Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 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.

July 25

Duke of Aosta

Does anyone know why the Duke of Aosta claims to be the head of the House of Savoy where he is clearly not the first born of the last King of Italy? What are his grounds for this claim? --Lgriot (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Prince_Amedeo,_Duke_of_Aosta_(b._1943)#Dynastic_activities help? Amedeo appears to claim that the marriage of his cousin, Umberto II's son and heir, invalidated the latter's claim to the headship of Savoy; presumably he's the next in line hence his (disputed) claim. - Karenjc 08:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it does. Thank you! --Lgriot (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Do Muslims use morphine for medical purposes?

According to an except from The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, alcohol (I assume only ethyl alcohol), is prohibited for consumption by Muslims in any amount, for any purpose including medical purposes. It then goes on to say that drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and opium are prohibited by the same logic, but doesn't explicitly mention medical purposes. So, do Muslims generally take morphine (an opiate) for pain relief when it would normally be proscribed by a physician? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect your fourth last word should be prescribed, not proscribed. The meanings are very different, almost opposite in this case. I am moderately close to the medical world, and have never heard of any concern Muslims might have with morphine. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Darul Ifta, the lead scholars of the world directed by shaikh Bin Baz, has ruled that in cases where there are no other permissable drugs that can be used to relieve pain except for [medications such as morphine], it would be permissible to make use of them when necessary, as long as greater harm does not result from them like being addicted to them. They also ruled that it is not allowed to prescribe them if they advance death, even if a patient suffers profusely without them. [1]. DreadRed (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if these authorities were named by sect, since they do not necessarily speak for one another. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If the Bin Baz is the same as the Wikipedia redirect then Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz was a Sunni of the Hanbali school. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Pope's Head Alley

How did Pope's Head Alley in the London area get its name?Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It was named after the "Popes Heade Tavern," which occupied the site. From: 'Pope's Head Alley - Portpool (Bar of)', A Dictionary of London (1918). http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63276 DreadRed (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A few more details here and here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Christian headcovering

I was reading the article on Christian headcovering. I noticed that it says that Western Christian women do not wear veils since the 20th century. The description is short. What is the biblical basis, or whatever reason, for Western Christian women to fail to cover their heads? Sneazy (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just fallen by the wayside. In the 19th century in England, women didn't wear veils but hats were obligatory. I recall my grandmother (born in the 1880s) saying that she was once on a country walk with friends who decided to visit an old village church along the way; she felt compelled to put a handkerchief on her head because she wasn't wearing a hat. I'm sure nobody would have said anything but it just wasn't the done thing. In my Anglican church, only a few elderly ladies wear hats to church now, when in my 1960s childhood, only a few dared to break with tradition. Ladies still often wear hats to weddings in England, and of course, the Queen always wears one to church. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We do have an article on veils. Brides generally still have veils, and sometimes widows will wear hats with veils on formal occasions. It is also the done thing for women to wear veils when meeting the Pope, for instance. But basically I agree with Alansplodge, it's fallen out of fashion these days just as going to church has. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I still remember the days when it was the norm for men to wear hats. But it was mandatory to remove one's hat in a church, as to wear it there was considered highly offensive. On the other hand, it was just as offensive for a woman or girl NOT to wear a hat in church, and if they found themselves caught short they'd always resort to a handkerchief. I never could quite work that sex-based distinction out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Although you and I are old enough to remember that it was very rude for a man or boy to wear a hat inside anybody's house, let alone God's. Alansplodge (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Could it be that the biblical verse that the Wikipedia article is referencing (some verse in the first letter to the Corinthians) is indicating that women are expected to cover their heads to show reverence to God as one would wear a kippa or a hijab or a wimple? Sneazy (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

See our article 1 Corinthians 11 for the various interpretations. As usual with these things, it means different things to different folks. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrast the above Christian practice -- women cover their heads, men don't -- with Judiasm: men cover their heads; women don't. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

when did people realize the benefits to "arts and sciences" of granting a monopoly on inventions?

I find the existence of some of patent law to actually be a good spur for investing R&D with no sure chance that anything useful will develop. But, it seems to me quite counter-intuitive that the state of the art is advanced by the ability of people to stop others from practicing certain things, which on its face would seem to imply the opposite. (Note, I'm not talking about frivolous patents, but practical patents by practicing entities on what they've spent a lot of time and effort, with uncertain prospects, to develop.)

My quesiton is - historically, where did the connection come up? Why were patents authorized by the constitution? Who or what theory came up with the idea that you should give people the right to ask for a monopoly on an invention?

I'm very interested in the history of this philosophy. specifically, how and where the public good/benefit was connected in lawmakers' minds with the counterintuitive mechanism of allowing people to prohibit others from practicing something. It's a strange way to encourage innovation!

Thanks for any informatiion you might have on htis. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not surprisingly we have an article on patent with a link to another article there on history. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Which may be a case of WP:CSD#G1. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot. I started by searching Google for "history of patents" and got to that Wikipedia article, which prompted my question. My question is far, far more specific. As in, when (at what time) and how was a link established between public good/science benefit, and Patents. Specifically this is very different from 1) "author's rights" (!!!). Our articles say that France, for example, considered it inventors' rights. Similar language is used in the United States part of the history. But look at another online article "On April 10, 1790, President George Washington signed the bill which laid the foundations of the modern American patent system. The U.S. patent system was unique; for the first time in history the intrinsic right of an inventor to profit from his invention is recognized by law. Previously, privileges granted to an inventor were dependent upon the prerogative of a monarch or upon a special act of a legislature.

"Congress shall have the power...to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." - "

How do you get from 'intrinsic right of an inventor' to - 'promote the progress of science and useful arts'? MOre specifically, when did people/economists/philosophers/lawyers/the general public/whoever, come to make that connection?

You see, my question is far more specific. I'm not asking about 'other' reasons such as natural inventors' rights. I'm asking about the connection with advancing science. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Try Incentive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. (That article doesn't include the word 'patent'). The other article mentions more reasons - for example, the person might have and make the invention either way (not an incentive issue) but a patent lets it get to market whereas otherwise neither the inventor nor anyone else can make it. (No money for the inventor, nobody else bothers either.) But this is quite a nuanced economic analysis! Which is why it's so surprising to me that people, philosophically, would have equated patents with the 'public good' (incentive to innovate) in the eighteenth century, as opposed to (philosophically) considering it simply a moral / author's right issue. So, where/when was that link made? We will need some kind of philosophical/history references here. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Try Industrial Revolution, and note the coincident timeline. The word "patent" appears 27 times in that article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

While not on the topic of inventions, consider the following: "Lichtenstein's paintings and prints are a prime example of why copyright laws should be loosened, for if they had been enforced properly we would have no Lichtensteins. How many other brilliant artists have had their creativity nipped in the bud when, lacking Lichtenstein's good luck, they were sued by the corporate copyright death squads. We all pay the price for increasingly strict and long term copyright protection in this country. While fewer and fewer companies control more and more of the media, the legitimate sources for our artists' inspiration becomes a shrinking minefield few will dare to enter. Fewer still will escape unscathed. Add then to the many layers of complexity in Lichtenstein's work the layer of law; its power to protect, its power to prohibit, its power to destroy."[2] Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I'm glad I pressed you as that second article and your mention of the timeline is very good. I particularly like the sentence "To capitalise upon these advances, it took a class of entrepreneurs, of which the most famous is Richard Arkwright. He is credited with a list of inventions, but these were actually developed by people such as Thomas Highs and John Kay; Arkwright nurtured the inventors, patented the ideas, financed the initiatives, and protected the machines."

It seems quite easy to imagine that the public saw these advances quite blatantly. It's circumstantial, to be sure, but it makes sense. On the other hand, you and I could both be coming to the wrong conclusion, since we are guessing without being social historians. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The logic of patent law is similar to the logic of copyright law in that they are legal means to prevent other people than the ones you specifically authorise to exploit an idea to which you lay claim. In the 19th century only US citizens could register copyright on books and plays in the US. Two consequencies in the US were A) books by foreign authors could be sold cheaper than US authors because only the latter got royalties, and B) the British comic opera composers Gilbert and Sullivan were understandably miffed when their first international hit H.M.S. Pinafore (1878) was performed in the US by unauthorised theaters that paid them no royalty. Thereafter G&S were careful when they knew they had a new "hit" opera such as The Pirates of Penzance to organize a first copyright-establishing performance in an obscure theater in Paignton, Devon, out of sight of "piratical" agents for US theaters. American book publishers became more interested in the US joining international copyright agreements as soon as the US produced authors' works with export potential such as Mark Twain and Walt Whitman. A patent on an invention is comparable to the film rights on a book in that one can sell and resell them quickly with profit while keeping the future exploitation attractive to investors. DreadRed (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So, I personally view them similarly at all in the sense that a patent is far bigger/broader than just one embodiment. A patent isn't the complete device in its current form - it's not like copyright in this sense at all. A patent is something that restricts people from making another device on the same prinicple in the same way off of the patented device, regardless of the exact parts used or how it would look - more like a function. (Whereas I can make a ripoff of a hollywood story's key 'mechanism' just set somewhere else with different people etc.) So given how it's not something that seems similar at all on an intuitive level, are you sure you're relating the field of patents to copyrights in the way people actually viewed them in the nineteenth century? I feel like I'm missing something, because I just don't see how people came to identify inventors with the same sense of 'ownership' as authors. How did htis happen, exactly? I'm not saying it didn't, I would just like to know more about it. Is it due to advertising at that time or something? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Patent lawyers (who are the only people sure to earn from patents) try hard to make the scope of patent applications as broad as possible, knowing that an invention's commercial success will be eroded by competitors aiming to sell substitutes. An obvious example is the pharmaceutical industry that invests billion$ on finding chemical formulations that do the same as leading drugs, and this is evidenced by the multiplicity of names under which Generic drugs are sold. (Please don't make a formulaic ripoff film because they usually show Hollywood at its worst, as in the ignominious Mockbuster category.) I mentioned 19th century US because there we see the forces at work that would bring the country into international conformity regarding both copyrights and invention rights. Both so-called "rights" are creatures of regulated Capitalism, the economic system in which these assets are privately owned and items are brought to market for profit. Converting a book, play or invention into a tradeable asset is usually done to cut the author/inventor out of the capitalist's risk assessment. Authors who self-publish and inventors who self-finance do exist but these days they are rare. I offer the cynical views 1) that patent law that is ostensibly made to support inventors really exists only to keep foreign industrial competitors at bay, and 2) that the attraction of a marketable author name may be disconnected from whomever a publisher actually employed to type the words (literally so if it is a Pseudonym). Copyright is not necessarily attribution-right, and conformist society looks askance at its inventive members that occasionally rock the boat. DreadRed (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some refs or better links for your arguments, DreadRed? Referring to "regulated capitalism" seems like referring to "peaceful warfare". It needs explaining. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Relevant articles are History of patent law and Statute of Monopolies. There is similar information here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-tudor.htm from the UK Patents Office. Basically, the practice of granting monopolies and patents was originally one of privilege and patronage and only much later became incorporated into free market thinking. "Regulated capitalism" because capitalism is impossible without a legal framework, not least to ensure that contracts are upheld. State and market aren't opposites. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Contracts are voluntarily entered into, Patents are enforced on you regardless of your signed consent. And lawlessness (lack of a legal framework) is called anarchy, not capitalism. I would like to hear what DreadRed means by regulated capitalism. I suppose it's possible he just means capitalism, but that makes it unclear why pure capitalism is called laissez-faire. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(PS, History of patent law is one of the articles I alluded to in my first response, which drew the response the OP was not an idiot. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC))

Oh, yes, you did Medeis, sorry. In response to the OP, I would look to arguments made by the French encyclopedists against the ancien regime's granting of monopolies as patronage. Here's Condorcet arguing against patents on principle. [3] The Americans were well aware of this view. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And, indeed, endorsed it. [4]. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I used an expression "regulated Capitalism" wherein the second word is a wikilink to an explanatory article. Medeis, does this help explain? I am referring to the kind of Mixed economy that characterizes most developed countries, where profit-seeking enterprises and the accumulation of capital drive economic activity and the government keeps regulatory oversight. Unfortunately when I hear my expression represented as an oxymoron Είναι οξύμωρο σχήμα "peaceful warfare" or an irresponsible system of Laissez-faire Νεοφιλελεύθερης, I think someone is using strawman rhetoric to distract the thread. Discussing purity of capitalism may be relevant to a present national difficulty but I do not see it has any useful relevance to the OP's question. Neither do I see why one user of English Wikipedia needs readers to read the alphabet of the Byzantine Empire. DreadRed (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Had you used "mixed economy" from the start I would have understood, but you didn't seem to be saying that in my mind. Seeing that the word for laissez-faire is Νεο-φιλ-ελεύθερης ("new love of freedom" I assume) makes me think there's a difference of outlook that lead to my misunderstanding. The Greek links are cool, but I only read only Ancient Greek with a dictionary at my side. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of tension in this thread. But we made good progress as well. Thanks for the links. Very interesting source material. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party, and sorry to the OP about the tension here. No use, that. Here's another resource that suggests patents began to be used around the year 1420.[5] -- ke4roh (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I add to the answers that the work of the Patent examiner ensures that a legible, reviewed and objective explanation of an invention is issued to the public. This is valuable unrestricted reference material for others working to further the art/science concerned. Review criteria include consensus among UK, US and European patent examiners to dismiss patent applications for perpetual motion machines. DreadRed (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria

What ever happen with the 2007 DNA test connecting Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria to Alexander Hugo Køhler?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They needed two DNA samples: one from the Habsburg family, i.e. Salvator's parents, and one from the claimant. The Habsburg family usually does not grant permission to take samples [6], but in a similar case a sample disproved a relation [7]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Issue with conflicting wikipedia entries, not sure where to report this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_Maus

This page says he was elected the secretary of the recently formed Les XX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_XX

This page says he was the founder.

Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.214.66 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about the history, but in general there is no conflict between the two. In fact, it's quite often that founders or founding members are elected to important positions in organisations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Without any knowledge of the subject, in general being both a founder and a secretary is an example of Logical possibility as opposed to the Mutually exclusive events that you have assumed they were.  :-)

Also, "secretary" in many organizations is not receptionist but a position of great authority and prestige, given that this person was "elected" it most likely means that it is a leadership role within the organization similar to the United States Secretary of Defense which would never be confused with the person getting coffee for people. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes; for this sort of organisation it seems quite plausible that he was the driving force behind organising it, and was promptly elected its secretary once it actually met. I don't think there's an automatic discrepancy here. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)