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

May 20

Translation

Can anybody help translate this? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discendenza

Pipino I ed Ingeltrude ebbero quattro figli:

• Pipino II (823-864), re d'Aquitania
• Carlo (825-863), arcivescovo di Mayence dall'856.
• Berta (?-874), sposò nell'839 Gerardo di Rossiglione (?-841), conte di Parigi.
• un'altra figlia che sposò il conte Rotari di Limoges (?-841).

I don' t read Italian all that well, but it looks like it's describing the children of Pipin I and his wife Ingeltrude. Pipin II would be King of Aquitaine (re d'Aquitania); Let me check InterTran... OK, best I can get from InterTran and a bit of rewording gives:

Descendents

Pipin I and Ingeltrude had four children:

• Pipin II, king of Aquitaine
• Charles, Archbishop of Mayence (Mainz?!?)
• Bertha, Wife of Gerard di Rossiglione, count of Paris
• another child maried to count Rotari of Limoge

Hope that helps! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If not, try the Language desk. --Tango (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The sons are mentioned in Pepin I of Aquitaine. Yes, Mayence is the French (and formerly English) name of Mainz. Why it's not Magonza here...? —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, after all, Roussillon is given an Italian name pre-translation (Rossiglione) as is Paris. Well, the Italian Wikipedia may just not be consistant on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for a mathematical term name

hiiiiiiiiiii i know it is calculated on the basis of wpi and depent upon 435 comodities but i want the mathmatical term if any body klnow pls reply me as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatender singh (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Moved misplaced question to its own section and reformatted it. Sifaka ^talk 02:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You might try the mathematics desk. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP Is talking about the wholesale price index (="wpi") and commodity markets (="comodities"). So it's probably an economic not mathematical question.

Given that the wpi is not commonly used in most countries, I think the answer would be something regionally specific. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless, of course, one is discussing economics, in which case WPI is very, very commonly used.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking a question specific to India. India calculates Wholesale Price Index (wpi) based on a list of 435 commodities. Take a look through the articles Price index and List of price index formulas, and see if anything there helps you. --Zerozal (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The WPI is used to measure inflation, is that the word you are looking for? --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Bibles

What English translation of the Bible, if any, is favored by the Eastern Orthodox Church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.215.248 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This page has a pretty good explanation for why it doesn't really matter; but if one is to be preferred, apparently it is the KJV. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The website that Adam Bishop quotes is full of errors, and was clearly written by a very ill-informed person. For instance it says that the distinction between "thou" and "you" is that "thou" refers to God and "you" to other people, whereas of course the KJV is very consistent (much more so than some earlier writings such as Shakespeare) in using "thou/thee" for the singular, "ye/you" for the plural, whoever is being addressed. Also it maintains that the KJV omits the apocrypha. In fact of course the KJV includes the apocrypha, although admittedly editions of the KJV are often sold with the apocrypha omitted. I don't think the RSV is any different in this repsect. I was also surprised to see legend about 72 scholars producing identical versions still being promulgated as fact. Sorry for coming in late on this: I've only just noticed this discussion. --rossb (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I should read more carefully. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1977 RSV edition was one of the first general English translations to include all the books that Eastern Orthodox consider to be canonical... AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism, Evolution, Human Nature, and Capitalism (cont.)

I am continuing this from my last question.

By "good" or "evil", I mainly mean a natural tendency towards good or evil.

Are there any atheists or evolutionists who disagree with the belief and idea that humans are born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

I am asking you all this also because of another passage from The Battle For Truth:

This method of passing the buck-denying individual responsibility for individual actions-permeates virtually all non-Christian psychology.

IS THAT TRUE? I am also asking you all this because I've heard that Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was an atheist and humanist, claimed and believed that humans were born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society.

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As with your earlier version of the same question, the answer is obviously "yes", because you are asking "Are there any...", and as there are several hundreds of millions of atheists, we can safely say "Yes, there are some." There are plenty of atheists who think people are inherently selfish and evil. Also if you would trouble to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau, you'll see he was no atheist. The author is a troll. Tempshill (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This godless evilutionist, for example, is of the opinion that the question "Are people born good or evil?" is itself a sign of muddled concepts. —Tamfang (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the author is a troll. He does, however, use a set of talking and reasoning tools that are foreign to many users here at the refdesk. To the author: The question, as you put it, cannot be satisfactorily answered. People have asked you to elaborate, but you only offer a vague explanation ("a natural tendency towards good or evil" explains nothing - what is good? what is evil?) and a repost of the original question. I hardly believe you will get an answer. I would also like to disagree with the opinion you quoted from a book - namely, that non-Christians have no responsibility. If you saw the infamous Tom Cruise video, you would know that only a Scientologist will pull by when they see a car crash and help the people. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to catch something, I think you took Tempshill's reference to 'the author' to refer to Bowei Huang; I'm pretty sure Tempshill was talking to Bowei Huang and referring to 'the author of the book quoted'. 80.41.33.31 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. A bit poorly worded, yes. The first "author" is Huang, and the second is whoever wrote the book Huang quoted. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I never get the question "non-Christians have no responsibility" similarly "If you don't believe in god, what's stopping you...", as if the fear of god is the only thing keeping Christians back from killing, raping, stealing and preforming abortions, because in reality they really want to do those things. chandler ··· 08:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or that we actually, as a society, rely on people to adhere to their stated morals. I mean, plenty of Christians commit crimes as well. We don't rely on religion to actually prevent things—that's what we have laws and civil order for. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bowei Huang you should take that book you are reading with a grain of salt. Or at least read some books with different viewpoints to balance it. From the two quotes you have provided it is clear that the author is making gross generalizations to further his own bias. His attempts at descriptions, of what he consider his opponents, does not really match any movements in real life (although they may by chance match a few individuals as Tempshill pointed out), but are tailored to suit his own system of beliefs. It is however commendable that you turn to the help desk to try and verify if reality fits with the claims in the book, it does show you have an independent mind and do not believe everything that you read. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think that there is a nature versus nurture aspect influencing whether people turn out as mainly helpful or not to others. Probably an assortment of different life attitudes are favoured by evolution. Being a psycho nutter who just uses others can be a way of getting to the top of a company and having lots of children for instance. I'm quite happy to classify such a person as evil, would he be actually born good or evil by the OPs standards? Then again such people drive others and much of modern society is due to evil corporate bosses and politicians, and personally I think good religious politicians seem overall to have worse outcomes for everyone than the self seeking exploiters. (godless evilutionist - I like that spelling - thanks Tamfang) Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If it adds to your data set, I am a godless evolutionist who does not believe that people are inherently born good and then corrupted. I believe that humans are born as humans—creatures with tremendous capacity for malice as well as compassion and social organization. I certainly believe in a functional individual responsibility. (If a dog insists on biting people, do we worry if the dog is making the conscious choice? Not really—we take the steps necessary to protect ourselves, even if the dog "ultimately" lacks responsibility for its actions. The philosophical difference need not have any functional difference.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are people answering this question? It is identical to the last one, just with the addition of a definition for "good" and "evil" which uses the words "good" and "evil". We've answered this question already. --Tango (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that many athiests and evolutionists believe that humans are Social animal animals, and that our sense of right and wrong and our mostly "good" behavior is primarily a result of these instincts.

For instance, penguins live in reasonably civil tribes (colonies? Flocks?) and no one is suggesting that there are penguin cops enforcing the law, or a penguin Moses delivering the ten penguin commandments. APL (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Colonies, I think. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a long history of opposing intuitions on this matter by non-theists. There's the Hobbesian concept of the state of nature being nasty, brutish and short then there's the idea exemplified by Rousseau where people by nature are good until society corrupts them (called the noble savage).

So yes, there are plenty of evolutionists who disagree with the idea that humans are born good. Plenty of modern psychologists (not to mention the anthropologists, sociologists, primatologists), who fully accept Darwinian evolution, would agree with the proposition that humans are neither good nor bad by virtue of their birth (which uses an antiquated idea of how nature vs. nurture works anyway). Read any number of books on violence in prehistory (notably, Lawrence Keeley's 'War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage') to find people who may or may not be atheist and who disagree with the noble savage concept. Further reading may want to include Pinker's "The Blank Slate".--droptone (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From the UK (and European) point of view, the bracketing together of "atheists and evolutionists" seems very odd. Most people in this country, including Christian believers, regard evolution as an accepted fact of biology, not in conflict with their religious belief, so much so that the word "evolutionist" is not really in use, and creationists are viewed as a bit weird. By the way on the main point of this article, there have been reports recently in the press that some moral sense may be present in various species of animals. --rossb (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Good" and "evil" under the scientific aspect of evolution?? Killing Baby Hitler ... "good" or "evil"? Crows cheat on other crows in hiding their food. "good" or "evil"? A lion kills all the offspring of his predecesser ... "good" or "evil"? A human does the same ... "g" or "e"? To my knowledge "good" and "evil" can not be defined in the terms of the natural sciences. Functionality in a certain environment, however, yes. --Grey Geezer 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Politicians and nudity

An odd question for sure, but one I can't help but ask. As I watched Arnold Schwarzenegger, I couldn't stop thinking about the man's nude scene(s) and pictures. My question: is any of you familiar with a higher ranking official who has appeared fully or partially nude before the public, whether in the US or abroad? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly what you had in mind, but there was an incident a few weeks ago in which a publicity-seeking artist hung nude paintings he had done of the Irish Prime Minister in a couple of art galleries. Of course, we have an article on it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cicciolina, maybe. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Louise Frevert. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jörn Donner. Our article doesn't mention it, but he did some pornographic movies, at least one of them under the name Björn Thunder. Most (but not all) of it was done with a pretty obvious artistic intent, and I don't think it has negatively affected his career, either as a member of the Finnish and European Parliament or as a nationally influential artist. Today, it's entirely a non-issue.

In general, finding Finnish politicians naked isn't that much of a feat, what with our sauna culture. This isn't universal, but in many circles making a big deal of someone being naked in the sauna would be extremely bad form. In fact, a very popular TV show called Hyvät herrat ("Respected Sirs", pretty much, but there's a double meaning, as "herra" not only means "sir" but also "master") featured them on a weekly basis at one point; the show was a political satire, in which a fictional influential captain of industry and his toadying son-in-law invited various real-life political figures to sauna with him so he could try his hand at manipulating them for his own benefit. This inevitably involved various degrees of nudity on part of the guests. And contrary to what you might think, there was no shortage of pretty high-level guests (it was not uncommon to see ministers on the show); it was a popular program, and even though it poked fun at the politicians in question, it also gave them a great chance to freely mouth off on whatever their agenda happened to be at the time to a guaranteed audience of voters that was actually interested in what they had to say -- surely a fairly irregular set of circumstances for most politicians. Parts of the show were shot on the same day it aired, so it was often extremely topical. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob Rae, who used to be Premier of Ontario and was almost leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, went skinny dipping with Rick Mercer on the Rick Mercer Report. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous depictions of Jesus Christ, none of which show Him wearing a business suit. If He had been into product placement, Raphael (and a few more) would have made millions posthumously from the producers of desiger nappies and loin cloths. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would interpret "partially nude" to include wearing a bathing suit (obviously not a burqini, but the normal sort). Lots of politicians have beach or swimming pool photos in the public domain. Tony Blair got some flack for daring to bare his moobs, for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Glenda Jackson, British actor and member of Parliament, in Women in Love and The Music Lovers. RolandR 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a politician directly, but Carla Bruni, the First Lady of France, has been photographed nude (NSFW) more times than one could count... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And not for want of trying either?--Radh (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Chu Mei-feng. Matt Deres (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In ancient times atitudes were of course different. Even so it was striking when viewing the exhibition about the emperor Hadrian last year in the British Museum, to ses a statue, presumably officially sanctioned, showing him completely naked, especially given that Roman attitudes to nudity were not as liberal as those in Greece. But then he was being portrayed as a god, and gods were perhaps exempted from some of the rules of conventional dress that applied to humans. --rossb (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Monastery on top of rock pillars in Asia?

I was wondering, are there any other monasteries in Asia like the Meteora in Greece? I went through the list of monasteries in China, but just a few of them had pictures, an there were too many to read all of them. A friend of mine said there is one in South China, near the coastline on rock pillars. (The pillars being in the water, so the monastery is practically being on islands.) Thanks. PAStheLoD (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you do a Google / image search on "Tibetan monasteries" [1] you will find some great photos. Greetings from Vienna, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wudang Mountains in China is also one of those perched-in-an-impossible-part-of-a-mountain monasteries. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not on a pillar but part of a cliff—Paro Taktsang monastery in Bhutan. Ericoides (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone with a common surname be of Jewish descent?

I have a surname which is one of the top ten most common in America. My mother had a possibly Jewish first name which she changed to a more WASP one during WWII, before I was born. Somewhere around the same time my grandmother became a Methodist - I do not know what she was before. Looking back at the families geneological records, my great-grandparents and before had very unusual old-testament first names, such as Ezekial, although as far as I recall they all had not-unusual surnames. Like so many other things, I never asked my mother about this before she died. My other relatives died when I was a child. Would Ezekial have been a distinctively Jewish name in the 19th. century? Is there anything in what I have described that is inconsistant or consistant of being of Jewish descent? 89.242.109.25 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Names like Ezekial, Zebidiah, Caleb, Nehemiah, etc. were quite common among protestants in rural america during the 1800's. When reading novels from this era and from the early 1900's, we frequently see the names (and derived nicknames such as Zeke or Zeb) used for characters who are backward or rustic. -Arch dude (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Puritans insisted on using only names found in the Bible - and since there weren't so many names in the New Testament, they had to resort to Old Testament names too. As a result, Old Testament names that sound rather Jewish to modern ears (like Abraham) were popular in 18th- and 19th-century America among non-Jews as well (like Abraham Lincoln). Surnames are a better indicator of Jewishness than first names, but still not ideal since Jewishness is passed through the mother's line and surnames through the father's. +Angr 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(P. S.: Samuel Fuller, the film director is an example for this puritanism.)--Radh (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. See Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barebone, aka Praise-God Barebone, and Increase Mather. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Some good comments above. Note also that surnames are a relatively recent innovation and Jews have been around a heck of a long time. Finally, many Jews in regimes were doled out surnames willy nilly by local officials; some were appropriate, commonly place names or professions, and in oppressive regimes, some were even jokes (one of my ancestors was a "Grossbard", ie "Big beard" - and that's quite tame, compared with some I've heard) --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am unhappy with the redirect at willy nilly. See Talk:Willy nilly. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the only way to know for sure, is to trace your genealogy. -- role^player 11:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See Crypto-Judaism. There were Jews who passed in society as Christians, but secretly remained Jews.This was a survival technique which worked for hundreds of years. Someone changing a Jewish sounding first name to a more Anglo one during World War 2 sounds consistent with the practice. There was a story on National Public Radio (U.S.) about a young man who was serving in the Army, who noticed that the mess hall supplied Matzo at Passover. He commented that those were the kind of crackers his family ate around Easter. The Jews he was were intrugued and with asked some questions like, did they also have special rituals about lighting candles, and did the older family members have secret customes, and told him that his family were probably crypto Jews, which was confirmed when he asked them. A method of survival which dated back to the 1500's got a new lease on life during the Holocaust. Some of your mothers relatives might know. Edison (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are Jewish people with the surnames of Green, and I worked for a Jewish woman whose name was Robbins. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Like in School Ties :) TastyCakes (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The third-most-common Jewish surname in the U.S. (behind Cohen and Levy) is Miller, which people wouldn't consider a particularly Jewish name. A look at a Jewish cemetery will reveal plenty of non-"ethnic" sounding names. Remember that a lot of people took new surnames when they came to the U.S. Both my grandparents' families Anglicized their names after immigrating. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways in which an American Jew could end up with an Anglo surname:

• many changed their names when they immigrated, either to better fit in, because they didn't much care for the country they came from, or simply because the immigration official couldn't pronounce it
• many Jews and non-Jews Anglicized their German surnames during World War I when anti-German sentiment was high. (eg. a large number of Millers in the U.S. are descended from German Muellers)
• there are some Jews with deep roots in Britain who got English surnames just like everyone else there
• other personal reasons (in the movie Avalon, Jewish cousins with the surname Kryczinski change their names to Kirk and Kaye because "it's just easier to say")

The crypto-Jew answer seems unlikely. Crypto-Jews were largely a phenomenon of the Inquisition which didn't extend to English-speaking countries. They usually have Spanish or Portuguese surnames, not English/American ones. —D. Monack ^talk 06:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful though: if you find an example of this it does not mean the person is of Jewish descent. In the UK last century it was very common for people with Germanic sounding names to change them - a prominent example being the Battenberg family who changed to Mountbatten, and later to Mountbatten-Windsor. OR I have a friend whose father settled here after the war, and changed his name to Gibson because it was similar to the first thing he saw when he got here (an advert for Gibbs toothpaste). Neither of these two examples were Jewish, simply Germanic.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Marquess of Milford Haven might quibble with that "and later". —Tamfang (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish people or those of Jewish decent are 1 of 12 tribes of Israel.It's more likely you are decent from one of them.Try checking out the Scottish Declaration of Independence and you will come up with many sir names who claim to be from Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prprd (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a cool cat named Davis, as I recall. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Economical crisis = business school crisis?

Could we associate the economical crisis with a crisis of the business school way of thinking (or lack thereof)? Capitalism could just be fine. The problem was that the wrong people were on the top. --Mr.K. (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the cause from the perspective of how people think was thinking far too short term, primarily because of bonuses based on short term results. Does that have anything to do with business schools? --Tango (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The economic crisis exposes the myth of business-school expertise. The training allegedly offered by biz schools has always been overblown. Mr.K. (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know if the myth has been exposes recently. I always found them quite lame and expensive and nothing compared to a liberal education (art, science, language). --80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps this is just part of a continuous economic cycle and that currently we are over-stating the bad points, whereas previously we were guilty of under-stating the risk. People are panicking like the world is about to end because, shock-horror, we might have a few years where growth goes back/slows dramatically. Of course it's a serious situation but this occurance is not particuarly convincing evidence that the way our economies are setup is inherently bad (though, of course, improvements could be made). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But aren't most Business schools still in denial about natural economic cycles? The current crop of business leaders certainly didn't seem to understand why this bubble burst, just like every other economic bubble in history. Are these not taught in business schools:Template:US recessions? If business leaders only plan (and get rewarded) based on short term profit, then they are either learning that in business schools, or business schools are not teaching anything of use.YobMod 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Economic slowdown + CEO bonuses * Media hype = worst economic disaster in the history of mankind, panic, looting, riots... you get the idea. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your association between the financial crisis and business school crisis is right in different sense. Corporations have financed such business schools. They served as a training quarter of its employees and marketing tool for their "expertise" and ideology. Now that corporations have way much less money, biz schools will also get less.--88.6.117.202 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I well remember my irritation at seeing all those Wired covers promising eternal spring for the stockmarket. Capitalists like communists tend to believe in hard rock candy mountains--Radh (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I’d be much more inclined to blame it on the lawyers, since much of the problem has been in the area of finding ways to legally avoid doing what the law intended (full disclosure: I’m an economist). If the lawyers said, “Sorry, although it might be technically legal, it goes against the spirit of the law,” we’d have had a whole lot fewer problems. As for the notion of a “natural business cycle,” there is no evidence either way. Much easier just to assume that one is very good while the bubble is expanding, and unlucky when it collapses. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pursuit of low inflation one of the causes of the economic crisis?

In the UK the Bank Of England was a few years ago told to keep inflation at a target of 2%. In past decades inflation was much higher than this. I assume things were similar with other national banks. Has this pursuit of low inflation been one of the causes of the current problems? If the target rate for inflation had been set at say 5% or 10%, would we have avoided this recession? A healthy inflation rate of 5 or 10% would have reassured mortgagors (or is that mortgagees?) that their house debt was eventually going to be paid off, and make them feel better-off financially. 89.242.109.25 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mortgage rates are always going to be above inflation (barring short term fluctuations). If you increase inflation, banks put their rates up. --Tango (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would inflation at 5% make anybody more comfortable that their house debt would eventually be paid off, than at 2%? Yes higher inflation would erode the 'worth' of what they borrowed, but unless wage and interest rate on savings increase inline with that inflation - it would just see their wages and savings reduce. Perhaps i'm missing something? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In past decades in the UK, wages and house prices would increase more or less with inflation or more. Inflation would decrease the real value of your mortgage debt, and thus increase the real value of your equity, making you wealthier. I understand that much or most of the capital for business start-ups came from house equity, so without the equity, far less new businesses created, and hence less new jobs created. In addition, with inflation it is easier to pay off debts, so people are more inclined to borrow, so they spend more, so the economy keeps wizzing around. Perhaps the current inflation target is too low to deal with economic crisis without dipping down into deflation, like a jet fighter that tries to fly only a few feet above the terrain and is at great risk of crashing. 89.242.109.25 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider that if your mortgage payments are 33% of your gross pay. Then if the inflation is less then 33% higher then your wage increases, you are better off regardless of the rate of inflation, ignoring taxes anyway. Things do get a bit hairy at really high inflation since you probably don't get paid everyday at your job. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but wage increases are determined based on inflation, so increasing the target inflation rate wouldn't change anything. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inflation does not target all sectors of society equally and simultaneously, unfortunately. Furthermore, wage rates should be based on increases in productivity, not increases in the general price level. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I make no judgement on what "should" be the case, but in reality wage increases are generally based on inflation (among other factors). --Tango (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not a monetarist, Schwartz and Friedman gave very good empirical evidence towards the fact that there was economic growth during periods of deflation (specifically, a decrease in price levels). This is the outcome of sustainable growth through capital accumulation. As an Austrian economist I lay the blame for the current economic crisis at the feet of inflation (that is, an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in the general price level); in other words, I blame fractional-reserve banking. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm correct me if I'm wrong, but most developed economies are still not in a state of deflation, are they? So the argument that having low inflation helped trigger the current downturn because it allowed deflation easier seems incorrect, since deflation hasn't occurred. Whether having low inflation can be a bad thing for an economy in general is another question, and a much more complicated one, I think. I think it is true that high levels of inflation can be very damaging to national economies and is a much more common occurrence than deflation. So the Bank of England was probably well supported in its attempts to keep inflation in a small, narrow band, it seems to be the idea behind most central banks at least. TastyCakes (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is making the argument based on the perils of deflation, but rather on the apparently benefits of 10% inflation, which I serious question the accuracy of. The OP seems to be neglecting the fact that if you have 10% inflation, interest rates would end up greater than 10% in order to keep the real rate positive (otherwise everyone would borrow as much money as they can and simple supply and demand would drive up interest rates - see arbitrage). As for the deflation arguments - as far as I can see, deflation would be a good thing because the cure is printing money which is exactly what you want to do in a recession. There is a danger that you won't be able to get the money supply back down enough quickly enough afterwards and you'll end up with massive inflation (probably not full blown hyperinflation in most developed economies, they are too careful for that), but quantitative easing is being used by several central banks that think they can do it safely. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There was an interesting article in the latest Economist about deflation here. According to the Economist, deflation is (in this case) not a good thing. It is not caused by increased productivity, it is caused by lower demand and lower wages. It means that while the nominal cost of debts remains the same, the real cost increases. Paying the debt therefore requires the debter to spend a larger portion of their money on it which removes that money from the economy, deepening the recession (ie if the economy is deflating at 2%, a 5% mortgage will be 7% in real terms, while if the economy is inflating at 2% a 5% mortgage will be 3% in real terms). It is worse than inflation because the government is limited as to how it can deal with the problem - central banks can only lower their rates to zero (which many have already done to diminish the threat of deflation), while to contain inflation they can raise the rates to anything they want. Getting stuck in a deflationary trap is therefore a serious problem, as was experienced by Japan in the 1990s. I think it is fairly widely thought by economists that deflation is a greater threat to modern economies than inflation, but a far less common one. TastyCakes (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deflation is bad, but you can avoid it by just printing money (which, if done correctly, also boosts the economy). You just have a weigh up the risk of high inflation once the economy recovers. I'm not entirely familiar with what happened in Japan. I know they tried quantitative easing, why didn't it work? --Tango (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OP, the goal of controlling inflation is but one of many issues and policies that may have had something to do with the current Mother of All Recessions. But, much as it would simplify life, there is no single cause except, perhaps, lawyers.

Tango, if deflation could be corrected by just printing money, the recent economic history of Japan, China and Hong Kong would have been vastly different. It wasn’t, for the simple reason that it is not possible to defeat deflation by merely printing money. Very rapid monetary easing (slow in Japan) and a willingness to let the exchange rate adjust (not done in China or Hong Kong) seem to help. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

history recomendations for non native speaker

I am learning English and want to read some history books in English to improve my reading comprehension. I am interested in any period from ancient Egypt to 18TH century (about any country) - please recommend interesting books in relatively easy English. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.96.139 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, a rather daunting proposition, and given your rather wide range of subject, I'd suggest finding some broad histories to familiarize yourself with a range of areas. The first thing that comes to mind is Norman Davies History of Europe, which is broad-ranging and can be quite difficult to get through, but covers a considerable period of European history in the English language. Hope that helps. Skinny87 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could try children's books. Some good ones are in the public domain and can be obtained online - try International Children's Digital Library (also in Spanish) or the archives collected at the Online Books Page. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with most children's books on history is that the history itself is seldom scholarly. Think of what each of us learned about the "Indians" and the "Redcoats", for example when we were children. Often when the language is simplified, so is the history. I would think recommendations about well-written histories for adults would be the most useful. I have nothing to contribute, however. // BL \\ (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You could try A History of the Modern World by Palmer and Colton, despite the title nearly half the book deals with 18th century and before (it's mostly about Europe). I remember it as fairly accessible though it is not written specifically for non-native English speakers. It has come in a lot of editions over the years so you might be able to get an old edition relatively cheaply from your favourite online bookstore. You can view the contents and perhaps some text pages at the Amazon link I gave. Jørgen (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think reading the short stories of Ernest Hemingway should be great because of his simple, direct prose. Tempshill (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend A Little History of the World by Ernst Gombrich. He wrote it for children in the 1930s. Perhaps more was expected of children then! The book certainly does not come across as childish, but as a lucid one-volume introduction to the subject. The language is clear and elegant. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always enjoyed the writings of Barbara Tuchman, which are as scholarly as they come in terms of sources but are written for the general reader. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam was a very good read. Practising History is an excellent introduction to the historian's craft, as well as providing some good general historical essays. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are more than 50,000 articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. They are supposed to be written using simple words but without making the content simple. Some of these articles are about history. -Arch dude (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend the Cartoon History of the Universe books by Larry Gonick. Don't let the title fool you; the books are very well researched, as well as being easy to read and extremely wide-ranging. The language is kept lively and straightforward and the pictures aid the comprehension. I would recommend them to anyone, but they seem very well tailored to you. Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They are fantastic (and hugely influential on me), but remember that the first was written in the 1970's. The sections on early hominids I know to be outdated, and I suspect many other sections are too. This isn't a reason not to read them, just to keep your mind 'switched on'. 89.168.85.22 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The querent might wish to consider the phrase in the OP: "relatively easy English". See readability. What oes "easy" mean to you? Most history books for adults will be written for those who have completed a high school (or even a college) education in English. If reading at that level is a struggle and a hindrance, then easier options are wise. If reading at that level is slower thn in your native language, but possible, then persevere. One way to help yourself learn or improve a language is to choose to read about a topic you already know a lot about. That way your brain can concentrate on the grammar patterns and vocabulary input, because the basic facts are already in your mind. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Try the book of Exodus,its farely easy to read, and you may be able to also find it on audio,this will help greatly haveing the words in print while another reads as you follow along.--Prprd (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The man with the rifle shoots...

Did the scene in Enemy at the Gates, where the troops were only given one rifle to every other man and were told to pick up the fallen weapons of killed comrades, actually happen in the historical battle of Stalingrad?--91.84.213.250 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot be certain about this specific battle, but it is more then likely. The army russia has during the second world war was largely based upon having a mass of conscripts with no real training charge the enemy while trying to win trough their sheer amount of numbers (This was called the russian steamroller). This was one of the reasons russia fared so bad in the decond world war: Troop loyalty and skill were absymall, and the only reason there was no mass amount of deserters was due to the use of Commusairs (sp?) which were highly trained and disciplined troups mixed between the regular soldiers. Their task? Shoot every soldier that tried to retreat or that did not act brave enough. Just call it a movivation for the troops. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I'm sorry, but the above isn't really true. The whole 'Soviet mass conscript army' is a myth largely fostered on the world by bitter German officers trying to explain away the Third Reich's defeat, and taken up by the West as a convenient way to demonize the Soviet Union. The Soviet military, from about 1943/44 onwards, was actually a well-organized machine, particularly in terms of the use of armour and combined-arms tactics. To the ip and Excirial, I'd recommend a few books to read up on the subject. Anything by David Glantz is a goldmine and should be read on the subject, and I'd also suggest 'The Operation Employment of Soviet Armour in the Great Patriotic War' by C J Dick in Harris and Toase (eds.) Armoured Warfare.

As to the specific question, ip, I wouldn't be surprised if such comments were made during Stalingrad; for much of the time the Soviets were desperate to ensure their bank of the Volga didn't fall, and although much of the movie is sensationalized, the Soviets did at times just send in waves of conscripts as they had little other choice. However, please don't think this was the limit to Soviet tactics, as it wasn't; I'd suggest Glantz and Beevor's books on Stalingrad as a good starting place to read up on the subject. Commissars, the Soviet political officers, also had much of their power stripped away from mid-1943 onwards, as the movie rather fails to communicate, as it was found what positive impact they made to morale was often more than compensated for by the military difficulties they created. Skinny87 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Many years ago i actually wrote a long essay about operation barbarossa .; However, I think that thanks due to haste posting my responce I wrote the section about an army of conscripts in a way that made it seem as if the section about “The army of conscripts” would indicate that every single man in Russia willingly joined the army. What I was actually referring to what that the bulk of the Russian army was badly trained, equipped and demoralized. The Russian steamroller applied to the tactic that Stalin was following – Direct counterattacks with as many men as possible as often as possible, in turn trying to bulldoze over the german army like a steamroller would.

However, all this is from a report I wrote years ago and from which I foolishly did not source in any way. Hence, your comment just made me doubt the truthfulness of it. Is this rewording closer to the truth? Or is it still hubris? (In that case I should ask a refund from my history teacher that checked that essay! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'd demand a full refund :) That's an extreme oversimplification, and one as I said primarily derived from bitter Wehrmacht officers trying to explain how they lost. The Soviet military in the first few years might not have been the best, but it rapidly improved and by late 1943/early 1944 was a superb fighting force. Not brilliant, and it had its flaws - certain senior officers were more than happy to throw lives away at a prodigious rate at times - but it certainly didn't triumph because it was a 'steamroller'. It had superior numbers at times, especially towards the end of the conflict, there's no denying that, but numbers alone didn't win the Eastern Front for them - that took skills and tactics, combined with excellent weapons and equipment. Skinny87 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I will give the teacher the benefit of doubt since i was around 13 at the time i wrote it; My guess he was glad that it were 50 pages of research with some basic quality. Also it seems that i managed to skim (though very basic) the truth with that essay. I believe i remember writing that initially the soviet union army was mainly build using outdated T-37 tanks that were later in the war replaced with T-41 version that proved to be much more of an issue for the German army.

(Apologies to the IP user for hijacking this question) Actually if you don’t mind I have 1 more question myself: I remember stating that the soviet war effort was seriously hindered by the 5 year plans the soviet union made. These plans would have included such high quota’s that manufacturers seriously lower quality just to reach the demanded amount of items produced; Tanks were mass assembled and would break down in the field with no enemy near, and steel sheets used to produce them would become smaller and thinner over time as factories frantically managed to meet their quota. Is this also a myth or did I also over simplify this? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was told in a high school history class that the Red army used to clear mine fields by sending lines of men with arms linked marching across the field, because the tanks were held as being more precious. In hindsight, this too seems somewhat suspect, I'm not even sure if troops would set off German antitank mines by just walking over them. The Barbarossa article is quite interesting on the subject, particularly Causes of initial Soviet defeats. It seems the Soviets, while painfully unprepared for the initial battle, were able to mobilize far more men than the Germans anticipated. Further, they knew the Japanese were not going to attack them in the east and were able to transfer troops to the western front as a consequence. TastyCakes (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the OP's question. Not sure if it specifically happened at Stalingrad, but such an desperation tactic was not unheard of. During the Paris Commune days at the end of the Franco-Prussian War, the Communards lacked enough weapons to defend the city against the Government forces. As a result, during several of the assaults on the city, the defenders were known to have to rely on picking up the guns of their fallen comrades. Strangely enough its not mentioned in our article specifically, but I do recall a professor in college driving the point home during the lecture on "Bloody Week". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in the battle of Stalingrad, I recommend you watch this. It's in German, but you should be able to understand what's happening, even if you don't speak German. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup of Stone Age peoples?

Are there any theories that try to correlate genetic haplogroups to Stone Age peoples? The genes tell us a story of human migration, and the technologies and cultures like Aurignacian and Solutrean tell us another story. Has no one tried to connect the two?--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheddar man... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Behavioral modernity and Great Leap Forward?

How soon are we likely to make discoveries that will solve the Great Leap Forward vs Continuity Hypothesis? I'm curious how likely I am to learn the answer to this question in my lifetime, with at least 85% certainty of one hypothesis over the other. If I understand correctly, there is no clear winner between the two theories as of today, right?--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The riddle of Behavioral modernity is that early humans attained an anatomy which is basically indistinguishable from that of modern humans (as far as can be told from skeletal remains) many thousands of years before they started manifesting a range of cultural traits similar to those of modern hunter-gatherer peoples. So it's assumed that the transition happened in the brain, and was probably associated with the development of something approximating modern human language. Since fossils are not very directly helpful, determining the exact chronology of the change is rather difficult... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

gold coins

The US made gold coins intended for actual use until 1933 I believe. What is the latest a country produced gold coins with the intent that they were spent? Not like the 1oz special coins that are still produced. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to our gold coin article, South Africa issued bullion coins in 1967, however they didn't have a fixed value. As for modern currency coins, I believe no later than World War 2 would be the most recent time a gold coin was issued. Livewireo (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, they're still being made. The Perth Mint in Australia has issued a series of 99.99% pure gold coins. They're legal tender and anyone is entitled to pay for their groceries with one, but nobody other than collectors have ever seen one because their legal tender value is only a fraction of their value as gold. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OP wanted to know about coins that had been intended to be spent. I think several other countries' current gold coins are also technically legal tender. Tempshill (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One question could be: when did the price of gold rise to such an extent that making one that's worth its value would make it too small to be practical? (--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

This issue could be dodged by creating a gold coin that's about an ounce in weight and whose face value is, say, US$2,000. Tempshill (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a table of yearly gold prices. Seems like it started taking off around 1972. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps an additional condition should be some upper limit on face value. We don't normally have $2000 bills in circulation... When did a, say, penny-sized gold coin become more than, say, US$100 in value? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As to what Livewireo referred to, the Krugerrand is still a popular form of investment because they have no face value - thus they are, as legal tender, worth their weight. However, also because they have no face value, they are not regarded as currency. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are they legal tender at all? As you say, they aren't regarded as currency. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they are regarded as. If they are legal tender i.e. defined as in law as such, then they are legal tender and someone would have to accept them in payment for a debt in South African regardless of what they may think of them. Whether they are or not, I don't know but our article does say "The coins have legal tender status in South Africa but are not actually intended to be used as currency; thus it is regarded as a medal-coin." but it's unsourced Nil Einne (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gold had a fixed price of $35/toz until 1971 under the Bretton Woods system. Technically, the US also makes 1 oz gold coins with a face value of $50, but one would have to be insane to use it for a purchase at about 5% of its value. And while the question could be dodged by making a 1 toz coin with a face value of $2,000, are there any countries that actually did so? I am looking for a factual answer, not a hypothetical. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you find another country which meets your objective there is a reason why U.S. Gold and silver is sought after world wide and thats Trust.If tested, U.S. coins are what we say they are.Be careful with other purchases.

One other thing when compareing dollars to gold,its a sign of how strong the dollar is.Think what a ten dollar Gold coin would buy you in 1900 and look at what a 10$ bill will buy you now.A 10$ gold coin(if sold) will still get what it got you then or a lot closer to getting it anyway.The more money thats is on the streets the more things cost because if everyone has a pocket full of money they will not sell you anything at a bargain price.But if their money gets tight they will deal.

They use to have 1000$ bills but they say they can't make them anymore because it was to easy for someone with wealth to sneek to much money into a poor country, it messed up things some how or another undermining their currency or something, or possibly hiding it from taxes.And if some one could counterfiet a 1000$ bill that would be awful for the unsuspecting seller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prprd (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe most internationally recognised mints producing bullion are well trusted. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been some attempts to revive the Islamic gold dinar, largely unsuccessful however they have been produced. There is also odd private currencies like Liberty Dollar. I'm not sure if they ever issued coins (the picture shows some and the beginning mentions rounds but I don't see any mention if these were ever actually produced) although the currency is supposed to be backed by real metal.Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

BJP Anti-Sikh

Isn't Bharatiya Janata Party an Anti-Sikh? If they are, why do they need candidates in Punjab and Haryana in order win some in the parliament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the second sentence in Bharatiya Janata Party reads "[BJP is d]esigned to represent ... the Sikh population in nature", but I'll leave the question to someone familiar with India.F (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the BJP see Sikhism as being related to Hinduism, and has traditionally aimed to promote co-operation between the two religions (in contrast to its views on Christianity and, in particular, Islam). The party opposed the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, and there are BJP politicians who are Sikhs. Warofdreams talk 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bharatiya Janata Party is not involved in any anti-Sikh activities or propaganda. It is in an electoral alliance with the Shiromani Akali Dal which is a strongly theologically motivated Sikh political party in Punjab. However the BJP, and especially its parent organisation RSS often make pronouncements to the effect that Sikhism is a subset or sect of Hinduism, which many Sikhs resent as an attack on their independent identity and an attempt at assimilation. -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 21

Robert Mugabe's siblings

From this site, how many brother/sisters R.G. Mugabr have? How many sisters, how many brother. I hear two of them is decease. Total how many and what number is he in, is he 3d out of 6th sibling?--69.226.39.79 (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the site you have linked and to this one from the Biography Channel, Mugabe had three full brothers. The first two, Michael and Raphael, were older than he, and both died when he was quite young. The third brother, Donato, younger than Robert, lived at least until 2008. Robert Mugabe appears to have been the third child. There were sisters but I cannot find any substantive record of their number or their names, save for Sabina, who is MP for the Mugabe family's home area of Zvimba.

There is one site that says Mugabe was the second of five children at the time his father deserted his mother, but as three of the siblings' names are different from those given on two other sites and Donato, who lived long enough to be interviewed in your example, is not named at all, I have little confidence in its accuracy. It is the same site that claims Mugabe is actually a "foreigner" from Malawi, whose father's surname was really Matibili/Matabiri. This would be a very unhappy fact for Mugabe, if true, given Mugabe's attitude towards foreigners in Zimbabwe. // BL \\ (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms?

Medical questions deleted. What the heck is going on? Gothrokkprincess (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Reference Desk cannot give medical advice. Go and see a doctor. Tempshill (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Difference between Compatibilism and Pessimistic Incompatibilism

Is there a philosophical difference, or is it just a different definition of "free will"? — DanielLC 05:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Identity of murderers/criminals

Concerning the trial today about the murder of Baby P [2], I don't understand why the mother and her boyfriend (the murderer) cannot be identified (It says, "The mother, her boyfriend, who cannot be identified, and Jason Owen, a lodger at the house") although the lodger can be identified. - Is this common practice in British law or in other countries for this type of crime and will they remain unidentified this way forever? --AlexSuricata (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly common (extremely common for child defendants, although that isn't relevant here). If they were identified they would probably become the victims of "mob justice", whether the court found them innocent or guilty. If they are found not guilty then I doubt they would even be identified. If they are found guilty, I'm not sure. They might be identified and then given new identities if they are ever paroled. Our article, Death of Baby P, says that the name "James Owen" is an alias, so presumably he can't be identified either but has, for some reason, been given an alias rather than just being referred to as "the lodger". --Tango (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are other children involved in the extended family, and it's for their protection. As the lodger was only involved because he was the lodger, and therefore not a member of the extended family, the press ban did not apply to him. This will not always be the case, and these details will be released at some point in the future, however as the closure has been put into place to protect children it is likely to be years rather than months before any identifying information becomes public. -- role^player 15:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PS my understanding is that they have already been found guilty, and that today is sentencing. -- role^player 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also normal that there is often a ban on victims, especially child victims, being identified. Obviously this also prevents naming their relatives (since that would give the game away) and in the tragic case where the relatives are also the perpetrators has the unfortunate side-effect of meaning the perpetrators can't be named either. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This ban must be UK-specific. In the US, the only reason I know of that a person accused of a crime is not named is when the accused is a minor. (Or, I guess, more recently, when it's a super-secret terrorism case and the entire process is allowed by a judge to be sealed.) Open trials, and all that. On the other hand, victims are anonymized more often. Tempshill (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Minors are only not named if they are tried as minors. If they're tried as adults, they are named. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it is so Baby P can't be identified. SGGH ^ping! 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What would be the harm in identifying Baby P? He's dead. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's so that Baby P's siblings can't be identified. They've done nothing wrong and have a right to lead as normal a life as is possible in the circumstances. -- role^player 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The reporting restrictions are also intended to prevent prejudicing other trials; if the identities of the perpetrators were known, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a jury to hear a case objectively. There has already been one (so-far) further trial of "the boyfriend", who has been convicted in a separate case of raping a two-year-old child. For all we know, there could be other cases proceeding. RolandR 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a fairly common thing in a number of commonwealth countries. In NZ, a famous recent case was Louise Nicholas were the identities of the defendents was suppressed (two had been convinced of a another sexual assault) during her trial and this remained after the trial was over. This was broken (after the trial) by supporters, but they agreed to stop. I suspected at the time and was later proven correct that there were remaining charges. The legal principle I believe (which I agree with) is as you say, that it's difficult for a jury to be objective when they are aware of other convinctions which aren't judged sufficiently relevant or even other allegations. Supression orders may in fact include additional details which may idea result in the person/s involved being identified or which may unduly prejudice the trial (since the jury may read the details without the proper context or which is later ruled ineligible etc.) This principle doesn't appear to hold in the US due to their strong adherence to the right to free speech/the first amendment. In NZ, permanent name supression may be granted in some cases to protect other innocent victims or associated people particularly children (but also e.g. the spouse of someone convicted of domestic abuse); when the person is acquited as well as; and perhaps most controversially, when it's judged that the harm it will cause the person who was convincted is excessive in comparison to the crime committed and there is not sufficient public interest in the identity being known. In other words, it's a complicated balancing of factors which with any given outcome some people are not going to agree with. The internet age, making it easy for someone to search for details as well as enforcing supression orders is also changing things considerably Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddism in theWest: most common sect

What is the most common Buddist sect in the West?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked Buddhism in the West, Buddhism by country and Buddhism by region, and their sub-pages? The first of these does not specifically talk about any school of Buddhism, but claims:

Western Buddhism is almost entirely modernist, not traditionalist, skipping over the tradition to what it believes to be "original" Buddhism[9] borrowing, and modifying, Asian practices such as the sangha and meditation but largely ignoring ritual, faith, devotion, doctrine etc. Western Buddhism has been heavily influenced by the concepts of freethought and secular humanism.

Tempshill (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I already supposed that people in the West chose the most liberal variant. However, how liberal can you be and still be a Buddhist? Is simply meditating enough to be one?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We should make a distinction between immigrant and convert Buddhist communities in the West, as there is often not very much interaction between the two. Among immigrant communities, popularity of different Buddhist groups depends on the country of origin; for example, for people of East Asian descent Pure Land Buddhism is often popular, while Buddhists of Southeast Asian descent are Theravadin with rare exceptions. As for Western people who convert to Buddhism, the most popular branches are Zen (particularly the Japanese variety, but also the Chinese, Koreann, and Vietnamese—e.g. Thich Nhat Hanh—forms); Tibetan Buddhism (the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism seems to have a lot of followers in the West, but all of the four major schools are represented); and "vipassana" or "insight meditation", which is essentially an approach to Theravada Buddhism. Also, Sōka Gakkai, an organisation which promotes Japanese Nichiren Buddhism, has been by far the most successful Buddhist group at gaining followers in the West through active evangelism.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Modernisation/Westernisation and political spectrum

Do believers in Modernisation/Westernisation (the whole teleological national evolution to Western-style endpoints) have a political allegiance? Are such ideas leftist or rightest or is there no particular trend? SGGH ^ping! 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many sorts of believers in modernization and westernization; it depends on the nation and historical time period.

Lenin and Stalin were very into modernization and Industrialization of the Soviet Union while being communists. Often it is linked with the free market, and to that extent mirrors modern right-wing politics, and with free trade, which is more associated with the right than the left today (though there are some right-wing protectionists. China shows that modernization may or may not involve a respect for human rights (associated with liberalism and social democracy, though also to some extent with right-wing libertarianism). The debates over modernization/westernization don't line up along the traditional left/right divide (which is more about state ownership and control).

There's a lot of information on Wikipedia e.g. Economic reform in the People's Republic of China, Westernization, Cultural assimilation, Meiji Constitution (on Japan), History of the Republic of China (pre-communist), Economic history of India, and pages on many other countries, that may be useful. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Europhile Socialists?

I'm wondering if any of the smaller political parties in the UK, who are standing in the EU elections fulfil these criteria: (a) Socialist and (b) pro-Europe? The Socialist Labour party, who might otherwise get my vote, are standing on a platform of getting out of Europe. Any ideas? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google search for "pro-EU socialist" comes up with a few hits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish Socialist Party fulfil these criteria - see [3]. The Socialist Party of Great Britain aren't pro-EU, but they don't seem to be in favour of leaving the EU, either (this kind of position is quite characteristic of the party). Beyond that, I believe that Plaid Cymru is broadly pro-EU, and the Green parties and Labour Party are all pro-European and have some socialist members. Warofdreams talk 09:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these - if I can't find a SPGB candidate it'll have to be Green! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the Green's are pro-EU? I'd check that. 80.41.88.220 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They want to remain within the EU, so I'm counting that as pro-EU. They do have lots of criticisms of the EU, opposed the Treaty of Lisbon and oppose monetary union, but the same would go for the socialist groups which I have counted as being pro-EU. Warofdreams talk 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Relationship between "Mosaic" (tiles) and Moses (Biblical Prophet)?

In direct understanding, the word "Mosaic" would mean, "In the nature of Moses (the Hebrew Prophet)". It has been suggested, however, that the word "mosaic" in reference to Tile Art, is derived as a reference to the Greek "Muse" (Spirits of Inspiration to Artists). Is there any etomology relationship between the Tile Art "mosaic" and the Biblical Prophet, "Moses"? Just a curiosity. 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElleryPotash (talk • contribs)

According to Merriam-Webster, mosaic (n.), meaning small tiles, is from the word "museum", hence Latin and not Hebrew. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Greek and Hebrew words for a mosaic (Ψηφιδωτό and פסיפס, respectively; the latter reading "psifas") seem to be related to each-other but not to the English/Latin root. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are various opinions on the meaning of the name Moses. Our article indicates that it may be derived from the Egyptian root word "-mose" and was possibly linked with a proper name (as in Ra-mose = Ramses = son of Ra). When used as an adjective, as in Mosaic law or Mosaic authorship it does, of course, refer to Moses himself. I can find no reference giving any connection between the two, but a linguist may correct me.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above, Moses was really called "Moshe", which sounds nothing like mosaic. Most OT Biblical names you're familiar with are more anglicisations than transliterations - some other examples: Jacob is really Ya'akov, Eve is Chava, Isaac is Yitzchak, Jael is Yael, Solomon is Shlomo, Jesse is Yishai, Job is Iyuv, Elijah is Eliyahu etc etc. The one that for some reason irritates me most is Balaam, whose name was Bilam. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Landscape

Where is this background?68.148.149.184 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows Vista used Flickr images as its selection for desktops (http://blog.flickr.net/en/2007/01/30/a-key-benefit-of-vista/) though I can't see the photo you link to. I was hoping that the Flickr photo might have tags with more info on location/etc. ny156uk (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You can't see the photo I linked to? The link doesn't show a photo?68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant was "I can't see the photo you linked to in the list of photos from Flickr users." ny156uk (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be a fiord. Perhaps its Scandinavia or Iceland. Even if not a fiord, then the shape suggests it may have been formed by glacier action rather than erosion - but I'm only guessing. 78.146.162.232 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing resembling a fiord in the picture, only small ponds. It looks a lot like the view from the road between Hol and Aurland in the central mountainous part of southern Norway. If that's the case it's certainly no fiord, were at about 1000 meters above sea level. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's Summit Lake, Mt Evans, Colorado. See http://www.4x4offroads.com/image-files/mt-evans-colorado-p1020561.jpg Ericoides (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Straight ticket voting states

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is one of just a few states with straight ticket voting in general elections. There is a button or lever to vote for a party, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and not for the individual candidates. Consequently, many candidates are elected with very few votes for them in particular, just for their party in general.

My inquiry is what other states have this straight ticket voting choice. I think it is only a few others, but that is why I am asking. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Straight-ticket voting article, Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin allow straight ticket voting.Tobyc75 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In North Carolina, you must vote separately for President and then the straight-party vote for the rest of the political offices.--droptone (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Counting NC, that means 16 states with straight party voting, and 34 states without it. In Pennsylvania, there is a button for a straight ticket vote, but the voter can ignore that and vote for each candidate separately, or the voter can push the straight party button, and change individual office votes. This means that most winning candidates for public office don't receive very many votes at all, they win by being on the party slate. In Philadelphia, that means that Democrats almost always win, but upstate, there are counties where Republicans almost always win.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Largest Empire Ever

By area, as in square miles, of land covered only, which empire covered the most? Was it the British Empire or the Mongol Empire? I've had this conversation with a number of people and we've never come to an agreement. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See List of largest empires. Tempshill (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is mad. There is an article for everything! :) Thanks! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And might I say, that is a bloody excellent article! Very informative! Thanks for linking to that! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir!--Tango (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Listing the "virtual/emotional parent" in a wedding program

I guess this *could* have been humanities, but ths still seemed best. Anyway, a discussion about some teens our group has helps - including ones with absent parents - brought to my mind a question.

Is there a set way to list someone on a wedding program who has been "just like a mother/father" to the bride or groom? It's easy, I suppose, with a relative - if Aunt/Uncle X or older sibling Y raised you, they can easily be listed at the top and will probably be best man/maid of honor/giving away the bride. But, what about the best friend's parent who was always there to support the kid who hung out at her friend's house all the time, or someone like that?

I suppose perhaps a page saying, "We happily dedicate this wedding to 'x'" and why would work, but would it be considered too tacky or anything? Is there a special designation that is used? Can you really list, instead of "father of the bride," something like, "Emotional father" in their place? Thanks.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If "father of the bride" is a role rather than a blood relationship, and the presence of a program seems to suggest this, you could name anyone at all beside the designation. Of course, if there is a blood father and he is both present in the bride's life and in the ceremony, it might cause some emotional upheaval to appoint someone else. The "virtual" father can always be effusively thanked as a part of the speechmaking. It is likely he is aware of his influence and also unlikely he would expect to upstage any blood relatives at such an event. Whatever is kind is usually the best way to go. // BL \\ (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is the father of the bride that is being replaced then you could describe the replacement in terms of their role in the wedding ("Giving the bride away: X" or "Walking the bride down the aisle: X" or words to that effect). Other parents are a little more difficult since they don't have well defined roles. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Describing someone by their role is probably ideal. Most people will understand the nature of the relationship from their being in the role. If someone is giving the bride away, it shows that the relationship is fatherly. If the father of the bride is also present, but not in that role, it shows the change of responsibility. If the bio-father is not present, especially if he is not a feature in the bride's life, listing a person as "Father" of the bride would be easily permissible. This would be perhaps out of place in a particularly formal wedding, or if the biological father were present. Steewi (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It would seem very weird to me for the biological father to be present but not give the bride away. --Tango (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The biological father may have only been recently revealed. I do know of one wedding where the bride had been adopted as a newborn. She located her birth parents about a year before she married. All four parents attended the wedding, but the biological parents were only guests, not active particiants. Any "family" combination we can imagine has likely been played out by someone, somewhere. // BL \\ (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

True, I should have said "legal father", not "biological". I forgot about adoption! --Tango (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, being an attorney, I can tell you you get some real messes when it comes to combinations of biological, natural, adoptive, and so on fathers. Anyway, thanks for all the help!Somebody or his brother (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

May 22

paul Biya's first wife

C.C. How old was Paul Biya's first wife Jeanne-Irène Biya die. Few years late, Paul Biya marry Chantal Biya, a white women from France. Was Jeanne Biya, Paul's first black wife under 60 or over 60 when she die. What was marial date of both black and white wife?--69.226.39.79 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Paul marry his first wife in 1960, then she is probably no younger than DOB in 1940, the most smart estimate is she is born in range of 1937-1939, then she is in her lower 50s when she die.--69.226.39.79 (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re the marital dates, our article Paul Biya says"Paul Biya married Chantal Biya on 23 April 1994". This news website says Paul Biya and Jeanne-Irene Atyam were married on September 2, 1961.

Re the ages, our article Chantal Biya says she was born in 1971. (NB: the article also says she was born in Cameroon, not France, and that only her father is French while her mother is Cameroonian.) This article says Jeanne-Irène Biya was born in 1935 and our article Jeanne-Irène Biya says she "died on 29 July 1992". So she was 56 or 57 when she died, depending on when her birthday was. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arduin of Irvea's wife

Who was she? All I got was that it was some lady name Berta from the Italian wikipedia. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) La discendenza di Arduino d'Ivrea e Berta degli Obertenghi originò i diversi rami dei conti del canavese; tra queste le antiche famiglie:

Google says she is "of the Obertenghi", "of Luni", "of Lorraine", "of Ivrea", etc. We do, at least, have an article on the Obertenghi. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't read Italian, but the first hit here might say she was the daughter of Oberto II? (who was a younger son of Oberto I, we say, though Oberto II is still a red link). WikiJedits (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Utilitarianism and Human Nature

According to utilitarianism, is human nature good or evil? What do utilitarians think about the belief and idea that humans are born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that an individual's use of utilitarianism requires him to believe this, or disbelieve this. By the way, after reading your last three questions on this subject — have you read through the State of nature article? It (and Human nature) seem to lead to many related articles that I think you will find interesting. Tempshill (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read them before I asked all those questions. Can you please just give me an answer now?

Bowei Huang (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of your questions share a certain common trend: you don't seem to have considered or accepted that beyond a certain point, you can't really make sweeping statements about specific religious beliefs or philosophies, such as "this is what utilitarians think about the human nature", because such concepts are extraneous to the tenets of that religious belief or philosophy. I think that's precisely the case here: you can have a multitude of opinions about human nature and how it is affected by corrupt society without it having any kind of impact at all on the basic tenets of that idea.

Also, you should understand that utilitarianism (just to pick it as an example) differs a great deal from organized religion. If you compare it to Catholic Church, it's certainly true that they both address questions of ethics and morals, but utilitarianism has no organization and no rules. It has no dogma. The Catholic Church, by comparison, has a pretty rigid set of beliefs and tenets, which are shared (at least in theory) by its members. Accordingly, in certain areas, you can make fairly sweeping statements about Catholics -- I mean, you can say that "all Catholics believe in transubstantation", although even that's inaccurate, because all Catholics don't believe in it. But at least they are expected to believe in it and probably pretend that they do, at least if they're active within the church, because the Catholic Church has a lot of rules, traditions, beliefs and tenets that the members try to follow. But that kind of thinking doesn't really apply to utilitarians, because beyond the basic concepts (such as "we should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number of people") there exists a vast field of different (but not necessarily incompatible) opinions and views which are all still recognizably utilitarian. I mean, there's no Grand Council of Utilitarianism that decides what's right and what's wrong: there are, at best, people who present reasoned arguments one way or the other (or get into drunken late night conversations) about the subject.

And finally, you're probably not a utilitarian to the exclusion of everything else. You could well be a utilitarian Catholic, for example; chances are that it's not going to cause a great deal of conflict. If that is the case, your Catholic beliefs will probably influence your view of humans being born good (since the Catholic view is, essentially, that humans are all born "bad", or at least sinful, and it takes constant work to get away from that initial state).

The point is, you're asking a question which has no real answer. The realities and rules of the philosophies and religious you are interested in are far more fluid than you seem to think. (Also, I believe this has been mentioned before, but when you say things like "can you please just give me an answer now", you should understand that nobody is withholding anything from you. He did give you an answer. Obviously, it's not what you wanted to hear, but it's pretty much the same answer I just gave you -- just much shorter.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament

Sinn Féin members don't take their seats in Parliament, so what kind of "parliamentary business" do they perform? F (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an excellent question. You'd have to ask them. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Féin members have offices at Westminster and presumably they still perform all the duties and activities of an MP that don't actually require them to swear the Oath of Allegiance. As I understand it, they don't object to participating in the activities of the House of Commons, only to swearing allegiance to the Queen. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Féin have documented all of the expenses claimed for here BigDunc^Talk 20:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

European Hockey Skate Manufacturers

Are there any European hockey skate manufacturers?68.148.149.184 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If so, what are they?68.148.149.184 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Graf are a Swiss skate manufacturer, founded in Kreuzlingen. ny156uk (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh also Reebok is, historically at least, from Bolton and I think RBK stuff is popular in hockey. ny156uk (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I had Jofa skates when I grew up. Jørgen (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bills Signed Into Law By U.S. Presidents

Anyone know where I could find a list of the number of bills signed into law by each U.S. President during each of their terms? I'm curious to see the trend of legislation over the history of the country (would make a cool wiki table as well).TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where to find a list, but U.S. public laws are numbered by term of Congress, so in concept it shouldn't be too hard to just look at the highest-numbered public law each term. For example, the highest-numbered public law in the 110th term (2007 - 2008) was Public Law 110-460, so there were 460 public laws for that two-year period. Recent public laws are online, but I don't know of a similar way to access older public laws. If you have access to a good library, though, you could just look at Statutes at Large, which collects U.S. public laws. John M Baker (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the statutes at large are exactly what you want, since many of the public laws aren't going to affect the statutes, nor do many of them affect it (although am I confusing the statutes at large with the U.S. Code?; I understand they're different, but not quite public laws either). The Fed Reporter might have these actually, although I'm not at all sure about that. If I remember right, I've found books of them that were just labeled "Public laws", and these should be at any U.S. Federal Depository library (usually law schools). Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've still not located what the OP requested, but I did come across its opposite. Here is a list of how many bills each president vetoed, and how many of those vetoes were overridden. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Shadowjams may indeed be confusing Statutes at Large with the U.S. Code, which is the codification of U.S. federal law. Statutes at Large compiles the actual Acts of Congress, both Public Laws and Private Laws. (Private Laws affect only individual persons or institutions and typically are enacted to grant citizenship by Act of Congress.) It turns out that copies of Statutes at Large are available online, except for the 1925 - 1994 period, see the sources linked from the Wikipedia article. If a library is available, though, that would probably be easier to use than those pre-1925 sources. However, it seems that the practice of numbering Public Laws began only in 1957, according to our article on Act of Congress, so it would not be as easy as I thought to get numbers prior to then (i.e., actual counting would be required). John M Baker (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Baker's right, although I wasn't confusing statutes at large with the U.S. Code. I was mistaken about the "public laws", partially too because the Statutes at Large should include public as well as private laws. As for their legal effect, this is probably the most authoritative and explanatory source (skip to part 3 of souter's opinion) [4] United States Nat'l Bank of Ore. v. Independent Ins. Agents (92-484), 508 U.S. 439 (1993). Also, if you have access, take a look at 22 Minn. L. Rev. 1008. Finally, this link [5] is the most comprehensive explanation of how the federal laws are published (since 1789). Shadowjams (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The OP did ask for "signed into law", and the only domestic law is going to be in the statutes at large. However executive orders are also laws, and they don't require congressional action (at least not in the same way), so the OP, maybe unwittingly, asked for a much larger set of data than the Statutes at large provides. Shadowjams (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party Buddhism Zoroastrianism Jainism

I already know that Bharatiya Janata Party are Pro-Sikh due to fact that Sikhism is related to Hinduism and they (BJP) opposed to 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, but what about BJP being anti-Zoroastrian, anti-Buddhist and anti-Jain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.206 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of curious as to why you so often ask questions which seek to fill in all the cells in some big abstract matrix? (I.e. the policies of each of the entities A, B, C, D, and E with respect to each of the groups #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, or whatever.) Often, the state of the real world is such that many of the questions in the theoretical hypothetical matrix are in fact rather meaningless and irrelevant -- while if the questions in the matrix are all valid, then it would often take a huge research project (beyond the normal Wikipedia Ref. Desk efforts) to answer all of them adequately.

However, in this particular case I have the impression that BJP is suspicious and distrustful of those religions that lower-caste Hindus are converting to in significant numbers (i.e. Buddhism and Christianity) while probably not feeling too threatened by the numerically tiny and decreasing group of Parsis in India... AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What I find a little disturbing about this series of questions is that they are not neutral. If you had asked "What position do the BJP take with regard to Sikhs, Christians etc?" the questions might or might not have clear answers, but they read as reasonable questions. But because you are asking whether they are "anti-Sikh" etc, I read the questions as suggesting that you are looking to support some strongly held view (though I don't know what that view might be). --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's use of the GFDL

This is an honest question for the Reference Desk, and not a soapbox post. It is also not a legal advice question, as I am not contemplating a lawsuit. I will point to this RD question from the Computing desk as well, since it deals with the GFDL and GPL.

Background 1: When a Wikipedia editor makes any change to an article, he is told that he irrevocably agrees to license his contributions under the GFDL, which a footnote expands to, "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation...."

Background 2: The text of the GFDL 1.2 says that if the license says or any later version, then "you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or any later version that has been published" by the FSF.

Background 3: The FSF created GFDL 1.3 in November 2008 with a new "Relicensing" section that says that any site like Wikipedia can, at any time before August 1, 2009, "republish" all its content under the CC-by-SA Creative Commons license. The Wikimedia Foundation board proposed that Wikipedia invoke this new rule.

Background 4 (which prompted the question): About 75% of the 17,462 votes cast on the matter voted to approve this change.

My question: Since the Wikipedia editor is the licensor, and since the licensor has the option of choosing either (a) GFDL 1.2 or (b) a later version of the GFDL, what is the legal theory that grants the Wikimedia Foundation the ability to decide for all Wikipedia editors that all their previous contributions fall under version 1.3? One item in the FAQ basically says "We believe this is legal because CC-by-SA is in the same spirit as the GFDL", but my question is about the legal theory and not a question of the practical consequences of this (probably benign) change.

The question is important to me because it seems to me that this is a change in licensing terms that was made unilaterally after the fact, and if this is legally sound, then it does not seem to me that it's dissimilar from Microsoft or Adobe changing their EULA after I start using their shrinkwrapped, offline software. All they would have to do is have the EULA state that I agree to use "version 1.2 of this EULA, or later", and under the same principle, Microsoft or Adobe would be able to make whatever arbitrary licensing change they would want to, without my having agreed to this license. If anyone can point to any real-world cases where a retroactive, unilateral licensing change like this has been held to be legal, I'd appreciate it. Tempshill (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If the newer, later version of the license had some practical consequence, then a lengthy legal battle could either null it or the original license agreement's later version clause. There is a lot of legalese which is intentionally left open (think about every time a contract is between a party or its agent). In the event of a major change to the license, any reasonable legal expert would agree that a method exists to anull the original "or later" clause to invalidate new terms that were not originally agreed to. Nimur (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand - it's not the licensor that decides which version, but the licensee. The WMF is a licensee, so can choose to use the later version and, in doing so, relicense the content under CC-BY-SA. There have been some questions about whether such on "or later" clause is legal in all jurisdictions, but it doesn't appear to be legal in the US, which is the law the WMF worries about. --Tango (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect, actually. When I contribute to an article, I am releasing the contribution under the GFDL; in other words, licensing it; in other words, I am the licensor. Just as the authors of the Linux kernel are licensors of the kernel under GPL 2. Anyone who downloads and uses the Linux kernel is a licensee, meaning they have to abide by the licensing agreement. Under GFDL 1.2, the licensor is supposed to choose "1.2 only" or "1.2 or any later version" (as per "Background 2", above). The WMF, upon receipt of the contribution, is merely a licensee. Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it incorrect when what you've said is entirely consistent with it? --Tango (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think essentially it comes down to whether the change renders the original agreement unconscionable. Wikipedia contributors have in fact agreed to release under any later version - it's not like there has been a change to their agreement after the fact, it's just that the later version (explicitly anticipated by the release) has come into being. In my mind, it's just a matter of whether the initial agreement (as seen through the lens of subsequent events) is so ridiculously one-sided and horrible that a court wouldn't honor it. In my mind, there doesn't seem to be any problem here. The essential point of the CC-by-sa license is to allow broad redistribution under a viral license, same with the GFDL. If the FSF released a version of the license saying something like "all copyrights are transferred exclusively to FSF/Microsoft/whatever" I think this would clearly make the "or later version" clause unconscionable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that unconscionability would be an easy determining factor if the licensor (or the third party controlling the "or later" license) were to abuse the situation. I disagree with your second sentence because of my background point #2 above. Wikipedia editors have not explicitly agreed to release under any later version, as the text of GFDL 1.2 makes clear. They each have the option, with every single edit, of choosing "GFDL 1.2" or "GFDL 1.2 or later". Wikipedia has never included this choice in its user interface, of course, so the choice on every single edit is unknowable. Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you three for your feedback. It confirms for me that the retroactive change to the license of all previous Wikipedia contributions is invalid, which to me shows the WMF and the FSF in a bad light; but, being pragmatic, I doubt that anyone could prove any damages; if there had been damages, then it sounds like unconscionability would unfortunately be the default way to challenge such a change. Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that actual damages would not be necessary for a decent payoff. If Wikipedia is using your work without your permission (i.e. violating the license terms) it's copyright infringement. The US provides hefty statutory damages for copyright infringement, even in the absence of any actual damages. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "the licensor has the option of choosing either (a) GFDL 1.2 or (b) a later version of the GFDL", which is false, as Tango pointed out. The intent of the licensing agreement is and always has been that all contributors multilicense their work under GFDL 1.2 and all later versions. That is how the GPL and GFDL usually work; the suggested boilerplate at the end of the licenses themselves makes that clear. When they write "you have the option...", "you" refers to the licensee. One could argue that the wording chosen by Wikipedia was confusing—it seems to have confused you—but you can't seriously believe that Wikipedia would allow each editor to choose a different license and yet not even provide a way to indicate which license they chose. How the heck would anyone be able to use Wikipedia content? Under the intersection of version 1.2 and all possible later versions? No, everyone licenses under the same terms, and those terms are the union of version 1.2 and all later versions. That was in fact the intent, and it's also the only interpretation that makes any sense. -- BenRG (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct! BenRG, your message forced me to reread everything in a different light. Apologies for my confusion. I had somehow been reading the license agreement as instructions for the licensor. My revised conclusion is that the "republish" clause of GFDL 1.3 is valid and that we're all mildly crazy to agree to release our contributions under a license that can be changed at any time by another party without our consent; and that indeed the only defense we have against this or future FSF licensing revisions we disagree with is to gamble that a court might agree the revisions are unconscionable. Thank you all! Tempshill (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A new version wouldn't have to be unconscionable to be invalid, just "not in the same spirit". The license includes that restriction on the FSF. --Tango (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there, that's another contractual restraint on their ability to release new licenses. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

does anything you whip pass the sound barrier?

I heard the characteristic whipping sound is from the tip passing the sound barrier... is this true for anything you whip with a loud "crack", even a big towel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.76.231 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No. When you flick a towel the sound is from the towel hitting itself. The tip of a whip moves so quickly because it is tapered, the momentum of the part of the whip moving stays constant but the tapering means the mass reduces, that means the speed has to increase. --Tango (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

PS You probably wanted to post this to the Science desk, this is the Humanities desk. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely clear at all. See This Straight Dope article that links to This research project where a group of students at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics prove that it's entirely possible to flip a towel-like piece of cloth super-sonic, and that it creates a satisfying "crack" noise when it happens. APL (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of those results. There doesn't seem to be a realistic mechanism for achieving such high velocity since the towel isn't tapered. --Tango (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who's tried it knows that to "crack" a towel, it's vital that you roll it so that the "popper" end of the makeshift whip is a corner. If you roll it up like that, there's significantly less mass at that end. (Properly rolled, the tip should be only one thickness of cloth)APL (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never really tried it, myself, certainly not enough to have learnt the technique! So the tip is narrowing to a corner and has a reducing number of layers? I suppose that might be enough tapering for it to work... We would need somewhat more reliable evidence than that high school project, though. --Tango (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Scientists never answer the questions I want them to research. I suppose it's probably hard to get grants for towel-cracking research. Anyone here have access to some high speed cameras? And some towels? APL (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Big Brother / Police State developments in the United Kingdom

Is there an article anywhere that lists all the surveillance and centralised record keeping that has been developing in Britain over the last few years? For example this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/8064333.stm , identity cards, local goverment CCTV, the government monitoring of emails which was almost implemented, probably other things. It would be nice to keep tabs on them and see how Brtain compares with other countries, and with itself in the past. An aside - the identity cards iris scans can be used to monitor the movements of people in the same way that number plates will be monitored, since I read a few years ago that even motorist's irises can be scanned by laser at 50mph. 89.242.85.248 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Back in Margaret Thatcher's day, people used to be worried about big brother at GCHQ Cheltenham, but it was the numerous "little brothers" (in the form of automated surveillance by numerous local police agencies, city departments, and private corporations) which seem to have turned out to be most intrusive... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Open Rights Group is one starting point. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this mask called?

A woman in a mask in Nizwa's goat market

I'm not sure what you would call this mask. Seems like a lot of women in Oman wear them. This article makes it seem like it's a Bedouin thing ("Bedouin women in frightening, beak-like masks sell goats" - referring to this market). And this natl geographic photo of a woman from the same town wearing the same thing says she's a Bedouin. I've found references elsewhere to face masks that Bedouin women wear called al-battoulah and betula (presumably spelling variants) but I'm not having much luck with my searching (haven't come up with photos to confirm if that's what this is). The national geographic article calls it burqa but that seems just like a general term - is that really the most specific word out there? And if it is how is it different from betula? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Batūl بتول is the Arabic word for "virgin" (not sure if that's relevant). Otherwise I can't really find it in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (but of course there are a lot of colloquial dialect words not listed in that book)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Burqa is the general term for any veil and batula/betula is the specific term used in Oman and the south of Iran, derived from the Arabic word for "virgin." --Omidinist (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My last post was removed, because someone took offence to me saying that the person in the picture did not look like a virgin. I was referring to the fact that black is not used for virgins. It is used for widows or married women. Stop being so sensitive, people! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, the Western cultural association of white with female virginity didn't really take hold in a major consistent way in English-speaking societies until the year 1840, and it's been growing ever more archaic since the 1960's -- not to mention that other cultures have significantly different color associations (for example, in China white was traditionally the color of funeral mourning), so your comment was rather parochially ethnocentric at best. AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention white? Of course I didn't. I merely said black was the colour for married women and widows. Check it out yourself. You'll see what I mean. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of black is often defined in polarized contrast to the meaning of white (as you seemed to be implying). In any case, such associations are often much more culturally-dependent and historically ephemeral than you seem to imagine... AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I lived in Bahrain, and ever since then over the course of my work as a translator (not Arabic, though!) I have had extensive contact with clients from the Middle East. I have also been so bold on occasion as to ask them about their culture, as I am interested. One of the questions I have asked many times (as the answer is always slightly more enlightening than the answer before) is about female clothes, and about what colours represent what. The question about black has, in every case, been a resounding affirmation of my previous post. I did not imply anything about white, or anything else ethnocentric. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's nice -- in Iran both married and unmarried woman alike frequently wear black overcoverings; while in English-speaking societies, any moderately strong and consistent association between black clothes (as worn by women not in mourning) and married status was pretty much confined to the Victorian period. Meanwhile, your original (deleted) comment made little sense, unless it implicitly referred to the conventional (but now growing somewhat obsolescent) Western association of white with virginity). AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not getting through to you, as you don't seem to understand the words 'I did not imply anything about white'. Let's close this here, as any further explanation will be just as much as waste of time as it has been already. PS Certain comments below seem pejorative to me, and serve no purpose. Would you like to delete them, too?) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything in this thread; however, I fully agreed with the deleter that what you thought was funny was in fact not funny. AnonMoos (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the stiffened blinder down the center to keep the woman from looking sidelong? Is she wearing a bridle beneath? --Wetman (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Dunno if this is silly but if shes from Oman maybe shes wearing it to protect herself from the sun? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Try sartorial hijab -- maybe their talkpage can help. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So how does this work on Facebook? 86.4.190.83 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

May 23

Inconsistency in the European title of (hereditary) "Prince"

As the eldest son of the British monarch is titled Prince (of Wales) whereas the other sons are merely given ducal titles, I assume that the title of (hereditary) Prince is higher than the title of Duke in Britain. In Germany the title "Fürst" (the equivalent to hereditary prince) is ranked behind the title of Duke. The Principalities of Liechtenstein and Monaco both list ducal titles as subsidiary titles whereas their main title is a princely one, seemingly indicating ducal titles to be inferior to the title of hereditary prince in their respective countries too. It seems the German language is superior to the language of the English insofar as they have separate words for the two different types of princes: "Prinz" for the title given to the sons of monarchs etc and "Fürst" for the hereditary prince. So really my question is, are my thoughts on this subject correct, and if not please relieve me of my ignorance! :) --217.84.184.38 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Swedish language also have two different words: Prins and Furste; Prins (or prinsessa) is the son of a king, and Furste could be either a specific title, or a name for a royal person as a whole. A monarch is never called Prins, but Furste, and a principality is called furstendömme, so there is a difference between a prins, who is always the title of a son of a monarch, and furste, a title for a monarch. --85.226.42.9 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But I think the first misperception of which to be relieved, is that one language is superior to another. This is like saying the planet Venus is superior to Neptune.--Wetman (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's only superior in a very narrow context, but I think a language that can distinguish two ideas is superior (more useful for communicating ideas, which is the purpose of language) to one that can't. One could argue that showing the relationship between related ideas is more important that distinguishing them, but I would disagree. --Tango (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Britain doesn't have any hereditary princes. Any son of a monarch is a prince (as is the husband of a queen regnant, although I'm not sure if that is automatic or has to be granted), although they are often given duchies as well (which they use as their normal styles). The title Prince of Wales isn't inherited, it has to be granted by the monarch to each person that holds it. The current Prince of Wales is also Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (as most recent Princes of Wales have been, although technically it is up to the monarch), but Prince of Wales takes precedence and is the style generally used (although Duke of Rothesay is commonly used in Scotland, since it is his Scottish title). Grandsons of a monarch, through the male-line, are also princes, although they are "HRH Prince So-and-so of X" rather than "HRH The Prince X" as sons of a monarch are. See British prince for more details. --Tango (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, husband of a queen regnant is not automatically a prince. The husband of Her Present Majesty was created Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957 (five years after she became queen). The eldest son of the British monarch always holds a dukedom and a duchy - Duchy of Cornwall and Dukedom of Rothesay, as well as an earldom. The other sons of the monarch can be given dukedoms of their own, but that's not automatic. Every son of the British monarch, as well as every son of the monarch's son, is a Prince of the United Kingdom. A prince of the United Kingdom ranks higher than a duke in the United Kingdom. However, a prince of the United Kingdom who is also Duke of Something ranks higher than a prince of the United Kingdom who holds no dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

@Tango: How about when a language cannot avoid making a distinction which another language doesn't make? H B Casimir, wrote in "When does jam become marmalade" (in the wonderful book 'A Random Walk in Science', edited by Robert L Weber and E Mendoza) about his bemusement, as a Dutchman, when he heard a 'very English lady' in a hotel in Turkey reject a huge variety of different conserves because "they are jam, and we don't have jam for breakfast". His point in retailing this story is that the English distinction between jam and marmalade is strange and confusing to him; and similarly English in lacks a word corresponding to German 'Wissenschaft' (and similar terms in other languages), and insists on a division between science and other fields of study. --ColinFine (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Marmalade is different from jam, so it is useful to have different words. What does "Wissenschaft" mean? Wiktionary translates it as "science", with an etymology which translates to knowledge-ship (would that be "philosophy" (the original meaning)?). --Tango (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I always had thought that the only real difference between jam and marmalade was that the latter is made with citrus fruits. Orange jam or grapefruit preserves would be just a useful a terminology as orange marmalade or grapefruit marmalade. However, Marmalade says that it can also be made from strawberries. So, what then is the difference between strawberry jam and strawberry preserve and then between either or both of them and strawberry marmalade? (Perhaps this should be on the Languag Ref Desk, but, as it started here, I shall leave it here. If someone feels strongly enough to move it, s/he has my permission to do so.) // BL \\ (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that English (actually, some varieties of English) make a distinction which is hard to define objectively (as Bielle indicates) but has social consequences, as Casimir's anecdote illustrates. Does that mean that (those varieties of) English are superior? The point about Wissenschaft is that it doesn't mean 'science' (Naturwissenschaft), nor does it mean 'philosophy'. Probably the closest English word is 'scholarship', but that has the wrong connotations as well. The point is that it is a meaning of which 'science' is a limited part. So English makes a distinction (which makes it superior by your argument) but lacks a term which translates the superordinate term from German, Dutch, Swedish. --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the word correctly, Wissenschaft is the same as the old meaning of philosophy. In contemporary English, I might say "academic study" or "academia", it would depend a little on context. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, marmalade has bits in, jam is pretty much homogeneous (it may have small bits in, but not the long strips of peel you would find in marmalade). --Tango (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all a bit arbitrary, isn't it. What we call "marmalade" could have been called "orange jam", but the term "marmalade" has stuck. The fact that it includes strips of peel doesn't mean it's not a type of jam. On that basis, all marmalades are types of jam, but not all jams are marmalades. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

famous last words.--Radh (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In Germany, one has to distinguish between ruling titles and honorary titles. In England, basically all titles except King/Queen have been honorary only for a long time, so the distinction makes little sense. In Germany, until 1918, there were various little monarchies with their little rulers -- hence the ruling titles. The sons of the rulers got honorary titles. Unlike in England, basically all titles were hereditary, including honorary ones. So, the Prince of Liechtenstein (one of the two or three German-speaking monarchies that are left) considers Prince a more important title than Duke, because Prince is his ruling title, whereas the Liechtensteinian dukes are only honorary titles.

German Fürst is special insofar as it does not really signify a rank -- in the Holy Roman Empire, a Fürst was anyone who ruled a state, irrespective of rank. But it came into use as a ruling title for those rulers whose actual ruling title was very low -- usually, count or below.

In England, the title Prince of Wales is special because it is the only title not held by the king/queen that originally designated a foreign sovereign... whereas all the dukes and earls have always been subordinate to the king/queen. Thus it serves as a reminder of the English annexation of Wales and can't really be compared in rank to other English titles -- it's a Welsh title, after all. --Chl (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lalla Salma of Morocco

I know she is not queen. But I have heard, that they were discussions about giving her such a title. But if there is no such tradition, how could that title have been discussed, if it does not excist in this country? Or have there been a queen before? Does Morocco have this title?--85.226.42.9 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not read my explanation of the basic traditional situation in a number of historical Muslim middle-eastern societies here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_March_9#What_is_the_female_form_of_the_Kayser-i-R.C3.BBm.3F -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your general point, (and your explanation of the matter is very good!) but these three questions, especially the two below, are rather more specific: the first question about Morrocoo, and the two following below are about these two people in particular: in the 1930s, muslim countries adopted more western ideas and allowed the queens a more active part, I believe. --85.226.42.9 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevance to your questions is that it means that the adoption of a publicly-prominent queen-consort type role in Muslim middle-eastern societes has generally been relatively recent, and under European influence. In the late 1970's, Queen Noor of Jordan and the Shah's wife were the only ones prominent in Western newspaper accounts; not sure how much further back than that it goes (unless you count Rita Hayworth as the wife of Islamic royalty!)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they were Tadj ol-Molouk and Soraya Tarzi, who showed themselwes in public withouth a veil in the 1920s and 1930s. Who was the first Egyptian queen with such a role? Perhaps Farida? I do not know. And was Reza Shah married to several women at the same time when he was king, regardless of their role? I do not know. --85.226.42.9 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen Zein al-Sharaf Talal of Jordan also seem to have played an important part as a public person, but if she actually showed herself withouth a veil in a gender-mixed company is not clear. --Aciram (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen Farida of Egypt

Was she confined to the palace, or did she have any official tasks in society? Her predecessor seem to have been isolated from public society to merely female company.--85.226.42.9 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Queens of Reza Shah

The article of him names several wifes, but I think tjis is a little unclear: only one of them, Tadj ol-Molouk, has an article here, and in his article, she is said to have been divorced before he became a monarch, and in her article, (as well as out on the net), she is said to have been his queen... Who was he married to when he was king? Did he perhaps have several wifes at the same time? Who had the position of queen? I believe this queen would be the first to have an official role in Iran, and to show herself without a veil? Can anyone clearify this? --85.226.42.9 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Language of Haakon VII of Norway

Last night I read about Haakon VII of Norway, who was born Prince Carl of Denmark and assumed the Norwegian throne when he was 33 years old, shortly after the dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. Did he speak the Norwegian language before his accession to the throne? I am really using Haakon as a specific example—I assume that similar events have happened many times throughout European history (a royal member from one country becoming the monarch of a different country that speaks a different language), and I wonder how the language issue is usually worked out. Since Haakon enjoyed great popularity in Norway, I assume he learned to speak Norwegian at some point, right? —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The term "Norwegian language" is a very loaded term in this context, since there was "Dano-Norwegian" (later standardized in modified form as Bokmål) and dialect Norwegian (standardized as Nynorsk) -- that's why Norway has two official languages to this day. In the last half century, the tendency has been to try to bring the varieties closer together (where possible), but from what I understand, in 1905 they were still very different. Einar Haugen wrote some interesting works in English about the Norwegian language struggle... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A native Norwegian has no trouble understanding Danish if spoken not too fast and with a mainstream dialect. I think he started out speaking Danish and put some effort into modifying this towards Norwegian over time. I think in later radio speeches (from the war, for example), he speaks Norwegian with a clearly notifyable Danish accent (though it would probably sound just like Norwegian to a Dane...) Though children often switch between closely related languages, most adult people I've met who moved from one Scandinavian country to the other after they grew up often maintain just "one" language, which they modify towards their "new" country over time (somewhat like a Brit moving to the US, I would assume, though Norwegian and Danish are more different than US/British English is) Jørgen (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Roman mosaics pattern

Surely I'm not the first to notice this:

• 
  Ancient Roman mosaic with a striped cat attacking a bird on top and two ducks on the bottom. (In Rome's Palazzo Massimi alle Terme).
• 
  Ancient Roman mosaic with a striped cat attacking a chicken on top and two ducks on the bottom. (In the Vatican Museums).
• 
  Ancient Roman mosaic with a striped cat attacking a chicken on top and two ducks on the bottom. (In the Naples National Archaeological Museum).

Does this little pattern have a name? An origin? Or has no one noticed until just now? Wknight94 ^talk 20:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Roman mosaicists worked in groups called studios, they consisted of a master or foreman and several assistants. The master was generally the owner of a book of pre-defined sketches of various mosaics called models. A homeowner would then choose from this book and the master would start laying the important of difficult parts of the mosaic. His assistants would then finish the work. Looking at many different mosaics from the entire Roman empire, it can be seen that sometimes different studios worked on the pavement of a larger estate and exchanged or copied the sketches thus bringing famous motives to other parts of the country. You can find identical mosaics in Rome and in Northern Africa. Does this answer your question? --Gnom (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Something else: Mosaics of household animals (cats or dogs) are common in the entrance areas of Roman houses and mosaics like the ones here are likely to be found on the floor or at the wall of a kitchen entrance. --Gnom (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating! Just like designers coming to your house today - 2,000 years later - with a book of designs to choose from. Thanks for the quick response! Wknight94 ^talk 22:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a look in google images and the bird the cat is attacking is described as a quail. It is a bit strange, why isn't a single integrated picture shown? I get the feeling there may be some word play going on. 22:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The motives for the mosaics was most often taken from Hellenistic paintings, and thus are probably of a somewhat older origin than the mosaics themselves. The wealthy Romans were extremely aware of trends of fashion, and some motives were more popular at certain times than others (for example Alexandrian motives of the Nile with various animals like hippopotamuses were very popular in the 1st century AD). It seems it is the case with this particular example. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture containing 3-D objects

What would you call a 3 dimensional picture that you would hang on a wall. For example a display of real butterflies in a picture frame behind glass that is then put up on a wall. It might be 6 inches wide by 12 inches long by 1 inch thick. Behind the glass in that 1 inch depth is the real butterflies (dead of course) on pins. This idea verses just a normal 2 dimensional picture illustration of a photograph of butterflies. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This site just calls them displays or frames. This one calls them displays. Tempshill (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I know them as "box frames" [6], although the phrase can mean more than just the frames for mounting three-dimensional objects. // BL \\ (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've heard shadowboxes for things like these Library Seraph (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Diorama? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Display case? Specimen case? 3D display? Physical specimens versus reproductions? I don't think you need further terminology, though in art you have collage, reliefs, friezes, and sometimes wall sculpture[7] (the works of Max Ernst which are commonly described as collage[8] or reliefs[9], e.g. Fruits of a Long Experience[10] are relevant).--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Art

Looking for a nice 16th century Venetian landscape painting, other than The Tempest. Any ideas? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting historical images on page Bucentaur... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Aditionally, does anyone know where I can find pictures of the different design proposals for rebuilding St Peter's Basilica. So far I have only been able to find Antonio da Sangallo's. 148.197.114.207 (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bramante's dome and Raphael's plan are mentioned in the St. Peter's Basilica article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(Assuming you want landscapes rather than the cityscapes mentioned above.) Landscape painting didn't really come into its own as a genre until after then, with the 17th century Dutch and Flemish schools, and more widely in the 18th century[11]. There are landscapes in 16th century painting but they tend to exist as backdrops to mythological or historical themes. The Venetian giants Titian, Giorgione, and Bellini only included them as backgrounds, though works like Titian's Pastoral Concert[12] and The Three Ages of Man[13] have nice rustic settings, Giorgione's Sleeping Venus (on his WP page) is similar, while Bellini did some more stylised scenes e.g. Agony in the Garden[14]. Probably your best bet is Google image search for each artist and click on whatever looks greenest. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 24

Startup banks get pledges

Let's say there is an entreprenuer for an idea for a bank. That banks appeals to the U.S. Treasury. In order to startup (before the Fed. funds come in), can the Treasury make a pledge to that bank, of, say, $25 million? Is that too much, or is a pledge out of the question? --Ractogon (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why the Treasury would give startup capital to a new bank. They need to get their capital from investors, lenders and depositors like any other bank. --Tango (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In view of the crisis in the banking system, with even old names going out of business, giving money to an untried new bank which could collapse at any moment seems rather stupid. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

canteens and cafeterias

Hello. Excuse my English, I'm french speaking Belgian. What is, in the USA the current level of dietary meals in the canteens? What are the efforts of governments to improve it? Thank you already --Égoïté (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Except for requirements meeting general standards of health and cleanliness applicable to all venues serving food to the public, there is no governing body which oversees canteens and cafeterias per se. If you are referring to food services provided within public institutions such as schools or prisons, you will need to identify the institution and then the jurisdiction. Some school boards, or perhaps even individual schools, for example, are banning sugared drinks, and offering low sugar, low fat, main courses. // BL \\ (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What about low salt? When I've visited the US, it's the amount of salt in the food that really amazes me. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

BL is correct; salt level isn't regulated, either, except, as mentioned above, in schools and prisons (because, presumably, these consumers depend upon the government for their nutrition). One thing I am uncertain about is whether there is a federal requirement for restaurants to disclose certain nutrition statistics on the food that is served. Tempshill (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your anwers. At what time come dietary regulations for prisons and public schools? Does the public, including parents, make pressure to improve the menus in other cases? --Égoïté (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

School meal#United States and National School Lunch Act should help you out with regard to public schools. As the first article indicates, there is often a very large amount of pressure from the public to improve nutrition in school-provided food. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. --Égoïté (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Race question?

So here's the deal. My father is from India and my mother is from Kenya. Can I list myself as African-American? A lawyer's viewpoint would be lovely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.106.183 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

see Wikipedia's: Not so funny and oblique O jokes.--Radh (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you live in the United States then yes, you can easily list yourself as African-American. If you don't live in America, then no. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is "African-American" a legal category? As far as I know, lawyers have nothing to do with it. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would amend 98.217's assertion to "If you are an American citizen, then yes." If you are applying for a grant or scholarship only available to African-Americans, the granting body can likely tell you what the requirement means specifically. // BL \\ (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship is not strictly necessary. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read our African-American article, especially the the section African-American#Who is African American?. According that article, the US government defines African-American as "A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." Usually having a black ancestor and self-identifying with the African-American culture is sufficient to claim yourself as African-American. Note that "African-American" is usually reserved for people with black ancestry. If, for example, your mother were from Kenya but was a descendant of European colonialists (and thus was white), the majority of people would raise eyebrows (or worse) at claims of being African-American. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit of a twisting of the natural meaning of the language? It's also a bit circular. What is "Black" and what is "of Africa"? What about someone from Africa descended from an Australian Aborigine? What about, say, Egyptians? Or some other less-than-very-black native peoples of Africa? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, it only refers to Americans with these backgrounds. On its surface (A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa), it could mean that Nelson Mandela is an African American, but since he's not an American at all, he's not any kind of American, not even an African American. To the OP, you don't say where you live or anything about your nationality or citizenship, but I can only assume you live in or were born in the USA. If that's not the case, there's no way you can be an African - or any other kind of - American. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly thought this question was a rather bad joke. PC madness aside and why should not everybody call himself a Martian if she so wishes. How on earth can anyone with African ancestry only (Kenian) automatically be an AfroAMERICAN. Are all Africans Americans by birth? (Of course, the "blacks" only).--Radh (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "African American" does not mean "African" or "American". It simply means "Black". I work with a lot of Africans who are generically black, Middle-Eastern, and white. If they are simply brown (Middle-Eastern) or white, they don't qualify as African American. If they are black, they are called African American - even though they are not in any way American. It just comes down to a belief that referring to someone as "black" is racist. By replacing "black" with "African American", all racism instamagically evaporates. -- kainaw™ 11:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, not everyone thinks that Black is the incorrect term (any less so than white). The NAACP uses "Black" about as often as "African American." I think white people are often uncomfortable with the terminology and reach for what they think is "safe", but that doesn't imply that what they avoid is actually "unsafe." Black is currently a perfectly acceptable term (unlike, say, Colored, which is only used in an historical context). --140.247.241.193 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I imagine after ten years or so, a new definition will arise, and the "African American" will become the latest trend in being regarded as offensive (like it happened a lot of times in the past). Why can't we stick with a definition everyone agrees with, and not change it every time a new trend settles in? --131.188.3.21 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I once saw a wonderful interview with Kelly Holmes in which the interviewer kept asking her how did it feel to be an African-American athlete and poor Kelly kept saying "but,I'm British"..88.96.226.6 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I once heard a speaker trying to explain Soweto riots to a group of Americans. He started: "Soweto is where the.." and then he paused as he tried to find a way to finish the sentence without using the word black, and lamely continued "...African Americans rioted in protest against the Apartheid government.". Given that the people he described as "African-American" were not American, and no less African than the people they were protesting against, the choice boggled my mind. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a classics professor who described Djimon Hounsou's character in Gladiator as African-American. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

See An earlier discussion on the RD. Jay (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has yet pointed to [[Black people]. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Baron and Count

What is the difference between a baron and a count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.248 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See Baron and Count. If you then have specific questions, please feel free to ask them here. // BL \\ (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A baron is the lowest rank of peerage, a count is one step higher. A count is equivalent to an earl (Britain has earls, the rest of Europe has counts, if memory serves). --Tango (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked it up, I must correct myself - a count is two steps higher, viscount is inbetween. --Tango (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Originally, a baron was the lord of a single manor or village. I.e., no more than 1000 subjects. A count was the head of a larger district -- a county -- in which he was responsible for administrative functions in the name of a duke or king. So maybe 10,000 to 100,000 subjects. --Chl (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It also depends largely on whether or not you are talking about the British or Continental systems (and even on the Continent there are likely to be disagreements). For example, Earls never really were the chief administrators of the Counties; the Sherrifs were. All of the peerage systems were pretty convoluted, and the systems of prescendence that developed over time were fairly fluid. As a classic example, originally the Count (comes in Latin), which were the closest advisors of the monarch, outranked the Dukes (dux in Latin), who were mainly the generals and military leaders. Once the titles became tied to land holdings in feudalism, the Dukes were given primacy, as their military role was adjudged to be more important than the advisory role of the Count. It gets really confusing in Germany, where there are a half-dozen or so varieties of Counts (Pfalzgraf, Friegraf, Landgraf, Margraf, etc.) as well as different levels of Duke (Herzog, Erzherzog, Grossherzog), and two completely unrelated titles (Furst and Prinz) which both get translated into English as simple "Prince". Then there are entirely unrelated systems, such as the Russian one, which provides no end of confusion when titles like "Knyaz" are translated into English.

If we get back to the English system, the term "baron" can often be used to describe the titled nobility in general (one often describes the Magna Carta as having been forced on King John by "the barons", though some Earls and Maquesses and Dukes were likely among the petitioners). However, it can also refer to a specific rank in the peerage. The most common ranking system goes something like:

1. Knight (not a peer, but still a title)
2. Baronet (not a peer, but still a title)
3. Baron
4. Viscount
5. Count/Earl
6. Marquess
7. Duke

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that ranking meant to be country non-specific, Jayron, or to refer to the UK? In the UK it goes from Viscount to Earl to Marquess, there being no British counts. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. Picky picky... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:) But the wife of an earl is a countess, weirdly enough. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia

So, in Australia, how many married couples are there where the bloke is called Bruce and his missus is called Sheila? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.8.231 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good numerical calculating question for Wolfram Alpha, no longer in beta.....BrainyBabe (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I had an uncle named Bruce and an aunt named Sheila, but they weren't married to each other. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never met an Aussie woman called Sheila. (Note: I am Australian, and lived here all my life). I know there are some out there, but not a great number. There are lots of men called Bruce, though. Sheila tends to be more of a (not very classy) word for "woman" than a name. Steewi (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally know at least two. I think the name is these days found only in ladies of a certain generation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

rejecting the Nicene Creed

Are there any well-known sects other than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who reject the Nicene Creed? --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Creed, "Some denominations, including Unitarians, Quakers, Baptists, Messianics, Restorationists, have rejected the authority of those creeds [that is, the Nicene and the Apostles']." There's a tag after it, though. Since the Quakers reject baptism, one can see that they would have some problems with the line about acknowledging one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Deor (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link to Restorationists. I see that the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are part of that line, as are Adventists, including Seventh Day Adventists. Do the Seventh Day Adventists reject the creed? --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And some Christians reject the filioque clause, though not the entire creed. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As always, it's almost impossible to make generalizations about Baptists, but I think that while most of them would reject the principle of requiring people to believe in the Nicene Creed, in practice there's nothing in the Creed that they would object to. So they don't reject the content of the Nicene Creed per se, they just reject the notion that a believer has to subscribe to any particular written creed. +Angr 11:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nontrinitarians reject the Nicene Creed, and there are hundreds of such sects (though their total numbers aren't very big - a few percent of Christians). Angr's comments apply to many Evangelical groups as well as Baptists. They object to creeds on principle, claiming only the Bible as their source of doctrine. In most cases, as stated, there isn't anything in the Nicene that they would actually take issue with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Like political compass - but for EU parties

A few months ago, I seem to recall seeing a site (semi-official? Supposedly non-partisan) which would ask you some questions (much like political compass things) and, based on these, suggest which EU parties most closely matched what you wanted. The idea being it narrowed down your investigations, allowing you to be properly informed to vote in the European elections. I also remember that the site was not properly up at that time, but said it would be in April.

The elections now approach and I cannot find this site. Anyone know what I'm remembering? Or know something similar? I had to spoil my ballot last time and I'd really like to feel sufficiently informed this time. 80.41.42.73 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Euronet has a Profiler for the 2009 Elections. Go here and click on EU Profiler, mid page on the right. // BL \\ (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When I tried it, it repeated the same two questions until I gave up (after 2½ cycles). —Tamfang (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just tried it and it appears to be operational. However, it declared my politics most closely matched the Conservative Party in the U.K. which would be a great shock to my family and friends. (Perhaps I should have pretended to be French or Italian.) The closest match in Europe was with one of the Estonian parties. I can't vouch for its accuracy, having given me a most surprising result (or I don't really know what the Conservative Party in the U.K. stands for). // BL \\ (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My politics (for Germany, where I live but as an American citizen am unable to vote) are apparently halfway between the far-left Die Linke and the far-right DVU. I guess it's weird to be a left-wing Euroskeptic in Germany. +Angr 11:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that was what I remembered. Not as helpful as I'd hoped, but a start. Oddly, while socio-economically I was dead-on for the Lib Dems (as I expected), I seem to be more Eurosceptic than I'd thought. About as Eurosceptic as the Tories O_o It would be good if the site featured more than the biggest 6 UK parties since part of my problem is the 12+ options. Still, the ability to compare my answers with the positions of those parties for each of the questions is really quite useful, so the more detailed analysis has given me some of what I was looking for. 80.41.88.220 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It told me (accurately) that I am closest to the NPA in France and the Socialist Party (Ireland). But since it doesn't include details for No2EU in Britain, it suggested that I should vote green. If a tool like this does not include all options, it can be positively damaging, leading people to vote for a large party, rather than for one closer to their own views. RolandR 15:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You can get it to show the dots for all the parties from all countries; the party closest to my views is the Cypriot Progressive Party of Working People. +Angr 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried that, but it still doesn't show No2EU. RolandR 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

May 25

Jeremy Bentham and Human Nature

Did Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, believe that human nature was good or evil? What did he think about the belief and idea that humans were born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much the same question you asked above at "03:38, 22 May 2009". Why are you trying to split the discussion into two places? AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you (Bowei Huang) actually read some of the works of the philosophers you ask questions about, or find some good introductory textbooks on the subject. Given the format of this forum noone is ever going to be able to answer those questions satisfactorily in such a short space. If you really care about knowing the details about these philosophical systems there is no easy way around it. Go to the philosophers themselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But what about just the first question? Can you simply please tell me the answer to the first question?

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What we are suggesting is that looking at human nature as "good" or "evil" is much too simplistic. For most of us, philosphers included, the nature of both humanity and of human behaviour falls across a spectrum, with multiple influences, and is not an "either-or" choice. While Mr Bentham may personally have tended more to one end of the spectrum than the other, this is not related to his, or others', utilitarian beliefs. It is a little like asking whether Catholics prefer Roman or Greek architecture. You could do a survey and answer the question, but it would be unrelated to the respondents' religious belief. // BL \\ (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you start by offering some thoughts of your own that other people can respond to? AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Running museum joke in letters to The Guardian

After a few days of reading the The Guardian newsfeed, I finally noticed that the "letters" section has a peculiar running joke. Here's some of the most recent letters I've noticed:

23 May:

A visit to the Tinplate Museum in La Tour Blanche, Dordogne, gave me unalloyed pleasure (Letters, passim).

Ian Churchill

Leeds

21 May:

Hurry to the submarine museum in Gosport - there are fears it's going under.

Clare Ash

Southsea, Hampshire

19 May:

There is a Hat Museum in Stockport that has a rival near Narbonne, in France. There's a lot of titfer tat between them.

John Banbury

Marple, Stockport

Does anyone know when and how this joke started, and is it possible to find a collection of all these letters somewhere?

Baeksu (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

These sorts of running jokes appear often in letters pages of British newspapers - perhaps moreso The Guardian than others (how long has the discussion of possible alternative uses of 35mm film canisters been going?). This one about puns about museums seems to have started on 31 March when in a section not available online called 'Eyewitness', the Toaster Museum at Kettwig was mentioned. On 4 April, Gaynor Lewis of Smallburgh in Norfolk suggested that a visit there could be followed by going to the Bread Museum in Ulm, and possibly the Cutlery Museum (next to the Wallpaper Museum) in Kassel. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely you mean that mention of the Toaster Museum poppped up. And it needs no funny phrasing to say that the Tobacco Museum in Bergerac is non-smoking. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...and the Sex Museum in New York...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.155 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

art history

what is the oldest artisic depiction of the rapture of the church.William Bouguereau who died in 1905 is the last or oldest date i have found thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prprd (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rapture of the church? Are you by any chance referring to Bouguereau's Le Ravissement de Psyché, aka L'enlèvement de Psyché? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

yes thats the oldest i have found-what dates do you have.--Prprd (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This says 1895. I'm only aware of this picture because it happens to be my No. 1 favourite painting. I had no idea it had anything to do with The Rapture; I just took a stab in the dark because of the similarity of the words "rapture" and "ravissement" (which I always assumed to mean something like abduction or rape), and the happy expression on Psyche's face (which would fit if it was about rapture, but not if it was about abduction or rape). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, L'Amour et Psyché, enfants tells me it's about the Greek legend of Cupid and Psyche, and nothing to do with the Rapture referred to in the Apocalypse. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May I recommend our article on Raptio? Yes, they are cognate terms. The one often used in art history is Frauenraub (which I believe is a redirect)? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How interesting. Thanks, BB. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine crown jewels

Are there any crown jewels or regalia of the Byzantine Empire left has survived the Crusade, the reign of the Latin Emperors, and the Ottoman conquest? I came across this article about a Byzantine Empress (forgot who) who was along with another Empress (I think a daughter in law) had crowns made in celebration for Easter. That is the only reference to crowns I ever heard of in Byzantine history. Except the Crown of thorns that was sold to Louis IX of France. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look this up (unless someone else gets to it), but I wanted to clarify that what was sold to Louis IX was a relic of Christ's crown of thorns, not a royal Byzantine crown. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google Books search for "Byzantine crown jewels" leads to Donald Nicol's works, where he says that the crown jewels were pawned to Venice in 1343. Here is an article about them by Paul Heatherington, which looks useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of Byzantine Emperors and Empresses

Does anybody know a complete lits all the coronation dates and places of the Byzantine Emperors and their Empresses? The first one I am sure of is Leo I the Thracian which involved the Patriach but was there any emperors before this date who was crowned?

We might have to compile our own list...Wikipedia articles are a good start, some of them are comprehensive enough to have that info (Alexios I Komnenos, for example, was crowned on April 4, 1081, according to our article.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Kongeluns (?) in Denmark

I'm trying to determine the name (= correct spelling) of a place, possibly a rural locale, in Denmark. It's described as "near Copenhagen" and written in my 1933 source text as Kongeluns. Searches have produced Kongelunden in the Danish Wikipedia, which I can't read and am not sure what sort of entity it is, and a Konglungen in Norway. Any help at clarifying this would be appreciated. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it is a misspelling of Kongelunden, which is one of the 3 forests on the island of Amager. At least there is no place called Kongeluns in Denmark. It was planted in 1818 mainly with oak trees because there was a general lack of that type of wood in Denmark at the time. One of the main reasons was the need to build a new navy after the old one had been captured by the English in 1807. Incidentally, a few years ago the Forest ministry reported to her Majestys government, that the oak trees planted in various places in the early 1800s had now grown tall enough to be used as ship planks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Google map shows a Kongelunsvay, which does go to Kongelunden a bit south of Copenhagen and a bit west of the airport on the island of Amager. It looks like a semi rural domestic suburb. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the word Kongelunden is The Kings (konge=king) Grove (lunden=the grove, lund = grove). I guess Kongelunsvay (is that really how it is spelled in Google?) is Kongelundsvej which means "The Kings Grove Road" (vej = road). But it is possible that your source has mistaken that spelling for Kongeluns. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you could have discovered that this article was about a woodland without reading Danish. The Danish article, by the way, is in da:Kategori:Skove i Jægersborg Statsskovdistrikt; when you go to da:Skove, you'll find that this title redirects to da:Skov, which has an interwiki to Forest. A little looking around can get you a little information about the place, even if you can't read the original. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did get that far on my own before posting the query, thanks! The level of discrimination was inadequate, though, because my task is to validate this keyword (and its spelling/s) in a database of settled (i.e. populated) locales, so need to know whether the place qualifies one way or the other. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical prohibition of fornication

One sometimes hears it stated that the Bible prohibits fornication, that is any sex except beteween husband and wife. Is this correct? There are certainly clear prohibitions on adultery, and some much-debated passages ostensibly prohibit gay sex, but does the Bible anywhere prohibit heterosexual relations between unmarried people? --rossb (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it the spring time?--Radh (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the disputes centre around the Greek word πορνεια, which is variously translated as fornication, cultic prostitution or ritual impurity as a result of some sexual activity. I (a theology student) personally find it difficult to make an air-tight case for the prohibition of fornication in the Bible, although I agree with its prohibition on other, theological grounds. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 09:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The word πορνεια ought on etymological grounds to mean specifically prostitution. And in any case that would take care of the New Testament, but what about the Old Testament? --rossb (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Koine tended to play fast-and-loose (as it were!) with etymology, so I don't think we can be too certain with that one. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An interesting passage here is Deuteronomy 19 22 [15]. It's interesting to compare the different punishments for various kinds of illicit sex. Adultery is punishable by death (including sleeping with someone engaged to be married) but the punishment for sleeping with an unmarried, unengaged person is marriage (without divorce). However sexual prohibitions did develop over the history of Israel, so this passage isn't the last word. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 UTC)

->That passage is dealing with rape, not consensual heterosexual relations between a couple who are not betrothed or married. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons for that is that the concept of "marriage" in OT terms (certainly at the time Deuteronomy was composed) was a fluid and uncertain one. You see that in v24 the girl is described as the man's "wife", even though he is only "pledged to be married" to her. I don't think marrying the unmarried, unengaged girl is seen as punishment for the illicit sex -- the sex in itself is the marriage and all that remains to be completed are the ritual formalities. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the text of the Old Testament goes, it seems that the real "heavy lifting" involved in getting married happened at the time of the betrothal (this included negotiations between the family of the groom and the family of the bride, formalized in a binding legal agreement which, among other things, made the betrothed woman having sex with another man equivalent to adultery) -- and if subsequently the betrothed woman went to live with the family of the betrothed man, and the couple had sex, then that by itself constituted marriage, with or without any accompanying wedding ceremony (in fact, wedding ceremonies as such are barely mentioned in the Old Testament). AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is no use going back to some "true" meaning of a term, you have to focus on the history of the Church to know the true meaning of its teaching.--Radh (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Although looking at the original meaning of a biblical text is central to the Church's historical teaching. You rarely find the final answers to questions of Christian doctrine in the Bible, but the quest normally starts there. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to the Christian understanding of the bible, there are clear indications that sex-within-heterosexual-marriage is the "preferred" situation. Actually, if you read 1 Corinthians 7, and other parts of 1 Corinthians, Paul indicates that the "best" situation is no sex at all; as a person's primary focus should be on the work of Christ; however Paul begrudgingly recognizes that people want to have sex, so in that context marriage is the second-best solution, as it allows sex to occur in a manner that is pleasing to God. Also, Jesus recognized, in Matthew 5:27-28 that adultery occurs not when one has sex, but when one looks lustfully at any woman who is not his wife. The sin happens not at the action, but at the thought of the action. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Or rather, the sin happens not only at the action, but also at the thought of the action. I've heard it said this is a significant difference between Christianity and Judaism: in Judaism, only deeds can be sinful, while Christianity has "thought crimes" too. +Angr 10:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting distinction, and one that shows up in early Christian theology. If you look at the theology of Apollinaris of Laodicea, he is generally orthodox (most of his method would be adapted by the hyper-orthodox Gregory of Nazianzus) save for his dualism between body and mind. By his reading, the νους -- the mind -- was good and was corrupted by the sins of the body, and therefore the νους was not adopted by the Word in the Incarnation. Gregory, by contrast, held that sin came from within, that the νους itself was corrupt and therefore it must have been assumed in the Incarnation in order that it might be healed. See also Mark 7.15 [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Doubling Polonius and Fortinbras

Has anyone here seen, or been involved in, a production of Hamlet where Polonius and Fortinbras were doubled (i.e. both parts played by the same actor)? If so, my questions are: Did it "work" artistically (define that any way you like)? Did it lead to an older-than-usual Fortinbras or a younger-than-usual Polonius or somewhere in between? And whichever of those: was that a "problem"? Was there any metatheatricallity to the doubling: i.e. did the production give any significance to the fact that it was the same actor? Also did the same actor also play First Gravedigger? Sorry if the question is a bit vague for WP:RD: but I'd be grateful for whatever insights anyone happens to have on this, however tangential. AndyJones (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the size of casts in a Shakespeare play and the poverty of most theatrical companies since Shakespeare's time it's almost certain that sometime, somewhere there has been a production in which any two parts have been doubled, unless they are actually on stage at the same time. Most audiences understand that such doubling is for practical reasons, and don't read anything into it (unless you are the Royal Shakespeare Company, when it's assumed you could have afforded two actors if you wanted). If you wanted to use the doubling to make a point, you could accentuate the similarities, or you could downplay them for the reverse effect. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the frequency with which Fortinbras is dropped from productions of Hamlet, I'd be surprised if any readers here have had personal experience with a doubling of Fortinbras and Polonius, but you never know. A recent production that I saw had no Fortinbras, and doubled Claudius and the Ghost, along with the usual doublings of other minor characters. —Kevin Myers 18:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer trade mag

Is there a big trade magazine for lawyers in the UK? I'm looking for somewhere I can take out an ad and have it seen by lots of lawyers. Thanks! --Tango (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What sort of lawyers (solicitors or barristers? The Law Society Gazette is the professional one, I am told they have adverts, but I'm not certain on tone etc. (not that you've said anyway). Good place to start, if biggest=best. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)There is an advertising link at the bottom, BTW - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's it, Wikipedia has to go, right now. I clicked that link only to see an article about Wikipedia on the front page and while I was doing so I was listening to the Radio 4 program Heresy and at almost exactly the same time *they* start talking about Wikipedia. I can't get away from the damn thing!! (To answer your questions, I'm probably looking for solicitors and biggest probably does equal best in this instance. Thanks for your help!) --Tango (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All your information are belong to us! DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gazette is certainly the most read by solicitors. The Lawyer is fairly widely read. Most others I know of are subject-specific. AndyJones (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For comparision, The Lawyer claims to have a circulation of 31,571 and the Law Soc. Gazette 118,927, although since the latter is probably recieved by more people who don't actually read it given that it is associated with the Law Society itself. You can really do the rest. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for a lawyer, Chambers is useful. Depending on how large your transaction is, of course... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding the law society gazette. The article to which Tango refers (http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-business/by-their-wikipedia-entries-shall-you-know-them) blatantly encourages firms to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. I suggest we leave our comments about what we think of this. -- Nricardo (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided about that article. It does emphasise the need to follow "Wikipedia best practices" by citing sources and not using advertising slogans and marketing speak, so it's not too bad. I don't have any strong objection to companies writing accurate and neutral articles about themselves, as long as they are open about the COI. --Tango (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Companies using Wikipedia in the way the article suggests really does seem to me to be very mutually beneficial. It does seem, however, that the author was a little confused about Wikipedia and thought that the primary authors of articles tend to be the subjects themselves - he admits in one of the entries that he didn't understand the "conflict of interest" tag placed on an article and acts as if maintenance tags are things the company itself should be concerned with responding to. Still, though, the more companies that take this attitude, the better (provided regular Wikipedians scrutinize things enough that the articles don't turn into ads). -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In the US it is Lawyers Weekly.

I would say National Law Journal and The American Lawyer for the U.S. -- Nricardo (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Finding county-level US census data for 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990

Hi,

I've been looking at the US census reports for 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990, and I'm having trouble finding county-level data (specifically for Clark County, Nevada; Cook County, Illinois; and Wayne County, Michigan) for the following variables:

- Number of jobs in manufacturing sector - Total White population - Total Black population - Total Latino population - What items were produced (this may not be collected in the census)

I also tried looking at the County Business Patterns dataset, but I can't find reports from before 1990.

Any help finding this data would be greatly appreciated.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.175.70 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Start here and follow the links for year, then location. If you're familiar with the structure of the reports, you can quickly locate what you're looking for. For example, the 1960 data for county population by race (White, Black and "other") can be found in table 25 of each of the following: Nevada, Illinois and Michigan. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May 26

Mini Monkey in Amber

Does anyone know anything about this amber that was discovered to contain a mini primeape-like creature trapped inside it? I saw it on TV awhile ago but I never heard the name. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to Ida? According to the article, that fossil is believed to be "a transitional fossil between primitive lemur-like primates and the monkeys, including the human lineage". 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No this is a fossil and it way too big. This creature was in a amber the size of pear. It had its arm outstreched and curved so that its body kind of like a heart shape. It was like the size of a mouse. Yet it pose resembled a monkey's pose. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... then how about Teilhardina magnoliana? 152.16.59.190 (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any information of a complete mammal trapped in amber. It seems it is only bones or fur (bones for the first time in 1996 apparently) from mammals that have been found in such a way, mammals, even the smaller ones, were simply too big. Are you sure it was a documentary and not a fictional show? --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's "primate", not "primeape". --Sean 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? :) -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Or was the OP victim to a mondegreen? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Music Website

A while ago I heard about a website where you could put in some of your favourite songs and it would recommend some new songs for you. Does anyone know what this website is called? I tried doing an internet search with no luck. Thanks! Eiad77 (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pandora (music service) does this and also plays the actual songs. Tempshill (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That is the site I was looking for. It only lets people in the US play music, but it still recommends songs for me. Thanks again. Eiad77 (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is also Last FM which does something similar, and this site which I like – type in an artist's name and you get a bunch of other artists floating around the screen. The closer they are to the artist you entered, the more similar they're supposed to be. The results can be a little bit random, but it's still a fun site. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What does an introductory logic class actually involve?

What does an introductory logic class at a major four year research university actually involve? I have looked at the wikipedia article and understand what logic studies, but I really don't understand how one studies it. What textbooks are commonly used (and provide an external link if one exists or internal if there is a wikipedia page about it)? Is logic like math or does it use a different skill set? Do most freshman enrolled consider such classes to be easy or are they painstakingly difficult? For someone who struggles with math, is this a easier than math classes from the precalculus level up? I assume much, if not all, of the information taught in the class is new material to the majority of the students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.84.18 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My introduction to logic was a significant part of my first-year course in philosophy, and a significant part of the logic segment was on symbolic logic. That was, however, more years ago than you are likely old, and things have changed. While there are courses in computer logic and mathematical logic, I suggest that yours probably is a philosophy course and thus direct you also to Aristotelian logic until someone with more recent experience can reply. // BL \\ (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the syllabus of an introductory logic course from York University: http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/Teaching/2100-fall2008/2100Syllabus.pdf. Hope it helps. Eiad77 (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My first logic class was also back in the mists of time, but they taught me such rules as Modus ponens and how to set up truth tables (no waterboarding involved!). It was more mathematical than philosophical, but nothing that would scar the minds of math phobes. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps have a look at Benson Mates? Also just found a website [[16]], but don't know anything about him or it (or anything else)--Radh (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I took an introductory course in logic about 15 years ago... This was the text that was used. It was fairly easy and not at all hard for anyone who can grasp simple algebra. On a personal note, I really enjoyed it. Dismas|^(talk) 09:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to y'all. It is indeed a PHIL class and that link to the York syllabus was indeed helpful as all my uni's syllabi are past the course login. It is looking like this is a good option for me. --71.165.84.18 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Finnish Sniper - WW2

I think I have actually asked this before, but I can't find it in the archives, sorry. What was the name of the Finnish sniper in WW2 that the Russians were so terrified of that they called in air strikes just to get rid of this one man (which he survived)? Apparently he killed over 750 Russians in a single year, and all he was before the war was just a farmer. Apparently he was shot in the head at one point, losing half of his face, but he still survived that, waking up on the day the invasion ended. Then he went back to farming, and I believe he died in 1956 (?). That's as much info as I have on him. If anyone can point me in the right direction to the Wiki article on him, it would be very much appreciated. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be Simo Häyhä, I think. The body count 750 Russians may be kind of dubious. The Finnish Wikipedia article mentions "only" 542 kills. The used artillery strikes rather than air strikes, and and he died in 2002, not in 1956. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, at least I remembered he was Finnish. Thanks, I wanted to show that to someone. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting rights

What to do when two rights conflict with each other? Is there a hierarchy in rights? For example, right of association and anti-discriminatory laws or right of free-speech and right not to be insulted. --Mr.K. (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what level of abstraction you look at it: philosophically, legally, or statutorily, for example.

At the latter end, a bill of rights or human rights statute will often specify certain exceptions for some human rights while others may be more absolute. For example, one's right of movement is likely constrained by all sorts of exceptions - you would not be allowed to move around inside another's house when they do not welcome you, for example. This will vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiciton.

At a higher end of abstraction, certain legal rights are "fundamental", and other rights are to be interpreted as being subject to them. Or, on another spectrum, certain legal rights are "fundamental" and laws must be read subject to them, while other legal rights are less so, and are to be read subject to the law. In countries sharing the common law tradition, the rights which are regarded as "fundamental" are usually similar.

You will find that many of the "universal" freedoms are today contained in international treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and others.

Further up, we have, for example, political philosophy about the extent and conflict of rights. I don't know much about those, but, for example, Rousseau's idea of the "social contract" includes the concept of being "forced to be free" - where one's inate "freedom" is constrained (for example, by a law that stops you from sleeping on the road) in order to achieve greater freedom for the society. (I hope I got that roughly right.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In the legal realm, I'm sure this differs by country. In the US, "rights" are codified, explicitly or implicitly, into laws, and there is a hierarchy of laws; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any other federal or state law can be invalidated by a judge if it conflicts with the Constitution. (To use the easier example you cite, if the federal government outlawed insulting people, during the first trial of an insulter, a judge would rule the law unconstitutional, because freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution's First Amendment.) Similarly, each State has a constitution which will override laws passed within that State which conflict with it. When rights of equal hierarchy conflict, or when the hierarchy is unclear (which often happens in the US; see dormant commerce clause for an example), then of course it's messier, and in the US, it's up to the judges. The lawyers for both the plaintiff and defendant will write long briefs to the judge that delve beyond the text into the background that influenced the legislators who wrote the text, the things that were actually said on the floor of the Senate ... in the case of conflicts involving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there will be analyses of the Federalist Papers and British common law. The poor judges read all this stuff and write a long opinion that details which of the rights "wins", and why, so that judges in all the lower courts can apply the same principles in the future. Tempshill (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You write, "if the federal government outlawed insulting people, during the first trial of an insulter, a judge would rule the law unconstitutional, because freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution's First Amendment". But I'm pretty sure there are jurisdictions where it's illegal to insult a police officer, and those laws haven't been found unconstitutional (yet). And of course falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't protected speech either. +Angr 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For concision, I didn't want to discuss libel or shouting fire, so I said "insult". You'll have to cite sources for your claim about insulting a cop. Tempshill (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to cite sources if I wanted to add it as a fact to an article. I know it's illegal here in Germany (which does put more restrictions on freedom of speech than the U.S., for example Holocaust denial is a crime here but protected speech in the U.S.), and I thought it was widely illegal in the U.S. too, but I can't prove it at the moment. +Angr 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about any such law in the UK, and the UK is generally between Germany and the US on free speech issues. --Tango (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Police (along with just about anyone with an ounce of power) are insulted on a daily basis in the US. If it were illegal, we wouldn't have enough prisons to hold all the criminals. It would be easier to make "prisons" where the non-criminals can live and leave everyone else outside. -- kainaw™ 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

... and as every student of Australian criminal law knows, in Australia it's perfectly legal to say "fuck you" to a police officer, though not to any ordinary person, because police officers have, according to the court, stronger aural fibres than ordinary people. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a complicated question and not one with a single answer. You really have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. For example, in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, the US Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment right to express oneself (by spending money) outweighed the government's desire to have fair elections. But in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the court said the importance of fair elections outweighed the First Amendment implications of banning a type of political contribution. So which is it? It depends. Rights are not black and white. The right to express a political opinion will have a great degree of First Amendment protection, more so than advertising and certainly more so than the "expression" of exotic dancing. So while the First Amendment may on first glance seem to be on a higher plane than, say, protection of character, which is not in the Constitution, it really depends on what type of expression and protection of character are at stake. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989/The Internationale

Copied from Tiananmen Square talk page, thought it might get more answers here. F (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If the students were demanding democracy, then why were they singing The Internationale, which is clearly communistic? 86.166.125.182 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They got accustomed to it and keep singing at any occasion?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not "clearly communistic." It is merely a preferred anthem of many socialist and communist groups. If you read the first few stanzas, you will see that it is a series of complaints about the corruption of government and exploitation of the poor. How you fix that is an open-ended question. Both communism and democracy claim to be a solution. -- kainaw™ 12:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You may also be making the mistake of assuming that when any group calls for 'democracy' they mean 'American style democracy'. Your other mistake may be assuming that everyone believes that 'American style democracy' is the best form of democracy. America is unusual in that 'socialist' is considered an insult (just like 'capitalist' is in other parts of the world). DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A little less overgeneralization would suit most discussions, including this one. Tempshill (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

While you are right, you must also admit that the opening question is similarly overgeneralized. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They were arguing for reform, not revolution. There is a big difference there and not understanding it is one of the reasons Westerners have such a difficulty in making sense of the opinions of the Chinese people. It has long been a common argument by those inside China (and in the former Soviet Union) that what they want is democracy within their Communist system—not an overthrow of the entire system itself. (Whether you can have such reforms within such a system is up for debate—Gorbachev wanted the same thing, but it turned out that the system really couldn't maintain itself in such a state. His attempt to push the USSR towards pro-market, pro-democracy, anti-corruption ended up with the entire state system collapsing, though there was more to it than just his reforms, of course.) --140.247.251.62 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Internationale is the anthem of socialists. Socialism is not mutually exclusive with democracy, as opposed to the dominant view in the US which I remember discovering with some shock. India, the world's largest democracy, had for many years a constitutionally enshrined socialist system. The Socialist International parties are in power in a significant proportion of the world's democracies, including, for example, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Repeat after me: capitalism does not equal democracy; democracy does not equal capitalism.

The students in 1989 wanted liberty and democracy, but they did not necessarily want rampant capitalism. They wanted political, not economic change. For many of them, the quasi-socialist economic system was serving them well. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They were likely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Chinese having an elite class of wealthy robber baron entrepreneurs, with the army keeping the peasants and workers downtrodden. In the ensuing years there are increasing numbers of billionaires in the "workers' paradise." Edison (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I read a magazine article once that argued some of the students were demanding not American-style democracy but a return to purer Marxism-Leninism. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edison is right: the guandao or "official-merchants" were one of the key targets of the protests. No doubt some of the protesters supported Marxism-Leninism, but the majority, it appears, were for democratisation and liberalisation. Both strands, of course, were united by discontent with government policies at the time.

You mean this guandao. F (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the 1989 protests were about democracy is a common mistake. Among the various issues to note are inflation (over 20%), cuts to student stipends and corruption. I recall seeing banners (in Chinese) reading "we want the [communist] party to lead us correctly." The death of former General Secretary Hu Yaobang in April 1989, and the duplication of unofficial wreath-laying that followed Zhou Enlai's death in 1976 sparked a debate within the leadership as to the pace of political reform, which Zhao Ziyang lost. Oh, and it was a Western journalist who told some of the student leaders that they needed some sort of icon, like the Statute of Liberty . . . which led directly to the Goddess of Democracy. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the 1989 protests were about democracy is a common mistake. What about the banners that said "democracy"? I find it non-trivial to dismiss one set of banners as props and another as genuine. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: The notion that the reason the 1989 protests were held was to call for were about democracy is a common mistake. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of protesters using the anthem of the people they are protesting against, it suggests they really represent the ideals it expresses, unlike those that officially claim to do so. 148.197.114.207 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

post-WWII Disarmourment Cartoon

Hello, I'm looking for a cartoon from a post-WWII disarmourment conference (probably the League of Nations) where a French President urged for disarmourment. The cartoon depicts him singing to other allied leaders and has a play on words 'Disamour' as in the French word for love. I recall it from a GCSE history textbook. Could anybody steer me to an online source of the picture? Thanks in advance, 79.72.194.53 (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the cartoon I think you are refering to. However, it's interwar and describes the Locarno Treaties - but it is the French singing Parlez Moi D'Amour Ma Cherie! to other European Leaders through radios, labelled Rome, Warsaw, Berlin, London and Moscow. Can't find it online. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be useful (e.g. for search) to know that the standard spelling is "disarmament". BrainyBabe (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)(

gold coins again

Since I never got my earlier question on the topic answered, I will ask for something else.

I would like a list of when each country stopped making gold coins, or be pointed to a reference that will supply that information. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"...each country" would be a very long list to research, indeed. Our article Gold coins says that "most countries" stopped minting gold coins prior to 1933. That's at the opposite end of specificity from your question. Here you can find out much about when and where gold coinage started, though only a few countries are named. This site suggests, however, that many countries have recommenced making gold coins in the past 30 years. For every country with a blue link on the page, there is a short history of its gold coins and production dates. I looked at Andora Andorra and Australia on the site's list, for example. According to it, both countries currently mint gold coins. // BL \\ (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Andorra? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I do. I have made the correction. I also wanted to comment that your "earlier question" on gold coins received quite a few answers. See "gold coins". // BL \\ (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

'Dug-out' officer

I've been reading a book on World War 1, and it keeps referring to "'dug-out' officers". Anyone know what this specifically means? It seems negative, as in "the men were largely young volunteers fired with patriotic courage, but poorly trained and led by 'dug-out' officers". Thedoorhinge (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, a dugout was a shelter in a trench system, so at a guess I would say it refers to an officer that spent most of their time hiding in dugouts ordering their men to do dangerous stuff rather than fighting and putting themselves at risk. --Tango (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I hit the edit button right after Tango, and it does seem that, from the context, it describes an officer leading from the safety of his dugout rather than in the front trenches. Livewireo (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google book search [17] indicates several books about WW1 using this term for British officers who were elderly. Perhaps they were retired officers recalled to service, like being "dug out" of the grave, except they were "dug out" of retirement [18]. . [19] refers to their "obsolete tactics (and) terminology". [20] says the German Hindenburg was "dug out of retirement at age 67." The term seems to have been so well known as not to require definition in "Experiences of a dug out 1914-1918(originally published 1920)" The author had passed the age to be a Colonel and was no longer even a reserve officer, but in 1914 was called back to be Director of Military Operations (p 30). The press accused the dugouts back home of reactionary tendencies and of being "prehistoric creatures."(p129). The home office dugouts freed younger men to go to the front and command in the field. This is not to be confused with the World War 2 reference to U.S. General Douglas MacArthur as "dug-out Doug" for his staying in Fortress Corregidor while his troops on Bataan were being slaughtered by the Japanese invaders of the Phillipines, then Mac's fleeing in a PT boat when it came time to surrender. The connotation for the WW1 "dug-outs" seems to be that they were not up to leading troops in combat, but not that they were cowardly. Edison (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

'Dug out of retirement' seems to fit the bill best for the book I was reading. Thanks everyone.Thedoorhinge (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

medical condition from beauty procedure

is there legal action that can be taken after contracting a medical condition after getting a beautyprocedure done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.222.26 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

While we may sympathize with the problem, this is a question for a lawyer, not for the Ref Desk. The Ref Desks do not give legal advice. // BL \\ (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In many (most?) jurisdictions, anyone can sue anybody for anything. It's the outcome that's in question. You'll need a lawyer, of course. -- Nricardo (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't file initiating process without a cause of action... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Book title....

I'm looking for help on the title of a book I once read.

My memory is hazy, but here's what i remember:

There were several people playing poker and as a result of one of them losing, he has to build some sort of wall, brick by brick for the winner. I have no recollection of anything else. For some reason I thought it was by Paul Auster but I read the wiki summaries, and it doesn't seem to be one of those.

It must have been published before 1998 because that's when i read it.192.136.22.4 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Music of Chance? Nanonic (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gah, I'm an idiot--i just completely missed that one somehow. Thanks nano!192.136.22.4 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May 27

Daniel Arap Moi's wife Lena

At what year was Lena Moi (Daniel Arap Moi's ex-wife) born in. Daniel Arap Moi is a former national leader of Kenya from 1978-2002 from his aging of 54 to 78, and after that Mwai Kibaki took over moi. DA Moi marry Lena at 1950 and left Lena in 1974 when Mr Moi was 50. Lena Moi die in 2004 was said to be in her mid-70s, then this makes her born between 1926 and 1929, would Lena's birthyear be best as 1927? And also is Lena Moi Non-African (white) or is she native African (black)?--69.233.255.146 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• And mois have total of 8 kids but how many males (sons) and how many females (daughters). The youngest one is Gideon Moi born in 1964 but what around the oldest's birthyear. Daniel was 26 when he was marry then oldest child of Daniel's is it around by 1952?--69.233.255.146 (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Government departments non-profit?

Are government departments considered non-profit organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.161.165 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say "non-profit organization" implies non-governmental. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The "organization" part usually excludes government - a government department is an operational department of the entity, being government. It is not inconceivable, though, that a government-backed body could be regarded as a non-profit organization. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Non-profit" or "not-for-profit" are designations applied for tax purposes. Government departments don't incur tax liabilities whatever they do, so the question does not arise. // BL \\ (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Although the government is somewhat like a nonprofit organisation: as you get tax credit for giving to nonprofits, if you give the government money you'll have to pay less in taxes :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends a bit on what you mean by "department". In Australia there's a number of Government Business Enterprises that are owned by the Federal Government but operate at arms length from direct government control and compete in the market place alongside other companies (although some have virtual monopolies). Some of them, such as Australia Post do all they can to make as much profit as they can. Others, like Medibank Private are non-profit, meaning that they're not prevented from making money but they're supposed to plough all their profits back into the business rather than holding significant cash reserves. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong pilot credited with Bf 110 first flight

Reference: [21] the "early variants" section. Numerous sources have over the years quoted one particular source who's research was shoddy. My father, Rudolf Opitz, has always said that Dr. Herman Wurster (Chief Test Pilot of the Messerschmitt factory at the time) had the honor of making the first flight in the Bf 110 on 12 May 1936. I have my father's pilot logbooks which show that he was practicing spot landings at Darmstadt and Wiesbaden on 12 May 1936(after just recently having soloed in powered aircraft). I also have obtained a copy of Dr. Wurster's pilot logbook page from 12 May 1936 where it shows conclusively that indeed Dr. Wurster made the first flight in the Bf 110.

How do we get this fixed?? As far as I can tell, I have a primary source in my father who says he didn't do it. I have his logs and Dr. Wurster's logs which apparently makes me guilty of "original research". Both of these seem to disqualify me from making a change in the article. I have gotten one web site to change this item on their Bf 110 page: [22] What do I need to do to get this piece of absolutely shoddy research overturned? Or will Wikipedia be content to go on publishing the historically incorrect falsehood?MRO50 (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very simple and straightforward. Get a reliable source to publish the truth, based on the documents you cite. Then the right pilot will be credited. Is your father still living? My regards. Edison (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is still alive. He is 98, and turns 99 in August. He suffers from very poor vision and hearing, but otherwise is in pretty good health for his age. He still gets around with just a cane.MRO50 (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

acepilots.com is a secondary source but not reliable as it is self-published. There are no details of the credentials of the author(s) of the website. Going by the text "... mistakenly credit the first flight to Rudolf Opitz, who has stated on numerous occasions that this honor belonged...", where were the statements made? Jay (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As he is still alive, and has complained vocally about this poor research job for the last 20 - 30 years, he has made the statements in a variety of places and venues. At one point he even wrote William Green (the person that we believe is the one who is quoted by all of the other misinformed authors) and the German Aerokurier magazine about this issue probably at least 20 years ago. This was when Dr. Wurster was still alive. Green and Aerokurier were basically arrogant, and replied to the effect "Tough, we have our own sources." They did not even bother to check with Dr. Wurster. My father has always let his accomplishments speak for themselves, and is also a victim of someone else claiming that they did something which was actually done by my father. All he wants is for history to be recorded correctly the way it actually happened. Just because William Green wrote it, and others quote him, doesn't mean that it actually happened that way if the basis of the research was faulty to begin with.MRO50 (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What I would do is to solicit some other publication, probably a magazine, interested in military aviation history — surely there are more than a dozen, especially if you expand your search to be worldwide — to do an interview with your father, and bait the hook to the journalist(s) by mentioning there's a side of this story that has not been told. The interview probably won't be all about this topic, but if the interview gets published in a known publication, and the interview touches on this subject, then your father will probably be relieved. The "poor research job" is unsurprising; the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and journalists and historians, just like everyone else, are all busy doing a million other things. It takes a lot of work to get anyone to take interest in publishing your story. You need to make things absolutely as easy as possible for the journalists. Before you contact the journalists, put up a web page on the subject with all the information you have, including scans of the logbook pages and a clear and precise timeline — so the journalists can refer to it and get the story (mostly) straight with a minimum of effort and time. If you want to blow some money on this, you could hire a PR agent to research what magazines are most likely to take interest in such an interview, and then do all the legwork. Tempshill (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in case my implication wasn't clear, once it's been printed in some magazine that isn't a vanity press, then you've got your reliable source, by today's Wikipedia standards, anyway, and the Wikipedia article (and anybody else) can say "Mr. MRO50 Senior was quoted in Military History magazine in 2009 as stating the first pilot was actually Dr. Wurster, and provided log books to back up the assertion[93]". Tempshill (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Thanks... We have old friends at Flight Journal Magazine that may help us out here. They have previously asked me to write some articles for them, but in this case, it would be "them" that have to do the writing if I understand the Wikipedia rules for this sort of thing.MRO50 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Supply and demand

Is buying up the entire world's stock of something (say...chocolate) in order to control the price and overinflate it massively for huge profit, illegal? If so, do we have an article on it? Thank... Vimescarrot (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's illegal by itself, but the majority of those who've tried it on a large scale over the past century or so seem to have gotten themselves in a lot of trouble. See Bunker Hunt, Corner the market... AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Illegality is jurisdiction-based; it might be illegal to do A in Country X, but perfectly legal in Country Z. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Many countries have anti-monopoly laws and commissions that try to prevent 1 person (or company) controlling too much of the market (or in the case of Natural monopoly(ies) there may be extra regulation/requriements that need to be met to try ensure evenness. You'd probably be interested in De Beers who - if my understanding is accurate - regulated the supply of diamonds to massively inflate the price. Similarly Opec and other similar Cartels exist that can have groups work together to try control prices. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, anti-monopoly laws don't generally prevent monopolies existing (although some countries prevent mergers that would create a monopoly, I don't know of any laws preventing organic growth in market share to monopoly levels), they prevent monopolies being abused. If you have a 90% market share, that's fine, but if you use that to gain leverage in another market you will find yourself the subject of an antitrust investigation. --Tango (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Microsoft would clearly meet the definition of having a near-monopoly on computer operating systems. Their market share is up in the 90% range. However, they only become an illegal monopoly when they use their market share to unfairly influence the market; for example by using their operating system monopoly to drive competitors out of the market for other products they have. Also, classically DeBeers is a monopsony, or perhaps a bilateral monopoly, in that they act as the sole middle-man in the diamond market. Their control of the market has diminished as diamond mines in non-DeBeers controlled areas like Australia and Canada have come on line; however for much of history they were the sole buyer of raw, uncut diamonds in the world, which almost exclusively came from South Africa. They used that position to carefully control the supply and price of said diamonds. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What you're talking about is called "cornering the market" and of course we have an article. —D. Monack ^talk 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Human resource functions

If this isn't the appropriate desk, please let me know and I'll move my question to the Misc desk.

Can someonne please direct me to articles or online resources that describe what are the various functions that an HR department performs, the relative importance of these functions in different types of industries (heavy engineering, FMCG industries, IT companies, banking & financial companies) and how these HR functions relate to the business needs of the organization. Thanks -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the human resources article? Dismas|^(talk) 10:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have! Does it have the precise information I am seeking? May be I missed it, let me looky again. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I read it again, but it only has a bulleted list of the hr functions, with no details and their relative importance in different types of industries. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The "relative importance" would be too subjective to state as it would vary from industry to industry and company to company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.74.132 (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Being raped in the subway

I have heard different version of a story about woman being raped in the subway and no one helping them. Is this an urban legend or does it really happen? I cannot remember of any single news reporting it.--Mr.K. (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a news story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30105703/ Eiad77 (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Groping, but not rape, is so prevalent on Japanese trains (at all times of day), that there are signs in every station saying 「チカンはいかん！」 (molestation is no good!), as if to remind people not to do it. But it still happens so much that I have known girls who've experienced it several times on different trains by different perpetrators in a single day. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan is one of the few non-Muslim countries with sex-segregated public transportation)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Only on Japan Rail (JR). I've never seen them on other rail carriers, but this is the exact reason they have them. I was there for ten years, and I saw all of this evolving. I really felt sad. But that is my opinion, and should not be taken as an answer to the OP's question. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As a small child I remember a women-only compartment on a British train. 78.147.31.121 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's rare, though. Tempshill (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fascinated . . . why is this so prevalent in Japan? I apologise if I sound entirely ignorant, but I would have thought that, as one of the more developed nations, the Japanese would have . . . moved beyond such low-evolution habits by now? Maedin\^talk 16:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really surprising considering this is a culture that has comic books depicting very young girls having sex with bizarre monsters. Go to any bookshop in Japan, and you are likely to find half of the entire store devoted to this. The only reason they use monsters is because it is illegal to show adult male genitals, even in comic book form. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not true, and I assume you realize that if you lived in Japan for ten years. Please don't write stuff like this. I guess it was intended as a joke, but people might take you seriously. -- BenRG (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben, I would like to agree with you, but unfortunately, it is actually true. Read the article I linked to if you don't take my word for it. There are even whole stores dedicated to it. Go to Shinjuku, Roppongi, Akihabara, and you'll see what I mean. Maybe the monsters bit might be a little elaborated, but the rest isn't. I apologize, but I was just stating a fact. Ask any gaijin who's lived in Japan for a while, and you'll get the same answer. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You think roughly half the space in a typical Japanese bookstore is dedicated to comic books depicting monsters raping prepubescent girls? Or was part of that "a little elaborated"? Just the monsters part? Where did you get the idea that "The only reason they use monsters is because it is illegal to show adult male genitals"? Some random person told you and you believed it? Did you nurse these creepy ideas the whole time you were in Japan? At any time you could have walked into a bookstore and read the books. Or maybe just the manga, because half of the store is dedicated to manga, and "manga" and "tentacle rape" are the same category in your mind? What the hell, man? -- BenRG (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I shall rephrase it. Half the space of a typical bookshop in Japan is dedicated to pornography, both soft and hard, and most of it using schoolgirls, or girls dressed as schoolgirls. It is actually illegal to show genitals, as I read in the Japan Times on numerous occasions, when reading articles about people being caught committing crimes and having their apartments searched only to be found with this type of pornography. Don't argue with me mate, I was there, I saw it, I know what happened. As I have said before, just ask any other gaijin who has been there for a while (more than the average 1 or 2 years that most people stay for). I thought it was a terrible thing, but there was no I could change it. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you just made this 50% figure up, because (a) it sounds like you made it up and (b) I've been in a lot of bookshops in Japan, ranging from antiquarian to all-manga, and I don't remember seeing large amounts of porn. But, that was over a decade ago. Maybe times have changed, maybe I wasn't paying attention, I don't feel like searching for sources. Anyway. People are caught committing crimes, and the police search their apartments, and find porn. Porn which is, I gather, legal to own in Japan, since you imply it's the same stuff that's sold at all those bookshops. Presumably the police also found other licit merchandise in their apartments, but the newspapers don't mention that, only the porn. In the U.S. the bugaboo is violent video games. After the latest teen shooting spree, the police search the teens' rooms and are shocked, shocked, to find violent video games there.

It really upsets me—not you specifically, just in general—how willing people are to accept Japan as a nation of perverts. It wasn't always a nation of perverts. Not long ago it was a nation of hardworking businesspeople that discouraged individualism and was going to take over the world, kind of like the Borg. Before that it was Eastern and mystical. Before that it was yellow and perilous. I'm amazed when I hear people talking about how Japanese people separate the world into "ingroup" and "outgroup", or how they wear a mask that hides their true intentions when talking with others—as though they aren't describing every human society that has ever existed. This is an enlightened age in which we've realized that the peoples of the world have far more in common than they have differences, but Japan seems to be a special case. They do the awful things that would never happen here, we report objectively on it. The Moral Decline of Japan is no different from the Moral Decline of America. It's a breakdown of traditional social structures. Please stop treating Japan as the weird country. -- BenRG (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article you linked to says "Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama observe a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence". Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can believe that. However, there has been a dramatic increase in crimes against children. The cases of Airi Kinoshita and Kaede Ariyama were notorious. I was in Japan when these cases happened, and the public uproar (as well as in the media) was very powerful. Those articles also give links to other cases. I'm not Japan-bashing, however, and do not wish to be understood. I love Japan, and will be moving back there in a few years. Cases like the ones I have just linked to are not isolated to Japan, as they happen in every country. I am just stating that there has been an increase in reported crimes against children. In fact, when a child is murdered, it would get reported, so I think you can see what I am getting at. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite see what child murders in Japan have to do with the question, which is about a woman being raped on the subway. Please don't use the Reference Desk as a chatroom; try to stick to the subject in hand. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not using it as a chatroom. It was an answer to your comment. You talked about sexual violence decreasing, I told you that sexual violence against children where the victim is murdered have increased. You started it. We're on a touchy subject now, and that is why everyone is on edge, as it angers us all. Let's calm down and just report the facts. And, MalcomXIV, you have been told by many people on Wikipedia to stop disagreeing with people just for the hell of it. We have had this conversation before. You wanna talk about something you know, go ahead. You wanna talk about something you have no idea about, then you don't even deserve an answer. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for your tedious personal attacks. See your talk page. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack, lar, and you have threatened me on my talk page. YOU are the one who is once again in the wrong, as you very often have been told by other Wikipedians, but you never listen. You just keep coming back to argue. You don't even know what you are talking about, but you always take the opposite stance to everyone else. Don't threaten people, lad, or you shall see what happens. IPs are logged and you could be banned for what you said on my talk page. You're telling me to watch myself? You're the one with the attitude. Sort it out or go away. I'm making this public, because I know there are others here who are sick of your argumentative attitude, and they will be behind me. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. If you don't think posting a stream of obscenities on my talk page is a violation of WP:CIVIL, I suggest you give it a read. Let's continue this thrilling discussion elsewhere. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, lad, I didn't realize you considered a single sentence to be a stream of obscenities. Your posts on my talk page, on the other hand, are very insulting, and many of them there are. I suggest you stop. That is advice. Take it or leave it. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page you wrote: "Hey, twat! Don't fucking threaten me!"

On your own, you wrote: "Get off my fucking talk page, you twat! You've been warned plenty of times by others on Wikipedia, and you still try to cause shit. Fucking wanker." ... "Just fuck off, dickhead. I have no time for your shite." ... "you in your infinite wisdom should be able to look through wikipedia's fucking archives to find out who has been calling you all the twats going".

So on the "very insulting" and "suggest you stop" topic, I'd say you don't have a leg to stand on. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. That was my talk page, not public pages like the RefDesks. I can say what I want, especially when someone invades it and threatens me, like you did. Wikipedia is not a place to threaten people, Malcolm, it's a place to state facts. If you want to threaten people, join the teenagers on IRC or something. Let's stop this now, because the poor OP's question is turning into a playground for trolls like you. It's not fair on him. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:No angry mastodons. If you find yourself typing obscenities at another user, this is an indication that the mastodons are encroaching. This is no more acceptable on their or your talk page than it is on the reference desks. User talk pages are just as publicly available as these pages. When you feel the mastodons approach, try the advice on the appropriate page (linked). Or go and do something else until your heart rate slows down. 89.168.96.79 (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Advice taken, and conversation with him is ended. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A (female) friend was groped in the Paris Metro once while visiting that city. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually got groped by a Japanese guy when I was getting onto the train at the subway in Kanayama, Nagoya. He grabbed my backside, then proclaimed to everyone on the train that he had groped a gaijin's backside. Hey, look, I am a GUY ??!?! I was so shocked I couldn't even bring myself to kick his teeth in. I just laughed, and felt thankful (for him) that he hadn't chosen to touch my wife instead (who had been complaining to me that she was getting groped on the way to and from work almost every day). --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Paris metro is notorious for groping; check out any travellers' forum for tales. In reply to the OP, who asks if the story is an urban legend: you may be thinking of the case of Kitty Genovese, and the associated phenomenon of the diffusion of responsibility. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes a lot more effort to do the right thing than most people realize. I am one of those irritating people who sort of tries to do it 90% of the time, and I find I'm the one guy even trying each time, even if there are dozens of people around. I think we could all do a little better for the world if we decide, ahead of time, to be that person, the one who makes the phone call, the one who raises his or her voice. It's not easy and we're not really socialized for it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with that call for courage, here's a good video [23]. I think it's awesome. Two young men in Australia see a man stabbing a pregnant woman and manage to save her life. Wrad (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A little anecdote: I personally witnessed a girl being groped by a middle aged man, while her boyfriend next to her ignored what was happening. I was with my wife at the time, and we were sitting opposite. This guy was doing it in full view! I was the one who threw the man off the train, but got no thanks from either the boyfriend or the victim, who both got off at the next stop. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On the flip side, Austin Hemmings was killed trying to saving a woman in Auckland [24]. What would have happened if he hadn't intervened we will never know, perhaps more and other people would have been injured or killed, perhaps no one would have died but the woman and perhaps others may have been injured. It's likely though that Austin Hemmings would still be alive today whatever the case. This doesn't of course mean that he made the wrong decision, but it is reflective of the fact intervening and trying to stop a crime in progress is indeed risky. And hopefully we can all agree whatever would have happened in this case, it can definitely result in what by most measures is a a worse outcome then if you had not intervened (as well as a better one). Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In the book A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, young Frances Nolan gets the advice from her mother (or is it aunt?) that she should learn to stand on the subway without holding the overhead straps, keeping her hands by her side, and keeping a sharp hatpin in one hand, to retaliate against any groping. This is New York City in the 1910s. Jørgen (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly in Manchester nightclubs not that many years ago (less than 10), getting groped by random lowlifes was depressingly common. Similarly to the advice Nolan received, the usual defence was to have your hands by your sides and time a grab to squeeze the groper's hand as hard and painfully (nails helped) as possible. I don't know if it is still as common. This isn't a phenomenon limited to Japan. 89.168.96.79 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Nick Leeson explains in his memoir Rogue Trader: How I Brought Down Barings Bank and Shook the Financial World his technique at nightclubs in the 1980s: he would attempt to place his penis in the hand of a girl standing on or near the crowded dance floor. I really do not understand this -- did he think it was more likely to attract a girlfriend? had he never heard of false nails? -- but he kept it up, if you'll excuse the pun, until a heavily built boyfriend of one of these young women told him to stop. I would be grateful if anyone can give a page reference for this; it would be quite early on. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to bring this discussion somewhat more on topic, you may want to read diffusion of responsibility and bystander effect. This sort of thing is sadly IMHO, not as surprising as it may sound, although the classic story Kitty Genovese is not as bad as it was originally made to sound. (Actually I would say that even for this case, I strongly suspect one of the reasons why nothing was done is because the people who saw it weren't sure what else to do and didn't want to put themselves at risk. Plus they had some degree of responsibility to other things, e.g. if the driver had gotten out of the train and it had been hijacked) Nil Einne (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to bring the discussion back on track, two of those links were provided 24 hours previously. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry missed that in the discussion Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal Royal Mottoes (UK)

There seems to be no authoritive list of the personal mottoes of the various monarchs of the UK, and I'd like Wikipedia to have one. First, though, I'd like to answer the personal question that prompted this. So this image shows James I's arms, apparently, (the shield itself is Stuart, at least). It has the motto EXURGAT DEUS, DISSIPENTER INIMICI (God will rise, enemies will be scattered (?, my translation))- the only reference Google throws up are some coins from Charles I's time. Was it used, and by whom?

Secondly, what did the other monarchs use (other than Dieu et mon droit)?

• James I used Beati Pacifici (Blessed are the peacemakers), not that listed above.
• Elizabeth used Semper eadem, "Ever the same"
• Cromwell used Pax quaeritur bello – “Peace is sought through war”

(I also saw a person saying that Henry VIII didn't have such a motto as king, but then again they were arguing that to call an armorial achievement a coat of arms was a grave mistake. He (or she) did say that Coeur Loyal was probably incorrect as a long-term thing though.

Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: our Threepence (British coin) article, and others, date coins using EXURGAT DEUS DISSIPENTUR INIMICI — Let God arise and His enemies be scattered. to the reign of Charles I. However, I've also found here which is a very similar painting in a similar church, in James I's reign with the inscription. What's up with it? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Psalm 68 or 67 uses it. Was it special for his arms in churches? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

history

where can I find a list of major events for the period 1900-1912? Such lists exist on this site for earlier periods, but by the 20th century, there are thousands of events listed for each year.148.197.114.207 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might take a look at 1900s (decade) and 1910s. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Galloping Major scandal

Is this article the least informative on wikipedia? 91.104.59.235 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Barry Townsley. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Financial Times front page for 1993 Bishopsgate bombing

Could anybody steer me to this front page please? I recall it being something along the lines of 'X million square foot of damage' Thanks in advance 79.78.24.13 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing says that one and a half million square feet of office space were affected and 5,000 tonnes of glass were broken. There is a link to a BBC On This Day page, but I can't see an FT link. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad Tejan Kabbah's second wife

Around how old will Ahmad Kabbah's second wife be? Ahmad Kabbah marry his second wife last year, so his second wife should be at least 30 years younger than Ahmad, so she wouldn't be older than 1970 or 1968 birth. So around how old will Ahmad's second wife be, good one might be 1972 birth.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This site says his second wife, variously named Isatu (or Isata) Jabbie (or Jabbe), is 40 years’ younger than he is, which would suggest she was born in 1972. // BL \\ (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

May 28

Did WWII tanks ever resort to physically pushing enemy tanks?

I vaguely remember a story some years ago about US Sherman tanks' cannons being so inneffective against the German Panzers' armor that they resorted to pushing them, or dragging them off the battlefield entirely. Now I'm not sure that this is true at all because I don't remember properly, I think I heard it on a historical war program though. It may also have been another set of tanks but I think these are the ones best known for the issue. The Panzers having brilliant armor and their cannon excellent ability to penetrate armor, while the Sherman was the opposite in those respects.

It may also just have been about dragging friendly, damaged, tanks around as I'm sure did happen at times. The thing is I can't find any mention of it anywhere, it may have been a very obscure occurance in odd battles here and there.

Does anyone know whether it is true? And if so, could you please point me towards any reliable source on the matter?

All input is apreciated :)

92.21.186.193 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Baharroth

I believe that in the 1965 movie "Battle of the Bulge" the Panzers pushed a Sherman off a bridge after shooting and destroying it. A Sherman would not have tried to fight a Panzer by pushing it. Sherman tactics against Panzers were to get behind it and shoot it where the armor is thinner, or hit it with shots from multiple Shermans. The Panzer armor was not magically invulnerable to multiple shots from the Sherman cannons.Here is a Panzer destroyed by a Sherman:[25]. Or they could wait for the Panzer to break down, since they were unreliable. Damaged tanks could certainly be hauled in for repairs. The funniest tank pushing newsfilm from WW2 showed GIs pushing Shermans to keep them from sliding sideways on an icy road, perhaps while headed toward the battle of the Bulge in December 1944.Edison (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Sherman tactics were to get behind the Panzers. This was not incredibly difficult, as the Shermans were much faster and manoueverable than the heavier Tigers or King Tigers. Panthers were a different matter, though (Funny how Mac OSX is named after German tanks! They also have the Leopard !). If a Sherman ever did try to push or drag (presumably using grappling cables), it would be suicide, as the Panzer's turret could just turn and blow the Sherman to pieces, and at that range a kill would be a sure thing. I believe your last theory is correct. Tanks are often used to drag damaged friendlies to safety where they can be repaired, even these days. There is a story I read once about an M1 Abrams getting caught in a bog in the first Persian Gulf War. It was attacked by four T-72s (from as little as 400 yards) and hit four times, but wasn't damaged. It then took out the four Iraqi tanks before help arrived in the form of a couple of APCs. The APCs tried to drag it out of the bog, but failed. Along came another M1 Abrams, and the decision was made to blow it up so it didn't fall into the hands of the enemy. It took three shots from the Abrams before an explosion was noticed, and meanwhile two other Abrams had turned up. The other two Abrams attached cables to the stranded tank, and pulled it back to base for repairs. The only damage that had been done by the explosion was that the main gun had been disabled. This was replaced and the tank was back in service the following day. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are stories of Soviet tanks ramming their German counterparts during the Battle of Kursk, but this history professor roundly dismisses that as "fanciful" and "hogwash", and cites only a single verifiable tank ramming (in France). 87.114.167.162 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Bai Koroma's wife Sia

Around how old will Sia Koroma be? They didn't even say what year was Koromas marry. Ernest Bai Koroma was the 4th national leader of Sierra Leone, and Enest is only 55 (b. 10/02/1953).--69.229.240.187 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP article to which you have linked states that she was born in the "late 1950s" and that she and Ernest were married on October 18, 1986. However, there are no sources given for this information, so I don't know how reliable it is. // BL \\ (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

She was born on 19 March 1958, so she is currently 51. Source: her website. ThemFromSpace 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the big picture?

How come hardly anyone -- even among the non-religious sort who believe this world is or may be all there is -- seems to be interested in achieving things that will make a difference in the grand scheme of things (i.e. affect a significant percentage of the world's population, and/or continue to make a difference billions of years into the future)? NeonMerlin 03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

People are, at the end of the day, interested in doing things that increase the chances of their genes being perpetuated. The "grand scheme of things" doesn't make much difference to the reproductive success of one person. --Tango (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather, people are interested in doing things that make them happy, comfortable, and secure in their happiness and comfort. Perpetuating their genes may be what makes some people happy, but certainly not everyone. For other people, looking at the big picture is it. Still others have other preferences. --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, May 28, 2009.

Some people do look at the big picture. What makes you think they don't? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And what about Global warming? Long term, global impact? Plenty of people care about it. Fribbler (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We (humans) think about many things at once -- the big picture, the little picture, and a variety of sizes in-between. I think it is a mistake to be overly restrictive in our characterizations of the thinking processes of others. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Man's civilisation has lasted for around 10000 years. It would be arrogant to plan for a future in a billion years let alone billions of years.
Sleigh (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Worse than arrogant—plain impossible. The few concrete plans to do so are pretty amusing in their futility. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, of living in Berkeley for many years, the people who claim to care the most about the entire world at once are the worst to try and interact with on a personal basis. They're the ones who claim to be cosmically connected with the universe but are complete a**holes with people they have to cross paths with in a more mundane way. My suspicion is that their idealized humanity that they care about is something quite different than the reality of human beings, all of whom when seen from up close are considerably more problematic and troublesome than the idealizations would allow.

Or, put another way, I think people need to first cultivate their own garden before taking on the whole world. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that syndrome well. It's often described as "I love humanity, but can't stand people". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The people who tell you they care about the world, sure, because you have to be pretty stuck up to go around telling people how caring you are. I don't think that means that caring about the world is a bad thing or that it makes you a jerk. -- BenRG (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Because spending your brief time on this Earth worrying about possible outcomes billions of years from now is tragically sad, and a waste of time in the most ironic sense? Because thinking you can (or even wanting to) change a significant portion of the world's population is possibly pompous and patronizing and probably pointless? Better, I think, to hang about on wikipedia alliterating. Regardless, you might find the Long Now Foundation interesting... TastyCakes (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the original questioner's use of the term "billions." I don't take it seriously. I think it is meant to imply "long term future." Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sun is gradually getting warmer such that in about a billion years, the Earth will no longer be habitable. If you really want to think about the big picture, we need to get off this planet and find a new home. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is theorized that when our Sun dies, that Mars may escape destruction, but that Earth may not. [Scientific American Magazine|http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=improbable-planets] Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's when the Sun turns into a red giant which happens in about 5 billion years. But we don't even have that long. My understanding is that our oceans will boil away in about a billion years. Mars will certainly be warmer but I don't think it has enough gravity to keep a significant atmosphere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The big picture stuff is at the top. Most people never get there

Well, for a good reference, see Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The big picture is at the tipety-top of the pyramid. Most people in the world live day-to-day trying to meet the needs at the bottom of the pyramid. Its tough to worry about global warming when you are trying to feed yourself and your children. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out the Long Now Foundation. They care! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Salma Kikwete

About what year will Salma Kikwete be born. All they said is Kikwetes have 8 kids total, and Jakaya Kikwete (4th national leader of Tanzania) was born in 10/07/1950 (He'll be 59 in about 4 months), then his wife shouldn't be born later than 1960, but I'm guessing she would be at least 4 years younger.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're asking in what year she was born. "Will be" refers to the future, to something that has not yet happened. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

69.229.240.187, you could ask her office – there is an email address available on her website. P.S It would be great if you could add all these birthdates that you are collecting to the relevant articles! Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail will be tough. Plus black women usually may not like people asking the ages. On my computer, I don't know how to set up so I can see my e-mail from my computer. Any e-mails sent goes to my dad or mom's computer. They check the e-mails sent. They will get mad at me wen I have suspicious e-mails, since they say to not ask about anybody's birthday. Jakaya is about 58 right now and he is turning 59 this year, the Salma looks young on images, then she should be born in mid 1950s?--69.229.240.187 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of the Salma Kikwete article, it was always a one-line stub and was quite rightly redirected to the Jakaya Kikwete article. However, in one of the previous edits, someone did try to add her to the "1963 births" category. How reliable that information is, is impossible to say and it could easily have been vandalism. None the less, looking at photos, she does appear to be younger than her husband, though I'm unsure if she looks as much as 13 years younger. It is probably still better to ask directly at the contact info supplied by WikiJedits. Astronaut (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw it. It was add 1963 birth cat by an IP. IP is not vandalising, actually it was made by good faith. 1963 I would probably call it, she seems to be much younger.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Que Sarah Sarah?

Is Sarah still the Duchess of York even though she's divorced from Andrew? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. She kept the title of Duchess but lost the Her Royal Highness upon divorce.[26] Fribbler (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If Andrew were to re-marry, what title would his new wife carry? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The same, although she may go by a different style to avoid confusion, similar to how Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, doesn't use the style "The Princess of Wales", even though that's what she is, because that title is too closely associated with Diana. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Learning to sing

I would like to learn to sing. To be honest, I do not think that my voice is perfect for singing, but it is neither truly awful. Perhaps it is also difficult to judge one's own vocal capabilities – nobody likes to hear her own voice. I do not want to take singing lessons, but would prefer to learn the tricks by self-study. Is there perhaps any book on the topic? Below are some quick facts about me.

• Sex: Male
• Age: 21 years
• Nationality: Swedish

Perhaps this is a question more appropriate for the Entertainment Reference Desk, but it would feel wrong to post it there, for music is so much more than mere entertainment. Thank you. --81.227.64.210 (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You could start by posting a video of you singing. F (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Record yourself singing and play it back. It is not easy to hear yourself sing while you sing. You have to record it and play it back to really hear it. Then, work on anything you hear that sounds bad. Singing is a physical skill and, like all physical skills, improves with practice. -- kainaw™ 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't go to show like "Schweden got talent" without asking for a professional opinion.--Mr.K. (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Karaoke! TastyCakes (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do this privately, a couple of friends have claimed to me that playing karaoke games on a video game console has helped them maintain notes and find the notes, because you have visual feedback right in front of you. Tempshill (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The arts centre where I go juggling has a class called "Find Your Voice" which teaches people the fundamentals of singing. The class also would help with confidence, as they sing to each other. I'm in England, but I'm guessing similar classes run world-wide.--81.136.174.160 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Election results in Sweden?

When can we expect the results from the European Parliament election, 2009 (Sweden)? Which websites would you recommend I check? thanks F (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The website of the official elections authority is [27], and on all previous elections that I can remember, they start publishing results district by district there mere minutes after the polling stations close. If you understand Swedish you can read more at [28]. As they write there, preliminary results are expected before 11 pm. Since there are only 18 seats in total, it should be obvious quite soon how the breakdown of seats end up per party (1 seat per 5.5%), while the votes per individual will not be counted or revealed until one or two days later./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rapture

How do we know the Rapture hasn't already happened and we are the descendants of those left behind? Is there any way we could prove the event didn't occur long ago? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't part of the punishment that those left behind are aware that they weren't worthy of being taken to Heaven? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No more than we can prove Russell's teapot. Livewireo (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair points, I guess what I'm getting at more is this: Is there any more "evidence" (documents, scripture, etc.) which specifies the Rapture is still yet to come versus it already have happened? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rapture is the name for a set of beliefs common to Christian sects. Beliefs are not susceptible to proof in any meaningful sense; if there were "evidence" then the matter would not be one of belief, but one of fact. Your question cannot be answered except within a specific belief system. I refer you to the article and to the writings it highlights for what claims are made for the belief. // BL \\ (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but the Rapture was not actually mentioned anywhere in the New Testament or the Old Testament. It was an idea created later that has no basis on Christianity or anything else, in fact. However, if it was a possible thing, we (left behind) would have no idea that it had happened, as we would be condemned to live our self-centred lives here on Earth while we watch wars and famine and pandemic diseases wipe us out. The idea of the Rapture is partly that people who are obsessed with themselves will remain. People who care for others are the ones who will be 'taken'. Sort of contradictory, really, because in a time when people need help, the people who are willing to help disappear. But anyway, that's what it is supposed to be. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the Rapture article which goes into quite a bit of detail about which groups support which exact interpretations - and which exact verses of the New Testament they are based on. Rmhermen (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is off-topic and belongs as a separate question, but I was under the impression that the people who subscribed to the idea of the Rapture didn't think caring for others was necessary or sufficient to be saved (and thus 'taken' in the rapture), but that rather believing in Jesus (in a very specific way) was the thing. Have I just been thrown off by some vocal groups? I thought those who emphasise the importance of caring about others tend not to believe in the Rapture. 89.168.96.79 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any connection between these two beliefs. Groups with varied intrepretations of the Rapture participate in charity, sometimes even working together. Rmhermen (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are differences of opinion about what "caring for others" means. A lot of people that strongly believe in the rapture spend their time "witnessing", basically trying to convert people and thus "save" them. They probably consider that caring for others. I've heard it claimed (I've never researched it enough myself to have an opinion) that Mother Teresa was more interested in caring for people in that way than in the more mundane ways we would expect. --Tango (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet, it seems all currently active sects view it as a future event though so there must be some reason why it's universal within the believing groups. Why do think this? Or is there some group out there who does believe it has already occured?TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"The worst's already happened, and there's nothing you can do about it" doesn't help to extract (tax exempt) revenue from your believers. (Which is why anyone who believes in this is unlikely to find enough followers to organise into a religious movement. An epicurian dining society, maybe, but not a religion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Much to my surprise (though why anything in religion should still surprise me, I cannot say), there are sects who believe that the full Millenium occured in A.D. 70. This article sets out the differences between Preterists and Hyper-Preterists or Full Preterists and covers the degree to which each faction believes that The Rapture is in the past. I cannot comment on the reliability of the information. // BL \\ (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rapturists could kiss my Left Behind as a token of brotherly love. Edison (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Way to turn the other cheek Ed. But seriously, if a bunch of people up and vanished, all at once, don't you think other people might notice and perhaps comment upon it? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Can you really take this whole belief seriously, though? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Address of Emmy Rossum

Where can I find the e-mail address of Emmy Rossum? (No, this is not a joke.) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably nowhere, but if you sign up for a 14 day free trial at [29], you might be able to contact her publicity people. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You can send her a message through Myspace if you have an account http://www.myspace.com/emmyrossum. Eiad77 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a bit more interesting. But can you be sure that it really is her Myspace account (indeed, her name is quite well-known, and, as I understand it, anyone can create a page at Myspace)? Also, does she read the messages herself, or are they read by an employee? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is linked from her official website http://www.emmyrossum.com/ (icon on the left) Eiad77 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chances are any mail you send to Emmy Rossum (electronic or otherwise) will pass through the hands of a personal assistant. Only mail from people she knows is likely to go straight to her. If you're interested in contacting her as a fan, MySpace or through a contact link on her website is best, the same if you're after media information or permissions for fansites, etc. If you want to ask her out, it's more difficult, but that's still your best bet, short of going to the same parties as her. Steewi (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Too bad, for I have a rather important (or, at least, interesting) message for her. (And no, I am not a "fan" – of course I think she is a truly wounderful actor and singer, but I am not merely a "fan", if you understand what I mean.) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I simply mean that I am not a stereotypical "fan", that has visited all her performances, bought all her CD's, seen all her movies, used all my free wall space for posters, and so on, and simply want an autograph or somthing like that. I am neither a "fool" that has fallen in love with the actor, and believes she would marry me. In fact, I have only seen her in one movie; otherwise, she is completely unknown to me. Instead, I simply want to discuss a matter with her, not as an actor/singer, but as a normal person. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

UK Councillors/local councils by party

Hi, is there a list anywhere of the total number of councillors and councils belonging to each party in the UK?

I've looked at the local election results pages on Wikipedia, such as United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2007 and [[30]] but simple mathematics tells me that these sort of pages only show the number of councillors/councils that are up in that specific election, not the total numbers.

So does anyone know where I can find a list of the total number of councillors and councils each party controls overall?

(nb. I realise this will change in a few days in any case) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment at the bottom of this blog has the figures, but doesn't seem to state a source. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This site provides what you're after, sourced from the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors

http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm

Dalliance (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The title of a book from my childhood

I'm trying to identify a children's novel from my childhood. This story shares a few elements with The Secret Garden in that there is a walled garden/park which is closed because of painful memories. The story differs in that the wall itself is hidden in the woods, and contains a larger area, which was frequented by the parents of the protagonists decades before the time in which the story is set. Some tragic incident (a death, perhaps?) led to the sealing of the garden/park.

Any ideas about what book this might be? Or suggestions of better forums to post this questions? Thanks! JamesLucas (" " / +) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

May 29

U.S. Spelling Bee & participant race

Has anyone established a reason why South Asians are disproportionately represented in the U.S. Spelling Bee final rounds? Are spelling bees hugely popular in South Asia? 61.189.63.185 (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a greater cultural tolerance for memorizing meaningless letter sequences. Most of the deciding words seem to be transliterations from foreign words, somewhat capriciously done. Might as well memorize a series of license plate numbers, for all the practical use. Words which are actually likely to be misspelled in, say, college level courses, are rarely the winning words. The final words are generally of such low usage frequency they would not be encountered in 16 years of college education. Edison (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Our List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions includes the winning words - which aren't always so rare as you claim, Edison. Rmhermen (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick scan tells me 75% of the words are found only in dictionaries. Tempshill (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the first dozen years made me think, yeah, they're words I had at least heard before age 20. Then I looked at the most recent few years... I'm in my 30s, quite well read, university educated, and I've neither heard nor seen more than two of the most recent 15 words. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What South Asians? There are a lot of Americans (and a few Canadians) of South Asian extraction. The critical factor is likely their parents' culture's emphasis on the importance of education. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarityfiend is most likely correct. South Asian culture places a heavy emphasis on good education to get ahead of the rest of the population. In addition, India has a long history of rote-learning, which can benefit spelling-bee participants (although there are multiple techniques, including spelling rules, foreign language spelling rules, definitions, etc. That's why you're allowed to know the definition and cultural origin of the words). I wish we'd had them in my area when I was in school. Steewi (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What South Asians? There are a lot of Americans (and a few Canadians) of South Asian extraction. Please don't tell me you honestly thought I meant South Asian nationals? They wouldn't be disproportionately represented then would they, since nearly everyone from those countries looks like that! Obviously I meant with respect to North American residents, as seeing the final stage one with no other data could reasonably infer that the United States is half ethnic South Asian. Thank you for your response, Steewi, that's what I was looking for. 61.189.63.185 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not a fan of spelling bees in particular, but I especially dislike the rule allowing you to ask for the etymology of the word. In what possible situation will you ever be in where you know the origin of a word other than a spelling bee? Eiad77 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't ask for the etymology, just the language of origin. Despite the abuse of language by some spelling bee people (who you would expect to know better!), an etymology is far more than that. --Tango (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The winning words are usually English transliterations of non-English words of excruciatingly low frequency of usage, such that one will likely never need to spell them in learned discourse. Thus a spelling bee has very little to do with a good education. This is not "How do you spell relief?" It smacks of home-schooled kids sitting and wasting their time memorizing the special list of thousands of contest words. Memorizing digits of pi would be about as related to a "good education" as this. Edison (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It looked pretty reasonable until the 1990s, then they stopped using "real" words and started using esoteric garbage. I mean sure a word like discombobulation might be used, but how often has the word appoggiatura come up in an English conversation? I mean, even my spell check does not think it is a word. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Memorizing obscure words may not be "good education" by itself, but isn't it good to learn how to spell? Isn't it good to learn the sort of rules of spelling, grammar, and etymology that are necessary to do well in the spelling bee? Do you think that these skills aren't applicable to anything else? I don't know what these kids end up doing but I'm sure most of them end up with advanced degrees and academic-type jobs (I read the other day that a number of them ended up in neuroscience.) What about anything else kids do? Is it useful to for kids to play tennis from a very young age? How reasonable is it for anyone to run a marathon, or learn to pole-vault? Or are these okay because they are physical skills, not mental? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

From the looks of it, those newer spelling words are all about the exceptions to the spelling rules. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are foreign words, so there really aren't any spelling rules. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Gramer? We don't need no steenking gramer! (that aside, there aren't really any spelling rules to what you would perceive as Real English, either. There's alway exceptions and exceptions to exceptions.) TomorrowTime (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

North Korean Infantry - Main Weapon

Our article on North Korean Army was very informative, but doesn't say anything about the weapons the army uses. I'd like to know what the main weapon for the infantry is. I would assume, from my ignorance, that it would be the AK-47, but maybe they use something else. Does anyone know anything about it? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know the answer, but if I had to guess I'd guess the QBZ-95 from the PLA of China, not the AK-47. Although, the marching photos I see are the AK-47 with bayonet attached, so maybe you're right. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Which Buddha Statue ? (done)

I am trying to identify a defined Buddha statue. One picture here and another here. The folds of the clothes are special. Any concrete suggestions (Google Immages => nothing so far) --Grey Geezer 07:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Looks like a very ordinary Buddha statue to me. Named Buddhas are normally identified by colour, mudra, posture, and any implements they hold, but we can't see enough of that statue to be able to identify it as a particular Buddha.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reformulating my question: Where is THIS Statue standing (those curls, those earlobes, that mouth, that special clothing [Why was THAT ONE chosen as the book cover?]. I am aware that there are different kinds of Buddha statues but THIS one ... which country, which location. Thanx --Grey Geezer 10:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Found it ... via the curls => "Mathura, Standing Buddha, 4. Cent. --Grey Geezer 11:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Search for the orignal artwork

Does anybody know where this:

• http://www.canvaz.com/gallery/528.htm
• http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1421265478
• http://www.exoticindia.com/book/details/IDE032/

picture has been taken from? To me it looks like a younger version of Graeco-Buddhist art. --Liebeskind (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, can't help, but isn't it odd that two people have asked the very same question in the space of two hours (see Grey Geezer's post above at 07:08)? Ericoides (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that paragraph --Liebeskind (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems too coincidental to be a coincidence ...? Ericoides (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Buy one of the books that are featuring this picture on the cover. If you are lucky they will have provided the information about the cover image in the colophon. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Favonius date of birth

Anyone know when Marcus Favonius, the Roman politician, was born? Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I found "Born about the year 90" (BC), A History of Cynicism, p 120, but I didn't see where this information came from. I found nothing in Plutarch. Since he was chosen as an aedile around 53/52 BC, and the minimum age for that office seems to have been 35, I guess he was probably born before 88/87 BC. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sluzzelin, it's a piece of info that seems tricky to hunt down; and as you say, Dudley's date is of unknown provenance. Still, I've stuck it in MF's page, along with your ref. It would be nice to know more about Favonius' family and youth too... Ericoides (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the contribution of coal (percentage) to the total energy consumption in Poland?

In Germany nobody can answer this question. Answers in German Wikipedia vary from 22 to 95 percent. The later number is from German TV (ARD).

--IuserA (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This site says that in 1998 coal provided "around 70% of Poland's primary energy supply, but this is expected to fall as use of other sources of primary energy increase. Almost all of Poland's electricity production and district heating is coal fired." And this article, from 2008, claims that Poland "generates 96 percent of its electricity in power stations fired by coal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

These figures from 2004 are the best I've found, and they essentially agree with those given above. 59% of its primary energy supply came from coal, and 92% of electricity generation was from coal. Putting the two figures together suggests that around 79% of total energy consumption was contributed by coal, in 2004. Warofdreams talk 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary energy supply includes energy used to generate electricity, so it does not make sense to adjust the figure for primary energy supply with the figure for electricity generation. Therefore, in 2004, 59% of Poland's energy supply came from coal. The percentage of Poland's energy consumption (somewhat smaller than its supply due to inefficiencies) from coal should be nearly the same as the percentage of its supply that came from coal. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest data I found is for 2007. Coal (including hard coal and lignite) accounted for 60.51 percent of primary energy consumption in Poland in that year. Details below:

Structure of primary energy consumption in Poland

	2003		2004		2005		2006		2007
	PJ	%	PJ	%	PJ	%	PJ	%	PJ	%
Total primary energy	3939.8	100.00	3937.8	100.00	3927.1	100.00	4166.6	100.00	4137.1	100.00
Hard coal	2056.7	52.20	1932.2	49.07	1865.0	47.49	2002.5	48.06	1996.9	48.27
Lignite	516.9	13.12	518.9	13.18	538.5	13.71	530.7	12.74	506.5	12.24
Crude oil	742.0	18.83	770.1	19.56	771.8	19.65	851.7	20.44	854.7	20.66
Natural gas	509.4	12.93	521.6	13.25	545.5	13.89	551.4	13.23	552.2	13.35
Other	114.8	2.91	195.0	4.95	206.3	5.25	230.3	5.53	226.8	5.48

Source: Energy Statistics 2006, 2007 published by the Polish Central Statistical Office, Warsaw 2008, ISSN: 1896-7809

— Kpalion^(talk)

Cabbage

I cannot find this in either article - what is the difference between Kimchi and Sauerkraut?

As the first sentences of those articles say, Kimchi is pickled, Sauerkraut is fermented. --Tango (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, their origins are different: kimchi is a Korean dish, while saurkraut is German. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Kimchi is also pretty spicy while Sauerkraut is, strangely enough, sour. Livewireo (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Tango's assessment, there are versions of either Kimchi and Sauerkraut which are pickled and/or fermented. Both use pickled/fermented cabbage at their core, but as noted; Kimchi is frequently heavily spiced. Sauerkraut is also used as a condiment while Kimchi is frequently a side dish or main course. Most importantly, they are independently created dishes. That the Koreans and the Germans both created pickled cabbage dishes independently is the key; merging the two ideas is a bad idea. Consider the similarity between Moo Shu and Fajitas or between Ravioli and Pierogi or any of a number of other dishes. Similar dishes often have indepenant development in multiple cultures. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that the cabbage used is of fairly different varieties ("regular" cabbage in the one case and Chinese cabbage in the other). Or was I wrong? Can kimchi be made from regular cabbage as well? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Abatement

Is "abatement" properly used in the history section for Bay County, Michigan? The section states that someone pled abatement because they were being tried in another county for a crime allegedly committed in Bay County: the defendent said that the other county's court therefore didn't have jurisdiction. Reading abatement in pleading, I couldn't find anything of this sort: it discusses matters related to the person of the defendant, and there's nothing about such a plea because someone is being tried by a court that doesn't have jurisdiction over them. Do we need to revise the Bay County article or expand the abatement article? Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Which was worse the First or Second Red Scares?

Which was worse the First or Second Red Scares?

The Second Red Scare and McCarthyism is more popular in public imagination, but the government was far more persecutorty in violating civil liberties during the 1st Red scare. Certainly far more violent repression and people were arrested and killed during the 1st. --Gary123 (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should probably be noted that just because one was "worse" in some ways doesn't mean it had as much affect overall on the culture or atmosphere. The two "Scares" were very different in their targets—the first one targeted a bunch of self-proclaimed radicals who were already pretty far removed from the mainstream, whereas the second targeted those who were part of the mainstream power (politicians, aides, actors, scientists, etc.). That's part of why the second one looms so high—it seemed like the sort of thing anyone could get caught up in by hanging around the wrong people, signing up for the wrong newspaper, not just those people who were self-described revolutionaries and agitators. As a result, the second one was more likely to have a strong affect on how "regular" people acted on a day-to-day basis. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(For the interested reader, archive hunter, and link fetishist's sake): Red Scare, First Red Scare, McCarthyism. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Documents

I am really interested in perusing some of the source materials for our accounts of major historical events. Is there a general repository somewhere (ideally scanned online) with this kind of information (more ideally with English translations)? For example, we know much of Roman history from written records at the time. Where can I see ancient roman manuscripts? And what about earlier civilizations? Thanks! TheFutureAwaits (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

wdl.org has a number of items like that. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish hymn

There is a well known Jewish hymn that begins (phonetically) "Ain kal-lah hey-nu". What is it actually called? Thanks. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ein Keloheinu. -- BenRG (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! 207.241.239.70 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I was wondering were I might find the name of the tartan (plaid) kilt worn by Sir Harry Lauder of Scotland. Programmer13 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)