Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7[edit]

non-profit fundraiser limitations[edit]

Can a non-profit organization auction off marijuana to raise moneyin the state of Washington?74.220.246.155 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really answer legal questions like this. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 04:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we can give you somebody else's "How to Form and Maintain a Nonprofit Corporation in Washington State". This one's by Washington Attorneys Assisting Community Organizations (aka WAACO) and the King County Bar Association Young Lawyers Division. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see it, the Washington State Liquor Control Board oversees the licensing of retailers and such. So, they would likely be the best people to contact about their own rules. Their web page about I-502 (the law that allowed for the decriminalization of marijuana) has quite a bit of info including rules and, if you need it, contact information. Dismas|^(talk) 06:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it would be legal under Washington State law... but there would certainly be problems under Federal law... I suspect that the IRS would probably cancel the organization's federal non-profit tax status. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full Day Kindergarten[edit]

Hello,

I found the article on Kindergarten but found it lacking in a great deal of useful information. The article is very generic, does not describe how the classrooms and curriculum have changed in recent years, and does not mention the debate in the united states currently between full day kindergarten and half day kindergarten.

I was hoping to find a complete article, including many citations on the research and statistics involved in kindergarten in the United states documenting the debate and the many 'hot' topics associated with it, (use of worksheets for example and length of a 'full' day, being two major issues). Please see the following links for potential inclusion in a more in depth article on the subject:

http://www.naspcenter.org/assessment/kindergarten_ho.html - National Education Association article on the subject, includes 'what constitutes a good full day program'

http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=134 - Early Childhood Professional Resource for Teachers -

"There are two fundamental problems with worksheets. First, young children do not learn from them what teachers and parents believe they do (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 1993). Second, children's time should be spent in more beneficial endeavors (Willis, 1995).

Many preschools, child care centers, and kindergartens, young children spend their time on worksheet paper and pencil tasks. Teachers who use worksheets believe they are demonstrating children's learning progress to parents. Unfortunately worksheet activities are not developmentally appropriate and can cause many problems. Early childhood education experts agree that the years from birth to age eight are a critical learning time for children (Bee, 1992; Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 1993; Willis, 1995). During these years, children have many cognitive, emotional, physical, and social tasks to accomplish (Katz, 1989). Only later, when they have achieved the necessary finger and hand control, should they be asked to write words or numerals with a pencil. The timing of this accomplishment will vary among children. Some six-year-olds may be just starting this task. If they are encouraged, rather than criticized, they will continue to learn and grow and feel confident. There are many active, and far more interesting, ways for children to begin understanding words and numbers than via worksheets (Mason, 1986). Children are born with a need to move (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 1993). They wiggle, toddle, run, and climb as naturally as they breathe. When we insist that children sit still and do what for them may be a meaningless task, such as completing a workbook page, we force children into a situation incompatible with their developmental needs and abilities

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Recent_Research_All/ - research which backs up national education article, "it is important to remember that what children are doing during the kindergarten day is more important than the length of the school day. Gullo (1990) and Olsen and Zigler (1989) warn educators and parents to resist the pressure to include more didactic academic instruction in all-day kindergarten programs. They contend that this type of instruction is inappropriate for young children."

http://www.macleans.ca/general/why-full-day-kindergarten-is-failing-our-children/- Although this is article is in Ontario, it is backed by research performed in California. "Full-day kindergarten does nothing to permanently improve academic performance. It may stunt the emotional and social development of many kids. Even those gains identified for some kids are likely to be temporary, a phenomenon that’s been identified in numerous other studies." http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/04/us/education-more-and-more-kindergarten-means-a-full-day.html New York Times Article - Curriculum of Kindergarten - 'From birth to age 8, kids learn best through direct experiences and by directly manipulating materials, said Anne Mitchell, associate dean at Bank Street College who is the author of Early Childhood Programs and the Public Schools (Auburn House, 1989). The best thing is to build with blocks, to weigh things, to actually experience the math and not to copy numbers on a work sheet.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/what-happened-kindergarten Scholastic - What Happened to Kindergarten? - Research consistently backs what early elementary teachers know: Imaginative play is the catalyst for social, physical, emotional, and moral development in young children. With guidance from an observant teacher, kindergartners can use imaginative play to make sense of the world around them—and lay the critical groundwork for understanding words and numbers.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/classroom-solutions/2011/11/characteristics-great-kindergarten-classrooms Scholastic Characteristics of great kindergarten classrooms - Teachers can no longer expect healthy 5– or 6-year-old children, with all their energy and enthusiasm, to sit at their desks or to be quiet all day. Kindergarten gives children the opportunity to grow and develop through play — the way children learn best.

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Top_10_Signs_Good/ Top 10 Signs of a Good Kindergarten Classroom - getting kindergarteners ready for elementary school does not mean substituting academics for play time, forcing children to master first grade "skills," or relying on standardized tests to assess children's success Children are playing and are not forced to sit quietly. Children are not all doing the same things at the same time.

http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/2/1/2158244012442677 Formal Sage Study - Full-Day Kindergarten Effects on Later Academic Success - Using all available assessment, there were no significant differences in the scores of students who attended an all-day kindergarten and those who did not

http://angievillaartwork.blogspot.com/2014/04/full-day-kindergarten-is-bad-idea.html A Teachers Perspective - All full day K programs should include an afternoon of napping, snacking, unstructured play, outdoor recess, singing, dress up, toys, blocks, painting at easels, and the classrooms should be set up in this way. That's not happening, and it's a tragedy.

http://pernillesripp.com/2012/01/19/i-know-worksheets-are-bad-and-yet-i-assigned-one/ Teacher Blog - I know Worksheets are Bad

http://www.macleans.ca/general/why-full-day-kindergarten-is-failing-our-children/ Recent Research performed out of State Regarding Full Day programs as a whole - "Although this is article is in Ontario, it is backed by research performed in California. "Full-day kindergarten does nothing to permanently improve academic performance. It may stunt the emotional and social development of many kids. Even those gains identified for some kids are likely to be temporary, a phenomenon that’s been identified in numerous other studies."

A Child's perspective - http://www.activekidsclub.com/fresh-air-living/feature/all-day-kindergarten-a-childs-perspective.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.172.119 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to have asked a question. If you want to discuss the article you should use the Talk:Kindergarten page. Remember also that this is not an article on U.S. schools but a worldwide subject. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These articles may make a good source for Kindergarten in the United States. However, as the OP may not be aware, Wikipedia only exists because people who care write articles. That means since the OP seems to care, they are the best person to write the article. --Jayron32 17:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pope of royal descent[edit]

How many Popes were of royal descent?--170.140.105.16 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that almost every person with any European DNA is probably descended from Charlemagne, the answer is probably "All of the Popes since at least 1600" ... but in each case, the descent is rather tenuous. Popes with a more direct descent? I would guess: None. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some.For example, Pope_Calixtus_II.

To answer "how many" exactly will depend on what you mean by "of royal descent". If all you mean is that they had some royalty in their family tree, then probably very many Popes will qualify. I'm not sure how reliable a source this is but it suggests a lot of possible royal linkages that fall somewhere between "born a prince" and "descended from Charlemagne, just like everyone else."

If you mean how many were recognized members of royal families at the time they became Pope, then I will have to defer to the expertise of others. (That, or trawl through all 266 of them via List of Popes but I don't have time for that today.)

I'll close by reversing your question and noting that Pope Alexander VI is "an ancestor of virtually all royal houses of Europe." - Eron^Talk 21:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I didn't find any sites giving reliable figures, and sites focusing on royal-papal connections were usually looney-toon conspiracy theory websites, but:

Pope John XII was the son of Alberic II of Spoleto, but he's self-made royalty.
Pope Gregory V was the grandson of Otto I the Great
Pope Benedict VIII was the son of Gregory I, Count of Tusculum

And then I got bored and quit searching further. It was pretty common in the middle ages for noble families to train their oldest son for war and their second oldest for the priesthood. But, almost everyone is descended from some sort of nobility if you go back far enough (what with your ancestors increasing exponentially every generation you go back). Pretty much anyone with a patronymic surname is descended from some sort of royal. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Medici produced four popes. OttawaAC (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm equally certain the answer is: at least 5. The earliest example I can find off-hand is Pope Gregory V who was a great-grandson of the emperor Otto V. Popes John XII, Benedict VIII, John XIX and Benedict IX were all closely related to each other and descended from King Hugh of Italy. Additionally, the Antipope Felix V was otherwise Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy, and was a great-grandson of John II of France. Of recent papabili, Christoph Cardinal Graf von Schönborn has the most conventionally illustrious ancestry, but I couldn't tell you off-hand who his most recent royal ancestor was. Of course, any random European, or person of European descent, these days is statistically very likely to be descended from Charlemagne, so the question breaks down a little when very remote descents are allowed. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few hereditary dukes and counts in the list of popes. A Borghese, a Chigi, a Fieschi... I'm very ignorant of the ins-and-outs of Italian nobility I have to confess, though.OttawaAC (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those were not of immediate royal descent - the Medici, for example, were bankers who led Florence/Tuscany as a crowned republic that latterly became hereditary. But yes - you're right that there are lots and lots of those among the popes. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Medici also were prolific (there's tons of them) and they tended to marry well. Two were wives of the Kings of France, for example; it would not be unreasonable to suspect that some royal daughters were married into the Medici family. --Jayron32 23:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, the era of the Medici Popes took place before the family started to marry into royalty. In other words while later royalty were descended from the Medici family... The Medici Popes were not descended from royalty. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]