Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
< September 26 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 28 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.


Payment of women during 1890 - 1900[edit]

OK, so I've been trying to find how much a women would be paid per hour/day/year sometime between 1890 - 1900 with a secretary/typing job in America. I haven't been able to find anything through Google and wikipedia through several searches.. so if anyone could point me in the right direction or even a guess of how much it would be, it would be greatly appreciated... it's the last thing I need for my project and I'll be done. Thanks!

In general, women did not engage in secretarial jobs in teh 1890-1900 time frame. It was considered improper. They might work long hours in factories (see Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire), they might teach, they might even clerk in a store, but working in an office was not the proper work for a woman. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There were a few ads in the 1890s in the New York Times for female secretaries who could type and do stenography, but I could not find any salaries listed. The employer wished to negotiate that, I suppose. Most women were seeking employment as cook, nurse, governess, maid. More secretary openings were for men.Edison 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
During 1890-1900, women were just beginning to enter the secretarial field. I remember reading a synopsis of a play that was produced during this time in which one woman had mastered the use of a typewriter and supported herself as a secretary. By the end of the play another woman she knew was investigating the cost of a typewriter. Perhaps the play also mentioned a salary - I just can't remember the title or author. A good reference librarian might help to track it down. Durova 16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Government agencies did not collect data on wages much before the mid-1900s, but I found this website, which lists the results of a survey of female workers in Kansas in 1894. Only 8.9% of the women in the survey were office clerks, stenographers, or typists, but presumably their wages would have been comparable to other female workers. My guess is that female office clerks and typists had somewhat higher median wages than other female workers because these jobs were more skilled than most other jobs available to women and because these jobs were also held by higher-paid men.
If you look at the data on median weekly and monthly wages on this site, you will see that there is an outlier category of $2–$3 per week. (None of the women made $3-$4 per week. Most made more than $4 per week.) There is a similar outlier category of women making under $10 per month. It is reasonable to suppose that this outlier consists of lower-paid occupational categories. If you exclude this outlier from the data on wages, you will find that the remaining women made a median of $6.50 per week or $32 per month. Considering that the median number of hours worked per day was 9.5 and that the median number of days worked per week was 6, those women who reported their wages in weekly terms made a median wage of 12 cents an hour; those who reported in monthly terms (probably salaried workers) made a median of 14 cents an hour. Adjusted to current dollars using the consumer price index (see [1]), these wages amount to about $3 (2006) per hour. Marco polo 14:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all that! You guys always help me when I'm stuck... no matter how dumb the question is! I really appreciate it!  :)

urine drinking[edit]

I read a story in which it says that while people have sex, many drink each other's urine! Is it true? I would also like to know whether people would eat each others' feces while having sex?

People will do a lot of wierd and stupid things in general. In the history of the world, these situations probably have occured at one time. Is it a normal thing people do during sex? No. Is it healthy? Not really. Have I tried it? No. Would I recommend trying it? No. Anything else? --AstoVidatu 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
For the former, see urolagnia, For the latter, see coprophilia. - BT 04:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And if you want to boggle your mind a bit further, there's extensive coverage of the weird stuff various people have found sexually arousing at one stage or another at sexual fetishism. People can get hung up on all manner of weird things. --Robert Merkel 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Although it would be in much smaller quantities than what you're thinking of, any time that someone engages in oral sex they are more than likely ingesting small quantities of dried urine. Dismas|(talk) 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What is 'dried urine'? and how would it ahe a chance to dry?--Light current 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Which comedian was it who claimed never to drink water because of the disgusting things fish do in water? --Dweller 10:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
W.C. Fields' bon mot regarding water was, specifically, "Fish fuck in it" (and not the censored version in his article!) - Nunh-huh 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've met people who refuse to eat mullet because of its reported preference for the vicinity of sewage outlets.  --LambiamTalk 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
All kinds of people like all kinds of things. I've worked with at least one person who we later found out apparently liked the feaces thing. --Mnemeson 14:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

religion[edit]

at what period in history (time) did religion start to exist?

When humans were created (mind my religious bias). bibliomaniac15 03:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want an answer supported by evidence beyond some old scrolls from the Middle East, you need to turn to archaeology.
It's not particularly well documented in the Wikipedia, but artifacts indicative of some kind of religious belief seem to date back tens of thousands of years, possibly to what may have been a "big bang" cultural development around 50,000 years ago (see human evolution). The details of these beliefs are of course lost to history. --Robert Merkel 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And they don't prove that such beliefs didn't exist before the artifacts were created. Art might not have developed until thousands of years after humans started wondering about things.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind it's difficult to define a 'religion' when you are talking about early humans. At some very early stage, humans were confronted with phenomena which they couldn't explain, and began attributing them to spirits, gods, dead ancestors and so forth. In an attempt to influence these events (floods, droughts, storms and much more) over which they had no control they began to organise rituals in an attempt to 'placate' whatever they thought was causing these events. Does that qualify as religion to you? It would have developed very gradually, so just like with the development of language, it's hard to pin it to an exact date or era. — QuantumEleven 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Religion predates history, and in a sense may predate mankind (depending on how you define religion). As Wikipedia's superstition article says, from the broadest perspective, all religion is superstition. And superstition has been observed in animals.--Shantavira 07:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Note there's a difference between belief and religion. I define religion as organised belief with a set of rules. That may have coincided with people forming larger communities, ie with the rise of argiculture, which led to settlement and cities. Belief is probably a result of people thinking about the causes of things, being frustrated with not knowing some and coming up with explanations. And those thoughts are probably the result of the development of certain parts of the brain. The neocortex, I assume. Pinpointing the start of religion is as difficult as pinpointing when the neocortex developed. It happened over a period of time. DirkvdM 08:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Religion started as soon as humans learned to use language about 400,000 years ago. Without language there can be no religion. Religion is basically organised superstitions. 202.168.50.40 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Rumi's like this poem[edit]

In Rumi's poem here

http://www.khamush.com/love_poems.html#IfAnyoneAsksYou

what's the Huuuuu supposed to be? Seems to be in all translations? Some kind of mantra?

I think it's onomatopoeia for the blowing wind. ---Sluzzelin 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hu is actually a mystic syllable of Sufism (see dhikr); don't know if there's a connection there... AnonMoos 15:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

download songs of iTunes[edit]

hi guys, my friend has dial-up net, he wants to know can he still be able to download songs of iTunes, if so roughly how long will it take. THANKS. P.S. i and my friend have never downloaded of itunes b4. --Lil devilz 08:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Lil devilz--Lil devilz 08:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No reason why you can't use dialup, but you're right it would take longer. I'm not much good at estimating these things, but from my limited experience I would hazard a guess that to download a five-minute song on dialup would take between 20-30 minutes. I'm sure someone else will correct me if that estimate is way off beam. You'll also need a credit card. --Richardrj talk email 08:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


It would actually take more like 10-15 minutes

Regulatory Reforms[edit]

How do you distinguish between administrative and statutory regulatory reforms in transportation?

Statutory reforms are done by passing new laws, administrative reforms are not. StuRat 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Campo Formio[edit]

Since the treaty whereby Napoleon took over Venice in 1797 was signed in the town of Campoformido, why is it universally known as the Treaty of Campo Formio?

WP and Encyclopedia Brittanica say it is 'now' called Campoformido, implying that it used to be called Campo Formio and has changed its name since then. But Italian websites say it was probably an error made when documenting that the treaty was "made and signed at Campo-Formio, near Udine, on the 17th of October 1797" ("...fatto e firmato a Campo-Formio, presso Udine, il 17 ottobre 1797..."). There even seems to be some debate whether it was signed in Campoformido, Passariano, or even in what now belongs to Udine. In the local Friulian dialect Campoformido is called Cjampfuarmit, maybe it was misunderstood by whoever wrote the document at the time.---Sluzzelin 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"...may peace be upon him"[edit]

When Muslims refer to Mohammed, they frequently follow it up with "...may peace be upon him". I don't understand. Since he is in heaven, isn't that pretty much guaranteed ? Or is their violence in heaven, according to Islam ? StuRat 12:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There's some information on the Pbuh page. I doubt very much that there is violence in heaven according to Islam. ---Sluzzelin 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
When I see it my first thought is always to try and pronounce it, but it sounds like a Bronx cheer, which is doubtless not the intent.Edison 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
" ... is their violence in Heaven". Was that a Freudian slip, Stu? JackofOz 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Stu can explain it, but your wit has finally reached a point where it's completely over my head, Jack. " ... is their violence in Heaven". A Freudian slip? Again, being the single Wikipedian who's most aware and open about his own ignorance (making me the most wise, in the Socratic sense), as well as the most courageous person here, as I'm so willing to admit my ignorance, I'm clearly the most modest and humble. So what the hell are you blabbering about this time, Jack? Where's the Freudian slip? :-) Loomis 20:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Blabbering? Hmmmm ... Anyway, to continue. "Their" and "there" are frequently confused. That may be what's happened here, end of story. Sometimes, though, the "wrong" word can be used and the sentence still makes a different kind of sense. "Their violence" would make sense to those who believe (even subconsciously) that all Muslims advocate violence. Is Stu such a person? I don't know, which is why I asked the question. JackofOz 23:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think he's referring to 'their' for 'there'. ColinFine 23:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
AHHH Jack, I totally get it now. Their/There. Your eyes are apparently far more perceptive than mine. Yet do you really think Stu's syntactical slip would qualify as a "Freudian" one? After all, there's no sex involved, especially no sex with one's own mother! And absent any sexual relevance, wouldn't Freud likely find the whole slip too boring to bother analyzing? After all, wasn't it he who said something like: "sometimes a typo is just a typo"...or at least something along those lines...? Loomis 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've already given Stu the benefit of that interpretation. But read Freudian slip and discover for yourself that it is not necessarily related to sex. It can refer to "any slip-of-the-tongue phenomenon, often in an attempt by the user to humorously assign hidden motives or sexual innuendo to the mistake. It is not clear, however, what Freud considered an "innocent" mistake, or if he thought that there were any innocent mistakes.". Which is all pretty tangential since this isn't about Freud or his theories. For all we know, Stu may have truly intended to say "their violence". Or maybe not. Only he can tell us. I await his response with great interest. JackofOz 05:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I put it in intentionally, really mostly to see who would notice the alternative meaning. I do that quite often, but only a small portion of them seem to get noticed (or, at least, elicit a response). StuRat 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Stu. May peace be upon you. JackofOz 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Your welcome. And may piece be upon you. :-) StuRat 20:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretending not to notice either of those. JackofOz 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't confuse 'peace' with 'piss'. Especialy in this case. DirkvdM 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll accept that my interpretation of a "Freudian Slip" may have been inaccurate, and that it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with sex. But that quote just seems bizarre. It actually makes it seem that most if not all Freudian slips are conscious. Now that I can't accept. Isn't it the very essence of a "Freudian slip" that it is unconscious, and that rather, it is a result of the subconscious mind influencing one's speach? Loomis 13:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Since it wasn't accidental on my part, it wasn't a Freudian slip. What do you call it when you intentionally misspell something to give it a hidden meaning ? StuRat 13:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I'm utterly embarrassed and ashamed to admit that I have no clue as to the answer. Beets me. My best guess, though, is this: since a very apparent play on words is usually called a pun, and since Stu's statement amounted to an extremely subtle play on words, I'd just call it, for lack of a better term, an extremely subtle pun. Loomis 20:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, frequently so subtle that nobody gets them but me. :-) StuRat 12:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What about 'God save the queen'? Is she a damsel in such great distress that only God can save her? (And why doesn't it specify which God? :) ). Taking things too literaly is the basis of fundamentalism. Careful where you tread. DirkvdM 07:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, but I think you're assuming the very thing I am seeking to clarify. JackofOz 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
For clarification, I assume you understand I was responding to StuRat's original post. DirkvdM 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Osma bin laden is finally dead, what would happen if bush takes over[edit]

Osma bin laden is finally dead, what would happen if bush takes over?

I'm interested in your source for Osama being dead. What exactly would Bush take over if Osama were dead? Since the only thing Osama controls is Al-Quaeda, and that is famously decentralised (and therefore not controlled), I'm not sure what Bush would take over. Finally, if Osama is dead, I don't think much would change in the world (apart from one or two celebratory drinks, perhaps). It wouldn't stop the perverted inhumane atrocious ungodly terrorist attacks that are sullying the name of Islam, that's for sure. (I stopped at four adjectives, to save bandwidth--Dweller 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought Bush did "take over", back on 20 January 2001. JackofOz 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that nobody knows whether he's alive or dead proves that he's not actually very important. Terrorism goes on regardless. --172.202.75.52 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Correct, Jack. Bush "took over" at precisely noon, EST (GMT-5) January 20th 2001, just as his successor will "take over" (save for any tragic incident in the meantime) on January 20, 2009, at precisely noon, EST (GMT-5), with Bush congratulating her, both the first Black as well as the first female to be elected President of the United States (and a Republican to boot!) for having succesfully won a mandate to continue the good fight. Of course the Democratic Black Caucus, along with the politically astute Harry Belafonte will immediately label her an "Auntie Tom". I should say I'd still prefer Rudy, but she's my second favourite. Loomis 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
WTF n00b. Chris 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Loomis, does anyone ever ask you "what the fuck are you talking about?" They should, more often. Adam Bishop 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious. He's stating his belief that Condoleeza Rice will be the next president. --Richardrj talk email 21:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I wouldn't call it my "belief", just a bit of wishful thinking on my part. I any case, no, nobody has ever asked me that. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jack understood, within less than a split second, who I was referring to. Richard also found it "pretty obvious", as surely most other editors would. I try to refrain from personal attacks, but having just been hit by one, I can't see it as being improper to reply: "What the fuck are you doing playing a RefDesk editor, if you can't even decipher such a simple implication"? Let's see, when I give you the terms: "Prominent", "Black", "female", "American", "Republican", "politician", "highly regarded as a potential presidential candidate". If Condoleeza Rice doesn't immediately spring to mind, Adam, then I'd say you aren't qualified to edit any questions regarding American politics. Loomis 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
One can be perfectly clear and still elicit a response such as mine :) Adam Bishop 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I pride myself on my magnanimity (another extremely noble facet of my humble personality, Jack!) Adam, if your remark was made in jest, than I obviously mistook it as a serious personal attack, and so I apologize. Similarly, if what you've just posted just now is some sort of apology, I accept it wholeheartedly. (I'm just a bit curious as to which was the case). In any case, I'm not here to pick fights or make enemies of anyone. Whatever your above comment meant, it was apparently a gesture of goodwill, and I accept it as such. No hard feelings, Adam. :) Loomis 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A small editorial point: The proper spelling is Condoleezza, with two z's. Marco polo 01:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
zzo it izz. DirkvdM 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

factor analysis in village literacy[edit]

How can we use the concept of factor analysis invillage literacy survey?

  • What does your textbook or instructor suggest? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Social structure in Elizabethan England[edit]

I'm looking for information on social class structure in the Elizabethan Age in England. Any sources would be appreciated. Thanks. Pckeffer

Have a look at the work of A. L. Rowse. It may be a bit dated now but his work on Elizabethan society is among the best ever written on the subject. White Guard 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this book or this reading list would be useful. --HJMG 08:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to make sure ... have you checked Elizabethan England? DirkvdM 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Porn careers[edit]

Why is it that porn careers are encouraged in the US? Arent there any values in the society?

It is not a career option at all. I m not trying to impose my view, but it is the root cause of all terror on the earth.

There are many poor people in the US who are living below the poverty line, yet the porn industry is viewed as a career option.

What is the Big Brother trying to impose? Freedom or irrational democracy???

There are many who get a university degree and yet enter the porn industry, this clearly reveals impatience for money & desires.

It depicts irrationality & the extent of how uncivilized the western world is??

Yet there are laws in the US prohibiting acts of sexual misconduct & convicting sex offenders.

Kindly elucidate!

Hi still could do with some advice

People in the US or the west dont have any other job. They preoccupy their minds with desires to get themselves done with plastic surgery and attract the opposite sex.

Do you have an actual question or are you just here to insult Americans ? Your statements that young poor people are encouraged to work in the porn industry are wrong. It's not illegal, but that doesn't mean it's "encouraged". In your country, is there a law against wearing a dead chicken on your head ? If not, does that mean the government in encouraging you to do so ? Also, stop repeating the same post. StuRat 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll go through your statements one at a time. StuRat already dealt with the first one, so I guess I'll do the rest. 1) "It is not a career option at all." As both an occupation and a profession, acting in pornographic movies is a career. They aren't "professional porn stars," they are actors who act in pornographic films.

2) "There are many poor people in the US who are living below the poverty line, yet the porn industry is viewed as a career option." I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. There is no correlation between the number of poverty stricken individuals and the porn industry. If you are trying to understand why this exists, the fact is that the United States is a capatalist state, not a welfare state. Secondly, many "poor" people in the United States have access to running water, electricity, shelter, education, etc. etc. etc. Relatively speaking they are not poor. Of course there are the destitute, but the government, like the people that form it, is not perfect.

3) "What is the Big Brother trying to impose? Freedom or irrational democracy???" What are you even saying dude? Anyway, as the government is run by the people for the people, it technically doesn't 'impose' anything (as imposition the act of laying on of something to be endured, borne, or obeyed, and people don't impose things on themselves).

4) "There are many who get a university degree and yet enter the porn industry..." This does not "clearly reveal impatience for money and desires." People who choose to go into the porn industry don't just do it for the money. It's not something you can do if you aren't comfortable with it. It may be difficult for you to understand, but some people enjoy acting in porn movies. And it does pay good money. If you can work short hours and make 6 figures, or work long hours and make 5 figures, which would you choose?

5) "It depicts irrationality & the extent of how uncivilized the western world is??" I'm guessing that when you say "uncivilized" you mean immoral. In all honesty, your post looks more like someone trying to come to terms with and to understand the mentality of the Western World than a question. This isn't really something that the reference desk is meant for. If you are trying to understand if there is any way the Western World can have what in your mind immoral activities, and yet still contain moral activities, I would make a new question along the lines of "How can the Western world have so many immoral activities such as gambling, pornography, and sex out of marriage, and still consider itself moral?" That's probably what you meant to ask, and the answers to that will probably be more helpful.

6)"Yet there are laws in the US prohibiting acts of sexual misconduct & convicting sex offenders." Sex between two consenting adults is considered completely legal and legitimate. Both consciously make the choice and accept responsibility for the consequences their action might have. However, when an adult has sex with a child it is illegal because the child is not considered old enough or mature enough to enter into that type of relationship with an adult. Prostitution is considered illegal in many places because it is considered immoral to pay someone to have sex with you.

7)"People in the US or the west dont have any other job. They preoccupy their minds with desires to get themselves done with plastic surgery and attract the opposite sex." I'm not sure whether this was part of the original question, or an answer to it. Either way it is incorrect. First of all, "People in the US or the west dont have any other job" is obviously false. Second, "They preoccupy their minds with desires to get themselves done with plastic surgery and attract the opposite sex." There is some truth to this statement insofar that some people do get plastic surgery to improve their form. However, people also get plastic surgery because they are uncomfortable with how they look (For example, a huge birthmark). Second of all, there is more to life, wherever you go, than sex. However, interaction between men and women both as friends and lovers is an important part of life for most people in the Western World.

Hope that helped... --AstoVidatu 18:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't 100% agree with Asto's entire take on it, and I believe s/he has made a few minor errors in his/her argument, I find the "question" so insulting and trollish to Americans (and other westerners) that I absolutely refuse to "kindly elucidate" upon them. Stu and Asto clearly both have a firm grasp on the issue.
What I will do, however, is make the following observation: It is painfully obvious that the questioner has some serious (possibly subconscious) issues with that most natural and potentially most beautiful component of humanity known as sexuality. The questioner's statements reek of sexual repression, in some form or another. One may argue the morality/immorality of this or that aspect of human sexuality to one's heart's content. And as it's a controversial topic, there are no clear answers. What is in my view by far the most inhumane and actually, quite ironically, in my view the most "immoral" reaction toward human sexuality is its utter repression. Just as physical, male castration, as well as what is disgustingly euphemized as "female circumcision" are to me repulsive mutilations of the human body, "sexual repression", or as I would recast it, "psychological castration", rather ironically, as well as rather sadly, is obviously the very thing the questioner seems to be both arguing for on the one hand, and clearly, rather painfully suffering from on the other. Loomis 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree with AstoVidatu and Loomis, I feel that although the porn industry must have the freedom of sexual expression, that it abuses it aswell, and that I feel that it is a very poor expression of what Loomis correctly said is a beautiful part of being human. Philc TECI 19:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with you on that one Phil. I'm honestly not really into porn at all. Call it a kinky fetish of mine, but there's absolutely nothing sexier to me than an attractive, powerful, perhaps even fashionably bespectacled woman in a flattering, yet somewhat modest "power-suit". (CNN is a great example. Some of their female reporters and anchors are HOT! Give me that any day over some silly porn channel. I have to admit, that to a certain degree, it's those sexy anchorwomen that keep me glued to the tv. I'd take that any day over some bimbo in a thong!) But that's my personal taste. And though I find that porn has the effect of terribly diluting the wonderful mystique that is sexuality by displaying it so openly and skipping over all the excitement of the anticipation, the flirtation, the mystery, the challenge, the emotion, the romance, the courtship, and all the rest that so enhances what real life sexuality is all about, (ok, I can't lie, I suppose there's a time and place for it :-0 ), still, so long as it consists entirely of consenting adults, and isn't degrading to women (or to men), if that's what turns you on, then more power to you, I guess. Loomis 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The bit about the loss of mystique and excitement and stuff, is exactly what I mean in a nutshell! I suppose you could liken it to the difference between winning a medal, and buying yourself one, though if taken literally that can seem a bit degrading to the other person. But you know what I mean... hopefully! hehe! Philc TECI 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry Phil, I understand exactly what you're saying. You're a gentleman. Very similarly, some may choose to interpret my comments about sexy CNN anchorwomen as some sort of "objectification" of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a news junkie, but as well, I'm turned on by attractive, powerful, intelligent women. CNN just seems like the perfect combo! Loomis 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"People in the US or the west dont have any other job. They preoccupy their minds with desires to get themselves done with plastic surgery and attract the opposite sex." Uhm, are you saying everyone in the west works in the porn industry? Who would still be left to actually watch (and buy) it?
Wait a minute, is this some sort of new "Ben Gurion"(remember, that guy who kept making incomprehensible posts)Evilbu 22:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "I m not trying to impose my view, but it is the root cause of all terror on the earth." While I don't agree with your view, I don't think it's quite that bad yet. -- --LambiamTalk 22:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I do think there are some weird elements in USA culture, but isn't this a weak attempt at criticizing USA? Isn't there as much porn in Europe? I thought USA was stricter?! Anyway, look at the mail bride industry, or the child porn coming from countries like Belarus, or do you consider that to be part of "the west" too? Evilbu 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is my contention that the questioner has officialy been pwned. - R_Lee_E Flag of the United States.svg (talk, contribs) 23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am an American and don't have any issues with the porn industry. I'm also very hard to offend and therefore am not offended by the questioner. I'm also not offended because I think the questioner is incredibly misguided and has a skewed (to say the least) view of the U.S. and its citizens.
Not all of us have porn around the house. Not all of us have the same views on its morality. The concept of American morals is probably the most incorrect of the questioners views. The religious freedom that we enjoy means that there are many different sets of morals and values. And trying to pigeonhole them the way the questioner had will invariably lead to sweeping generalizations and not provide a good answer because the question itself, if they actually had a clear question, could not be answered.
I as well don't understand the concentration on the U.S. Many countries the world over have a thriving porn industry.
And lastly, the questioner makes it sound like going into porn is a career opportunity that is presented by teachers and guidance counselors during high school when students are trying to decide if they want to go to a university, the military, or enter a blue collar trade. There aren't pamphlets being handed out to graduates that have the headline "So, have you thought about your future? Have you thought about porn?" But go to any "career day" at a local high school and you'll see tables set up by the branches of the military, doctors, lawyers, dentists, insurance companies, pharmacutical companies, software manufacturers, etc. Not even in Los Angeles or Las Vegas would you find a both at a career day set up by the local adult modelling agency or local brothel. Dismas|(talk) 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Why do trolls get so much food for lack of thought here on the ref desk? Stop feeding them. Just like with terrorists. They feed on attention. Just ignore them and they will go away. DirkvdM 08:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're right and this one's a troll, Dirk. I made note of that in the first sentence of my first post. But trolls make such excellent straw men (or straw women, as the case may be)! And they're not even made of straw! Rather they're living, mouth-breathing, drooling knuckle-draggers who've somehow managed to work the internet. The question may have been the work of a troll, but look at the interesting and enlightening discussion it's led to! I say let the straw men/trolls make their absurd arguments, if in the end, all they're doing is helping the truth to come out. Loomis 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Odd as it may sound, that's also the reason for the war on terrorism. It's not meant to fight terrorists (who are a negligible threat in the grand scheme of things) but ot make others look bad so that you yorself look better. Ok, I suppose I see your point. The troll has made me write down a useful off-topic contribution. Then again, I don't really need trolls to go off-topic. :) DirkvdM 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you on that, Dirk, about the whole war on terrorism thing being a response to a negligible threat (and all the rest...I'm not dismissing your argument, just, let's just say, postponing it for a more appropriate time). But so far the troll has brought us all together about an interesting issue (sexuality). So however I may disagree with you on the terrorism thing, I won't let this damn troll actually cause any sort of rift between any of us (you and I included) as THAT would be a damn shame, and THAT would actually be letting the trolls/terrorists win, which I will NOT allow. We can debate our disagreements (of which there are obviously so many!) at some other time and place, but for now, I ask you to join me in solidarity as a fellow "serious" wikipedian, to put our differences aside at least for the moment, and just agree (as I'm sure you do) that the troll's take on sexuality and porn in the US (and other western countries) is utterly backward and absurd. Join me on at least this one, Dirk! :--) Loomis 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Chase 4[edit]

Would anyone have that picture yet?

Perhaps you should rephrase your question as I have no clue what you're talking about. Loomis 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a reference to a question about a painting that has been asked here several times now. Sorry we have been unable to help you.--Shantavira 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
See the response that was provided here. Please note that this is a voluntarily staffed portion of Wikipedia, we do not take orders to find information. --LarryMac 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone have that picture yet?Sorry I keep asking for the same Leighton Sumner painting but I just cant find anything also im new on here and dont know how to get on here without asking a question!Oh did anyone go to the stop the war march in Manchester? I wanted to go but couldnt,I also would have been more interested to know why neither Britain , America nor anyone else condememned the attack on Lebonon.I personally (and im not trying to suck arse),am sickened by the relationship America has with Israel and want Muslims to know that there are many people who feel the same way.Some things are just wrong and two wrongs definately do not make a rihht This can be applied to both sides though, and ill never understand a God that justifies killing innocents and even same faith and sympathisers by using revenge or vengance.Violence always induces violence and the sooner the people who want to fight go to a big field and finish it and leave all the people that want peace alone the better! Bring back the days of field warfare.Funny how the sick minded people like Saddam and Osama can recruit people to do THEIR will, but didnt kill themselves! Thankyou for the advice on the idiot youths causing me grief too! Love Peace and Respect to everyone always. xxxxxxxx

As a carefully deliberated response to the statement "I personally am sickened by the relationship America has with Israel", well,...you see...if you took the time to fully understand the whole thing...well, see there was peace and then there were these soldiers kidnapped and killed for no apparent reason...and then these rockets started falling in Israel...and..well with the whole genocidal Hezbollah organization, and the whole human shield thing going on and all...well..OH NEVERMIND! This one isn't worth the effort. I get the sense that I'll be talking to a wall. Love, Peace and Respect to everyone always! (Well almost everyone, apparently). Loomis 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, .... please become more familiar with the concept of Wikipedia Reference Desk. You can't just (anonymously!) say "have you found the answer yet?" here? Hundreds of questions are being asked here, you could at least give a link or repeat the question.
Secondly, this is not a soapbox, you can't just start talking randomly in a topic about something else, which is only your own opinion.

Evilbu 22:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I heard Joan Crawford had some in her past.(hotclaws**== 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Straland[edit]

It is believed that my 9X graet Grandfarther was from a place called Straland in Germany 1745 to 1777 can any one helpme with where this place , district or area was in Germany.

Could he have been from Stralsund? Marco polo 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actresses[edit]

The 'question' above made me think of another. Have any well known, mainstream Hollywood actresses begun their acting careers in porn? If so, I would imagine those early films would be quite sought after. --Richardrj talk email 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite rare, actually. If the people involved in casting finds out about a porn history, they would usually refuse giving any major parts to the person applying. 惑乱 分からん 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, she's not particularly mainstream, but what about Traci Lords? And there is that Sylvester Stallone movie... Adam Bishop 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Madonna had some nude photos made. But that doesn't quite qualify as porn and she's not much of an actress, so that's no answer. Sorry. (Btw, of course I'm not talking about the mother of Jesus, because there were no photocameras in those days). DirkvdM 09:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there was erotic art, surely, although I don't think there is any proof that Mary posed for such. 惑乱 分からん 09:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I heard Joan Crawford did some in her past(hotclaws**== 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

What ever happened to John Illsley?[edit]

...the bassist for Dire Straits? He and Mark were the only two members from the band's inception through to its disbandment. Obviously Mark's been doing very well for himself in the meantime, and a few of his Straits' bandmates have done additional work with him over the years. But I have never encountered any mention of Illsley. Presumably he's settled down somewhere /w wife and kids -- at the very least I wonder which country he's in, the US or UK? Chris 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he picked up a paintbrush; [2]. --Richardrj talk email 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical context of the right to make a phone call when arrested.[edit]

I am looking for any information on the historical context of the right to make a phone call when arrested, including what the procedure was before telephones. This can also be refrenced under the right to notify others of (your) arrest. I believe this is probably tied into a due process arguement. I am still researching this topic, so any idea for search parameters would be appreciated as well. Thanks As I recall its part of your constitutional right to petitition the government for redress of greviances. I.E. you need a lawyer to do this see? So in order to get a lawyer you need to be able to contact one. Note: Your right to a lawyer only applies AFTER you have been arestied NOT before. ever heard of the F.B.I.? Those muts try to threaten people with arrest IF they try to talk to a lawyer on occasion. Well now you have someplace to start.

Searched "right to make a phone call" in the New York Times from the date of the phone's invention and found no early instances before 1975. Searched terms{arrest phone call} and found New York Times, June 13, 1914, pg 2, "Arrested, she says police blundered-Woman accused of accosting proves to be the wife of Joseph F. Kantor - Tenant of husband's in West Thirty-Fourth Street, where she was taken, she explains." She had nodded to a man on the street, and a cop arrested her for shady behavior, but she said the man was someone she knew. She asked a reporter to call her husband after she was booked for disorderly conduct. The reporter called her husband who rushed to Night Court and bailed her out. This story implies that in 1914 New York City had no standard "right of the accused to make one phone call," but was the first I found where such a call was shown to be immediately helpful to the arrested, or where the arrested summoned someone to bail her out. Then March 22, 1936, page 22 NY Times,"Heywood Broun is jailed in strike," the reporter Broun, New York columnist, was arested in Milwaukee for labor issues in a strike. He said "I was not allowed my legal right of a phone call, although I kept hollering for it for a couple of hours and began to realize why people go nuts in jail." So by 1936 pepople in Milwaukee had an established, though not always observed, right to make a call. Edison 04:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Found in relation to a 1997 Wisconsin arrest, "There was also an [al]lusion in one of the prior questions to the right to make a phone call. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, that's television. That is not real life. There is no constitutional right a suspect in custody be given permission or given the right to make a phone call." listed at Findlaw at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wi&vol=wisctapp2%5C1q00%5C99-0010&invol=1 It is not immediately whether the Wisconsin appeals court affirmed that the accused had a right to make a phone call. The ACLU and other organizations put out sheets telling people they do have the right to make a phone call (with one hour) but an attorney says there is no constitutional right. So maybe the feds or various states enacted such a law. You may ned to check Westlaw if you are a lawyer or law student or know one.Edison 05:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
IANAL but I suspect this refers to one's right to contact a lawyer for advice (by whatever means). My understanding is that there is no right simply to a phone call, as one could, for example, use it (possibly coded) to tell an accomplice to hide or destroy evidence (or to set off the bomb or whatever).--Shantavira 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
As always, this does not constitute legal advice. Asked a friend to look up "right to make a phone call" in Westlaw. Pennsylvania: in court said it was not a federal right. Ohio: Statutary right to make a phone call, to an attorney or other, to obtain counsel. Can make "a reasonable number" of calls, per RC2935.20. WI: The right to counsel starts when adversayry proceedings start. WA: Arrestee has the right to call and speak with a lawyer. MS: No statutary right to make a phone call, but a defendant alleged a derivatory right from the right to counsel. California: CA Statute Section 851.5 of the Penal Code:defendant has the right to 3 completed calls to attorney, bailbond, relative or other at no charge if local call. Look up the legislative history at a law library. No info on when these laws went into effect. I suspect that if denied the right to make a call to obtain counsel, and questioning continued, Miranda would kick in and make prosecution a bit tricky.Edison 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dystopian tv show about fascist America (circa 1999)[edit]

This is one of those annoying questions that keep you up at night (I expect the reference desk gets alot of those). I'm looking for the name of a television show from the late 1990's. It was set in the near future, in a sort of fascist America (or at least very totalitarian and militarized). It featured a kind of resistance cell of several heroes in Matrix-like attire fighting in bullet time (or a cheaper tv version of the effect). It was clearly a very cheap attempt to cash in on the success of the Matrix by combining its style with a sort of orwellian universe and turned out an insult to both genres. This is what I remember, but some of it may be wrong, as I haven't seen that much of it. I would be delighted if someone could help out, because I'm seriously starting to doubt my own memory. risk 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Was it V (TV series)??? Downunda 22:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No. V I know. Much later, and much less well known (unfortunately). risk 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I managed to find the answer myself with imdb's power search. The show's called Freedom. risk 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it was 1999? Sounds a bit like the evening news (2006).
Some might say that that was not a tv series but reality. Of course I am not one of those people. :) DirkvdM 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

People with framed photographs of themselves?[edit]

Is this a common occurance? I went for a job interview today and I noticed that the guy I saw had a framed professional-looking photo of himself (and only himself - not him with his wife and kids or anything) on his desk. Struck me as a bit odd and slightly funny - anyone else ever seen this sort of thing before? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but that's hysterically vain. Chris 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if he was wearing academic dress and the image was intended to impress his credentials on you, but it seems odd. Rmhermen 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I clean apartments for a living and often people without their own neuclear family will have tons of picures of themselves. I feel sorry for them. One lady even took a black marker and made herself look thinner.

Even sadder if they just leave the pictures in the frames that were in them in the store.
LOL, That would be truly pathetic. DirkvdM 09:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's rather vain to have a framed pic of yourself as you look now, unless it's at a specific event, then the pic is really more of the event than of yourself. Pics of how you looked long ago (such as a child), are a bit different, though. StuRat 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One would hope they are. :) DirkvdM 07:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the last war or battle fought on american soil?[edit]

What was the last war or battle fought on american soil?

Well, there were attacks on North America during World War II, including on the continental United States. Neutralitytalk 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the US territory specifically this would presumably be the battle for Attu in the Aleutian Islands in 1943. White Guard 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The last battle in a U.S. state may have been Pancho Villa's raid on New Mexico on March 9, 1916, four years after New Mexico became a state. Rmhermen 00:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What about the War on Terrorism. Wouldn't 9/11 count as part of that war? JackofOz 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Good question. The 'war on terror' is a war on a stealthy, covert organization. It's really only a war on rhetorical grounds. Regular war, as I think the original poster was inquiring about, is of course with a declared, identifiable entity: a country you can invade. If the US wiped out Osama and all his cronies in Afghanistan, I'm not too confident that it would really cripple its operatives in other countries. Chris 03:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the inmates at Guantanamo should be released, then. The US government is holding them on the basis of being enemy combatants in a war. David Hicks has been held without charge for over 5 years now. I'm sure he and others like him don't think this is rhetorical. JackofOz 03:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Wounded Knee Incident. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 9/11, I would argue that the fight aboard United_Airlines_Flight_93 was the most recent battle on American soil, even though people's feet weren't technically touching the soil. It involved two clearly defined groups, alive at the same time, consciously fighting each other, more or less on behalf of international powers, within the United States. --Allen 05:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If we restrict it to the continental US and exclude 11/9 that would probably be the German attacks on US harbours, which finally gave the US the excuse they had been waiting for to officially join the war. DirkvdM 09:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No, the U.S. declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on the U.S. after the U.S. declared war on Japan after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. No submarine attacks by Germany involved (but see the above-mentioned link to attacks on North America during World War II for more on them.) Rmhermen 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Dirk was referring to World War I. JackofOz 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The last war to have been predominantly fought on U.S. soil was the United States Civil War. The last time a foreign power (as opposed to a rogue force) invaded the U.S. mainland was the War of 1812. Durova 09:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No, the last attack by a warring 'official' enemy was by German submarines during WWII. However, I made a mistake in saying that those attacks were the direct cause for the US joining the war in Europe - that was really caused by Germany declaring war on the US. And according to this page, they only took place after the two countries were already at war. Also, upon rereading the original question, I believe there was never really a battle - The Germans just came in, sank some ships and left before the totally unprepared USians could react. DirkvdM 07:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Both that page and our article on the subject describe a long campaign of off-shore submarine attacks on shipping off the North American coast. There was no battle in a harbor or even any German surprise attack on a harbor. Rmhermen 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I heard on a BBC documentary that there was and I believe it was New York harbour. DirkvdM 09:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A Revolutionary Contraption[edit]

In Paris just after the French Revolution and in early years of the 19th century, whenever it rained, an enterprising young man could earn a penny or two by laying out a plank for people to cross over to the other side of the street without having to wade through the mud. Contemporary writers describe this as "Passez payez" ("Pay and pass" or "Pay up and cross over"). Contemporary prints and paintings show that special planks were used, with two wheels at one end, so that they could be carried around more easily. Two such pictures can be seen in the French Wikipedia article here. So this is my question: Has anybody ever heard of such a contraption, whether in Paris or in any other (presumably European) locality, and if so, does anyone know if it had a name? - Mu 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of this, but the practice of poor people clearing the usually filthy streets to allow ladies and gentelmen to cross was well-established by the ninteenth century. In Britain it took the form of 'crossing-sweepers'-usually the very lowest people in society-who cleared a passage with brooms, not planks. The best example of this is Joe in Charles Dickens' novel Bleak House. White Guard 23:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The young men who used these planks in Paris were known as "décrotteurs" (litterally "demudifiers"), whose job was probably some sort of equivalent of the "crossing-sweepers" you mention. For this, they used brooms and were paid by the State or by the City authorities. But the "Pays and pass" business appears to have been some sort of sideline which they took up on their own initiative and for which they would receive whatever tips those ladies and gentlemen were prepared to give them. It may of course have been a purely local phenomenon and might not have lasted long, so that my question may well not have an answer. But thank you all the same for your reply. Mu 00:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite an informative query!. It's nice -- I like! Chris 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that there's a special name for the wheeled plank, but we have two illustrations of this practice: Image:Passer-payez-Boilly-ca1803.jpg , Image:Passez_Payez.jpg -- Churchh 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

MGS3 Pictures[edit]

I don't know if this question is appropriate but, I'm playing Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and at the top of the radio screen there is a selection of photos you can look at of all the characters, so, does anyone know the total number of extra photos you can get by calling each no. multiple times? (n.b. They star of with 4 photo's each so how many do they end up with) --218.101.117.21 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)