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

April 15

Sindhi new year

Do Sindhi people have their own new year celebration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A little Google searching turns up "Cheti Chand", celebrated on the second day of Chaitra... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Goethe Quotations in "The Edge of Heaven"

One of the main characters in The Edge of Heaven is a literature professor, and at one of his lectures he attributes the following quotations to Goethe:

1. "Wer wollte schon eine Rose im tiefsten Winter blühen sehen? Alles hat doch seine Zeit: Blätter, Knospen, Blüten... Nur der Thor verlangt nach diesem unzeitgemäßen Rausch."
2. "Ich bin gegen Revolutionen, denn es geht genauso viel bewährtes Altes kaputt wie gutes Neues geschaffen wird."

I thought these quotations were interesting, so I tried to track them down to read them in their original context, but I couldn't find their source. Many of Goethe's most important works are available on Project Gutenberg, and I searched many of them which seemed likely candidates, but I couldn't find the quotations. My local library has a large collection of works by and about Goethe, but I keep running into dead ends and can't locate the quotations. I am surprised that this information has been so difficult to find, considering the great success of the film.

I would greatly appreciate any help in finding the source of these quotations, either in the original German or in English translation. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One lead: Found both quotes together (?!) on this page, which looks like a conference paper by a Helge Martens. There is a contact name and address for the conference ([1]) - you could write and ask for the full paper with the citations/bibliography, or for how to contact Prof. Martens to ask. (The online version cites simply "Friedenthal" which I'm guessing could be Goethe: his life and times by Richard Friedenthal which should be in a lot of libraries.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"GC" in a date?

I have a document here, where a date is given as 24/6/1999GC. What could GC stand for in this circumstance? The document is from a Somali civil authority or court of law. E.G. (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we get to make jokes about Somali civil authority? —Tamfang (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could ask if this is a genuine court document or if E.G. has received a "Nigerian spam" message and is thinking it's real. (Nothing personal, E.G.; I don't know you.) Those messages often contain very peculiar usages and sometimes there's no guessing what they mean. --Anonymous, 18:27 UTC, April 15, 2009. 208.76.104.133 18:28, 15 April 2009

It was given by an applicant for a service at the office where I work, to prove the applicant's identity, so it is nowhere near any Nigerian spam. Gregorian calendar seems like a plausible explanation, thanks Brainybabe! E.G. (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Our article Public holidays in Somalia states that the Gregorian calendar is used for official dates whilst the Islamic calendar pertains to religious dates, so BB would seem to be right. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spring has sprung, the grass has riz

Spring has sprung, the grass has riz (or Spring has sprung, the grass is riz). Yahoo answers suggests that this was originally by Ogden Nash. I can't find a definitive source and date of authorship for this poem. Anyone here know? -- SGBailey (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ogden Nash is kind of a quotation sink for all authorless bits of comic doggerel just as Churchill gets all spare political quotes and Wilde gets arch put downs. These are the earliest cites for the opening lines I can find [2]. It was also used by Burma Shave which probably gave it wider currency, but not until 1951 apparently [3] meltBanana 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta -- SGBailey (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Spring has sprung, the grass is riz, where last year's careless drivers is." -Burma Shave. SDY (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To Confucius and Lao Tzu are ascribed all manner of unfounded quotations, including... “The journey of a thousand miles begins with the Google Maps app.”

How many independent countries are there in the world?

yes, it's homework but I can assure you that I don't know what to do... thousand sources and some say 190, others 195, help? --201.254.88.136 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere between 193 and 203. See list of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion for details. 190 is definitely out of date. Algebraist 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Algebraist, thank you very much. --201.254.88.136 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

how do the amish make money?

do they even need money? after watching witness earlier these questions were raised, because arent they self contained? my theory was tourism, but they try to distance themselves, dont they? so i t doesn't all add up. 92.23.198.60 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Amish like most religions are of a varying spectrum. There are very traditional Amish who are extremely strict. These are generally the ones that seem to appear on the media. There are also some that are more open to using things like cars and electricity at a low level. Materialism is not a major priority for the Amish, so money would also be less important. That being said, they do need money to purchase the things that they can not produce, like land. Tourism does provide a good deal of income for the Amish groups who are involved with that. Also, things that the Amish can produce, such as furniture, quilts, and livestock can be sold to provide funds as well. The Amish do have the appearance of distancing themselves from the rest of society, but that does not mean they can not interact at all.65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is that the Amish are attempting to live their lives in a manner consistent with a simpler life, not go back to cave-man days. Money has been around for a good long time and they're just fine with using it, though as Mr. 34 says, their religion implicitly doesn't put a huge emphasis on those kinds of materialist things. Matt Deres (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think about the "distinctive" Amish who drive the horse buggies then the primary source of income for them is almost always farming. There are plenty of secondary sources as well. Many will repair small motors; many will sell their farm produce direct to anyone who drops by, or at local farmers markets, and also quilts, firewood and similar.

For those nearer the mainstream there are plenty of jobs. I know some who run car body shops, and others who run guesthouses or restaurants. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Travelling through Amish country last summer, I was struck by the extensive range of Amish handicrafts for sale from converted barns by the sides of major roads. I guess that this is probably a significant source of secondary income. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the sale of farm goods and handicrafts, Amish men are often excellently skilled labourers, and can earn a significant amount of money as builders, carpenters, gardeners, etc. They are known for their reliability and work ethic and are implicitly considered to be honest, so those who want a good job done will often pay above-market price to have the Amish extend their houses, make their kitchen cupboards, seed their lawn, look after their horses, etc. It is a common perception by Americans who live in "Amish country" that the Amish are actually very well-off financially. They spend little of what they earn and save the rest, usually for rainy days, dowries, and to assist their (often numerous) children in the future. They also have significant equity in the amount of land they own, handed down from generation to generation. Maedin\^talk 21:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I consistently see advertisements for Amish furniture, which is, I gather, usually higher quality and more expensive then other furniture. I have also heard that recently some of the Amish, while usually sheltered from economic vagaries, are having financial difficulties due to the recent economic downturn [4] (less people buying souvenirs and the like). -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Think: how did people earn money before the industrial revolution? The answer would usually be farming, simple manufacturing, and pre-industrial service industries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Amish aren't hermits. They are aware of the rest of the world, and freely interact with it. They just choose to live simply themselves. Quite frankly, the Amish lifestyle is certainly cheaper. They grow a lot of their own food, and support themselves otherwise with selling handicrafts and the like. Imagine if you didn't need to buy TVs and make car payments and pay for electricity and make your own clothes. It's probably a lot easier to live on a smaller income when you don't have to spend much anyways! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also Amish-run restaurants. They do use electricity. I think they justify this because the electricity is for the customers, not for themselves. I've also seen Amish food in regular grocery stores, like Amish potato salad and Amish baked beans. In some cases these are Amish-made, in other cases someone just stole their recipe. (I wonder about the legality of selling something as "Amish" which isn't Amish-made.) StuRat (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is "Amish" a badge of origin or a trademark? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article you are looking for is Appellation, per the red link... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like time for a new article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wage-earning in colonial Spanish America

Any details on the development of wage-labor within the poor that slowly replaced slavery in the Spanish colonies? How it formed and to what extent? Grsz¹¹ 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

From a history of North America class, I vaguely remember a trend starting in sugar cane processing facilities.NByz (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher's Childen

A UK-centric one, this. I have heard of chavs referred to as Thatcher's children. Anyone have a social or economic explanation for this? I have read the Wiktionary definition, but this would seem to apply to slightly more affluent kids of that generation. I am speaking of a lower rung of the social scale. Thanks FreeMorpheme (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be worth reading Thatcherism. Thatcher's strong policies revived the British economy, but at the cost of massive unemployment and increase in poverty levels - the effects of which are still felt today, and are possibly demonstrated by the chavs. You can find a good summary by the BBC at the end of the Thatcherism article: To her supporters, she was a revolutionary figure who transformed Britain's stagnant economy, tamed the unions and re-established the country as a world power. Together with US presidents Reagan and Bush, she helped bring about the end of the Cold War. But her 11-year premiership was also marked by social unrest, industrial strife and high unemployment. Her critics claim British society is still feeling the effect of her divisive economic policies and the culture of greed and selfishness they allegedly promoted. So the comment you note about the chavs means something like "these are the type of people created by Thatcher's policies, the inevitable result of generational unemployment and poverty". Gwinva (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note also the play Thatcher's Women by Kay Adshead. The eponymous women are thrown out of work in a canning factory in the North West, and go to London to try to make a living as prostitutes. I'm pretty sure that the title was not coined just for this play. --ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously a pejorative phrase - propaganda basically - that would only be used by left-wingers. Unemployment went up under the last Labour government, and it has gone up under the current one. Mowsbury (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So what? Left-wingers opposed Blair and considered him the heir to Thatcher. Algebraist 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan and Germany

What do Japan and Germany have in common that made them such economic powerhouses? (apart from being on the floor in 1945) - thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To be succinct: Post-war economic aid.--KageTora (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, they have large populations, and the infrastructure and expertise for industrialization was in place after World War II. Being that they were advanced economies before the war, and during the war, it's not hard to see how, with a small push from the outside, their economy could be restarted within a few decades. It wasn't as though the countries were leveled during the war. It was just a matter of taking the industry in place, and retooling it for peacetime economy. Of more interest is the difference of what happened between West Germany and East Germany in the decades following the war. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As for Japan, see our article. Korean war boosted the economy. Additionally, because of the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, the military budget of Japan was small. So the government could invest in infrastructure. Oda Mari (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing they have in common is that they didn't pay off their war bonds (iirc). —Tamfang (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan started with the kinds of sweatshops that China has, or maybe had especially a few years ago. It built itself up on sweat - and also started as crappy manufacturers, like plastic chinese crap. 94.27.231.11 (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding economic aid, it should be noted that Japan was not a participant of the Marshall Plan. According to Japanese post-war economic miracle, Japan's recovery was due to the Korean War and government intervention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article, to clarify, that's intervention as in economic interventionism. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the main factor was that they were both prohibited from major rearmament spending so, unlike their major economic competitors (UK, U.S.A., Soviet Union, France, etc) their national wealth was invested in manufacturing capacity and used to generate additional capital rather than being spent on non-productive highly expensive projects like atomic bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles. AllanHainey (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Both have excellent education systems (don't know before late 20th century). Both have small militaries and spend less on defence than other first world countries. Japanese save their money freeing up money for investment. Japan invests in factories in China to produce Japanese goods cheaply for export and domestic consumption. Both are hard-working peoples with a work ethic. Germany was scientifically advanced before WWII.
Sleigh (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To Sleigh. After the war, Japan had no diplomatic relations with People's Republic of China until 1972. See Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China. So the Japanese investment in factories in China has nothing to do with the postwar economic recovery. Oda Mari (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

April 16

police secrets -- so effective it's censored even in the report?

Were there cases (though obviously we have found out since) where police decided to hide, even from other police officers, (ie in their police reports etc), some particular details of a novel crime method, when the new method is incredibly effective, very interesting and newsworthy (so that the other police would be sure to gossip about it, and it would surely get out) and most importantly, the method is by its nature impossible to guard against. Thanks! 94.27.231.11 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If this hypothetical criminal method is impossible to guard against, how did the police figure it out and make a police report about it? Livewireo (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst not perfectly related to this - there are regularly discussions in the media about whether reporting 'how' things are done is a good idea or not. For instance Ben Goldacre notes in his recent article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/28/media-reporting-suicide-bad-science) that there is good cause to be careful when it comes to reporting Suicide - it seems that if something is reported you'll see a spike in that particularly form of suicide. E.g. His article notes that in Hong Kong in 1998 the media reported a case of carbon-monoxide suicide which had a very specific method used - in the 10 months prior to the media-reports there were no suicides of this type. Over the next year there were 40. Obviously there's more questions to ask of this than pure numbers (is is that those would be committing suicide are just using a prominent-in-their-mind method, or is it an actual increase in the number of suicides? Either is a cause for concern but would be important to understand the issue further). ny156uk (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I read one interview with a pharmacist who bragged that he knew 10 untraceable murderous poisons that would be lethal to humans, ideal for committing the perfect murder; and then coyly stated it would be unethical to blab. Tempshill (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to murder someone like that, toxins are far better then poisons, especially as toxins can be murder to trace. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about domestic police, but the FBI and CIA have many "sources and methods" that are considered so secret that almost nobody was told about them. Even President Truman was not cleared to know about the Venona decrypts, for example. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a related topic (subject of debate) in computer security called full disclosure. 66.127.52.118 (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The fever people know how to completly dissolve a body with a nothing but a bathtub and commercially available chemical products or stage a suicide scene the better. That is why Police and other officials will not only hide the details of some crime methods but through mass media the entertainment industry and other means they will also plant misleading details/"advice" on how to commit such an act. Mieciu K (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Revealing a Psychopath

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the traits of a psychopath is having little to no emotion/empathy and being a very good liar. Are there any questions that you can ask a psychopath that would "give away" his/her 'psychopathness'? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of pop-psychology attempts at doing this kind of thing. I'm positive Snopes did a piece on one of these so-called psychopath detector questions. In reality, no, there's no simple way to identify people like that, at least with any kind of consistency. Besides all the usual caveats about the complexity of people and the general unreliability of simple tests, there's the basic issue that psychopaths are either good at covering their tendencies or already in custody. It's a little like asking if there are any simple questions you could ask an expert liar and reliably identify them as such. Matt Deres (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that Snopes article? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably this one. - Eron^Talk 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You can simply give the subject a Voight-Kampff Empathy Test. See here [5] for the startling results of such a test.... 161.181.53.10 (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Hindu figure

While in Amsterdam this week, my wife took a picture of three figures standing on separate rostrums in the middle of what appears to be a square or marketplace of some sort. And they seem to have tip jars in front of them like it was some sort of performance piece. One is Darth Vader, another is Batman, and the last is a green figure. She only sent pictures of the first two due to my geekier tendencies :-) but I'm curious who the third is. She described it as a "Hindu guy". I'd post an image but I doubt it would do any good. He's standing in the far background and is out of focus. So, he's green, seems to have some sort of head-dress, is holding a staff, and her description of "Hindu" might not be completely accurate. Anyone know who this might be? Any Amsterdamers here who might have seen the people in question? Dismas|^(talk) 14:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't spend too much time in trying to identify who the person was pretending to be. Touristy European cities are filled with people who dress up in strange costumes and make-up, pretend to be statues and pose for photographs in exchange for small donations. Some of the disguises are based on historical or well-known figures, but many are simply a result of the actor's imagination and materials available to him or her. --Xuxl (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Green seems like the wrong colour – blue would make more sense for a "Hindu" figure, because Lord Vishnu and his avataras Lord Krishna and Lord Rama are generally portrayed with blue skin. Vishnu and Krishna wear hat-like crowns in a great deal of art. Rama is sometimes shown with the ascetic's matted topknot in his hair. None of the three carries a staff, but Vishnu has a mace (also a conch shell and a discus) and Rama a bow; Krishna would also have peacock feathers somewhere. So Rama is one guess, though if "Hindu" is wrong none of this would apply :) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also the Green Tārā, but she's a female Buddha or Bodhisattva, not a Hindu guy. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is Shiva who uses a trident, not a staff. Jay (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For green "Hindu" superheroes, there is Nagraj from "The Home Of Indian Superhero Comics". ---Sluzzelin talk 12:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First cousins once removed's child

It doesn't explicitly state the name for that relation in the cousin article, and it gets pretty complicated. What would the child of my first cousin once removed be to me? hmwithτ 18:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the chart in consanguinity, it would be your first cousin twice removed. --Gadget850 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that still doesn't make sense to me... haha. Somewhere else online (not a necessarily reliable place), someone interpreted the situation as we'd be second cousins twice removed. It's the child of my parent's first cousin. hmwithτ 18:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The person you speak of, the grandchild of your first cousin, is your first cousin twice removed. Your grandchild would be that person's third cousin. Except in some backwoods regions, or among royals and nobility, where they might also be additional degrees of cousinship. Edison (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I made a mistake in explaining the situation. My grandmother is the sister of this person's grandmother, so this person isn't the grandchild of my first cousin. However, I am the grandchild of this person's great-aunt. hmwithτ

Haha, maybe I'll just give up. I'm more confused now than before. hmwithτ 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That means that you're second cousins. I presume that by 'First cousins once removed's child', you mean that you and your cousin are each the children of people who were themselves first cousins. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That's what I mean. We're just plain & simple second cousins? Then what am I to my father's cousin, my second cousin's mother? hmwithτ 19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, there's something weird there. If your grandmother and this person's grandmother were sisters, that makes you and this person second cousins, and their child is your second cousin once removed. But if you're the grandchild of this person's great-aunt, that makes you second cousins twice removed, and the child of this person is your second cousin, three times removed. It can't be both. -- JackofOz ( talk) 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How did you get at that? If the OP and this person have grandmothers who are sisters then the OP's grandmother is the person's great aunt. A second cousin twice removed is a second cousin's grandchild or a grandparent's second cousin. Do I have it wrong? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The last bit (grandparent's second cousin) is wrong. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. The relationship works both ways so your comment below is wrong. See cousin. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote please Kittybrewster ☎ 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article actually specifically states what I said:

"My second cousin's grandchild and I are second cousins twice removed"

and

"My grandparent's second cousin and I are second cousins twice removed" Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What you said is that where A has 2 children B and C, where B has grandchild D and D has a grandchild E and where C has grandchild F, you say C is 2nd cousin to E? Not so. They are great great great uncle and great great great nephew. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. Read what I said then read those two extracts from the article. They're both the same. I basically explained the two types of "second cousin twice removed" - you say that the one type is wrong. But it's not. Consider the relationship between E and F both ways. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I mistook you. Sorry. My contention is that F says "E is my 2c2r" while E says "I am F's 2c2r". Kittybrewster ☎ 17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But there's nothing wrong with that. According to cousin, E is F's 2c2r and F is E's 2c2r. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am disagreeing with you on the detail. I am JackOfOz's British friend (or at least, I would like to think so). He is not my British friend (because he is upside down). My uncle is not my nephew. I contend a relationship is "attached" at one end. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article disagrees with you. For cousins (and removed cousins), the relationship is not attached at any end. Do you have a source saying otherwise? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz, I don't want the child of that person. I want who that person would be. I want the child of my great aunt's child, who is the grandchild of my great aunt. I don't want anymore generations down from that; I don't need the granchild's child. hmwithτ 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Second cousin. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Clear now. I've struck out my comment below. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It might help to think of the "removed bit" by itself. It means one generation's difference from you, either older or younger. Your father's first cousin is your first cousin, once removed. That person's daughter is your second cousin (no removal, because you are at the same generation). You have great-grandparents in common, because your grandparents were siblings. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. You finally made it clear to me. Thanks everyone for your help! I know I was a bit confusing. :) hmwithτ 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that we've cleared that up, let me just point out that the question as originally asked was ambiguous. If A and B are first cousins once removed, they are one generation apart either way. A is B's first cousin once removed but B is also A's first cousin once removed. So "the child of my first cousin once removed" is "my first cousin twice removed", as Gadget said originally, if we're talking about cousins of a later generation than mine. But if I'm the one in the later generation, then "the child of my first cousin twice removed" is "my second cousin", as Babe said. --Anonymous, edited 00:39 UTC, April 17, 2009.

There is a chart in consanguinity that should be of help. --Gadget850 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the chart is confusing to some, then try this formula. Find the nearest common ancestor to both of you. The shortest distance of that ancestor to either of you determines the COUSIN NUMBER, and the difference in number of generations between the two of you is the REMOVAL NUMBER. Thus, if you and a relative share an ancestor who is your great-grandmother, and her great-great-great-great-grandmother, you are second cousins (because the CLOSEST is a great-grand relationship) who are three-times removed (because there are three generations difference between you).--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

True. When you have the shortest distance, you count the "G"s. So if the shortest distance is Great Grandparents then they will be 2nd cousins. Plus (whatever) removed. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But we haven't cleared it up. See my post above. The OP has provided conflicting information, and at most one of the two things he said about this relationship can be true. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we have. OP is 1st cousin once removed of OP's 2nd cousin's mother. That is not the same thing as OP's 2nd cousin's mother is OP's 1st cousin once removed. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See http://genealogy.about.com/library/nrelationshipchart.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That is one-sided and doesn't show my uncle/aunt. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So? It still shows that your comment (3 posts up) is wrong as I explained above. Start with a common ancestor's great grandchild (the OP) and grandchild (OP's 2nd cousin's mother) - the common ancestor needs to be their nearest common ancestor. The table then shows that the OP and the OP's 2nd cousin's mother are each other's first cousin once removed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It also shows my uncle is my nephew - which he isn't. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it shows us that your comment is wrong. Unless you have a reliable source saying otherwise, please stop contradicting Wikipedia. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan History between 1983 and 2000

Hi I have to give a Presentation on the history of conflicts in afghanistan concentrating mainly on the civil war and the time period of 1983-2000.

Could you please provide me with the major events between this time period and also anything you think would be of interest for such a presentation.

Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.183.245 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the policy of the Reference Desk not to do your homework for you. However we have an article History of Afghanistan which contains much helpful information and links to other articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, its not my homework, its research for my presentation.

Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.183.245 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about your presentation. 1983-2000 seems like a very arbitrary set of dates, beginning in the middle of the Soviet war, and ending before the post-9/11 invasion. Perhaps if reading Republic of Afghanistan and History of Afghanistan since 1992 don't help, you can give us some more detail on what you're looking for. --Sean 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's to do woith work, I'm in the forces. We've split into 4 groups, two groups are pre 1983, in seperate time periods my grouping is 1983-2000 and then the final grouping is 2000 to modern day conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.192.71 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So, its work...that you are doing from home. Please read the articles that were given earlier, they have some excellent sources. Livewireo (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason we don't do homework for you (whether it's for school or for your job) is that the point of these tasks is to get you to go and find things out for yourself. There is no benefit to you if your presentation consists of you repeating things other people told you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How Many people are evangelical?

I'm not sure I understood correctly Evangelicalism#Global demographics. Are there 420 million evangelical Christians? 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.172.12 (talk)

Evangelical christians is a broad umbrella term generally used to refer to christians who self-identify as actively working to convert others to Christianity. Given that there are roughly 1.637-1.923 billion Christians in the world (see List of religious populations), using that range, 420/1627 gives 25.8% and 420/1923 gives 21.8%; so roughly 1/5th to 1/4th or so of christians are evangelical. I do not find that number hard to believe. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

April 17

Taxation in the United States

I'm looking for information on where the money for the federal budget comes from. My understanding is that the majority comes from taxing the populace. What I'm looking for is, what percent of the US budget comes from what percent of the popuation. My suspicion is that a large portion of the money comes from a small portion of the people, but I have no data to back that up192.136.22.4 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This took me about 3 seconds to find using Google: [6] Is that what you are looking for? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

yes and no, It told me that 45% or so of the government's spending budget comes from income tax, but it doesn't say what percentage of the population that comes from, that is to say, i'm curious what the breakdown between the various income brackets. Thanks though Jayron192.136.22.4 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This took me an additional 60-70 seconds to find using google: [7]. Is that what you are looking for? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32, note that (if I understand the question correctly), your second source is not really responsive, since it gives only percentages for the federal income tax, and not for federal revenues as a whole. It therefore overstates the contribution of large earners to federal revenues. John M Baker (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you know income tax contributes 45%, you can just adjust the percentages accordingly? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese politics

Can someone tell me what is going on in Lebanon regarding its upcoming election in June? Here some videos about it. Elections and candidates in Tripoli, Hariri and Syrians, Lebanese Army in Bekaa Valley, OTV: Al-Mustaqbal scandal about Shia and Sunni and Al-Mustaqbal thugs beating up Homentmen’s girls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.139 (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the link syntax. —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone knows of The History of the Nation?

Does anyone know about the work, The History of the Nation, possibly printed in the early half of the 20th century? Several paintings have been noted to be published in it.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] However, I am unable to locate such a book on Worldcat or Google. Does anyone have information that pertain to this work? Jappalang (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the books in question would be "Hutchinson's Story of the British Peoples" and "Hutchinson's History of the Nations", multi-volume illustrated histories by a Walter Hutchinson. This Hutchinson fellow seems to be pretty much forgotten, unlike the illustrator, Richard Caton Woodville.--Rallette (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on Henry Payne (artist),1868 - 1940, who seems to be the artist in question. Searching for The History of the Nation in sites dealing with rare / out of print books gives no results, however, there is Glorious Battles in English History by Major Wylly (and a few more), for which Harry Payne is listed as the illustrator. There is (see above) Hutchinson´s Story of the British Nation, where Payne has been involved as an illustraor also, but this was published as a series of weekly softcovers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC) PS: This site [15] has an offer for volumes 3 to 28. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I did find a couple of Hutchinson's books, including one called "Story of the Nations" which may or may not be the same as "History of the Nations", on ZVAB -- Ferkelparade π 11:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why red shirts?

I was in Thailand a little while ago, and the symbolism behind the yellow shirts is obvious (Yellow is the King's color by an old tradition of birthdays and days of the week). Why the red shirts? SDY (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just speculation, but the NUFDAD appears to be closely associated with the People's Power Party (Thailand). Our article there states that the party supports a "populist welfare" platform. When I read "populist welfare" and "People's ANYTHING" I think leftist/socialist/C-word and the traditional color associated with that ideology has usually been red. Other uses of the color red are often related to revolution in general, especially left-wing revolution, see Red flag. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For pre-Socialist populist and progressive red shirts, see Garibaldi's camicie rosse.---Wetman (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they want to extend their eligibility to compete in college athletics. Or maybe it is like the quarterback in American pro-football wearing a red jersey in practice as a signal that no one is allowed to tackle him. Edison (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely another meaning of redshirt which would be embarrassingly inappropriate. There are some traditional (Chinese?) associations for red as well (bravery and weddings and whatnot) that are ingrained in a lot of Asian cultures, and I'm thinking that those would be more influential than the traditional Western associations (i.e. Garibaldi) and I'd be quite surprised to see Thaksin Shinawatra painted as a Communist, though that party has been absent in Thailand for some time (after being banned) so I doubt it'd be public if it were true. The historical Thai flag (Siamese, really), according to our article, was red, but the group in question isn't really a traditionalist group. SDY (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See red for more info on the symbolism in Asian cultures Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This article [16] says red was simply chosen to differentiate from the yellow of the yellow shirts. And this one mentions that the red in Thailand's flag represents the nation [17] which is supported by our Flag of Thailand albeit uncited. I suspect it's a combination of both. The red shirts wanted a colour to distinguish them from the yellow shirts and red associated with nation from their flag seemed the best choice Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

English royal standard

Hi. I'm looking for a merchant who will sell me the old France-England royal standard flag, rather than the new royal standard, or the original three leopards alone. Does anybody here know of such a business? Maybe some theatre would sell one of these? Please be of some assistance. Thank you. Catterick (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The flagshop [18] may be an option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude...perhaps I should have specified that I am looking for these in flag form: Catterick (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr Flag will do a beskpoke/custom flag if they don't already stock it. Nanonic (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You will probably want to specify whether you want France Ancient (on the shield in the images shown) or France Modern (on the flag). AlexTiefling (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not leopards but lions.

The emblazon of the shield on the right looks wrong. I would emblazon seme of fleur-de-lis with less fleur-de-lis.
Sleigh (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

They are leopards, because multiple lions passant guardant are often described as leopards. To the best of my knowledge, there's no other heraldic leopard, and you'd probably have to use a special blazon to refer to a 'real' leopard, in much the same way as one blazons a Bengal tiger for the real thing, because an unqualified tiger in heraldry is a mythical beast. I've often seen seme de lis blazoned at about that density, but it may appear to be heavily scattered because it's effectively a reduced copy of France Ancient, rather than a quarter azure seme de lis or. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The shield of the Black Prince, on his tomb, has more fleurs than that. —Tamfang (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

St. George's Day

Why isn't St. George's Day celebrated in the States? Is it a Puritan, Yank Anglophobia, even though Yanks supposedly pride so much in their "pure Englishness"? After all, there are Highland festivals and St. Patrick's Day Parades, although admittedly much fewer signs of a Welsh presence. I don't know why. I've had a few heart-stopping moments when seeing the St. George flying over the Roanoke Colony museum and a few other historic places; even the old Union Jack without St. Patrick is a sight to see for sure. Catterick (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You might start by asking why St. George's Day isn't celebrated in England, the country that he is the patron saint of. Since there are hundreds of patron saints that could be celebrated, the question is why St. Patrick is celebrated (he's the only one who is, as far as I know). One possible reason is that "Irish" is seen as a popular yet underprivileged ethnicity; another is that it's a day celebrated by drinking huge amounts of alcohol, and who doesn't want to be part of that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Which definition of Yankee are you using? The ones in New England whose major city Boston is now the stereotypical center of Irish American? English American heritage is often considered too common to be distinctive (or for many, too ancient to be remembered) Rmhermen (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've lived in the States for most of my life and have never detected any "pride in pure Englishness". People will routinely inform you that they are "1/8th Cherokee" or whatever, with the other 7/8ths not worth mentioning. --Sean 13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. in infancy fought two wars with Britain, which may have diminished identification with England specifically on the part of many who were creating the very notion of being American. Add English-speaking immigrants whose experience with John Bull wasn't always positive (Scots, Irish). Some New Englanders do pride themselves on being Yankees (in the American, not the English, sense), but that would emphasize differences with England, since "Yankee Doodle" was originally derision. And many Irish-Americans, and Irishmen in general, would agree that it'd be great to see the Union Jack without St. Patrick's cross. Or, as the song goes, the harp without the crown. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but I suspect the fact that the "traditional" celebration of St. Patrick's day involves drinking Guinness may have something to do with its popularity. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It was my impression (and the Saint Patrick's Day seems to back this up) that until very recently Saint Patrick's day in Ireland was a very sedate affair and was viewed primarily as a religious holiday. The lavish celebration and drunken bacchanalia now associated with Saint Patrick's day started in the US with Irish expats celebrating their ethnic identity, and only later made its way back across the pond to Ireland. So it's not surprising that St. George's Day never made a similar transition. One, Anglicans don't put as much emphasis on saints as Roman Catholics do, so there is less cause to use that as a reason to celebrate. Second, the English expats in the US didn't really need to have a holiday to celebrate their ethnic identity. By and large, they were the ones in control. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cooking practices of the Tarahumara - do they bake, roast, or fry much?

According to this http://boards.msn.com/thread.aspx?threadid=882128 the Tamahumara, who live in remote desert parts of Mexico, never get cancer, although this could be an urban myth since they do not make the news for the world's oldest people. The article linked from that link suggests they mostly eat some sort of maize dish that is prepared in water. Do the Tarahumara roast bake or fry their food very much? If not, then they would be exposed to very little acrylamide, which may be carcinogenic, and this might be the reason perhaps. I have read both the acrylamide and the Tara humara articles. 78.146.249.32 (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they get cancer all the time. You now have as much evidence that they do as that they don't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that a group of people are not subject to cancer, diabetes, and other common human ailments is certainly extraordinary, and requires better evidence than a random internet comment like the one I just invented to support my point, or the one "SkyHunter" probably just invented to support his. For what it's worth, a PubMed search for "cancer Tarahumara" gets no results and only 2 hits on Google. --Sean 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "the world's oldest people"? Says who? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is "Do the Tarahumara roast bake or fry their food very much?" 89.242.147.172 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is the best type of gladiator?

If you were trasported back in time and forced to be a gladiator, which of the several types of gladiator would it be best to be regarding survival? 78.146.249.32 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The type that is also an emperor. LANTZY^TALK 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But Roman emperors had an extremely low survival rate, regardless of whether or not they were gladiators. They were always being stabbed or poisoned by their rivals. 209.251.196.62 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading List of Roman gladiator types, they are all either poorly armored or poorly armed. No choice has any real significant advantage over the other. That said, I agree with 209. Easy to be a gladiator when your competition is afraid to kill you! Livewireo (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be much fun to watch if one type of gladiators always won! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to be one of the Andabatae, on horse, against some guy on foot. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather be the kind that escaped the night before I had to fight... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious leaders who have converted

Some friends and I were discussing the possibility of a pope converting to Islam, whether it would automatically terminate his papacy, what effect it would have on the church, etc. It got me thinking: has anything of that sort ever happened in reality? Has a religious authority ever converted suddenly to another religion? I vaguely recall a medieval Catholic bishop who converted to Islam, but Google has been useless. LANTZY^TALK 13:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pope, or any other Roman Catholic, would be excommunicated lata sententia for apostasy. I don't know if any medieval bishops converted to Islam but certainly many regular Catholics did, wherever there was Christian-Muslim contact (Spain, Sicily, Syria). Muslims often converted to Christianity too, and both converted to Judaism and vice versa. I think it happened a number of times that a Catholic priest would start using the Greek rite, but that's not exactly conversion and not exactly apostasy. It happened somewhat regularly whenever crusaders conquered Greek territory. In any case, the conversion of the Pope to Islam is exceedingly unlikely... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, lots of people have converted between the various strands of Christianity. The most notable of these (outside the Reformation period) might well be John Henry Newman, who was at the forefront of reform in the Anglican church before becoming a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The most famous case of converting to a completely different religion is Sabbatai Zev... AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Media bias study about Vietnam

Hi. I was wondering if someone could help me find a bit of info I have been trying to get for a while.

I remember hearing a while ago about (what was described as) a famous study done during the Vietnam War. I think it was done at Columbia University, but don't hold me to that. It was about media bias, and consisted of showing the same clips of news coverage of the War to groups of pro- and anti-War students separately. They both thought that the coverage - the same clips - was biased against their cause.

I cannot for the life of me remember who did the study, and google searches have so far been fruitless. Does anyone know where I can find more info about the study? Thanks in advance, Batmanand | Talk 13:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See hostile media effect, which cites original studies. --Sean 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep that is it - brilliant! I'm sure there is a Vietnam Columbia study somewhere, but the references in the page are great. Thanks! Batmanand | Talk 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

American Obsesssion with tax

Hello Wikipedia,

The 'Tax tea parties' are seemingly everywhere in the States (at least, they're all over Huffington Post, which is all I have to go on). Anyway, I get that culturally, Americans are less tolerant of tax than say, us brits, but I mean,seriously! No one likes paying tax but why do you guys loathe it so much? Wouldn't you like less crime, cleaner air etc? Is there something i'm just not getting, like a scandal of some sort that means the american government is forever percieved as untrustworthy? I'm not looking for a debate (although it sure would be fun!), but just some reasons why americans are thus. Thanks212.183.134.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Because the American Revolution was essentially a revolt against taxes...the Intolerable Acts and all that. Of course it was really against taxation without representation but does an average person actually know what that means? And do they know about all the other things that led to the Revolution? And do they know why they have taxes now and what their taxes pay for? Probably not. But their foundation myth includes a tax revolt and that's a good enough excuse. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a cultural thing in America and the recent bailouts have only fanned the flames. I think most people are OK with some tax, but many object to using so much tax money to prop up failing companies. At any rate, the number from "Tea Party" officials (or whatever) were slightly over 200,000. Even if you multiply that out to a few million who wanted to protest but were unable to... you end up with a very small fraction of the American people. Tomdobb (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A main goal was to promote tax cuts or extention of existing tax cuts for the wealthy. The "Tea Parties" were a publicity effort organized and promoted and funded by right wing media, a few wealthy individuals, and right wing political groups, with additional attendance by Libertarians and people hurting from the economic downturn. In fact, Gallup polls show that Americans are satisfied with present tax rates. 61% think the income tax is "fair" (more than any result reported back to 1946, save for 2003-2005) and 35% say "unfair." Respondants said that "Lower income people," and Middle income people" are paying their "fair share" but overwhelmingly said "Upper income people " are paying "too little." Edison (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the people are protesting the government spending in that they expect their taxes to increase in the next few years. The taxation without representation argument appears to stem from the fact that the majority of protesters appeared to be conservatives who do not have enough seats in congress to do anything. Or it could be that they don't feel that politicians are representative of the people (how many senators would pass as a regular guy on the street?) 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Americans are angry about billions in bailouts give to Wall Street financial "experts" who created the present economic crisis, and then feel they are entitled to millions in "bonuses" for all they accomplished, or as "retention bonuses" so they don't quit and take a nonexistent job at another firm. These greedy financial geniuses are probably as popular with the average taxp[ayer as Marie Antoinette and her hubby were with Parisians circa 1793. This outrage is somehow supposed to represent a demand for continued tax breaks for the wealthy. Edison (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another factor is the different view of government in the US versus Europe. There is a traditional opposition toward "Big Government" in the US, with preference for free market capitalism, infused with themes of self sufficiency and rugged individualism, with allusions to the wild west cowboy mystique. The European model, where government is much more involved in providing things for its citizens is decried by US conservatives (the ones who are holding the Tea Parties) as socialism and a welfare state. In their minds, individuals know how to use their money best, so people should keep their own money, instead of being forced to give it to the government. In the mind of the conservatives, government messes up anything it touches (with the notable exception of military defense), so the less the government is involved, the better - less taxes means that the government does less. That said, there is a view by some that the recent tea parties aren't representative of actual opinion, but are rather an astroturfing stunt orchestrated by the Republican party, trying to discredit their opponents the Democrats, and gain more support after the Republicans' recent electoral defeat. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I was gonna say that, but you beat me to it.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I pay taxes so the rich don't have to. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Those were some really great answers -thanks guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.208 (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that we Americans see *our* government as untrustworthy - a lot of us (including myself) have a tendency not to trust *any* government. American right/libertarian views of government tend to range from 'a necessary evil/necessary for the military and police but not much else' to 'only what the free market can't do' (military/police/public works/big projects) to accepting *some* regulation of business but fighting it. Americans don't tend to see government as any more trustworthy than business (certainly I don't); is it different in Europe? Vultur (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Material

What is 'Action Leather'?96.53.149.117 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

speeding ticket myth?

I have heard that if you get a speeding ticket, what you do is send in a check for a trivial amount more then you owe (I heard 10 cents). If you do that, they will not cash the check and you in essence will have gotten of without paying. This sound preposterous to me, but then there are stranger things in heaven and on earth right? Does anyone know if there is truth to this? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's implausible sounding.. and it's a well-known myth, see snopes for more. Friday (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But if you carefully check all the details on the ticket, you might get lucky and find an error. I once got off a parking fine because the hand-written ticket said "Wednesday, <date> <year>", when the actual day of the week was something else. I made the point in my letter that the last time that date had been a Wednesday was something like 5 years earlier, when I could prove I lived 1000 km away and did not own the car in question. I never heard back from the authorities. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All your pedant are belong to us! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed ... I think. Pedantry very definitely has its uses, and is not to be dismissed lightly. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They will cash it and send you a refund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloTube (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Functional form of von-Neumann Morgenstern utility function - any help much appreciated !!!

Just realised that humanties harbours economics so apologies for also posting this in the maths section.

For my studies i need to use the von-Neumann Morgenstern utility function but i am not aware of its function form (i.e. a cobb douglas is Y=K^aL^b for example). I am not trying to get the answer to save me the work of doing so i am just trying to do background research.

Thank you very much for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.232.191 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it has a specific functional form? From my extremely short check on google, it looks like the von Neumann–Morgenstern utility functions are a class of functions that satisfy certain axioms regarding risk aversion. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

vNM utility (also called expected utility) has the form that expected utility is the sum of the utility from each possible event times the probability that that event occurs. (These events must form a partition in state space). So if there is one event that occurs with probability 0.8 and gives utility 1, and another that occurs with probability 0.2 and gives utility 2, then EU=(0.8*1)+(0.2*2)=1.2. There are axiomatic foundations for expected utility as Zain Ebrahim says, but these make no assumptions on risk aversion.79.70.246.6 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Parents' Relations

My parents share a common great-grandmother. She married twice and had my mother's grandmother with one husband and my father's grandmother with another husband. What relation are my parents to each other (besides the obvious husband-wife)? What interesting inter-relationships does this create between my siblings and me and my parents and me? Also, is this common (in modern times) or would an occurrence like this be somewhat rare? 157.127.124.14 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Cousin#Half cousins, they're half second cousins because their grandmothers are half siblings. That would make you your own half third cousin. Cool! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I totally miscounted. They actually share a common great-great grandmother. I suppose that makes them half third cousins and makes me my own half fourth cousin. :) Thanks! 157.127.124.14 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since you're related to yourself through your mother and father, you are your own double half fourth cousin. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuns

Which nuns do never speak? I remember I heard something about nuns who live in silence all the time. Do you know what are they called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just guessing here, but Cistercian (Trappists in particular) monks and nuns are permitted to speak under certain specific strict conditions - but they do not take vows of silence. Were you thinking of them? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have an article on them. Unfortunately, it has remained to be a red link as none of the nuns ever broke their silence. The entry - well there was none - was eventually deleted for being not not able. We also have an article on the Trappist Family Singers in Braille in stereophonic silence. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you thank you. Order the veal, tip your waitresses! Remember folks, the 11:00 show is completely different from the 7:00 show! Good night all! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Many Catholic contemplative orders (e.g., the Poor Clares) observe long periods of silence, though not "all the time." It'd be difficult for a sister to confess her sins, for example, without speaking. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities on Titanic?

I know most of them (including crew) were British... but do you have numbers? --201.254.83.172 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Found this great page. 334 British and 306 Americans. It breaks it down by class too: First class 212 American, far dominant. A lot more British in second class with 169. Third class was close: 120 Brits, 113 Irish, 104 Swedes. Interesting: one Mexican - a first class passenger. Grsz¹¹ 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don. Manuel E. Uruchurtu meltBanana 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FTSE 100 Index - recent history of

What and when was the highest ever value of the FTSE 100 Index, and what and when was its lowest value since then? (It has recently gone above 4000 again - things are looking up). 78.149.114.51 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It peaked at 6930.2 on 30 Dec 1999.[19] —D. Monack ^talk 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it, that looks like the highest value of the index, but due to the way its worked out, that might not actually be the highest value of the shares in it, but that would be very complicated, because occasionally individual company's shares go into and leave the top 100. Here might help generally, (if you have good eyes!).Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 14:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethics of Parenting

I was wondering why and how do we have the right to chose to bring somebody to life. By definition we impose the state of life to our children. Life can be good but can also be hard, or even unbearable. Is this ethical? Since we do not know how our childrens lives will develop, if they are gonna be born with congenital problems, if they will suffer from leukemia at their 3 and so ever, no matter how hard we try avoid anything bad from happening to them. Sure some of the mishaps in life will result from THEIR faults and they will be THEIR responsibility, some will still be just "bad luck", and will happen. If we make children and everything goes normal, no problem (under the hypothesis that "normal" means more good than bad things as our children perceive them, or at least in equal amount). But if we make a child and gets afflicted with misfortunes she is not willing to endure, then she can blame us because we sort of bet on her behalf by bringing her to the game called life... Some examples would be impoverished economies, hereditary disorders, periods of war or instability etc. But it can be generalized to almost all aspects of life. Since humans are the only species having full consciousness about themselves and their surroundings, and really know about the facts of reproduction while have effective means of contraception, is it ethical to make children? Based on which criteria? Why the fact that *I* "feel ready to be a parent" should affect someone on the most fundamental basis, his/her _existence_? And if I have that right, why can't I take that life -or any other life, since they could be my children- "back"? How can I have the right to chose to bring somebody to life, when that decision has to do with his/her very existence? And since I do have the right obviously, why shouldn't I kill somebody? It's just the reverse case, but the degree of influence over one's life is still the same! It only would be reasonable if we, a priori, take life as a good thing in general, but we all know that this is not always the case. Of course a negative answer on the ethical matter would have dire consequences for the survival of the human race, but I think it is a very fundamental topic because we do not discuss here the quality/meaning of life but it's existence itself. I am really interested in hearing your opinion on that and your suggestions of any relevant bibliography on the issue. The important question remains: "How ethical is to chose to bring someone to life?" Makischa (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, doing anything that might result in a "bad" outcome for someone else is not ethical. So I shouldn't drive to work today because some moron on a cell phone might knock me and kill himself thus depriving his family of a breadwinner. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That "moron" CHOSE to be talking to his cell, so he has to deal with the consequenses of HIS action. Our children do not have the choice of being born. That's the problem here.Makischa (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And what did his children do? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing! He also chose to have them, and decided to behave stupidly. This is one example, as the ones I wrote above. They came to a world having an irresponsible father who would make them orphans and won't have the opportunity to go to college becasue will have to work for their subsistence! That's what it's all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makischa (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about his unethical choice to have children - I'm talking about my unethical choice to go to work. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are part of this world, and in this case you are a part of the "bad things" which are inherently associated with life, since we cannot control everything. So he brought his children to a world where these things can happen. And they actually do happen. It wasn't obviously unethical of you to go to work.Makischa (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If having children is unethical (because bad things might happen to them) then driving to work is also unethical. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if bringing children to a world where bad things might happen is ethical or not. You, or anyone, can do whatever he wants, and your actions might consist a part of the lack of ethics we have in our world along with the misfortunes that are nobody's fault. This is our world and that's a fact. But have we the right to bring someone to such a world? Makischa (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, do I have the right to go to work? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said you can do whatever you want, ethical or not. It's up to you. And actually we don't care because even if a miracle happened and everyone started to behave ethically, misfortunes attributed to chance alone will continue to happen. Makischa (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Driving someone to work does not guarantee death for them. Coming into this world, however, does guarantee death. When you have a child, there is no doubt that that child will die someday. Wrad (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it not? This is not something that might happen to your child, a major part of your arguments above. It is a guarantee. If you have a kid, bad things will definitely happen to him or her. There is no might or maybe. Wrad (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So it is unethical to procreate because life is finite? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the fact of our childrens death since as you say it is certain. Let's assume that living a normal life as defined in my first post is enough for making our decision to have children ethical.Makischa (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But good things will happen to them too. Isn't it said: "It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all"? - Then we must consider those moral/ethical systems where denying someone a benefit through inaction is considered as bad as actively causing them harm. Does the moral good that comes from potentially sparing your future child from debilitating cancer outweigh the moral harm of denying them the happiness of their wedding day or the simple joy of summer afternoons? -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying them anything since they do not exist. If that was the case we should have as many children as biologically possible, because if you chose to have let's say 4, then you are denying your 5th, 7th, 20th child the happiness of their wedding day. The case your are considering, means inaction=harm and I think it is correct sometimes. But you cannot harm somebody who does not yet exist.Makischa (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This has all the earmarks of a debate, where Makischa appears to be more interested in challenging every statement than in an answer. If there is a specific answer (and I certainly don't have one) we could reference it. If not, perhaps this should be moved off the Ref Desk to a forum for such matters. // BL \\ (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I will be waiting for an expert opinion or reference. I think I've made my case clear now. Thank you.Makischa (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody on here is an expert; we're just fellow editors. But here's a thought to consider- is not allowing potential children to live unethical? Sure, they will never die, but they will also never get to live. Is withholding life from someone also unethical? I don't really agree with your original logic, but if you must take that point of view, you must consider the other side of it. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For one possible philosophy designed to quell all qualms such as User:Makischa apparently feels, read the classic satirical novel Erewhon by Samuel Butler... AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think one should only have children if you believe that they will probably be happy. I have no children, and will not have any in the future. Children are not pets or toys. 78.149.207.226 (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that at least a small degree of suffering is certain in life, therefore the decision to have children involves ethical decision making. Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I think too but I don't know how to do that. It seems to me that this process leads us that procreation is unethical in the end.Makischa (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also the absence of ethics because reproduction precedes ethics in the sense that earlier versions of the human biological entity were not in possession of the capacity for ethical considerations. More importantly, our potential children are, at least by my reckoning, ours to do with as we please. The life that is inchoate in new people is merely the joining of two already living cells, at least in conventional reproduction. It would seem logical to me that we have complete autonomy over decisions involving our own living cells. I know there are exceptions to this, where the law steps in and tells us what to do with ourselves or our progeny, but I also think the default regard for our cells is that they are ours to do with as we please. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I really find very interesting your perspective. You seem to be right that we should have complete autonomy on our own cells but when these 2 combine they create another, different one. And the new one when it grows a little has a different consciousness. Since we now know that, shouldn't incorporate it in our decision making and give up the selfishness of doing whatever we want with our gametocytes?Makischa (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Kahlil Gibran touched obliquely on this subject in his book, The Prophet. A link to some of the text of that is found here [20]. In part, he says, "Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you." I don't really agree with it, but I think it is his attempt to address a similar question. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise. Not everything in ethics is black and white; often arguments can be made for both sides: that something is unethical, and on the other hand is ethical. However, one has take into account what ethics is: ethics is the 'big picture', it's about a system; try putting your ethics questions into a sentence like "in a world where X happened and everyone did X, would that be "good" or "bad"?. "Imagine a world where everyone smoked around children." "Imagine a world where everyone stole from eachother." Finally, "imagine a world where everyone procreated even in cases where the offspring had a likely chance of suffering." That's where the compromise comes in. It is probably only ethical to procreate after taking into consideration your circumstances and that of your offspring. The answer may differ according to many different situations: there are 6 billion people in china, most of Africa survives on less than a dollar a day, many African countries have extremely high infant mortality rates, etc etc. Now here's the flipside: "Imagine a world where people procreate and afford their offspring rich and rewarding lives with a 'standard' amount of hardship, pain, conflict, stress and suffering." If that's the position then it is ethical to have children. On the other hand if the environment gets much worse and having children would mean contribute to too much competition for resources, then again it may be unethical. 41.244.228.246 (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're wrong because even the "standard" amount of suffering, whatever that is, is still suffering, and is bad. You can never get rid all of it no matter what you do for your child because it is inherent with life. And if you don't have a child you don't deprive him from the happiness of life since he does not yet exist, but if you procreate you bring him in a world having even a tiny amount of suffering, then wouldn't be better if you hadn't procreate in the first place, not even giving the chance to him to suffer in any degree?Makischa (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This question is asking if something is ethical. Ethics are a point of view. For one group of people, the only ethical choice is to sit perfectly still and slowly starve to death - hoping you don't harm anything while you do so. For another group of people, just getting through each day without causing too much harm to other people is ethical enough. This reference desk is not the place to debate ethics. That is what discussion forums are for. -- kainaw™ 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And with the addition of another 1,000 words, Makischa, with the 4-day-old account that has only edited on this question, still has a debate. // BL \\ (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But I think that is a good point. The fact that the original questioner participated in the answering of his or her question I think is a good thing. Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 18

Which crowns are these with Richard III and family?

The writing is difficult to decipher. Thanks! Catterick (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the 6 surrounding the King? If so, we have, from top left, Seyne (Saint?) Edward,(maybe that of Edward the Confessor who was King of England) England, France, Wales, (this one I can't understand), and Ireland. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The symbol on the unknown--is that the Scottish thistle? If so, I'd still like to make out the exact lettering. Catterick (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The cross fits with Edward the Confessor with similar arms (although they were made posthumously). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a different version of this image that is much more legible. Actually the color version you posted here looks to me like a later copy of the black-and-white one, made by someone who didn't really know what they're copying, hence the illegible inscriptions. Anyway, the bottom right crest, which looks more like grapes than a thistle, is labeled "Gascoyn & Gyan", that is Gascony and Guyenne (Aquitaine). — Kpalion^(talk) 13:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look at all like a thistle to me, I'd agree it looks more like grapes. Which would make sense as Richard III didn't have any claim to the Scottish crown but did have some claims to the French, or at least French titles. Bottom right is a harp which would imply Ireland. AllanHainey (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The harp clearly says 'Ireland'. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I meant, of course, the crest that is on the left hand side from our point of view, or the right hand (dexter) side from Richard's point of view. Describing coats of arms, crests, etc. from the armiger's point of view is a standard practice in heraldry. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

assignment help needed

I needed some information regarding my assignment. The subject is reagrding commercial law. And the question is based on contracts law ans sale of goods law. The question is as follows:

Brandy lives in the Fiji islands. She is a manufacturer of traditional tapa mats. This particular type of mats is known as “masi”. Brandy sells mats in various colours with the traditional tapa mats or masi being a dark brown colour with dyed woolen edges. After successfully doing business for a few years within the tourism market Brandy decides to expand within the export markets. She subsequently establishes a website advertising the products for sale to overseas markets.

Sima in New Zealand operates a large cultural store where all types of traditional hand made items are being sold. One day while Sima is online she finds Brandy’s website. Knowing of the demand for traditional tapa mats within the Maori community she decides that it would be a good idea to import some of Brandy’s stock for sale in her shop. She particularly likes the variety of bright colours that are being used in the dyed woolen edges. Brandy sends Sima a contract to sign which includes the following provisions: 1. goods – 100 traditional tapa mats with coloured woolen edges 2. purchase price - $250 per mat 3. Contract terms – in accordance with Sale of Goods Act Fiji 4. shipment terms – CIF 5. delivery date – 90 days from entry into this contract 6. delivery port – Auckland Before Sima signs the contract she asks if Brandy can deliver the mats for the same price to Christchurch, and states that she wants half of the order to be traditional mats with dark brown woolen edges and half to have coloured woolen edges. Brandy states that there would be an extra charge of $25 for delivery to Christchurch, however, costs would be less for the 50 mats with only dark brown woolen edges. Sima then amends the contract purchase price per mat to “$262.50”, makes no other changes and signs the contract. In order to secure payment, Brandy is provided with an irrevocable letter of credit from Sima’s bank – Money Bank. In arranging the letter of credit Sima has provided Money Bank with a copy of the contract. Under the Letter of Credit Brandy is required to present the contract transportation documents, clear bill of lading, and evidence of premium insurance coverage before Money Bank will pay. The mats are delivered to the ship at Suva, and a Bill of Lading is issued for “100 traditional mats”. The sea trip is good and due to fine weather the ship reaches Christchurch a day before the scheduled date. Sima however, has failed to make arrangements for early delivery and the crate containing the mats is sitting on the dock for one night. Unfortunately there is a snow storm on that particular night. When Sima finally collects the mats about 25 of the brown edged mats are damaged, and the other 50 tapa mats with colourful woolen edges have lost their bright colours and would need replacement with new colourful edges. Sima is furious and immediately rings Money Bank from her mobile phone. She gets even more furious when she is told that Brandy has been paid even though the bank did not collect the importation documents. Sima then attempts to claim the losses on her insurance. She discovers that the insurance policy is not a premium policy, but a standard policy, and does not extend cover to the mats after delivery.

Advise Sima of her rights and liabilities against the following: a) Brandy b) Money Bank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalini DK (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't said what the information is that you want. We are not going to do your assignment. (From the top of the page: If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you.)

You might get some useful information from Commercial law, but probably more relevantly from your course textbooks. Incidentally, you have not even said which legal system you are working in: I guess it is New Zealand, but if anybody is to help you, you need to make this clear. --ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See 2009 Fijian constitutional crisis - Fiji is in the middle of its 4th and a half coup of recent years and presently has no judges but plenty of police and soldiers. So the answer is...how well does Simi know the Prime Minister of Fiji? Rmhermen (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do your own homework. AllanHainey (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Genesis - Creation

Have creationists considered the fact that whoever wrote Genesis (as well as other people) probably would not have been able to understand concepts such as cells, genes, etc? Vltava 68 07:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered the fact that modern creationists are probably unable to understand concepts such as cells, genes, etc. either? — Kpalion^(talk) 12:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well...that's not true. Lots of "real" scientists are creationists. Do you think Michael Behe doesn't understand those concepts? Also, if the author of Genesis was God, then of course he would have understood cells and genes. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam Bishop, given the article to which you refer, it is hard for most of us to accept that the individual named does understand cells and genes in the same way that almost all accredited scientists understand them. To go back to Kpalion Vltava's question, I would direct him/her to the various articles on Creationism, Intelligent design, Book of Genesis and their follow-up reading for information on what creationists might have considered. // BL \\ (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, he probably knows more about cells and genes than I do! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "expert": Someone who knows more about a subject than I do.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AB's second point still stands, though- if God was the true writer of Genesis, then obviously he'd understand genes, etc. So if creation (and divine inspiration) are correct, there's no problem. And if they aren't, then there's no problem either. So regardless of the answer (I'm presuming the answer to the OP's question is "yes", by the way, as most creationists likely aren't crackpots... just the ones you hear about all the time are. Sane people don't make for good news), it doesn't really matter. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are those who think all creationists are crackpots, by definition; however, even if that opinion were true, it would have no bearing on what creationists might have considered in coming to their conclusions. The answer will more likely be "yes' for some, "no" for others and "who knows what they thought about?" for the rest. // BL \\ (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

An Answers in Genesis-style answer would be, "yes, of course the humans who wrote these things out originally didn't know about modern scientific concepts. However their words were guided by the hand of God, who understands them better than even our clunky human metaphors do. Why would you assume that it matters in this case? Whether or not the people who wrote down Genesis originally understood modern cell biology hardly affects whether their overall scheme for the history of creation was true or not." etc. etc. I'm not a Creationist but I don't find the question of who knew about cells to have any real importance to discussing its validity. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To my mind (personal opinion alert) a better question is whether those reading Genesis would have been able to understand complex scientific concepts. Even assuming complete divine inspiration for Genesis 1, it's doubtful that an omnipotent God would have chosen to give a 20th Century scientific account of the universe that would have been utterly mystifying to all its readers for 1900 years (and might be considered trivially simple by those in the 22nd Century). DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the chances of a nuclear war in the next 100 years?

How have future historians projected it?--Whargarbl (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See Doomsday Clock. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, our nuclear-powered WP:CRYSTAL ball is glowing just a bit too brightly for me to see the answer. (P.S. What's a future historian?) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "future historian" is to refer to a hypothetical historian who is literally in the future, looking back and studying us. User:Whargarbl is probably thinking of a Futurist.

Seriously, nobody reputable is going to venture a guess that far ahead. Humans could be extinct or god-like by then. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. About the best we can say is that the odds are less than 50%: humanity surviving for 100 years has been given 50% odds by a few authorities, and 50% is (following Bayesian orthodoxy) the position of maximum ignorance regarding that issue. Humanity could be extinguished by any number of disasters, so to avoid the conjunction fallacy, we get <50%. (I assume that extinction and nuclear war are related; but even if they're independent variables, humanity has to exist for nuclear war to happen, so the odds are still necessarily reduced.) --Gwern (contribs) 02:47 19 April 2009 (GMT)

The odds approach 100% that some group will detonate a nuclear device to harm their enemy in the next 100 years. This does not mean that there will be a global thermonuclear war with thousands of hydrogen bombs fired back and forth by superpowers, which would be one definition of insanity. Edison (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, 100 years is a long time. Think about how different the world was in 1909 versus today — the idea of a "world war" hadn't even been broached yet. It's very hard to make any kind of reasonable predictions about 100 years from now. It could be some sort of beautiful peaceful Star Trek universe or it could be post-apocalyptic. The real truth is probably somewhere between the two poles, as usual. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no article Islam and communism?

Surely the links between these two topics are worthy of exploration?--Whargarbl (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're the first person to have got around to thinking about it. There has to be a first; and we're still - after all this time - creating hundreds of new articles on significant topics every day of the week, many of which would cause various people to be surprised that we didn't already have something on that. The thing is, it's not like a bunch of terribly self-important people sit around and decide which articles should be written and which not. No, the world community decides, and in particular, the decision to commence any one article is a decision by a single person - you. There are checks and balances, of course, and all articles are subject to scrutiny and challenge in regard to notability. So, the opportunity is now available to you - or anyone reading this - to create the article. Best wishes, and I look forward to reading it. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Or you could start by expanding this very short section: Communism and religion #Communism and Islam. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one could also explore the relationship between Communist states and Islamic ones as well. The Suez Crisis may be of particular interest to one writing such an article. Also, the article essentially already exists at National communism. Read it and see... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Islamic socialism might also be useful. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of post-War German states

Whta levels of autonomy did German states have while the future of post-World-War-II Germany was being discussed. Our article on the coat of arms of Lower Saxony has these 'dubious' statements:

• After World War II, the province of Hanover became an independent state
• Brunswick, which was an independent state

and I'm wondering here whether the confusion here is simply over the use of the word state as a translation of land (the German word) rather than Sovereign state. Though, German 'provinces' (Laender) have always had more autonomy. Could someone clarify the position here (anyone who knows should edit the article really)? Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 13:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt those statements at face value, given Germany's history as a nation. The fact that there would be one German state that was uniquely sovereign over all German lands has really only existed since the 20th century. Various independant states existed throught Germany in all of history; it is not surprising that in the chaos after World War II, any of a number of short-lived Independent states did not "spring up" after the war. Even during the so-called "German Empire" period, many constituent parts of the Empire, such as the Kingdom of Bavaria, operated essentially independently from the Prussian-dominated empure, and were de-facto independent states in all but name. To answer the question about Hanover specifically, there had been a Kingdom of Hanover from 1814-1866 (which was in personal union with the Kingdom of Great Britain until 1837). AFter 1866, it was administered from Prussia as the Province of Hanover and was only formally integrated into the new Federal West Germany in 1946/47. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two obvious places where confusion could arise - "independent" and "state". In DE wiki article "selbstständig" ('self-standing') isn't used to mean 'independent' as in 'worthy of UN recognition', but 'independent' as in 'extracted from governance by another german state'. Brunswick was "Freistaat" ('free state'), again not meaning 'an internationally recognised country', but instead meaning 'republic', 'not under the governance of a monarch' - a term currently used by Bavaria, Thuringia and Saxony. "State", you note yourself, has multiple uses, and can mean national or a subdivision, depending on context. --Saalstin (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

April 19

Website for finding theme (literature)

Is there any website that allow to find a theme for any stories? 66.75.241.44 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as theme is a part of literary criticism, it is largely up to the subjective view of the reader as to the theme of a book or story. I think it may be hard to determine an objective way to categorize such an idea reliably, and I don't know that any website makes any attempt to do so. Your question is also a little vague. Could you expand on it? To what end are you looking for this information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Best way to stop a prima donna behaving as such?

What is the best way to stop a prima donna (in the metaphorical sense) from behaving as such? Thanks. 89.242.147.172 (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The lack of details makes answering your question impossible. In what way is she a prima donna? What is your relationship to this person? How exactly are they acting and why? What do you mean by "best way"? (easist? quickest? cheapest? most effective?) —D. Monack ^talk 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To take a very general position, the reason a prima donna may be acting so is likely to be a desire to be the centre of attention and/or an object of adoration. To satisfy, there are two options - keep her the centre of attention and adoration, or ignore them to a point where she must get over it. The first option will require a lot of maintenance, the second will have a lot of chaos in the first steps. The choice is yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.25 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we assuming the offending party is a woman? Prima donnas can be men, too. In operatic circles, a leading male singer is a primo uomo, but in metaphorical contexts, prima donna can refer to anyone who qualifies by virtue of their behaviour, regardless of sex. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct, this prima donna is a male. It is someone I'm involved with in business. One of the difficulties is that this person wants to be fed a rosy view of future events, and is not interested in the true facts, which are essential to jointly plan the right route to get to a successfull outcome. The justification for this seems to be that this person considers themselves an artist (although in truth they are not very good as an artist), and that being an artist gives priveledges including not having to think or work, and to be treated as someone important and of high status. I'm wondering what to do - playing along with it will make him worse (and makes him a dead weight as a business partner), confronting him will make him worse as well. Edit: a worrying possibility is that he is behaving like this because he has taken to the bottle. 89.240.60.225 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms in American legislation

Why do American legislators insist on giving their bills ridiculous acronyms? Looking through a couple of the relevant categories, I find USA PATRIOT, PROTECT, RAVE, BALANCE, CARE, CALM, COPE, REAL, SAFE (twice!), SKILLS, and USA, and I could find many more if I looked through THOMAS. Is there some historical reason? Are there any other countries with similarly absurd practices? --superioridad ^(discusión) 11:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would speculate that it's one way to add a little personal stylistic touch to what is otherwise a long dry technicalistic legal text... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A bill with a memorable name probably has a better chance of passing. LANTZY^TALK 15:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also a sneaky bit of psychology on the bill writers' part. Who wants to vote against the PATRIOT act - if you do, does that mean you're less of a patriot? And of course, something entitled the SAFE Act or the CARE act certainly couldn't contain provisions which might be harmful. Why would they call it the SAFE act if it was dangerous? And shame on you for suggesting that it is. Don't you CARE? - But seriously, it's called "priming": by presenting a stimulus with certain positive connotations (the words PATRIOT/PROTECT/SAFE/CARE/CALM/etc.) you are more likely to associate later stimuli (the contents of the bill) with the positive connotations of the former. -- 75.42.235.205 (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When Timothy Geithner presented his plan to use a few hundred billion dollar of US Government money to buy troubled assets from banks, economist James Galbraith suggested the name "Bad Assets Relief Fund". 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarly to 75.42.235.205, its also biased because, for example with the PATRIOT act, anyone who votes against it is effectively saying 'I'm not a Patriot' - who doesn't want to be SAFE or doesn't CARE? Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because they couldn't find a dead child to name their bill after (Tabitha's Law, anyone?). If I was a congressman, I would call my bill the "Anyone Who Doesn't Vote For This Bill is a Child Molester" Bill. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion polls for European Parliament election, 2009 (Sweden)?

The Pirate Party got over 9000 new members recently, but does it stand any chance in the election? F (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The unsourced European Parliament election, 2004 (Sweden) says the Christian Democrats scraped a seat with 142704 votes (5.68%). A low voter turnout is again suspected, and votes are much higher than number of members. A non RS comment from 3 months ago at [21] says "7% of Swedish voters would "absolutely consider" voting for us in the European parliamentary elections, and 14% said they "might consider" voting for us." -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:37z

Multiple wives/first ladies?

With Jacob Zuma likely to be the next president of South Africa, has there ever been a democracy with a president with multiple wives? -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:26z

Not a president as such, but a head of state. George IV of the United Kingdom had two wives simultaneously - sort of. First was Maria Fitzherbert; this marriage was deemed legally null and void because he had not obtained royal permission (and would not have, even if he had asked, because she was a Roman Catholic). But in the eyes of the Pope, it was a valid marriage. And I can see his point. If she had not been a RC, I'm sure they wouldn't have minded too much and permission would have been granted retrospectively. But because she was a RC, they chose to abide by the strict letter of the law. Thus it comes down to royal whim as to whether a prince is validly married or not. Then George married Caroline of Brunswick. He didn't have to divorce Fitzherbert first, because legally he was never married to her. And even if he had divorced her, she would still have remained his wife in the eyes of the Pope. But she remained his mistress and for all intents and purposes his wife, while his formal wife was Caroline. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

An intriguing question. What about Islamic republics, e.g. Pakistan and Indonesia, to name two of the most populous? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia has had only 6 presidents, one of who was female and the daughter of the only one who did have multiple wives Sukarno (who was also the first president). Polygamy is common among the Sultans of Malaysia one of who is always the Agong (King) and therefore head of state but far less common among the general public and I personally doubt a polygamist has much hope of being the PM and therefore head of government (I don't know if there has even be a polygamist cabinet minister although if PAS ever gets in to government polygamist cabinet ministers are a definite possibility). Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Brigham Young, with 55 wives, was governor of Utah Territory. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that no depend on wath you mean by first lady? Even if a man in such a situation may have several wives, I would guess that only one of those would function as the first lady. I think it was like that in old China; the emperor had many wives, but only one took the position of Empress.--85.226.47.62 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Male succession through females

I wonder if anyone can help me with this question. Is there a specific word for this situation : If a monarch dies without a son, and is succeeded by the husband of his daughter, then what is it called? Is there a word for such an heiress and situation? When a princess becomes the Queen consort, but not the Queen regnant, in the same country as she was Princess in? (though I am talking about any monarchy, not just kingdoms but also duchys etc) Regards--Aciram (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it happens like that. If the state does not allow a female monarch, the throne will go to the first male in line, not to the husband of the first female in line. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found something. There is Jure uxoris, and there is also Uterine primogentiure in [[22]], but I don't know if it is the same thing....--85.226.40.6 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this has happened exactly once, and was done in a nation that does allow female monarchs, see William and Mary, but that isn't the exact same thing, since Mary was also a Queen Regnant. I don't know if the situation described by the OP has actually ever occured, and so the situation may have never been accounted for.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry VII of England and his wife, Elizabeth of York. Though Henry made his claim via his own bloodline, even though his wife had the better claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some examples in France of princesses of France who became queens of France while their husbands became kings: Emma of France, Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, Claude of France, Marguerite of Valois--85.226.40.6 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly happened in the other direction. Catherine I and Catherine II "The Great" of Russia were Queens Consort who succeeded their husbands and became Queens Regnant. But this wasn't a consequence of any law on succession. Neither of them had Russian blood or any legitimate claim to the throne: Catherine I was Estonian/Swedish; Catherine II was Prussian. The formal word for those circumstances is "coup". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This happened a bunch of times in crusader Jerusalem (for example Melisende of Jerusalem and her husband Fulk), but in that case there was no law against a woman inheriting a crown, it was just socially awkward. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It happened in ancient Egypt. See, for example, the story of Hatshepsut. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replyes so far. I have just clerified my question: I supose I also ment this situation no matter wath the law said; simply a situation, were a Princess transfers her right to a throne to her husband, and becomes the consort in the very same country she was princess in; especially if she does not do this in any formal way : Saint Ingamoder Emundsdotter of Sweden is one example. Is there a term for this?--Aciram (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no succession law which gives a man right to succeed his father-in-law as sole monarch. Kings who did succeed their fathers-in-law as sole monarchs were elected to succeed the King who just happened to be their wife's father, i.e. the fact that the King was the father of his wife did help Rudolph of Burgundy to be elected but he was elected in his own right. Emma became Queen consort of France as the wife of the newly elected King. That's because women could not succeed to the throne of France at all. (Henry VII is not an example of this situation because he reigned by the right of conquest. He became King by conquest before he married Elizabeth of York. William III and Mary II both reigned by the right of conquest)

However, where women could succeed, their husbands reigned jointly with them. So, when Henry IV died, Castile passed to his half-sister Isabella I and Isabella I's husband Ferdinand V who proved to be the legitimate successors by defeating Henry IV's alleged daughter and son-in-law. When Isabella I died, Ferdinand V could not keep the crown of Castile because he was no longer husband of the sovereign, so Castile passed to their daughter Joanna and Joanna's husband Philip I. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Archbishop engages in a lengthy discussion of this general topic in the "Salic Law" passage of Act 1 Scene 2 (I think - working from memory) of Shakespeare's Henry V. AndyJones (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In Hamlet, the current king Claudius is the second husband of Queen Gertrude, widow of the previous king, Hamlet sr. There's no discussion in the play as to why Hamlet (jr.) didn't succeed his father; and it wasn't noted as something remarkable or extraordinary that a Queen Dowager's new husband with no claim to the throne would succeed a king, so it must have been accepted as something that happened in those times. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

American Gothic

American Gothic

I don't get meaning behind the title "American Gothic", choosen by Gordon Parks for this photography. Can please someone clarify this? I'm not a native speaker, but I don't normally have difficulties in reading English. I just don't get the meaning of Gothic in this context. --Pjacobi (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See American Gothic. If you still don't understand after reading that article, see Parody. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I've seen the Featured Picture discussion but missed the article. So, the Gothic in itself doesn't make any sense, it only refers to the backdrop of the parodied painting. This is simply unguessable, if one doesn't know the story behind this. --Pjacobi (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

True, though American Gothic (the original) is one of the most famous modern American paintings (as the article states). If you don't know what it is referencing, then you won't get the other photograph at all, one could say. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Peerages of the British Royal Family

What happens to a son's courtesy title when his father is given a new, higher-ranking peerage? E.g., if the Earl of Wessex were to be made a Duke, would Viscount Severn be simultaneously "promoted" to the courtesy title "Earl of Wessex"? Also, if a woman holds multiple peerages in her own right, do her sons receive courtesy titles? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom seems to lay things out in meticulous detail. Does it answer your questions? -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

graph of snowboard sales

Hi im wondering if any one can find me a graph with the sale of snowboards on it. Im looking for it so i can see the way snow boards have become more popular since they were first invented. ive looked around but cant seem to find one. I would like one that combines all sales of all or most companys so that it does not show how well a sertain company is doing and only how snnowboards gained in popularity. thanks --Sivad4991 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen murdered by soldiers?

This regards Maria Josepha of Austria. In the French wiki-article of her, it is said that her death was caused by brutal treatment from hostile soldiers during the war; I can not read French well enough to understand it better than that. Was she murdered? Exactly how did she die?--85.226.40.6 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It says that she was poorly treated by the Prussian army, who had invaded her territory without a declaration of war because she had taken the side of France and Austria. I guess she was probably taken captive, and probably passively maltreated until she died, but none of the other language article say anything further either (except that she died in Dresden). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Polish article says she died of apoplexy. No source is given. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies! Wath a shame that there is nothing more detailed about this in wikipedia. But perhaps someone knows anything about this? --85.226.47.62 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly do animal rights organisations campaign for animals that are only born for meat?

• I understand it in principle, but if the animals they're campaigning for (organisations like PETA and so on) are arguing for animal rights, don't they think of the fact that the cows, pigs, chickens... whatever... wouldn't have been born at all if not for being used in the commercial meat industry? And the general population of these animals is gonna be close to negligible without these industries - sad but true.--Evenexist undercrowd (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I mean, I love the taste of beef, chicken, fish, and so on, don't care for pork that much, I do like lamb though, but do you get my point?--Evenexist undercrowd (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)--Evenexist undercrowd (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The "purpose" of a given life does not affect the moral status of that life. If humans were being bred for meat it wouldn't make their slaughter any less moral. If your parents "bred" you in order to make you their slave, it wouldn't actually make it any better for them to treat you as a slave. Intentionality has nothing to do with it in this case. You either think killing said animals is moral or you don't. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If meat-eating were abolished many forms of cattle would not be allowed to breed, and would go extinct, or near extinct.

The situation is not the same. And the situation is not clear-cut. It's disingenuous to claim it is.

Imagine if meat-eating aliens from beyond the moon showed up, and gave us the choice between :

• A)Being raised as cattle.
• B) Not being allowed to breed, and going extinct except for a few zoo specimens.

We can all agree that killing humans is immoral. How does that help us make this decision? APL (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

APL, can you elaborate on your "many forms of cattle would not be allowed to breed" comment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Primarily I mean that the land they occupy is often extremely valuable. Free cows would present a nuisance, an expense, a health hazard, and even a danger. If cattle farming stopped tomorrow, I have a hard time believing that the freed cows would be allowed to be fruitful and multiply. For practical reasons if for no other.

I suppose it's possible that hundreds of millions of cows could just be set free to their own devices, but I doubt that the Cow Nation would be able to sustain itself (We're talking hundreds of millions of cows, here, many of them currently living on high-density lots.) And not just cows either, also innumerable pigs and chickens, etc. Without human intervention "freed" cattle would suffer a massive die-off. Sterilizing them would, at that point, seem humane, and it would benefit the Human agenda. It's hard to imagine a scenario it wouldn't be done.

Perhaps I'm being too literal. Or too cynical. Perhaps the cow freeing could be done gradually with a concurrent introduction of predators. A whole artificial ecosystem could be constructed for them. This would be a massive effort, possibly even more massive than convincing people not to eat hamburgers in the first place. APL (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, at first I thought you might have been implying that through artificial selection, cattle are no longer capable of surviving in the wild. Thanks for the clarification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm straying from my original point which was simply that it's disingenuous to claim that it's a simple answer from the animal's perspective. An end to cattle farming would be catastrophic to the cattle, even if they eventually recovered. APL (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Question - Is 98's answer above PETA's official response to this question? Would they prefer the animals not exist than exist to be eaten by humans? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

PETA and others also campaign around animals killed for fur, both wild ones (e.g. seals) and those bred for the purpose (e.g. mink). The bodies may go for petfood, but do not usually enter the human food chain. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would a person free a (human) slave who was born into slavery? --Aseld ^talk 07:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For many reasons, most of which don't apply at all to cattle. Even if you believe them to be sentient, a free cow will not smoothly integrate into our society or even our ecosystem as anything other than a food source. (Let alone nine hundred million of them.) APL (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do the Indians know about this? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously those animals we raise for food might never have been born without the desire to eat them, PETA and other groups know this - they argue that it is unethical to kill an animal for food because we don't have to to survive (presumably they let off other carnivorous animals without conscious minds). Animals bred for eating might struggle to survive in the wild if let alone, but we very rarely do that with other animals so why wouldn't we just start 'maintaining' food-animals in a manner the same we do say Badgers, Foxes and hedgehogs? That is to say we actively try to ensure their survival, but we also actively try to limit their numbers (at least in my understanding we do). I can see that the 'domesticated' breeds may have a disadvantage but also think it'd be manageable. Ultimately though as noted above the question of 'why' we breed them doesn't alter the morality of what we do to them in the minds of those that think it is immoral (though this will placate many many people as shown by the desire of millions to eat things such as free-range produce or those with approval that they are well treated - even if ultimately they're killed for food). ny156uk (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Badger, fox, and hedgehog populations are being artificially supported? I'm aware that some varieties of Fox are protected species. Wikipedia's articles on Badgers and hedgehogs seem to indicate that they're doing quite well on their own. If that's not right, it would probably be an interesting addition tot he badger and hedgehog articles.APL (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a variety of measures have been introduce to try and reduce the deaths of hedgehogs. For example our hedgehog article mentions the redesign of McFlurry containers. I believe tunnels under roads are also common [23]. However these aren't really a great example of artificially supporting a population. Better examples would be breeding programmes and the like for criticially endangered species with pandas and kiwis for example although even these are just as much about undoing damage done by humans Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ny explains the point well. Note that few people are going to find slavery acceptable even if you start breeding people specifically for it in which case the specific people involved would obviously not have been born where you not breeding them for slavery Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 20

military "uniforms" in middle ages

How was friend or foe identified at for example battle of Towton? "Friendly fire" incidents commonplace? Or even later, in Thirty Years War?Ragglecat (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary footsoldiers might not have worn any meaningful uniform at all. For one fairly famous incident about the same time, see Battle_of_Barnet#Fighting_in_the_mist... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Armies were often distinguished by their armaments or relied upon the clothing from where they came from being different. But this did not work well in more civil wars and the antagonist might become blended as spoils were taken and reused. When armies needed to be differentiated some kind of field sign was used, in rich armies some specially made badge, in poorer more impromptu armies something as simple as a scrap of cloth might have been used, at Towton red or white scraps probably. meltBanana 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Flower or plant badges are said to have been used as well, but there is some doubt on the matter. See Clan badge, White Rose of York and cockade Rmhermen (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Two bank company questions

Hello. I have two questions about bank companies:

1. Besides Venture capitalists, where can proposed bank business find startup money to begin operations?
2. What is the difference between a bank president and a bank chief executive officer (CEO)?

Thanks for your help.--Under22Entreprenuer (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Any startup has two main sources of funds - equity and debt. Equity means selling shares (this includes money from the person starting the company, money from venture capitalists, etc.) and debt would generally mean bank loans. New banks aren't any different from any other startup in that respect, I would think. The difference between president and CEO is also the same as for other companies - the CEO is the person that is in day-to-day charge of the company and reports to the board of directors. President can be one of two positions - it can be a name for the chairman of the board of directors, or it can be a high ranking manager that reports to the CEO. "Vice-president" is a very common management rank, I think there is often no president they are vice to - there can be dozens of VPs in a large company, it's just a name. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One difference is that a banking licence allows the bank to accept deposits which are used to fund further loans. So instead of borrowing from another bank, the new bank can accept deposits. It would need to offer high interest rates or have deposit insurance (which it might need to pay for) to encourage people to depost their money with it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but a bank needs to have an adequate capital base to support its deposits and loans - see capital requirement and capital adequacy ratio. If you accept deposits and make loans without adequate capital, you don't have a bank - you have a Ponzi scheme. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. There would have to be some venture capital involved. But I think the purpose of a banking licence is to ensure the bank meets bank regulations before it can accept deposits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of non-English Banknotes of the Pound Sterling in the UK

Being from the US, I've been interested in private banknotes in the UK (Banknotes of the pound sterling). Private banknotes went out in my country before my time. I was curious as to HOW the money gets into circulation from banks. For example, if I attempt to use an ATM in Scotland, would I be likely to receive a mix of English, Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Clydesdale notes, or do banks generally pass the notes to the originating bank when they are received, meaning that note-issuing banks release only their own notes and English ones? For example, if someone walks into a Bank of Scotland branch and deposits some cash that contains Royal Bank of Scotland notes, do these notes get packaged up and sent to the Royal B of S, or do they go in the till and out with the next withdrawal or cheque cashing? Would it make a difference when we are talking about a non-note issuing bank in Scotland? What do they hand out when you attempt to cash a cheque or make a withdrawal?

68.227.202.7 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the answer to this question is but in my experience (i lived there for the first 18 years of my life..) if you went to an RBS ATM you would only ever get RBS notes. Its only when you go to a bank that isnt RBS/Bank Of Scotland/ Clydesdale, like HSBC, that you'd get a mixture. I guess this means that the printing banks only distribute their own (as free advertising, kind of...) but what they do with all the thousdands of 'other' notes they get from their customers, I have no idea, sorry..81.140.37.58 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted in Banknotes of the pound sterling, Scottish note-issuing banks situated in England must dispense English notes and cannot dispense their own notes from these branches. I suspect what happens is that anytime a scottish bank-note is received in an English branch it is collated and they are exchanged by the banks for english tender. Similarly I guess in Scotland the scottish banks will have a huge amount of their banks and a small amount of english tender - in order to exchange with the English banks they potentially need to keep-aside the english notes to be able to 'trade' them. It's probably much more complex than this though and not been able to find anything more definitive than the above linked page. ny156uk (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry just realised you'd already referenced that link - thus my comments are probably pretty worthless. ny156uk (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested to know that Scottish banknotes are usually accepted in shops in Northern England, especially near the border, but become less acceptable as one travels south. Most English banks accept them as deposits, but process them separately, because they are not (technically) legal tender in England. I'm not sure about the procedures in Scottish banks in Scotland, but I would guess that all notes are treated in the same way because they are all legal tender there. Dbfirs 19:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never had any problems accepting or paying with Scottish banknotes here in southern england. They are rare down here, but when they do turn up they are just treated as mildly interesting versions of the more usual bank notes. 89.242.152.134 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not legal tender anywhere, actually. --Anonymous, 21:19 UTC, April 20/09.

It's worth noting that the issuing banks are required, by law, to keep enough Bank of England notes on hand to match all the notes they have issued. I remember hearing somewhere that special high denomination notes are used for that purpose, though. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

what is middle market lending?

Can anyone help me in explaining what the middle market lendng is? Is it same as Mezzanine market?

Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom616 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it refers to lending to a Middle-market company. If that doesn't make sense, can you provide more context? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

how do those Somali pirates find ships to hijack?

They used to hang around near the Somalian coast, where they could nab traffic going in and out of the ports, but now because of increased naval presence, they've moved 100's of miles offshore where the navies can't keep up with them or track them. But if the world's military establishments with all its airborne and satellite based surveillance can't find the pirate ships, how the heck are the pirates finding the merchant ships? Do they just drift around til they get lucky? Do they have spies in the shipping business? Satellites of their own? Or what? 66.127.52.118 (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that they use a larger mother ship to tow skiffs out to the shipping lanes, and then when they see a boat they attack with the fast skiffs. Note that the problem is not that the navies can't detect the pirate boats, but that they look exactly the same as the thousands of legitimate fishing boats out there, and by the time the hijacking commences, it's too late to get a defense force into the area. --Sean 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how close do ships keep to idealized "shipping lanes"? If I set a pirate boat down in the center of a shipping lane would every ship to use that lane come within visual/radar range of my boat? Or is there an element of chance involved? APL (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "lanes" are quite large (100s of nautical miles), and that one of the proposals is to narrow the "lanes" into a more manageable area that could be patrolled more vigorously. However, I'd be very interested to hear from someone with maritime experience about how this actually works. Shadowjams (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Merchant ships are big, and presumably do not observe radio silence; I wouldn't think that they are too hard to find. (Remember that the pirates are looking for pretty much any ship: tankers, cargo vessels, yachts, fishing trawlers. So they are bound to find something sooner or later.) As for the navies finding the so-called mother ships, many of the latter are just hijacked dhows (local fishing boats), whose terrified crews are taken hostage -- see here for one example. I'd like to hear from someone who knows, but it seems unlikely that navies stop and search all local fishing vessels on the grounds that they might have been captured by pirates. So the situation is not even-handed. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This page <www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?> will show current ship positions.--81.170.122.82 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Law: Example of Habeas Corpus

I can't seem to find an example of a Habeas Corpus petition. I'd like to know how to write one some day if the need ever arises. 41.244.228.246 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You can often find things like this with an Internet search engine. This Google search for "Template:Websearch" gives examples in various jurisdictions. --Sean 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you find me one example please. Maybe Google likes you better. 41.244.228.246 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few: [24], [25], [26]. Here's a generic form for writing one (in California) without the help of a lawyer: [27]. --Sean 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be useful. But you may want to tell us which jurisdiction you live in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Habeas petition is a bit of a misnomer. Habeas corpus is, as it was with most common legal actions, a writ, incidentally the only writ mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Writ pleading hasn't been used in the U.S. for about a century (See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), however writs are still issued by courts for various reasons (mandamus, certiorari, habeas). So I think it is more accurate to call it a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is the writ a court would issue to the executive in order to free the prisoner. Look at writ for more in depth info, but a writ at its most basic level is a command from the court to the executive. Shadowjams (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and for googling purposes, "sample writ of habeas corpus" would likely bring you more authoritative results. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Who spoke what language in medieval/Early modern England?

In the novel 'Mistress of the art of death' the author clearly indicates that Henry II and other obviously Norman elites are speaking (Middle) English. But isn't it true that Normans considered the "native" Anglo-Saxons and the English language itself to be well beneath contempt? I've seen it stated that no English monarch before Henry V even pretended to study English. And further, about H5, why does Shakespeare have him struggling with French when it was in fact his native language? It seems that English authors (though one must concede they can write a little bit) are generally not aware of the former low status of the language in the long shadow of French.Ragglecat (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The history books that I have read indicate that the nobility (in what is now modern England) would have conducted most official business in Norman French during Henry II timeframe. I do not know if they (the nobility) were not fluent in English, or if French was just the preferred language. I can not speak for Henry V. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Henry II certainly spoke French. English began to be used again officially under Edward III; was Henry V's native language really French? He is later than Edward III and he seems to have been thoroughly English, although of course he probably knew French as well, which was well on its way to becoming the diplomatic language of Europe by then. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry V was certainly not the first king to speak English as his father Henry IV famously adressed the first parliament after he usurped the throne in English. For him to address parliament in English shows that the lords who sat would have understood. Henry V was from a very young age schooled in fighting, as this was the time before the renaisance i imagine that little time was spent learning the humanities, and that the french he learnt he would have picked up in court or on campaign. Also for Henry II it would have been archaic middle english rather than the form you would see in Chaucer. Quidom (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry II's court were speaking Norman French. Chaucer moved in court circles in the time of Edward III and gives a clear idea of what that era's courtly speech sounded like. --Wetman (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic immunity

I was reading the article on CNN about the leader of Iran (won't even try to spell his name) speaking at a conference of some sort in Switzerland. Apparently several delegates walked out on him. My question is, assuming ambassadors have diplomatic immunity, and that a head of state would probably have it, would any crime be committed if there was a fist fight between say the leader of Iran, and the leader of say Thailand or something? I personally would find it quite comedic, and I presume that the bodyguards of the respective heads of state would prevent such an occurrence. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It would still be a crime, they just couldn't be prosecuted for it. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Immunity from prosecution (international law), and related, state immunity and sovereign immunity. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

religion and philosophy

Is there any broadly accepted definition that explains what the difference between a philosophy and a religion is? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not try a widely-accepted dictionary? You can compare several at dictionary.com. Webster's says: "philosophy denotes the general laws or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating to that subject are comprehended. Thus philosophy, when applied to God and the divine government, is called theology..." and "religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God...." But you should read the whole thing. See [28] and [29]. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do Finns, Poles, Hungarians and Romanians look like white people with a bit of the Mongoloid race added?

Just wondering.--Whimsical biblical (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)--Whimsical biblical (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Meyers_1890_ethnographic_detail.jpg) may be of interest. Not sure for definite but Finland, Poland are very close to the Yellow-section on the map. ny156uk (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Probably because you have just decided that they do. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the articles you linked? Have you looked at sections dealing with ethicity and genetic origins, e.g. Finns#Genetics? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird like that. I'm Irish / English and I look like a Greek God. (Not Pluto)Myles325a (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hephaistos? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Long-term treasury bonds

Why is it that the 30 year bond yield is lower then the 20 year yield? Are they expecting interest rates to be lower between 2029 and 2039 than between 2009 and 2029? Thanks! MMMMM742 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Yield_curve#Inverted_yield_curve. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The pure expectation theory seldom holds that far out on the yield curve. I'm not sure what the answer is to this specific question, but a very common reason for long-term rates being lower than middle-to-long term rates is a lack of high-quality bonds in the long-term part of the yield curve (i.e. low supply) and a high demand for those high-quality bonds by insurance companies and pension funds who need to match their long term liabilities. See the market segmentation theory section in Tango's link for more. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

benefit concert for commuter airplane crash memorial

I just saw on my local news Chuck Mangione is bound to play at a music concert. The purpose of the concert is to raise funds for building a memorial to the victims of Continental Airlines Flight 3407. Is this true? If yes, is there a memorial fund where can I send a donation?69.203.157.50 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Clarence Chamber of Commerce is one of many accepting donations towards a memorial here. Nanonic (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

certainty

for everything that has ever lived and ever will live, are the only two things that we can guarantee for it, life and death? I.e. is there anything else we can be 100% sure about Thanks, Hadseys 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia will never be finished. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxes. (Obviously?) BrainyBabe (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, Hadseys: this is a silly question:

1. It will have lived.
2. It will weigh more than zero ounces.
3. It will be composed of more than zero atoms.
4. It will be within the universe.
5. It will be either yellow or not yellow.
6. It will be be the topic of a Wikipedia reference desk question, or not.
7. It will have been born or hatched or spawned or cloned or something.
8. It will suffer the heat death of the universe.

And so on. --Sean 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, your points 5 and 6 are a bit dubious as we can know an infinite number of things using this tactic, such as “It will be an aardvark or not one” and so on ad infinitum and number 1 “It will have lived" is simply a restatement of the initial statement. I don’t think saying “An apple is an apple” is telling us anything.

I would offer “While it is alive, it will have some determinate structure and not be an entirely random collection of particles.” And: “There will be a stage in the life cycle of such a being when it actually performs actions of some kind, as opposed as merely being recipients of them.” Myles325a (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The tautology was kind of my point: there are infinite things along those lines you can guarantee about any object, living or otherwise. To ask if there are only two is a silly question. --Sean 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought the two things you can 100% guarentee are death and taxes. Livewireo (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Like wot I sed....BrainyBabe (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

April 21

galley?

Is there such thing as galley? My dad says there is a gally and it is usually located at back of our house, like behind our backyard? The perfect example are the ones in former city of York, Toronto in the intersection of Keele and Eglinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Galley" can mean lots of things. See [30] for a full dictionary definition. "Gally" is not a recognized word. Shadowjams (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean an "alley" as in "back alley"? It is usually an access road to garages at the backs of, and running parallel to, a street of houses, not normally more than a car-and-a-half wide, often unpaved or badly paved? There are lots of back alleys in Toronto. // BL \\ (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Could equally be a gully. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Gallery" is a term used in architecture, usually meaning corridor. This could be extended to an outdoor meaning, at a stretch, and mispronounced or misheard as "galley". BrainyBabe (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I re-read the question, "usually located at the back of our house" suggests whatever it is sometimes isn't there. None of the possibilities we have mentioned is likely to be here one day and not the next. Aside from that, "gully' strikes me as the best suggestion so far. // BL \\ (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it "Gali"? I know some Hindi words (like guru) that are used as is in UK/US; I think "Gali" (a narrow street) could be just one of them. manya (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose there is a ship moored at the junction of Keele and Eglinton? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Keele and Eg is quite a distance from the lake; you would need a lot of slaves to get a ship that far inland, and uphill at that. // BL \\ (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Maybe 10 000 years ago? (Though even then it is still rather far north.) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That space behind the house is the back galley.--Wetman (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The way you've phrased "at the back of our house" indicates that it might be inside. Perhaps he's referring to the kitchen? The kitchen on a boat might be a "galley", but not normally the kitchen of a building. APL (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The term galley kitchen is used to refer to a certain design of household kitchen (typically narrow and linear, with counters/appliances/cabinets along the long walls). -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I love Wetman's eggcorn. I have a further theory: that the OP's father was referring to the Hindu goddess Kali (pronounced with an initial /gh/ in the North Indian accent). As a deity, she can manifest or not, as she wishes. There is a small cult of women who devote themselves to one aspect of her sacredness; up until last year its main devotees were high-powered consumers who prayed for baguettes and suchlike, but now, with the decline of BRIC, a lower class of women offer themselves to this "Bag Kali". BrainyBabe (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deity as personified concept

Is there a term for deities which are treated primarily as personifications of a concept (i.e. Agni of fire, many of the Roman numina, the Amesha Spenta Asha of truth, Ma'at) rather than as anthropomorphic beings? The Wiki articles on a few of these, i.e. Haurvatat, use the wording "hypostasis of *whatever", but that links to a math/logic article...

It's a deeply interesting idea, and I'd like to know a term for it so I can learn more.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Euhemerism? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic personifications? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

All personifications are anthropomorphic by definition, aren't they? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Racism

The headline currently on the front page right now caught my eye (I wonder how). I've always thought of Israel as a racist country. Not in a bad way. But if you do give preference to people of a certain religion, doesn't that mean you are racist? Or rather , religionist. 99.227.94.24 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a question or are you trying to make a point? This is not a place to start debates. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the above post posts the question: "if a person or government, such as Israel, gives preference to certain peoples on the basis of a certain religion [or race?], does that make it 'racist'?"

My answer is: depends on your perspective. Most Arab countries, many Asian and African countries, and some European countries officially support something of your view, that Israeli policies in, for example, the occupied territories are racist and discriminatory. Many other countries, chiefly the United States but also a number of other mostly Western countries, however, believe that these policies are justified and therefore not discriminatory. That is to say, unequal treatment that is proportional to the inequality between two people or groups is not discriminatory. Whether you agree with one or the other of these two points of view probably comes down to how convinced, personally, you are with either of their arguments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Muslim and Christian, Hindu, Bahai, atheist, agnostic and other religious citizens of Israel are treated no differently from Jewish citizens. They all have the right/duty (as appropriate) to vote, serve in the army, stand for office etc. The most recent Israeli election (2009) returned 13 MKs, just over 10% of the seats won. These MKs represent a surprising spectrum of parties, from "Arab" to Likud. One even represents Yisrael Beiteinu, a party which is often depicted in the British press as being fervently anti-Arab.

The only truly major difference that I can think of is that Jews are given the Law of Return, ie (and loosely) automatic permission to immigrate to the country. This is something that is interpreted extremely broadly, and not really on a religious basis - see our article and also Who is a Jew?.

I would add that much of the criticism in this aspect revolves around the treatment of Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens. They can not vote in Israeli elections, much like other non-citizen residents in Israel (eg the sizable number of Philippino temporary migrant workers) cannot. Those living in Gaza or on the West Bank may be entitled to vote in Palestinian elections, but again, can not vote in Israeli elections if they are not Israeli citizens, the same as any Jews not Israeli citizens can not vote.

It's also my understanding that there is criticism of Israel over citizenship not being conferred by marriage to an Israeli citizen unless Jewish. I'm not too clear on this, but it would presumably be in line with the other positive discrimination in the Law of Return, rather than being negative discrimination aimed at any particular religious, ethnic or racial group. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there are loads of Muslim countries, many of which involve Muslims being "given preference" - better treatment, or a generally easier life; laws supporting their religious rites etc. - which is OK, because there are loads of Muslims in the world. Israel is a tiny country, reflecting the tiny proportion of Jews in the world, and I reckon that's OK too. It's not racist, it's designed for a particular race. There are plenty of other places other people can go, just like there are plenty of other places Christians in Morocco, say, can go.

In the case of Israel, it also had two additional purposes at the time of its 1948 creation: to provide a home for the millions of Jewish refugees displaced during the Holocaust (no countries would agree to unconditionally take them in; it was thus set up as a form of repatriative territory, like Sierra Leone and Liberia) - and secondly, to provide a place where the Jewish people could be safe from the thousands of years of persecution they had suffered. Maybe it's failed in those missions, but I don't reckon it's racist for making an effort to fulfill them. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How do bureaucracies know to act on contracts that are set hundreds of years in the future?

For example, some historical material cannot be released for public consumption for a couple of hundred years, and some contracts can expire or come into effect in THOUSANDS of years time. How do clerks etc know to act on material which has been archived hundreds of years’ ago, and needs to be acted on on a particular date? Come to think of it, what is the contract, or “For Action” direction with the longest time line? Are there, for example, things that must be acted on, on a particular date tens of thousands of years in the future? Myles325a (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In my anecdotal experience, contracts over such a length of time are usually lost, destroyed, invalidated or otherwise forgotten about before the date arises. For example, the houses on the road on which I live are on a 199-year lease which is halfway through, but nobody on the street has any idea who owns the freehold, and I doubt that the freeholder knows that they own the freehold of the properties. Particularly important contracts, such as the 99-year Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory, are often remembered, but in this example, when the lease was due to expire in the 1990s, it was subject to considerable negotiation as to how it should be interpreted. If a contract is rediscovered, or the terms of it are implemented after a long period of abeyance, this often become a matter of dispute and differing interpretations (see, for example, Mark Roberts). Warofdreams talk 12:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In Britain, a lot of "sealed" material in The National Archives has large green labels marking it out, with legends such as OPEN IN 2032 - I daresay that this, plus a sophisticated computer system (which they definitely have!) would enable important documents to be located when necessary.

The public are guaranteed access to any public archived document (no matter how obscure - letters from the government of Oman about national anthems, faxes from foreign embassies about diplomatic incidents in the 1930s...) within 30 minutes. And that's cool - I'm sure they can cope!! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Two dynamite trucks on a narrow road

The paragraph here summarises a problem from Getting to YES. I've read both books, but can't trace the origin of the dilemma, which each text attributes to Thomas Schelling. Any ideas? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This (pdf file) indicates that the dilemma was first published in an article in 1956, which I can't place either, but the entire article was incorporated as chapter 2, "An Essay on Bargaining" in The Strategy of Conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960. See here for chapter overview. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what I assumed, but all that that chapter has on dynamite is "When two dynamite trucks meet on a road wide enough for one, who backs up?" - there must surely be more of a Schelling origin for it than that? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Schelling mentions the paper Game Theory (1956) by Herman Kahn and Irwin Mann (not "Erwin" as quoted in Schelling). "The authors work out a number of problems involving dynamite, detonators, and deterrence." Maybe the trucks scenario can be found there? Here is the pdf file, but it won't allow me to search words, and I don't have the time to scan it with human eyes right now. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This paper (pdf-file) by Katarzyna Zbieć cites T. C. Schelling: "An essay on bargaining", American Economic Review 46 (1956),p. 281–306. But the paper also only quotes what you quoted, even less, "when two trucks loaded withdynamite meet on a road wide enough for one", without further elaboration. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like just a variation on the game of Chicken, which Herman Kahn asserts is due to Bertrand Russell's Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, but that was published in 1959, so maybe the dynamite trucks came first. --Sean 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second-hand music sales

I know that selling records and CDs from a second-hand store is not a problem from a copyright point of view, since it is governed by the first sale doctrine. But surely artists and record labels should be against such sales anyway, because they are not making any money from the sale. The sale of a second-hand record deprives the artist and record label of revenue just as much as an illegal download does, because they receive no money from the sale and the purchaser could have got it new from a "proper" music store (assuming the album is still in print, which I know many are not). So why aren't record labels up in arms about second-hand record shops? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about selling the record itself, not a copy of it - unlike selling a bootleg CD or downloading a copy from the internet. If there are 100 copies of a CD out there, the presence of a secondary market does not change the number of copies - provided nobody makes an illicit copy. In other words, the original purchaser who now sells his second-hand copy stops being able to enjoy the record, while the new buyer is now able to enjoy it. Net change in number of people listening to the record: 0. Net change to sales revenue: 0.

This is not the same as illegal download, where both the uploader and the downloader can, after the download, listen to the music. Net change in number of people listening to the music: +1. Net change to sales revenue: 0.

Of course, the economics of it is more complicated than that, but this is the key distinction from a legal perspective. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But assume for the sake of argument that the secondary market did not exist. Then, if someone wanted to buy that CD, he would have no way of doing so unless the record company made another physical item available for sale. So the total number of copies would become 101 and the net change to sales revenue would be +1. Surely that would be in the interests of the record company, so why aren't they pressing for that secondary market to be removed? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, record companies have been as up in arms as they (un)reasonably might be w.r.t. resale of their product: see this story concerned with resale of promo CDs, for example. Meanwhile the supply chain is seeking to ensure that first sale doctrine rights do not attach to digital downloads - see this story for example. They're merely refraining from taking legal action against a marketplace that is entirely legal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To prevent the existence of a secondary market, you have to have restraint of trade, which is traditionally frowned upon under the common law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Movement in Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland China

I have a question that I'd also like to see added to the Special_Administrative_Region_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China article. One thing this article does not discuss is the freedom of movement of Chinese citizens and SAR citizens. Can mainland Chinese live in Hong Kong and vice versa? The article makes the SARs sound like de facto independent countries only vaguely referring to 'immigration' policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The SARs maintain their own immigration policies. Generally speaking, it is about as difficult for a mainland Chinese resident to settle in an SAR as it is for him or her to settle in a foreign country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But does that mean that a Hong Kong citizen must also go through the immigration policy if they want to live in mainland China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

German and Soviet clashes in Poland, 1939

I'm reading this article [31] from the Washington Post which says that German and Soviet troops fought each other in Poland, 1939 while allies:

"Eisenhower told Stalin his plans and asked that he reciprocate, wanting to avoid a repeat of the situation in 1939. Then, in a very different phase of hostilities, German and Russian troops - allied by treaty - had met head-on in Poland when that country was being carved up between Stalin and Hitler. No prearranged line of demarcation had been fixed, which had resulted in a battle with surprisingly heavy casualties on both sides."

I wasn't aware there was any fighting between these two sides at this point in the war. This was right after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had been signed but well before Operation Barbarossa. Can anyone provide more information or point me to an article or Web site about fighting between German and Soviet troops during the 1939 invasion of Poland? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it means to suggest they actually fought each other just the both rushed in to grab what they could and they weren't really working together as allies. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a peace plan between them not a battle plan. It seems they only fought together (on the same side) at the Battle of Lvov (1939) although they met other places. meltBanana 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That would have been my understanding, but the article does seem to claim otherwise. Given the general dislike of Nazis for Communists it would not be entirely surprising if a certain amount of shooting had gone on. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lolladoff Plate

Is the Lolladoff Plate real? If so, where is it? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

According to this an entire fabrication, a painting was made of an imagined plate and then photographed. meltBanana 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiawatha

I would like to know if Hiawatha was a real person, a legendary figure, or to what extent the historical evidence points to one or the other. Our article gives little indication. (This isn't a homework question; Hiawatha was mentioned on Jeopardy! recently and it made me want to learn the basic facts about this subject). ike9898 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please start with our article Hiawatha. You could have found this by typing "Hiawatha" into the search box on the left, as is said at the top of this page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As is specifically said, "our article gives little indication" - and indeed, it doesn't make clear whether Hiawatha is a real person or not. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the confusion is evident from the Categories line:

Native American leaders | American folklore | Iroquois people | Iroquois mythology

-- Coneslayer (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hiawatha, who lived (depending on the version of the story) in the 1100s, 1400s, or 1500s, was variously a leader of the Onondaga and Mohawk nations of Native Americans." That is the opening of the article, and it doesn't give any sort of direct indication of whether or not the character existed. In fact, it's unbelievably poorly written. The user who posted the question was clearly not trying to irritate people, but hadn't analysed the categories in order to find out whether an encyclopedia article was about a real or fictional subject! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. The Categories line contains entries appropriate to both real and mythological people. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, that's what comes of skim-reading! Comment stricken. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello ike9898. In the Encyclopedia of the Haudenosaunee, noted Iroquois scholar Barbara Alice Mann says a lot of the Hiawatha legendarium was the invention of Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, who made up myths and presented them as history. According to Mann, geniune oral history seems to confirm a real person, born around 1100.

In The Great Law and The Longhouse, another noted Iroquois scholar, William N. Fenton, does a more detailed evaluation of 19th century fiction versus genuine oral history but I didn't have time to read the whole thing and see if he makes a call one way or another, so I'm still not sure which way to clarify the article. I hope you will be able to!

Another book that might help answer this question: Archaeology of the Iroquois. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

US Fifth Amendment

Which crimes are counted as "capital, or otherwise infamous" crimes for the purposes of the 5th amendment? --140.232.10.139 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There's some discussion in our article. This is what Congress's official annotated constitution has to say on that clause. Algebraist 19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Successful economic sanctions?

A question inspired by History class today, with specific mention to sanctions of Mussolini after his invasion of Ethiopia and the more recent example of Cuba. Have there ever (as in, any time period, any nation, etc.) been any actually successful sanctions? Thanks - Can-Dutch (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this link (http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bg1126.cfm) suggests that they aren't very successful but haven't read what their criteria is for deciding 'successful' or not. Worth a read though, will give it a read myself now. ny156uk (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Short story about problem-solver that invents nuclear shield, saving earth from potential MAD instigated by alien life-forms to prevent them evolving beyond their control

I originally thought this might be an Asimov, but now am not sure, as I may have been conflating it with "Spell my name with an S".

The story is kinda similar, more sophisticated beings are "incubating" life on earth, but in this story they are alluded to be longer-lived and thus slower-acting than humans. To prevent the "bacteria colony" of Earth from over-extending beyond their control, they have created a "penicillin ring", a way to end the experiement -- mutually assured nuclear destruction.

The hero (though not the protagonist, iirc, who was some detective) is able to invent this shield technology, because he is "penicillin resistant" -- not enough to prevent the task causing him to die/kill himself (I think the latter), but enough so that the mental blockage that most people have doesn't stop him from inventing the technology.

What is the story's name?!? And how would I have searched for it efficiently. These is an exemplar of frustrating situations where one recalls lots of details about something, but is still unable to search for it effectively.

Thanks 86.133.35.168 (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)