Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 4

Western Wedding Customs Question

My friend is getting married, and I'm in the wedding. These are Midwestern Americans who are christian (Baptist I think). I'm an usher or something like that. Anyways, they're making us pay for our tuxes. Is the father of the bride supposed to cover that, or is he just being cheap. Or am I just bitching about having to pay $140.00 to rent a tux for a day? Here7ic (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the father of the groom cover that? I've been an usher quite a few times in days gone by and never saw a bill. I can't imagine having to pay for one's own tux rental. In the end, you pay for the company you keep. Shouldn't cheap weddings be barefoot in meadows followed by a picnic with Cold Duck or something?--Wetman (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's different in the USA, but over here the ushers and groomsmen pay for their own tuxes and shoes (if they don't have black ones already), and the bridesmaids pay for their own dresses and shoes. The bride's father pays for the reception. The groom's father seems to get off scot free, apart from a handsome wedding present. But it's not set in stone, and where the father of the groom is considerably better off than the father of the bride, he may come to the party with all sorts of costs. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In North America, the customs vary. A lot depends upon who can afford what, much more so than even 50 years ago when the rules were hard and fast. If the wedding is being paid for by the bride's parents (which has been the tradition) that cost does not usually include the bridesmaids' costumes, or those of the groom's party. If the costs are being shared among the various parents and, especially when the couple is older, the couple themselves, there are few rules. In general, it has been my experience that all those in the bridal party, men and women, pay for their own clothes, and a kind bride and groom do not ask for more than their friends can afford. I have known the very wealthy parents of a bride, who was also an only child, pay for absolutely everything, even hotel costs and travel costs for the whole party, but that is rare. It is not an honour, in my view, to be asked to do something that is more than you can afford. The groom's parents, in the traditional wedding, paid for the rehearsal dinner, usually held the night before the wedding, which would include the entire wedding party, the "inner families" and all out-of-town guests. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would only be happy paying if I was the one choosing what to wear (within a given dress code). If the couple wanted me to wear something specific (other than just a very strict, but standard, dress code) - presumably something matching with everyone else, then I would expect them to pay. Depending of circumstances, I might offer to pay, but I would expect them to assume that they're paying. Although, I'll point out (because I'm something of a pedant), you shouldn't be wearing a tux at all - weddings are done in morning wear, not evening wear - that means you should be in top hat and tails, not a tux. --Tango (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Weddings are done in morning wear" - even for an admitted pedant that's going too far. Morning wear is rare these days, and weddings are in fact done in all manner of styles of clothing. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I should have said "traditionally done", but nevertheless, morning wear is more common than evening wear at weddings in my experience (in the UK). People either wear a lounge suit or a morning suit, black tie would be strange. Often only the groom and groomsmen wear morning suits and everyone else just wears a lounge suit. --Tango (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here in the American Midwest, I did my share of wedding duties back in the days when my friends and siblings were walking the plank. As was customary, I paid for my own clothes almost every time. However, as an usher I didn't need to rent a tux—only groomsmen were expected to wear the matching monkey suit, while ushers (who didn't stand up front with the wedding party) could get by with the suit you wore at grandma's funeral. Everyone loses if the tux rental is too expensive, because it means less money for the wedding gift and for, um, "adult entertainment" at the bachelor party. —Kevin Myers 06:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the scale of the wedding and the wealth of the people getting married. If you have been asked to be a part of the wedding and that to be Usher costs you X in suit-hire then you have two options. Pay for the hire and get on with your life, or decline the invitation to be usher. JackOfOz... having been usher on 5 ocassions I have worn a morning-suit on 4 of those ocassions - I guess it depends on the couple as to what you are asked to wear but seems popular to wear morning-suits in the Uk, at least from the weddings i've been to and been involved in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure about rental versions. If anything is bought for someone involved in the ceremony and is more than a single use (for example, a suit, top hat or bridesmaid's dress/shoes), these days the person wearing it is expected to buy it, or make a healthy contribution, because they will have use of it afterwards. One off things (like bridesmaid's hair and make-up) are a part of the wedding costs. Rentals are a different question. For the groom's party, I would suggest a 50/50 split, but for an usher, I'd have thought they would simply wear a suit of their own, rather than a rental tux. It must be a big traditional wedding. I'd politely raise the possibility of a 50/50 split, explaining your financial situation. Steewi (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Free historical trading data

Does anyone know where free historical stock, etc. data can be found? I'd like to have the open, close, low and high for each day, or even the graphs for each hour etc. if possible. Thanks, --Rajah (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All manner of share-trading firms offer historical graphs and charts on stocks. It depends which stock exchange you are wanting the information on. If you tell us the market you are interested in it would help. In the UK places such as www.iii.co.uk allow setting up of free-accounts that can access a decent level of data some of which is exportable to excel. Barclays stockbroking has plenty too but you pay an 'inactivity' fee if you haven't made a trade in x number of months (I think every quarter) so that's not quite 'free'. Alternatively if it is a specific firm you can usually find their investors-relations site and be able to access a wide array of information and data on their share-price and performance. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm interested in US, European, and Asian markets (which covers most, I guess). How would I export this to excel: http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?type=chart&display=chart&code=cotn%3AVOD.L&it=le&timeframe=1y&index=&versus=&linetype=line&overlay=&overlay2=&overlay3=&overlay4=&indicator=&indicator2=&indicator3=&indicator4=&chartwidth=500&Go=Plot ? Or do i have to register first to get that capability? --Rajah (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Would United States help Australia in a War?

If a foreign country tried to conquer Australia, would United States take action by sending military to help Australia. A war would bring many U.S. soldiers' causalities and certainly wouldn't benefit the U.S. Would United States help Australia or would the U.S. leave this international affair alone? Simon81 05:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The United States and Australia are still cooperating in the ANZUS treaty. I think it highly likely that the U.S. would come to Australia's aid. If the aggressor were the People's Republic of China, it's a mortal certainty that the U.S. would help Australia. JamesMLane t c 06:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But there would be protesters chanting "No blood for Midnight Oil!" —Kevin Myers 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There wouldn't be too much bloodshed. The U.S. navy and air force are far stronger than any other potential enemy or combination of enemies in the region and could just interdict the waters and airspace around Oz. Without any way to get resupplied, an invasion force would be relatively easy to mop up (especially by the Australian rules footballers). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this would be the case in the unlikely scenario of a Chinese invasion of Australia. True their military strength is not great but their potential if they used their manufacturing capability would be huge. Fortunately they have enough useless stretches of desert of their own ;-) -- Q Chris (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, US military has it's airforce and the aircraft carriers. However, american military has a serious weakness - the Army. Basically, there are too few foot soldiers and they are not well trained, not well equipped and their morale isn't too high (meaning they are not brainwashed enough). In any kind of serious combat on land this is going to show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese superiority in army numbers would only be an issue if the Chinese could deliver those soldiers to Australia. As stated above, they could be stopped before they arrived. The real problem with a Chinese invasion would be in areas bordering China. Taiwan is one possible area of concern, as China very much wants to conquer it. There is a small stretch of water between China and Taiwan, but that might not be enough to protect it. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the near total lack of an amphibious capability, the PLA would have a very tough time delivering a division onto the island of Taiwan. Since the Taiwan Strait is some of the roughest water in the world, military circles call this strategy "the million man swim." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But when invading a country where they are on the same side as the population, and therefore fighting with resistance forces and militia instead of against, they wouldn't encounter many of the problems which have been of serious concern in Iraq and Afghanistan. Philc 0780 11:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention China would be an invading country. It could be a muslim country that wants Australia. Why would United States want to help Australia and what would that benefit the U.S.? Does Australia have oil? Does Australia give lots of free money to the U.S.? My point is what U.S. going to get out of this war when many U.S. soldiers would sacrifices their lives just for saving Australia. Simon81 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.110.93 (talk)

Politically, it would be impossible for the President to abandon a longstanding ally and fellow democracy. The U.S. would lose an immense amount of prestige. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And militarily it would be impossibly embarrassing to allow a nation under the US's protection to be conquered by an enemy that had already (magic, perhaps?) sneaked past the world's strongest navy. Algebraist 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Australia would describe their alliance with the US as being under US protection... --Tango (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Clarityfiend: "Politically, it would be impossible for the President to abandon a longstanding ally and fellow democracy." I add: Politically, it would be even more impossible for the President to abandon a longstanding ally and fellow democracy where most of the people are white, are Christian, and speak English. I'm not offering this cynical assessment as a defense of our inaction in Darfur; I'm saying only that this is how the politics of it would play out. JamesMLane t c 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that. Australia given it's location is an excellent strategic ally of the US which is important to help them counter the rise of other countries in the Pacific like China & Indonesia Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If history is any guide, the answer is that the U.S. would go to great lengths to protect Australia from a threat of invasion. See Military history of Australia during World War II#War in the Pacific. That article says that Australia was very weakly defended when war with Japan started, due to forces sent to the European conflict, and the U.S. forces arrived in "great numbers" and went on the offensive. The first U.S. forces arrived in early 1942 and over 1 million passed through Australia during the war. The ANZUS treaty remains in effect. Edison (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First reason: Australia fought with America (et al) in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and some smaller conflicts. Second reason: Assuming Australia is attacked, the US has a long history of supporting those who are attacked, if only to ensure that their credibility as a deterrent force remains current. (If the US wouldn't back Australia, why should Japan believe they would be treated any differently? That leads to a nuclear armed Japan, which is against US interests.) Third, all suspects in this "Australia attacked!" scenario are nations with fewer / weaker personal, political, diplomatic, military, financial, familial and religious links to the US. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the US would launch an all out counter attack. Assumptions in this analysis: One of the countries near Australia is the attacker/Strong or historical ally not the attacker/China not involved/State-sponsored nuclear weapons not involved.

Americans have an amazingly intense sense of solidarity with the countries we are allied with. This is helped by the fact that Americans have a strange attraction and liking for Austrailia. In addition, we long for a worthy cause and someone to help who wants our help. I guess that kind of makes us bloodthirsty and bigheaded...for which I have no apologies. The current Iraq War is a major problem in this picture. However, any actual mass invasion is vulnerable to air and sea attack, which I think is not a huge problem at the moment. The problems would be mopping up the enemy troops left. However, any occupation of a country with no support or supply lines would probably be taken care of by the Autrailians themselves. I'm not sure how many own guns.

I would love to hear what others have to say on this subject. --mboverload@ 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would depend on what the various countries had done lately. While America does tend to feel a strong sense of solidarity with those countries it is allied with at the time, it can also be rather fickle and easily angered by what it perceives as rejection or a snub (assuming by 'America' we mean some sort of gestalt of the American people judged by the opinions and views expressed through the media, bumper stickers, the internet, advertising, etc. and which is required to be behind any major, obvious military action) See, for example, America's relationship with France. 79.66.32.107 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Great points. Although quite a few people really do dislike France for some reason the rest of the people just make jokes about hating France. No clue why, they are just easy to pick on =P. However, if France was invaded I think we would respond there as well, assuming that the British could not take care of it. (Sorry - I'm not well versed in the current military buildups in Europe)--mboverload@ 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we now have a great test case. We have presumed that the US would aid Australia in a war because Australia has helped the US in Korea, Vietnam, etc. Now Russian tanks are in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, [1] which sent 2000 soldiers to aid the US in the "Glogal War on Terror" by foghting in Iraq. If the U.S. is a country which stands by its allies, it will provide military aid immediately to its ally Georgia. If the U.S. merely votes for U.N. resolutions "deploring violence," and sends an ambassador to negotiate, then that is the only assistance any other ally might expect if they were invaded. Edison (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

False analogy. There are no "test cases" in international relations. Each situation has unique considerations. Dealing with a nuclear power, for example, is quite different from dealing with a tinpot dictator. The US response to an invasion of Australia would obviously be shaped by who was invading and why. —Kevin Myers 03:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed

Is it true that the only prophet of Islam had intercourse with a nine year old girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For what Wikipedia has on this, see Aisha#Marriage_to_Muhammad and Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha. Some current-day Muslims have cast doubt on the validity of the relevant Hadiths, but Muslims didn't seem to have any real qualms on the topic until it started to become an issue in the modern era of Christian-Muslim controversializing (ca. the early 20th century). By the way, it was nine lunar years (not solar years), which could have been as little as 8 years 8 months and 23 days old in terms of the Gregorian calendar... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst this is doubtlessly trolling - consider this much: Just because that age seems outrageous now doesn't mean that it always has been. Age of consent will have varied over history and varies by country, and what is considered socially awful today may have been normal at some stage in history. It is difficult to look at history without comparing it to our current culturally produced ethics and morals, but we should try to remember that our idea of right and wrong is as much influenced by our current culture and society as theirs were, so we should refrain from being too judgemental of things that now appear wrong - for we will, in the end, potentially be looked back on as living unethical/immoral lives. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but ultra-relativism won't convince many people who weren't already predisposed towards ultra-relativism in the first place. When we hear about a six-year-old boy being married to a four-year-old girl, then we may consider such customs to be quaint and picturesque (though we don't choose to live that way ourselves) -- but when we hear about a twelve-year-old girl being married to a forty-year-old man, then our reaction is much more likely to be one of disgust... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are we trying to convince? This is a reference desk.... --mboverload@ 02:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but Muhammed also had a magical flying donkey and talked to angels, so the whole business probably needs a pinch of salt. --Sean 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying you think her age is just a myth, I don't agree, as marriage at those ages was common back then. I see no reason to doubt the truth of the claims of her age. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nine was a little young in those days . . . but not by much. Ever heard the crude saying "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"? Although the average age of menarche was somewhat older in past centuries (today it's twelve, but nine isn't unheard of), it's possible that this nine-year-old was in fact menstruating and therefore would be considered marriageable in much of the world at that time. Even if she was still in the early stages of puberty, she would have been considered only a couple years shy of womanhood, not little more than an infant as many of us today think of a nine-year-old when it comes to sexuality. And although women throughout most of written history got married in their early to mid-teens (often to men much older), it wasn't necessarily unheard of for a man to marry a younger child (remember, historically marriage was often as much about politics, economics, family connections, or some other strategic advantage as anything else), and the marriage to remain unconsummated until she was of age (say, fourteen or fifteen maybe). - Aletheia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BTWm Muhammad is not the only prophet of Islam. Islam has many prophets such as Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus) Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Karen Armstrong, Aisha was married to Muhammad at a young age, but it was more like an adoption than a marriage(if I recall correctly, she was an orphan, and Muhammad was known for his concern for orphans and widows). There would have been no sex until she hit puberty, at least. 207.233.87.121 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like the Woody Allen version of "adoption". :-) StuRat (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong's book on Muhammad is wonderful; I recommend it. Women and girls of that time had no rights and no property of their own. An orphan would not only have no parents but no security and no clear identity; she'd be a non-person. Adoption or marriage of an unattached female would be an act of compassion and honor. It is also my understanding that Aisha would not have had intercourse until puberty.Quakerlady (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic choral piece

I had this piece of music in my head which I was certain was Orff's O Fortuna. It wasn't, from what I heard on youtube. I'll try to describe part of it, and the description will be horrible, but singing it would be even worse.

Choir, ascending, on the 2 and 3 of a 1-2-3 rhythm: . da da . da da . da da - daaaaaa! (long held note, at which point there is a flurry of notes from someone in the orchestra)

It's a famous, rather dramatic piece, probably used in lots of soundtracks and such. I'd like to get the name right. Thank you! iames (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That description sounds like it would fit the very end of O Fortuna. But if it isn't, some other very famous dramatic choral movements you might try are the Dies Irae from Verdi's Requiem and the Kyrie and Dies Irae from Mozart's Requiem. Strad (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I can see how the end sounds like my description. Probably why I thought Orff in the first place! It's not the fragment I had in mind, though. iames (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In your "transcription", are the dots before the "da da"s rests? If they are, I think I know what that song is, but, of course, I can't remember the name (and no, it's not O Fortuna). And now it's stuck in my head! Is there some groovy way to do musical notation on wikis? If not, let me get to my keyboard, and I'll at least figure out the notes to what I'm hearing in my head, and we can see if we're thinking of the same thing... Dgcopter (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A fine transcription, isn't it. Yes, they were meant to be rests, and the orchestra plays a descending kind of run under the choir's held note, and that whole phrase is repeated a number of times. We're probably thinking the same thing. iames (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's sounding more and more like this. Strad (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I get why you'd think that ... in fact, the piece in my head (and, I'm assuming, Iames' head) does sound kind of like the Verdi, but it's definitely not. I made a crappy .midi file of what I'm hearing. My feeling is it's something Russian, but I can't place it. Here's the link to the aforemention crappy (and probably horribly mangled, but good enough to get the general idea) midi file: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=39541a9e07a1dc511686155677bb26850721e0f3f870dea1 Dgcopter (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the Polovetsian Dances by Borodin to me. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. One of the more lyrical themes in the dances was made into the song "Stranger in Paradise" (or, if you prefer the alternative words, "Take my gland, you're a strange looking parasite"). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, that's exactly it! My "transcription" would begin at say 3:30 of this: [2] iames (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto! Dammit, I even looked up Polovetsian Dances before I did that midi file, and I thought, "nah, can't be that". D'oh! Thanks, all! Dgcopter (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The melody you describe is indeed theme D from Polovetsian Dance #17 from Alexander Borodin's opera "Prince Igor". Thomprod (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

California's name change by usage method

California is a state that allows individuals to do a name change by the "usage method"; that is, by using the desired new name in ALL contexts, a person can claim that as his or her legal name. Does anyone know how far the usage method may be taken to extend? For example, if a person who has changed his or her name by usage wishes to have a state ID card issued in his or her new name (which requires the presentation of a social security card and birth certificate), would the Department of Motor Vehicles be obliged to respect that person's wishes if he or she could prove that he or she had consistently and exclusively used the new name for a period of several years? (If so, what sort of proof would be necessary?) Or would this person still be required to go through the courts to obtain a "legal" name change in order to get his or her name changed on the social security card and birth certificate first? (Is it possible to use the usage method to change the social security card and birth certificate as well? And if not, just how valid is the so-called "name change by usage" anyway?) - Aletheia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about Californian law, but it seems like a very odd way to change a name - surely you can't use your new name in all contexts without it being your legal name, otherwise the phrase "legal name" is meaningless... --Tango (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. Supposedly California law allows this method, but not so far as to change the birth certificate and social security card. So, for example, an individual could be known to family and friends and do business by her chosen name and be able to claim it as her legal name, but would still have to have her birth name on her driver's license, school registration, insurance papers, etc., unless she went through the courts. I think this is an inconsistency on the part of California law. By the way, it is possible to use one's chosen name even in contexts in which indicating one's birth name is called for, by using an "aka"; for example, one could sign one's name "Chosen Name (aka Birth Name)," and as such be able to claim the "use in all contexts" required by the usage method. - Aletheia

Did George VI ever have a coronation portrait?

Most monarchs seem to have lavish coronation portraits. Did George VI have one also? If Elizabeth II coronation portrait was painted in 1953 why is it not public domain? Surely the 50 yrs are up? --217.227.90.214 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

I'd be surprised if George VI hadn't. As to the copyright status, paintings are creative works, and as with most such things are copyrighted for the life of the artist plus seventy years. Elizabeth II's coronation portrait certainly can't be public domain, in this case, unless it was painted by someone twenty years dead! Shimgray | talk | 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This site claims that Jean de Botton was "the official painter at the coronation of H.M. King George VI in 1937." (By the way, the crown copyright article suggests that for items covered by letters patent, the reproduction rights in the copyright never expire. Not to say that's necessarily the case with a royal portrait.) OtherDave (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, excuse my "copyright ignorance", but I still can't find the portrait in question...Surely the portrait is widespread? [Elizabeth II]'s portrait is after all very famous...even if it isn't allowed on wikipedia ; p --Cameron* 09:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have no idea whether an official portrait would be covered by letters patent. My side point was that copyright protection varies from country to country. As for George's portrait, I have no idea why you can't find it. One possibility is that it's not very good.

I also have no idea if this portrait is de Botton's, but I wouldn't want it in my living room. OtherDave (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That picture is by Gerald Festus Kelly. See [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think it is a state portrait, rather than a coronation portrait (it is very similar to the state portrait of Queen Elizabeth done at the same time, and His Late Majesty is not wearing his crown, nor is he in coronation robes). DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks alot! I think that could just be it. It is certainly in similar fashion: holding the sceptre, with the crown placed nearby! Thanks! --Cameron* 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) At the risk of being pedantic, the first portrait of Queen Victoria was painted in the 1850s, and is not her coronation portrait. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected; I merely wished to illustrate the similarity between the portraits. I really mean coronation/state portraits :). --Cameron* 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ismene

Does she appear in anything else besides the Three Theban Plays? Does anyone ever write down how she dies? Ye Olde Luke (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to see Ismene and Three Theban plays. According to these, Ismene appears in Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

August 5

Why is Sweden considered the most irreligious?

I just stumbled upon the Irreligion page, and it had a picture showing how "unimportant" religion was, with Sweden being at the top of the list. Yet I can find no reason on the Sweden article for its irreligiosity being so high. If anything, it seems the opposite, since an official "Freedom of Religion" act wasn't accepted until 1959... any idea?

Much help appreciated ! -=- Xhin -=- (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

All I know about Sweden comes from the bikini team but there is the possibility that the passage of the act was simply a "cleaning house" sort of law. It could have been that nobody really paid attention to anyone's religious choices and then finally someone came along who bothered to lobby hard enough to get it put into writing. Dismas|^(talk) 05:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What sometimes happens in countries with state religion (the Church of Sweden was the state church until 2000) is that citizens list themselves as religious for purposes of culture or tradition, even if they don't necessarily believe in God. Strad (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw a TV interview with a BNP thug who said "We hate the Mozzies (Muslims) coz were Church of fucking England!". I thought, yes - I wonder when you last went to Church. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See Religion in Sweden and note that the number of Swedes who regard religion as "non-important" is higher than the number who is not religious. See [4]. Religion plays a small role in Sweden, even for many Christians. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

One reason might be a high level of education. Science, in particular, often stands at odds with many religious teachings, so people with scientific training are somewhat less likely to believe. Conversely, religious individuals are less likely to endorse science. StuRat (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps Finland should be the highest in this? Their education scores routinely beat Sweden - much to the dismay of the Swedes. I don't think education will have a major impact - much more so will be the setup of a national culture. PLaces such as France and the US that have a republican model of citizenship would - I assume - have higher levels of practicing believers (in whatever faith) than a country with a more participatory citizenship model (I forget if that is the name of the model that is regularly used to describe Sweden and don't have my textbooks with me to check). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Republican model of citizenship? Republic just means a country doesn't have a monarchy (more or less) and can vary from Switzerland to the US to China or Cuba (see User:Mwalcoff if you're still confused). Sweden has a monarchy so they indeed aren't a republic but this doesn't really seem to be what you are getting at. Are you thinking more of the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy (or perhaps that Sweden has a more participatory democracy)? Personally I'm not convinced it's the biggest factor. Education definitely has a role, as does history, culture and a variety of other factors probably including size. The level of immigration is also a factor since immigrants from Africa, South Asia, most of South East Asia, West Asia/the Middle East, the Pacific Islands and South/Central America are more likely then the older population to be religious.

Japan for example has a rather low level of religion, probably primary because of history. New Zealand while not that compared to Sweden and others (although note the actual level could be higher or lower because it's based purely on the census results with ~13% that didn't answer) is significantly higher then other anglophile Western countries probably a mix of history, culture and size. Both these have (AFAIK for Japan) rather limited levels of partipatory/direct democracy. Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

History of religion - second map down may answer your question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.160.78 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

...per the question above

Why is Sweden considered the most irreligious?

Is there correlation between climate or geographic location and religious belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.160.78 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this troll. 194.50.118.230 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

...yes, I decided not to go with Communism so very much ignore me and go with the Pot Head from Amsterdam instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.160.78 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how this is trolling, but anyway, a quick look at Image:Europe belief in god.png suggests that there is a weak correlation with latitude and belief in god in Europe. It doesn't really mean anything though... Philc 0780 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the trolling comment comes from this diff. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To expound, correlation does not imply causation. — Lomn 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only to the degree that causation is accompanied by correlation such that a positive correlation may suggest the possibility of a cause/effect relation which must then be investigated.

In the case of belief in God those geographic locations which have a high percentage of belief may simple have developed laws, etc. for a longer period of time around that belief or because it serves a particular social need better. Not to speculate, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.162.249 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra Terrestrial Contact - USA Government Reaction?

What if extra terrestrial beings came down to earth and contacted a major US TV station and announced that they are here just to visit and come in peace and what not. How do you think the US Government would react? --Anilmanohar (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the Reference Desk is not to engage in speculation. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK then. Does the US Government have any SOP's in situations like this? --Anilmanohar (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean Standard operating procedure and not Sales and Operations Plan. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Zain..--Anilmanohar (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming BTW- there are a large contingent of Russians left over from the Cold War who have invaded the robotics programs at Carnegie-Mellon and Georgia Tech that the US government has no idea what to do with except to send them looking for work at the JPL.

I don't know about the US government, but the International Astronomical Union has a "declaration of principles" on what to do if extra-terrestrial life is found. It's generally based on the assumption that the discovery will be of a signal, rather than them actually visiting, though. It's described in Patrick Moore's Atlas of the Universe, but it's probably online somewhere too, I can't seem to find it, though (there seem to be other similar things by other organisations as well). The basic idea seems to be to verify the signal, notify various authorities and then once people are certain about what they're detecting, announce it to the world. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The USA used to have This NASA policy covering "Extra-terrestrial Exposure" but it's more "Andromeda Strain" and less "The Day the Earth Stood Still". In any case, it's gone now. APL (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of computers

where can I find out how many computers are used by the Vatican? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.160.78 (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you can find that out anywhere. In fact, I'd be surprised if even the Vatican knew that exactly. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Six hundred and sixty six perhaps? -- Q Chris (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by a computer anyway. Does a PDA count? What about a smart mobile? What about a calculator? Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Desktop or perhaps laptop in the role of a desktop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.162.249 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a Fermi problem. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook notes the number of hosts (they define this as a computer directly connected the internet) is 20; see [5]. That number seems a bit low, but its a start. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What's profitable about common stocks that don't pay dividends?

Right now I'm trying to learn finance on my own, so I'm asking a basic question. I've read that some companies issue common stocks but they will never pay dividends to the stockholder. If so, how can the stockholder profit?199.76.152.250 (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stockholders are always dependent on receiving some kind of return from their stock, which for long-term holders must come either from dividends or from capital transactions (e.g., a sale of the company). Many companies do not currently pay dividends, typically because the company is in a growth or turnaround mode. The expectation, however, is that the company will provide returns to holders in the future. In the meantime, holders can realize on their stock only by selling it; if the company's plans for growth are realized, its increased value will be reflected in a higher stock price.

The above is for public companies. Many private companies deliberately never pay dividends, because they provide returns to their owners in a more tax-efficient manner, typically through salaries. John M Baker (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Capital gains, I would think. There may also be a class of non-dividend stock with special voting privileges which would be a different (not directly monetary) kind of reward. Rmhermen (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you know for certain that a comany will never pay dividends then the only value that I can see would be that someone would eventually buy the stock for its voting rights in order to influence the company. Note that the directors can't reliably say that they're never going to pay a dividend because they don't last forever and such comments are not likely to increase their tenure. They may have said "for the foreseeable future" which usually implies that larger dividends can be expected later on. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

When a company doesn't pay dividends they instead invest all their profits in expansion. There is a limit to how much any company can expand, so sooner or later the company will either fail, or it will have to start giving money to its shareholders (not necessarily as dividends, it could be through buyback of shares or the whole company being bought out, or maybe some other methods I can't think of). The current value of the stock is based on what people expect it to pay out in the future. You don't have to actually wait until it starts paying out to make profit, though, you can just wait for the share price to go up (assuming it does!) and then sell the shares. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some types of stock which never give a dividend and a company may issue several types of stock with different privileges. Tax advantages are also a reason to not issue dividends.[6] Rmhermen (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The OP specifically said "common stock", so stock with extra voting rights wouldn't count. There are plenty of advantages to not pay dividends, but sooner or later any company is going to have to return money to its shareholders, otherwise the shares would have no value. As I said, that doesn't have to be through dividends (it could even be by liquidating the company and sharing out the proceeds), but it has to happen. --Tango (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that that is true. Specifically that "sooner or later any company is going to have to return money to its shareholders, otherwise the shares would have no value", the stock has value as long as the company has value and people are willing to buy the stock. Rmhermen (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Common stock that never will pay dividends doesn't exist. Theoretically, if it does, the voting rights may have value if people are "willing to buy the stock" for those rights. Nothing else that I can see - would you be willing to buy a piece of paper that gave you no voting rights and you were certain that it would never pay dividends? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if I were a risk tolerant long-term investor and I thought the capital value of the stock would increase and especially so if I preferred capital appreciation to income. A stock issuer is not obliged to pay dividends. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I own several stocks that do not pay dividends. Whether they theoretically will in the future is unknown. The reason to purchase such stocks is the belief that the share price will increase, at which point the stock can be sold for a profit. I do have voting rights, and I try to use them intelligently when I have the opportunity, however ultimately I want the price to go up so I can sell and have money for beer. --LarryMac | Talk 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Gandalf: I'm talking about a theoretical common stock that was certain to never pay dividends. Without voting rights, why would such a stock have any capital value? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Capital value is determined by the market price of the stock i.e. by what other investors are willing to pay for it. At a minimum, this will be related to the net asset value or liquidation value of the company, and generally it will be higher as potential investors factor in future growth prospects. If a company is trading succesfully and profitably and is reinvesting its profits sensibly in, say, R&D, new product lines or acquisitions then the net asset value of the company and the value of its stock will increase even if it is not paying dividends. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But how would the market treat the stock of that company if it was structured to never ever pay a dividend and carry no voting rights but similar to common stock in all other respects? For example, if the prospectus explicitly stated that no dividends will ever be paid. I would say that this theoretical stock has no value. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The market value of a company's stock can never fall much below the company's net asset value - if it did, an asset stripper could take out a bank loan, buy all the company's shares, liquidate the company's assets. pay off its liabilities, repay the bank loan and still make a profit on the deal. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(rm indent)Yes, but in this (extremely theoretical) case, the asset stripper won't have any voting rights after buying the shares and so can't make the decision to sell off any assets. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back a few steps. You said "common stock that never will pay dividends doesn't exist". You are technically correct in the sense that a company cannot guarantee that it will absolutely never will pay dividends on its stock in the future. However, stocks that have never in the past paid dividends certainly do exist, and are still a good investment for certain types of investor even while they continue not to pay dividends. That's all I'm saying. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then I agree with you. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have received a prospectus for a stock guaranteed to never pay a dividend and not to carry voting rights. Although I can't say for certain that it was called a "common stock", it was the IPO and only existing stock of the company. Rmhermen (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote: Wow, our business articles are poor. Two sentences for common stock? Rmhermen (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Futher nudity question

As I said in my previous question, I don't have a problem going around nude among strange people in situations where nudity is expected, for example on a nude beach. In such a situation, I don't care whatsoever who sees me nude. I do care, however, whom I see nude. I prefer seeing nude women over seeing nude men. It's not such a big problem if I see nude men, but I think nude women are more attractive, so I tend to focus on them.

So my question here is two-fold: Is this typical for men who don't have a problem going nude in social nudity situations themselves? And secondly, what about women in such situations? JIP | Talk 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the majority of men and women are heterosexual, so I'd say, yes, it's typical. Of course, it's not unusual for a heterosexual person to appreciate attractiveness in someone of their own sex, even if they are not personally attracted to the person. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any major difference between men and women regarding whom they want to see nude? JIP | Talk 04:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the beach. Just the beach without people. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That rather defeats the point of social nudity, doesn't it? =)

My question was obviously only in the context of social nudity events. Do women care more, or less, about who see them nude and whom they see nude? JIP | Talk 16:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You'e righht, it does. I was brief, but usually people being naked don't look so hot when they're just going about using everyday actions. Staging the body can help with the beauty look, but to answer your question about what people prefer to see nude, it's pretty general and depends on what one person believes is attractive and the range is huge. As for diff between sexes, isn't it commonly argued that men are more voyeuristic than women? Can't speak for myself. I understand what conventional beauty is (classical, trendy, eye candy etc), but appreciate unconventional beauty. As to what attracts moi, it's complicated by more than visuality. :) And for women who care or not about being seen nude, it's about personal boundaries, physical confidence, peer pressure, conditioning etc with huge variations. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We are getting off the topic here. My question was about the difference between men and women in social nudity situations, not about what makes someone beautiful or what women look for in men. Although I tend to agree that nude people don't look as visually attractive when they're just going around on normal business than when they're explicitly staged and performing. Based on my own feelings, and the replies here, in social nudity situations, men don't care about the sex of those who see them nude, but they themselves prefer seeing nude women. Do women in such situations view nude men and nude women equally, or do they also prefer seeing nude men? JIP | Talk 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I live in America, where social nudity hardly exists, but I think you might be mixing your terms. You talk about "social nudity" and "preference." Doesn't social nudity mean being nude and basically ignoring that fact that everyone is exposing their sex organs, just going about your business? So it shouldn't matter whom you see nude (or who's seeing you nude), and therefore in a social-nudity situation there isn't a preference about whom you're seeing. By that reasoning, you can completely eliminate the whole nudity aspect of the question and say "Men don't care about the sex of those who see them nude, but they themselves prefer seeing nude women. Do women in such situations view nude men and nude women equally, or do they also prefer seeing nude men?" which is kind of a pointless question. If you insist on including the nudity aspect, then you're asking a question about sexuality, and then you can find your answer by considering hetersexuality, homosexuality, and the differences in how men and women are visually sexually stimulated.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's go back to the basic point of my original question. As a heterosexual man, I am visually sexually stimulated by women. But as for men, it's the contrary - I find them un-stimulating. Heterosexual women generally also find men visually sexually stimulating, but is it common for heterosexual men and women to find their own sex un-stimulating, or are they just indifferent about it? For me, this aspect is still present in social nudity situations. JIP | Talk 05:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When you differentiate between "un-stimulating" and indifferent, do you mean that you find it uncomfortable around nude men? (I mean, if you're not indifferent and you're not stimulated, but rather "un-stimulated", that strikes me as an important distinction.)

Anyway, I can tell you that it's very common for the heterosexual men and women I know to hang around nude in social situations -- us Finns and our saunas being what they are -- with no problem or discomfort whatsoever when members of their own sex are present, but I know that's hardly universal. Certainly, things like anti-gay sentiment, sexual insecurity and cultural standards play a huge part in this. Then again, I also know that for some heterosexual people the opposite is true -- they're comfortable with being nude with people of their own sex (the classic example would probably be a gym's locker room), but if a person of the opposite sex comes around, they get very uncomfortable because they are used to associating sexual situations with those situations, and obviously that's pretty inappropriate if the environment is decidedly non-sexual. I really don't think you're going to get any kind of an universal answer on this one; it's all a question of what people are used to. I mean, for example, I know that for a lot of people seeing their parents or siblings naked under any circumstances is a big thing. For me, it means nothing; I've been sharing saunas with them all my life. But that's a question of culture and context. If I see my mom naked in the sauna, it's a non-issue; if I were to stupidly barge in on her when she (or anyone else, for that matter) was about to get intimate with someone, that would be a completely different situation, and my reaction would change accordingly.

But I don't think this is a built-in thing, it's just how I've learned to be. If I spent a lot of time in a different culture, it would probably influence the way I feel about it, at least when I'm a part of that culture. And by "culture" I don't really mean a national culture (though certainly that has an impact as well), but rather the culture of my social circles. People can adapt to this kind of thing fairly easily, if they're just willing to do so. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, that is what I meant by "un-stimulating", more or less. It's actually only that I find the sight of male genitals unattractive. I'm comfortable with the rest of the male body (heck, with what men wear on public beaches and swimming pools, I'd have to be). So when I look at a nude man, I tend to focus on the face or the chest instead. It's not such a big problem that I'd actually have to make an effort not to look at them. It's nothing to do with anti-gay sentiment or cultural standards, quite the opposite. It's purely aesthetic.

As for saunas, as a Finn, I enjoy saunas, and take pretty much every opportunity to go to one - either alone, in all-male company, or in mixed company, it doesn't matter. (I've not tried it yet in all-female company, though.) I just counted that I have gone to saunas with six different organisations, and the only ones that have been all-male have been with my workplace and with my civilian service place. JIP | Talk 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 6

Art for the Beatles Magical Mystery Tour Album

Who did the artwork for the Beatles album Magical Mystery Tour ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.140.131 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

John Van Hamersveld [7] ---Sluzzelin talk 08:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

silver trophies

SILVER TROPHIES ARE KEPT IN THE OFFICERS MESS. CAN U HELP ME IN TRACING THE ORIGIN OF KEEPING SILVER IN THE MESSES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsgusain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to SHOUT!! Secondly, this question was asked just the other day and the response was basically that the mess hall is the best place for everyone in the company/platoon/etc to see the trophy. Dismas|^(talk) 09:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The silverware would obviously improve the visual appeal of the officers' mess. More importantly, the mess silver would be a visual education in the history and traditions of the regiment - as each piece would commemorate a battle, or a former officer, and pieces could be pointed out to new officers, who would be encouraged to learn the history of how the piece came to be in the mess. This helps develop camaraderie and a sense of shared history among the officers. I understand that in some regiments, on certain days the Sergeants would be invited to the officers' mess, and they would likewise be instructed in the regiment's history, with the use of the mess silver as a visual aid. DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Officers would also mark important moments in their career or life (promotion, marriage etc) with gifts to their brother officers, often in the form of items for the mess - again, this helps cement the bonds between officers, encouraging their loyalty to one another and to the regiment as a whole

31st April

In Harold Nicolson's Diaries and Letters (3 Vols, Collins, 1968), Vol II, p. 224 and 225, he twice uses the date April 31st, 1942. The first time in a letter to Vita Sackville-West the second time, in an entry to his diary on that - non existing? - date. I've started a discussion on this strange matter on nl-wiki (here) but no one seems to know the answer to this question.. Why did Nicolson use a non existing date? And why did his son Nigel, who edited the volumes, leave it in print? Is there anyone out here who knows the answer? Thanks! RJB-nl (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

According to History Today, there was an April 31st, 1942 [8]. DuncanHill (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a redirect for April 31 just in case. A google search for "april 31" shows this is a common mistake - though most hits are false positives. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be a mistake, but if it is, it's a strange mistake.. Besides'- if there was a 31 April 1942 - I want to know why.. RJB-nl (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you buy this essay? April 31, 1942 THE SURRENDER OF BATAAN!. This person died on April 31 1942. There is a book showing 31 April 1942. Am I going mad or did someone slip an extra day in when everyone was distracted by WWII? -- Q Chris (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There was also a restructuring of part of the Indian railway network on 31st April 1942 [9]. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And according to one site Between 16 March and 31 April 1942, Yorktown was the only American carrier standing between the advancing Japanese and Australia. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's bizar! But still we don't know why... RJB-nl (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Another devious trick by the noted APRIL L. troll? S/he has gained control over the space-time continuum! We are doooomed... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"On 31 April 1942 the ships in a Japanese assault force shelled the island.." page 27 of[10]. The Russian Lozovskii wrote to Shcherbakov on April 31, 1942. (p382)[11]. Someone was "admittedly an employee of defendants from April 31, 1942 to October 24, 1942" according to Federal Court documents [12]. It was a day much like any other day... in the Twilight Zone. Edison (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because of the war they decided to avoid all that time and effort wasted on 1s6 April and so started with 2nd April? Besides 1st April might be rather risky when you receive a phone call that the Japanese/Germans invaded somewhere so you send out your bombers only to find out you've just bombed your own guys thanks to that prankster recruit you've been iching to send on a suicide mission Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt this is unique to 1942. Googling "June 31", "September 31", and "November 31", for example, turn up quite a few errors as well. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an emale to professor Holford-Strevens, co-author of Oxford Companion to the Year: an exploration of calendar customs and time-reckoning and this is his reply:

Dear Mr *,

There certainly was no such day, even in the Soviet Union; what the correct date should be may :well vary from case tro case. But might not Nicholson have meant that his letter was to be :confidential, much as one may say 'This conversation has not taken place'?

Yours sincerely

Leofranc Holford-Strevens

I'm afraid this still does not solve the issue.. 77.60.189.89 (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So the OUP are part of the conspiracy as well? DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Patrick Dennis receive a letter dated June 31st from his Auntie Mame. I can imagine making the same error myself: "yesterday was the thirtieth...".--Wetman (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused, I thought yesterday was the fifth. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly April 31 is another name for May 1, just as April 0 is another name for March 31. It's unambiguous, so why not? -- BenRG (talk) 20:56, 5454 September 1993 (UTC)

A bit off topic: Designing a database for medical patients some years back I was stunned to discover that - in specific circumstances - local health insurances apply birth dates with the months numbered 13, 14 and so on. A patient whose date of birth was unknown (generally refugees who had fled their war torn countries without any documents), could easily be born on the 06/13/19xx (in Imperial dd/mm/yyyy format). Not surprisingly, this caused a whole stack of awkward hassles. I am still curious to find out what the proper names of these virtrual months would have been. Not that December for the 12th month seems particularly logical... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"In Latin, decem means "ten". December was also the tenth month in the Roman calendar until a monthless winter period was divided between January and February.". From December --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Right! That explains why Harold Nicolson introduced April 31st! :-}

If you wastedspent more time at WP:UA, you would know that the 13th month is Undecimber. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack to the rescue with the answer. All these people are my friends and neighbours in Wonderland, where dates such as 30 February and 12 Never occur whenever we want them to, so why not 31 April. In Wonderland there is no recorded instance of any mistake or error on any subject whatsoever having ever occurred. The words "mistake" and "error" appear in dictionaries, because we are widely read and the words sometimes appear in books from under-developed cultures such as the USA, the UK and a funny little country called Australia, but almost nobody here knows what they mean when we encounter them because the concept of non-perfection is just so extraordinary and counter-intuitive to us. We have an active inbound tourism program, and visas are available without question to all applicants for a mere W$1 billion.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that Wonderland dollars or Wikipedia dollars? Algebraist 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you say "Wikipedia"? What's that? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a neutral country lacking a point of view, located at the other end of your wardrobe. Unlike here, in the Northern Hemisphere, where a stroll through my wardrobe can take me to the equator and eventually to your shores, particulary on The 35th of May (written almost two decades before The Chronicles of Narnia, by the way). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 7

Contemporary Authors

Just wondering, what are the inclusion criteria for those Contemporary Authors books published by Gale? Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact sheet, accessible from this Gale page states that Contemporary Authors covers:

"Current writers of fiction, nonfiction, poetry and drama whose works have been issued by commercial publishers, risk publishers or university presses."

"Prominent print and broadcast journalists, editors, photojournalists, syndicated cartoonists, screenwriters and more."

And, expanding the meaning of the title:

"Literary greats of the early 20th century whose works are popular in today's high school and college curriculum."

---Sluzzelin talk 04:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I saw all that, but browsing through the online version, it seems that their inclusion criteria are at least somewhat narrower than what is listed above. There are plenty of writers published by commerical publishers who aren't listed. Does anyone have any more insight into the selection process? Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Isis adventure

Hi I have an Isis Puzzleball and I paid to access the decryption files and this is what they gave me but I don't get what its on about:

[Q=E] [T=N] [J=T] [S=U] [N=R] [F=G] [P=O] [K=A] [O=C] [Z=P] [M=H] [I=S] [H=I] [R=L] [B=K] [A=D] [C=M] [W=B] [X=F] [L=W] [U=Y] [Y=V] [V=J] [D=X] [G=Q] [E=Z]

any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.6.191 (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I have any experience with the product in question, but this seems like a pretty simple substitution cypher to me -- so if you have a encrypted message that says "IQONQJ", you can use the decryption guide above to reveal the secret. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But the isis ball is in hieroglyphs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.6.191 (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I don't have any experience with the product in question. If you can provide a picture of the thing or describe it in detail, or provide a link to the manufacturer's site, or something, that might help, of course. Or you might want to consider contacting the party you bought the decryption files from in the first place. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a one of these [13]. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And we have an article Isis Adventure. DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article, you need to use the substitution cypher to decrypt the clues in the book you got with the ball. Those clues should then help you decode the ball itself. But that's just based on reading the article (and the website, but that's busy sounding mythical and mysterious). 79.66.38.215 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Among the liberators of the Auschwitz KL

I'm trying to verify (and expand) the name of a Maj. Gen. A.D. Goncharov, who according to my sources was "Chief of Staff of the Soviet Red Army's 60th Army in the 1st Ukrainian Front, that liberated Auschwitz." He appears in this photo (in uniform, standing beside Polish Premier Józef Cyrankiewicz) on April 11, 1965, at a memorial assembly marking the 20th anniversary of the camp's liberation. Perhaps my unsuccessful searching is due to inaccurate details? The pages for the 1st Ukrainian Front and Marshal Ivan S. Konev, its commander at that time, don't mention Auschwitz among their accomplishments; info on the 60th Army remains elusive.-- Thanks for your help, Deborahjay (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

These sources talk about the 60th Army and the 1st Ukrainian Front liberating Auschwitz: [14] [15] [16] Corvus cornix_talk 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Idenity

Greetings & Bonjour

As the British Government increasingly gave Canada sovernity, can it be said that Canadians increasingly sought the meaning to what it means to be Canadian.

Merci & Thanks, Ed Wenzl —Preceding unsigned comment added by "Fog46Horn" (talk • contribs) 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Anything can be said - especially by random strangers on the Internet. Are you asking if respected historians have gone on record as saying this? -- kainaw™ 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I am looking for a scholarly response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by "Fog46Horn" (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

75Janice (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadian identity addresses this somewhat, though perhaps not as conclusively as you are looking for. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A google scholar search such as this might help ... you can generally at least get to abstracts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A book that briefly touches on this topic is The Shaping of America, Vol. 3: Transcontinental America, 1850-1915, by D.W. Meinig. He writes about how issues of nationality and what it means to be Canadian took on increasing significance as the Dominion came into being. The issue goes back farther, to things like the War of 1812 and, naturally, the American Revolution. Some of his main points about the topic include the knowledge that Canada would never reach a balance of power with the United States, and necessarily defines itself to some degree as "not being the US". Also Canada faced, and still faces, some major sectional differences, the most obvious being French Quebec. The geography of North America tends to have north-south axis patterns (mountain ranges, etc), making it harder for Canada to forge an east-west national identity. Meinig mentions two books from the turn of the 20th century, when the issue of Canadian identity was "hot". These books are Canada and the Canadian Question, Goldwin Smith (1891), and Americanization of Canada, Samuel E. Moffett (1907). These books apparently get into the topic in depth and offer quite different visions of the future of Canada. Pfly (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What's gonna happen to Obama's senate seat?

Here's something I've been quietly wondering about. US senators serve for six years, right? And Obama assumed office in 2004? So he's got two years left. I assume that if he loses the election, he's going to go back to it, right? I mean, John Kerry did. But if he wins, he's going to have to resign his seat, because of the whole divisons-of-power, can't-hold-office-in-two-different-branches-of-government-at-the-same-time thing. So, what's going to happen to it? Is Illinois going to have to hold a new election? What happens in the mean time, does he have some sort of "vice-senator" that assumes his office?

(as you may gather from this question, I'm not american, so I wasn't educated on the basics of american government in school :) 195.58.125.67 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The quick answer is that aside from federal constitutional considerations, Illinois law will determine the method. As a poltical science major in college I am familiar with special elections and appointment by the governor. I don't have the time now to research the Illinois code. The code will specify the method. I'm sorry this could not be more comprehensive. Widows of deceased Senators are frequently appointed by governors to fill the rest of their deceased husband's terms. I'm being sexist. The spouse. Sorry I did not have time for the actual answer.75Janice (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The governor of Illinois has the power to appoint a replacement who would fill out the remainer of Obama's term, which this article says runs through the election of 2010. And don't fret -- many Americans don't know how this works, either. (The reason for the 2010 business: the Senate as a whole is divided into three classes based on staggered terms. One-third of the senate is up for election every two years. When there's an unexpired term to fill, it's filled for the rest of the term to keep that seat in its appropriate class.) Same is true for McCain's seat (his term also runs through 2010); if he resigned after the November election, the governor of Arizona would pick a replacement. Under Arizona law, however, the replacement would have to be of the same party as McCain. OtherDave (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While Illinois law may not specify that Obama's replacement must be of the same party, in fact he almost certainly will be, since the governor who will appoint Obama's replacement, Rod Blagojevich, like Obama, belongs to the Democratic Party and so will almost certainly appoint a Democrat. Marco polo (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How interesting. In Australia we changed our constitution in 1977 to ensure that a replacement senator (chosen by the State parliament or governor) is always from the same party as the senator who resigned, died or whatever. But then, it took a Prime Minister to be chucked out of office to bring that issue into stark focus, so maybe it's not such an issue in the USA. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted in an earlier question on this page, it is a state by state issue and in fact Alaska just removed this power from their governor after Frank Murkowski appointed his own daughter as replacement Senator after he resigned the post himself to become Governor. Rmhermen (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Blagojevich could in fact appoint Blagojevich as Senator. Or he could appoint any other qualified person. Governors typically appoint someone from their own party, such as U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, who has said she is interested in moving up to the Senate position if Obama gets elected President [17], ot perhaps one of 9 other contenders named by National Public Radio [18]. Edison (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Religions seeking temporal immortality

Many religions believe immortality can be acquired in some other place (heaven etc). Are there any religions that believe immortality can be achieved on earth? Are there any religions that actively pursue immortality? Some kind of alchimists or something along the Nicholas Flamel line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.106.208 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but I had a good belly laugh when I misread the header as "temporary immortality". Thanks for brightening my day. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And, naming no names, there are many that acquire temporal immorality. To answer your question though (sorry for being facetious) there's Count of St. Germain and the group that specialised in studying ascension on earth type stuff can be found in the reading lists at the end of the article. Does Theosophy count? Writers there seem to advance similar immortality now theories. Now you've introduced Nick Flamel, I'll look it up. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This site might interest you[19]. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Would metempsychosis count as serial temporal immortality? OtherDave (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There's even an article on it. And then there's another form for some, fame as in going down in history. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious and Folk Taoism has historically actively pursued the idea of immortality (through not aging and dying rather than the inability to be wounded). Steewi (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see life extension and Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. --Allen (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Immortality#Mystical and religious pursuits of physical immortality also lists the Aghoras, Rastafarians, and the Rebirthers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget the

Raelians. - Nunh-huh 09:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mescaline users often report of having years and years worth of exciting experiences in just a few moments. could this count?

I don't know what you'd call them, maybe pseudoscientific-immortalists (lol), but there's some people who think in the future medicine will be able to keep people alive for a long time, maybe an eternity if broken parts keep getting replaced. Some super rich 'eccentrics' have themselves cryogenically stored for this purpose. -LambaJan (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 8

Us Presidential yachts

Hello, I've juste written on the French Wikipedia an article about the US Presidential yachts (fr:Yachts des présidents des États-Unis). I do not find similar article on the English Wikipédia but few articles on differents presidential yachts and I'm looking for more informations :
I found four offical US presidential yachts :

• USS Mayflower (PY-1), from 1905 to 1929 with a brief hiatus in 1906
• USS Sequoia (AG-23), from 1934 to 1936, then for Secretary of the Navy from 1936 to 1969, then for President and others US government official use from 1969 to 1977 and sold by Jimmy Carter
• USS Potomac (AG-25), from 1936 to 1945
• Williamsburg (yacht) from 1945 to 1953
  

Questions :
1. No others official US presidential yacht after 1953.
1.1 The photos with JFK on a yacht in the early 1960s have been shoot on a private yacht ? USS Sequoia (but seems to small) ?
1.2 No others president use a personal yacht wich could be consider (like for the Western White House) as a nearly presidential yacht ?
2. A 1945 Time article speaks about Grover Cleveland cruising aboard the gunboat Dolphin and William McKinley on the Sylph. The first one seems to be a US Navy boat (or US Coast Guard boat) and the second one ? Could the be consider as official presidential boats ?
3. Photos on navsource.org suggests that the Mayflower ended in the Israeli navy as INS Maoz (K 24). The USS Mayflower (PY-1) article on the english Wikipedia give the link to this website but not this information.
Thanks for the help. TCY (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does Russia support Ossetian Independence?

The recent news of Russian tanks entering South Ossetia has reminded me of something I've been curious about over this issue; which is, why does Russia support the independence of this region, when the other half of Ossetia is in Russian territory? Wouldn't it be kinda self defeating? The way I see it there are two possibilities: The first is that the independence movement in North Ossetia is much smaller and/or not affiliated with the South Ossetian movement. Therefore Russia don't see it as a risk. The other is that Russia are just doing anything they can to undermine Georgia, confident they can put down sedition on their side of the border. Presumably a combination of these factors? --86.135.87.181 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Ossetia and South Ossetia. The area was formerly controlled by Georgia, and the international community still regards it as such. However, if they achieve independence, this will likely bring them back into the Russian sphere of influence, either through unification with North Ossetia or even if it remains an independent nation. Russia used a similar strategy when they supported the independence of Transnistria from Moldova. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also important is the intention of Georgia (country) to enter NATO. Russia doesn't seem to want NATO bases in one of its neighbours. Therefore Georgia and its government must be weakened (and preferably its government replaced by a more cooperative one). The Kremlin seems to believe that all this mess will teach Russia's neighbours a valuable lesson: Don't oppose (or mess with) the bear. They might even be right. However the whole 'frightening example' just might back-fire and Russia's neighbours might scramble all the harder for NATO membership exactly because they are becoming more and more frightened. Flamarande (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Notice that this is just my personal opinion.

I'm still confused. By unification with North Ossetia, are you referring to North Ossetia breaking away from Russia, or South Ossetia becoming a part of Russia? In the first case, why would Russia want some of it's territory declaring independence? and in the second, why would South Ossetia, having gained independence from one nation (Georgia), be so eager to join another? --86.135.87.181 (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I assure the questioner that no separatist movements have been registered in North Ossetia over the last century or so. Russian-Ossetian ties go as far back in history as the marriage of Maria Shvarnovna and Vsevolod the Big Nest. The Russian national hero Alexander Nevsky had Ossetian blood in his veins. As my pages about Alania and Arkhyz demonstrate, Ossetia has been an Orthodox Christian nation for more than a millennium, while all separatist movements in Russia are based on Muslim radicalism. In the light of their pro-Russian mindset, the Ossetes are normally the ones targeted by the separatists (see Beslan school hostage crisis for more). Thus much history has taught them: they won't survive amid hostile Muslim and Georgian neighbours without Moscow's support. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Flamarande, I must disagree with his assessment: the desire to enter NATO came much later into this equation. Mostly it's that Georgia and Russia just don't like each other. Georgia is a breakaway from the USSR, and Russia kind of wanted to retain control over the area, but couldn't. Then part of Georgia itself wanted to breakaway, so naturally Russia supported this. In this area of the world, a country is either pro-Muslim, pro-Russian, or pro-Western. There are few Muslims in Georgia. If Georgia is pro-Western, and South Ossetia is anti-Georgia, then South Ossetia is pro-Russia. And reunification with North Ossetia would mean integration into Russia anyway.

On a separate issue, I'm glad to see that even while two major countries in Asia have admitted to started a war, with over 1000 dead, the main story in the US media is that... John Edwards has a mistress. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

...while the rest of the world is mostly watching the beginning of the Olympic Games. It could of course be a hell of an coincidence, but it probably was planned this way. Flamarande (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there not any movement for complete North Ossetian independence from Russia, regardless of how unrealistic it would be? As I said in my original question, is it just a case of Russia being so powerful that they are confident that they can put down any such sedition on their own side of Ossetia? --86.135.87.181 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a big part of it, and probably the most important part. Georgia is small and Russia is big. There's also the fact that South Ossetia was never real keen on unification with Georgia to begin with (see South Ossetia#Georgian-Ossetian_conflict and related articles under the subheading and History_of_North_Ossetia-Alania#After_the_USSR), while Northern Ossetia had been part of the USSR for several decades anyway. It appears the Ossetians were stuck in a bit of realpolitik and never had much say over thir status. Does anyone here speak Russian, Georgian, or Ossetian and maybe could ask someone on the other language Wikipedias who is more familiar with the situation? Magog the Ogre (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, nyet parlasky Russkye (made it up). Magog, I still believe that the Georgian intention to enter NATO is very important. On several occasions Russian officials (including Putin as he was President) told that they didn't want it, that they wouldn't allow it, and that they would oppose it. Still I agree with your assessment that both countries/governments have lots of (old, and not-so-old) issues against each other. Perhaps NATO was just the last straw? I suppose that we will never know for sure. About the future possibility of a 'unified Ossetian nation' seeking independence from Russia, I guess that the Kremlin is betting in supporting reasonable autonomists, perhaps even giving some reasonable autonomy, and keeping the majority of Ossetians away from the more extreme leaders by a mixture of bribes, threats, and simple fear (from a retaliation by the Russian army and intelligence apparatus). Radical uncompromising leaders struggling for complete independence for Ossetia will suffer inevitable retaliation (in other words: they will be shot/assassinated). Don't forget that Chechnya truly makes a hell of an example of just what not to do (mess with the bear and this is what will happen). Flamarande (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Again: this is just my personal opinion.

I think you mean something like "ya nyet govory po-russkiy". One of the very few sentences I actually know of Russian. And I must have got the inflection and the transcription a bit off. JIP | Talk 08:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it should be "ya ne govoru po-russki", so you're also wrong. Regarding the conflict in question: 1/ Russia wants Georgia to have territorial issues because NATO policy prohibits countries with territorial disputes to enter NATO. On the other hand, Saakashvili after recognition of Kosovo by some countries feels that there is only force solution for the crisis and the longer he wait the greather probability Kosovo precedent to be applied. Regarding Ossetians: they are Orthodox Christian and have no reason to secede from Russia.--Dojarca (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An even closer transliteration would be "ya nye govoryu po-russki".  :) Any further takers? -- JackofOz (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not closer.--Dojarca (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Georgia has since 1992 wanted to remove any autonomy for South Ossetia whereas North Ossetia was the first part of Russia to get autonomy. Georgia made an offer of some autonomy this year but it would be more believable if it were re-implemented in Adjara and anyway it has come rather late and would need a bit of confidence building. Sometimes you're better off having independent friends rather than citizens who are enemies. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can have an autonomy in a unitary state. It's the problem that Serbia failed to tackle, as does Ukraine with its sham offer of autonomy for Crimea. Georgia's problems started when they decided to have a one-nation state under Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Saakhashvili is repeating his predecessor's mistakes: bombing your own compatriots and reducing Tskhinval to ashes is not a viable solution. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ajara is a different case from that of South Ossetia: the Adjarians are Muslim Georgians, while the Ossetes belong to a different language family and have a centuries-old tradition of statehood. The founder of Georgia's reigning house, David Soslan, was an Ossete. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is Bishop Ron Woods Jr.

Who is Bishop Ron Woods Jr.

'Bishop Ron Woods Jr.'Bold text - "The Pentecostal Powerhouse of IowaMedia:Example.ogg " is a 29yrs old Pastor and Teacher of Kingdom Seekers Church Intl , he is also the founder of the Recording Artist Group - Kingdom Praise - a group of talented and Anointed singers from the Des Moines Ia area - he is also a Author , Producer and Presiding Bishop of Kingdom Movement Churches and Board member of Anointed Vessel International Alliance - where The Honorable Bishop Timothy Pleasant is Presider.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Little (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 

Yes? And? Corvus cornix_talk 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 9

Fining an estate

In the United States and Canada, if a person convicted of a crime dies before being sentenced, can his or her estate be fined? NeonMerlin 04:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent case where Kenneth Lay was convicted of ten crimes in two trials. But he died before sentencing and all the convictions were vacated. His co-defendant in one trial received a 24 year prison sentence and a $630 million fine so Lay may have also been facing a large fine but his estate was untouched after the convictions were discarded. According to our article on Lay, "Civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate. However, according to legal expert Joel Androphy, claimants may not seek punitive damages against a deceased defendant, only compensatory damages". Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What might "K.H." stand for?

In the title page of Charles Bell's book The Anatomy and Philosophy of Expression, as connected with the fine arts, it says "by Sir Charles Bell, K.H.". What would the K.H. be an abbreviation for? I looked at KH but nothing seems appropriate. I thought it might be Kingdom Hall, but that's too recent. Richard001 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He was a knight of the Royal Guelphic Order. --Anonymous, 07:10 UTC, August 9, 2008.

Ah, no wonder I couldn't think of it. Will add that to the image of the title page and "KH". Richard001 (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Some branches of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem us the "K.H." to stand for Knight Hospitallier. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by "Fog46Horn" (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

calculating millionaires

there are 7 million millionaires in US but that number is very small because that calculates only investible assets. If you have one million in property and not in investible assets like stocks, you are not listed in that 7 million. I imagine there are 100 million households in US and some 50 million homes have total assets above a million. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.31.37 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your number seems rather high to me. It would suggest over 50% of houses lived in by their owners in the US are worth say US$750,000 (someone who owns a home worth this much will need to have other assets of over US$250,000 to be a US$ millionare). Remember many people don't even own their homes outright since they have hefty mortages and many people particular those with mortages or who have just finished paying of their mortages don't tend to have a large amount in other investments. Also AFAIK most statistics on millionares refer to individuals. If you're considering a married or similar couple with equal ownership of all assets, they'd effectively need to have US$2 million for them both to be millionares. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This clip on NPR's Marketplace cites a 2007 report that there are 9.5 millionaires worldwide, with about a third of them in the U.S. As a more detailed example, Montgomery County, Maryland (in the Washington D.C. suburbs) is one of the most affluent counties in the country. RealtyTrac gives the median household (not individual) income as $71,500. As recently as April, the average home sold went for $543,000. Even if the purchaser paid all cash, he'd need another $450,000 in assets to squeak into the millionaire class... and the value of the home has almost certainly declined since April. (I do like the title of the question, which reminds me of the collective noun "a grasp of millionaires." OtherDave (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that most houses in the United States are worth $500,0000 or more and that most US homeowners do not have large mortgages to pay on their houses. Both assumptions are quite incorrect. Marco polo (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "millionaire" usually refers to a member of a household worth over 1 million of whatever currency, not an individual. I'm not sure if the statistics people are quoting are households or individuals, though - the individuals figure is going to be large, which may account for the large differences between different sources. People need to read their sources more carefully and make sure they're talking about the same thing. In answer to the OP, I think the number of people with over $1m including their primary residence (other property does count towards the net worth, I think), but not without including it, is probably quite small due to the fact that a lot of people have large mortgages on their homes. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A real millionaire has a million a year.--Wetman (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard that as a definition of millionaire. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Klangfarbenmelodie or not?

I'm wondering if I'm using the term klangfarbenmelodie correctly. For example, consider this excerpt from some modern electronic music: Media:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Especially in the middle part of that excerpt, the sound has only one fundamental pitch that doesn't change, but the timbre changes in a regular pattern that makes it interesting. When I hum this song to myself I usually do this part by humming different vowel sounds to the same pitch, and I'm sure I could also play this on something like a didgeridoo and make it recognizable. Is that covered by the standard usage of the word klangfarbenmelodie, or does it really refer to something different? —Keenan Pepper 07:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a reference that excludes this usage of the term, but I guess wouldn't call it that, though the analogy makes obvious sense. I couldn't access your file, but the way you describe it and the didgeridoo example you mentioned seem to refer to an extension of the word melody, where change of perceived pitch, conventionally one of the constituents of melody, does not play a part at all anymore or is reduced to overtones (like in throat singing), and the "melody" is reduced to rhythm and timbre. I can't think of one word describing this kind of tone sequence though, so maybe klangfarbenmelodie is acceptable, I've just never heard it used in that sense. One famous electronic example where the term would apply, in the sense of (conventional) melodies radically fragmented among different voices and timbres, is Zappa's Jazz from Hell . ---Sluzzelin talk 17:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Charlemagne declared Roman Dictator?

Does this text [20], especially pages 286, 307 say Charlemagne was declared Roman dictator?--Dojarca (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes; also consul, tribune, and patrician. I don't think that is significant beyond "he was given lots of fancy titles", though. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please translate the relevant piece? Should Charlemagne be included in the category of Roman dictators? It also seems that it is different from the procedure of appointing other emperors who never were declared dictators.--Dojarca (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't much Rome in the classical sense (the Rome of Augustus or even Constantine) by the time Charlemagne arrived on the scene. Calling him Imperator Augustus made about as much sense as calling Henry VIII king of France: made him feel good, didn't cost much. OtherDave (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have something to say about the text?--Dojarca (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked if he should be included as a Roman dictator. Nothing about text in that particular question, thus, none in my answer. In the West, the Roman empire is considered to have fallen 350 years before Charlemagne; I don't think he ever made it to Byzantium, which was no country for old men. OtherDave (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been taken up on the language desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Web/blogs on insurance industry to assist in assignments

Dear Rossi, Xn4 and net friends, this is in continuation of my August 1st querry. Let me repeat the question briefly here: i have completed 75% of my assignment on insurance industry. the topic/focus of the assignment is: 'external treats to insurance industry'. i need inflation, interest rates, demography datas, etc. So, please recommend me any web sight, blogs, etc. who can help/ guide me in completing my assignments. Free sites will be highly welcome. Awaiting ur reply. Bye, bye. signed: kvees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.168.166 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Which country are you particularly interested in? The www.economist.com website has all sorts of technical data for many nations. Interest rates is more tough but you would be best trying the treasury website for the country you are interested in. e.g. the uk is www.hm-treasury.gov.uk . You can find demographic information for the UK at www.statistics.gov.uk along with a wide array of informaiton. I suspect for other countries there will be similar sites. If you want information on these things then wikipedia is your friend - Inflation, Interest rate and Demography of the United Kingdom. Suffice to say beyond getting into technical information about the changes that are occurring i suspect you are being asked to explain how these things may influence the insurance industry?

A simple consideration would be...Inflation can erode the risk of an insurance firm's protection business, but can reduce their returns on investment markets (if you are insured for 100k over 20 years and die in year 3 it will cost the insurance firm more - due to inflation - than if you died in year 18 - of course this must be counterbalanced with the fact that most insurance firms offer fixed premiums and so the money received in earlier years is liable to be 'worth more' than in later years)... Demographics - the make-up of a nation will alter the way the profit-management department will price the risk, it will also alter how the industry develops products and what type of market they aim at. An ageing population will attract (perhaps) more equity-release products, funeral-payment policies, whole of life plans, critical illness policies etc. The demographics of a country and the way it changes also alter the way underwriting is assessed and how risks are determined for price-setting purposes. There's a million other things that could be theorised as having an influence and i'm sure my very limited theories are full of flaws but hope they provide useful in some way. ny156uk (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia

Does anybody know anything about the force of Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia? Especially was their intruduction a one sided move by Russia on the request by South Ossetians or are they internationally recognized? What's the UN position on the issue of Russian peace keepers in South Ossetia? Mieciu K (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They have a UN SC mandate and acting under CIS umbrella (these are international CIS forces, in equal proportiona Russian, Ossetian and Georgian). But after the Georgian attack, Russia moved some additional Russian forces into Ossetia to help the peacekeepers.--Dojarca (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you mention which exactly UN SC council resolution support Russian troops placement in South Ossetia and what is their mandate according to the UN? Mieciu K (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well this is probably resolution 937 based on Moscow agreements [21].--Dojarca (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This document only mentions Abkhazia, there is no mention of Ossetia. Mieciu K (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bengali Kshatriya

Is there an upper caste of Kshatriya in West Bengal and Tripura and what is their surname? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.37 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Arab

Is there a population of Afro-Arabs in Arab Gulf States because of Slave history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.37 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a very large amount of cultural interaction between the Arab people and the (other) people of Africa. How much of this involved slavery is difficult to determine. The Aksumite Empire did take slaves and did conquer part of Arabia but it is not clear how much slavery was involved. -Arch dude (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In some of the Gulf countries slavery wasn't abolished until the 1960s, and many of the freed slaves were African. See also a similar question "Black population in Arab World" two months ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Kierkegaard on television

Where can I find Kierkegaard's quote in which he predicts the advent of television? I believe he discusses the notion that it drives people mad. Any help is appreciated. Eduard Gherkin (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: "Suppose someone invented an instrument, a convenient little talking tube which, say, could be heard over the whole land . . . I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged if it were used." Eduard Gherkin (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems an odd thing to say. Could you give the context? Or at least a reference? I'm intrigued as to what he could possibly have been discussing that prompted such a thought. 79.66.38.215 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The above quote is on pdf page 78 (numbered 58 on the page itself) of http://www.plough.com/ebooks/pdfs/ThirdTestament.pdf. It doesn't say where Kierkegaard is supposed to have said it. See a Google search [22] for other mentions of it. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If the stock exchange is like a casino, where is the roulette?

I mean an investment where your chances of winning are 50/50. Mr.K. (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, for a start, the odds of winning in roulette are less than 50% - there is a house advantage because of the zero (and double-zero on some tables). Secondly, the stock exchange (or financial markets in general) isn't really like a casino. In a casino, the return is almost instant, in finance you have to wait a while before you get your money. That changes things, since it introduces an opportunity cost. That means an investment which had an expected value of breaking even would be a bad investment, since you could do better by just putting the money in the bank. Investments are compared with the risk-free interest rate, the greater the risk, the greater the expected return needs to be more than the risk-free rate (see risk premium). An investment with a similar risk to roulette (you lose everything 50% or the time and you win 50% of the time - ignoring house advantage), would need to have a pretty large risk premium to make it worthwhile - I'm not sure exactly how large. I don't know if there are any such investments (they could easily be constructed, though) - I'm not sure many people would want them, the risk is too great. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, stock markets are not like casinos. In a casino, there is a known a priori probability between participants whilst stock markets are characterised by subjective probabilities and the outcome is the result of many investors acting on their opinions. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A bet placed on a roulette is a zero sum game, either you win and the casino loses, or vice-versa. This is not the case with the stock-market where (assuming continuous growth) a person can buy at a lower price, sell at a higher, then the next person buys and sells at a higher price and so on and so on. Additionally with firms paying dividends the share-price need make no change, but the individual can obtain profits on their stock simply by holding the stock long enough to receive sufficient return from dividend-payments that their investment increased in value while the stock-price stayed stable. Here's an article on it: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/061902.asp and http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth000912.htm. ny156uk (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Making summaries, abstracts and indexes as a profession

How do we call a professional writer dedicated exclusivel to summaries, abstracts and indexes? Mr.K. (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Indexers", apparently; see Indexing Society of Canada. --Allen (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper journalists are quite brief and radio ones even moreso, but fall short of indexing. This person is a Précis Writer [23]. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of piece of music

Hi, my friend made this beat a long time ago, using a classical piece of music, but he doesn't recall the name. Does anybody know what it is?

Here is the file: Rozbeh_beat_classic_piano

--Funper (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like Johann Sebastian Bach, but I don't recognise it. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a sonata in F minor, K.239 by Domenico Scarlatti. --83.250.86.117 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. Previously known by the Longo number L. 281. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sodomy

Just how far back in time does it go? i mean when did it first appear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.242.64 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The word is derived from Sodom and Gomorrah, which would be a few centuries BC. But to suggest that was the first time anyone did it would be a bit ludicrous. There's no reason to believe that this hasn't always been part of the human experience, so the first instance wouldn't be recorded. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's almost certainly pre-historic, which means it isn't recorded. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well bugger me! i never knew that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.242.64 (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals is very common, but we don't seem to have much information about actual anal penetration among animals, assuming that's what you mean by sodomy. Homosexuality in animals does mention anal penetration among bison, giraffes, and polecats. A Google search for "primate anal penetration" turns up some hits I haven't looked into yet... but if it turns out that bonobos and chimpanzees do it, then I'd say there's a good chance we've been doing it since before we were even human. (In fact, I'd say this question might be better suited for the science desk.) --Allen (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

While the involved practices are certainly old and likely do predate homo sapiens, only humans seem to have a history of adding moral values, and I think the question can fit the Humanities desk. Unlike anal sex, oral sex, or zoophilia, the term "sodomy" is not a descriptive but a normative word referring to practices deemed sexually and morally deviant within a certain social codex. I'm re-interpreting the question as "when did a legal or belief system first codify certain non-reproductive sexual practices as socially sanctionable?". While we don't know the answer to this question either, one of the oldest documents seems to be "I.20" in The Code of the Assura, c. 1075 BCE: " If a man have intercourse with his brother-in-arms, they shall turn him into a eunuch." See also the article on sodomy laws. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this question is not restricted to homosexuality. Some men and women get into this activity too, and probably always have. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but it was the oldest codex I found condemning any kind of non-procreative sexual practice (or the implication thereof). Examples I found which outlaw certain practices regardless of gender difference or sameness (such as the famous Buggery Act 1533, but older religious laws too) all looked more recent. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you define "sodomy" simply as anal intercourse, then, as others have said, it almost certainly predates Homo sapiens. If you define it as a culturally stigmatized sex act or acts, then it dates to the beginning of cultural stigmatization of nonreproductive sex acts, which probably occurred among Homo sapiens. However, this, too, was almost certainly prehistoric. Even if the oldest surviving document condemning homosexuality dates to 1075 BCE, there were very likely similar older documents that did not survive and older prohibitions before the invention of writing. One of the most basic dimensions of human culture is the control of sexuality, and this almost certainly extends back before the invention of writing. The prohibition of homosexuality has been shown as a feature of many cultures structured by patriarchal kinship relations. It so happens that the ancient Hebrews had such a culture. The original condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably a story that was probably passed on through oral tradition for centuries before it was written down as part of the Jewish scripture. This prohibition influenced the subsequent evolution of Christianity. Very likely its origin in oral form predates 1075 BCE, and very likely earlier patriarchal kin societies condemned homosexual relations thousands of years earlier still. That said, based on anthropological evidence, hunting and foraging societies do not seem to have developed strong patriarchal structures or to prohibit homosexual or nonprocreative sex acts. Homophobia (and the prohibition of "sodomy") seems to occur only in agricultural and especially pastoral societies in which patriarchal control of women and wealth, and its transmission from father to son, requires mandatory heterosexuality. So, the origins of "sodomy" as a prohibited activity could well lie in the Neolithic period, in which case it is no more than about 10,000 years old. Marco polo (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that yes, the Old Testament condemns homosexuality, but it also condemns about a billion other things as well. A huge component of the book, in fact, is all of the many things you can't do or God will do horrible, horrible things to you. (And it's worth noting that there is nothing in the actual OT that says Sodom and Gomorrach had an unusual amount of homosexuals in them. If I recall the only reference to homosexuality is that a number of men offer to rape some angels who they think are men. Homosexuality is not cited as the overall reason for smiting the cities. And let's remember that one of the "good guys" in that story ends up impregnating his two virgin daughters with no ill effect. I'm just saying, is all. The Bible isn't exactly straightforward in its advice for sexual behavior.) I'm not sure, though, word-for-word, if homosexuality gets as much attention even in the OT as many other issues. (And most of the NT is about totally unrelated topics, like the importance of charity, which somehow get lost in the "holier-than-thou" political arena.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

August 10

Even further nudity question

What I meant by "un-stimulating" in my previous question is actually only that I find the sight of male genitals unattractive. I'm comfortable with the rest of the male body (heck, with what men wear on public beaches and swimming pools, I'd have to be). So when I look at a nude man, I tend to focus on the face or the chest instead. It's not such a big problem that I'd actually have to make an effort not to look at them. It's nothing to do with anti-gay sentiment or cultural standards, quite the opposite. It's purely aesthetic.

Speaking in context of people who have no problem going around nude in mixed company in social situations, is this common for men? What about women? JIP | Talk 08:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it make you feel any better to know that you are pretty normal, in that a lot of people think a lot like you, while also not being necessarily typical, in that you are probably smarter and more curious than many people? Or are you really looking for people to discuss how they feel about nudity? I thought you'd already got the answer that these things are extremely culturally variable and that where there is a culture of people being nude in mixed company, people don't tend to have a problem with it in the culturally appropriate setting. 79.66.38.215 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey JIP, methinks you need some original research at a nudist camp or such. Anything less is just hearsay, and mind you keep your clipboard from obscuring your body -- it's illegal to be covered. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no nudist camps in Finland. There are only two (well, in practice three) nudist beaches. They are mainly only populated on a select few weekends in summertime, otherwise they are only visited by a handful of stray single men or perhaps a stray family. I have been to one or two events in all three of them but found it too awkward to go around asking people how they feel about being nude and seeing other people nude. JIP | Talk 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For someone who admits to finding the subject matter unattractive, you do seem to be surprisingly persistent in bringing up the subject. Is there another motive for this? DOR (HK) (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. JIP, honestly, I don't think there's a satisfactory and decisive answer for you. Some people have issues with this kind of stuff, others do not. In large part, it's a cultural issue; people who are used to this kind of stuff and who are often in company where people take their clothes off aren't likely to have problems with it. The answers are going to be pretty different depending on whether you're asking this from the members of an old school hippie colony or a bunch of strictly moralistic Puritans, regardless of whether they're men or women... to pick a couple of obvious examples.

Saying that your preference to avoid looking at male genitalia is "purely aesthetic" strikes me as kind of unlikely, though; there's nothing inherently unaesthetic about a penis. You're making a value judgment based on personal preference, which is probably at least in part shaped by the cultures you're influenced by -- the Finnish overall culture, the family culture you were brought up in, the culture prevalent in your work and social circles, etc. And that's fine, it's what all of us do; it's not as if you're mistreating anyone because of it. But this topic really seems to be bothering or fascinating you quite a bit for reasons that are kind of unclear to me... and probably none of my business, for that matter. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Carriage 1920 Circa

I observed a 1920 Circa in a museum and noticed the religious art. I am curious as to the artist He signed as D. Carlos Quinto. It could have been Di Carlos Quinto. The side panels of the Circa also titled each painting Battaglia, Rinhto Prigioniero, Trionfo, and Giostra. Then also had the following Daneu Palermo via stable #182, #732 These Circas were from Sicily and Southern Italy.

I would like information on the titles of the paintings and also if you have any info on the artist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.7.245 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as though you have panels from a painted Sicilian cart. The exploits of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Don Carlo Quinto in his kingdom of Sicily, were a traditional choice of subjects, right through to modern times. Circa simply means "about", meaning that the date 1920 is approximate. --Wetman (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the titles, the first one means Battle ("Battaglia"), and the third and fourth mean Triumph ("Trionfo") and Jousting ("Giostra" can mean carousel too, but I doubt this is the case here). I'm not sure about the second one ("Rinhto Prigioniero"); "prigoniero" means prisoner or captive, but "Rinhto" must be misspelled. Perhaps "rinato"? In this case it would mean Reborn Prisoner or Reborn Captive.

The "via Stabile" is a street in Palermo, and Daneu is a palermitano surname (there is also a "via Antonio Daneu" in Palermo). I found a reference to a family Daneu running an antiquities shop at the "via Stabile" in the early 20th century - the Swiss artist Karl Peterli worked there for a while (and painted Sicilian Carts. reference in German). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually "Rimasto", though typographically more distant from "Rinhto", sounds more likely in this context. "Rimasto Prigoniero" could be translated as Taken Prisoner or Held Captive. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

has a binding contract been formed between New-Wheels Ltd and Easyclean for the sale of the van at £12,000.

New-Wheels Ltd (‘New-Wheels’) based in Penarth is in the business of selling and leasing cars and vans on a national scale, they also supply local businesses with good ‘one-off’ sale deals. Easyclean is a new small business operating an office cleaning service in the Cardiff area.

New-Wheels wrote to Easyclean at their offices in Splott offering to sell a white van for £12,000. On receiving New-Wheels’ offer, Easyclean telephoned New-Wheels in order to accept. New-Wheels however said that they wanted notice in writing of the acceptance from Easyclean. New-Wheels said that if Easyclean got the written acceptance to New-Wheels by 11.00 am the next day (Wednesday) they would go ahead with the sale at £12,000.

Easyclean wrote and posted a letter of acceptance immediately at 12.00 noon on the Tuesday. It was received by New-Wheels at 10.00a.m. on Wednesday morning.

In the meantime however another company had approached New-wheels offering to buy their entire stock of white vans on very favourable terms and New-Wheels decided to withdraw their offer to Easyclean. They wrote to Easyclean withdrawing the offer by post at 5pm on Tuesday. The letter of withdrawal arrived at Easyclean’s offices at 10.30am on Wednesday morning and was read by the office manager —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.214.102 (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And your question is? Remember that we don't give legal advice. Any such questions may be removed. If you need legal advice, do not ask it here. Ask a lawyer instead. See also Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Flamarande (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is in the header. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice here, but I can point you towards the relevant Wikipedia article: Offer and acceptance. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this more like a legal homework question than a legal question? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I expect so, but without being certain, a link to a Wikipedia article is as far as I'm willing to go. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice or homework, it is still inappropriate. More likely a law students homework, which is normally written out like a request for advice.89.242.136.83 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is homework. The answer in this case is, there are plenty more white vans out there - do not waste your money on a solicitor :) --15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whites living in South Africa

Are the majority of whites living in SA, mostly from British descent or Dutch descent? ScienceApe (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whites in South Africa states that 60% of white South Africans speak Afrikaans at home, so we can probably safely assume the majority is of Dutch descent. Algebraist 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that Afrikaners are mainly of Dutch descent but are also descended from French, Flemish, and German settlers. So the Dutch are probably the largest single component of white South Africans' ancestry but may not constitute a majority of white South Africans' ancestors. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical Occupation

I have found an occupation listed on a 1790 Pennsylvania census: flourmert. I have been unable to find out exactly what a flourmert was. I would appreciate any help you can give. Thank you 66.162.122.179 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably a semiliterate census taker's abbreviation for "flour merchant." Edison (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But a lovely word, and amazingly has no Google hits! (Well, lovely when pronounced French-ish. Pretty ugly when pronounced English-ish.) We should make it mean something. -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth II and the british and predecessor royal familiy

Can anyone direct me to any copyleft (public domain) media (specifically videos) related to Elizabeth II, the British royal family and the history of the monarchy in Britain and its predecessor kingdoms? Thanks v much. --217.227.99.165 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about videos, but Wikipedia has lots of copyleft material. Try Elizabeth II, British royal family, Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Kingdom of England, etc. Note, copyleft and public domain are different things. Wikipedia content is copyleft, it isn't public domain. --Tango (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How did Hamlet kill the king?

How did Hamlet wound the king exactly? Did he stab him? impale him? slice him open?

I'm trying to find the right English word to translate the verb trapiki which was used in Esperanto.--Sonjaaa (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the Wikisource version of Hamlet and the article on King Claudius use the word stabbed. From Claudius's article "Hamlet finally extracts his revenge and slays the king by stabbing him and forcing him to drink the very poison that had been intended for him." Paragon¹²³²¹ 21:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

From the source:

Hamlet: The point!--envenom'd too! Then, venom, to thy work.

Stabs KING CLAUDIUS

All: Treason! treason!

King Claudius: O, yet defend me, friends; I am but hurt.

Hamlet: Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane, Drink off this potion. Is thy union here? Follow my mother.

KING CLAUDIUS dies

Rmhermen (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

from the play as written, we see that Hamlet stabs Claudius with a poisoned (envenom'd) knife. We also see that he at least tries to also force Claudius to drink poison, but since there is no explicit stage direction ("Drinks"), whether or not this actually occurs prior to Claudius' death is at the discretiom of the director. -Arch dude (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A sword, not a knife. Read the scene. It's a foil in the dialogue and a rapier in the stage directions; from what the foil article says about "modern" foils, I guess "rapier" would be the term today. --Anonymous, 03:28 UTC, August 11, 2008.

And as Adam McNaughtan put it in his incomparable Oor Hamlet,

...Then Hamlet's mammy drank the wine an' as her face turned blue

Hamlet said, I quite believe the king's a baddie noo

Incestuous, treacherous, damned Dane, he said, to be precise

An' made up for hesitatin' by killin' Claudius twice

Cos' he stabbed him wi' the sword, forced the wine between his lips

He said, The rest is silence - that was, Hamlet had his chips

They fired a volley o'er him that shook the topmost rafters

An' Fortinbras, knee-deep in Danes, lived happy ever after...

— emphasis added by OtherDave (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

leteratures

i am truing to find the main novels of honore de balzac and i would like to know moew about his life and everything that includes him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.116.67 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Try our article Honoré de Balzac. Feel free to come back if you have more specific questions. Algebraist 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

August 11

Jacquelen Kennedy Onassis

I'm pretty sure she died of cancer AFTER the date listed on my computers Wikipedia "encyclopedia" (May 19, 1994). Maybe check with a historian or family member, I'm a scientist; this date just struck me as wrong by a couple of years. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.196.194 (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I looks right to me. A quick google check plus the White House's page on her seem to agree. Paragon¹²³²¹ 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And here's the New York Times' Obituary. Fribbler (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

History of violence

I'm interested in statistics of violent crime, but I can't find anything comprehensive. An analysis of murder rates (wars excluded) in US or in Europe (or in any given European country) over as long a historical period as possible would be great. Ideally, since about 500 bc to the present. If statistics of things like kidnapping, rape and armed robbery were to be included that'd be even better. I've already looked at Wiki articles, but they weren't really helpful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you'd find this but a few words of warning if you do: Recording methods and social/legal practices will greatly alter these figures via history - as will the change in population. E.g. In order to claim on insurance for theft it is common for an insurance firm to request a crime-number/incident-number, so this is likely to increase the 'recording' of crimes that have a 'claim-worthy' value. If your car is stolen then it is very likely you will report it - however if someone comes and steals your handbag from your house and there was only $20 and a few little things in it, you may be liable to not report it because of the hassle/effort involved. Whilst that's a simple example it's important to remember that different factors across history will be at play as to whether crimes are A) report and B) recorded so any comparison of figures over a period of time like this must consider what else may be influencing the figures. I think I remember the UK government changing crime-recording in the 1990s and instantly dropped one form of crime by about 50% simply by changing the definition for including that crime. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. and U.K. didn't even conduct basic population censuses until ca. 1800, and I would be surprised if systematic crime statistics go back much further than the early 20th century or late 19th. Researchers attempting to estimate historical crime rates are mainly dependent on surviving court records, but such documents have been subject to many vagaries of selective preservation and recording. I doubt whether there's very much usable comparable data from even 500 years ago (forget 500 BC!)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Crime statistics from 500 BC? You've got to be kidding. They don't exist. Hell if you can find decent, reliable, and most importantly, comparable crime statistics from pre-18th century I'd consider that miraculous. Another way of saying this is: if you really want to write a "history of violence" you're going to have to find ways to approach the topic that don't rely on good statistics. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to look into something like Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage by Steven LeBlanc, War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence Keeley, Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South by Richard Nisbett is specialized but good, or even something like Homicide by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly.--droptone (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at these articles: List of countries by homicide rate, United States cities by crime rate, Crime statistics and Dark figure of crime. 132.206.22.13 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What flag/symbol is this?

I'm sorry if this is terribly vague, but I'm just curious as to what country/organization has a flag/symbol containing a yellow star on a blue background? Thanks, and sorry for being so vague, I've been wondering this for like a week. Kenjibeast (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gallery of flags by similarity#One star indicates that the Belgian Congo (1908-60) and the Republic of Texas (1836-39) had such flags (the colours were slightly different). I’m not aware there’s any current national flag like this, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be one of several, though the two Jack mentions are the only ones I can think of that are exactly like you describe - certainly no current nationaal flag has simply a gold star on blue. The first one that springs to mind is the old flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which had one large yellow star and several smaller ones on a blue background. Several other countries have a gold star on blue as part of their design (Namibia, Tuvalu, Ethiopia, Malaysia). Palau has a gold sun on blue, as does Kazakhstan, and the Commonwealth of Nations has a gold globe with 53 rays on blue. You could also try checking the entries under "Star (yellow) here, How many points had the star - five? If you don't get any better answer here, contact me on my user talk page in a few days and I'll ask on Flags of the world (of which I'm a member). Grutness...wha? 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

US State

After the US Senate, I'm rewriting the US State article on the French Wikipedia and I have few questions :

1. Is there a difference between The Union and The United States of America ? For example is the Union is only the Union of the 50 States and the USA the 50 States + District of Columbia + Territories ?
2. Is Puerto Rico as a 51th State is a current affair or not really ?
3. Is a state (or a territory) can constitutionaly quit the Union (without a second Secession War ! ) ?

Thanks. TCY (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "The Union" is not used anymore. It was used to refer to the states that didn't secede during the Civil War. "The United States" is a bit ambiguous, but it generally means the entire country (50 states+DC+Territories). If you just want the states, just say "the 50 states".
2. Technically, yes. I believe planning is underway for a self-determination referendum. Everywhere but Puerto Rico, however, most people don't care. It's only really a huge issue in Puerto Rico.
3. Probably. A state legislature could probably just un-ratify the Constitution. You may want to read up on the page on the US Civil War. It wasn't their secession that made the Union declare war per se, it was their support of slavery and the attack on Fort Sumter. Paragon¹²³²¹ 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Per #1, the term "Union" is used in a few funny contexts—namely those relating to admission to statehood and the question of secession. It is generally synonymous with USA. I don't think it has a formal definition though. It comes into play in the Constitution quite a lot as a synonym for the USA.

Per #2, I think Paragon's assessment is accurate. I've read a few things on it here and there in national reportage but it isn't really a major issue for most people in the mainland USA.

Per #3, we have an article on Secession in the United States, which seems to imply that it's not really clear whether a state can actually secede on its own volition. The US Constitution says nothing about secession, only admission. A post-Civil War Supreme Court case (Texas v. White) says that states don't have the ability to leave the Union, if that helps any. In any case, the Constitution is silent on the issue—which makes it pretty ambiguous (could either mean that no such right exists, or that the unstated right is vested in the hands of the states, per the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; but I'm no Constitutional scholar). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the Civil War and the Hawaiian sovereignty movement have demonstrated that it is not possible for a state to secede from the union under any circumstances. -- kainaw™ 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Under any circumstances? Those were some pretty specific circumstances. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Texas has the explicit right to secede. The U.S. government agreed to this right as a pre-condition of Texas joining the United States. Wikiant (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As for number 2, Political status of Puerto Rico might be of interest. Spencer^T♦C 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)