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

September 6

Renaissance police?

What was the equivalent of city guards or police in Da Vinci era Italy or similar high-tech renaissance metropolises?--Sonjaaa (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Police#History might help. It looks like there wasn't really anything resembling a modern police force until a couple of centuries after Da Vinci. --Tango (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They may have had Watchmen, but there is no mention of Italy (or the rest of continental Europe) in that article. --Tango (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a gender-neutral term for a watchman? Is the force called the "city watch" or other?--Sonjaaa (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At the time, they almost certainly would have been men. "City watch" would be an accurate description, I don't know if it was ever used as a name. --Tango (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Italy had the PC police... --mboverload@ 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Italy has the PC police. :-) Fribbler (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Britian and soldiers

Why do I keep reading stories about soldiers in Britain being disrespected/turned away for services? This is a compilation of various news articles [1]. More info [2]. Basically, a solider was turned away from a hotel in Britain because he was a solider. I believe that most people in America would gladly give their rooms to any solider in need, but airlines and hotels turn them away in Britain. If this ever happened in America (other than the Airlines charging soldiers for extra bags) there would be hell to pay. Why is this? Is this because Britain never had a Vietnam, where the public blamed the soldiers instead of the war, something the US has since learned from? I realize this doesn't represent Britain as a whole, but I keep hearing these stories...--mboverload@ 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

in recent months the hotel had “experienced some rather serious incidents” resulting from personnel from a local barracks staying at the hotel, and said staff had been requested to act with caution when taking future bookings from members of the armed forces.. Corvus cornix_talk 04:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done Corvus! Can I ask what you did exactly to find it? Did I just skim over that little factoid? --mboverload@ 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked up tomos on google news and found this. Corvus cornix_talk 04:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, interesting how they put that mitigating factor at the END of the long article. Thank you much Corvus. --mboverload@ 04:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!", But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot..., not a new phenomenon. [3] DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In the BBC's People's War project, the Rev. Paul Wilkinson recalled VJ Day: "We went to Brecon, a big barracks town. I remember with some amusement seeing lines of soldiers all lying on the pavement all paralytically drunk!" Strawless (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is deserved or not, "squaddies" generally do not have a good reputation in the UK (a google search of "squaddie reputation" will yield you a fine selection of opinion). It is quite conceivable that a hotel in a town like Woking (within pub-crawl distance of Aldershot) has a blanket ban on soldiers: a case of a rowdy minority make life difficult for the rest, perhaps. Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonstop US war

How long has the US been in constant war with different countries all together? I have heard 30 years and ive heard 50 years, not sure whats right. Any link would be appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're in an official state of war with anyone at the moment. Do you mean just being involved in some kind of conflict? --Tango (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, arent we in a kind of war in Iraq? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the Iraqi government is friendly to the US, the US troops there are dealing with insurgents. --Tango (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because the Iraqi government was put in place by the US. When the US first invaded, the Iraqi government of course resisted. It really doesn't make sense to say they are friendly to the US, when the US established them in the first place. ScienceApe (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called the Iraq War for a reason. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What it's called and what it officially is are two different things. If you're looking for the official, war-has-been-declared sort of war, we are not currently in any wars, but we were from like 2002 to 2007. Before that, we weren't in any official wars since... what, the Persian Gulf War? If you're talking unofficially we-have-soldiers-in-other-countries-fighting-a-lot, sure, we've probably had that sort of thing since around 2002. Not constantly for 30 or 50 years, though. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 13:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at War in Afghanistan (2001–present) if you think you're not currently involved in any official wars. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say "Iraq War" only refers to when the coalition was fighting Saddam's forces, we won that war, now it's just combating insurgency. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're against common usage on that one, I think. Algebraist 20:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the war has been declared is irrelevant. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The US was involved in military conflicts pretty much throughout the entire length of Bill Clinton's term, AFAIK (Kosovo, Somalia, etc.). So if we weren't in any military conflicts between 2000-2002 (which I also find doubtful), it would have been a small respite. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The US last declared war in WWII. Everything since then has been an exercise of presidential power, usually with the consent of Congress. See Declaration of war by the United States and List of United States military history events. Whether we've been in a state of war for 30 years depends on how you choose to define the word "war". Consider the 1990s in Iraq and our relationship with North Korea for the last 50 years for examples of grey areas. --Sean 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the OP is asking the total duration of all of America's wars. If so, United States casualties of war lists the wars and the years in which they were fought. By my count (rounding up to the nearest year), I get 9 for the Revolutionary War, 4 for the War of 1812, 3 for the Mexican-American War, 5 for the not-so-Civil War, 1 for the Spanish-American, 2 for WWI, 5 for WWII, 4 for the Korean War (although you might consider this just a "police action" or alternately much more, since there was never a formal treaty ending it), who knows how many for the Vietnam War, 2 for the Gulf War, and ? for the Iraq War. Even without counting the hard-to-determine Vietnam and Iraq Wars and various minor conflicts, that's 31 years already. So 30-50 is a reasonable guess. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Civil War was 4 years - April of 61 to April of 65. Corvus cornix_talk 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did say rounding up. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you add in the Indian Wars, the numbers go way up -- add about a century to your calculation. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted astutely above, what really constitutes "war" is a matter interpretation and of much debate. Gore Vidal (who, it must be said, isn't the Avatar of NPOV) writes "since VJ Day we have been engaged in what historian Charles A. Beard called 'perpetual war for perpetual peace'" in his book of that name, and gives a table (sourced from Federation of American Scientists) listing all the US "wars" since that time; this list seems to cover that entire era. FAS takes a particularly broad definition of "war" in this list, even including stuff like Operation Garden Plot and Operation Steel Box. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Cold War. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Czech Population in Hong Kong

I am wondering exactly how many Czechs live in Hong Kong. Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 07:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Try this site on the Hong Kong census of 2001. Strawless (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The census and statistics only mention the very vague term whites; there is no detailed breakdown. According to a document of the Czech Foreign Ministry, there are 240 Czechs in China, including Hong Kong, but I only want the number in Hong Kong. Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hong Kong Government doesn't keep statistics such as you seek. Hence, the only reliable source would be the Czech Consulate or Embassy. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

...Which I just called to get the information from (around 110-120 Czechs). Incidentally, does the HK American consulate have a website? Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

hongkong.usconsulate.gov/webmaster.html DOR (HK) (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Woodard painting

Hi! Due to problems with German copyright laws I am looking for the painter of this picture. Who can help?

--Operarius (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(the date of publication might help as well!) --Operarius (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could that be the portrait of him by C. G. Anderson at Lancing College? If it is, I expect they could tell you the date. Strawless (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone read the book 'Tales from Ovid' by Ted Hughes?

Please describe what you thought about it. Did you like it? Any specific reactions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.147.129 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, *cough*, if you're looking for things like a reaction to the book for an English class, sorry, we don't do homework here. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 13:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If I had read it, I'd never tell tales. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're want book reviews, this isn't the place. There are plenty of book reviews on the internet, try google. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read Metamorphoses, but I don't suppose that qualifies. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

china

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

Politician’s position on the issues

I stumbled across a very informative site, which I have been looking for, for a very long time. It lists the political positions of every candidate on every issue. The site is at On The Issues.

The coverage is so detailed in fact that I needed to create a decision table to reveal conditions, combinations and positions which have not been addressed.

My question is whether or not any political position decision tables exist elsewhere on the Internet or not?

Example of political position decision table:

Position of Sarah Palin as of Sept. 6, 2008

Condition	Combination
pregnancy threat to mother's life	Yes	No	Yes	No
baby will have Down's Syndrome	Yes	Yes	No	No
Action	Position
Abort pregnancy	Yes	No	Yes	No

This question was removed for being spam and then reinstated when the question was discovered. -- kainaw™ 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt positions of that level of (unnecessary) detail exist. (You could sum up Palin's view in a sentence, why use 12 cells to convey the same information? "She believes in abortion only when continuing the pregnancy would be a threat to the mother's life" is a lot clearer than your table). Such a table would obscure nuance more than it would enlighten it, IMO. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not about Palin... its about seeing which cells are not yet complete. If you visit the site On The Issues you will see that in the case of any politician there are a mired of issues on which they hold positions - far too many to get into your own head for analysis at one time, unless you are the politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well then maybe we can include a link to the politician's page at that website in the "External links" section. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a simple chart can be accurate. First, there are important nuances and conditions to almost all these issues. The simplicity of a chart is nice but the chart cannot reveal someone's full position. Second, even if a politician asserts a particular position the pull and tug of political compromise may alter their views. Sen. Ted Kennedy believes strongly that success is measured in degrees over time. He will accept legislatiion he believes is flawed if it advances his agenda. He figures he can fight for improvement later but that something in the hand is better than nothing if political purity means no action is taken. Politics is just too fluid. Another example is Obama's support of faith-based organizations and federal funding. A pure civil libertarian view would object to this mixture of government and religion. He probably would want very strict monitoring of the extent of religious content or diversion of funds to religious activities to safeguard the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, mistakenly referred to as separation of church and state. McCain and Palin would support very minimal monitoring. Palin may not want any monitoring. Such differences are important. Of course, I wonder how many American voters care about the basic issues, let alone nuances, policy disputes and implementation concerns.75Janice (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 75Janice.

---

The most important authentic relic?

You hear all of the time about these relics that are said to belong to Jesus or some other Christian muckety-muck, but when you examine them, it turns out that it really is just a black linen duvet or something. But some of them surely must be authentic (authentic in the sense that they really are what they're presented as, not authentic as in "can do magic"). I mean, it wouldn't be so hard just to go to the grave-site of St. Oswald-who-ate-to-many-poppies and just pick up his jawbone or whatever. So my question is this: what's the most valuable or most prized relic where scholars are somewhat certain of its authenticity (I'm just talking Christian relics now, if we allowed for any religion, I would suppose the Black Stone in the Kaaba in Mecca would probably win). 83.250.202.36 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the most popular is probably the Shroud of Turin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The shroud isn't genuine. Algebraist 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(my bad little "turns out to be a black linen duvet"-joke was actually a reference to the Shroud of Turin :) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is genuine and plenty of evidence to suggest it isn't. Sure, people have picked holes in every test which has shown it to be a fake, but they haven't done any conclusive tests to show otherwise (at least, not that I know of). --Tango (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One test I find interesting by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the correlation between the intensity of reflection or (degree of transparency) and distance from the surface. I know that similar effects can be achieved with vapor disposition on or alteration of a surface either from degree of concentration with same distance or from a difference in distance with the same concentration in absolutely still air. This fact does more to support the possibility of genuineness than to refute it, as do many of the other tests, sufficiently enough to mark anyone rejecting the possibility of genuineness as a sophomoric. — unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk · contribs)

That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is the burial shroud of Jesus. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that the fact that shroud-man looks like a frickin' Viking makes the whole thing kinda preposterous. But that's just me. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I find, in fact, quite the opposite in Pontius Pilate's reaction to Jesus Christ as a man, in finding no flaw in him. Surely if Jesus looked like a dark skinned crooked nose Jew Pilate might not have taken so much time to question and examine him or otherwise been so generous, nor the Roman soldiers far less so, seeing him as an actual physical threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Jesus was not a Jew? That would be quite some statement. As for the colour of his skin or the shape of his nose, or any other of his physical characteristics, we simply don't have any way of knowing, and the Shroud of Turin certainly doesn't count as evidence for his appearance. Neither do the traditional depictions of him. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

St Stephen I's right hand? DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks! Any other? 83.250.202.36 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Although not directly answering your question, 83.250.202.36, you may enjoy reading about the Titulus Crucis (and a link to Thiede's book at Amazon.com).
Regards, Ev (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not authentic, but my favorite is probably Jesus' foreskin. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the Holy Umbilical Cord. Corvus cornix_talk 20:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Relics as grave robbery

The above question has me thinking about relics. I think most major religions respect the dignity of the dead, and to dig up someone's remains is considered a despicable act. I would expect that to desecrate the grave of a saint/martyr might be considered even worse (to the religious authorities) than to do so to a random person's grave. Yet religious bodies have relics in their possession, so implicitly, they condone grave robbery.

I understand that most relics are (supposedly) hundreds of years old, so religious bodies presently don't have newly acquired relics that need to be "justified". That leaves me with these questions:

1. In the past, how did religious authorities, such as the Catholic Church, justify the acquisition of relics that are pieces of people's bodies (or other items removed from their grave)?
2. How do current religious authorities justify the keeping of relics that are pieces of people's bodies (or other items removed from their grave)?
   • I assume money (i.e. revenue from tourist/pilgrim donations) has something to do with it.
3. If I donated a saint/martyr's body part, which the authorities believed to be authentic, to a religious body, what actions would/should the authorities take?
   • e.g. accept it / deny it / investigate me for criminal charges / …

I am mainly interested in the views (past and present) of Catholic / Orthodox Christian churches, but would love to hear the views from other religions, too! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Relic#Christian_relics makes reference to an account in 2 Kings in which the bones of Elisha bring a dead man to life. In addition, supposedly the early Christians in Rome prayed among tombs in the catacombs, leading to the practice of placing a saint's relics in the altar stone. This was not seen as grave robbery, but as respect for / veneration of the saintly individual.

Here's an article from the Boston Globe. It mentions the problem of dealing with altar stones from churches that have closed.

Without pretending to be an authority, I'd say that the most common Catholic justification for retaining relics, rather than burying them, is to allow the faithful to make a spiritual connection with the saint and through him or her, with God. Certainly tourism plays some part, though I think that was far more common in the middle ages ("the holy blissful martyr for to seek...") than today.

Authorities would question the provenance (so to speak) of any body that you claimed was that of a saint; most likely, the authorities would feel they'd had a good handle on these things.

By the way, the Catholic church has classes of relics. You're speaking of first-class relics, I think: parts of the person's body like hair or bone. (The bodies of some saints have been preserved 'uncorrupted.') See relics for more. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To help answer the first question, in the time before the Reformation, the Catholic church was in the practice of receiving indulgences for the forgiveness of sins and to shorted peoples' supposed time in pergatory. They would aquire relics so that the faithful could visit, pay the indulgence, visit the relic and this was supposed to have an effect on their (or a family member's) time in pergatory. The Catholic church today would probably justify keeping relics because of their historic and traditional nature, tradition being seen as extremely important. The Protestant church generally does not recognize the authority of relics for today, while recognizing biblical examples such as the above mentioned about Elisha. Most Protestants would view the veneration of relics as idolatry as they do the veneration of saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristamaranatha (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Grave robbery implies desecration; that's why it's forbidden. Taking a body for veneration is hardly desecration, rather the opposite. 128.194.34.211 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The notion of the “relics” issue is a cultural concept with different view points expounded upon by various contemporary societies composed of living people. Once dead and buried, the physical item or person may be considered a relic as long as it is remembered by society or a group of people. Once forgotten or lost, to the archaeologist upon discovery of the item it then becomes an artifact. As an artifact, I get to put a label on your relic, call it anything that I conjure up and legally do anything that I want to with it. Cosmetically we have all now gone full circle around this issue. So all points of view on the relic issue are good, it is simply a matter of ones cultural, society and individual perspective.

Technicolor effect

Is it possible to replicate the technicolor "effect" using say, video recorded via iphone? If so, what programs would I look into? What processes? Etc...

Kenjibeast (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd get better responses asking this at the Computer desk rather than here at Humanities. Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

September 7

Is United States of America Bankrupt?

Are the vast majority of people in USA getting poorer (financially) by the year? 122.107.177.150 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the unemployment rate just reached 6.1%, the gap between rich and poor has bee steadily widening, the cost of just about everything went up quite a bit recently while wages largely stayed the same (but many businesses are losing employees by attrition and replacing them when they can by lower paid employees, so wages are effectively going down). This is all over the news, I don't see the need to ask the reference desk. If you want opinions about why... well, there's facts and there's political posturing, both of which are available from many sources, wikipedia included. - Lambajan 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Though, it must be said that minimum wage has increased drastically in the US over the last couple of years. So the least paid people in the US make more now than they did 5 years ago. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If they're working the same number of hours. —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you mean over the long term, I don't expect so. I've not seen the figures for the US but the UK figures show real terms growth across the board. The rich are getting richer faster than the poor, but the poor are still getting richer. I would expect the US figures to be similar. --Tango (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the poor becoming richer in real terms or nominal terms? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's real terms growth (assuming I'm remembering correctly - I'll try and find the numbers). --Tango (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Either I'm remembering incorrectly, or the US and UK aren't similar in that respect. I just found this saying median income in the US dropped 1.1% in real terms between 2000 and 2006 (it apparently grew since then, though). I'll keep trying to find the UK figures that I'm remembering. --Tango (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that (in the US) the poor are becoming poorer. In fact, the poor are becoming richer (in real terms). The reason people quote a rise in the income gap is because the rich are becoming richer (in real terms) *faster* than the poor are becoming richer (in real terms). Wikiant (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article I link to above would cast that into doubt. --Tango (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your article is in error. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics publication, "Statistical Abstract of the United States" 2006 edition, Table 673. A summary is here.

The last time nominal GDP per capita declined was 1958. Other years of decline since data was first collected (1929) are 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1938, 1946, 1949 and 1954. For nominal disposable personal income, deduct 1946, 1949, 1954 and 1958 (i.e., the last decline was in 1938).

In real (Chain-linked) terms GDP per capita declined 0.3% in 2001, and real disposable personal income declined last in 1993.

Both measures declined in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1938, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1954, 1958, 1974 and 1991. Real GDP per capita alone declined in 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1982. Source: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=253&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1929&LastYear=2008&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no DOR (HK) (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, but it might be more useful averaged out over each decade, or something. --Tango (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

US GDP per Capita and Disposable Income per Capita:

Decade	Nom. GDP pc	Nom Dis Inc pc	Real GDP pc	Real Dis Inc pc
1930s	-1.9%	-2.2%	+0.2%	+0.3%
1940s	+9.8%	+8.9%	+4.2%	+2.7%
1950s	+4.8%	+4.5%	+2.3%	+1.9%
1960s	+5.4%	+5.3%	+3.0%	+3.0%
1970s	+8.9%	+9.1%	+2.2%	+2.4%
1980s	+6.9%	+7.4%	+2.1%	+2.3%
1990s	+4.1%	+4.0%	+1.9%	+2.0%
2000s	+4.1%	+4.1%	+1.5%	+1.5%

DOR (HK) (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Need Chinese History Expert

A long time ago a read a book about a Chinese revolutionary, but I can't remember his name. Everything I remember about him:

-It was a man
-He had a "golden tongue" (meaning, he was "eloquent")
-When taken prisoner, he used his persuasive powers to convince his (communist?) captor to let him go. The captor, who was a soldier, hung himself, moved to tearful suicide by the revolutionary's speech.
-The revolutionary was captured many more times, but always convinced his guards to let him go, so amazing were his oratorical skills. 128.239.177.28 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)JustCurious

Sorry, not enough to go on. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin and polar bears

Is the following really true and accurate? (ie: that S. Palin is suing the Bush administration): "The 44-year-old governor says a federal government decision to protect the polar bear will cripple energy development offshore. As a result, she is suing the Bush administration, which ruled the polar bear is endangered and needs protection."[[4]]. If it is, is she likely to win? --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather doubtful that someone could sue an administration. She could conceivably sue the federal government, but it is highly unlikely (to the point of ridiculousness), seeing as this is an election year. This isn't a statement as to whether she would or would not do such a thing, of course, just saying that it's extremely unlikely. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 02:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this particular year, suing the current administration could be pretty shrewd politically. They're probably not bragging about it because the undecided independent voters that would appreciate a candidate who sued the current administration would probably be the same ones who would be turned away by a candidate who protects oil companies over polar bears. - Lambajan 14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A Google search [5] finds plenty of sources saying she sued the Bush administration but I haven't examined the legal technicalities. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gov. Palin could have authorized the Attorney-General of Alaska to sue the federal government challenging the designation of polar bears as a protected species. It would turn out to be politically embarassing now. It might be taken as a sign of independence from the Bush administration. Personally, I find her nomination an embarassment. Actually, it makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not commenting on the plight of artic bears, only whether such a suit is credible. I assume there are netural websites dedicated to finding the veracity of all the rumors.75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she sued to have polar bears de-listed from the Endangered Species Act list because she was concerned that the categorization would hurt the economy of her state. She sued "the Bush administration" in the sense that she had her state sue the Department of the Interior, which is in charge of such listings. Bush himself likely has little to do with such things—those sorts of decisions are delegated pretty far down the line. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Often such suits name an officer, claiming that the officer is not following the law. —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT OLD FOLKS

WHAT IS THE SUITABLE ENTERTAINMENTS AND GAMES FOR THE OLD FOLKS AT THE OLD FOLKS HOME?118.100.195.105 (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My brother-in-law recently brought great joy to the residents of his grandmother's nursing home by bringing in a portable karaoke machine and running it for them for a few hours. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think old folks are generally as individualistic in their interests as young folks and folks in general. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but there are trends. I've heard the wii is becoming quite popular with that lot. - Lambajan 14:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality in older age? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pet therapy is common in nursing homes here in Australia. Steewi (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ballroom dance, games machines and internet access. High speed powered wheelchairs. A psychiatrist uncle of mine used to remove most of the pills and prescribe a half pint of Guinness. :) Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently did a news story (I'm a reporter) about a senior home that got a Wii for its residents. They use it to play tennis, go bowling and other activities they enjoyed when they were younger, but can't get out to do now. — Michael J 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to entertain an old deaf guy with bad eyesight by conversing with him using a computer with a huge font size. Depends on what sort of old folks home it is, but I used to practise the piano during lunch. They were entertained and I got to use a piano. I recommend anything done together that can be social at the same time, e.g walking through gardens chatting about gardening.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

People famous for hand-to-hand combat

The famous generals are well known, but in the Greek/Roman/Viking periods, or any other time before the invention of guns, were there people who are remembered for their skill in individual combat? Are there any historical figures who measure up to legendary people like Ajax of Telamon, Beowulf, or Bodvarr Bjarki? (I can think of one or two from American history, like Jim Bowie, but none earlier). 128.194.34.211 (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Achilles, assuming he is based on a historical warrior. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd put Cúchulainn up against Achilles any day (assuming that he was at some point a real guy, that is :). As for a real person who was bad-ass fighter, how about Leonidas I? Honestly I don't really think there are that many that are famous for it, like in the myths, for very practical reasons: you could have supernatural powers of close-combat fighting, but in an army of thousands it wont matter much. Especially when you're fighting in a phalanx (or similar), then everyone has to cooperate and use very specific techniques. If you improvise, showing off you're mad Jackie Chan-moves, then you'd just be breaking the line and degrade the performance of the company as a whole. The people who are remembered are the great strategists, the great generals. One of my favourite people from the Roman empire (well, Byzantine empire, but I've always thought that was a ridiculous distinction) is Flavius Belisarius, quite possibly the greatest military commander in the history of warfare (and the last man ever to receive a triumph). He could pull off miracles at the battlefield, no matter how many Achilleses the other side had. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

zh:李书文 was a master of bājíquán who never lost a duel, I hear. He died through poisoning. --Kjoonlee 08:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dioxippus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Miyamoto Musashi. Algebraist 10:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see the article Nine Worthies.--64.228.91.86 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More recently, Xu Shiyou. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with DOR: we don't need to go so far back. Let's add Wong Fei Hung and Bruce Lee to the list. --Shaggorama (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Sergius --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Still is the story told, How well Horatius kept the bridge, In the brave days of old. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There's Sir Lancelot du Lac from King Arthur's court. Saukkomies 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And in the Bible, Jacob wrestled with an angel this way. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Plight of Charter 77 Signatories

I am wondering what happened to the Charter 77 signatories, as the article is rather vague. On of the links there had all the names of the signatories, but when I searched for the names, the results were all in Czech, and I very much doubt that the list includes updates (i.e. marriage, which would probably result in a change of family name)[6]. Could someone tell me what happened to the lesser well known signatories (i.e. I'm rather intrigued (by the print handwriting, which reminds me a bit of the one I used to use!) about the fate of a Marie Švermová)? Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 08:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The German WP has a short list of signatories, some of which (Vaclav Havel, Pavel Kohout) have articles in the English WP. You can check those via the language links. The Czech version has a much longer list of signatories (again, you can check any English parallel articles via the language links), but neither of the lists include Marie Svermova. There is an article on such a person (1902 - 1992) in the Czech WP, but it does not seem to mention Charta 77. I assume her to be the Marie Svermova (widow of Jan Sverma) who was arrested in the purge of the Communist Party in 1950 and was released in 1956. She is briefly mentioned as the host and guide of young Bill Clinton on his visit to Prague in the 1960s, but I can´t find anything on her activities beyond that. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism or learning from experience?

I found the following sentence on an HR web-site:

"Researchers at a university in Germany - where the right to be surly is almost a national pastime - now claim enforced jolliness on the job is much more likely to make people fall ill."

and I ask myself if it is racism or just experience (that can be right or wrong). Is any form of negative comment against group X a form of discrimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.158.246 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Science desk

Are you saying the negative comment is that in "Germany [...] the right to be surly is almost a national pastime"? I don't see it as a negative comment, but it is a stereotype (see Stereotype#German stereotypes). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard a Germans-are-surly stereotype; the main ones that I'm familiar with are the two somewhat contradictory ones of Germans as jolly lederhosen-and-dirndl-clad Oktoberfest beer drinkers, and Germans as soulless petty bureaucrats who don't care whether what they do is right or wrong, as long as the proper forms are correctly filled out in triplicate. The arrogant militaristic Prussian aristocrat with a duelling scar stereotype is quite old fashioned by now (though it did influence Fearless Leader), but one rising steroetype among British people seems to be that at resorts Germans try to ensure that only other Germans use beach-chairs by assigning someone to sneak down early each morning and put towels on the available beach-chairs en masse, to reserve them (there have been several news stories about spontaneous British beachchair-towel revolts at swimming places frequented by both British and German tourists...). AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my experience German people are not notably surly. In answer to your question, I would say that any broad negative generalization about a group could be considered to be a sign of prejudice. Whether it amounts to discrimination would of course depend on the effect such a comment had, and on the power-relationship between the person making the comment, and members of the group so characterized. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Observing something that applies on average to a group of people (whether good or ill) is not prejudice. For example, it is a fact that (in the US) the average black person is more likely to be incarcerated than the average white person. Neither is it prejudice to assume that *given no other relevant information* a given black person is more likely to have been incarcerated than a given white person. It becomes prejudice when other relevant information is ignored in favor of the single piece of information of the person's skin color. In short, the distinction here is one between making a statistical observation (not prejudice) and inappropriately weighting the statistical observation (prejudice). Let me anticipate the counter-argument that, "it is because society is racist that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated than whites." That's a fair hypothesis, but not germane to my argument -- I'm *not* saying that blacks are more prone to be criminals; I'm saying that (statistically) blacks are more likely to be incarcerated. Wikiant (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "could be considered to be" and "is". DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think in this particular case it's not really saying anything. "The right to" is their back door out of trouble. Most people would read this as that interjection is just there to set up the inherent humor of the finding, but if they would take offense to being called surly then they would figure by the way it's written that they're not being called surly but that they respect the freedom to be that way if they choose. The fact that this is really rather harmless helps their weaseling. If they were to talk about a poor communities' right to be jobless and say it's a pastime it would be a much different story. I'm part Irish and the Notre Dame mascot doesn't bother me nearly as much as Chief Wahoo simply because the days of real Irish persecution in my country are long over while racism and prejudice towards First Nations Peoples persists. While that may seem like an aside, I think it gets at the heart of the issue. You can make any sort of outlandish jab at your friends and they take it in stride because they know they're ok with you, but if things actually aren't ok then you have a problem and you need to be careful what you say. - Lambajan 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, this [7] is the source of the quotation. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pink Houses at the DNC?

I seem to recall Pink Houses, or a snippet of it, being played at some point at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I was just wondering if I am remembering correctly. (I know that Mellencamp told McCain to stop using his songs, and let Edwards use them on his campaign, but I'm specifically wondering about whether they played it at the DNC.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanes and Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Looking at the projected tracking map for Hurricane Ike (here [8] or here [9]) that shows it bouncing up the full length of Cuba, I wondered what, if any, precautions will be taken at Guantanamo Bay in the event that such a storms threatens its security. I couldn't find anything on line. Does anyone have a link even to a discussion of it? ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I found an answer to my own question:

Strong gusts and steady rains fell at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in southeast Cuba, where all ferries were secured and beaches were off limits. The military said cells containing the detainees — about 255 men suspected of links to the Taliban and al-Qaida — are hurricane-proof. But the base was spared the strongest winds. [10]

I don’t know if it is the correct answer, though. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hurricane proof???" Edison (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is probably another way to say that it was built to withstand a full-on military attack of some sort. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

'Securitised mortgages'

Hello wikipedia,

One of the causes of the credit crunch is, apparently, that whilst banks used to limit the amount they borrowed to the amount of money people had saved with them, now banks can 'securitise' mortgages so they can lend much more. So i guess my questions are these, firstly, what is a securitised mortagage and secondly, if i wanted to buy a securitised mortgage (if i was an investor), why would i? (i'm told that when banks lend to people who will basically default, they securitise the mortgage, but why would any one want to buy this -what are you actually buying?) Thanks,82.22.4.63 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Securitization, but I am not sure how helpful it will be. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the opening statement to the question is debatable. Credit is often tight but I have never heard of a limit on borrowing equal to the amount the borrower already has on deposit. I know that talking to bankers always makes me feel as if that is what they want, but I don't think it is true. As to mortgages, they are, by definition, secured borrowing. The real property is itself the security for the loan whether the money borrowed is used to purchase the property or for other purposes as permitted by the lender. I am not sure how one might otherwise "securitise" a mortgage. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what securitized means; it means "turned into a financial product", not "made more secure". 87.114.2.167 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the questioner is saying that the lender is limited in its lending capacity based on its liabilities (deposits). One way to ensure they behave is a Capital requirement. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"securitized" means that a big bunch of different mortgages have been grouped together into one big pool, and that pool is chopped up and sold as a security. There are lots of other kinds of securities - they're all backed by some kind of collateral or another (bits of the ownership of companies, a share of government debt, etc.). The handy thing about a security is that it's generic - you don't need to know much about what's inside it to buy and sell it. As property prices were going up, lots of financial companies thought they'd like to invest in this market, but they didn't know much about property and didn't want to bother with the details of hundreds or thousands of individual mortgages in lots of different places. So other companies securitized their mortgages (making mortgage-backed securities), and ratings agencies gave those securities scores. Based on those scores large companies could buy and sell mortgage value without knowing much about buildings and real estate and the property market in Tuscon and how much Mrs Biggs on Escondido Avenue earns. And so everyone was happy. But it turns out that many of those mortgages were sold to people who couldn't really afford them, and that properties were trading hands at values greater than the market could really sustain. Now the ratings agencies should have known this, but they didn't really do a very thorough job of really investigating what was really inside those security bundles - and one could argue that mortages aren't so easily securitizable (that they're not like a commodity like orange juice or steel, where you can empirically test something and know if it's okay or not) but rather that every mortgage and borrower is different in complicated ways, meaning only people who are experts in real estate and who do lots of research should be buying mortgages wholesale. So the collateral that backs the securities is failing, this makes the securities' values plummet. As many institutions have invested a lot (too much) of their own money in these securities, they're taking giant losses. Like all securities, you could get a security broker (an ordinary stockbroker may deal in them), but I don't know if these particular instruments are really sold retail (they're sold in giant chunks from one giant investor to another). 87.114.2.167 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, 87.114.2.167. I learned a lot from your answer. Perhaps you might consider adding a section on "mortgage-backed securities" to Securitization. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The book Liar's Poker contains an account of the securitization of the mortgage industry for those who don't want to wade through technical papers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rabbinical Judges in Israel Supreme Rabbinical Court

Can any user please tell me where I can find the names of all the Rabbinical Judges who today sit in the Israel Supreme Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rabbonim Avraham Sherman, Avraham Sheinfeld, and Chaggai Izrir [11]. - Lambajan 03:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, all I could find is news articles. I guess the word for judge is dayan, so I googled 'Supreme Rabbinical Court dayanim'. - Lambajan 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the Sinking of the HMHS Britannic

Is the timeline of the sinking of the HMHS Britannic in this page is the correct one? Aquitania (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

September 8

philosipher who theorized that mandkind was created by "children gods"

Many years ago I read of a philosipher who theorized that mandkind was created by "children gods", who became board and abandoned their creation. I would like to re-visit this philosipher's work, but can not find any information on this theory.

Any help will be appreciated. --Davdum (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are going to be lots of things that fit your description. Any system involving a demiourgos, including Plato and neoplatonism, fits the description of an imperfect subsidiary god that did the actual creation of the (universe, or earth). In particular, some gnostic systems feature a demiurge that abandoned the earth. Ialdabaoth seems to be a redirect; you should probably start off by reading our gnostic article. Neoplatonism and Gnosticism and archon might also be interesting. - Nunh-huh 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

in Erik the Viking the gods are children. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Loans from banks being sold

I was just reading about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and it said:

Here's how they work: Banks loan money to home buyers. The banks then sell those mortgages - assuming they meet certain credit standards - to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

Banks then use the money they get from the sale of those mortgages to make new loans. Fannie and Freddie, meanwhile, bundle those loans, attach a payment guarantee to them, and resell them as bonds.

I thought banks usually keep the loans. Dont you get a bill every month from your bank for your mortgage? Doesnt that mean they own the loan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the bank. Some banks do hold their own loans. Dismas|^(talk) 03:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You pretty much always make your payments to whoever originally lent you the money, but they will often forward that onto someone else. It's all done in such a way that you never need to know who actually owns your mortgage (it may well have been split between multiple people in weird ways - that's kind of where the trouble started!). --Tango (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain in more detail about how the loans are split inbetween multiple people and how the trouble started. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.110.7 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

One benefit to banks of selling their loans to Freddie or Fannie (or somebody else) is that the bank frees up capital to make new loans. In theory, this bring in profit more quickly than hanging on to the old loan would. There's another effect as well: let's say you have a mortgage balance of $200,000 at 6% interest. Simplifying for the sake of the example (I'm ignoring amortization), your mortgage is an agreement to pay $1,000 a month for the next 30 years (that's the interest; you're also paying a few bucks toward the principle and some money for taxes and insurance).

To an investor, then, your mortgage is just an investment that will return $1,000 a month. If mortgage rates fall to 5%, I might be willing to pay more than the unpaid balance of your mortgage, because it's still going to bring me more money than buying a new, 5% mortgage will. Similarly, if mortgage rates rise to 7%, I'll pay less than the face value your mortage, and the current holder will sell it to me for less, so that the return on my investment gets closer to the 7% I could get from someone else. So there could be three mortgages that started exactly like yours, now held by three different investors; for each of them, the effective return on their own investment is different. You, meanwhile, and the other two people are still paying 6% on your $200,000 mortgage.

As with used cars, the value of your mortgage to an investor is what the investor is willing to pay for it.

As for the monthly bill for your mortgage, in many cases it's handled by a mortgage servicing company; they're just collecting your payment, making the necessary tax payments, and sending the interest to whomever now holds the mortgage. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but one of the ways the banks divided up mortgages was to group a whole load of mortgages together and then sell two types of contracts secured on those mortgages, a high risk and a low risk one. Each contract entitled you to a share of the returns, with the high risk ones getting a bigger share. Whenever someone defaults on one of the mortgages in the collection, the loss is taken by the high risk contracts, this means the low risk ones have virtually no chance of anyone defaulting. At least, that was the plan. Such large numbers of people ended up defaulting that the high risk contracts were completely used up and the (not so) low risk ones started to lose money. Everyone had assumed the low risk ones were safe and suddenly they weren't, and everything spiralled from there. (I'm sure it's all far more complicated than I make out and there were plenty of other causes, but that's one of them.) --Tango (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See Securitization, Credit enhancement and Tranche for some details. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious symbology

What religions/beliefs/whatever do these symbols represent? I realize that the image is being used in an article about religion in science fiction and may not be strictly associated with just one religion but get as close to one belief system as you can, please. I originally only wanted to know #11 but I thought I'd expand my mind a bit more and just ask about them all. From 12:00 going clockwise:

1. Jain - symbol for the vow of ahimsa - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Red Baron ;-) - Lambajan 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Cross pattée (Thanks 83.250) - Lambajan 04:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Hands of God - Lambajan 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Triple Crescent - Lambajan 04:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC) -- Taken from the Diane de Poitiers emblem... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Sikh - Lambajan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Buddhism - Lambajan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC) - (Ayyavazhi, see below)
7. Jain (again) or Hinduism. - swastika; some would call the counterclockwise version sauvastika - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Buddhism - Lambajan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Baha'i - Lambajan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Norse (?) -- Sun cross -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) - used by astrology and pagans - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC). Although called "Sun cross", it's used by astronomers and astrologers to represent the Earth. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Aum Primarily Hinduism - Lambajan 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Islam - star and crescent - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Judaism - Star of David - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Shinto - torii gate (O-torii)- Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Christianity (general? or is it more specific?) Greek Cross - Lambajan 04:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Taoism - yin and yang - Nunh-huh 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure #11 is a Hindu symbol, and I think #7 is as well. The swatstika is a common symbol of luck in India, at any rate, so I presume it's from Hinduism. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Number two is the Cross pattée, very similar to the Iron Cross (not the nicest connotations there), which is Christian, I guess (since it's associated with the Crusades) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't recognise number ten, but it does like faintly runic (although it's not part of the runic alphabet), so it might be Norse. However, much more common symbols for Norse paganism is Thor's hammer Mjölnir and the Valknut 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction: it appears to be a more general symbol for paganism. Also: kinda disappointing that there's no Klingon symbol in there :) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And the last one: number four appears to be a wicca symbol. Most of these can be found at commons:Religious symbols, btw 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah.. I didn't even think to check commons for that. - Lambajan 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, number six isn't Buddhism, it's Ayyavazhi, whatever that is :) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. My misconception is a common one. - Lambajan 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For a quasi-Buddhist lotus symbol, see Flag of Kalmykia... AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, a "reverse swastika" (卍, U+534D) is a Hanja symbol for "Bhuddist temple." --Kjoonlee 07:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another religion question

Is there a name for the idea that the Christian god, the Norse gods, the Egyptian gods, etc are all subordinates under one even more powerful god? Dismas|^(talk) 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pantheism? - Lambajan 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong about that. Look at Monolatrism and Henotheism. - Lambajan 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

King of the Gods is the concept you're looking for, I think. Although I don't really see how that applies to the Christian god, as he is the only one. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Most belief systems with many gods don't hold them to be all equal and consider one to be the greatest. The Abrahamic conception holds God to be the only one. I could see how one would reason that you could put them together and say that Zeus refers to God or even Zeus is beneath God, or likewise but replace Zeus with Odin or Horace or whomever, but this only works within the framework of the other religions (or your personal concept of them), but the only way it could work within the framework of how the Abrahamic God is generally understood is by deciding that these other lesser gods were not (or should not be) regarded as gods but something else, perhaps tales personifying attributes of God or maybe prehistorical prophets of God or whatever. Regardless, it's hard to know exactly what conceptions followers of these religions had about the nature of their gods, but any idea you come up with is bound to meet an argument. More likely lots of arguments. Our data is more complete on some cultures over others. It might be an interesting thing to check into. - Lambajan 05:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through all three articles suggested thus far and though they're close, none of them seem to state that the other gods, across all religions, answer to a higher god. Note the "across all religions" part. I'm not just referring to the ancient Greeks with Zeus as the head or to the ancient Egyptians with Ra as their head god. But a more supreme god who would rule over both of those plus all the other gods in every religion. And please, 83.250, keep your own religious views out of this. You're not going to convert me to Christianity just by waving your flag here. If anyone has read Job: A Comedy of Justice, that's where I'm mainly getting this question from. Dismas|^(talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, the last thing I'm trying to do is convert you to Christianity, I'm through and through atheist :) (and at a different computer, so I guess my IP will be different...). I'm fascinated by mythology, but I'm not in the least religious (and not in the least missionary, I try to convert no one to no set of beliefs). I misunderstood your question, and thought you were referring to pantheons where there are many gods subject to one chief god (like Odin is the head of the Aesir and Zeus is the head of the Olympians), and I was simply expressing my surprise that you included the Christian god in your list of examples, as the Christian faith preaches that he is the only God, and thus would not fit that mythological pattern.

As for the concept you are looking for, I think the closest thing to what you are referring to is pantheism, as suggested by User:LambaJan, which basically preaches that everything is an aspect of a supreme being of some sort. Look at this beautiful quote (which I'm borrowing from the Hindu section of the article):

This whole universe is Brahman, from Brahman to a clod of earth. Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the world. He is the potter by whom the vase is formed; He is the clay from which it is fabricated. Everything proceeds from Him, without waste or diminution of the source, as light radiates from sun. Everything merges into Him again, as bubbles bursting mingle with air-as rivers fall into the ocean. Everything proceeds from and returns to Him, as the web of the spider is emitted from and retracted into itself.

(as I said, I'm through and through atheist, but damn, those Hindus could write!) There are certainly examples of religions that have recognized that other gods exist, but they generally say that the other gods are somehow inferior, and will be defeated by the "True God". If I remember the Old Testament correctly (which it's very possible I might not be, and would be glad to be corrected by someone with more knowledge on the subject), in many of the earlier parts there are implications that other (non-Jewish) deities do exists (like Baal), but that they are nothing compared to the great YHWH, and he and his promised people will drive them away. Another similar (but much more controversial) idea is of course the satanic verses in Islam.

If there is a term for the concept you are referring to, I don't know it. I'd be thrilled to be educated on the subject (as I said, I'm truly fascinated by mythology, in all its forms), and thus leave the subject to my more educated companions :) 195.58.125.53 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

195, you do recall correctly. Psalm 82:1, "God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods." 82:6-7, "I declare: 'Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, yet like any mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall.'" Throughout the Hebrew bible there are references to other gods. The idea in general is that different nations have their own gods, but the God of Israel is above them all. Monotheism as we understand it -- the notion of a single god and the nonexistence of other deities -- gained widespread acceptance quite recently in human history. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you very much! Now I can make the point, with some factual backing :) 195.58.125.53 (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's simply henotheism, already linked above. - Nunh-huh 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Short Story where people have a limited number of words per day

I have searched for this on the Internet and on several other "book identification" websites with no luck. I am looking for a short story I read in middle school or maybe elementary school. The writing style, as I remember it, was something like Ray Bradbury or Kurt Vonnegut but I have looked through lists of their stories and if it was by one of them it wasn't immediately obvious to me. The story was about a (futuristic?) society wherein people had only a limited number of words per day that they can say. A man was trying to save up enough words to tell a woman he loves her, but then uses them up or something so when she calls him he can't say anything. That's all I can remember. If someone at the desk doesn't know it, I may try to get it published and wait to get sued because I want to know SO BAD what this story was; I really liked it. 69.244.5.221 (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Sariasister69.244.5.221 (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the poem "The Quiet World" by Jeffrey McDaniel:

In an effort to get people to look

into each other's eyes more,

and also to appease the mutes,

the government has decided

to allot each person exactly one hundred

and sixty-seven words, per day.

When the phone rings, I put it in to my ear

Without saying hello. In the restaurant

I point at chicken noodle soup.

I am adjusting well to the new way.

Late at night, I call my long distance lover,

proudly say I only used fifty-nine today.

I saved the rest for you.

When she doesn't respond,

I know she's used up all her words,

so I slowly whisper I love you

thirty-two and a third times.

After that, we just sit on the line

and listen to each other breathe.

— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh I think that's it! I guess I had a few of the details wrong, but I'm so glad I finally found it!69.244.5.221 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Sariasister

artist of this work?

Who is the artist for the image shown in Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? I do not doubt its PD status, given its outdated use of the word "Francois," but I need it for an image bibliography lol. 199.111.202.129 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From here (http://www.bridgemanartondemand.com/art/102120/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_Citizen_1789) it just seems to put the artist as 'French School' not sure if that's enough 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FTSE 100 opening and closing figures

The BBC business page is currently showing the FTSE 100 as having increased by 3.81%

However, the Yahoo! finance page shows only a 1.46% increase.

I see that Yahoo! are basing the percentage increase on last Friday's close, whereas the BBC are basing it on this morning's opening figure. To me the Yahoo! representation is the more logical, but I'm utterly puzzled as to how a morning's opening figure could differ from the previous trading day's closing figure.

Can anyone enlighten me?--85.158.139.99 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article on it... http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2008-02-20-stocks-open-lower_N.htm . 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That USA Today article indicates why a given stock/share can trade at a quite different price when the market opens compared with the previous close, but it doesn't tell me why the index itself would have a different value at opening than it had at the previous close.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If Company X is trading at 100 (people are willing to buy and sell at that amount) when the market closes it's closing price will be 100. If something happens to the company (like price of the raw goods it purchases increase) while the market is closed it may seem less profitable to investors, so when the markets re-open sellers will have put a lower price to entice people to buy. So it may open at, say 60. The FTSE 100 is just the combination of a hundred such companies, whose fortunes may have changed overnight while the stock market was closed. - Phydaux (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The index is the price of all the individual companies stock-prices within that index combined. So the FTSE 100 is the combined share-prices of all the top 100 companies. It's not a piece of stock itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry should add you might want to have a look at stock index 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, though I have to confess I'm still puzzled. Although I was aware that share indices like the FTSE 100 are simply some sort of average of all its constituents, what puzzles me is the calculation. I see from the Stock market index article that generally constituents are weighted according to their capitalisation (which seems rational enough to me).

What I don't see is how an opening index can have a value different from its previous closing value. If the opening value is calculated from the first few trades, how on earth do they do it? Do they look at the first share traded, compare the share's percentage change from its previously traded value, and apply that to the whole index? It can't be that, as it would clearly lead to large biases. Or do they wait for a few minutes to get a more representative set of transactions? Well, possibly that's it.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

All FTSE 100 shares are very heavily traded, it won't take long for them all to have had at least one trade, as far as I know the opening index waits until they have, which is likely just a few seconds to a minute. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tango, thanks for the sensible answer which shows that somebody here understands my question.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the understanding that the 'open price' is the price of the first trade of a stock at the start of the day (and the close price is the price as at 4.35pm for the FTSE 100), then all it takes is a number of stocks to have a different 'open' price to the 'close' price for their to be discrepency between the examples you chose. As the article suggests - if a stock closes at £1.00 a share and it transpires during the markets close that the company has dropped profits by 50% then anybody purchasing the stock the next day could expect to do so at a reduced price. Given that knowledge the first trade may occur at say 90p (10% down). If 10 stocks each open at a different price (up or down) then that will have some effect on the 'open' value of the FTSE 100 index. The index's value changes with the stock and its 'open' value will presumably be based on the open-price of the first trade of each of the FTSE 100 constituents, whilst its close price will be similarly based on the closing-price of each of the FTSE 100 firms. The difference will arise because new information/knowledge becomes available even while the market is closed - therefore the first trade of a day for some stocks will be different to the close-price. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the FTSE-100 index is calculated from quoted prices of its constituent stocks (i.e. average of closest bid and offer quotes from different sources) rather than on traded prices. Yesterday afternoon I liked your car and offered you $1000 for it. This morning I like it a bit less and offer you only $900. It's that simple. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the quoted price is usually the price the stock last traded at, which will generally be someone at or between and bid and ask prices. On stocks as heavily traded as a FTSE 100 stock, the bid-ask spread is likely to be very small, so whatever way you measure it the difference will be a fraction of a penny. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the stock price is not what traders have to buy and sell at, but rather a reflection of what traders have been buying and selling them for. That is why the last sale (close) could be high, and the next day the first sale could be low. The sale isn't affected by any previous price, or the price you see on the BBC ticker. - Phydaux (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The London Stock Exchange main market is a quote-driven market, not an order-driven market. This means that market makers make two-way (bid and offer) quotes on a range of stocks on their books, up to a given size of trade. So, yes there is a clear difference between quoted prices and traded prices. Investors are usually more interested in the quoted price of a stock because that is the price available in the market now, as opposed to the price at which someone last traded. It is entirely possible for an illiquid stock to have a published quoted price even if it has not been traded today (although, as has been said, this wouldn't happen in practice for a FTSE-100 stock). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the confusion, the word "quote" has two meanings in this contest. You're talking about the prices quoted by money-makers, I'm talking about the prices quoted by Yahoo! Finance, and the like. I think we're both right! --Tango (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional question. Let's see we have an equally-weighted index of two stocks (Hmm, X and Y) and X closes at $2 while y closes at $1 with the index at 1.5 at the close. The next morning, before the market opens, company X announces that they've been misstating their earnings for ten years so that the CEO can get big bonuses (this is a real life example!). Nothing new happens for Y which is in an unrelated industry. Y opens at 9:30 with a price of $1 and the price does not change till 10:01 (but the stock trades). Trading in X is delayed and does not start till 10am when it opens at $0.50. So, at 10am, the value of the index is 0.75. Q: What is the value of the index between 9:30 and 10? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The closing value of the day before. - Phydaux (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(To expand on my comment) The index is just a reflection of the trades that have taken place, as no trades can take place while the stock market is closed the value doesn't change. But I would imagine many speculators, investors and brokers would assume a fall in the value of the company, and the index, and trading would open lower than it closed the day before. - Phydaux (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)e

That's not strictly correct. The calculated and reported open price will be 0.75 since that is the average of the two open prices. However, this is what will be reported after the fact when the exchange reports (Open, High, Low, Close) for the day. I'm curious about how the index will be computed between 9:30 (when Y and the market open) and 10 (when X opens). My guess is that the close of X will be used and the index will show a drop at 10. (Index futures will, of course, reflect the true price of X.)

Masochistic behavior...What is this?

I have all the info. about sadistic behavior but what about masochistic? Not all masochists enjoy humiliation. I enjoy doing all for my spouse who has DSM. but i hate it when he calls me names or humiliates me. Its not just masochism. Its like I want to be his slave.I enjoy cooking, cleaning, anything he wants from me I do it because i love it. I like getting into physical fights with him. The pain hurts but its not mistaken for pleasure. It DOES hurt. I can inflict pain on myself but i cant draw blood because im afraid it will hurt. When im away from my spouse I feel that I should stop all action because Hes not with me and it doesnt feel right.when i cook for others or clean for others i feel out of place. with all of this information, What is this disease? I mean it has to be a disease if DSM could be counted as one. --Chaela <3 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the Reference Desk cannot diagnose psychiatric or other medical problems. I strongly recommend that you consult with a mental health professional or perhaps a social worker. Marco polo (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was just your fiance? — Lomn 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

North Korea

Today, it's easy to observe that South Korea and it's capitalistic/democratic system is economically superior to North Korea's communist system. With this in mind, why doesn't North Korea change to a governing system more similar to South Korea's? ScienceApe (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I highly doubt this guy would agree to it! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea I agree. But does he have so much power that no one in Korea can oppose him? ScienceApe (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone there with power has their power because he lets them have it. No one (or very few) who have power want to risk losing that power. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Kim Jong the only thing that is preventing change? ScienceApe (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the people there pretty much consider him a deity. It's not because they're stupid or anything, but they've been brainwashed into thinking that since they were babies. So the attitude of the people would also hamper change. If an assassin were to take out Kim Jong-il, I doubt North Korea would immediately change over to a democratic government. If South Korea was to invade North Korea and forcibly install a democratic government, that might work. I'm certainly not advocating either point of view, though!

Also, Kim Jong-il very likely has his successors all planned out who will continue the "Communist" government (it's not really communist, more fascist), so his death would likely not change much. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, we might soon get to see if you're correct. GreatManTheory (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think many or most Korea experts and Koreans believe that the two states would have been unified and neutralized years ago if not for American opposition.John Z (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they would have. --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that systems like this rarely justify themselves on being truly economically superior, or at least never acknowledge that it has been a "fair fight" (and often it hasn't been—if you tried to run a capitalistic system with the sorts of sanctions that are put against North Korea, you'd have trouble too). Another way to think of this is: the economies of autocratic states are often much better than those of democracies (for various reasons, often relating to large reserves of natural resources in said autocratic states). Would that fact at any point in time convince those in said democracies that they should convert to the autocratic system? Or would they say, "oh, that's just fluctuations of the market" or "oh, that's because they're setting unfair oil prices" or "oh, that's because of X and Y and Z"? I doubt it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) certainly seems to rebut your assertion that "economies of autocratic states are often much better than those of democracies." Unless, of course, your conception of "good" or "bad" economies is based on something other than economic growth. GreatManTheory (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of North and South Korea, imagine the question is the Mafia and Disney. Why won't the Mafia simply take the honest road? Well, maybe they don't know how; they don't want to risk losing what they have; they don't want to get arrested for what they did in the past; or they really believe in what they do. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to say that North Korea's system persists only or even mainly because everyone with any privilege owes their position to Kim Jong-il. I'm not sure how true that is in practice. I think that the (very powerful and privileged) military may have its own system for promotions in which Kim is not involved. I think that the system survives because it gives tremendous power and privilege within North Korea to that country's military, and especially the military elites and security services, who very effectively suppress any hint of dissent and who could easily crush any nascent opposition force. Marco polo (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While the average North Korean is far worse off than the average South Korean, the North Korean elite lives a pampered life. The Dear Leader is said to drink expensive cognac from fine crystal and eat pricey caviar. So for the people who make the decisions, the North Korean system is just fine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is mostly a guess, but it seems to me that one of the possible contributing factors to why the citizenry of North Korea have not rebelled and thrown out Kim Jong-Il and his government has to do with the history of the country. Historically, Korea has been invaded numerous times by outsiders, and over the years this probably (I'm conjecturing) resulted in a very insular reaction to perceived outside aggression with the Korean people. It would, therefore, be a fairly simple thing for an inscrupulous dictator such as Kim to take advantage of this inborn distrust of anything not Korean. By playing on the fears of the people, he is able to maintain his control over them. Again, just theorizing, which I know we're not supposed to do here in the Reference Desk, but it may help lead you on to exploring other alternate possible answers for your question. Saukkomies 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Secular Humanism -Dead or Alive? (Insert spinning joke here)...

Hello Wikipedia,

As an non-american, this election is really gripping. Obviously its easy to despair at points like these (when you're about to elect a few more far-right loons for office) but i'm trying to stay positive. Michael Moore tells me that the majority of americans hold liberal views points (on things like abortion, gays, healthcare etc..) whereas that guy who used to head up 'Focus on the Family' (<blp violation removed>?) tells us that 'Secular Humanism is dead' at that when the religious right vote, they decide the election. So which is it? Are there some surveys or something anyone can direct me to or something with a little more NPOV? Thanks 82.22.4.63 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a BLP violation in the above comments. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, does recommend that fathers take showers with their sons to make sure that they don't become gay. Corvus cornix_talk 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, Corvus. You removed a 'BLP violation' and then you wrote that about James Dobson without a reference? maybe you should rethink. Do you have a reference for that remark? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[12]. Corvus cornix_talk 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Stop. Rewind. Fathers taking showers with their sons keeps the sons from becoming gay? Exactly how is that supposed to work? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be more worried about the fathers who wanted to do that, than about the sons. Well, I personally wouldn't be worried about the sons at all - that is, until the father climbed into the shower with them. Hoo boy. We've got a way to go yet. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that Corvus hasn't supported his allegation with anything yet. We only have his word for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with fathers taking showers with their sons (frankly, I think it's pretty much a non-issue); I'd just like to hear the "logic" behind that procedure preventing homosexuality. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of, and it's extremely tenuous, is that having your Dad next to you in the shower would certainly dampen your desire to have a wank. The tenuous link I refer to is that some people associate masturbation with homosexuality. I don't know why they do, but they do. But that of course leaves the other 99.5% of the day when the father's not around, in which the son can find a nice private place and go for his life. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The theory expounded in the reference, if you read it (and it's not Dobson's theory, though he does seem to support it) is that a contributary factor to a homosexual orientation is a failure of a young boy to identify with their own gender. In short they start to perceive themselves as 'different' from other boys at a young age, even before sex is an issue. The proponent then goes on to say that a father can strengthen the identification in many ways, but including showing the boy that his genitalia is built like his father and not his mother. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

These two are not mutually exclusive. The majority of Americans can be generally liberal, and the religious right can decide the vote. This just suggests that the majority of Americans are also apathetic toward politics. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Two key issues: which side motivates their supporters to get out and vote; and how honest the vote count is. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been a number of reports recently, including pieces by NPR and the BBC, that propose that evangelicalism is a fading force in 2008 America. I’ll try to those news stories for you, but it was a while ago so I’m not sure that I’ll secede. Here’s and interesting book on the mater however. These last years have suitably been a terrifying ride, but the feeling today is that The Dark Side is, if not beaten, in retreat. In a few decades this time may be looked at in a similar way to how we view the Civil Rights Era, a horrible part of our past that is remembered and commemorated as an example of how the American people can overcome evil. There are strong paroles (the current open acceptance of homophobia in the media for instance). --S.dedalus (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and secular humanism is defiantly not dead. An Imagine No Religion billboard just went up in downtown Seattle and there are dozens more around the country. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those reponses guys -its quite a relief -although i'd be interested in what the response would be over on good ol' Conservapedia. (P.s. SDedalus - i love the 'straight not narrow' thing on your page -genius!) anyway, two questions, 1) What does BLP stand for and 2) it was actually a serious question -can't you just say something like 'that has yet to be proven' rather than delete it from record?82.22.4.63 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"BLP" is Wikipedia-talk for a violation of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Holding liberal viewpoints doesn't imply being a secular humanist. I know many very liberal Christians (and some fairly non-religious conservatives, too). 128.194.34.211 (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an and the term "we"

I was recently watching a TV show about how the Qur'an "predicted" current scientific facts 1400 years ago. In this program, there were quotes of the Qur'an to suppoot the thesis that the Qur'an made such predictions (and that this is "proof" in the existance of God. In many of the verses used, there was reference to "we." My understand that Islam is monothestic but "we" is plural. Since Islam does not promote a triune godhead (as does Christianity), who is the "we" that is being referred to? What is the context of this plural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be the royal we. Remember, you were hearing translations from the Arabic, there is often a fair amount of choice in how you translate things, the translator may have decided that "we" more accurately conveys the feel of the verse even if a literal translation would have had "I". --Tango (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In Genesis, the Hebrew god is sometimes referred to as Elohim, which is plural in form, but considered singular in meaning. At at least one point, the deity says "Let us... " which is interpreted in many ways, as the royal we, as a god in a polytheistic system, or as reference to the Elohim title, among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just glanced through a few sections of my Qur'an and skimmed to where I found a few instances of this 'We'. A couple times they were Muhammad speaking and a couple times they were quotations of Moses. In either case it was there in the Arabic as well. Muslims have a clear distinction between the Prophets and God. They would never say a Prophet is God or is on the same level, but nevertheless this type of speech is there. It's maybe taken as sort of a 'royal we', but maybe taken as sort of a 'myself and God' sort of a thing, because even though they're taken as being different and unequal, they are taken as being in concord. If the Prophet is God's vessel and God is speaking through Him then such a conjugation is not illogical. - Lambajan 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 9

DSM and masochism.

okay if we are being specific. Then if DSM is when a man or woman is dominant and just does strange things to people for their personal gratification then what is it when a person loves to be a slave but hates gratification. Its like they enjoy being a masochist its just that certain things in the symptoms of this masochistic disease just arent things that they want or feel. Is that still masochism? Im not asking for a diagnosis because im pretty sure this disease is what it is. I just want to know if it has a name. Wanting to be a physical slave and do phyisical labor for their "master" AND wanting pain enflicted on them in a sexual reference. What is this called?

--70.42.211.4 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, one of our articles states:

The BDSM term is a portmanteau acronym intended to take in all of the following activities:

• Bondage and Discipline play (B & D or B/D)
• Dominance & submission (D & S or D/s) (including "master and slave" role-playing scenarios and ongoing relationship structures)
• Sadism and Masochism (S & M or S/M)

You appear to be describing masochism. I'm not sure / I doubt that masochism per se is a disease. DSM is not "when a man or woman is dominant", it indicates three things, dominance & sadism, and masochism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What you describe also has a good "submission" component. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

yes but what if they dont want the "master" to lift a finger, but somtimes they do. Its just a mood that over takes them now and then that makes them just want to be submissive in everyway possible but other times be pure dominant. can you really have such strong lifestyles in both? i know its sadomasochism but isnt that wanting both at one time. what is it when you dont relize that you feel that way? If its not a disease and you dont know you feel that way then what can it be? its not a sexual fantasy because you feel it all day long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You can choose to be a sadist. You can choose to be a masochist. You can choose to eat an apple. You can choose to watch a film. You can watch films all day. None of these are, as far as I know, a disease. They are a choice presumably based on factors such as the cost of the activity and the gratification it gives you. You appear to vacillate between thinking that those involved in S&M are sometimes S an sometimes M, or are M all the time. I'm sure there are examples of both types (and of the permanent S type, as well). "what is it when you dont relize that you feel that way?" Lack of self awareness? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think you should read a couple of good books about BDSM. Obviously you've got certain needs, and obviously you don't know how to deal with them -- yet. That's most likely not a medical condition; having urges like that is typically not indicative of a disease. It's just a kink. Kinks are fairly commonplace and not such a big deal; you seem distressed about this, which is understandable, since you're finding out pretty fundamental things about yourself, but you really shouldn't worry. Don't freak out! Kinks aren't a bad thing -- if anything, they probably make you more interesting. But as you're obviously not an experienced kinkster, you should strive to get educated about this stuff... so, read up on it.

Yes, a lot of people can and do switch between a dominant and submissive role. No, even if you're into that kind of stuff, that doesn't mean that you're necessarily into it all the time, or into all aspects of it. There are people who just want to be spanked, for example, or to be verbally humiliated, or immobilized, or simply to be told what to do, whereas some people really want the whole shebang in all its forms. These are personal preferences that you don't need to justify any more than you need to justify whether you prefer coffee or tea.

Our article on BDSM is pretty informative, and so are the articles it links to. Safe, sane and consensual is probably something you want to take in. Just take it easy, and take the time to learn; you'll probably find out a whole lot about what you want and about what you don't want, and both of those are very valuable things to you. Also, the columns of people like Dan Savage and Mistress Matisse are likely to provide a lot of useful perspective. Just relax, you'll figure this out. There's no reason to think that you're not going to be okay, and there isn't anything wrong about having urges like this. If that's how you happen to be wired, hey, more power to you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reconstructed literary and musical works

I've been having a discussion over at Talk:Felix Mendelssohn#London cab about a report I read that he left the only available copy of his incidental music to "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in a London cab and had to rewrite the entire score from memory. As far as we can tell so far, there's no basis to this story. However, it got me thinking. We've mentioned 2 real cases where writers did have to start from scratch all over again, but I'm sure there are numerous other cases. The same might apply to composers whose scores were lost or destroyed before they were ever printed, and they had to be recreated from memory. Or painters. Any ideas, folks?

If we had an article with a list of such details, what would be a better title than the one I jocularly suggested? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

List of works rewritten from memory --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't seem to have that list, but we do have Lost work which isn't exactly what the OP was looking for. The question brought to mind Darkness at Noon, a novel whose original German manuscript was lost but was recreated from an English translation. —D. Monack ^talk 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Do you know of any others? I think Tolstoy wrote out War and Peace in toto about 6 times before he was happy with the final version. But he had the previous versions by his side as aides-mémoire (? aides-mémoires, ? aide-mémoires). I'm sure I've heard of non-Mendelssohn cases where composers had to rewrite their operas or symphonies from memory, but I can't bring any to mind. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

T. E. Lawrence left his first version of Seven Pillars on a train; John Steinbeck lost Mice and Men. These mention others: [13], [14] . Gwinva (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You could argue that the First Folio is a collection of reconstructed works, cobbled together after Shakespeare's death. No doubt many parts, like deeds done in one's youth, were remembered "with advantages." --- OtherDave (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard a story that Zamenhoff's first grammar of Esperanto was burnt by his father, who thought it was a waste of time. Steewi (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble thinking of musical examples, but here's one: Alexander Glazunov had a prodigious memory, and produced a memorial reconstruction of the first movement of Alexander Borodin's Third Symphony from just hearing him perform it once on the piano (Borodin left only a few scattered sketches on his death; nothing continuous). Shostakovich's memoirs contain some entertaining reading about that magnificently talented alcoholic. Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd heard that one. And didn't he reconstruct the Prince Igor overture after only a few hearings, played on a piano, or something? Ah, I see it was a bit more complicated than that. Then there was Mozart writing out Allegri's Miserere note-perfect after one hearing (that wasn't lost, but it may as well have been since the score was not available to anyone except the choristers, I seem to recall). -- JackofOz (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't quite count as "lost" since it wasn't written down in the first place, but there is the case of Bach's 3-voice fugue improvisation for Frederick the Great, which he later wrote down from memory, apparently, with improvements no doubt, and sent to Frederick along with the rest of The Musical Offering. Pfly (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and death before Jesus

Does the Catholic Church have (or has it ever had) a stance on what happened to people who died before Jesus was born? Did Jews go to heaven and no-one else, or did everyone go to hell? Have they ever taken a position with regards to people who didn't have the opportunity to learn about Christ? Thanks in advance. 90.192.223.228 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The resurrection is trans-temporal. A simple answer is that, at Jesus' resurrection, everyone was saved (those who had died prior to the resurrection and those who would be born after). A more complicated answer is that God exists outside of time, so the question has no meaning as it implies false restrictions (i.e., linear time) on a greater reality. Wikiant (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You may find Limbo informative. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This question made me wonder, assuming we evolve, at what point did we gain souls? But I'm thinking that that's a bit of a juvenile a-ha sort of a question arising out of the problem of squaring evolution and faith in the supernatural tales, and or a misunderstanding about what christian religions think a soul is. So scrap that question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an exciting scene in Dante's Inferno where Jesus mounts an invasion of Hell to rescue Moses and guys like that who had been waiting around for a long time. It was like a Missing in Action (film) prequel. See Harrowing of Hell. --Sean 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The next-to-last paragraph of Salvation#Roman Catholicism seems to answer your question. -- BenRG (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The assumption is that we have souls. Saintrain (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, you believe, he assumes... The noted theologian George Carlin commented on limbo, and would have had a field day with the language in the Vatican document. Not a great deal of spiritual comfort in "a possible theological hypothesis." It makes Pascal's gambit sound like a promissory note. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that's a little unfair. Imagine the question was "Assuming the earth does go around the sun, when did we lose our wings?" Saintrain (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Saintrain was making a pun on Assumption. Corvus cornix_talk 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I wish, but no. Saintrain (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to be unfair. Theology doesn't have much in the way of verifiable fact (always the best kind). Within the Catholic church, though, I think it's safe to say that the notion of a soul is more than an assumption. Outside it, I'd agree; you could say from that standpoint that someone else's dogma seems to you only an assumption. (My three verbs were just the usual debater's comparative: "I state, you assert, he purports...") --- OtherDave (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You also might want to check out Sheol Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

religion

I know that there are different types of religion with the same name like paganism with A higer power, Or believing in the earth and so on and so forth. What category would this religion fall under: Beleiving in God and Satan not as enemies but as partners. When the earth was created it was created with Good and Bad. (Rocks can be beauriful but you can also throw one at someones head.) beleiving that we were put here to see how far we could get from evolution. Like a bet. That is how people have happiness and anger. whichever the person holds more of God or Satan has more power over their head and heart. and satan is not neccesarily evil. Just grumpy and in charge of peoples feelings of anger and sadness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how this is a question- this is a place on Wikipedia to ask questions about topics, not to post personal beliefs. If you're asking religious questions (as in, which religion is correct), I'm afraid we cannot answer questions like that here. You need to work that out for yourself. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Manichaeanism#Theology. (By the way, Alinnisawest, I read Chaela89's question as a factual question entirely appropriate for WP:RD). --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, after rereading the question, I see that it is indeed a question- at my first skim-through, I didn't catch the question bit. Punctuation, that's where it all is... oh, all right, and reading things thoroughly!! ^_^ --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the post contains a perfectly appropriate question. Manichaeanism is an example of a belief system like the one described by Chaela89. Such belief systems can be described as forms of dualism. Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an unwrapped mummy in the British Museum

You know, one of those mummies with the bandages removed like they have in the dark room in the Cairo museum? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to this. Karenjc 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks a ton. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist

I remember having a conversation with a friend a little while ago, and he brought up the subject of conspiracy theories. One of his favourite theories was one that seemed mild at first. Stories of banking families and all that, but then wound up with five people who controlled everything, except they weren't people, they were shape shifting lizard men from outer space who ate humans and ruled over us by pulling the strings so to speak.

Does this sound familiar? I'd like to know who came up with it or what radio show it's from. Cheers 70.79.61.172 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See David Icke#Conspiracy writings, excellent stuff, probably the source of some of the plots of recent Dr. Who episodes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Lizard Men conspiracy theory is obviously false—everyone knows the world is actually controlled by the Crab People. —Kevin Myers 02:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturally we also have an article about the reptilian humanoids. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Crab People? No, it's the New World Order! -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet did win the election, so you see -- it must be true! :D Antandrus (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

donating internationally

Recently, I've contacted the United States Postal Service regarding sending international money orders to a few museums in Italy and Switzerland. A representative told me that those two countries don't accept international United States Postal Service money orders. Are there any other ways I can send financial contributions to a few museums in Italy and Switzerland?72.229.139.13 (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

By cheque or certified cheque? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You can wire money through an agency and through a bank. You can also purchase international money orders in banks in almost any international currency, though there may be local limits on the amounts. You may also be able to use a credit card. If none of these ways works for you, I suggest you get in touch with the institutions and ask them. It seems unlikely in the extreme that there won't be a way that it can be done. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 10

Modern Phillis Wheatley

Who is a famous person who is still alive who could be compared to Phillis Wheatley? Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post questions on multiple reference desks. Miscellaneous is probably the right place for this. Algebraist 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Phil Wheatley, if only on the grounds of name... in what respect were you thinking of?--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicate of this question which you posted on the misc. ref desk. Please post questions only on one desk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was on Misc first, and is kinda Miscy, but whatever. Comparison is dead easy. George W Bush, for example, has significantly paler skin than she did. What do you actually want to know? Algebraist 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

She's a poet. They're sometime miscellaneous, but nearly always humane... --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that would be so hard. A poet who faced difficulites (eg being a slave), etc. but is modern-day. Just something like that. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For most countries of the world, the slave qualification would be hard to match. If we choose some other tribulation, like book banning, exile, death threats, then someone like Nawal El Saadawi. You can find more of the same by searching google for banned CCC poet, where CCC is a country such as Turkey, Egypt, and many others, I guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

She may work. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos safe?

A terrorist group may break into the missile silo and kill the guards and then take the keys to control the launching of the ICBMs. They may even want to change the co-ordinates of the missile targets. I hope this never happen. Are the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos well-secured and protected from terrorism today? 72.136.110.93 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes they are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How secured are the the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos? 72.136.110.93 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Secured enough. See Strategic Rocket Forces for some more details of the force, if not their security methods. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A terrorist group may break into the missile silo and kill the guards and then take the keys to control the launching of the ICBMs

Terrorists could do this anywhere and to anything if they were smart/good enough. ;) Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Imran Zakhaev would agree that with a ultranationalist force of ~150 one could take a silo over. --mboverload@ 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia's nukes are protected by launch codes (see Cheget, akin to the U.S. Nuclear Football) which make it almost impossible to launch nuclear missiles merely by taking over a silo. If that weren't the case, I'd be more worried about some Russian (or American) missile silo guard having a really bad day and deciding to blow up Washington. —D. Monack ^talk 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. For many years the top-secret code that would allow a US launch was "00000000". The suitcase holding the president's underwear probably had better security, thanks to the Curtis LeMays of the world. (source). --Sean 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you want to spend your time worrying about unsecured nukes (which is not an unreasonable thing to worry about), I'd concentrate on Pakistan. --Sean 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A faith-based Christian experience.

One of our biography articles talks about conversion to a "faith-based Christian experience."

I'm wondering whether the phrase "faith-based Christian experience" is well enough defined and broadly understood to the extent that it can be used in the encyclopedia without explanation.

Or perhaps there IS an explanation elsewhere in Wikipedia to which this article could link.

Answers on these points would be appreciated. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Editorial nonsense. Which article? --mboverload@ 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Baldwin - I have marked the statement as needing clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The word 'experience' sounds kinda dodgy to me. You don't convert to an experience, you have one. I think if you can't find a reference for a particular denomination then just shorten it to Christianity. - Lambajan 02:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Christianity all about faith? Isn't any religion all about faith? If so, "faith-based Christian" seems a tautology to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the writer is trying to draw a distinction between the "cultural" Christian ("I'm a Christian because it's my heritage" kind of reason) and the person who has made a conscious decision to believe and follow the Christian doctrines. (Just as you can be a Jew by descent and/or one by belief.) It's not a very clear way of putting it, but then my comments fairly ill-thought and rambling, so I'm not one to propose a better way! You could rephrase it with "deeply-held beliefs" or "strong faith", perhaps? Gwinva (talk)

Or perhaps "converted to the Christian faith"? Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I haven't seen "faith-based Christian experience." In the U.S., faith-based is often used in the political or public sector for endeavors that have some religious underpinning. For example, an explicitly religious group might develop a program for helping addicts overcome their addiction. The program could combine various therapies and medication with, say, prayer and Bible study (or might leave out the therapy and meds altogether). The result might be called a faith-based treatment program.

As Jack says, "faith-based Christian experience," for a Christian, seems something of a tautology, like "Torah-based Hasidic study." On the other hand, the expression "conversion experience" (like Paul on the road to Damascus) is common, though I don't know if it applies in this case. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Thinking about the above comments, it seems to me there is a problem with using adjectives such as "strong", "deeply-held", "faith-based" to describe a person's faith or conversion. Not to deny that someone's faith may be strong, but (for example) if A is described as being a person of faith and B as a person of strong faith, the implication is that B's faith is stronger. Even for someone who knows A and B well, this may be a tough call. It is a "ranking" that Wikipedia would be well to avoid, IMO. I wonder if this or similar questions have been discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NZ discovery

Who was the Dutch explorer who became the first European to discover NZ?

219.88.61.112 (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He was Abel Tasman.

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question. So, instead of giving you the answer, I suggest you read New Zealand: the answer is a few paragraphs in. Gwinva (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (Ah, I see someone just has told you the answer. However, I still suggest you read the articles!) Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on speeches by American politicians

Would copyright laws apply to a public speech given by an American holding a political office, or is it in the public domain? If that speech is reprinted verbatim by a news organization, does copyright apply there?

I'm asking this because I've obtained a copy of a speech given by then-Honolulu Mayor Neal Blaisdell in 1966, which is from a verbatim reprint in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, and I'd like to know if I can reproduce it and distribute without having to worry about copyright. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that the copyright would belong to the news agency, as they didn't create it; but I could be wrong. If you don't get a firm answer here, go to WP:MCQ. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know about that page, thanks. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would expect the copyright belongs to the politician (or possibly their office, rather than them personally, in the same way that what you produce while at work often belongs to your employer). It almost certainly doesn't belong to the news organisation, since they just reprinted it and there is no creativity involved. If it were a film of the speech, the copyright of the film may belong to the news organisation (as a derivative work, or something), but the words of the speech would still be the politician's. --Tango (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most politician's like their speeches and ideas to be disseminated, so a request to use it would probably be accepted. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright belongs to the creator of the work, not the news organization that reprints it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What if it's an US pol who cribs a UK pol? Saintrain (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles in constitutions

I've wondered for a long time: why is it that the US Constitution has articles that are so much longer than other constitutions? For example, the Stalin Constitution has approximately 150 articles, versus 7 for the US Constitution; although this is due partially to its greater length, the articles of the Stalin Constitution are typically smaller than the sections of the US Constitution. Perhaps I should say: why aren't the chapters of the Stalin Constitution called articles, and the articles called sections? Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there's no set definition, let alone length, for any of these things. How long is a rope? How many words should be in a chapter? In a section? In a paragraph?

If you want to have some fun, take a look at the relentlessly prolix constitution of Alabama, largest in the world. Eighteen articles, 287 sections, and 799 amendments (example: amendment 781, "Baldwin County: Wastewater Utilities." Even Stalin in his glory was not arrayed like one of these. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it gets worse: Amendment 492 states that "the legislature may hereafter, by general law, provide for the promotion of the production, distribution, improvement, marketing, use and sale of catfish." — Lomn 14:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That one cracked me up by how they left the essential word to the very end; Catullus could have done no better! --Sean 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they actually have ordinary laws or is everything in their constitution? Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I've not read it, I'd guess that the Alabama constitution has a provision similar to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that is more faithfully observed than the Tenth Amendment. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Gulbenkian collection images

Can someone[s] from the humanities department identify who or what is shown in any or all of these pictures from the Gulbenkian Museum? Just curious. They are: [15], [16], and [17] The images can be placed on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickr photo no. 3 shows 3 of a set of 7 Chinoiserie tapestries incorporating designs by Jean-Baptiste Pillement, woven in the Aubusson manufactory, after 1773 (ref: Maria Gordon-Smith, "The Influence of Jean Pillement on French and English Decorative Arts Part Two: Representative Fields of Influence" Artibus et Historiae 21.42 (2000:119-163) described and illustrated pp 142ff); one of a pair of encoignures: Charles Cressent (attrib.), ca 1735; bureau plat, Bernard II van Risamburgh?; fauteuils à la reine upholstered in Beauvais tapestry: M. Gourdin?. The gallery view is too general for this to make a good encyclopedia illustreation, though. --Wetman (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• The third picture can't really be used...agreed. It has too many different things in it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are multiple-murderers rare?

I wonder if it is true that most murders are committed by someone who has never murdered before (either because crimes of passion are more common than organized crime, or because the justice system prevents murderers from re-offending most of the time). Has anyone come across any statistics on this? -- Beland (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember an oft quoted statistic that most murder victims are murdered by someone known to them, I think that would suggest that the murders are usually one-offs. It may depend, however, on whether you could killed more than one person at the same time as a multiple murder (obvious, it is, technically speaking, but you can't consider it a failing of the justice system to prevent re-offending!). --Tango (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating My Dentist

Not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere on the reference desk, but I think this is the best fit. So, here goes...

My dentist is good looking. Very good looking. I've peeked around at various articles about medical ethics and my understanding is that medical professionals are allowed to have relationships with patients if doing so will not compromise their care. Putting aside all other considerations (i.e. she's still married but decided not to wear her ring anymore, she's divorced but seeing someone, she makes it a personal policy not to date patients, she's way out of my league, I creep her out, etc.), is there anything baring her from going out with me? Specifically, is my understanding (above) correct and does that apply to dental professionals too?

--98.112.20.247 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any ethical problem. With a dentist I would expect it to be even less of a problem than many other professional-client relationships, as her professional relationship with you is pretty limited and impersonal (teeth cleaning and reminding you to floss) and easily interchangeable (dentists are, in my experience, all pretty similar from a professional perspective—it's not like you couldn't get a new dentist if things didn't work out well, and there's no real consequences to switching dentists). The areas where this sort of thing gets complicated is when they are a psychologist, a teacher, a boss, etc. But I don't see dating your dentist as being any ethically different than, say, dating your mechanic. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no laws barring health professionals from dating patients in the United States. However, the companies that the doctors/dentists work for may have regulations against it. -- kainaw™ 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you have nice teeth! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remember: breaking up can bite. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For educational purposes, I recommend watching the dentist´s scene in Marathon Man. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"jus primae noctis" on a tropical island

I have heard some years ago on radio that there is a custom of "jus primae noctis" on some small tropical island kingdom, far away. It is said that the king must deflorate all the girls on island, sometimes 7 girls at one night, so that he is very exhausted. Also the outlook of girls is not an excuse, so he must delforate even the ugly, handicap and fat ones. Is this true? Which country it is? I recently remembered the places name is Tonga, but found nothing about such custom on the Tonga article. Maybe I remember the name wrong, and it is some other country? Tarvast (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you know this island, please add information about it on the article "jus primae noctis", thanks! Tarvast (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was Tonga I would be surprised - given the lack of attempted coup d'etats. Richard Avery (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very distorted version of what happened on Pitcairn Island. Adam Bishop (talk) 205.210.170.49 (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No its nothing like that. The story was about a native king and apparently an old and respected custom.

I feel myself a bit fool now, because I really believed for years that such a custom exists, just because I once heard it on radio. I even told it to some of my friends. Its suprising that media has so much power!

Still I can't believe it was a total lie told as a fact. Maybe it is some historic custom, that is ended? Or maybe it is a historic story that such a custom existed? Tarvast (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as a story, I could see it. Think of all the mermaid tales and whatnot told by lonely, horny sailors over the centuries. A simple tale of "I met this one girl on at this one port..." could quickly distort to "all the girls on this island..." and then "the king gets to..." --98.112.20.247 (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidates on the issues

I think I have this right as to how each candidate stands on the issues and I hate to ask the reference to check it but I do not want to cast a vote on the basis of any misunderstanding or any misinformation nor do I think anyone else does either.

Political Positions of the Candidates

There are five possible positions

• a - strongly support
• b - support
• c - no opinion
• d - oppose
• e - strongly oppose

And your reference desk question is? Algebraist 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really how each candidate stands on the issues or have I got it wrong?

I guess they want to know if we see any glaring misrepresentations of the candidates views as shown on the table. Do we have a pro-gun Obama, or a pro-abortion Palin etc. Just to ask the OP for clarification, what is "protect sexual orientation"? Fribbler (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Protected By Civil Rights Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what this 'foreign aid Russia Israel etc.' McCain's opposed to is. Algebraist 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Continue Foreign Aid to Russia, Israel, Others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very broad category. I don't think McCain is opposed to aid for Israel. And does the US even give any aid to Russia? Algebraist 13:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Had the US not helped Russia recover from pure economic absurdity we'd have loose nukes and plutonium all over the place not to mention anything else Russia could have ripped out of the ground and sold. American aid bridged the gap long enough for Russia to limit such sales to oil and Vodka and rocket engines and computer programs and a whole bunch of stuff that puts dollars in its pocket but does not represent that great of a threat to the rest of the world and it was not all one sided. America greatly benefited and continues to benefit as well. Both Countries should be proud of what they accomplished in not just ending the Cold War but in helping so many people as a result.

No, I am not kidding, and I would still like to know if the US is currently providing economic aid to Russia. Algebraist 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though the owner of the shop has not revealed the price he pays for a sack of potatoes I can pretty much assume that I am providing him with economic aid every time I pay the "market" price he charges me for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Buying and selling are not economic aid. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The US does still give Russia money: [18]. We also spend a lot for nuclear security stuff that is good for both the US and Russia. Also, the idea that McCain would oppose aid for Israel is an absurdity; half of US foreign aid goes to Israel, and most of the other half goes to Egypt to be nice to Israel, and any whiff of reducing these amounts would be a political death sentence for any US presidential candidate. --Sean 15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Short version for people who don't want to rummage in pdfs: The US foreign affairs budget included about $80 million allocated to Russia this year, a third to a half of which went to anti-Kremlin NGOs, media and suchlike, and so probably doesn't count as aid in the usual sense. Algebraist 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

According to McCain's campaign website, he does not "strongly support" privatizing Social Security but merely wants to "supplement" Social Security with private accounts. Pres. Bush's Social Sec. proposal was similar. —D. Monack ^talk 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two questions here. What is McCain's (and Bush's) current plan, and what does he support. A person may have an opinion on something, but not be willing to commit to it yet because he doesn't feel the time is right (or for a variety of reasons). In other words, just because McCain's plan is to supplement SS with private accounts doesn't mean he has never publicly supported privatising SS. My gut feeling is that McCain has never publicly supported privatising Social Security, but I know next to nothing about American politican Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, no sitting U.S. senator has ever publicly advocated privatizing Social Security as this is considered political suicide (this is even more true for presidential candidates). McCain's home state of Arizona has a large retiree population, so he would be especially sensitive to this issue. —D. Monack ^talk 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it natural to feel this way?

I know this is a unusual question but is it natural for a normal human being (like me) to feel that there is something wrong with the world? 122.107.177.150 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. But with 180,000 google hits for the phrase "There is something wrong with the world", you would not be alone (if you happened to think that way).--Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on what you mean by it. If you mean, the state of political affairs is not going particularly swimmingly, then I think a good deal of people would (at any given time in history) agree with you, because indeed, such is something of the status quo (and at the moment, I would consider it an absolute mark of sanity). If you mean that you suspect everyone around you has been replaced with exact duplicates, well that's a psychiatric issue. As it is, you've stated something very vague, so who can tell what you mean? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Many people have felt this way, at least in the U.S, since the end of the year 2000. The Gallup poll showed 36% of the US responders "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States" before the 2000 election, compared with 81% dissatisfied today. Edison (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Slartibartfast would say that's perfectly normal paranoia and everyone in the universe has it. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Not directed at Edison... Directed at the general U.S. population...) I have a strong feeling that it goes back a little bit before 2000. I know it is rather surprising that the world wasn't a utopian environment before 2000, but there were problems. Some people thought the entire world was messed up. It resulted in some nasty things, such as attempting to exterminate entire populations, killing world leaders, sending young men off to pointless wars... In the United States in particular, an elementary understanding of history is obviously not required to graduate high school. -- kainaw™ 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Answering the question... There is a natural maturation that people go through (which you can study in psychology). To be overly general, as a kid you think the world revolves around you. As you mature, you experience many things where the world does not revolve around you. As a teen (ie: living with parents, but experiencing the world outside of family life), you will experience more conflicts between the world and your personal self. Eventually, it will be apparent that much of the world does conflict with your personal self. Governments want to take your money. Other religions don't believe what you believe. Other people think their music is better. Other countries dress differently. The natural reaction is that there is something wrong with the world. That isn't the end though. It is possible to mature past that point to a realization that most of the world is different and then accept that fact. As my grandfather put it to me when I was young, "No matter what you believe or how strong your beliefs are, at least half the world disagrees with you. Get over it." -- kainaw™ 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is/are something(s) wrong with the world. If ever I haplessly forget that, the more red lights pop up at intersections, the more ignoramuses cut me off, the more megalomaniacs hog all my work, and the more idiots I hopelessly run into, just to remind me. Personally, by no means do I think it is unusual to just throw up your hands, turn your eyes to the sky and ask "Why?" every once in a while.

But then, we can always assume that there is always more that is right with the world than wrong. Why else are we able to use a free, open-content encyclopedia to share knowledge, thoughts, and ideas, with people halfway around the world in the blink of an eye? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it another way: "Is there something right with the world?" If you can ask that question and get an answer that is satisfactory to you, then why could you also not ask its opposite? Saukkomies 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The year’s at the spring and day’s at the morn,

Morning’s at seven’

The hillsides dew-pearled;

The lark’s on the wing;

The snails on the thorn:

God’s in his heaven

All’s right with the world!

Sometimes. Saintrain (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Credited with Introducing Potatoes into Ireland?

This is quoted from the article Thomas Harriot:

"Thomas Harriot (c. 1560 – July 2, 1621) was an English astronomer, mathematician, ethnographer, and translator. Some sources give his surname as Harriott or Hariot. He is sometimes credited with the introduction of the potato to Great Britain and Ireland."

Considering the potato famine, would the Irish people have been better off if potatoes had not been introduced there? Wanderer57 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty goofy hypothetical question. Who knows what would have happened if you change a major variable for a country's agricultural situation 200 years in the future. Maybe they would have developed other monocultures. Maybe they've had done something else. Maybe maybe maybe maybe. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the introduction of potatoes maintain a fairly constant population, or did it spur fast and unsustainable population growth leading to famine when the 1845 potato blight hit? A graph of the Irish population [19] found in the article Great Famine (Ireland) compared to the population of the rest of Europe shows an amazing increase in the Irish population from about 3.2 million in the mid 1700's to about 8.2 million when the Hunger hit in the 1840s, with a drop of about 2 million due to the famine over the next few years, and a continuing drop for some time thereafter. Edison (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think of the well-being and quality of life—indeed, the existence at all—of the "extra" six million Irish who were probably sustained to some extent (presumably great extent, considering the population devastated by the crop's failure in the Famine) by the potato. Or as the OP words it, those Irish people were better off— until the Famine generation. This is (nod to first respondent, 98.217.8.46) if we're allowing only the one variable. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Crediting someone with something doesn't have to mean giving them a pat on the back. For example we credit Oppenheimer with inventing the atomic bomb but that doesn't mean we're saying "well done, son". 90.192.223.127 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is warm, windy, and damp. There are few other staples suitable for such a climate. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. The rollercoaster rise and drop in Irish population suggests dramatic changes. I should turn to history books to get an idea of the human toll taken by those changes.

I agree that my question was hypothetical - I almost used that term in asking the question. But "pretty goofy"?? Though my experience of the reference desk is much less that that of 98.217.8.46, my impression is that compared to some questions, mine is quite sensible.

Could we institute a rating system for reference desk questions, the "goofiness scale"? (Now that is a pretty goofy question.) ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a historian and all hypotheticals get a 3/5 on the goofiness scale by my rating anyway, and those which try to make sense out of how history would be different by changing some broad variable get an extra goofiness point. Now I'll admit though that even with this rating there are far more goofy questions on the Ref Desk, but this one struck me as goofy in the utter unanswerable nature of it. I think the answers offered are a bit too simplistic—I find it highly unlikely that the potato alone was responsible for all it is being given credit here for. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is far from goofy. The famine would likely not have killed as many people if the population had not increased so swiftly. But maybe the world was a better place for those extra people being in it, and were they personally better off being born than not being born? Hunger in Ireland provided Jonathan Swift with material for a satire, "A Modest Proposal" in 1729, Hunger and overpopulation were commonly understood to be the lot of the Irish over a century before the famine, before the same farmland was called on to feed another 5 million people while exporting grain for the financial benefit of the absentee landlords." (Ah Clio, where are ye to refute this?) Edison (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Urgent requirement!

I am a new user to Wikipedia.Can anyone please specify an internet link(External) from where I can get informations concerned with the 'Role and Duties of Judges in India'?Anyone to help is wholeheartedly welcomed.117.201.96.162 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We have great articles on many topics. May I ask why only an external link will do? --Sean 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of biting a newcomer, I'd suggest it's because they've been told not to reference wikipedia on their assigment. Steewi (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Indian law has a number of internal / external links which may be useful in your research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance

The Oath of Allegiance is required to be taken in the UK and other Commonwealth Realms by MPs, clergy of the Church of England, police constables and others. It is now sworn by new British citizens at citizenship ceremonies. To me, the oath appears feudal and obsolete; it pertains to swearing faithfulness and 'true allegiance' to the queen and her successors. I'm looking for comments and thoughts, legal and otherwise, as to what the oath legally or morally binds one. Is it possible for one seeking to abolish the monarchy to make such an oath? Certain MPs are avowed republicans and have made the oath. Has anyone, or can anyone, be prosecuted for breach of this oath? Has the oath been modified, scrapped or made optional in certain Commonwealth Realms? Thanks. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Police and Assembly members in Northern Ireland don't need to swear it. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you've already look at the UK specific page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(UK)) and looked through the linked parliamentary report/document (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-116.pdf). That goes into some detail about the current oath and includes examples of Sinn Fein MPs that were not allowed to sit because of their refusal to take the oath. Seeing as the oath has very little to I would find it unlikely for anyone to be prosecuted...

I ..... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Apart from abiding by the laws of the land (which all would need to do) there is little to it. Yes there is the allegiance to the Queen but that's a hard one to 'prove' in terms of enforcing this. It's more symbolic than anything else I would say. ny156uk (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The UK oath of allegiance is much shorter and simpler than the equivalent US oath of citizenship. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In Australia, new MPs have the choice of an oath or an affirmation. The oath starts with "I do swear that ..." and ends with "So Help me God". The affirmation starts "I do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that ...", and there's no reference to God at the end. Otherwise, they are both about allegiance to the monarch and their heirs and successors. The wording is hard coded into the Constitution, and cannot be changed except by referendum. Any referendum that proposed to do away with swearing or affirming allegiance to the Queen would also probably propose to do away with the monarchy entirely. We had such a referendum in 1999, but it failed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

UK MP's also have the choice of swearing or affirming. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, Oath of allegiance (Canada). Americans are often astonished when they learn (on admittedly rare occasions) that the citizenship oath for new Canadians begins, "I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors..." "Queen of Canada" is virtually unknown in the U.S., except perhaps by bowtie-wearing columnists. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a little problem with people of other religions persuasions bearing true allegiance whilst 'An Act for the Security of Her Majesties Person and Government and of the Succession to the Crown of Great Britain in the Protestant Line' is still in force. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if they intend to ignore the "according to law" part of the oath or affirmation. One can bear true allegiance while lawfully attempting to change a particular law. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that religious tests have been removed from the oath as it now stands, especially as one can decide whether to swear by God or not, or to affirm rather than swear. That the succession is religiously limited by law seems a somewhat separate issue. In UK law, the oath has been whittled down to allow for a multitude of non-Anglicans to take it, thus suggesting that the limited succession is no impediment. There also seems to be a consensus that a republican can swear the oath on the basis that the allegiance boils down to a respect for rule of law, and allows for legal abolition of monarchy. Even so, I feel the oath is a rather outdated nonsense. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Woman Vice President

Why do so many women jump boat and go from being a democrat to being a republican only because the republican VP candidate is a female. This is crazy to me.... Before Palin was announced as Mccain's running partner, the polls showed they were neck to neck, now Mccain is up. Why will women just vote for a woman?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The same happened here in the UK and we got Maggie Thatcher for 11 years. Astronaut (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

People want leaders that will make the same decisions as they would make, which often means people support candidates that are most like them, that could well include gender. --Tango (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It just demonstrates that politics is not necessarily about policies. In fact, in the majority of cases it's not about policies, which is why the "charisma" or other personal qualities of candidates is considered so important; as is whether they've ever in their life put a joint to their lips, even if it happened when they were 15. JFK probably got over the line because of the Catholic vote; if Obama wins, it will no doubt be helped by lots of African-Americans voting for him who may not have voted for a white Democrat candidate. It also works in reverse: there will be people who would have voted Repulican if the VP running mate was a male, but will now not vote Republican; and there will be people who would have voted Democrat if the presidential candidate was white, but will now not vote Democrat. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All presidential elections are decided by the "undecided" voters who are not ideologically attached to one party or the other. These people tend to pride themselves on voting for the person rather than the party. Because the parties nationally are so far apart on many issues, anyone who would vote Democrat one year and Republican the next presumably is not an issues-oriented person. Such a person would be swayed by little things like which candidate seems more honest or which seems more like a "regular person." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we are actually talking about not too many voters here — a few percentage points — who are dumb enough to vote for someone just because they look (or don't look) like them. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tango, most of these women were democrats and moved over to being republican as can be seen with the polls. It comes down to the only similarity is sex, and not beliefs. I just cant believe how incompetent people can be these days... And about the last comment, we are talking about a lot of voters, not just a few. I know these polls that they conduct dont cover all American voters or even close, but they show what American voters will do. These small studies of a few thousand people shows pretty much how all voters will vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way of knowing if anyone will tend to change party affiliation until after the vote on November 4th. Until then, it is only opinion polls and those are frequently inaccurate. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is based on a faulty assumption--that is, that McCain's jump in the polls is primarily attributable to women "crossing over" to support Sarah Palin purely because she is a woman. If one has been watching the polling figures (The Gallup Organization and Rasmussen Reports, for starters), a different picture emerges. It appears that few women have crossed over: if anything, counterintuitive as it might seem, the new McCain supporters are men. Statistically, McCain's gains among women voters in the last 10 days are very small...almost within the margin of error for the polls being taken. When we further consider that the rise in polls generally is likely attributable in part to a "convention bounce", I don't think there is a phenomenon to explain--at least, not the phenomenon the questioner believes is at work. Just my two cents, User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.41.113 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How dare you spoil a good discussion with references to actual data! ;-) You're right: there seems to be no data that shows Democratic women shifting support to McCain. Gallup, in fact, suggests that McCain actually lost ground with both Democratic and independent women after the selection of Palin. So far, Palin seems to have helped McCain primarily with white male independents and GOP women. Palin will presumably help McCain with conservatives, but whether she will attract many independent or Democratic women remains to be seen. —Kevin Myers 05:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I saw a news report earlier today on the Internet which quoted one poll (dont' know which one) that said that women's support had gone from 8% more for Obama, to 10% more for McCain. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

American Helping Everyone

How come the USA is always helping every other country and you never hear of any other countries helping others in terms of free medicine or anything else? I don't have a problem with helping others in need, but I find it pretty sad that no one else cares to contribute, whether they are a wealthy country or not. This country is so broke right now and we are helping everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You will see from this article (Official development assistance) that many countries are (in terms of percentage of GNP) much more generous than the USA in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The ODA data is misleading because it only includes money given by governments. Individual Americans and U.S. private foundations give, collectively, almost four times what the U.S. government gives. When you include all US giving (not just giving by the government), Americans give more foreign assistance in total and on a per-capita basis than almost all other countries. Wikiant (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that (with like-for-like figures for other developed nations)? DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a citation here which suggests that the US, public & private, gives less on a per capita basis than many other countries. YMMV. Oh. And another one which states "Even if you factor in private giving, the United States ranks 19th out of 21 rich countries in terms of per capita expenditures, according to the 2004 Ranking the Rich exercise.". One reason the US is pushed so low is the amount of "tied" aid - 57% of total giving [20] - which can be spent only with US firms. Halliburton, after all, also needs to be fed lest there be no jobs for retired top politicians in the future. Thus 'aid' funds the domestic Military-industrial-media complex and the Pork barrel. </rant>. Okay, to balance it up a bit, a long quote from the Rasmusen blog[21]: "This does not mean that the United States is particularly stingy on other dimensions of helping the poor. The Ranking the Rich exercise included aid as only one of seven components -- the others are trade, investment, migration, environment, technology, and security. When you aggregate the different components, the U.S. comes in at 7th out of the 21 countries (intriguingly, among the G-7, the Anglosphere countries -- Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S. -- come in at 1-2-3). It turns out that the U.S. is comparatively more generous on other dimensions." --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of where the USA ranks on the "giving" scale, one can safely say that many other countries do care to contribute, both money, and other types of aid (such as humanitarian, developmental, military). So, the question is "why do you never hear of any other countries helping"? Probably, because of media/political bias. The American press (or politicians) like to tell about what America is doing. Nothing wrong with that in principle (families like to discuss their own affairs, after all), but you might need to read more than headlines to find out what the rest of the world is doing. Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source (the numbers are from the world bank) I found about the US vs. other developed nations in terms of private donations, I didn't read into it too much. I've always heard that European governments will give more, but Americans give more individually as a percentage of GDP. AlexiusHoratius 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's charitable giving in total, not just giving to other countries. I expect Americans give a greater proportion of their donations domestically than other countries (that's a guess based on general statistics about Americans and involvement with the rest of the world). That link also says charitable giving is generally higher in countries with lower taxes, which could explain a significant proportion of the difference, judging by this. --Tango (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because America is the best! Ra ra ra! See American exceptionalism. USA!! USA!! USA!! What a load of jingoistic tosh. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note also there is a difference in the types of aide countries give. Some give a lot of tied aide, others untied aide. Aide can come with a large variety of other preconditions which may benefit the donating country or can have few or none. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the USA being broke and how that relates to foreign aid, most US foreign aid goes to propping up our only reliable Middle Eastern ally, Israel, rather than good-natured medicine distribution, and most of the rest goes to overpaying Iowa farmers for food aid. The whole kettle of fish takes up less than 1% of the US budget. Also, the USA is ludicrously far from being broke; anyone who thinks so is only counting our debts and not our assets. --Sean 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Iraq but by no means receives most US foreign aid. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good figures on this issue here. Israel plus Egypt far outweigh all the rest, if we put Afghanistan and Iraq to one side. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Those figures don't show all countries. I believe Israel + Egypt = about 1/3 of US foreign aid (minus Iraq). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rich countries like to think they are doing great things helping poor countries, but factor in the people from the poor countries who were enslaved, or abused by colonial regimes which worked them to death on plantations or in mines. Significant value went from the third world nations to the European nations who colonized them, and significant value went in the form of slaves from Africa to America. Much of the aid which goes to developing nations is in the form of weapons, and conveys little benefit to the common people, but instead keeps corrupt "friendly" regimes in power. Edison (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In its history, the United States has indeed given a lot of foreign aid to other countries. However, it should not be ignored that all through the 20th Century up to today that the US has immensely benefitted financially from its foreign investments. In other words, for every dollar that US investors have sent overseas, they realize a profitable return - sometimes at an incredibly high rate. What this means is that America has stripped capital - money - from other countries around the world for many years, which is one of the big reasons that the United States has been so rich for so long. The percentage of money that the US has then turned around and given back to these countries is almost negligible compared to the vast wealth it has stripped from the same countries by foreign investments. Saukkomies 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign investment "strips wealth" from developing countries? Do you think it would be better for companies in the developed world not to invest in developing countries? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Economics is not a zero-sum game, it is possible to profit without it being at someone else's expense. A return on investment is usually such a case. I build a factory in China, a load of Chinese people get jobs and wages, some consumers get whatever it is I make and I get some profit - everybody wins (that's a little simplistic, but it is certainly possible to have a net gain overall from an investment). --Tango (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This indeed is true. However, such is not the case for many of the countries that the United States has given foreign aid to - especially in Latin America. When the trading arrangement between two countries - one a developed and one developing - entails that the poorer, developing country provides raw material and cheap labor, and the richer, developed country provides manufactured goods, there will be an inherent trade imbalance of capital (wealth) which will flow steadily from the developing to the developed country. The result of this is a steady flow of capital from the developing to the develoed country, keeping the developing country from fully realizing its potential. There are many examples of this, including the relation between the US and Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, and other Latin American countries. Generally speaking, every US dollar invested in Latin America returns two dollars to the investor. Saukkomies 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

European countries take precedence over the U.S. in the severity of economic and cultural devastation imposed on colonies. In the realm of cultural rape, many countries were forced to abandon even their native languages in favor of those of the occupiers. Few countries (Guam? Puerto Rico? The Phillipines? the Indian Nations of North America?) speak English as a result of U.S. occupation, whereas many speak English as a result of British conquest, or speak French, or Spanish, or Russian due to conquest. Any other languages imposed by cultural imperialism? Edison (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Very edifying, Edison, but this seems to be drifting a long way off topic in order to prove a political point. And I'm sure that's against the Ref Desk rules. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course they don't speak English as a result of US colonisation - the US was a British colony, it speaks English due to British colonisation! The US can't really claim innocence of things that happened before it become independent, since they were part of the British (and some other European countries) empire and were colonialists. --Tango (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

primary historical memories

I want to know if there is, and what it is called if there is a term that refers to a generations first collective memory of a significant historical event like President Kennedy's assassination was the first nation or world wide event that my parents can remember, or 9/11 will be the first worldwide event remembered by today's teenagers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.38.58 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any specific term for it. But mine was the fall of the Berlin Wall, if anybody cares! ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such a term would apply, because what is "historically significant" and what is not, is all relative. From an English stand-point, I really doubt such a term exists. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think events that stand out as you describe are sometimes called landmark events or historical landmarks. However, since a 'generation' of people are not all born in the same year, the first landmark event for some is not the first for others. Because of this, there may not be a name for the first landmark event of a generation. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually though, looking back, what about the baby boomers? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

People from the earliest age of reason upward remember these events: how they heard it, where they were, who they were with. It is multi-generational. I know people from an older generation whose memory of that sort is the announcement of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For those a few years younger, it was the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. For a younger generation still, it was the assassination of President Kennedy. People could tell what class they were in, who announced that Kennedy had been shot, and who was sitting in front and behind them in the classroom. The next such event? Maybe the moon landing, although it was not a sudden unexpected event. Then 9/11. Perhaps these events are a creature of telecommunications. Was it such a shared historical moment when a newspaper arrived with word of the outbreak of the American Revolution in the fighting at Lexington and Concord? Then there would have been more word of mouth spreading of the news when a newspaper arrived via stagecoach, or later when the telegraph at the newspaper office received word that President Lincoln had been shot. There ought to be a name for these moments. Edison (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For young people, it might be 9/11 (7 years ago today; the West's bad luck might finally have come to an end) or the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. My first such memory is the launch of Sputnik in 1957. It may not seem like much these days, but it was a very big event then, and I have a very clear memory of my mother going on in some detail about it. I can't believe someone hasn't come up with a name for this phenomenon at some time, but if so, it doesn't seem to have entered popular consciousness. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I too am unaware of a name for these events. Mine is the murder of Lord Mountbatten and some of his family and friends. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The first major world event I remember vividly is the Challenger explosion. I remember the Berlin Wall falling and the Soviet Union collapsing too, but I was mostly interested in the new flags and capital cities I had to memorize...and it seems like there must be a word for this, but I can't think of it. Maybe there is one in German, they usually have words for this sort of thing, right? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely there must be a name for everything that can be described. - Lambajan 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the names of the actual events being used as such a generic term, i.e. "9/11 was our generation's JFK." jeffjon (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Things like this have always happened. Before Pearl Harbor, it was "Remember Lusitania! Before that, farther back, it was "Remember the Alamo!" Things like that go back forever. Maybe "watershed moment" is what we're looking for? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Watershed moment" would certainly describe such events, but it would also describe many events that people don't particularly remember (well, they might remember the event per se, but they don't remember now exactly where they were or what they were doing), so it's too broad. For example, does everyone remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they first heard about Czechoslovakia's decision to break into 2 countries? I certainly don't. But it was indisputably a watershed moment, at least as far as those countries were concerned, and as far as the history of peaceful resolutions goes. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it will always depend on your frame of reference. I had no idea who Lord Mountbatten was until I looked at the article, for example, but that's no huge surprise—I'm betting that most Americans of my age have no idea who he is. And our degree of understanding of said events can be pretty miniscule; all I really understood about the fall of the Berlin wall was that everyone thought it was a big deal and now I had to re-learn my European geography because East Germany and West Germany would now just be Germany and I found that very irritating at that age, the apparent arbitrariness of it all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Could (would) one consider Yugoslavians and Australians born about the same time the same generation? What Berliners (O) remember about 1961 are probably much different than Burmese.

My first political/historical memory is seeing the headline "Ike Wins in Landslide". (I knew what Ike, wins and landslide all meant but was very confused and worried by that juxtaposition!) That event is certainly minor to my "generation". I think a "generation's memories" are formed way after the fact. Saintrain (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there's the day Princess Diana died. One term that comes up over and again is adding "-gate" for any scandal. In her famous interview launching Martin Bashir, PD might have embodied both for some people. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The death of Princess Diana is certainly my first such memory. 9/11 is probably the only other such memory I have. I can tell you exactly where I was when I heard about those two events. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are certainly "collective moments": those events which everyone (above a certain age) can remember, along with the associated details (where they were, how they reacted). JFK, Challenger, Berlin Wall, Diana, 9/11 and so on. These will vary slightly from country to country and, of course, everyone will have a different first event. Mine was the Erebus crash, 1979. I could tell you exactly when and how I heard. The 1981 Springbok Tour was, I think, my first realisation that there was a Big Bad World out there, but that was an event, rather than a moment. (And now you know how old I am, and where I live.) Gwinva (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're reminiscing, my earliest good memory of a historical event is the United Kingdom general election, 1997. The only earlier such events I recall are the death of John Smith (and my outrage that my daytime TV had been cancelled as a result) and a sense of bemusement that anyone thought golf important enough to fight a war over. Algebraist 01:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember going into school the day after the 1997 election and talking with friends about how it was the first day of our lives under a non-conservative government. I don't remember when I heard the result, though, so I don't think that one counts for me (I was only 10 at the time). --Tango (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know a girl who said she would always remember where she was when she heard that Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, and that President Kennedy had been shot. She was sitting in American History class in 1996. Edison (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was 11, and I'd been up till 4 watching it. Algebraist 10:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

September 11

Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah

I was wondering if anyone knows where I can find a free online English translation of Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah. I am looking for a translation in its entirety, not just excerpts, specifically on Ecclesiastes 1. Thanks! Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nastia Liukin's Religion

I have heard a few things that say Nastia is Catholic, but aside from one or two tidbits, I have not seen a single report on her religion. Does anyone know what religion she is? It is something I have been wondering about for a while, and I figured if anyone would know, it would be the Wikipedians.

Thanks! Ken Kenneth971 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, she attended an Easter mass with her family at a Russian Orthodox church. The fact that it suggests this was a one off or unusual event, would lead me to think she is Orthodox by birth, but perhaps not practising. Fribbler (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Korea's Major Accomplishments

I'm trying to find some of Korea's Accomplishments, but ones that aren't as well known. Anyone know of a site that lists all accomplishments?

--204.218.240.25 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're asking. In medieval times, the Koreans invented an alphabet which has been considered the most linguistic alphabet ever regularly used to write a language. The Koreans also defeated a late 16th-century Japanese attempt to conquer Korea (despite having a bureaucratic governmental system which was not greatly conducive to organized military valor), something which probably was a very significant influence on the shogunate's ultimate 17th-century decision to adopt an isolation policy, instead of trying to conquer an overseas empire.

In modern times, the South Koreans built up their economy from basically zero in 1951 to almost being one of the top 10 economies in the world in the early 1990's.

You can also see National Treasures of Korea... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is the global authority on undergraduate research?

I'm undertaking a project with the aim of creating and implementing a system for delivering undergraduate research within a university. Contacting those with relevant experience is fundamental to overcoming the inevitable pit-falls, and I was wondering if there were any recognised figures in the area.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottie G (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In what field? --Tango (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) is an NSF program in the United States for students studying the sciences. The NSF has an REU Points of Contact list. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Walter Ralegh's middle name

In our article Killua Castle, a monument to "Walter G. Ralegh" planting the first potatoes in Ireland is mentioned. Our article Walter Ralegh does not mention a middle initial or name. Does anyone know if he did have one, and if so, what it was? DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No middle name in either Britannica or Chambers biographical dictionary. Algebraist 13:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The ODNB has nothing either. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It was very uncommon in those days for English people to have middle names. Even the English monarchs around then had just one name. If Raleigh had a middle name, which I very much doubt, he would have been one of the few exceptions. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone here actually been to Killua, or are we relying on internet sources as to the monument's text? Algebraist 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No-one has been to Killua, but there is a picture in the article, and a link to the registration of the monument with Ireland's National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the monument's text, without the "G." the lines are centred, then there's the G, crammed up against the R with a subscripted stop between/below them taking that line to the left. Has it been tampered with since first engraving? Is it an early mayor making himself important through stonemasonry graffiti? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it sure looks like vandalism to me (and we're all experts on spotting vandalism around here). The G towards the end is in a very different style to the leading G, and it looks much more like a C. Even if he really did have a middle name starting with G, it's not usual to refer to people who are normally only known as eg. John Smith, as John G. Smith. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not as weathered as the other letters, either. Perhaps a real Walter G. Ralegh added it in? Gwinva (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly some larrikin from the era when people believed what they saw in print/stone. Someone could email the find to Killua council while I get the beers, : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Plume etiquette

Further to this thread Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Queen Victoria's funeral cortège: Edward and Wilhelm?, a question was asked at the end which I think is worthy of our attention - who was allowed plumes in that era? DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Permanent link to question: [22]. Gwinva (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The middle-class in US elections

Hello There,

I notice that the Democrats talk about helping the middle classes rather than the poor (working class). In the Uk, we rarely talk about the middle class in terms of needing help (because, well, they don't) so any sort of benefit is designed with the working class in mind. (in fact, i'd go further and say that the middle class in the UK is rarely mentioned at all, unless to convey busiboddyness or homogenity) So I'm wondering why this is? Is it a symptom of American positivity (like how problems are never problems, they're always 'challenges' or 'opportunities')? Or is it something nastier in that no one wants to stick up for the loser-ish poor? Anyway, i'd be interested to hear what the consensus is....217.169.40.194 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have heard it said that this is because most American people consider themselves middle class, even if they in fact quite poor relative to the national average. Can anyone confirm this? Algebraist 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The article on American middle class points to some of this. As Algebraist gets at, it is a very nebulous term that by some counts 75% of the country self-identifies by. We don't say "working class" so much in the US though we do use the alternate term "blue collar" in political discourse (esp. when campaigning in Pennsylvania). And helping "the poor" does not have much of a ring to it in US political discourse, in part because a good deal of the American mythology is that everyone can succeed if they really want to, and thus people are poor because they are lazy or because they want to be or etc. My impression (garnered only from British documentaries like the Up series, I am sad to admit) is that in the UK the attitudes towards the poor are much more sympathetic, in part because the difficulties of true social mobility are more clearly recognized as a result of having a long-entrenched class system, whereas in the US most people (and esp. politicians) believe the social mobility is practically limitless (the old Horatio Alger story), even if actual economic and sociological data make it clear that it is not. I should note this is my own pop-analysis. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Middle class" certainly means something different in the United States than in the UK. In the UK, I think that "middle class" implies professional employment or small- to mid-size business ownership. As others have suggested, in the United States only the poor and the very rich do not identify as middle class. That includes anyone who owns a house (nearly 75% of Americans) or who owns even a decent-looking car but who does not employ a staff of domestic servants. Given the broad definition of the middle class, many Americans (not including myself) feel that those who have failed to qualify for membership in it have failed due to laziness or irresponsibility and do not deserve any "hand-outs" from the state, particularly not at their own expense as taxpayers. Meanwhile, many who define themselves as middle-class face low pay, rising prices, and a lack of health insurance. Many Americans feel that members of the broadly defined middle class, who are doing their best but struggling to get by, might deserve a helping hand, particularly if they see themselves as possible beneficiaries. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, as an American with little experience in British interpretations of words, I've always considered working class and middle class to be about the same thing. There's the rich, there's the middle class that works and so on, there's welfare cases. Pretty much how American attitudes have seemed to me. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, middle class and working class are definitely different things. Working class are often in council houses (cheap houses rented from local government) and on benefits. Working class are usually paid by the hour, middle class are usually salaried. I don't think there's a firm line between the two, but most of the time it's clear what a household falls under. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

American politicians never speak of the "working class," but Democrats often talk about "working families," by which they mean working-class families. As previously stated, Americans generally see society as divided into three classes -- the poor, the middle class (i.e., "us") and the rich. The middle class is divided into an upper middle class and a lower middle class, which may correspond to the "middle class" and "working class" of the UK. But any politicians who talked specifically about helping the lower middle class or the working class would be accused of "class warfare." Those who live in public housing and collect welfare would be considered "the poor," and, since many middle-class Americans resent any of their tax money going to such supposedly undeserving people, any politicians who talks about helping the poor does so at his peril. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I found an interesting graph ([23]) that seems to show that about 60% of British households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. That rather surprised me (although I suspect it's due to child benefit which is paid to any family with children and child tax credit which is paid to most). --Tango (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The figures for final income in that graph include an amount for benefits in kind, such as education and health services. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Moral question: Discriminate or avoiding conflict

Imagine that you have two openings in your company and you can choose people from group A or group B. You know that group A and B don't come along well due to some historical problems between their communities in the past. If you take a candidate from group A and group B, you know that they will not come along well, maybe they will even fight each other.

Would it be morally wrong taking two candidates from the same group?--Mr.K. (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"If you take a candidate from group A and group B, you know that they will not come along well". Are you sure that is true of the particular people you are intending to hire? Just because groups A and B are fighting somewhere in the world doesn't mean people A and B will not be able to get along. I have personal experience of this working with people from different parts of former Yugoslavia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it is morally wrong to assume that because many members of group A are at odds with many members of group B, a given individual from group A will not be able to get along with an individual from group B. Furthermore, I think that it is morally wrong to reject an otherwise qualified person because of his or her group membership. However, it sounds as though a legitimate job qualification could be the ability to get along with members of both group A and group B. I don't see a problem with an interview question for a member of group A along the lines of "In this organization, we employ people from a wide range of backgrounds. Can you give examples of how you have worked in the past with people from groups C or B?" I think I would include people from more than one group in this question so that the interviewee does not feel that he or she is being singled out as coming from a group that has problems with people from group B. If the person then gave an example from group C, I might follow up with "And what about people from group B?" Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. You cannot assume that a person will act a certain way because of what group they're from. If the candidates have agreeable personalities then they should be able to work around any problems that the situation poses. They could even become friends and help diffuse the broader situation in their own localized way. I think the morality of taking people from one group or another varies depending on the situation. In some fields you're obligated to take the most highly qualified people nomatter what. Sometimes the job requires people with good interpersonal skills over qualifications. The historically persecuted group may have more candidates who can do the job (depending on what the job is, in some fields the qualification process is more rigorous and necessary) just as well as the other group but may not have as many qualifications to back themselves up. This is actually a layered and complex question. In general, morality aside, there are many benefits to companies in most industries in increasing diversity. - Lambajan 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Morality is a very personal thing. What's morally wrong for me may not be morally wrong for you. But, depending on the definition of groups A and B, choosing people based on their membership of such a group, rather than on their merits as defined by the selection criteria, may well be discriminatory in a way that's legally unacceptable (again, depending on the law where you live). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The largest discrimination is in assuming that any and all members of Groups A and B are the same as others of their same groups. Once you get past that prejudice, it become easier to understand. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical Questions Only - How to Address the US President

If Hillary Clinton had become presdient of USA, will she be addressed as "Mrs. President"? And if her and her husband where in public together, would they be addressed as "Mr and Mrs. President"? --Anilmanohar (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hilary would have set the precedent, so any answer would also be hypothetical. I'd go with Mrs. President. Bill would probably be The First Husband. Paragon¹²³²¹ 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill will always be Mr. President because that's the standard greeting for ex-presidents (in the US), so they probably would say 'Mr and Mrs. President'. There would probably be a bit of a different precedent set if Palin becomes president. - Lambajan 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would guess "Madam President", just as Nancy Pelosi is addressed as "Madam Speaker". -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds better. (Mrs President might be the wife of Mr President, in the sense of a married couple named Mervin and Gertrude President.) Women functionaries in their own right tend to get Madam <title of office>. We had a female President of the Senate, and she was always called Madam President. This sort of inquiry from journalists as to how to address a newly-appointed female ambassador was what lay behind the title of Irving Berlin's Call Me Madam. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would go with "Madam President and Mr. President" when they're addressed together (2nd person) and President Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton in the 3rd. Saintrain (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd ditch the "and", it sounds weird that way, but otherwise I agree. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the "Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. ........" scene in Spies Like Us? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that anything like Major Major Major Major? — Michael J 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At a formal presentation, such as at a European Royal Court, would they be introduced as "Madam and Mr. President Clinton?" Or perhaps "Mr. and Mrs. President Clinton?" I would expect that incumbency would give the distaff side presidential precedence. Or precedential Presidents. When Dwight Eisenhower was replaced as U.S. President by John Kennedy, Ike was immediately called "General Eisenhower," so perhaps the terminology would be "President and Governor Clinton." Edison (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In this context, he'd be appearing as Hillary's husband, not as a former president (even though he is), so I suspect it would be "President and Mr Clinton". Also, she would be addressed personally as Madam President, but when referring to her it'd be President Clinton or Mrs Clinton - or even Hillary Clinton in some circumstances - but never Madam President. That's a confusion between a form of address and a title. Have no doubt, the protocol boffins would be working very hard to get these details just exactly right, so whatever we come up with here may not be what they agree on in the real world. But I saw Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark interviewed in a news grab recently, and the young upstart Aussie journo addressed him as "Frederik". So who the hell knows anymore? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a time when US presidents were commonly addressed as Mr. even when in office? I've never quite liked the way former presidents continue to be called president, as in, for example, "With us tonight is President Carter!" I have wondered when this kind of "eternal title" took root in the US. It wasn't always that way, was it? Pfly (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one suggested the obvious: Presidents Clinton (or, President Rodham and President Clinton). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Curiously the Office of the Chief of Protocol is silent on this!? But the ultimate source states "American protocol dictates that only one person at a time can hold the title of president of the United States. Former presidents should never be so addressed, although they have even taken to calling one another that." Saintrain (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"There is a crack on the structure of the universe"

Who said: "There is a crack on the structure of the universe" and what did he/she meant? It has something to do with science or philosophy. I have some times used this phrase, and before using it again, I want to know its original context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.65.112.51 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard that one, but here's some free association that might accidentally hit on the right answer:

• Cosmic egg (there's a book called "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg")
• People sometimes talk about "the fabric of spacetime" being "torn"—meaning, I guess, curved spacetime with a singularity in it
• Topological defects are almost literally cracks in the structure of the universe
• Eddy's in the space-time continuum

-- BenRG (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, might it have something to do with the Large Hadron Collider and the associated paranoia about it opening dimensional rifts or destructive black holes? (That would depend on how recently the quote came about, though.) 68.123.238.140 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wayne Kramer song called "Crack in the Universe". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If they kept the receipt, they should just return it for a refund or a replacement... Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

...but who keeps receipts for 13.7 billion years ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Norris? Though he probably caused the crack with a roundhouse kick. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But I heard he never keeps receipts (he uses his stare to get his money back). :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

September 12

T. W. Wood

I would like to know whether Thomas Waterman Wood is a different T. W. Wood from the T. W. Wood that illustrated books for Darwin and Wallace - Commons:T. W. Wood. That they have the same initials, surname, occupation (artist) and apparently first name, it seems to me unlikely that they were different people. But I don't see anything about such work in the biography here, and Waterman Wood seems to have lived in America pretty much exclusively - is it likely that he would have done so much art for British books when he was that far away? Richard001 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest they are different people. The artwork is quite different in style and nature. Also, the Thomas Waterman Wood article is detailed, yet does not mention any involvement with Darwin. A quick search suggests that T.W.Wood was a zoologist, not a portrait painter. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and so on. Gwinva (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you must be right - it sounds like the British T. W. Wood got up to a fair bit of zoologizing as well as his art, and that would hardly go unmentioned in the article. Since we don't have an article on this T. W. Wood, I'll just add a note that it's not the same one. Richard001 (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DVDs about British society

Some time next year, I (outside the anglosphere) have to teach a short course about recent British politics or social history or mores or something. (Blairism to binge drinking: I have a lot of leeway.) The students will be 19 or so and I can expect them to study, though they have little experience of real study (as opposed to rote learning) and also little appetite for extended reading. Still, their English comprehension is pretty good. Various books are available, but I fear that the course would easily become boring if based on any one book, however good: this is instead a course that cries out for video (probably with supplementary short readings).

I thought of basing it around a small number of carefully selected (feature) films, but have decided not to do this, as in any worthwhile fiction film the "content" (however scrupulous and perceptive) is likely to be sidelined -- indeed, should be sidelined -- by character, plot, etc. And of course films do last rather long, which makes scheduling difficult. (Plus I think a lot of "relevant" films are terrible: for example, while Brick Lane (which I sat through to kill time during a long flight) has a few good ingredients, it has scenes directed like shampoo commercials, and some ham acting that would be at home in a third-rate TV series.)

Even if there are no copyright issues, unfortunately I do not have the time to start building up a collection of recordings of programs that may happen to pop up on satellite TV. Are there good documentary DVD series? I really haven't a clue about this kind of thing, but f I know the titles of one or two possibilities of predigested series, I can then of course use them to google for more. Thanks. Tama1988 (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The comedy quiz Have I Got News for You Would give a good idea of events, culture and the British sense of humour. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally if you contact the Open University they may be able to help. As an OU student doing social-science courses I am innudated with dvds with documentaries on, these also show late night on the BBC. I suspect they may have reservations about providing you with them for free but it might be worth contacting them, or trying to find ebay-listings with old social-science DVDs and literature (I have all my old dvds for my courses and within there are plenty of 'modern Britian' like documentaries). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they would enjoy the Seven Up! series. You could use it to introduce the changes that have occurred in British society since the 1960s, and ideas about class and social mobility. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy-Go-Lucky and The Royle Family? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I'd never heard of Happy-Go-Lucky (though I had heard of Mike Leigh), and while I had heard of the other titles mentioned above, I haven't seen any of them.

Have I got news for you sounds to me as if enjoyment would need some degree of pre-marination in British news culture, even if just ten minutes' worth of infotainment from the telly plus a vague awareness of what are the latest obsessions of the Sun. That pre-marination won't be there. Still, if I can pick up a best-of DVD cheaply, I'll give it a look.

The Royle Family sounds as if it would need more time. If this were, say, a week-long, all-day seminar, I could show an episode every day. But it isn't. Still, if a DVD box is going cheap.....

I'l try to get hold of Happy-Go-Lucky. I think I'd enjoy it. If it also turns out to be usable in some way for my pedagogic purpose, well, that's a pleasing bonus.

Seven Up! -- yes! (It had slipped my mind.) But damn, the package (a very reasonable $90US from a certain evil online monopolist) runs 710 minutes. That's about the entire classroom time. Students do not watch videos outside class, unless perhaps they happen to star whoever's the latest heartthrob. Hmmm ... Seven Up! and thereupon fast-forward to 49 Up, perhaps? (Thinking of this makes me glad I asked this question seven months before the course starts.)

If a student at the Open University could tip me off to a few of the DVD titles that were more interesting (and that don't assume too much background knowledge or much appetite for socio-econo-political theory), I'd be very grateful. I could then google for these. Tama1988 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I did think with 7Up that the individual programmes are not too long and showing clips from them makes sense. If they like cinema heart-throbs, then perhaps an excerpt from Bend it like Beckham with Keira Knightley. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Each entry in the Seven Up series shows clips from the earlier episodes, to show how the people have changed, so you don't need to pick clips on your own. If I were going to show just two episodes to 19 year-old students, I'd show them the second and third episodes (14 & 21). Those have plenty of clips from 7Up, and some rather dramatic developments that 19 year-olds will find particularly interesting. Maybe then I'd finish up with clips from the latest entry (I haven't yet seen 49 Up) to show the subjects in mid-life. Just an idea. —Kevin Myers 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For politics, the later episodes of Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain might provide a good overview. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the Up Series a lot but yeah, it's a big time investment. I don't think the effect would be quite as strong if you just skipped from the first to the last. I'd second the notion though that the ones of them as teens might work out the best for them, even though they aren't very contemporary any more. 49 Up would not be interesting (IMO) to someone who had not seen the others (a lot depends on knowing how the people were doing in the previous episodes—some who are up are now down, and vice versa). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1 dollar a day

Often it's said that a huge part of humankind has to live with less than $1/day.

Is that the purchase power or the nominal value after an exchange? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the nominal value rather than an equivilent purchasing power value. This article (http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22357/34117) for instance shows an individual living on a dollar a day and they were getting an egg for '7 cents' - which would suggest that living on $1 a day is not the same in country X as it would be in America itself (where $1 would purchase you very little and 7 cents is not likely to get you an egg). Though I must admit my knowledge of purchasing power and nominal value is limited to a very basic understanding based on seeing the words in context numerous times. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a substantial portion of the earth's people live on less than $1 per day calculated according to purchasing power parity (PPP), according to this source. That said, PPP is calculated using a basket of goods, and goods purchased by the very poor may be relatively cheaper than the basket as a whole. That is, while an egg may cost 7c in nominal US-dollar terms in Indonesia, it might cost 16c in PPP terms, still cheaper than the same egg in the United States. Other things to consider are that people living on less than $1 per day tend to be subsistence farmers who grow much of their own food, or town dwellers who subsist on the very cheapest foods (e.g., the cheapest legumes and grains), to make their own clothing from the cheapest cloth or fibers, and generally to substitute their own labor to make homemade products rather than buying goods that carry a substantial labor cost. Of course, they generally do without things like computers, cars, cell phones, and even bicycles. They get around mainly on foot. This helps to explain how it is possible to live on so little money, but of course these people live in profound poverty and sometimes face hunger or an inability to meet other basic needs. Marco polo (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Christianity

This article states, in relation to various early Christian movements:

"Many disciples didn't associate the earthly Jesus of Nazareth with a spiritual Christ. Some simply followed the Gnostic teachings of the earthly Jesus Movement while others believed in a Jesus that never actually lived in the flesh. Many Christians did not regard any writings as inspired by God."

Assuming these statements are true, which movement(s) never believed Jesus lived in the flesh, and which did not regard the scriptures as God's word? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ADVERTISING SMALL SCALE BUSINESSES

WHAT ARE THE MERITS AND DEMERITS OF ADVERTISING TO SMALL SCALE BUSINESSES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thug ngel (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a response, but more of a suggestion: nobody will respond to messages typed in all caps. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that text in "all caps" annoys many editors. I think this question is from a new editor, who is probably not used to Wikipedia.

Much has been written about the value of advertising to small business. If you have a library handy, there are books on the subject. Here are a few points to consider.

Advertising can bring new customers and increase business.

Advertising can be very expensive.

It is important (and sometimes difficult) to find out if the advertising is bringing you enough business to cover the cost of the advertising. If you know this, it is easier to decide whether to do more advertising.

Many business include discount coupons in ads. This is partly to increase interest and partly as a way of learning whether people respond to your ads.

The article Guerrilla marketing is very relevant to this question. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Locations

I havent yet decided weither I want to marry inside of a church or outside and enjoy nature. The reason is this. My fiance is pagan/Satanist and i guess i just dont have a relgion at this point in time. Well the question is that we have looked from church to church and found some gorgeous catherdrals, the only problem is that these churches and cathedrals obviously dont support our religion. I understand that if you are having a satanist paganistic wedding that you just dont have a catholic or lutheran priest perform the ceremony. So does it depend from church to church or is it a big flat out no when i ask if you can get like a judge or justic of the peace or whatever they are and have them perform the ceremony in the church. I understand if it would be a no because what kind of catholic wants to marry a satanist in the house of the lord. But are some churches open minded? I mean there isnt anything huge that makes it a satanic ceremony just the fact that we are handfasting and having our own gothic vows rather than the lighting of the candles and so on. So is this a possibility or am i better off getting married outside?

--Chaela <3 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry to ask but i cant look up for myself. this is the only site i have access to at work and so this is how we work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really like the venue there's no harm in asking. You'll certainly have more luck with Unitarian Universalists than with Catholics or Evangelicals, but if the answer is no then it's as simple as that, clergy generally aren't into making scenes. You could also look into renting a party hall or a ballroom in a hotel, or enjoying nature :-) Good luck. - Lambajan 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vice-Presidential election in the U.S. Senate

If no vice-presidential candidate receives a majority in the electoral college, the U.S. Senate decides who shall be Vice President. But if there is a tie, can the current Vice-President cast the tie breaking vote?

Judging by this passage from the Twelth Amendment, I would say no:

"and a majority of the whole number [of senators] shall be necessary to a choice."

But does anyone think the current V.P. can, and why?

92.233.14.195 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Presidential/Vice-Presidential Elections decided in the U.S. Senate

I'm sorry but part of the process of presidential elections being decided in the Senate doesn't seem clear to me. If no presidential candidate gains a majority in the electoral college, the election is decided in the House of Representatives. But is it the outgoing House that decides or the newly-elected House?

I can't quite figure out when it would take place in the electoral cycle. 92.233.14.195 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and being straight

Sorry I posted this wrong the first time and dont know how to remove it or fix it

guess this is a matter of opinion, but i for one cannot seem to come up with my own opinion on this matter so i have turned to hearing others opinions. Im not one to descrimate against homosexuals because some of my best friends are in case im offending anyone with this question. But as Growing up i always heard you are one or the other because you cant be both. Obviously referring to the fact that you are either gay or straight because there is no such thing as bisexual/curious. I know there are also numerous situation where a lesbian may want a child and husband and live happily ever after but shes a lesbian so she will have a relationship on the side with another female and vise versa with men in that situation. But that obviously doesnt make you bisexual. so anyone who reads this question:in your own opinion how do you feel on the topic of men and woman liking both men and woman or "getting the best of both worlds?"