Humanities desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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.

June 10

Causes of death

Virtually every cause of death, from warfare to accidents to old age, preferentially kills males. What are the most significant causes of death that preferentially kill females? Am I correct in suspecting that breast cancer is the only one, since childbirth is extremely safe in the modern world? --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for you answer found some good info on the WHO website. Hot Stop 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Childbirth will still kill more females than it will males, regardless of how few in absolute numbers so die, for obvious reasons. --Jayron32 05:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...childbirth is extremely safe in the modern world". Maybe in your country, but certainly not globally. The World Health Organization estimates that there are 529,000 deaths from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth every year. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

500K deaths out of 130 million births, or 0.4%. By contrast, death rates in antiquity were around 3%. --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In looking for exceptions to the assertion that "Virtually every cause of death preferentially kills males" we should first omit causes of death that are gender specific. For example... no man will ever die of Ovarian cancer and no woman will ever die of Prostate cancer, since men don't have ovaries and women don't have a prostate. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are more men than women? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by why you would include child birth but exclude ovarian and prostate cancers. But anyway, I suspect HIV is one in some cases. I had a brief look at [1] and although I'm a bit tired to understand it, I believe it suggests that the the probability of dying from HIV is similar for males and females in a number of African countries (but I don't think they were looking for small differences). However in some (or many?) African countries, e.g. HIV/AIDS in South Africa, the prevalance is higher among females. So I wonder if the mortality is higher also. A perhaps more interesting point raised by that paper. In many countries List of countries by life expectancy, the life expectancty at birth (or say 1 year old) is at least slightly higher for females than for males. As shown by the earlier paper, this probably holds true even in those countries significantly affected by HIV (well the overall mortality rates at 20-45 are higher for males than for females). However there are clear differences in mortality patterns for females and males from HIV with females generally dying at a much younger age. This is likely, and the paper suggests also, because of the difference in ages for when the person first becomes HIV positive. This would suggest the life expectancy lost by females from HIV may be greater. (There are obviously many possible confounding factors here, e.g. the people more likely to contract HIV may have different life expectancy patterns between females and makes.) The paper itself only seems to consider the combined loss. Back to the point I hinted at earlier, as people always say, currently the mortality rate is always 100% for both males and females so any female is eventually going to have some cause of death, so considering the loss of life expectancty particularly for something with such wildly different mortality rates may be worth considering. BTW, in some countries, female Infanticide is likely more common than male (to be clear, I'm using the term as used in our article and chose it because it was the article name). Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should not have included childbirth. Thanks for your answer! (I also didn't know the word "infanticide" was controversial. Is there some alternative I'm not aware of?) --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct to say that the current mortality rate of AIDS is 100%. Lots of people with AIDS die of causes unrelated to AIDS. If two pedestrians with AIDS get struck by a truck and die, the mortality rate for walking is 100%, and 0% for AIDS. Mortality rates depend on the population being studied. One study of HIV infected people over age 60 found that about 50% of those who died, died of causes other than AIDS. [2] - Nunh-huh 11:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I didn't say mortality rates for HIV are 100%. I said, (as people always say) that mortality rates in general at current times are 100%. Or as other people put it, currently everyone dies eventually. So everyone will have a cause of death, both males and females. Therefore reduced life expectancy is likely a relevant figure since if the person didn't die from HIV, they would have died from something else at some stage in their lives and the numbers were taking about here are all fairly small ones. This is significant here since even if the mortality rates from HIV are similar for males and females, it's possible or likely that in the cases I highlighted, the reduced life expectancy is significantly greater for females. So by this token, you could say HIV in those cases has a proportionaly greater effect on females than on males, in terms of mortality.

(If some people didn't die, taking in to account reduced life expectancy is complicated, since the reduced life expectancy would be infinite. Or even if people generally lived thousands of years but usually died in the 20s-60s with HIV, then difference between males and females in terms of life expectancy lost would be relatively small as it's a very big figure in both cases. In either theoretical situation, you could consider the differences in life expectancy rather than loss, but you still hit the same problem namely that since the loss is so high for all, it's harder to say the effect on females is that much worse. So only considering the mortality rates would generally make the most sense.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting university lecturers

I've been noticing from looking through university websites that the lecturers' contact details are rarely published online. Is this standard practice? Most places seem to require the contact to be through the office. Or am I not looking hard enough? IBE (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email addresses online are pretty standard in the Australian system. If administrative staff are acting as gatekeepers, politeness and an on topic reason to contact an academic usually helps. I am assuming here you're in a system where "Lecturer" is the generic job description for mixed research/teaching staff. In many systems there's an expectation that teaching only staff are not public figures in the way that mixed teaching-research staff (even if they're 90% teaching) are public figures. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and my university publishes email addresses and phone numbers for academic staff. Here is my departmental staff page. User:SamUK 11:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne's hair length

Was Charlemagne's hair long or short?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coins provide excellent contemporary portraiture, although flattery and other symbolism need to be borne in mind. See numismatics. You also have to watch out for later copies of well-regarded coins of earlier eras. Google has a number of images of Charlemagne coins. Looks like his hair was short, at least at some point(s) in his reign. But again, these present snapshots of time. Perhaps he grew his hair long from time to time? We can't be sure, really. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured Einhard would have written about this, but he only says that Charlemagne's hair was "fair", not how long it was. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source has interesting commentary on this subject, though I can't assess its reliability. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edition of Einhard says of Charlemagne's hair that it was "a fine head of hair" (III:22). In addition, there is the account of Notker the Stammerer. It's apparent from the way he talks about another person that having extremely short hair ("as if it had been turned on a lathe"!) was not the done thing (I:32) --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image shows him with short hair (I think the yellow behind his head is part of his head dress), as do other 9th century images.[3] Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on what you mean by long hair or short hair.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.... but the Merovingians made such a point of having long hair that presumably it would have been noted in the records if Charlemagnes also had it. Matt's talk 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on a film made from a biography

A very simple question:

Why did Steven Spielberg made the Lincoln (2012 film) from the 2005 copyrighted book Team of Rivals instead of choosing a copyright expired biography. Solomon7968 07:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a better biography than the old ones, presumably. I don't think paying for the rights to film a book is too much of an issue for Spielberg. --Viennese Waltz 08:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just do not get it. Every reasonable educated man knows about the life of Lincoln (not necessary fine details). So I will expect Steven Spielberg has a reasonable scholarship of Lincoln. He could have makeout the fine details by reading any biography. (After all lincoln died 150 years ago). So why did he chose a copyrighted work? And the wikipedia entry says Spielberg brought the film rights before the book was written! Solomon7968 08:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with any of these works, so this answer is necessarily generic. However: (1) Scholarship moves on; new documents emerge and old ones are reanalysed, new questions are asked (Lincoln's sexuality is certainly a topic of recent debate that would not be adequately addressed in a copyright-expired work); and (2) being able to work with a living biographer means that a film-maker can ask for clarification, have access to sources and interpretations that are only partially reflected in the published book, and so on. If you think that just because a subject is well-known and long-dead, their biography is (so to speak) a closed book, then you are making a grave error. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln's sexuality is a total news to me. Any references? Solomon7968 09:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of Lincoln being gay would probably be total news to Abe as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that most of the "reasonable educated" adults I know (whether male or female) know little more about Abraham Lincoln than his appearance, job title and perhaps a vague link to the American Civil War and/or slavery. Those that do know considerably more than that are probably dominated by those that have seen the film ... or are Americans. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dweller I am an Indian, by reasonable I mean that he abolished slavery, was president during the Civil war and was assasinated. Everyone should know that inspite of he or she is American or not. It is not bad to have knowledge of other cultures. Solomon7968 11:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn't protect facts (or ideas), only expression. Whether you make a factual biopic from one book or another really doesn't matter unless, perhaps, you are completely slavishly translating the book into a film medium. So whether he says the movie is adapted from one book or another doesn't really matter from a copyright perspective, and paying the writer is good form regardless of copyright issues. And who would want to make a factual movie from an 80 year old book? It would not reflect current scholarship and would sound ridiculous. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate a bit on, and provide links to, PalaceGuard's answer: see idea expression divide. The copyright applies only to the expression not the idea: that means that the copyright on the book applies only to direct copies of the book, not to other expressions of the ideas contained within the book. Now, IANAL, even a copyright lawyer, but my understanding the existence of a copyright on the book doesn't disallow someone from making a derivative work of it. The new work would have the dual copyrights, the original copyright to the book would still apply, and the new creative work added to the original would also have its own copyright. Furthermore, why wouldn't Spielberg use a well written, well known biography of Abraham Lincoln to tell his story? It provides a nice tie-in to an already well-known work, and from a marketing perspective, the book and film each tying to each other increases sales of both: the movie will get extra viewers among those that already know the book, and the book will generate additional sales from people who may not have read it but learned of it through the connection to the movie. Win-win! --Jayron32 13:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, several years before the Lincoln movie, "Team of Rivals" was known to be an influence on Obama including Hilary Clinton in his cabinet, and was mentioned in a "Simpsons" episode, so it's a fairly well-known book in its own way... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A film producer might pay a writer to develop a screenplay which "borrowed" from a copyright biography, arguing that the facts of the person's life are not copyrightable, and just do things like change made-up dialogue and invented scenes in the bio. But the enhanced public image of the film as being based on a recent and popular book might be worth the cost of buying film rights.Many trailers for Hollywood films started by showing the famous author and perhaps even his earlier bestsellers, showing the cover of the current book, opening the cover and transitioning to a scene of the hero and heroine. Similarly, Hollywood sometimes payed the author of a popular book to write the film adaptation, because that might attract viewers, even if they did not use the screenplay he wrote, or had ghost writers adapt it beyond recognition. Edison (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke of Richard Nixons resignation

Dear everybody. Could Richard Nixon revoke his resignation as President, before the term of office he has been elected to expired (until January 20, 1977). He was never convicted in an impeachment, so he might take back his resignation in 1975 and point out that he is the person who has been elected president in the last election. Is such a scenario conceivable? Had Gerald Ford stepped again into the vice-presidency; or is a Vice President who succeeds the presidency irrevocably president without being elected? (I know it's a very difficult question). --91.103.112.54 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

President of the United States#Vacancy or disability says Nixon resigned in an appropriate way and Vice President of the United States#Succession and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, confirmed at Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 1: Presidential succession, suggests Ford would have immediately succeeded to the full Presidential office Thincat (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual question is, whether he could revoke the resignation after he left office. Let's say in 1975, when is second term would not have been expired. --91.103.112.54 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the answer is, no. Under what authority could he possible have done so? You resign, you resign. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a scenario where he announced on 7 August that he was going to resign with effect from noon on 9 August, but after a good night's sleep he woke up on 8 August and said "No, dammit, I'm gonna stay and fight this thing", and then announced he'd changed his mind and would be staying put and the Watergate enquiry would have to proceed to finality. That is, he withdrew the resignation before it was due to take effect (the resignatius interruptus scenario). But once it had already taken effect, and even before Ford had been sworn in, Nixon had ceased to be President. He then had no more claim to the U.S. presidency than Adolf Hitler had. With the exception that he might have been able to run again in 1976, whereas Hitler could not have, not even if he were still alive. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he couldn't have run in '76, because he had been elected twice. Well, technically, he could have run (there are often minor candidates on the ballots of one or more states who don't meet the eligibility requirements), but he couldn't have been elected. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The President of Malawi denounced her supposed resignation letter as a forgery. In a time of crisis, it seems possible that someone might forge a US President's letter of resignation (many Presidential signatures were done with the Autopen, but not Nixon's resignation letter), and then the Secretary of State could accept it as official. and the Vice President (or next in line of succession if the VP office were not filled at the time) could be sworn in. A President might also claim that it was signed under duress (someone was twisting his other arm or waterboarding him or threatening to harm his family member). It is also conceivable that a President might resign in protest and the Secretary of State might be slow to open and accept the resignation, allowing time for negotiation and reconsideration. But I have not seen any scenario discussed wherein he could submit an actual resignation, then change his mind later. If he resigned in his first term, he could always run for a second term. Edison (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were possible for Nixon to have changed his mind after resigning, it's important to remember that the reason he resigned is that he was in process of being impeached, and almost certainly would have been convicted by the Senate. So if he un-resigned, he would have been kicked out permanently anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unspoken supposition here is that being president is somehow in the blood. But it's a sworn position won by election or certification of the House, or inherited by the VP (or next in line) upon vacancy. There's no constitutional path to the presidency for a former president because he wants it back. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be distinct from a President doing a "Bill Mitchell" and going into a coma. Had Mitchell recovered from his situation, he would have gotten the presidency back. (I'm referring to the movie Dave in case you're wondering.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Somali script

Hello,

are there any pictures of the Ancient Somali script?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this comes high up on a Bing search of "Somali ancient script". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does (Somali ancient script) actually exist? Should that article be merged with Wadaad's writing (which has an image)? Because:

All our articles (Somali ancient script, Somali language, Somali) source a claim that there are undeciphered rock writings from Somalia (dating from before the arrival of Arabic scripts) to an 1878 Royal Society report which, as far as I can tell from reading it online [4] mentions inscriptions in only two sentences: (p447) "I also discovered ancient ruins and rock-inscriptions both in pictures and characters. These have hitherto not been deciphered." I think it's a bit of a stretch we are using that as a source to claim, 135 years later, that there is an undeciphered Somali script.
This paper by someone at the Uni of Turin (prof or student I know not) claims there was no indigenous writing in the Somalia region until Arabic script arrived (i.e. Wadaad's writing).

Any thoughts? I'm off to make the claims in the articles at least match the source, but am not sure enough to merge the articles. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the good folks at Wikiproject Somalia have confirmed an ancient script exists, citing a 1974 Somali government publication [5]. I've asked them if they can help you find a pic. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book of John

Is there a reason why the book of John in the Bible is the most recommended of all the gospels by Christians, even though it is not part of the synoptic gospels? Why not recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible of the NRSV and recommend reading from Genesis to Revelation, along with the oral Torah or the sacred tradition of the Roman Catholic church? Sneazy (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it doesn't seem obvious at all from a Christian perspective that a synoptic gospel should be preferred, but mostly it probably has to do with the motivation John gives for writing his gospel (John 20:31): "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.". Regarding the second part of your question, reading the entire Bible costs a lot of time, and Christianity does not recognize any 'Oral Torah'. The sacred tradition of the Catholic Church, apart from it being quite extensive and not clearly defined, is of course rejected by both Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox alike. I think most evangelists, or people handing out John's gospel are evangelicals, not Roman Catholics. - Lindert (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether the book of John actually is "the most recommended". Recommended by whom... and for what? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to track the source of an in-person conversation than an Internet conversation. Sometimes, a random person on the Internet can leave a note, recommending the book of John with little explanation. Sneazy (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have basically answered your own question with "a random person on the internet"--i.e., an evangelical by style. What do you mean by recommending the "sacred tradition of the Roman Catholic church"? I am not aware of any such book. Do you mean a catechism? μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is, in fact, also part of the Sacred Tradition of the Orthodox Churches. And much of Christianity does indeed recognise the oral Torah, although obviously does not include post-Jesus stuff in their own Sacred Tradition. It's only the Sola Scriptura advocates who reject the various oral Traditions completely, and not even all of them (Lutherans have historically respected a lot of Sacred Tradition, for example). 86.163.0.30 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, the question is a bit complex, and requires one to very carefully define what you are looking for. Among all of the gospels, Mark is the most translated, thus is available in the most languages, per this. This is likely because it is the first and shortest of the gospels. Jesus (1979 film) is a filmed version of the Gospel of Luke, and has been translated into numerous languages, a case could be made that through the Jesus Film Project it is possible that more people are exposed to the Gospel of Luke than to any other Gospel, if they are only exposed to one. As far as why you Sneazy have the impression that John is the most recommended Gospel to read, no one can answer that; there are no studies as to what people recommend you to read; your question as written is unanswerable, since it is based on your perceptions based on your own experiences. One thing to consider, however, as to why people may recommend John over any of the synoptic Gospels is that the synoptic gospels are more narrative in nature, focusing on the life and acts of Jesus, whereas John spends more of its text on the his philosophy and on his essential nature (of course, there are all aspects in all Gospels, but we're talking general trends here). See Gospel of John#Characteristics of the Gospel of John, which notes the differences in terms of tone and theme between John and the other gospels. Which is to say, we cannot say why someone recommends that you would read John over any other Gospel, but if they were recommending something about John which was different from the others, you can read about those difference there. Of course, the best thing for you to do, Sneazy, is to just read the four Gospels yourself and come to your own opinions as to the matter. They're really not all that long. --Jayron32 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jayron about Mark's Gospel, and I've often heard Christians recommending it, especially when studying with non-Christians, because of its brevity. I have read that John gives a more intimate portrayal of Jesus, and when someone is doing a dramatisation of the life of Christ, he is very thankful for those parts which are based on the Fourth Gospel, since his task is made so much easier. Sorry but can't remember where I read it. IBE (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John's the most theological gospel though, the one that makes the big claims. There's a reason John 3:16 is quoted on posters at sports events. The other gospels don't make such a claim. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than any other Gospel, John spends much of its text on what is called Christology, that is the essential nature of Christ. Even moreso than John 3:16 (which is often quoted for the essence of why Christians are Christians), are sections like John 1, which discuss the relationship of a) God b) Christ and c) the "Word" (see Logos (Christianity)). Some of John can get quite esoteric like this, whereas the synoptic gospels are a much more straightforward narrative of the life and works of Jesus. In John, Jesus teaches through allegory and discourses, where as the synoptic Gospels show Jesus teaching mainly through parables, which often confuse the masses, but which he later explains in detail to his followers. --Jayron32 19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of John as the most recommended Gospel may be OR, but I believe it is correct. The typical explanation I've been given is the Christology answer Jayron mentioned. John is the only Gospel to explicitly identify Jesus as an incarnation, in some sense, of God, and is the Gospel to most clearly convey the idea of Christ's death as a form of sacrifice. I disagree with Lindert that the text's "mission statement" (for lack of a better term) is the reason. In fact, Luke gives a similar statement to that effect at the very start ("Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word, I too decided... to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of Aino Kuusinen , please !

Hello, Learned Ones ! I'm about to edit Aino Kuusinen (1886-1970, wife of Otto Kuusinen), but I found few sources, & particularly no photo of that spy who was said to be beautiful enough. Ever seen her photo before ? & where ? Thanks beforehand for your links . Truly yours, Arapaima (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pic on this page might be the couple? I don't read Finnish, so I don't know if it's public domain. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot "184.147.118.213". But [6] is commercially advertizing for her autobiography Juamala syökse enkelinä, the finnish edition of God stürtz seine Engel (God hurls down his angels), & furthermore shows only a semi-masked portrait of Aino Kuusinen. Hasn't somebody got a better photo ? Thanks beforehand for your help, ô Learned Ones Arapaima (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are better, but see page 11 of this pdf file. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Oda Mari. Funny how Otto Kuusinen has been portrayed a lot, when there is no good photo available of his wife, who for me seems to have been much more attractive in every respect...Arapaima (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

What type of demand curve is represented in the article from the Houston Chronicle from June 7, 2013 "You're Wrong About Apple's Affordable iPhone"? HELP Puhlease!!! I need this for my Economics class TODAY!! THANK you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrookeTaylore (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up at the top, it says "We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point." Here is our article on demand curves, I'm hope your text book or lecture notes have more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he was referring to elasticity?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Edward's Crown

Do we know what the original St Edward's Crown looked like? Is it the crown featured in Elizabeth I's coronation portrait? Also, after the restoration did they give a reason why they opted for such a, frankly, boring and plain design? To me the Imperial State Crown is far more impressive and the St. Edward's crown is just an ugly, bulky mess, so I assume here's an official reason for keeping it because it looks like something you can buy in any tourist shop. --Andrew 21:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, you weren't consulted when whoever gets to make these decisions makes them. --Jayron32 00:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, this is about St Edward's Crown. Looie496 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Political Culture edited by Dale Hoak says that "St Edward's crown was considered to be a holy relic - it was kept and revered as such with other relics at St Edward's". According to our article, there is some uncertainty about whether the original St Edward's Crown was among the jewel's that King John dropped in The Wash; but we never let the truth stand in the way of a good legend. From memory, Oliver Cromwell had the bits broken up and sold. At the Restoration, most of the bits were returned to the new king by their new owners, either out loyalty our political prudence. I'll look for a source. Alansplodge (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]