnancy relevant? Is the country in which it occurs relevant? (this isn't a request for legal advice; just a scenario that arose while discussing ethics of abortion) --89.241.229.123 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would vary from place to place. The perp of the Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight pleaded guilty to most of the nearly-1000 charges. The charges included murder for beating up one of the women and making her miscarry - on multiple occasions yet. I don't know if that was among the charges he pleaded guilty to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published a list of related links at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=Exodus%2021%3A22%2C%2023.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, I do not see how your suggestion of the Jehovah's Witness viewpoint on this matter is relevant to this topic. It appears that the questioner is looking for laws and legal opinions, not religious or moral opinions and positions. Sneazy (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to my reading of the original post, the questioner did not exclude religious perspectives. Also, ancient Jewish law (including the cited passage) was based on religion, and possibly modern Israeli law is also.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think it would be more helpful and relevant to add a modern Israeli law code that offers opinion on this issue. You may want to add the modern Israeli law code in your answer. :) Sneazy (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Fetal homicide... AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I guess "Fetal homicide" should link to Feticide, but it doesn't do so currently. AnonMoos (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a similar question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. Sneazy (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if they are falsely convicted, would that be a miscarriage of justice ? StuRat (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Following this being part of the story of the Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight, I've wondered how certain one can be that the actions of a third party caused the fetal death. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose that's a "question for the jury", as they say on the courtroom dramas. --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 Francs to USD[edit]

I know that France doesn't use francs as currency anymore, but roughly how much would 20,000 francs in 1881 be worth today in USD? 63.95.64.254 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INSEE has a calculator where you can convert French Francs from any year of the 20th century to Euros of a chosen year up until 2012. According to that calculator, 20,000 French Francs of 1981 equal 7,233.84 Euros in 2012 (in terms of purchasing power, taking monetary erosion due to inflation into account). [9]. I'll let others convert that into today's USD... ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1881? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Zooming in the screen; it's that time of night. No luck at INSEE. The calculator starts at 1901 (giving 76,297.10 Euros for what it's worth :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which if we go with that rough number would be about $100,918.17 if the Google machine is correct. Wow! 63.95.64.254 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was during the time of the gold standard, during which the official value was pegged at 1 French franc to 0.290322581 grams of gold. So at the time 20,000 French francs would have corresponded to 5.8 kilos of gold. Not sure what carat of gold though. 5.8 kilos of 24-carat gold would get you some 260,000 USD today. However, that comparison doesn't really work, as the value of gold has fluctuated heavily since 1881... The more relevant question would be to compare cost of living in 1881 France with present day United States, to compare what a salaries would correspond to similar social strata. --Soman (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See History of the United States dollar, the $US would have been 1.5g/$ or about $20/oz. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually knowing the cost of living at that time would be interesting to me also. I'm really asking because I'm reading Susan Kay's 'Phantom' and I am curious at how much Erik's demands of 20,000 francs a month would really mean. If anyone can give me a clue what kind of profit the Palais Garnier would have made in 1881 that would be a great help too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]