Humanities desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 10

Polish Prisons Conditional Release

An acquaitance of mine who is in prison in Poland says that he is going to be released on "licence". What does this mean and or actually entail? He has also applied for parole as a separate application so it is not parole as we would know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.116.223 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Polish law, but English law has a similar sounding concept. If you read Polish, there is this category over at the Polish Wikipedia. Astronaut (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is you acquitance arrested and awaiting trial or already covicted? If he is already covicted he probably is talking about "Warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie"[1] (literally "conditional preterm release") which is a conditional parole of a convicted person. He is released from prison under the conditions that he will follow the rules of the parole. Since Polish prisons are overcrowded conditional paroles are very common. Read articles from 78 to 84 from one of the unofficial English translations of the Polish Penal code for details [2] Mieciu K (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God's fate

Did God quit, or did he get fired? 38.117.71.221 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you have not heard the news: God is dead. Emma Dashwood (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that the other guy is shacking up in Perth Belisarius (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is still on the throne; He simply chooses to give us people free will to choose to do what's right, follow Him, etc.; that way, we're not a bunch of mindless robots doing things because we have to, instead we follow Him because we want to.209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or because we're not too keen on fire and brimstone... --Tango (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do in his place? He decided to help people by answering their questions anonymously on the internet. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question presupposes that there is / was a god. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a GOD (talk) until a few years ago but he was then forced to go incognito as His Name was found to be provocative. Wikipedians are responsible for his fate. Dmcq (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that answers the original question: God is neither dead nor fired, but merely incognito ! DOR (HK) (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on,I thought God was that stranger on the bus trying to make his way home Lemon martini (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conflict..help

can anyone help me find the definition of 'literature of resistance ' or 'literature of conflict' and any information/link to its history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can imagine, a great book about resistance literature: [3]. --Omidinist (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, i have already tried that one. I want something specific about the definition and History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen dowager - exist anymore?

Hello! I wonder about something. Is the title Queen Dowager used anymore about a king's widow in Europe? It seems, that nowadays, you ave replaced it with the title Queen Mother. Is that true, or is the title still used in some countries? If it is abolished, then why? And when was the title abolished in the different monarchies? When did each country have its last Queen dowager? When did England? It seems, that in history, the title Queen dowager was much more normal than Queen mother. Perhaps England is an exeption, but in regards to other countries; is this a new title? I hope someone want to answer! --85.226.43.6 (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term still exists. See Queen mother. It looks like a Queen mother is a special case of a Queen Dowager. If, for example, the King died without issue, his wife would be Queen Dowager, but not Queen Mother (she might be Queen Aunt, if such a title existed, which I don't think it does). --Tango (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tango beat me by about a minute. Countries could drop the title, but there'll always been a need for a term to indicate "queen consort, now a widow." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Is there someone with the title "Dowager queen" in Europe at present? Are there any queens now who will recieve this title when they are widows? I just have the impression, that this title is now considered unfashionable. --85.226.43.6 (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about current dowager Queens, but the following will become them in the event their husband predeceases them: Queen Paola of Belgium, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Sofía of Spain and Queen Silvia of Sweden (I just went through the list of current European monarchs, selected those that were Kings and found out who their consorts were). Whether any of them will use the style "Her Majesty The Queen Dowager" (or similar), I don't know. They all have issue (that is, children) so unless something happens to them the Queen will be Queen Mother and is probably more likely to use that style (or the equivalent). The reason the style Queen Dowager isn't seen much is probably because Queen Mother is preferred, so Queen Dowager will only be used if she didn't have any (surviving) children which is probably quite rare (Monarchs generally choose to have children to continue the line, rather than having a sibling inherit). --Tango (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the list of European monarchies. Queen Fabiola of Belgium appears to be the only surviving consort of any past monarch – unless we count Anne-Aymone Giscard d'Estaing, Danielle Mitterrand and Bernadette Chirac (wives of former co-princes of Andorra). —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand... I have noticed, that in the 19th century and before, widowed queen consorts were always called Queen Dowagers, wether they were mothers of monarchs or not. But in the 20th century, no one have been called dowager Queen; In Denmark, for example, all queen dowagers have been called "queen" as widows as well. I suppose no one have to deal with the question at present, as they could all be called queen mothers if they wish. That title seem not usual in other European countries, but perhaps it will be. In Sweden, no one have had the queen dowager title since 1913, and I very much doubt it will ever be used again. My guess is that it is considered old-fashined nowadays and will never be used again, even by a childless king's widow. No European country seem to have used it since World War II at least. I wonder when it was used last. Anyway, its an interesting question! --85.226.43.6 (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just old fashioned, but positively pejorative. Calling a woman a dowager these days is akin to calling her a harridan, curmudgeon or battle axe. I think of people like Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest as played to peerless perfection by Dame Edith Evans in the 1952 film. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that from, Jack? I'm sure our local widowed duchess is known locally - including by the present duke's office - as the dowager duchess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think the term is still in use generally, it's just with Queens that it seems to have gone out of fashion. There isn't really an alternative for other members of the aristocracy. "Duchess Mother" doesn't exist as a style to the best of my knowledge, and you very rarely see people referred to as "Duke/Duchess [First Name]", it's always "Duke/Duchess of [Place]" so you can't use a different first name to distinguish between the two Duchesses. --Tango (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're right, Tagishsimon. I was thinking of the word "dowager" in reference to a cantakerous and domineering elderly female (not necessarily either a widow or a member of the aristocracy/royalty). -- JackofOz (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's your "local" d-duchess? —Tamfang (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest court-action in british history?

For inscrutable, six-degrees-of-wikipedia reasons, I wound up at the article McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel. In the opening paragraph, it states that the case "lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history". Surely that's not true. I mean, hello, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce? Yes, I realize that was fictional, but it was based on real cases that dragged on for decades in the court of Chancery, was it not? Doesn't the article really mean that it was the longest criminal case in the UK? And is it? Because seven years doesn't seem to be that long? I mean, hasn't there been like some corporate case where some building company poisoned thousands of people with asbestos or something? Those cases drag on forever! It seems strange to me that 7 years would be the longest criminal trial in all of English history. I mean, that's a LONG history, after all. Belisarius (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel wikipedia article's statement is justified by this: [4] and this:[5]. But again, there is this: [6]: a case that ran for 43 years, it says. But most related searches do return only the McDonald's case as results. I guess we need a legal history expert on this one (which, unfortunately, I'm not; excuse me if I muddled matters up further).Leif edling (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you may take a look at this :[7].

It's stated that : "But the so-called "McLibel Two" refused to pay at the end of the 314-day libel trial - the longest civil or criminal action in English legal history. " Leif edling (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of a long-running court case involved the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways (the "Met" and the MDR or "District"), the private companies that built the train route then called the Inner Circle and now the Circle Line of the London Underground system, in 1863-1884. The existence of two separate companies was intended as a short-term tactic (hence the deliberately similar names), but it didn't work out that way and they became bitter rivals although they had to operate the Circle jointly. Or as H.P. White put it in A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Volume 3, Greater London (1987 edition, ISBN 0-946537-39-9): "though respectively controlled by two personal enemies, the two London companies were locked in indissoluble wedlock sealed by the ring of the Inner Circle."

The District owned the south side of the Circle from Gloucester Road in the west to I think Tower Hill in the east, the Met owned the rest, some trains were operated by each company, and they had agreements on how to split the revenues and expenses. But in 1884, without Parliamentary authorization, the District built their own tracks (the "Cromwell Curve") alongside the Met's tracks from Gloucester Road to the next station, High Street Kensington. They then routed their own trains over these tracks (originally in both directions of travel, even though this meant crossing over the Met's track twice) and claimed a corresponding adjustment in the revenue from the joint operations. And according to White, "the dispute dragged on until 1903, when the courts ruled that the Cromwell Curve was not part of the Inner Circle and thus that the District could not claim mileage for using it."

--Anonymous, 17:57 UTC (copyedited later), November 10, 2008.

I think the confusion here is between a case (.i.e.: the whole action) and a trial. the case, to me, includes appeals, retrials, etc.; I can see that as the longest trial, but I would replace "action" with "trial." However, that's just how I'd do it; Wikipedia may have its own way to use such terms, including the possibility that the "trial," in UK language, is the "action." And, anything after could be some other term.209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a trial is a particular part of a case. The case also includes all the discovery, etc., that goes on before the trial, in addition to the various things after the trial that you mention. --Tango (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tichborne Case used to be cited as the longest trial in UK history, although it may have been surpassed now. There were 2 trials: one to establish the claimant's identity, which lasted 10 months and resulted in him being exposed as an imposter; and his consequent perjury trial, which lasted 6 months, the judge taking 18 days just to sum up. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing Microsoft's digitized books?

Is there a website anywhere, where it is possible to browse the list of Microsoft's digitized books (I mean the ones available for free), in the same way that one can browse Project Gutenberg? Thanks 78.146.19.86 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[8] says that Microsoft stopped digitizing books in May or June 2006, and also took down the book site., after digitizing 750,000 books and 80,000,000 journal articles. See also Live Search Books . The Wikipedia article still says Live Search Books offers content from a number of sources. But if you click the link to "Live search books" at the bottonm of the article, you get a "The page requested was not found." Is the Wikipedia article in need of updating to the events of 2 years ago, or are the Microsoft digitized works still available somewhere? Edison (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the Internet Archive has copied of public domain texts scanned by MS, and anything else is not available. ~~The article almost certainly needs an update.~~ Done --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers & Acquisitions

What is the common goal of all mergers and acquisitions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppazoid (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The common goal is to answer the homework questions that your teacher has given you yourself by doing your own research on the topic. Perhaps Wikipedia's article on Mergers and acquisitions would be a good place to start, though I would also recommend reading the class notes that you wrote down the day your teacher discussed this, and also to read through your text book; those sources given directly by your teacher are likely more focused on answering this specific homework question than anything else... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make the merger/acquirer look good. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow on question from Queen Mother/Dowager

Hello I notice from the article referred to in the earlier answer, GB seems to have had 3 queens alive at the same time in 1952 - 3: Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, widow of the late king George VI, and Queen Mary, widow of the late king George V. Indeed, I remember seeing a picture of both old Queens (so to speak!) at the Coronation of Elizabeth II.

What title did Queen Mary adopt on the death of her son George VI? She was now no longer the Queen Mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.144.235 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, she never was "the Queen Mother" but was Her Majesty Queen Mary after her husband died until her own death. (Mary_of_Teck#Queen_Mother) Rmhermen (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Queen Mother page says the same. Here's a contemporary source: BBC transcript of newcast of George VI's funeral on Feb 15, 1952. "Dressed in black, the Queen, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and the Princess Royal were in the first carriage….George VI's mother, Queen Mary, watched from Marlborough House." WikiJedits (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that was the photo you remember. She did not attend Queen Elizabeth II's Coronation because she had died 10 weeks earlier. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Queen Mary would have been Queen Dowager (and even Queen Mother at one point), but as long as she was referred to as Her Majesty Queen Mary, rather than just Her Majesty The Queen then there was no need to disambiguate it with "Dowager" (or "Mother"). --Tango (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The reason for the common use of the title 'Queen Mother' was that calling her simply 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth' would have been too confusing. Algebraist 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last time Queen Dowager was formally used was between 1837 and 1849, when Queen Adelaide adopted the title "Her Majesty the Queen Dowager". Queen Alexandra - who had a bit of a problem letting go of her status in the first place - decided to be known as "Her Majesty Queen Alexandra", and Queen Mary followed suit. Queen Elizabeth adopted Queen Mother because her daughter was also an Elizabeth (as referred to above). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a bit of dialogue from Laurence Housman's play Victoria Regina where, when Victoria becomes queen, Queen Adelaide announces "I shall be the Queen Mother", only to be told by one of her courtiers that she wasn't even the Queen's Mother, let alone the Queen Mother. Or something like that (it's been a long time). her mother announces "I shall be the the Queen Mother", only to be told by one her courtiers that she could not be the Queen Mother because she had never been a queen. Instead, she would have to be satisfied with being the Queen's mother. Whether this has any relationship to what (if anything) was actually spoken, I could not say. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<--) Yes indeed. Queen Victoria's mother was a rather ambitious lady, especially in the first few years of Victoria's reign. She did indeed want to be known as Queen Mother. This was not uncommon; mothers of Sovereigns have done this in the past. Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII, referred to herself as QM, and often signed "Margaret R[egina]", despite not being a Queen herself. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]