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 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:

• Brandy
• 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)

By the way, why does it seem that most young earth creationists are conservatives? Vltava 68 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In the US at least, the conservative movement/Republican Party is composed of two primary groups:

1) Economic conservatives, who believe in minimal government, low taxes, and little government regulation.

2) Religious conservatives, who believe in "Old Testament" Christian values, like capital punishment. This group also tends to read the Bible literally. On the other hand, people who believe in the "New Testament" and the teachings of Christ, like forgiveness, charity, and love for all, tend to be liberals/Democrats and read the Bible more as metaphor than literal truth. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 23 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)

The Star Trek universe was peaceful ? Not if you were a new ensign in the landing party at the start of the show, it wasn't ! StuRat (talk) 21:12, 23 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)

Hmm. If you want to neither play along with him nor confront him, what other options are there? Those might be the extreme positions, but there must be ways of influencing him, making him see the issues you do, etc. It might require a subtle approach. I can't say much more than that without knowing more facts. If all else fails, would you considered severing your business relationship? That might make him sit up and take notice. If you tell him the relationship is just not working for you, and you're considering withdrawing, even a prima donna should want to know what the problem is, if only for his own sake. Then you could be upfront about how his behaviour is affecting you, and suggest some ways of changing the situation so that it works for both of you. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

write a report. two sections: the good. the bad. (He won't read the bad, because he wants a rosy view. But if you're explicit in that section, your ass is covered). 79.122.57.194 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

At least this illustrates the important dicotomy of business or organisational cultures being either fact-based or loyalty-based - with the later seeming superficially to give an excellent performance without anyone doing much work, as people are assessed on their lip-service, until it crashes disastrously. Unless they have such powerful defences to criticism that they are never found out. 89.242.82.4 (talk) 11:20, 23 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 [1] 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)

Rachel Jackson was attacked for remarriage issues. Neutrality^talk 00:10, 26 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 [[2]], 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)

On reflection, I realise that Claudius was Hamlet (jr.)'s uncle, and therefore probably the brother of King Hamlet (although this isn't specified; he could, I suppose, have been Gertrude's sister's husband, or even King Hamlet's sister's husband). It still seems odd that the brother of a king would succeed the king when there were was a male heir (Hamlet, jr.) available. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So Jure uxoris was only the case when the husband of a female monarch becomes a joint monarch by marriage, not when a husband becomes the sole monarch by marriage? In both the cass of Emma of France and Ingamoder of Sweden, their husbands was helped in their election to king by their marriages, although they were no female succession. I suppose the help was informal. Perhaps it was a misconsception from my part. There was really no term for a princess becoming queen consort in her own country? Perhaps there was not, but if there is, it would be interesting to know. Thank you very much for your answers! --Aciram (talk) 17:30, 22 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)

I don't think the first question is explicitly answered there, but both are Yes. —Tamfang (talk) 01:11, 8 May 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 [3]. 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)

They used vocal identification instead of identification throu uniforms. For egzample during the 100 years war, the English would shout "for the king!" or something like that while the French would shout "pour le roi!". When the battle was over and it was time to massacre the prisoners thay would order the prisoners to repeat something that a foreigner would be unable to pronounce without making some form of an error or making his foreign accent heard. Mieciu K (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Banners were also quite important. Soldiers gathered around their standard bearer, protecting their banner and trying to capture the enemy's. Solders in the same company knew each other, and could recognize another company as friend or enemy based on their banner. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

often sashs of different olours were used.--Tresckow (talk) 22:34, 22 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)

There are some places that reject them since they aren't familiar enough with them to know if they are genuine. Most places accept them, though. --Tango (talk) 21:18, 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)

So that being said, how do they ever get away? If they're pirating for plunder, their ship is big, slow, and presumably easily tracked by navies. If for ransom, how do they expect to get away with it? It would seem that as soon as the money is delivered, and the hostages handed over, they would just be killed by the navies who now knew where they were.142.132.4.26 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Until the past few months, and especially the Maersk Alabama hijacking (which was biled as the first capture of American citizens by pirates since the Barabry corsairs), navy patrol has not been thorough. A few years ago, when ships travelled closer to the coast, they were within territorial waters and other navies were reluctant to enter. Now they are on the high seas, but the area is huge. Until recently, ships have not travelled in convoy, let alone guarded convoys such as during WWII. Also, of course, there is the little question of which navy or navies should do the work, bear the cost, run the risk. Some of the merchant vessels operate under a flag of convenience, and the great maritime nations such as Lichtenstein have been unfortunately unable to protect the shipping under their flags. The military action you suggest is tantamount to murder; if someone is fleeing with ill-gotten gains but offers no threat to you, you are still not allowed to kill them. For the larger issues, see Piracy in Somalia. (Hey, I forgot to sign all those days ago. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Next we will see "The war on Piracy" and we won't be referring to the RIAA.65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hey guys, there's one!" --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:41, 23 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 "Habeas Corpus petition example" 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: [4], [5], [6]. Here's a generic form for writing one (in California) without the help of a lawyer: [7]. --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)

Thanks for the help. Google wasn't returning in examples for me and blank forms re not what I'm looking for either. I have a feeling that US searches of google may get better results, but in theory all visitors to google.com should get the same results as US searches. I didn't find any perfect sample of petition for write of habeas corpus, but at leaset I can get a good idea. Cheers Rfwoolf (talk) 19:52, 22 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)

With the loss of Normandy (acknowledged by treaty in 1259), the court and nobles presumably felt less attachment to the mainland, and this would be reflected in their choice of language. —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 6 May 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 [8] and [9]. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box; religion is the smile on a dog. —Tamfang (talk) 05:03, 6 May 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)

Did you ever read in history about invaders from the east who almost overran Europe centuries ago? They left behind some genetic souvenirs, which show up in some ethnic Germans Poles and others as Epicanthic fold. See Mongol invasion of Europe. Edison (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

myles back. Hephaistos, Adam? What are you banging on about? Funny OP et al didn't mention that Native Americans are directly related to Mongolians, as you can plainly see from their physique and colour. Mongolians migrated across the Bering Straight and all the native Americans from the Inuit down to the ones in South America are their descendants. Mormons wrongly believe that Native Americans are related to Semitic tribes. That Bering Straight must be an interesting place. Just about everything from EuroAsia crossed over to the New World via this small stretch of water at one time or another. Myles325a (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You said you looked like a Greek god, so I wondered if you meant the ugly one. Ba-dum-ching! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference to what "Mormons wrongly believe" seems oddly out of place here. The discussion was about Finns, Poles, Hungarians, and Romanians resembling Mongoloids. I'm not trying to be over-sensitive, but it strikes me as a bit odd to bring it up here. Nevertheless, to address the comment:

Admittedly, the introduction to the Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians," but from what I understand, the growing consensus is that the small company that Lehi led out of Jerusalem (at least 18 people, probably not more than 22 or 24) was just a small part of the continent's inhabitants at the time, and they likely met and interacted with (wink, wink) many different groups of people. The Book of Mormon covers a history of more than 1000 years. Genetic markers could have been (and likely were) significantly altered within that time.

Also, since we have no idea what Lehi's DNA looked like, it's impossible to confirm or deny for certain that Native Americans are descendents of Lehi. Maybe Lehi had DNA that possessed certain Asian characteristics. Improbable? Sure. Impossible? No. We just don't know.

Regardless of what science might discover, it seems a bit arrogant to dogmatically assert that (a) all Mormons believe a certain thing, and (b) they "wrongly" believe it. Kingsfold (talk) 14:16, 16 October 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)

myles back here. Toto, in your argument I then know an infinite number of things about you, on the lines of you are either a goldfish or not. Read Karl Popper. These are statements of logic, not experience and though they provide ABSOLUTE certainty, in doing so, they provide no useful information at all, since the same kind of principle (that of identity) could equally be said of any entity in the universe. When we ask what we know about SOMETHING, implicitl we are asking what kind of empirical information do we possess concerning it. Thus, you would be surprised on looking up Joan of Arc in WP to find the statement "Joan of Arc was in fact Joan of Arc" and "We know that she was either a grapefruit or not a grapefruit". Yes, the statements are indubitably true, but no they don't say anything useful about the subject. To aver that we "know" millions of things about something we have never experienced, along these lines, is just to be pedantic and to misunderstand the nature of pedagogy and epistemology. Myles325a (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP mentions "life" as one of the things you can be certain of for things defined to be living, that's just a tautologous and meaningless as the examples you mention. --Tango (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Joan of Arc was in fact Joan of Arc" is not (entirely) vacuous. It tacitly asserts the existence of Joan of Arc. For some reason the standard sentence illustrating this idea is "The present King of France is bald". Algebraist 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would mean you couldn't say "Harry Potter is Harry Potter"? Look, you keep avoiding the main point that anyone asking questions like this does not want some empty logical quibble. I don't know why you keep on with this. You didn't even bother to say anything about my suggestions, which at least get to the idea of what we mean by life. Myles325a (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We know for certain the entity has some kind of parentage. Nothing comes from nothing. 128.239.177.28 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Cordell

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 [10] 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)

Actually, the answer that Ranemanoj said is the one that I am talking about. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 00:54, 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)

<personal attacks removed - Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC) > 94.27.165.88 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(restored without glimmer of personal attack):

Oh my god, you're getting the same reaction I got! A couple of users spent pages and pages immortalizing their slander (click 'discussion' at the top of the page - it's still there) that I was a troll, even though this is exactly what a real troll would love: immortal recognition. (I didn't like it or invite it, which is proof I'm not a troll). I also didn't participate in the discussion but improved my question but they didn't want it - in any form. Someone went through hundreds of my reference desk posts, picked about 4 he didn't agree with (none of which was a troll question) and listed them one after the other saying it proved I was a "troll", neglecting to mention that it was 4 from many dozen he found unobjectionable. He also made the ridiculous claim that not trying to start a debate was part of my "troll MO", since I always made my questions very specific and affirmed that I wasn't trying to start a debate . So if you know what's good for you, you will not ask questions such as yours, or you will risk not only having your question deleted but being banned from here as well. (By the way after they banned me for a day I went packing -- the French wikipedia had no problem answering my question. No one even vaguely accused me of being a troll or trying to start a debate, which is ridiculous. Same goes for you, but you've been warned. If you are interested in getting an answer to your question, translate it and stick it on another Wikipedia language's reference desk. Good luck! 79.122.57.194 (talk) 06:58, 23 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)

If I understand it correctly, the more rational strand of the "racist Israeli policy" argument is directed against Israeli policies towards the people of the occupied territories and displaced former residents of its recognised territory, rather than any policies within its recognised territory. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised by that. It's very hard to allege "racism" in the dealings with non citizens in Gaza and the West Bank. Brutality, maybe. Excess force, perhaps. But hard to see prejudice on the basis of race anywhere except in its citizenship rules. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the laws are not discriminatory on their face, and certainly not on the grounds of race. The argument relates more to the effect of the policies, with the burden falling disproportionately on Arabs compared to, say, any Jewish residents of the occupied territories. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Israeli citizens are treated the same as Arab Israeli citizens. What makes them citizens in the first place could conceivably be regarded as discriminatory, but not the treatment meted out. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure - as I said, the common argument does not concern citizens within Israel itself, but the residents of the occupied territories who are often not citizens and not treated as such. I'm not arguing for that point of view, just pointing out the rationale behind the accusations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand how a "positive discrimination" which favors one racial or religious group at the expense of nonmembers is not a "negative discrimination" against those not favored. This group can "return" but that group cannot. This group can get building permits, that group cannot. Edison (talk) 19:38, 23 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)

The rule against perpetuities may be relevant to some of those contracts you mention. 66.127.52.118 (talk) 17:04, 22 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)

Some (paper) authors have spoken out against the second hand book trade. Although they aren't against it in principle, a few authors (Katherine Kerr and Robin Hobb, off the top of my head) have notes on their websites reminding readers that they do not gain any money from books bought second hand. I think they do not mind, however, people discovering new authors through second hand purchasing. I imagine that in the music world, similar principles apply. Steewi (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A secondary market promotes good literature - if the book was worth re-reading, you wouldn't sell it.

One could make a somewhat similar argument about music - if the recording was truly great, you'd treasure it and not sell it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Prohibition of resale reduces the value to the first purchaser, and thus should depress prices. —Tamfang (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I buy a CD, I can legally add it to Itunes and listen to it on my Ipod. But if I sell it, then there is an extra copy. By the above discussion, I would presumably be expected to delete it from the Itunes when I sell the CD or give it away. Have there been any prosecutions of people who kept the Itunes copy and sold/gave away the CD? I have heard of RIAA going berserk against kids who downloaded/uploaded a tune over the internet, but I have heard nothing on this issue. Edison (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, they don't like second hand record shops. But there is nothing they can do about it. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:40, 24 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)

Yes, anyone without a PRC passport who wants to move from Hong Kong to China needs permission. Interestingly, Hong Kong permanent residents don't need a passport to enter or exit Hong Kong itself, from / to anywhere. Just one more perk of living in the freest economy in the world. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong residents with ancestry in mainland China (i.e. the vast majority) are able to obtain home-visiting passes which allow them to visit mainland China fairly easily. This is, however, not always an automatic process. To settle in mainland China, the same sort of immigration control is applied as that to analogous foreign citizens. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless they are a pro-democracy politician, which are banned from visiting China and Macau. F (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite accurate, F, but that's what I was referring to when I said it is not always an automatic process. Like ordinary visas for visitng China, normally it is a merely procedural, but in the case of people who are politically "suspect", entry control can be applied with some discretion.

Not all pan-Democracy politicians are prevented from visiting the mainland, and not all the time. It's an administrative tool being used politically. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

German and Soviet clashes in Poland, 1939

I'm reading this article [11] 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)

Hmmm...I suppose one could interpet it that way, but I'm not sure that's what the author meant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 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)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a secret pact and the Soviet and German troops on the ground were not told they are allies. One army went east and another went west when they met they exchanged fire either thinking they have encountered Poles or just becouse they didn't have any specific orders what to do if they meet another army in the middle of Poland. Also the official rationale for the Soviet troops was saving the local population from the Germans while some German units might have been told to crush all resistance they encounter on the way so no wonder sporadic fighting broke out when the two armies met. But if any major batlle would have been fought in 1939 between the Germans and the Soviets, the Soviets would use this fact as proof that there was no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Mieciu K (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe that you are mistaken. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was public knowledge at the time and completely changed the balance of power in Europe. There was, however, a secret protocol that wasn't released to the public at the time. But the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a whole was public knowledge. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:48, 22 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)

Sorry if that appeared rude. I thought the article summed the situation up well: i.e. that there are different opinions on the matter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 22 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)

Thanks. Yeah, I think I put this on my to do list, but of course I'd welcome help. Our article on this subject is unusually underdeveloped for a topic of this prominent. ike9898 (talk) 14:02, 22 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)

It is very difficult to judge the success of economic sanctions because you don't have a control group to compare it to. There is no way to know what would have happened without the sanctions - it might have been even worse. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense ... maybe ones that achieved their stated goals, then? Can-Dutch (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You might start with the anti-apartheid movement, then look at various boycotts (e.g., Gallo wine and California table grapes, ca. 1970s) that led to – perhaps, caused – significant changes in behavior.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[12]--65.92.124.84 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The sanctions against Libya after Lockerbie seem to have brought them around, eventually. I can also think of two sanctions which are usually listed as failures but may actually be considered a success in certain ways:

1) US sanctions against Cuba. While a failure if the goal was to end communism in Cuba, they are a success if the goal was to stop the spread of communism throughout the Americas, by depriving Cuba of the money it would need to finance such an expansion.

2) US sanctions against Japan prior to WW2. The goal here was to stop the expansion of the Japanese Empire. The sanctions would have worked, but Japan instead chose to declare war against the US, which they had almost no hope of defeating, eventually leading to their defeat and the fulfillment of the sanction goal. So, other than causing the war, the sanctions worked. Had the sanctions not been placed on Japan when they were, Japan might have expanded to a size where it could have possibly defeated the US, before the war began. Also, the US public would not have supported a declaration of war against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. So, in this context, the sanctions were a necessary step in the defeat of the Japanese Empire. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cuban sanctions weren't meant to stop Communism, nor are they what stopped it. What stopped it was the US backing extremely right-wing, militaristic regimes instead of Communist ones. That would have happened whether Cuba was sanctioned or not; Cuba would never have been able to compete with the US funding there. And your logic about Japan is, well, pretty dubious. Sanctions worked because instead of their goal it forced a military confrontation? Why not just declare war then, instead? You basically have to consider sanctions an unofficial declaration of war—which is not what sanctions are supposed to do, generally speaking. They are supposed to get the desired effect without war. --140.247.10.147 (talk) 00:26, 24 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)

It's almost certainly Asimov's Breeds There a Man...?. Nanonic (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And a note on how I found it - I read your question and was certain it was an Asimov story as I've got it in my collection somewhere, I also considered that most of Asimov's books use the old term 'Atomic' and not nuclear. So a quick google for "asimov atomic penicillin" gave the article as the fourth result. Nanonic (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions

This question has been identified as a request for a debate. Please see the discussion here

I have some ideas, and I just wanted to throw them out there (keep in mind that I'm thinking about problems that I know from America and that I'm not American): I think if a group of people is treated differently than others, there are going to be clashes between the groups. Japanese people would probably be hated if every Japanese person in America would get a million dollars, while everyone else would have to pay for that. But black people (and Indians I recall) want reparations for people that weren't slaves from people that don't keep slaves, wouldn't this fuel further racism? Another point is how there is such a stigma against using words like nigger over black people, even if you don't mean any offence. Isn't this thought that "you can't use this word because you're white" a horribly racist idea? I believe a word's offence depends on how much offence you put into it, like if you say to your friend "Oh you fucking idiot!" and playfully punch him it's not a bad thing, but shouting "You fucking idiot!" to someone that breaks something would be a very hurtful thing. Am I wrong? This point is related to the second one, I don't mind gays and I've never really seen what's supposed to be so bad about them. There are annoying gay people and there are annoying straight people, it makes no difference to me. But I do how ever use the word "gay" meaning "lame" (i.e. "that movie was gay"), a word that many gay people find offensive. But like I said in my second point I don't mean anything bad when I say it (except that I think the movie is bad), but I don't wish to further fuel prejudice against gays (although they aren't that bad where I live). The problem is that the slang 'gay' has a specific meaning, and the comment "that movie was lame" doesn't have the same effect as "that movie was gay". What should I do? Please help me understand what would be the best thing to do, I want to speak my mind and I sure has hell don't want to be PC but I don't want to offend people (btw, on that issue about the word nigger I wouldn't actually call people niggers any more than I would call white people wiggers or crackers, but I think it's childish being afraid of just uttering some words and instead saying something like the "N-word" or "African American" instead of just "black", that's like calling penes "pee-pees" or writing f**k). Please don't construe this as racism/offensive/homophobia or anything like that, as I'm merely trying to find out what I should do. --BiT (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I would suggest you do what all polite people do: avoid using words that are generally considered to be derogatory and/or racist or ethnic slurs. If you choose not to avoid them, then be prepared for the social consequences, some of which could be also physical consequences. As an aside, I don't know the use of "gay" that means "lame" and by which I assume you mean "poor" or "ineffective" or "not entertaining". Is this a common use that I have just missed? // BL \\ (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not happy being a grown man, afraid of using words. If the words in question are being discussed; should I not use words that 'might' offend and rather use childish euphemisms? I think the latter is offensive to people's intelligence really. Are you not willing to agree with me that some races may say some words, while other races may not is a form of racism? Am I wrong in assuming "you can do that because you are black, but you can't do that because you're Chinese" is only going to stimulate racial segregation? And once you start talking about "not using certain words because they might offend someone", aren't you going down a slippery slope? Some people might find the word 'meat" or 'slaughter' offensive, some people might not like the word 'socialism' and I'm not going to stop using those words to protect them. Or as you say suffer "physical consequences"- you're basically saying I shouldn't utilize freedom of speech unless I'm ready to be beaten because of it. I remind you once again that I wouldn't really use these words, but what I'm saying is that I wouldn't be afraid to use them. I was looking for some solid reasoning, and I hoped to get a better response than this. --BiT (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC) It's a fairly common usage, mostly among children. It's meaning 6 at wiktionary and 4e in the OED. Algebraist 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Algebraist. I don't spend much time with children. // BL \\ (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I think America is a richer country because of cotton and the wealth it created. The cotton industry, and related industries, required enormous manpower, especially after the invention of the cotton gin. If I were to argue for reparations, I would base my argument on the foundation of wealth that black slave labor substantially helped to create, but for which the black people themselves were anything but paid. Instead of sharing in the wealth, black people were kept in economic poverty and legal disenfranchisement. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Does that mean the descendants of race X should be charged by race Y if members of race X made X's and Y's country poor? And how much time could've passed? Could someone request money from 2000 years ago? --BiT (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC) The OP's point was that the people asking for reparations aren't the people that were enslaved, you haven't addressed that. This isn't really the place for that debate, though. Suffice it to say, the OP's point is one that is commonly brought up in this debate. Presumably those supporting reparations disagree with it, but I don't know on what grounds. --Tango (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, indeed. Although I personally don't care about reparations, since it wouldn't affect me at all. This was just something I'd heard of. --BiT (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) The Ref Desk is not a place to debate personal views on social constructs. There are forums for such actvities. We might also note that BiT posed similar argumentative positons positions on Pedophilia on April 16 at 18:43 and then quite arbitrarily removed both the question and everyone's answers on April 18 at 00:59, with the somewhat cheeky, IMO, edit summary "I asked a friend of mine and he provided me with the answer :)" (I apologise, but I can barely cope with diffs on things that exist. I have no idea how to do them for things that have been deleted.). I suggest BiT approach the same friend for the answers this time, too. // BL \\ (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, I asked a friend of mine who is a philosopher about the pedophilia question and he gave me the simple answer "because it is physically harmful". It sounds like you're trying to insinuate something by calling these and misspelling "argumentative positions", pointing out that this isn't a forum for personal questions is great, but it sounds like you are trying to attack me personally. The reference desk is not for personal attacks either. --BiT (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. In both cases our friend seems to know what he'd like the answer to be and is more interested in soap boxing than getting feedback. Assume Good Faith only applies until it is clear that someone is not probably acting in Good Faith. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC) No I actually didn't know what the answer would be. I'm not interested in soap boxing, I'm interested in a logical argument and I don't find // BL \\'s argument that good. --BiT (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I deliberately didn't address that point, and I'm not going to address that point. It is a difficult to answer question. Suffice to say all Americans should be provided with much better educational systems than exist. Let some money "saved" by slavery go into educating every person of educable age, and especially that should apply to those of lower economic groups. I guess I "answered" it. That is the best answer I can come up with for the "reparations" question. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I was refering to the first two questions as being unanswered. I think your answer was rather good, and your second answer even better. Equal education of the poor and the wealthy would actually solve a lot of problems in my opinion. --BiT (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Just a "by the way": once a question is on the Ref Desk and answers have been given, it is not anyone's place to remove question or answers arbitrarily. It will now be missing from the archives if I understand these things correctly. My "arguments", BiT, are not good because I haven't presented any. I have corrected the typo on "positions" (thank you) though I am somewhat puzzled as to how such an error is either a personal attack or somehow associated with one. As for the rest of my comment above, it is a description of what your recent past behaviour has been with a similar style of question posed here. If there is any undercurrent, it is directed to potential respondents, to advise them of the degree of respect with which you may again treat their efforts to assist you. // BL \\ (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Ok, I absolutely get your point about not deleting questions but when someone in the answers accused me of trying to justify paedophilia, that is going too far- and it to me it sounded like you were alluding to the same thing. If you weren't I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion, but pointing out any "undertone" seems superfluous and presumptuous. I understand why you might construe my questions as trying to be offensive but I sincerely had difficult questions that I could not fully answer and (erroneously) thought this was a place to ask them (also because there are a lot of different users on Wikipedia I hoped I would get a lot of different views which is always a good thing). You did make the argument "don't say anything that might offend people, or prepare to face consequences" which is something I cannot believe in since I really dislike violence, and I'm not going to stop saying things simply because I'm going to get beat up. --BiT (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC) My opening remark was a statement of opinion, not an argument, and I shouldn't even have done that. You have been advised many times, here and earlier, that the Ref Desk is not a place to come for opinions or debate. If you want the same type of answer to your question as you accepted from your friend in the pedophilia question (and that had already been given to you by several WP respondents in various forms), then here it is: we don't use words that we know people will find offensive in a specific context because doing so does them, and us, harm. It also raises a lot of questions about our motives in doing so and few of those questions have answers that are complimentary to our sense of human dignity. What you choose to do is, of course, up to you. // BL \\ (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Ok, I should have used the work opinion instead of 'argument'. Have I been advised many times? Only now and maybe in the earlier question (I stopped reading it after I saw the comment by anon) unless I missed something (as I've never asked here before), how is that many times? I was actually talking about usage of the aforementioned words in e.g. a debate over whether the words should be used, but I understand your point and agree with it. Usually when someone asks questions like this Wikipedians often respond with wiki-link to some theory in psychology or sociology explaining the issue, but if my questions had no place to be here then I'm sorry for asking them (why didn't you just delete them then?). Still I must admit that I feel like you're talking to me with some hostility ("[...] avoid anything that could even remotely be[...]") and even looking down your nose at me. That might not have been the case but that's the feeling I got from your answers; I did not mean to offend a single human being with my questions but I'm glad about some of the answers I got. (could you also tell me what code of the reference desk I violated with my questions? I wasn't trying to start a soapbox since I was trying to approach all these things from a NPOV, like the this page does the second question) --BiT (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

April 22

Working in a foreign country

Imagine there's a person who lives in Vermont and works for IBM. They work at the facility in Essex Junction, VT. There is also an IBM facility in Bromont, Quebec. If they decide that they want to transfer to the Bromont facility and the company approves of this, would they get paid in US dollars and make the same amount every month? Or would they get paid in Canadian dollars and have their pay vary depending on the whims of the exchange rate?

I'm assuming that they want to keep all their finances within the US and therefore not keep Canadian accounts and American accounts and play some currency juggling game for all their bills and such. Basically, they'd be like most every other American with American finances.

I'm not looking for financial advice. This is entirely for the sake of curiosity. Someone that I work with actually does live closer to the Canadian facility than the US facility and we got to wondering what they would be paid in (US vs. Canuck) if they were to transfer to the Canadian site. Dismas|^(talk) 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I did once take a transfer from a Canadian company to the U.S. head office. I was paid on the Amercian schedule and in U.S. dollars. Unless one is seconded for a temporary and usually quite specific job, I think it unlikely you will be paid in anything except the currency of the country in which you have the job. It may also take more than the company's approval to effect such a change. // BL \\ (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the normal expectation is that a person working in Canada will be paid in Canadian dollars at a rate of pay that is specified in Canadian dollars. After all, most people working in Canada also live in Canada, so what would they want foreign currency for? (They will also be paying income taxes in Canadian dollars to the Canadian and provincial governments.)

What you're talking about, though, is a person living in the US and working in Canada: a border commuter, a phrase I'm surprised to see that there's no article on. In that case they would have a reason to want to be paid in foreign currency, i.e. their home currency. The answer must be that it would be at the employer's option to offer that form of pay if they wanted to go to the trouble of doing so. It sounds like the sort of thing that most big companies wouldn't do, but companies that have a better relationship with their employees might. If your friend really wants to know if it would be possible, they should ask the appropriate people at IBM.

A further interesting question is whether they would be able to avoid paying Canadian and Quebec income taxes if they were resident in the US and paid from the US for work done in Canada. A quick look at the CRA's income tax guide for non-residents seems to imply that the answer for federal taxes is "yes", but this is an unusual situation and the guide might be misleading. --Anonymous, 07:29 UTC, April 22, 2009.

We do need an article on that topic! (Or another phrase good for googling: "international commuting".) Many people live in cheaper countries and work in more expensive ones, such as Switzerland. The Canadian/US border must be full of such examples, for reasons more of job availability than vast disparities of living costs.

Thanks for the responses thus far. And again, this is just hypothetical. He doesn't care whether anything is possible. I just thought someone here might know. Dismas|^(talk) 10:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of such commuters here in the Detroit-Windsor area although the increased border controls after 9/11 made it harder. There is a specific visa for North Americans working in one of the NAFTA countries that they are not a citizen of: TN status Rmhermen (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has done this I can answer that "everything is negotiable". That's for short term transfers where you are intending to return after a few months or years. You may get paid at your old rate in US$, or the CDN$ equivalent, or some combination (remember you may have expenses back in the US). You may also get paid at your old rate adjusted for some cost-of-living factor. If your company asked you to move, rather than you requesting it, you should also expect some sort of allowance for the extra expenses you will incur for living in a foreign country. And yes, it's theoretically possible to avoid paying tax in one or both countries, but it depends critically on when you move. (It's also possible to be liable for tax in both countries, but international treaties mean you don't end up paying twice).

If you are doing a permanent transfer then you would almost certainly be paid in the currency and on the terms of where you are going to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But you're talking about moving; the original poster was talking about border commuting. --Anonymous, 06:16 UTC, April 23, 2009.

IIRC, the Toronto Blue Jays are all paid in American dollars - and that's not even a subsidiary company! Matt Deres (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Leafs too, and presumably also the Raptors (though not the Argos, I imagine). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

when did people realize Italy was shaped like a boot?

United Kingdom

Thatcher

Designed in Britain. Looks like Britain. Can someone clever reverse the image, so it faces to the right? --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

When did people realize Italy was shaped like a boot? Did the Romans know -- ie is it in Latin writings (of which we have tons)? 79.122.2.247 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good question, but have nothing definite. Pliny's Natural History states that the peninsula is said to be "like an elongated oak leaf, bending to the left at the top and ending in the shape of an amazon's shield." (The History of Cartography: Cartography in prehistoric, ancient, and medieval Europe and the Mediterranean by John Brian Harley and David Woodward, ISBN 0226316335. One must also consider when boots started to look like Lo Stivale. (As a sidenote, the Soleto Map, allegedly "the oldest map in Western civilization", depicts the boot's heel, but unrecognized probably, even if the map is authentic). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(related but not important) I went to the Soleto Map page thinking "ooh that'll be a nice map" - nope, no picture, and not on the links I clicked either. Anybody? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

google images. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

<e/c>What an excellent question. I look forward to seeing answers - shame Clio no longer roams these pages; she'd have loved this one. For my 2p, I'd add a question as to whether the Romans had boots that looked like Italy does. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A boot with a high-heel would probably first have been common in the 15th or 16th centuries. Another thing to remember is that it only looks like a boot on maps with a North at the top and South at the bottom. IIRC the Roman maps did not adhere to that orientation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's better than having a country shaped like Margaret Thatcher. Cf: the UK.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't see it myself.Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought it looks like a traditional (Staunton chess set) representation of the knight on the chessboard. NB I presume you two are talking about Great Britain, rather than the United Kingdom, which only looks like a mess. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen it as a little old lady with a bonnet and a bustle. And is it possible that Maggie set up that picture so she looked like the country? L'etat c'est moi. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Two versions from 1869 and 1870 both see Italy as a complete person but the second one gives you the little-old-lady UK :) 65.92.124.84 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This Italian website writes that Polybius (2nd century BCE) compared its shape to a triangle, Strabo compared it to a quadrilateral. In the 13th century, when nautical maps became more accurate, the comparison to the shape of a human leg started spreading, and the boot association followed later, in the 16th century (cinquecento). Giuseppe Giusti's poem "Lo Stivale" was written in 1836. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In the 1920s the Great Western Railway, which ran west from London to such points as Penzance (Cornwall), produced this poster depicting "a great similarity between Cornwall and Italy". Of course they are exaggerating their points: Cornwall's climate is warm only by English standards, and they've fiddled the shapes of the small peninsulas to make them look more similar. (As to natural beauties, I make no comment.) But more important, the two maps are drawn to different scales: Italy is roughly 10 times the length or 100 times the area of Cornwall! --Anonymous, 23:55 UTC, April 22, 2009.

I wonder to what extent erosion and sea level changes have altered the shape of Italy over the centuries. Perhaps it didn't look like a boot in Roman times. Also, back when Venice, Naples, Rome, and all the other city-states were independent, they were probably more likely to have maps of their own region than of Italy as a whole. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not by all that much, in the just about 2000 years that have passed since Roman times- large scale terrain changes usually take a fair bit longer than that. Most Roman port towns are still directly on the shoreline, right where they were in ancient times. In the case of Ostia, the Tiber's silt deposits have pushed the shoreline a couple kilometers beyond the ancient port, but I doubt you could even see the difference of a couple kilometers in a map of Italy. -- Ferkelparade π 20:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that for much of the Middle Ages scale was little used in maps: most took teh form of pictorial charts. That said, here's a 1320 nautical map of Italy, oriented south, and not very boot-like. Gwinva (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Belgium

Why is it that the Romans couldn't conquer the Belgians, but they've been battered by all their other neighbours for the past 2,000 years. What happened there?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Read Gallia Belgica. Although described by Julius Cæsar as "the bravest of all the Gauls" they were under Roman rule for 450 years. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Belgae were not at all the same people as the modern Belgians, although Belgae (along with Romans, Franks, and others) are among the ancestors of most Belgians. That said, the Belgae controlled a larger area than present-day Belgium, and still the Belgae were conquered by Rome. (There are also parts of modern Belgium that were not inhabited by Belgae.) For a time, the name of the Belgae lived on in the name of the Roman province Gallia Belgica, but its people gradually adopted Roman speech and ceased to identify as Belgae. In the 5th century, the area of modern Belgium, along with most of modern France, was overrun by the Germanic Franks. In the northern parts of modern Belgium, the Franks predominated, and the language spoken there today, Flemish Dutch, is largely a descendant of Frankish. In the southern parts of modern Belgium, the Franks mixed with the Vulgar Latin-speaking Gauls and gradually adopted their language, which evolved into French. The entire region was then known as Francia, or the land of the Franks, and few had any knowledge that their ancestors were called Belgae. This remained the case for another thousand years, until the revival of classical learning in the 16th century led to an awareness of the ancient Belgian past of the inhabitants of the region then known as "the Low Countries" (Pays Bas or Nederlanden), and particularly of the southern part of that region. Among learned and elite circles, inhabitants of the region affected an identity as belgique. When the elites of the region rebelled against Dutch rule in 1830, they adopted an identity as Belgian because it provided a link between the different peoples of the Dutch (Flemish) speaking north and the Walloon (French) speaking south. So the connection between the Belgae and the Belgians is very tenuous and ignores a thousand-year gap during which the region and its people had no Belgic or Belgian identity. It isn't true to say that the people of this region were battered for 2,000 years. During the 5th and 6th centuries, this region was part of the heartland of the Frankish rulers of all of Francia, and so what we now know as Belgium can be said to have dominated all of France. During subsequent centuries it was no more battered than any other part of Europe. During the 13th and 14th centuries, the counts of Flanders, based in this region, gained control of neighboring parts of France. While the region subsequently passed through a series of dynastic hands, it was no different in this than any other part of the Holy Roman Empire. The reason why independent Belgium was overrun in 1914 and 1940 is that Belgium was a tiny state sandwiched between two hostile giants—France and Germany—not because of any special weakness of the Belgians. Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dystopian Fiction

Dystopian fiction

In this list , which novel has more realistic technology (present socialism, present everything) and closer to our present time?--Reticuli88 (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find out quite a lot about the novels by following the links on the list. I've barely read any of them, but you can see (for example), a substantial portion of Cloud Atlas is set in the past or present, as is much of The Book of Dave. The Bar Code Tattoo is set in the near future, and from its description, it doesn't appear to imagine any technology greatly different to what is available today. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "present socialism" (a novel which imagines a socialist present? a novel set in a nation which describes itself as socialist?), but none of these novels appear to deal with socialism. Warofdreams talk 14:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant present social environment... What's the correct term? Also, I guess I'm looking for a novel with more scientific usage. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World has been classified as straight-forward dystopia, but also, with more subtlety, as a dark utopia. He was writing in the early 1930s, but had great prescience: many of the concepts he described have become commonplace. From our article on the book:"An early trip to the United States gave Brave New World much of its character. [...] Huxley [was] outraged by the culture of youth, commercial cheeriness, sexual promiscuity and the inward-looking nature of many Americans." See also Brave_New_World#Comparisons_with_George_Orwell.27s__Nineteen_Eighty-Four. There is a fair amount of science, most notably assisted reproduction. Many of his predictions seem like descriptions of life today. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a recommendation: check out Francis Fukuyama's Our Posthuman Future. He basically looks at the ways in which Brave New World and 1984 get crossed up in our modern world (biological modification + information society).

Other than that, it's hard at the moment for me to think of something more topically relevant than parts of 1984. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"What If" Book

Is there a book out there that speculates what would happen if certain events did/not take place, such as whatif JFK survived the assassination or the USA was not the first to land on the moon, or something like that?--Reticuli88 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many thousands. This site [13] is very informative on the subject. Malcolm XIV (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My favourite is probably Fatherland (novel). It is based on 'What if the Axis nations won World War Two?' --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Turtledove, who writes a lot of these alternative-history books, is currently publishing one on the internet about JFK not being assassinated [14]. Malcolm XIV (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a distinction to be drawn here between alternate history (which is a genre of fiction) and counterfactual history (a [much smaller and more recent] genre of nonfictional historical study). Algebraist 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Algebraist, I would prefer books that are of the Counterfactual Historical genre. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is more AU than CFH, but Pastwatch by Orson Scott Card is an excellent book about what would have happened if just a few changes happened with Columbus's voyages to the Americas- specifically, what if he wasn't so racist, and what if the mainland tribes had managed to unite under a strong leader? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Guns, Germs and Steel analyses why this did not happen, why Atahualpa did not take Charles V prisoner. You might find it's more like meatloaf with the meat.--Wetman (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Alternate history novels and related categories. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This book:[15] details the events of "what if" we all just disappeared. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[16] This one is about military battles going the other way, and their results, by strategists. It's quite interesting. Steewi (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1632 (novel) novels by Eric Flint and others are a recent series in alternate history: What if a small West Virginia town from the present day were transported to Germany in 1631, along with its few thousand inhabitants? An alternate history line intrudes on the Thirty Years war. A number of novels and short story collections trace out the ripple effect of modern technology and the the effect of the people then being able to read from encyclopedias what would have happened absent the intrusion from the future. The small number of people and limited "up-time " gadgets mean that they must make alliances, rather than just running roughshod, and that they must re-create 19th and 18th century technology which is easier to make without modern factories than 21st century gadgets, but still way ahead of 17th century technology. Edison (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet and the Oath of the Horatii

Is there a deliberate connection between a. Horatio and his buddies (in Hamlet) swearing upon Hamlet's sword and b. David's Oath of the Horatii? What I'm asking is, did Shakespeare name the character Horatio after the Roman Horatii family... or is there some other reason for the "coincidence"? And finally, can the connection be backed up with reliable sources? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The French interest in Shakespeare was still in the future when David painted the Oath of the Horatii, which he took instead directly from the familiar Roman sources. Does Shakespeare's Horatio say anything that might have been spoken by one of the Horatii? Your essay will build from that.--Wetman (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to write an essay... this is personal curiosity, not homework. :) I just wondered if anyone more learned than I had commented on this "coincidence" before, and if someone here could point me in the direction of their thoughts on the topic. Thanks for your thoughts. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

All i can find concerning the name Horatio is that it may be from a character in The Spanish Tragedy by Thomas Kyd, a proposed author of the hypothetical Ur-Hamlet. The Horatii and Curiatii appeared on stage in Corneille's Horace and The Roman Father (1750) by William Whitehead.—eric 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Size of historical battles

In most of the articles about battles (mostly classical or medieval ones), there are two numbers for the troops involved: one based on contemporary historians, and one based on modern research. The second one is almost always 2 or 3 times less. Whys is it like this? How can we know now, after so many hundreds or maybe thousands of years later what happened, better than those who were witnesses to it? Were those numbers always inflated for propaganda purposes? Then why inflate the numbers of both sides?

I'm thinking now, that maybe the bigger numbers were for all the participants, and the smaller ones for just those who actually took part in the fight. It's reasonable, because there was a need for servants or slaves carrying equipment, tending to horses, guarding the camp, repairing weapons, foraging for food, deliver messages, entertainment, etc.

If this were correct, why not present all the infoboxes like: troop strength: 150000 to 200000, out of which fighting 80000

instead of: according to a contemporary historian 150000 to 200000, current estimates 80000

An army of such size certainly needed at least the same number of helping personnel. And it's unlikely that each and every historian inflated the numbers of both sides always in nearly the same percentage.

Or am I wrong, and missing the point somewhere? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually, or so it is suspected by modern historians, the people who recorded the numbers did not bother to count the real number, and they were more interested in showing how superior or inferior an army was by giving it an inflated or deflated number of soldiers; if your army defeated an enemy ten times bigger, then the victory was much more glorious. In some cases the less-organized nature of warfare means it would be difficult to know how many people were there, although certainly ancient and medieval cultures often kept very good records. There is less dispute about the number of fighting men in a Roman army, since the Romans organized their armies in very particular ways, than there is about, say, the Persian army that invaded Greece; is it really believable that there were 3 million Persians, or, as I said, was the number inflated to enhance the victory of the underdog Greeks? I know this happened in medieval battles too; I can think of many impossible numbers during the crusades, for example, although we can often see how big an army should have been if they also kept good records (crusader Jerusalem, the military orders, Anglo-Saxon England). In some cases it might be possible that a bizarre number is simply a copying error, especially for a number written in Latin - it's not hard to write too many Ms, or to mistake a hundred for a thousand when the number is written out (or because the number word is itself abbreviated in a text), but that is a different problem. Sometimes modern historians have attempted to estimate the number of men an army could supply with food or armour or whatever else, given the resources known to be available, and, as I said, sometimes the official records mean we know that a number given in a chronicle must be too large. It is certainly possible that non-combatants were being counted, but often it is specifically stated that the number refers to fighting men. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>It's fairly standard historiography to dismiss ancient accounts as exaggerated. This is for a variety of reasons. Many ancient battles became standard fare for oral traditions, and what storyteller worth his salt doesn't exaggerate? Furthermore, exaggeration can make you look better and as history is written by the winners, the winners will exaggerate especially the numbers defeated. Etc. I first encountered this with Josephus and it drove me insane. Then I read Herodotus. --Dweller (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

<ec2> Contemporary histories are mostly first reported by the victor - proclamations, announcements and so on, if not directly via official histories. Participants in the fighting have a tendency to exaggerate their numbers. Before the battle - by both sides - as a means of boosting the morale on their own side and reducing it on the other side. After the battle, it is a way of aggrandising the victory. ("We won an epic battle" sounds better than "We won a moderately sized skirmish".) There are some well document cases of a belligerent intentionally and wildly exaggerating their numbers. In those times before journalism, it would be difficult in most cases to find a neutral observer in a battle. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is limited to pre-modern times by the way. Do you remember the original estimates for the number of deaths on September 11? Or after Hurricane Katrina? Both were wildly inflated. And do you really believe the numbers of "insurgents" that are said to be killed in Iraq of Aghanistan? Likewise the Taliban always claim they have killed many more NATO troops than NATO claims. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And people who died in concentration camps.. but it's highly illegal to even think about it.--131.188.3.21 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, modern historians have worked pretty hard to peg those down. Estimates vary of course but only crackpots generally accept less 5 million. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So...this was a roundabout way to troll us? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, both sides would have a tendency to exaggerate the other side. The guys who come home victorious would love to talk about how badly they were outnumbered, because it makes the victory sound more heroic. The guys who come home defeated, on the other hand, would much rather say they were beaten by a huge force than by a tiny (but lucky or well-trained) squad. It makes them look less wimpy. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's like reports of big protest marches: "The organisers said 50,000 people were on the march; the police estimated 20,000". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the police may be pressured by the mayor or governor to come up with a low estimate, so it makes it look like fewer people in their districts are unhappy. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I can think of another couple of factors leading to historic anomalies:

1) Many people who weren't "official support personnel" also commonly followed armies. This could be families of soldiers or other camp followers. These may have been included in the ancient estimates.

2) Many ancient stories seemed to compare "apples and oranges". For example, at the Battle of Thermopylae, you may hear about the 300 Spartans who fought millions of Persians. The 300 doesn't include the thousands of non-Spartans who also fought the Persians, and the number of Persians likely includes support personnel, camp followers, etc. So, while the numbers were definitely lopsided, they weren't quite as bad as is popularly portrayed. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

April 23

obligations of trustee holding bare title in a deed of trust

Is the trustee on a California (non-judicial) Deed of Trust, obligated to convey notice of code violation from a public entity (City) to the beneficiary (of the Deed of Trust) / servicer for the Beneficiary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasenine (talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk cannot offer legal advice. Please ask an attorney. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Film Form vs. Content?

I've been trying to distinguish one from the other but I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between film form and film content. Associating motifs, location, social concerns, events, long takes, editing structure, factual information ... form or content? Especially applying to documentary film... thank youBreadchastick (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Film form is how it is presented. Film content is what is presented. For example, a long take is how you may present something. Factual information is what you present in some way. -- kainaw™ 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To expand on this a little and make a straightforward situation slightly more confusing, the form can and often does enable the content: for example, if the long take is about a guy sitting down and looking bored, you're giving the viewer information that someone is very bored and nothing's happening. But even then, the form and the content are two separate things; it's just that there's a relationship between the two. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Rosies" and hard hats

Did any Rosie the Riveter were a hard hat while on her job? I've seen pictures of many "Rosies" wearing bandanas on their heads.69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

According to that article, hardhats were made out of aluminum in the '30s and then fiberglass in the '40s. I'm almost certain both of these were rationed to the government for the war effort. Livewireo (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons has at least one photo [17] of a Rosie wearing what appears to be a hard hat of some sort. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardhats were not used by workmen during world war 2 to the extent they are today. A workman might have worn a normal hat (fedora?) while Rosie might have worn a bandana over her hair, like in the classic poster. 5 of 6 illustrations in our Rosie article show soft head coverings. Unless people are constantly dropping dangerous objects, workmen are reluctant to be burdened with hardhats. It is usually the employer who mandates wearing them, to reduce liability. Edison (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone could ever prove that no Rosie ever wore a hard hat while working. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Can the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Union because I live in the UK and we're being taken for a mug. Our unemployment has skyrocketed while Eastern European individuals are squandering our jobs and we pay enormous amounts to the EU and we're being pressured into abandoning the pound sterling in favor of the euro. So can we withdraw --Thanks, Hadseys 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that membership in the EU is entirely voluntary, so yes, you could withdraw. However, that would mean losing the favorable trade terms with the rest of the EU nations, which would have a catastrophic effect on the UK economy. That's why your government hasn't done so. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think what you clearly see as evil provides a mechanism for withdrawal. And by the way, blaming immigrants is a lazy excuse. Unemployment is a global problem, not limited to the UK so you can't really blame immigrants. I would suggest you reconsider your opinion. But hey, this isn't a place for opinions. Computerjoe's talk 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• My point was merely that it seems more eastern europeans have more jobs than ordinary british people. Surely it should be we get served first as opposed to them --Thanks, Hadseys 01:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the points of union (in any context) is to at least blur the distinction between the component parts (in some cases entirely removing them). The idea was that the people of Europe would see themselves as European first, and British, French, whatever second. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean to "squander" a job? —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking, could England withdraw from the United Kingdom? After all, it's the only country in the union that doesn't have it's own devolved parliament... Duomillia (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

England is really only a geographical term. The legal entity is England and Wales. But I suppose it's possible that the people of England could rise en masse and declare themselves a country independent of the rest of the UK. Likely? Nah. It's much more likely that the UK itself could be expelled from the very Commonwealth of which it is the mother. This was raised as a slightly serious possibility at a CHOGM meeting in Vancouver (I think) during Margaret Thatcher's time. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that simple. England and Wales are two separate entities in many respects (for example, Wales has its own devolved Assembly), but are considered as one in many other respects. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is "CHOGM meeting" a RA acronym? —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea... Since England is by far the largest country in the union, it would be more like throwing out the other countries (whether they would choose to remain united or become independent, I don't know, it would be up to them). I don't know of any precedent for forcing a region to secede against its will (there is some for giving a region to another country, but that is very different). I doubt the international community would be very supportive of the idea and it would be an interesting situation with regards to succession of states - the rest of the UK might well end up with the UK's seat on the UN security council! --Tango (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As to forcing a country into independence: like any relationship break-down, in the end it's hard to say who wanted it to go. When the Soviet Union broke up, not all of the countries were necessarily enthusiastic about the prospect of independence, but in the end everyone "chose" to go their separate ways, circumstances being what they were. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal would be a simple matter - repeal of the European Communities Act. Alternatively, as already noted, the Lisbon Treaty would provide a formal mechanism. Neither of those would, however, do anything to mitigate the economic disaster that renting the UK out of our Europeans markets would do. Given that a pillar of the EU is freedom of movement, have you considered looking for work in one of the 26 member states? --Saalstin (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - it is not a question of whether or how the UK would be "allowed" to leave the EU, but the question of whether its people think leaving the EU is worth the cost, considering all the benefits which it will lose. It seems that a majority of the people, or at least a majority of their elected representatives, don't think such a move would be worth it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that when sovereign and independent states like Virginia (1788) and South Carolina (1787) voluntarily joined the United States by ratifying the Constitution, and later attempted to secede in 1860 and 1861, the U.S. sent troops to invade them, murder their citizens, and destroy their assets until they surrendered. I'm not saying the EEU would send the likes of William Tecumseh Sherman or U.S. Grant to invade Britain, but it's worth thinking about before any rash actions. Edison (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

April 24

To refuse ones book in a library

Can an author refuse to have his books in public libraries? Has any well-known writer ever expressed this wish? 190.17.201.142 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe such a thing would be possible in most countries. If you buy an object, you automatically have the right to lend it to someone else, unless you've signed a contract saying otherwise or unless it's some sort of dangerous goods that requires a license to possess. The fact that the object may be under copyright and trademark protection doesn't matter because you aren't making a copy and you aren't trying to confuse anyone about who created it. So the restriction would only be possible if (1) everyone buying the book was required to consent to an agreement, the way some software is sold, or (2) a law was passed granting authors the right to refuse to have their books in libraries.

There is a good deal of controversy currently about this sort of issue regarding digital media -- CDs, MP3s, DVDs, and all the rest -- but the issues do not carry over to printed books, largely because they cannot be cheaply copied. Books in online format are a whole nother matter.

--Anonymous, 04:22 UTC, April 24, 2009.

I hear that Jerry Pournelle has griped about it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You can license your books in any way you want, as the copyright owner. You could, for example, attach a licence to every sale of the book which requires the buyer to do this and that. But that would probably mean that the legal interest in the physical book is not being sold entirely. It's probably more like a long-term/infinite lease of the book on terms, the way land might be granted with attached conditions. It wouldn't be the same as just attaching a notice like with a CD or piece of software. With something electronic, every time you play it you are re-producing the copyright work in material form, so it is possible to sell the CD without the licensing of the reproduction - i.e. the playing of the CD. Then the buyer of the CD can legally re-sell the CD but the second buyer would not be able to legally play it without authorisation from the copyright owner. With a book, reading the book is not reproduction, so you can't sell the book while prohibiting its reading as such. Whereas if you are indefinitely leasing the book, you can place conditions on which the lease would be revoked - e.g. it being read by anyone else.

I'm speculating off the top of my head, of course. There are probably other issues. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god that is so wrong. In the United States there is a doctrine of first sale, which expressly says you CANNOT attach any post-sale conditions on the sale of a book etc. For example you cannot say that a book may not be given to someone else ('transferred'), among many other things. 94.27.142.138 (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We (non-US common law) don't have exactly the same concept, but there are contractual doctrines which produce a similar effect. That's why I said - it probably wouldn't be a sale anymore, but a lease. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

State

Are there any plans for a 51st United State? 58.165.23.195 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See 51st state. NeonMerlin 08:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Paying for oneself

Have any studies been done to determine what non-economic contributions a chronically unemployed person (living off friends, relatives and/or the state) must make to society in order to offset the costs to society of his or her existence (food, shelter, health care etc.), including the externalized environmental costs? NeonMerlin 08:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Payment Terms

Hello. Say, you buy some merchandise and receive an invoice on the same day. You have 10 days to pay to be eligible for a 2% discount. If, in a timely manner, you return some of the merchandise for a credit invoice because it was damaged, the company may agree on restarting those 10 days. (Refunding merchandise is reducing your amount owing. My terms do not extend if I pay in part.) Why would a company extend the terms? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Navy ship prefixes

What were ships of the Commonwealth of England known by? I was reading the article HMS Monck (1659), and find it strange that a Republican navy would use the His Majesty's Ship, was another prefix used (The Lord Protector's Ship, Commonwealth Ship etc?) or was no prefix used, I seem to remember that the general use of HMS only became widespread later, have we used an inaccurate title to make things fit in to what we are familiar with? KTo288 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Afro-Arabs

This questions is only refers to Black people of Arabia peninsula. Were these black people of Arabian Peninsula came here as slaves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A Religious Protestant Symbol

Does the Protestants have a religious symbol of there own, different from the regular cross of the entire Christianity? 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with a protestant specific symbol per se. "Protestants" are somewhat defined by a negative - non-Catholic Christians - so there really isn't much commonality that they don't also share with Christianity in general. One thing I will note is the Roman Catholics are more likely to use the Crucifix, whereas Protestants tend to stick with the unadorned Christian cross, although our article notes Anglicans also use the crucifix. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)