Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 October 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

October 22

Mystery books?

I know this isn't really a reference sort of thing but it's out of my area a bit and I could see someone asking a librarian this question...

Can you give me some titles of mystery novels which:

• Don't involve murders
• Aren't too "techie" (that's the word the person who I'm inquiring for used and I can't readily ask for clarification)
• And aren't too... heavy... is maybe the word I'm looking for.

That third one is because this person isn't really a reader, so something that reads quickly and doesn't go on for pages about the protagonist's feelings or some other dry point would be best. They'll have a lot of down time to do nothing more than read but don't already really enjoy the act of reading. They're requested something in the mystery genre. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 14:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone has complied a list of [Nonmurder mysteries] on Goodreads. Some of the titles that I recognize are usually classed as YA (children's) which might be too light?. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime seems to involve the murder of a dog. Rmhermen (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding its name and some of its promotion, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime is really a book about autism, not a conventional mystery. John M Baker (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Some cozy mysteries might fit the bill. Here is a list of cozy mysteries without murders. Rmhermen (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I just read Gaudy Night (in the list cited by Rmhermen above) for the first time—I'm not much of a mystery reader—and thought that it was pretty good. I'm not sure that it would appeal to the sort of "non-reader" that you describe, though. Only some of the Sherlock Holmes short stories involve murders, and a book of those might be more appealing to the person. Deor (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• just what you are looking for: Lisa Scottoline and Janet Evanovich. They are (according to my source, who hates gore, and finds Michael Crichton too techie) humorous and lighthearted page turners who write non-murder mysteries. She also recommends Robert B. Parker as not gory, but he does depict murders. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's Black Widowers stories feature a group of people who get together and solve mysteries by talking about them over the dinner table. Sometimes the mysteries involve murders, but many of them don't; some don't even involve crimes. (For example, in the first of the series, The Acquisitive Chuckle, the mystery to be solved is "What, if anything, did was stolen?") If there is a murder then you only "see" these people talking about it. Now these are short stories, not novels, but that means your friend can try a few stories in a relatively short time and see if they like the series. They were written some time ago (Asimov died in 1992) and have been collected in... let's see, here we go... five books with "Black Widowers" in the title each time:

• Tales of the Black Widowers (1974)
• More Tales of the Black Widowers (1976)
• Casebook of the Black Widowers (1980)
• Banquets of the Black Widowers (1984)
• Puzzles of the Black Widowers (1990)

The ones I've read contain about 12 stories each. There is also a book The Return of the Black Widowers (2003) containing some reprinted stories and some additional stories written for the series by other writers. I have no idea of whether any of these books are easy or hard to find now. --174.88.134.249 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the ideas, everyone. If anyone thinks of more, I'll be checking back here again, I'm sure. Also a bit of clarification, it's not the gore that I'm trying to avoid, it's specifically the murder aspect. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 17:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Chess and "check"

Is there a reason why chess games end without actually taking the enemy king? It seems that all the rules preventing moving into check, and announcing "check" when you put someone in that position would all be much simpler if the rule was "The objective is to take the enemy king". Was there, perhaps, some kind of political-correctness issue about killing kings? (Seems odd that you're allowed to take the queen if that was the reason.) ...Or is it maybe that you don't want players to lose by accident because they fail to spot that their king is in check?

I just can't think of any other game where the game ends right BEFORE the obvious final objective is met.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

From Checkmate#History:

In early Sanskrit chess (c. 500–700) the king could be captured and this ended the game. The Persians (c. 700–800) introduced the idea of warning that the king was under attack (announcing check in modern terminology). This was done to avoid the early and accidental end of a game. Later the Persians added the additional rule that a king could not be moved into check or left in check. As a result, the king could not be captured, and checkmate was the only decisive way of ending a game.

Before about 1600 the game could also be won by capturing all of the opponent's pieces, leaving just a bare king. This style of play is now called annihilation or robado. In Medieval times players began to consider it nobler to win by checkmate, so annihilation became a half-win for a while, until it was abandoned.

Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References

There's the optional physical tipping over of the king to indicate resignation or concession by the loser. I doubt tipping over the opponent's king when you've one would be in good form, though. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing the rule to "the objective is to take the enemy king" would have two effects:

1. It would introduce a new way to stupidly lose a game, by accidentally moving your king into check.
2. In a position where you have now no legal move, you could find yourself required to move your king into check, and then lose on the next turn. In other words, most positions where the game is now a tie due to stalemate would become a win for the player creating that position.

The treatment of situation 1 is a matter of preference by the rulemakers, but situation 2 is often significant in endgames.

As to why if you give checkmate on move 29 the other player isn't required to take a turn and let you win on move 30 by capturing his king, the simple answer is that you play until you know who's going to win. (That's why a large number of won games end in resignation rather than checkmate.) Once checkmate is given, the win is assured, so it makes sense to stop.

And yes, there is certainly at least one other game like that: bridge. The play of each hand is made up of 13 tricks, but normally you only play until you're sure who's winning how many. For a simple example, if with 6 tricks remaining your hand consists of the 6 highest remaining trumps, the usual and recommended procedure is to show it and claim the remaining tricks. The only legitimate reason to play on would be if you weren't certain whether the trumps were in fact the highest remaining ones. Sometimes you can claim only one or two tricks into the play of a hand. --174.88.134.249 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References

--174.88.134.249 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't play go, but I think it went through a similar rule change: play originally continued until the board was completely filled, but modern play ends when the outcome is clear, and the scoring approximates what would have happened if the board had been filled. -- BenRG (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hearts is another example of a game that can be ended early if the final outcome is clear. A player may end a hand by showing their remaining cards and declaring TRAM (The Rest Are Mine) - although this is not mandatory. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a board or table game, but in baseball, if the home team is winning, they don't play the bottom of the ninth inning because it would be pointless. (There is not even an option in case, say, a player going for a record could benefit from an additional time at bat.)   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the responders who claim that the rule exists because it's pointless to play on once the outcome is determined. Why not extend it to mate-in-one, then? Or further?
I don't have a ref, but my understanding has always been that the real reason is to avoid the implication of disrespect for royalty. Can't have people getting dangerous republican ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point. Some people say the term checkmate comes from the Persian words for "the king is dead". But our article says shāh māt (شاه مات) really means "the king is helpless".   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mate in X moves is established by the losing player, and handled by resignation, as described above. I think the analogies to bridge, hearts, and go are apt, and we could add Euchre and perhaps many other Trick-taking_games to the list as well. Lacking better refs than those provided above, we can't rule out a political aversion to "killing a king," among some players at some time, but I find the reasoning based only on game logic compelling, and in accord with several other games where we quit once the winner is clearly established. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. For one thing, if that were in fact the reasoning, then a stalemate should be won by the player who made the last move before it. I don't think that's the reason. --Trovatore (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The rule against taking the king, regardless of its origin, adds a significant strategic element to the game. Without that, it might merely be like checkers with pieces that can move different ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel dense, but what would be significantly different (I'm not a chess player).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If the king could be captured like any other piece, games would be over super-quickly. The point is that the king can be threatened, but never captured. It's when the king is threatened in such a way that he cannot extricate himself from or block or neutralise the threat, and would suffer capture if such a rule existed, that the game is over and the other player wins. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I still don't see the difference. If you allowed the king to be captured, then what situation would you be in where you couldn't avoid the king getting captured, yet wouldn't be in check mate? As for the rule against moving into check: if you moved into check, the next turn would result in you losing your king and, thus, the game, so why would you ever do it even if you could? It seems like check mate just ends the game a turn earlier.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "where you couldn't avoid the king getting captured", because the king can never be captured. But there is such a thing as "where you couldn't avoid the king getting checked", and that is the definition of checkmate. It is true that the logical extension of checkmate would be to capture the king were such a rule part of the game. But as I said earlier, if kings could be captured, games would be over FAR more quickly than they tend to be. And they would involve a far lower degree of strategy and complexity, which is what is said to make the game as interesting and challenging as it is. Kings can be threatened, and it's part of the strategy that neutralisation of that threat must take top priority, meaning a player can be forced to move a piece he really didn't want to move (maybe he had other juicy plans for it, which he now has to forego, because a king cannot remain in check while there's any possibility of getting him out of check). A player can't even move his king into check by an opponent's piece, even if the opponent wasn't interested in taking the king (assuming he could, which he can't). The king has special rules. As all good kings should. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I was meaning in the context of if the king could be captured. Suppose that kings could be captured and the king was in what we would call check, then what would be the advantage of doing anything different than getting the king out of check since the king would be captured, and the game lost, next turn if the check wasn't resolved. That's the part I'm not understanding, if you allowed kings to be captured, when would moving into check, or not moving out of check, ever not be an end game one turn later?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then we're not discussing chess anymore but some weird cousin of chess. You've changed 3 rules: (a) from kings not being able to be captured, to kings being able to be captured; (b) from not being permitted to move into check, to being permitted; and (c) from the requirement to neutralise the opponent's checking of you, to not having to do that. You can't use pseudo-chess to analyse chess. I have no experience of any such game, and I doubt you'd find a reference anywhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You stated above that those three rules are what makes the game deeper and more strategic, how can you claim that if you can't explain why? I'm not even sure those three rules would change the game since there is no advantage to not doing those things anyways - and the subject of the question seems to be quite close to what I'm asking. So are we misunderstanding each other or are you telling me that you can comment on the question, but, also, can't provide any explanation for that commentary? Specifically, why would it end far more quickly, as you stated?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Typically, there are numerous checks, from both sides, before it ever gets to checkmate (or stalemate). I'm no expert, and I'm very rusty, but I'm sure that checkmate cannot be achieved short of a minimum number of moves. Here we are: Apparently it's technically as low as 4 moves, but no experienced player would ever allow that to occur, so it's a lot more than that in practice. If kings could be captured, that minimum would be significantly lower, and games would be significantly shorter. Do you understand that? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that is exactly what I do not understand, why would it be lower? This is my logic: if you could capture a king, then the king would have had to be in check the turn before; whether, or not, you can capture the king, there is no advantage to check (or check mate) since you lose on your opponents turn unless you are out of it. I'm assuming that "king captured" would still equal "game lost", not that the king would just be some random piece that you could lose - under that assumption, there is no visible strategic advantage to not protecting the king and to not pursuing the enemy king.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, by checking your opponent's king, you force him to do something he might not have intended otherwise to do. Protecting the king overrides all other plans the checked player might have been contemplating. Your queen can be likewise threatened, but you're allowed to take a gamble and let it stay threatened, in the hope the opponent has other plans, of if you have other more advantageous plans. But having to protect the king, whether you want to or not, disturbs your plans, often cancelling them permanently. That protective action, which can take various forms, introduces new elements into the strategy and changes the game. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, I fully understand that. What I'm saying is even if we allow capturing of the king, you still have to protect the king in the exact same way, so what is different? Or are you talking in the context of capturing the king doesn't end the game, in the same way that capturing the queen doesn't end the game? That's what it sounds like, but that's not the context of the original question, so either that is the disconnect or I have no idea what I'm missing.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're assuming that if capturing the king were allowed, just like any other piece, that would end the game. We can't make that assumption, unless we're now discussing a very specific hypothetical game where that is the rule. All we know with actual chess is that the king can't be captured, and the closest it can ever get to capture is being in the position where capture would be assured if capture were possible. That's also assuming the opponent would want to capture the king every time he had the opportunity. Maybe he'd be happy sometimes to toy with his opponent for a while. This is getting into a level of hypothetical distraction that's remote and unuseful. Maybe I still haven't quite got your issue, and maybe others can chime in. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Phoenix's claim is that if instead of "the game ends in a win if and only if the king is checkmated (or if a player resigns)" we had "the game ends in a win if and only if the king is captured (or if a player resigns)", nothing would change about the complexity of chess. I think he is right. Abecedare (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Jack; I don't think we are on the same page, I'm not asking something very abstract and hypothetical, I'm inquiring about the supposed "complexity" that you and Bugs mentioned - at no point have you elaborated that, your elaboration on why actual chess is more complex than these near variants is to tell me that the near variants are too hypothetical...that's confusing given your claim. At any rate, thank you Abecedare, that is exactly what I'm asking, I am fairly certain that it would not make any real difference; hence my confusion. Thank you both:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't help more, Phoenixia. My brain is apparently still recovering from a significant frying it's undergone of recent days, so bear with me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Rereading all of that, I came off way more grouchy than I meant to - I intended to express a general sense of frustration, not ny frustration at you (I do thank you for your time) - I remember being in flipped roles about a year, or so, ago with a question you asked on the mathematics desk - I'm guessing we look at things a bit differently and there is some disconnect there, not in the content of anything either of us is saying - I apologize if I gave any indication of nastiness, or the such. Again, thank you very much for your efforts:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To try to reset this conversation a little. I'm saying that if all the rules relating to "check" were revoked and in their place, we added the rule "You win by taking the opponent's King"...then not much changes...(but it is an actual change):

1. in the standard game, an incompetent player is protected from making the otherwise fatal mistake of moving into check or failing to notice that he needs to move out of check. With the revised rules, such mistakes are fatal unless the opponent is similarly incompetent. However, for players who are that bad, the present rules are messy because a check or even a checkmate may mistakenly not have been announced - or even noticed until a move or two later! However, for players of any quality, check doesn't really need to be announced, let alone protected against.
2. In the standard game, you're forced to defend yourself against an immediate loss of the game because you're not allowed to refuse to move out of check...but in the revised game, you could deliberately allow your opponent to take your king. The result of the game is no different from simply resigning though - so I don't see any practical difference.
3. In the standard game, there is the issue of 'stalemate'...which would not arise in the revised game. In the revised game, you'd have to make a move, even if it resulted in your king being taken on the next move - so there would be a loss rather than a draw. That could be 'fixed' in the revised rules...but it would be a bit artificial.
4. The rule about the king not being able to castle in the event of check would also be harder to explain.

I don't see how this would result in the game being over any quicker than before or even that it's much of a change at all to the way the game is played.

But clearly a game without check would be a little different. But those differences don't seem (to me) to explain why the rules ended up like that. I don't see that the game would be significantly better or worse with the stalemate and castling rules altered...so the REASON why the game doesn't end with the king being taken seem a bit odd to me.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Still-born

This may be a sensitive question to some, so I don't think it would be appropriate to answer with any anecdotes or personal experiences.

I was talking to a friend today, and the topic of conversation came to genetic deformities. We then both pondered on what happens to foetuses which are aborted. We then went on to talk about what happens to babies which are still-born. Are the latter entitled to a funeral? We were talking about it in the context of the Western world. Does anyone know the answer? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about "entitled", but some people have funerals for still born babies, some do not. Here's a few links that talk a bit about the options and choices that can be made [1] [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about "entitled", but certainly in Scotland there's a history of them being cremated - indeed there was a major scandal recently because parents were told there were no ashes for them to mourn over, when there were, see [3]. In my own family in north Wales, my second-oldest brother died at 1 day old (this was nearly 70 years ago, over a decade before I was born), and I only fairly recently discovered that he was buried by the wall of the local parish churchyard. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• If the situation comes up, you have to demand immediate attention from the hospital chaplain and medical staff. I know a person whose stillborn child was disposed of as medical waste, then was lied to, being told the child had been buried with rites being said. It's not easy under such circumstances to act quickly and effectively. You might also discuss the issue while pregnant with your doctor and chosen hospital to determine their policies and procedures ahead of time, in case. Most medical facilities treat "tissue that has been removed" as waste, and hence not the patient's property. You may even want to consult a lawyer to determine your rights. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A bit anecdotal, but I grew up in a funeral home and it did stillborns. I remember two services offhand. Neither used a real casket (though we did sell them in that size), but at least one got its own plot. There was also at least one pregnant crash victim whose family considered whether to have separate services. They ultimately went with one. There was a small (I'd guess first trimester) fetus in a jar in that morgue, apparently from the 1950s. Never asked my grandpa about it, and after he died, only got fuzzy stories from other relatives. Not sure where it is now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish cemeteries have a section for stillborns. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In the United States the disposition of a stillborn child's remains would be a matter of state law. In other words, it can be complex. In the late 1980s in Minnesota, for instance, fetal remains after a certain period of development needed to be disposed of in a "dignified" manner (I believe the minimum was a cremation within a certain period; the law specifically stated that no religious ceremony was required). I'm sure other states' laws vary widely. You or your friend may wish to consult an attorney in this matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that most of the discussion of the law I mention has to do with the remains of aborted fetuses, though it is also mentioned that the same laws would apply to miscarriages as to induced abortions. Some discussion here has dealt with infants that were born live but died soon thereafter. My instinct is that those cases would, at law, be treated the same as any other dead body case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In most of the UK, stillbirths (after the 24th week of pregnancy) have to be registered [4] [5] (the specifics of the law differ between England and Wales, and Scotland). In Northern Ireland you may register a stillbirth, but it is not mandatory [6]. Stillbirths are in a separate register to live births (and deaths). The link I've included, which is to gov.uk, includes the statement "You can arrange a funeral for your baby." Gov.uk is unhelpfully unclear on what exactly you would need to do to bring this about, but the General Register Office for Scotland website makes it clear that in Scotland you will be given a "certificate of registration of stillbirth" which you would need to provide to the cemetery or crematorium [7]. I'm assuming the process is similar in England and Wales and guidance on the necessary legal steps from (non-stillbirth) death to funeral is here. The website of the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society (which is linked to from gov.uk) advises that if a baby is stillborn after 24 weeks then a formal burial or cremation must be held. If the stillbirth is before 24 weeks then burial or cremation is permitted, but not mandatory [8]. Valiantis (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

French Wikipedia has the law for France and for Belgium, which is quite similar to the UK. If the baby is born after 22 weeks and is dead or "alive but not viable", a stillbirth is registered and the parents may arrange a funeral. What Medeis describes is horrendous. I hope there is an organisation like the UK Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society that can get best practice spread throughout the USA. Itsmejudith (talk)

The case I mentioned was probably at 20-24 weeks. I don't know the state, but it was some decades ago. The mother was sedated and when she asked to see the child after waking she was told it had already been buried. She asked if rites had been performed, and was told yes, but this was obviously an outright lie (they certainly didn't know her denomination) meant to console her/make her compliant. (She learned the truth of the matter on her next pregnancy when she and her doctor discussed the prior stillbirth.)

This reminds me of my sister. She and her husband made a considered decision not to circumcise their sons. All went well with the first child but when they attempted to take her second son out of the delivery room she insisted (knowing her, probably rather ferociously) on knowing why and was told he was being taken to be circumcised, which was immediately halted. Again, my suggestion is that of the disclaimer, seek out the advice of your doctor (and lawyer if necessary), do it ahead of time, and don't expect your instructions to be followed, even if you've made them clear, if you are not your own active advocate. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Blinkin' 'eck! The medics would be struck off pronto in the NHS. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean the medics too, would immediately be taken to be circumcised? From what I understand, circumcision has been routine and default in most of the NE US since the 60's. Strangely enough, in NYC Hispanic boys are not circumcised because this would make them "stand out" from their peers, Jews have it done by a mohel, and all other ethnicities are regularly circumcised, as routinely as having the umbilical cord cut. See circumcision controversies and circumcision and law. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever taken a dump and not wiped properly then . . .

Your anus feels itchy and irritated for the rest of the day?

Sometimes when you shower or bathe afterwards, the skin around your anus is sore, red, and stingy?

What causes that? I mean, it's probably from not wiping properly, but what is the scientific process at work?

Thanks in advance.

Zombiesturm (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Many cases of itchy and irritated skin are a type of Dermatitis. Note in the article there are many types, and they have different mechanisms. But that should be good general reading regarding your question. You also might be interested in Irritant diaper dermatitis. (WARNING, last link features a graphic image of the medical phenomenon)SemanticMantis (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You said during the day. What about at night? See:Pinworm & [9]. Or it could be down to something your eating (really hot curries and red hot chili con carne does it for me) Either-way, this complaint is what doctors are for.--Aspro (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)