Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 1

Why didn't Europeans die from a lack of immunity to diseases in the new world?

Why didn't Europeans die from a lack of immunity to some diseases in the new world in the same way so many Native Americans died from diseases brought from Europe?

For example, it would seem that the same process that made Europeans able to survive smallpox in relatively large percentages while killing many Native Americans should have resulted in some disease in the new world being as fatal to the Europeans.

It seems reasonable that Europeans had developed some sort of immunity (antibodies or genetic selection) to smallpox through generations of exposure while Native Americans had no prior exposure, leaving them much more vulnerable. But why wasn't there some other disease in the New World to which Native American's had become immune that was just as devastating to the European immigrants as smallpox was to the Native Americans?

It just seems that each population, isolated from the other, might harbor diseases that they have developed immunity to, that would be fatal to the other population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treetilt (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jared Diamond talks about this in Guns, Germs and Steel. He gives some good reasons, like the old world having a much larger population (Europe, Asia and to a degree Africa) and, crucially, population density in some parts, which increases the chances that pathogens will evolve. My opinion, in short, is that while it was entirely possible for some disease to rise in the America's that the rest of the world was very vulnerable after first contact, that simply didn't happen. For whatever reason, or maybe for no reason at all beyond chance, the diseases in the old world were more virulent than those in the new and the latter suffered for it. TastyCakes (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

ah I almost forgot, if I recall he also mentions living in close quarters with domestic animals (pigs etc) as a habit more common in the old world that encouraged the development of diseases. TastyCakes (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While it does not discuss the disease factor directly, the more recent 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus has much higher population estimates for the New World based on some new research that was unavailible or ignored for GG&S. Also, you should read Alfred W. Crosby's book The Columbian Exchange (our article titled Columbian Exchange discusses his concepts, but not his book directly) which makes the case, often since repeated, that diseases DID move back to the old world, namely Syphilis, which may have been carried back to Europe by Columbus's crew themselves. Additionally, without potatoes, you would not have the potato famine, so you could easily consider the famous Irish potato blight to be another disease that came from the new world to the old. These three books (Guns, Germs, & Steel/The Columbian Exchange/1491) actually compliment each other well. They disagree on many points, but if you are looking for the three most important popular histories on the effect of colonialism on the New World, these three are probably the great triumverate. Also, another point not made about why diseases may have not been brought back to the old world; there was no large scale population migrations to the old world. The movement of people was largely one way (there was some movement in the reverse direction, but not a significant amount) and (the syphilis example notwithstanding) this probably goes a LONG way towards explaining why the diseases also seemed to travel only in one direction. --Jayron32 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Total speculation here, but consider this: A significant portion of the Europeans died from the Black Death. Those that didn't presumably had stronger immune systems. Maybe that helped in fending off diseases that the Indians might have carried (though not syphillis, obviously). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I found this Discover article ("The Arrow of Disease") pretty interesting. Basically, the author claims that a lethal disease needs a dense enough population to keep itself going; if say an isolated tribe caught it and was wiped out, the disease would have nobody left to infect and would die out. The Americas just didn't have enough people to sustain epidemics, and Europe did. As an example, he states that "Studies show that measles is likely to die out in any human population numbering less than half a million people." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Though, just to be clear, there were many millions of people in the New World at time of contact. The aforementioned 1491 notes that NW populations had quite differently constructed immune systems and that this played a large part in the differences of disease spread. Recent events have done nothing to convince me otherwise. Matt Deres (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On Columbus' first voyages to the New World, pigs were released into the wild. Pigs carry many diseases that also affect humans. Many historians now believe large numbers of American Indians died from diseases contracted from pigs before ever encountering Europeans. —D. Monack ^talk 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Business question: Joint parenthood for companies?

I seem to have encountered a company that has two parent companies. How does that work? Did they get things wrong and should one be assigned to be the parent (maybe the one forming a taxable entity with the subsidiary) and the other company just be called s.th. else. (If yes, what?) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be some kind of joint venture. If not, which company are you looking at? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Formally, a company can only have one parent company, because a parent company owns >50% of the other (at least in Swedish legal defintions, which I work with). However, the parent company may itself have a parent company too, and then the owned company can be said to have more than one parentcompany, even if one of them is acctually a "grandparent". E.G. (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrimages, succession, infighting

What known connections exist between the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Pilgrim Fathers? Any common families, parishes or otherwise? How about the religious background combined with rebellion? Were the new Pilgrims mocking the Catholic ones, or were they heirs to their tradition, just having evolved into a Protestant movement of recusant and/or separatist Christian communities?

I doubt it extremely, since the two movements were on opposite sides of the western Christian religious fractures of the 16th and early 17th centuries, and the "Pilgimage of Grace" originated in the north of England, while the Pilgrims tended to come from East Anglia or the south of England... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the Pilgrimage an offshoot of the Lincolnshire Rising? That's where Boston is and the home of Anne Hutchinson as well as many of the other colonists, William Bradford being from Austerfield, West Riding of Yorkshire. For instance, the original Pilgrim church is at Scrooby, Notts just next to the West Riding and close enough to Lincolnshire as well.

English succession

How do we know that Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were impostors for real and not that the Tudors used spin doctoring to claim otherwise, such as their suppression of the Titulus Regius and depiction of Richard III as a hunchback monster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How come during the Wars of the Roses, the rebels of Richard III chose a Tudor, rather than a Somerset aka Beaufort aka Plantagenet (or even a Stafford of Buckingam?) and have him marry Elizabeth of York, or have the Clarence Earl of Warwick marry a Somerset (etc)? What attempts were there to revive this dynasty during the Tudors or at the end of Elizabeth's reign, seeing as there were no more Tudors? What about the de la Pole family? Why not raise them to the throne at her death? What was the point of bringing the Howards into it, when the even older lines could have played a part in the conspiracies against the Tudors? Did the Somersets simply back the Tudors because of Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII?

It seems like there were three parties about the Tudor succession descended from Henry VII:

• Papist (via jointly Arthur & Henry Tudor, with the same wife): Philip Habsburg & Mary Tudor
• Puritan (via Mary Tudor): Guildford Dudley & Jane Grey
• Anglican (via Margaret Tudor): Francis Valois or Henry Stuart or James Hepburn & Mary Stuart

How come the Auld Alliance was allowed to succeed to the English throne (despite Henry VIII's restriction of Margaret's line and although not while the King of France was still living) and that it used the Anglican (Episcopalian) model, whereas the Puritan (Calvinist) faction of Northumberland and Suffolk, English as it was, had no luck? It seems odd that the rulers of England and Scotland were opposite of the national constitutions between them and I don't understand that.

Would it be safe to say, that Ireland held onto the Papist (Catholic) succession, until the time of the Infanta or later? How much coordination did the Irish and English Catholics have in their oppressive circumstances by Protestant persecution, or in pursuit of restoration for Philip and his family? I know that as late as the Spanish Match, Catholics still tried to influence national politics, but when did they give up? Was it because of Cromwell, or did they give up when William III invaded? Did they hold out as long as the Jacobite Risings, or was that merely Scotland? That's something I'm curious about, because all of the religious (and even republican) rebellions Ireland is known for, began in England (just like related Tudor rebellions spawned by exiled Yorkists) and yet, the English are not stereotyped as religious (despite their significant medieval history in that field).

I am wondering why Englishness, Protestantism and political freedom are said to be synonymous (it seems more true for the Dutch, almost all being of one stripe), but Protestantism was forced upon the Commons by a rapacious House of Lords whose sympathies were Lollard, being that the Lords at this time were not long ago of the mercantile crowd and all the "lesser people" than the armigerous and professional types were called ignorant papists who didn't know what was best for them. I find it hard to believe that stereotypes of the establishment can substitute for the common people, although the Establishment I am referencing, is completely Anglo-Saxonist and like to pretend anything Roman or "Celtic" has no business or place in Englishness. How do the people put up with this kind of propaganda and to what degree of brainwashing of this sort is legal? It doesn't sound populist, but the rabble-rousers seem to succeed in stirring the masses to this kind of hate. I wouldn't even say this is merely BNP, but both the Tories and the Liberal Dems, to whatever degree their descent is Whiggery, share this ideology.

The same thing with Scotland; they had nationalistic Catholic rebellions but the people are stereotyped as Calvinist. Why don't the Irish have a Jacobite or even Celtic Irish monarch? How much of Ireland's republicanism owes itself to Cromwell, Washington or Robespierre?

---

Don't feel like trying to follow through all your attempted connections, but as for why traditionally in England "Protestantism and political freedom are said to be synonymous", that's fairly easy: Starting in the mid-16th century, Catholic authorities and rulers committed a series of rather crude and heavy-handed maneuvers which ended up completely alienating the majority of literate urban dwellers in the south of England. During the reign of Mary, England's interests were subordinated to those of Spain, and "heretics" were burned at the stake. After Elizabeth came to the throne, the pope issued a declaration (Regnans in Excelsis) strictly requiring all English Catholics to be political traitors in order to be faithful to their religion; and the highest English Catholic leader, Cardinal Allen, schemed and plotted with England's enemies for an invasion of England, and issued amazing bloodthirsty ranting tirades which revealed him to be completely out of touch with the situation within England.

By contrast, Elizabeth disclaimed any ability or desire to make "windows to see into men's souls", and executed people only for treason, not for heresy. The result was that by the 1580's, many people in England identified Catholicism with plotting with England's enemies for an overthrow of the English government, with crude and heavy-handed religious persecutions, and with conniving amoral Jesuits and "Machiavels" (in late 16th-century English, the word "Machiavel" meant someone who, as a conscious choice, had absolutely no ethical inhibitions or concern with morality). Such people were firmly convinced that the coming to power of an openly Catholic ruler in England would be the start of a huge bloodbath in which many many thousands of "heretics" would be burned, and would also mean that England would become weak and subordinate in its foreign policies.

The idea of a Stuart monarchy in Ireland and a Hanoverian monarchy in Britain may sound nice in the abstract, but it ignores the geopolitical realities of the early 18th century, which meant Ireland could not be independent of England unless it was strongly allied with (an effective protectorate of) a major continental European power, while an England which was unable to prevent Ireland from becoming a hostile power base could only be a weak England without a strong navy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That response in the first two paragraphs is straight out of a Whig textbook. No offence, but I was hoping to find something more intuitive than the usual statist, toeing-the-line propaganda. Catholic behavior at this time could have been no different than Protestant, except in how they deal with Church vs State issues. The Catholics were essentially into spiritualised politics (theocratic, Papist), whereas the Protestants were defined by political spirituality (secularist, Imperialist). In a sense, it was much like Guelphs and Ghibellines, mixed with Avignon Papacy, Lollard and Hussite (Anglican and Lutheran) and possible Cathar influences, among the Calvinists.

Anyways, it simply astounds me that for instance, whereas so many martyred themselves under Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth, Protestant propagandas use Mary alone to wipe out all favour for Catholicism, although John Foxe also included Sir Thomas Oldcastle as vitriol in his polemics, possibly also with Wat Tyler in mind. I've been reading about the Catholic restorationist revolts and the demography behind it. It seems striking that many of the former Catholic rebel families (e.g from Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire or the Dales) became Quaker under the Stuarts, rather than Puritan (but those in Lincoln apparently went this route), although many, especially the more well to do, either could pay off their recusancy fines or they decided to convert to Anglicanism, as it appears that the Nevilles and Percys had eventually done. In any case, it is far from as cut and dry as your reply would indicate. I'm looking for more insight and intuition than the stereotypical Tory celebration of the (Whig) Establishment (or is that Whig support for Toryism? What's the real difference between Episcopal and non-Episcopal Protestants, when the Catholics are treated like scum for not joining the liberal bandwagon?), but not some Labour nonsense either--not that you offered any of the latter.

About Ireland, I was referencing the transition to republicanism in the 20th century. Surely, by this time, the Irish could have possibly had a united island under a separate, more palatable monarchy with relations to that in London and be tolerated by the British establishment, as a peace settlement. It might invariably lead to a succession in British favour, which the Scots already experienced, so perhaps that is why they avoided the monarchy. But I don't see why they wouldn't elect a chief of the O'Neils or O'Briens or whatever, rather than even the Butlers or Fitzgeralds, considering all of their Gaelic worship. The Irish could even enact a no-British clause in the succession, much as the British monarchy is forbidden to Catholics, or how the succession acts of Henry VIII barred Margaret Tudor's Scottish line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Legend & Bloody Mary (folklore) bogeyman stories carry little weight with me and I wonder how the general populace of that time, either neutral or pro-Catholic, could be led by the nose from the dictations of the noveau riche "nobility", except through strong-arm, pogrom tactics by this new elite. How many thousands of Catholics need to die for a complete purge? The same with the blood of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. Yet, this is an "acceptable and enlightened" response, to gut the soft underbelly of Englishness, in favour of what..."Germanness"? Advancing foreign German nobodies is supposedly more nativist than retaining the established French dynasties, well integrated into the population?

You know, it's a catch-22 to be English and Catholic. To express pride in Englishness, it is invariably disconnected from the stereotypical Englishness the world has known since Victoria and any clash with the Protestant version, is considered unpatriotic. One could just as easily point to the Tudors' destruction of the old royal family, the nobility and church all as fifth columnists who were committing treason ever since Owen laid his head in Katherine's lap, then passed the Throne to the Auld Enemy in Edinburgh. All of this was treason and yet the Spanish Armada alone conjures up all kinds of hatred from Protestants, who pride on the Establishment's cutthroats such as Cromwell and Walsingham, feeling they are entitled to a blank check on the sufferings of Catholics and cornering the market on Englishness. I'm happy that Wikipedia usually takes both sides into account, but my early schooling made no distinction between deceptive bias and truth. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Whatever -- Elizabeth I may not have been any more moral or virtuous than Philip II, Gregory XIII, or Cardinal Allen, but she was sure the hell a lot more politically astute than they were when it came to the domestic situation within England. The prominent Catholic leaders of the 1570's and 1580's seemed to place all their bets on a future invasion of England, and so had no real contingency plan B for what would happen if the invasion failed, and also no realistic consideration of what the repercussions of their actions would be if the invasion did not succeed. The result was that in 1603, English Catholicism was in much worse shape than it would have been if they had never made all their elaborate plans and menacing threats -- and I don't think one has to be a Whig historian to recognize this fact... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about prior example of various factions seizing the throne? The Lancastrians and Yorkists did this habitually, in and out of England, sometimes in Ireland, Scotland or France, etc, so was the memory of domestic turmoil so vividly unsettling, that there was no willing native contender to take the Crown in the name of Catholicism, apart from Reginald de la Pole and his relative who died at Pavia in 1525? I'm wondering who else could have assumed power, apart from the vacillating Norfolk, with more claim to royal descent (e.g. pre-Tudor lineage) and Catholic beliefs? Was it Courtenay alone? Did all of the other Plantagenet heirs simply go along with the Tudors after the beheadings of Margaret Pole and Buckingham? What's the present status, or what was the prevailing religious sentiment for the Somersets of Beaufort? They seemed to have dropped off of the radar after Bosworth, only the latent Yorkist factions seeming to have problems. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

E.G. why didn't the Somersets assume the throne after Elizabeth? Wouldn't they have had a prior claim to the throne than the Stuarts, considering the heritage of the Queen Mother Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudor's claim to power? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia or IRL fights these days

How come whenever it comes to reading about this kind of stuff on say, Wikipedia, there are conflicting accounts about the nature of customs and culture in these countries? I have found that I cannot discover anything about those "Anglo-Celtic" lands without some massive mutual hatreds between ethnic backgrounds, like separatisms...consequently, there is no room for tolerant discussions and if they even exist, they are under begrudging terms. This is immensely disturbing, because in the "colonial" world, people with these kinds of heritages more often stick together at almost all costs, whether it's the Commonwealth or America, although the Irish still like to go on about St. Paddy's Day and Fenian or IRA this or that. Obviously, the Scots celebrate Highland Games and tartans, but their amount of antipathy is an interest in Braveheart. The English and Welsh don't really have any bone to pick with anybody, other than the French, if at all and this usually comes down to arguments at most.

If you're basing your idea of what Scots think about stuff on Braveheart, a film made in Ireland by an American raised in Australia and written by someone from Tennessee, and decried by every historian who ever saw it as fictious Hollywood rubbish, then you've been abjectly misled. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the British Isles diaspora. By the way, it is said that Braveheart influenced the clamour for devolution in Scotland. OMG,I laughed so hard at thishotclaws 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I read a bit from a 1906 newspaper a while ago where a British person was going around Ireland trying to find out why they wanted a republic. Doesn't Britain have fair laws and aren't people governed justly under the crown he was asking, and the main answer he got back was an agreement that that was so and very possibly their own rule would be worse, but it would be their own government and it would rule according to their own way and not Britain's and that's what they wanted. I think most of this 'mutual hatred' business comes from descendants of people who moved to America at the time of the famine. They set up a famine museum in Ireland so visitors could go and wallow in that sort of stuff just like they cater for blacks finding their roots in Ghana or Nigeria. The same applies to Northern Ireland, the problem there was mainly the lack of any power and self determination for a very large minority and that's what the agreement addressed. Luckily the Unionists in general also seem to have some desire for autonomy so it's all working out fairly well. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What mutual hatred? The Irish and the Brits get along pretty well, in my experience. Obviously there are disagreements in Northern Ireland, but they don't tend to spread anywhere else. --Tango (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It spreads like wildfire on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Kronos's palace vs. Valhalla

In Greek mythology, to what extent if any was Kronos's palace in Elysium a parallel of Valhalla? NeonMerlin 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Both valhalla and elysium are where dead heroes and warriors go - in that respect they parallel each other. The comparison of different myths is called Comparative mythology which may be a useful search term when looking for articles.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek, Germanic and Indic myths show other similarities (such as a world tree or equivalent), in the same way that middle eastern myths and religions show similarities (eg Flood story) - this suggests that they may have a common origin - however the stories are so different that it's impossible or difficult to link one motif with another between the myths, except to say that 'these seem similar'.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles I of England's "tyranny"?

How come Charles is said to be a "tyrant" over England, even though his occasion to "tyranny", was wishing to defeat "England's traditional enemies" of Spain and France, as well as enforce "Englishness" upon the Scots by Laud, as well as upon the Irish by Strafford? I wonder what more the Protestant partians could have wanted, except the massacres of Catholics all over England and a top-down suppression of the Catholics who were not beaten into submission by the Tudors, or who felt safe because James's parents were Catholics and they thought he would be more tolerant, until the Gunpowder Plot (in which, of course, Catholic commoners tried to massacre the Protestant Ascendancy). None of this is democratic, but the hateful ideology is promoted and promulgated in the educational system, as the ascent of "progress". Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what that rant is about, but one of the substantive issues people had with Charles I was his undermining of accepted legal norms acording to which Parliament had control over most taxes (and certainly all new taxes). Also, Laud was highly unpopular in England as well as Scotland, and the term "Protestant Ascendancy" generally refers to Ireland, not England. And I don't know that the "Whig historians" were enthusiastic proponents of the anti-Royalist side in the English civil war (though it's true that they were enthusiastic proponents of the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688...). AnonMoos (talk)

I have heard from some people that Stuart practices were hardly different to the Tudors', so what was the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The winner writes the history, it is said. Any leader of a state who is overthrown, will usually get accused of being a tyrant by the successors, if not else so as to excuse their own seizure of the power by force. Even if the new regime does not last long (in this case, Charles I's son was restored to the throne later on) its propaganda can have set the mind of people for centuries to come, true or not. E.G. (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Flat caps & baseball (cricket too?) caps

Are American baseball caps an evolved form of flat cap? Would this explain the stereotype that each is a marker for the "common man" (or working class, in socialist parlance)? Are flat caps heirs of those late middle ages and renaissance caps worn by royalty and nobility? If so, what about Quaker use of broad brim hats, by commoners? Is it a sign of defiance to established deference, that they assume a station beyond their birth, by adopting a dandy outfit? I see that the Spaniards seem to have initiated this style of hat, but it was adopted by rulers and nobility across the board in the 17th and 18th centuries, even by pirates and then by cowboys on the American frontier. Do either the flat cap or broad brimmed hat indicate any social status these days, or is it simply well established as South & West European cultural expression? What about top-hats? Are they still worn by anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

An important practical purpose of baseball caps (or sometimes brimmed hats, in the early years) was and is to shield the players' eyes (and presumably the tops of their heads as well) from the bright summer sun. I would assume likewise for cricket. As to any alleged social significance, I can't say, but both baseball and cricket were originally middle-to-upper class sports. Baseball was originally played as recreation by businessmen in the New York area. It later evolved into a profession. A lot of people wear baseball caps nowadays - even football players on the sidelines. They still serve the purpose of an eyeshade. Team colors also figure into it. Some people wear their team colors to represent fandom. Others wear them because they are the colors of their street gangs. So it ranges across the social spectrum, I guess you could say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Farmers wear caps very like baseball caps, but with names of tractor manufacturers or seed companies. They provide less protection from the sun than cowboy (or Quaker) hats. Edison (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but wearing cowboy hats on the ballfield is not very practical, as they would tend to fly off when running after a batted ball. Although I remember a Bill Veeck promotion at Comiskey Park, "Mexican Day", in which the White Sox took the field in the first inning wearing sombreros. That, along with their cute little shorts, made for an interesting sight on a supposedly major league ball club. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tophats are still worn at Ascot,posh weddings,by dressage riders and people in full hunting pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotclaws**== (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should baseball caps have any relationship to flat caps? The idea of a hat with some sort of eyeshade is a pretty obvious one, no?

On the other hand, I am intrigued by how the baseball cap seems to have ousted the school cap from England over the last fifty years. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

They do look pretty similar. Most other hats with something to shield your eyes have a brim all the way around, flat caps and baseball caps both have just a peak at the front. --Tango (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There were two styles of baseball caps in the early years of the professional game. One was the rounded "school cap" that is similar to the cricket cap. The other is a flat-topped cylindrical or "cake-shaped" cap. Today's baseball cap evolved from the round-topped cap, and the cake-style went out of fashion except for a few teams that revived it in the 1970s (notably the Pirates). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional cricket headgear is the short-brimmed cap, which isn't too distinct from a flat-cap, but is quite different from baseball cap. See these gents 100 years ago. The Australian cricket team to this day retains a traditional shape in their famous Baggy green. England has sadly gone "modern" in this respect, as with other elements of their flannels. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Berkshire Hathaway stock so expensive and who buys it?

Berkshire Hathaway A stock currently trades at $97,000 [1] and B stock trades at $3,180 [2]. As far as I can tell the lowest that they have traded in the past 5 years is $73,000 and $2,300 respectively. Not only are these prices are substantially more than the majority of other stocks, they are arguably so high that they exclude many common investors from buying a single unit of either stock. I can imagine that some people would buy a few units of the B stock on the basis that it is a fund and therefore inherently diversified, and that institutional investors can buy large amounts of either stock - but wouldn't it be better if there was a stock split (say 1:1000, so that A stock was $73 and B stock was $3) which would potentially bring in more liquidity due to the higher number of people who can buy into it? I guess that people trade derivatives tied to these stocks too, with a lower entry cost, but there are a lot of people who only buy stock. No doubt, the guys at BH know what they are doing, but I just wonder why the high price serves them well. Does it provide a certain aura of a "serious" stock? I wonder if there has been any public discussion on the decision to keep the price so high, but I can't find any. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Squashed Star (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

At one level, stock is "valued" by the market based on the assets of the company. A good means of approximating the value of a stock is to take the value of all of the assets of the company and divide by the number of shares of the stock. The "price" of the stock will sometimes vary some from this number, depending on how people "speculate" that the value of the companies assets will change in the future. However, insofar as a company is not expected to lose shitloads of money, the value of the company will not drasticly drop, so the price of the stock will not drasticly change. So, that is why the value of one share of B-H is $97,000. The answer to why it is not split is that there is no immediate benefit to existing shareholders to split the stock; so why do it? In fact, attracting more investors may have the effect of depressing the share value, or of diluting the voting power of the existing shareholders, so they may not want to do so. While $97,000 per share is out of reach of most of us, it serves the existing shareholders well, and so long as that is true, there will not be any reason to change that by splitting the stock. --Jayron32 13:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. You're right that "fundamental" view would value the stock based upon the assets (plus P/E etc) but a "technical" view would suggest that shareholder demand and psychology would set the price. This is why reverse splits can depress the price substantially without any underlying change in value (see AIG for a recent example), a split would typically increase the price, due to people feeling that the stock is "cheap" even though the value of the company hasn't changed. Performing a split would not dilute any holdings, only the issue of more shares could do that, but I do think that (as is said below) this is a plan to limit access to this stock by people who may speculate on it. I guess that BH do not want the volatility that comes with speculation and would rather have more "discerning" investors who are in it for the long term. When Buffet is no longer around I would suspect that there will be pressure to split the stock, to increase speculation and likely push the price up in the short term. Squashed Star (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the important immediate cause of the stock not being split is that it obviously does not serve the purposes of the existing shareholders to do so. If it DID serve their purpose, they would have done so already. Even if my speculations as to WHY they don't split the stock are not correct, the fact remains that there must be some very good financial reasons why the existing shareholders don't see that it is split. Its not like they say "we could make a ton of money if we split the stock, but we're not going to just cuz". It must serve their purposes, financially, to keep the stock price at around $100,000 per share, perhaps for the reasons listed below. Plus, if you read our article on Berkshire Hathaway, it does actually explain why the stock has never split, from Warren Buffets point of view. He owns 38% of the company, and most of the rest of the board probably owns enough to give the existing board the 51% needed to basically run the company without any intereference from other shareholders. Plus, seeing as this is one of the most successful American companies in history, I don't think the existing shareholders are complaining about the financial practices all that much. --Jayron32 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One effect is that the high price alters the type of investor. Assuming an investor wants a diversified portfolio, only investors whose portfolios are quite large will be able to purchase BH and remain diversified. For example, suppose you would like to invest 10% of your portfolio in BH. I your portfolio is worth $200,000, then it is impossible for you to hold 10% BH as the minimum number of shares you can buy is 1 and that would put 50% of your portfolio in BH. In fact, the only way you could put 10% of your portfolio in BH is if your portfolio was worth $1 million. Wikiant (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you buy BRKB. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that BH is, as I understand it, a closed fund - they are not looking to raise any more money from offerings. The shares that are outstanding now are all that there ever will be, and if you buy them you buy them from the existing owners. From Buffet's point of view, why would he care if it's more convenient for the holders to divvy up and resell their portions? He has expressed on many occasions that he is not interested in short term investment, he is interested in people willing (indeed, happy) to trust their money with him for their entire life. Such devotion is encouraged by such a high price. He doesn't want a constant, high level of turnover from people buying and selling his fund trying to beat the market. TastyCakes (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See [3] for Warren Buffet's take on the matter. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thailand

(moving discussion from an article talk page)

I have a comment/question for experts in this discussion. As an expat in S.E. Asia I notice what appear to be extreme cognitive malfunctions in Thailand. Visiting Cambodia, one is immediately struck by the higher level of intellectual curiosity.

I do not believe this is a racial diifference, but it is too pervasive to even blame on poor education. Perhaps there is an idiosyncrasy of culture which affects cognition.

My question is: Are there studies available to confirm or explain the cognition defecit in Thailand?

Because this comment/question may offend some, I sign myself ... Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.128.1.64 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The question smacks of stereotyping. You have some unfortunate experience in Place X and thereafter say "People in Place X are stupid." Just as Siam, without one plea. Edison (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This answer strikes me as a stereotyped answer! You may know nothing of Thailand, but are happy to chirp in! I've spent many years in Thailand and could give a number of examples of my point. From experience, however, I know that fewer than three examples would be dismissed as "anecdotal" and more than three would become "ranting". If you wish, I'll add exactly three examples to this section!

I will comment that Thai language, as it is actually used in rural areas, is remarkably ambiguous. Whether this is a cause or effect of a cognitive defecit I'll leave open. As one trivial example of the ambiguity, I overheard a conversation between a village official running for reelection and a visiting police chief. The chief asked "How many are running for the office?" The incumbent answered "as many as want to, but only two will be elected," telling the chief only what he already knew! They were speaking (ambiguous) Thai, obviously; I've rendered the intended English equivalent here, making a deduction the native-speaker incumbent did not.

I cannot find a proper reference for this, but I remember reading (probably two years ago), that Thailand was facing a severe problem of brain drain. Numerous highly educated Thais - at that time - were emigrating to greener pastures, particularly the USA and Australia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I find your assumption that ambiguity must be connected with a cognitive defect (whether as a cause or an effect) bizarre in the extreme, particularly (as in your example) in the political arena. --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My phrasing ("Whether this is a cause or effect ... I'll leave open") was intended to include "neither" as an option. (Language ambiguity!) Picking a conversation between "politicians" was done to demonstrate that ambiguity doesn't apply to just the least educated of rural Thais. The sentence I rendered in English could have been rendered word-by-word as "They apply how-many person". As a clearly non-political example, on a visit to the local clinic we were asked "15th inject medecine where"; my wife and nurse ended up both confused and it was while driving home that I realized nurse was speaking of next month, wife of last month. "Remarkably Ambiguous"? You decide.

I'm afraid that, after these examples, if you still deny rural Thai is more ambiguous than, say, English, then I can't help you. Whether the language ambiguity is related to the cognitive defecits is still an open question. That's why I'm posing the question here: I'd like information, not stereotyped reflexive responses that assume I'm a bigot or imbecile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.168.226 (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bohemond I of Antioch

Hello, i have need of sources for these two phrases, written in the voice Bohemond I of Antioch: "he led the whole Crusader army until the conquest of Antioch" and "From Constantinople to Antioch, Bohemond was the real leader of the First Crusade", because in wiki.it there are people who not believe that Bohemond was the leader of the First Crusade. Thank you.--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You need the opinion of contemporaries: start with this brief translated bit from the Gesta francorum.--Wetman (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Gesta was probably written by someone in Bohemond's camp though. Another source written by a follower of Raymond of St. Gilles would have him as leader of the crusade; the two frequently fought over who got to keep the cities they conquered, and since they were the wealthiest and most powerful of the leaders, and led two of the biggest armies, they both had some reason to claim overall leadership. Of course, there were other armies with other leaders, and if the pope was to be believed, his own legate was supposed to be the real leader. At Antioch things changed, because the papal legate died, and Bohemond remained there while everyone else continued to Jerusalem. At one point, they all elected the relatively less-known Stephen of Blois leader, and a few decades later, some authors claimed Godfrey of Bouillon was really in charge the whole time, since he ended up as the first ruler of Jerusalem. So, in short, the answer is, yes, Bohemond was a leader, and for awhile thought he should be the overall leader, but after conquering Antioch he seemed to think that was good enough and he certainly wasn't the leader after that. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Unlucky, i didn't find in the Gesta Francorum any reference for the two phrases, i'll looking the opinion of contemporaries.--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Asbridge's book on the First Crusade discusses why certain leaders could be considered, or considered themselves, overall leaders. This page has some info about Bohemond (there is more scattered throughout the book, but at one point before Antioch he was elected as overall commander for one particular battle). Those two sentences in the Bohemond article are remnants of the original article from many years ago, which was copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (see here). As usual, the 1911 Britannica is inaccurate, and we know much more about the crusade than they did. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Adam Bishop, i found in Enciclopedia Britannica the reference for the sentence "From Constantinople to Antioch, Bohemond was the real leader of the First Crusade", now i will look for any reference for the sentence "he led the whole Crusader army until the conquest of Antioch".--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That was added by an anonymous contributor in this edit. I'm certain that it was inspired by Britannica, since it is part of the introductory summary. I don't think there will be a separate source for that. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Profit is not a four-letter word

In this video (I'm linking to the correct position), a button (is that what it's called?) appears that has "profit is not a four-letter word" printed on it. What does that mean? The button belongs to Grover Norquist, a neoconservative, if that is of any help. —Bromskloss (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Four letter word" = profanity. The phrase is a reaction to the belief that transactions are zero sum games. That is, in a transaction between you and me, one of us gains and the other loses. Seen in this light, the profit gained by one side reflects an exploitation of the other side. In fact, in the absence of coercion, transactions are almost always positive sum games. So, the profit gained by one side reflects the benefit obtained by the other. A classic example is the billions of dollars that Bill Gates has made producing and selling Windows. He got those billions precisely because we who use Windows (despite its flaws) value it more than the money we gave him for the software. Hence, his profit reflects the benefit we obtain from the software. Wikiant (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Though in many ways Gates is a horrible example. He didn't just get his billions from simple transactions of positive sum games; he created and then exploited a near monopoly, to the point where many feel obligated to shell out a lot of money for an inferior product primarily to maintain compatibility with the monopolistic marketplace. There are far, far better examples out there of people who show that profit is not a four-letter word than Microsoft. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to defend Gates, but the idea... If you voluntarilly shelled out money for windows then, de facto, you received more value from windows than you did from the money you shelled out -- that's a positive sum game. The monopoly status (to the extent that it exists, and economists find this debatable) merely alters how the positive sum is split up. Wikiant (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I got the point anyway. (And as a happy Linux user, I stay away from Microsoft products.) :-) —Bromskloss (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In English, for some reason unknown to me (probably coincidence), most swear words are four letters long, so "four letter word" is synonymous with "swear word". Saying that something isn't a four letter word means it isn't offensive or something to be ashamed of. --Tango (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Four letters is simply the most common word length in English. The reason swear word are called four-letter words is because their corresponding "polite" words are generally Latin, and Latin words tend to be longer. Compare: shit - feces, piss - urine, cunt - vagina, cock - penis. --Chl (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above replies, it's knowingly comic, as it's perfectly obvious that "profit" isn't a four letter word. You'll even see this pattern used ironically, when people will say things like "porn isn't a four letter word", when obviously it is. Googling for "isn't a four letter word" finds a bunch more, wherein we learn that work, sell, and love aren't four letter words either. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a four-letter word article, incidentally. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've learnt something. —Bromskloss (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to google Google for a list four-letter swear words but couldn't find such a list! Anyone able to find such a list? (I also tried by just including the words I could come up with myself, but some of them, like ethnic slurs, I really had to look up to check... leading me to believe a real list would be better than I could come up with). Anyone? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wagner's Das Rheingold

So i watched this opera a few days ago (James Levine with the Met)

I'm wondering something---

Alberich loses the ring to Wotan and then places a curse upon it.

Can anybody just place curses (within the norse-mythology framework of Wagner's world) on anything? Does Alberich have the right to do it because he had the ring? Wotan is the chief of gods, can't he "un" curse it?

I understand that this is fiction, but i'm wondering if there is a logical consistency that audiences (familiar with the old Norse tales) would've understood way back when this was written.192.136.22.4 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I can answer half - curses can't be undone - even by gods - they must run their coarse - it's to do with fate and the concept of living things having will of their own - otherwise we'd have a story about a bunch of gods and their 'robot slaves' :)

(Occasionally someone can undo a curse - in folk tales this often relates to romance - eg frog price etc)

Also noted that alberich has already cursed himself (renouncing love) to obtain the ring - thus it is his by right, and he can place a curse on it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Norse / Germanic mythology does not have the concept of divine omnipotence. Our article implies that this was an idea of monotheism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Locating an old rail line

I just spent some time Livingstoning it up along an old abandoned rail line near Taunton, Somerset, England. After trawling through a hundred years of gorse bush I found myself on an old line flanked by about 60ft embankments, very steep, which keep it isolated. At the end I found the enterance to a tunnel which has been bricked up (though there is a locked steel door). It is also invisible from the air due to the canopy.

On google earth I can trace from hedgerows, discolourations and slopes in the soil, and what is now some footpath, the path of the old rail line from Chard to Ruishton, but I can't see any further.

Is there any resource that I could ask to work out what the line used to be? Some historical records that would be held by a county council? SGGH ^ping! 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways talk page they could probably tell you very quickly, as well as being able to answer all your other questions.

In general your public library will have lots of books on "disused railways of Somerset" - there isn't a yard of disused track in the UK that hasn't been written about by the fans.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Chard Branch Line say anything, also if you can give the coordinates on google maps that might help, there's a book listed at the end of that article which might cover it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This site has old Ordinance Survey maps (as should http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ , but that seems to be broken right now), which should show the routes of railways. If you'd been talking about Scotland or very-Northern England, I'd have directed you to http://www.railbrit.co.uk/ (which used to be called RailScot); he's got excellent info about disused railway lines, but for now it seems he's mostly got stuff about Scotland. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not order up the Ordnance Survey map for the area?--Wetman (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If the railway was to the west of Taunton, then I think we're talking the Devon and Somerset Railway - the east-west railway showing on this map. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Divorce Rate among Christians and Atheists

Does anyone know the divorce rate for Christian protestants and atheists in Canada and U.S.? Which group have the highest divorce rate? Sonic99 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This page gives some numbers which compares several species of Christians, jews, and atheists/agnostics. Two caveats: I'm probably wrong (and I have no evidence for this), but religioustolerance.org might just be operated by the Church of Scientology, and so might not be 100% neutral (I'm just going on a vague memory, and I apologise if I'm mistaken). Secondly, surely some of the effect shown is due to some groups marring more, or sooner, than others. So, even if the statistic shown is strictly correct, that doesn't necessarily elucidate the related question "are protestants' relationships more or less successful than atheists'?". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Think first, what kind of document would link together divorce and religious self-identification? And then who would have access, to tot them all up for you? Tweaked "numbers" shouldn't be "proving" your pre-set expectations.--Wetman (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org isn't run by Scientologists; but nevertheless they aren't 100% neutral, and at least for Christianity, often have a childishly simplistic understanding of various controversies. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Marriage for Christians is habitual and customary, but for atheists...they really don't care either way, apart from the financial benefits, so it is rather more a mockery and asking the question is mockery of marriage, as much as infidelity in any Christian relationship. It is sort of like the effectiveness of deviant sexuality practitioners and the myth of "marriage" on that basis, or putting a European appliance plug into an American electrical outlet. Some people just don't know what is appropriate or fitting. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The institution of marriage predates christianity, and has meaning outside it. Marriage is an important part of the lives of many atheists. Algebraist 13:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly, 70.171.239.21. Are you claiming only Christians can appreciate marriage? Are you saying that infidelity is commonplace in non-Christian marriages? Are you equating non-Christian heterosexual marriages with homosexual marriages? Are you even aware of how ridiculously pompous you make yourself sound? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Countless church weddings end up in divorce. Christianity or atheism has nothing to do with it. Commitment and respect are the keys to success, not being a habit or being customary. And there's another factor: In the old days, people stayed in soured marriages because they felt like they had no choice. Now, they do. Women holding jobs and being able to survive without a male breadwinner has a lot to do with it. As Alan King once said, "Divorce was a luxury, that few could afford." Now, they can. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To say that atheists don't care either way is inaccurate, and silly to the point of stupidity. There are plenty of atheists who are hopeless romantics and have a very idealized idea of marriage, for example. It's just that they don't think that an omnipotent imaginary friend cares about whether people stay married. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2

An earth without humans

Some days ago I have seen a documentary film at a science TV channel that started to analyze what would happen with the world if for some X reason the human race wasn't around anymore. The main topics were descriptons of how would cities, buildings and most structures deteriorate over time by being left without maintenance, how would nature start to destroy and erase all such things, the few things that would last longer (such as dams, plastics or stainless steel), the fate of most great landmarks like the statue of liberty or the Eiffel Tower, etc. In just a few hundred years, hardly any trace of the human race would remain, except for some things like exploration vehicles that were left on the moon.

Question is, is there an article about this topic here in Wikipedia? I have no idea of wich name would it have, or in wich category it may be located MBelgrano (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This same question was asked some time ago... Maybe a year ago at most? I don't have the time right now but while you're waiting for an answer, you could try searching through the archives (though I don't know what specific terms you'd search for to limit the number of results). I think it was either on Science or Misc. that it was asked. Dismas|^(talk) 05:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It was Life After People. I thought it was rather melodramatic, but hey, it was made for TV after all. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so not the same question but the same documentary came up: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2008_June_19#Last_surviving_human_artefacts.3F Dismas|^(talk) 06:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is also the subject of Alan Weisman's book The World Without Us and the (unrelated) documentary Aftermath: Population Zero. EALacey (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In fiction, the subject was explored by George R. Stewart in Earth Abides (1949). The Wikipedia article is lengthy, but I seem to recall much more in the novel about the collapse of machinery, electrical system, water pipes, etc. than indicated by that article. Pepso2 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect that in a few decades routine maintenance will be automated or done by robots. Then if people disappeared, things might go on status quo for a very long time, until the robots arrive at a consensus that maintaining humanity's structures and facilities is pointless. Many of the explosions and failure on the series are of the nature of "With no human to mow the grass, turn on/off the pumps, refine the petroleum, operate the controls at the nuke plant, open/close the floodgates at the dam, refill the fuel tank, replace the battery, feed the dog, harvest the crop, fix the roof, tuckpoint the brick wall, replace the gasket, manufacture paint, mine minerals, etc., everything will fall to ruin." As soon as any of these jobs can be done by a robot cheaper than a human, the human will be laid off. Edison (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If we develop machines that are too efficient, watch out. We could turn into the Krell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Cool! I wanna be an id monster! HalfShadow 03:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ever notice how much the id monster resembles the orange monster in Hair-Raising Hare? Cousins, maybe? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Though not directly related to the question, we do have an article on human extinction --Thanks, Hadseys 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The name

I'm looking for the name of this symbol in english. Thanks. Lord Hidelan (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's a type of Solomon's Knot. That article has no images (yet!), but compare with this google image search. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that article; I've done some cleanup there and added two images (more could be done...). AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Methodism = Puritanism?

Isn't Methodism a form of Puritanism, e.g. the Separatist and Independent types? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The article on puritanism answers this one - "the term "puritan" is not strictly used to describe any new religious group after the 17th century, although several groups might be called "puritan" because their origins lay in the Puritan movement." Methodism arose in the 18th century and its origins did not lie in the Puritan movement. You could certainly draw parallels, but don't forget that early Methodism was, using Puritan terminology, "non-separating". Warofdreams talk 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So not all splinter, dissenting factions of the CoE, are "Puritan"? As far as I know, there's only three types of English Christianity: Catholic, Anglican and Puritan (as a broad term). 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence is the correct one. The broad term for British Protestants outside the Church of England is Non-Conformist; this includes those Puritan groups which survived long enough to be classified as such. Warofdreams talk 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that early Methodism was Evangelical, quite similar to many Pentecostal and some Baptist groups today, rather than Puritan, though none of these movements are really independent of one another. Methodists were involved in tent revivals a la Billy Graham, though Methodism as a whole has become more liberal in the past hundred years. 138.88.161.65 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so these "Non-Conformists" broadly continue the Edwardian, Lady Jane Grey and Dudley expression of Christianity from the Tudor period, resurrected under the Cromwells, rather than the Henrician-Elizabethan Anglicanism, or the Marian Catholicism? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's too simplistic. Non-Conformism is a very broad designation, including Quakers, whose ideals have never been promoted by any monarch, to Calvinist groups who could fit your description, to Methodists (some, but not all of whom, identify as Calvinists). Warofdreams talk 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, all three forms of Christianity: Protestant, Anglican and Catholic, each have origins in royal patronage, but originally depending on the personality of the monarch, one of those three may be responsible for persecution of the other two, or preference of one and singling out the other? It would seem as though there had been no need for the Cromwellian usurpation of the government, when the monarchy had already been known for promoting "Non-Conformist" Protestantism. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to my comment above, it would be difficult to argue that, just because a monarch has promoted a particular branch of Christianity, sooner or later another will do so, too. Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse encouraged the Cathars, but no later monarchs did. Even if there had been an expectation that this would eventually happen, it would have been highly unlikely to satisfy the Puritans, who were generally vehemently anti-Catholic but subject to increasing persecution from a monarch married to a Catholic and an archbishop who would not tolerate diversity within the church. Warofdreams talk 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

British Isles diaspora studies

Are there any studies of ethnic and shire distribution per colony across the former empire, to show which parts of the British Isles were more influential or important to each settlement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly shire by shire, but The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips discusses what parts of England the colonists in the various American colonies came from. The contention of the book is that the American Revolution and the US Civil War were continuations of the Glorious Revolution. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How much more precise is that study compared to Albion's Seed? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably less so, though there are maps.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What is contained within the maps? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The parts of England where the various colonists came from. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was more interested in knowing differences between separate colonial efforts, such as America, vs Canada, vs Australia and New Zealand or South Africa. I assume most colonists in India were from London, but that's just a guess. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Avignon Papacy & Counter-Reformation Catholicism

How come Catholicism became identified largely with those nations which held allegiance to Avignon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like Italy? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Spain, France, Sicily...e.g. the Latin Arch. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the "great Catholic powers" and how they all seem to have been Avignonese in disposition, although I wonder about Austria. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Austria vs Prussia

How come Vienna isn't the capital of Germany and Berlin is? Why isn't Austria part of Germany, or even the focus, considering the imperial nature of that country, whereas Prussia was only a German colony of crusaders? I assume the fact that Prussia is the basis of modern Germany, that is an indication of a Protestant victory, seeing as how Catholic Austria is excluded? Please explain more than just: the last Holy Roman Emperor was deposed and left with the rump state of Austria. Even Austria, it seems, was merely a German colony of eastward expansion, so why doesn't Germany re-adopt a more "Frankish" identity and if they did focus more on West Germany in this sense, where would be the appropriate capital...Aachen or elsewhere? Are other German identities merely tied to Austria or Prussia? It would seem that Alemannic, Swabian, Frankish, Bavarian and Saxon cultures are just components of those two. Also, why doesn't the Czech Republic go by the name of Bohemia, or why doesn't Wikipedia use this name? Like Danzig, it is the English preference. "Czech" is almost way off the radar of my vocabulary, but Bohemia or Boehm is much more easily understood on cultural terms. I wonder why Bohemia didn't decide to stay with Germany, or why Germany and Italy and Austria, or even all with Prussia, couldn't be under the same federalism. But then, why not France and Germany stick together under the same government, based upon Charlemagne's people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The czech state is not called bohemia because bohmeia is only part of the czech state, there are other areas - see the map on Bohemia. Also see Moravia

As for your other questions - did you have a particular time in history to which your questions were addressed?83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not much of an answer: even in the Czech language "Český" is only part of the state. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of your questions are too speculative to answer here ie why isn't there a france/germany or germany/italy/austria state - but have you heard of the European Union - which to an extent satisfies local nationalist interests in the broader context of a european state. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As to why austria did not form part of Bismarck's germany see Kleindeutsche Lösung - austria was not willing to separate from hungary, but hungary could not be part of a germany as imagined at that time. Also see Großdeutschland quote: "This united Germany was attempted to be completed, but regional, religious, and monarchical rivalries between Prussia and Austria prevented such a unification from taking place." 83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really covered your entire question. Factors affecting states makeup and boundaries include religion, ethnicity, rivers, mountains, wars, rival leaders, family history of kings, queens and emperors, and language as a non-complete list. It's very difficult to give a specific answer to such broad 'why?' questions.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question acctually would demand much more text and time to answer than I or 83.100.250.79 can devote here, and while 83.100.250.79 gives good answers I'll give some too, to other aspects: Berlin became the capital of united Germany in 1871, because it was the capital of the leading state, Prussia. Also, if you look at a map showing the borders of the time, Berlin was somewhat close to the geographical centre of Germany by then, whereas it is not anymore since Germany lost so much land in the east following the Second world war. When Germany was reunited in 1990, it took some years of debate before Berlin once again formally became the capital of the country; some people would have prefered to stick with Bonn, which was the de facto capital of West Germany from its foundation in 1949. – As for the Czech Republic, in the Czech language, "Czechia" and "Bohemia" acctually have the same name, but the English word for the province has for centuries been the same as the Latinized form of the German name Böhmen, while the country as a whole, created in the 20th Century, has gotten a name based on the Czech name. E.G. (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the reason why Bohemia didn't stuck with Austria or Germany: it was part of the Austrian Emprie until 1918, when that empire desintegrated following the First world war. Still, there were many German speaking people living within the borders of the historical provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, but the founder and first president of the state of Czechoslovakia, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, was lucky in his dealings with the allied powers who had won the war and managed to secure that the even the almost fully German-speaking areas close to the border of Austria would become part of the new state. Acctually, I think there were more native German speakers in Czechoslovakia in the first decades, than there were Slovaks. The border areas to Austria and Germany where the German speaking people were in majority was called Sudetenland, and in 1939 (some months before the start of the Second world war) Hitler annexed Sudetenland to Germany and made the rest of Czechia a protectorate and Slovakia became formally independent but in practicality dependent on Germany. When Czechoslovakia was recreated after the war, including Sudetenland, the German speaking Czechoslovak citizens were expelled from the country. E.G. (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be said that the Sudeten Germans received a raw deal in 1919, but many Czechs weren't inclined to feel too sympathetic at that point, since they felt that they themselves had been receiving a raw deal pretty much for the last three hundred years since about 1619. And a more practical and immediate concern was that if Bohemia was divided along ethnic lines, then the borders of any Czech state would be completely indefensible (the German army would be perched in the mountains looking down at the Czechs in the valleys), while most of the industrial assets would also be lost to the Czech state. The reality was that any Czech state established along strictly ethnic lines would be a weak balkanized fragment strongly dependent on its neighbors, and any hope of a strong and truly independent Czech state had to be based on the traditional boundaries of Bohemia and Moravia... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As regards the 'czech question' see Name of the Czech Republic for an explanation of why neither Bohemia nor 'czecho' are a perfect choice.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see.

• Why did Berlin and not Vienna become German capital, and why is Austria not part of Germany? -- It's quite simple really: because Prussia won the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, which led to the establishment of a new German Empire under Prussian leadership and exclusion of Austria within the next five years.
• Why did Prussia become a leading German state? -- By the 18th century, Austria and Prussia had become by far the two most powerful German states. The reason for this is the Ostsiedlung -- the colonization of eastern territories by Germans in the Middle Ages. Because of their location at the eastern border of medieval Germany, Austria and Brandenburg were the prime beneficiaries of this development. Austria expanded into what is today Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, and Bosnia. Brandenburg expanded into what is today Poland, Russia (Kaliningrad), and Lithuania. For political reasons, Brandenburg renamed itself to Prussia in the 18th century -- this was really just a name change, the center of Brandenburg/Prussia was always Berlin and never in the original Prussia (around present-day Kaliningrad); see King in Prussia.
• What about Frankish identity, Saxon, Bavarian identity? -- This is a very speculative question, but IMO wars decide the outcome of history, not people's identities... There was never any political reason for anyone to reestablish a Frankish identity in West Germany. OTOH, Bonn was capital for 50 years, and that's a Frankish city.
• Why didn't the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy all stay in one country like it was in the Middle Ages? -- The most important reason is probably 19th century nationalism. Many present-day European countries were founded between 1806 and 1919, when nationalism was all the rage. Germany, Italy and Czechoslovakia are all products of this ideology, which stated that countries should be based on common languages -- Germany the country of German-speakers, Italy the country of Italian-speakers, and so on. An additional reason is of course that the original Holy Roman Empire had slowly, but completely disintegrated and so it never seemed to people like a model that one would want to emulate.

Hope these answers help. --Chl (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! Another set of questions: What is the present sense of German "ethnic" identity? Is the "Romanticist" take that Germany owes its character to the Frankish/French hegemony (as with France), or the Ostsiedlung, considering Berlin's primacy? What is the viability of restoring Prussia, or of Russia handing over Kaliningrad for a similar independent state as Austria? Would Poland make this impossible? Maybe I have it wrong, but the extinction of Prussia could have been seen as genocide, in the expulsion of Germans, yes or no? Livonia was a component of Prussia, right? What do the Italians think of their Germanic heritage, apart from the obvious Lombard presence? This is going on a limb here, but by extension, are there any cultural remnants of the Franks in the eastern Mediterranean, or Genoan and Venetian ties? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Prussia revival thing...what is the prospect and the interest, the activism and legality of effecting it upon Kaliningrad, in respect of Russian-European relations and the expansion of the EU? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Livonia I don't think was ever part of Prussia - it fell out of control of the Teutonic knights before the expansion of Prussia, (being a little north of the easternmost extent of prussia)

What does "..or of Russia handing over Kaliningrad for a similar independent state as Austria" - you surely aren't suggesting a swap!? It's possible that Kalingrad might be returned to some other state (or become independent) at some time in the future, under different circumstances (such as the CIS somehow integrating with the EU..)

The 'extinction of Prussia' is not as far as I know anything like genocide - the term 'ethnic cleansing' is used to day, but it's worth noting that similar migrations have taken place in europe due to border changes many many times. - you meant the polish corridor and all that?

What do you mean 'restoring prussia'? it's not clear - however history as far as I know does not work backwards, it's possible that 'germans' may return to the eastern baltic in number in the future - in a similar fashion to the Ostsiedlung, made easier by the Schengen Agreement and other EU integration policies. But I can't imagine a state of prussia reappearing..

As for franks in the mediterraean I don't know, but I'm aware that there still are saxon germans in romania.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with a 'prussian revival thing' - though I have heard it said that to some extent that the baltic (and to lesser extent north sea) was becoming more like it was during the times of the Hanseatic league (which is a vaguely similar thing) - due to the baltic states and poland leaving russian influence etc.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, I was wondering about any movement to restore Prussia as an independent German state akin to Austria and if surrounding countries would even allow it. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean what is left of Prussia - a lot of it is in Poland now - which would be a problem.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just Kaliningrad, but I wonder if Moscow sees that as a wedge to control EU affairs by proxy and which would be a reason not to revive Prussia. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Revival of prussia seems too hypothetical to me to answer - there are lots of other states that used to exist - mercia, yugoslavia, the kingdom of burgundy etc . Why prussia.?

If you were asking about the legal status of Kalingrad/Kongisberg and it's future then somebody might be able to answer that - though we are not a very good crystal ball.

It's also worth noting that there were states in the area that predate prussia. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As for Prussian revivalism, in 1995 there was a referendum on whether to join the current German states of Brandenburg and Berlin together into one unified administrative entity, and this hypothetical entity was widely referred to in the media as "Prussia" (though the officially-proposed name was apparently "Berlin-Brandenburg"). This referendum failed, so the voters of Brandenburg and Berlin apparently are not very interested in Prussian revivalism. In any case, the term "Prussia" originally referred to territory now part of Poland and Russia, so using the name "Prussia" would have very negative agressive irredentist connotations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Present-day German ethnic identity is pretty much based on the Empire of 1871. That's when most institutions of the German state that exists today were founded. So everyone from Bavarians to Schleswigers is included. Why would anyone want to restore Prussia? The Kaliningrad area is now populated mostly by Russians, I doubt they'd be excited about joining Poland or even Germany. The expulsion of Germans from the territories lost in World War II was not a genocide, since most people weren't killed, but a forceful expulsion is pretty bad too. There are still plenty of people in Germany who (or whose parents or grandparents) were expelled from eastern Germany and are still mighty angry about it, see Heimatvertriebene, even though they all got reimbursed for their lost property by the German government and thanks to the EU they can now even go back if they want to. Livonia did not belong to Prussia AFAIK. --Chl (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

70.171.239.21, you don't seriously think that Russia would give away any chunk of its territory – let alone one as strategically imporant as the Kaliningrad Oblast – without losing a war (and that would have to be a nasty nuclear war)? Perhaps the locals might welcome some greater autonomy to negotiate better relations with the EU, regarding trade, visas, etc. But I'm convinced that, as ethnic Russians, they're quite happy being part of the Russian Federation. When I first read your question about the extinction of Prussia, I thought meant the extermination of Old Prussians by the Teutonic Knights. Maybe you could call that genocide, but that's applying modern legal terminology to medieval events. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kpalion, I understand what you mean about the hypocrisy with Prussia and the strategic importance for Moscow. It just seemed logical that those descendants of the expelled Germans would themselves wish to move in and rebuild Prussia, rather than be as the Jews were before Israel was rebuilt. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But it seems as though the ex-crusaders in the Baltic, are to never reclaim their position, much as the Hospitallers of Rhodes, or Templars, or others in the Mediterranean. The powers that be have apparently forever decided to ignore any such claims to military order "irredentism". 70.171.239.21 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite rightly so, I'd say. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it had seemed to me that they abolished a nation such as Prussia by evicting all of its people, whereas the Germans merely instituted a supersessionary state. Considering modern sentiments, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to have their own country on Kaliningrad, much as the Austrians have a separate country from Germany...then the capital of Germany doesn't have to be Berlin and Germany doesn't have to be defined as either Prussian or Austrian (being almost the equivalent of France being defined by an incorporation of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, Cyprus and other French crusader-colonist ventures), which are established East German types that have less to do with traditional West German relations in Switzerland and Holland. It also appears that the Russians did much the same as the Germans when it comes to having expanded to include an exclave population on the other side of a neighbouring country, such as Poland (e.g. Polish Corridor) and now it's the other Balts instead, which were all in the Livonian-controlled, United Baltic Duchy area. Were the Russians criticised for doing the same thing as the Germans? I'm not speaking of the Iron Curtain in general. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, East Prussia was an exclave of Germany until WW2 and the Kaliningrad Oblast is now an exclave of Russia. There seems to be a similarity, but the origins of those situations are quite different. The Teutonic State was founded in 1224 and continued to be a stand-alone politial entity until, in 1618, the Duchy of Prussia united with Margraviate of Brandenburg under the House of Hohenzollern to form Brandenburg-Prussia, later renamed Kingdom of Prussia. The two parts of this new kingdom were separated by Royal Prussia which was part of the Kingdom of Poland. This gap was bridged in the First Partition of Poland in 1772. In 1918, East Prussia was separated from the rest of Germany again, as Poland regained independence and access to the Baltic Sea. So the East Prussian exclave was a result of a centuries-long historical development. The Kalininged Oblast, on the other hand, was created artificially when Stalin decided to incorporate into the Soviet Union that part of East Prussia which he didn't magnanimously award to Poland. And instead of attaching it to the Lithuanian SSR, he made it part of the Russian SFSR, so after the USSR's dissolution Kaliningrad stayed with Russia. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would this region, alone of the Iron Curtain, remain with Russia, considering how contentious that would be seen by the rest of Europe and Germany in particular? Have there ever been calls for Russia to cede Kaliningrad, or establish independence for this oblast, or does the Potsdam agreement trump any consideration? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Germany's eastern border was established as a result of World War II, which the Germans lost and the Soviets won. It's unlikely to change unless – God forbid – there's another war and Germany wins. German expellees may be unhappy about that, but it isn't going to change the geopolitical situation much. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to re-establish Prussia? Prussia does have a pretty negative image in modern Germany (standing for militarism and expansionism). The vast majority of Germans are glad to see it finished. In terms of territorial claims, we've had that debate, it's been settled with the 1990 reunification agreement. Can't see any benefit to anyone in opening that can of worms again. I think you will find that most Germans these days have had enough of military conflicts to last a few lifetimes. BTW, I'm a descendent of the people that were evicted from East Prussia. There's plenty of people in that situation around. Nobody (under age 80 that is) has any interest in revisionism. It's been a looooong time. Somehow I get the impression that the english speaking world cannot understand that.195.128.251.74 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

relatively recent Japanese short-story collection with S&M themes

About 10 years ago, there was a collection of short stories translated from Japanese and published in the US - I don't remember the name of the author or the book's title, or even when the book was originally first published in Japan. All I recall for sure is that in one of the stories there is a moment when the man (husband ? boyfriend ?) gets out a fishing rod to whip the woman (wife ? girlfriend ?), who grows visibly excited at the idea. For information, and despite what the above might lead one to believe, it wasn't genre erotica or anything of the sort. I am fairly sure the book (hardback) was published by a university press or an small press of literary fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe Laurichesse (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Legislators mass resign and recontest?

Apart from the Northern Ireland by-elections, 1986, are there any more instances where a group of legislators resign en masse in order to contest the by-election? F (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There was the occasion when four leading Labour members of the Greater London Council resigned to fight byelections on the issue of whether the GLC should be abolished. The resignation was 25 years ago this week, as it happens. The Conservatives had won all their constituencies the year before, but decided not to fight the byelections so all four were easily re-elected. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The simultaneous resignations in 1881 of U.S. Senators from New York Roscoe Conkling and Thomas C. Platt is vaguely analogous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer your question, but in Malaysia, that's not even possible from 1990 since anyone who resigns can't stand for re-election for 5 years [4] Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Senate assembly

Typically where would the Roman Senate assemble during the Roman Republic for debates as depicted in this color picture?

or this black & white picture of Gaius Gracchus debating as in the article Roman assemblies.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cicero denounced Catiline before the Senate (the event shown in your color picture) at the Temple of Jupiter Stator. I don't know if that was a normal place for the Senate to meet, though. --Cam (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

These three links might answer everything :Comitium, Roman Forum and more specifically Curia Hostilia 83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Two questions:

• It was debated and decided by the Roman Senate to send Scipio Aemilianus Africanus to raze Carthage. Where would you image this debate took place? It had to be pretty important as in 147 BC he was still under the legal age and a subordinate officer.
• Is this temple the same as this temple. I understand the Temple of Jupiter (Capitoline Hill) was built on the remains of the ancient Temple of Mars. Is that correct? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Unless there is another reference in the literature, I would expect the debate to take place where other senate debates took place -see above.

2. a. No they are different. b. Don't know.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. According to this source there was a temple to Mars on Capitoline Hill on the "hill to Mars." Also The Penny cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge By George Long on page 269 makes reference to temples on Capitoline Hill built in the time of Romulus being "of Mars, of Venus, of Fortune." Other temples were raised successively on the Capitoline hill, such as that of Juno Alónela, with the mint annexed to it; of Jupiter Feretrius, said to have been built by Romulus ; of Mars, of Venus, of Fortune, and of Ims and Serapis. Apparently then Jupiter Feretrius consisted of the temples of Mars, Venus, Fortune. Can you explain further of the "hill to Mars?"--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously "hill to mars" means the hill was specifically dedicated to mars, but why mars was chosen over the other two gods is not known to me. I've heard the phrase elsewhere (it has a certain ring to it) - but don't know the reasoning behind it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Mars is an 'earthy' god compared to others.. eg jupiter - sky/cosmos, venus-water/groves maybe?)

Thanks again for your further detailed answer. Then perhaps Scipio (minor) could have been brought to the "hill of Mars" (or the area, which perhaps then was Jupiter Feretrius) to speak to the people of Rome concerning destroying Carthage? Wasn't Mars also the war god and perhaps the reason why Scipio would give such a speech to the people at this location?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you analyze the meanings of these two hypothetically statements? Is "hill of Mars" symbolically used here?

• 1. Cato took Scipio, and brought him to the hill of Mars saying, "May you know what this old doctrine, whereof I speak, is."
• 2. Then Scipio stood in the midst of the hill of Mars and said, "Men of Rome, you do recognize that in all things we are convinced as to our belief that we will prevail." --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Without any further context I'd assume that "hill of Mars" refers to a place so named, and well known to the people in the text. It doesn't seem to be metaphorical or anything like that - such as a state of being or of mind.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Crusader military order ethnicities & the Reformation

So the Mediterranean crusader states were considered "Frankish", but the Baltic ones were "Teutonic". What about the Genoan & Venetian areas? Armenia?

Could differences between the Frankish Mediterranean and Teutonic Baltic lead to differences around the time of the Reformation, with their cultural communities becoming Catholic and Protestant respectively? If so, it can explain partly why Anglicanism is said to have both parts, with German principalities providing the governorship of the CoE, but having lands such as Malta, Gibraltar, Minorca, Cyprus, Ionia, Genoa, Elba and Corsica, as well as the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe being the base of Anglicanism in Europe, rather than some Protestant area. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "Frank" was a broad generalization whereby the Muslim world during crusader times incorrectly labeled all Western European christians as "Franks"; likely because the first people who turned them back in Spain were the Franks (Charles Martel) and the earliest Kings of Jerusalem (i.e. Godfrey of Bouillon) were also Franks; however the Crusader movement was not confined to the "Franks" who, after all, where only one of the settled Germanic tribes. The Franks did establish a pretty sizable hegemony over modern France and Germany (Francia), but there were also other Germanic peoples who established similar hegemonies (the Lombards in Italy, the Visigoths in Spain, the Vandals in North Africa]]; and certainly many of these people also participated in Crusades as well, as well as many non-Germanic peoples.

Also, it is an incorrect statement that the former lands of the Teutonic Knights became largely protestant; much of these areas remained majority Catholic to this day (Poland, Lithuania, Estonia). Most of the "Protestant" areas of Northern Europe were those that had been long Catholic, and weren't part of the "crusader" lands of the Teutonic Knights. Other than England, Protestantism first took hold in places that lacked a strong national government, such as the Holy Roman Empire, where the multitudinous principalites were largely left to their own devices, and Switzerland, which was a weak confederation without any sort of strong national government as well. In states with a strong monarch and centralized government, such as France, Spain, and Austria; well, they remained largely Catholic. Italy is perhaps an exception, but the proximity to Rome goes a long way towards keeping the fragmented peninsula in line. --Jayron32 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To clear up some other things, the Venetian crusader states were generally considered to be merchant colonies of Venice, independent of whatever Frankish state they happened to be attached to. Armenia was always separate, although it was heavily Latinized during the crusades. Not all the crusaders were "Franks" per se, and there were certainly "Teutonic" crusaders in the Holy Land; sometimes contemporary authors liked to show off their erudition by referring to contemporary nations with classical names, so Germans are often referred to as Teutons or Alemanni. The Teutonic Order itself was originally founded in Jerusalem, and was referred to there as the Ordo Teutonicorum just as it was everywhere else. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Jayron32, but the OP is correct and you are wrong; most of the territories in Prussia and Livonia ruled by the Teutonic Order and the Livonian Order respectively became Protestant after those orders were dissolved. By the terms of the Second Peace of Thorn that ended the Thirteen Years' War, the Teutonic State was divided into two parts; the western part, which became known as Royal Prussia, was ceded to the Kingdom of Poland. The rest became a Polish fief, with each newly elected grand master required to pay homage to the Polish king. Grand Master Albert of Hohenzollern refused to pay homage to King Sigismund I which resulted in another Polish–Teutonic War, again won by Poland. Albert, under personal influence of Martin Luther, converted to Lutheranism and, by the Treaty of Kraków in 1525, dissolved the Prussian branch of the Teutonic Order and established a secular, Protestant Duchy of Prussia with himself as a hereditary duke and a vassal of the Polish king.

In a similar development in Livonia, the Livonian Order sought Polish protection from the Muscovy in the Livonian War. By the terms of the Treaty of Vilna, the Livonian Order was dissolved in 1561, and Livonia became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth except for a wedge-shaped territory in what is now Latvia, which became a Polish fief known as the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia. Gotthard Kettler, the last grand master of the Livonian Order, adopted Lutheranism and became the first duke of Courland. As a legacy of these events, East Prussia, Latvia and Estonia became mostly Protestant areas. After World War II, East Prussia was divided among Poland and the Russian SFSR while the Protestant German population was replaced with Catholic Poles and Orthodox Russians. Modern Latvia and Estonia are mostly atheist today, but Lutheranism is still the dominant denomination in both countries.

It is also incorrect to imply that Reformation didn't happen in Poland and Lithuania. Various Protestant movements were actually very popular in Poland and religious dissidents were able to win freedom of worship which for about a century made Poland a country of religious tolerance unparallelled elsewhere in Europe. Polish nobles' answer to St. Bartholomew's Day was the Act of the Warsaw Confederation in which they pledged to resolve religious disputes without resorting to violence. The Roman Catholic Church regained its foothold in Poland in the 17th century thanks to post-Trent Counter-Reformation and to numerous wars against non-Catholic enemies (Sweden, Russia, Ottoman Empire) which equated Catholicism with patriotism. The pacifist Polish Brethren were the first vicitms of this new attitude; they were expelled in 1658 for their refusal to fight during the Swedish occupation. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kpalion, what you say about Balts being mostly atheist...does this have anything to do with how recent they converted to Christianity, compared to other countries? I wonder about that, because the Czech descendents of the Hussites appear to be even less religious, much as it appears that the Cathar-Huguenot presence in France was responsible for active secularism in that country's government. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably got more to do with being part of the Soviet Union for 50 years. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason the Czechs seem to be a lot less devout than the Poles (for example) has to do with the fact that for the Poles, Catholicism became a symbol of Polish nationalism during periods when Poland was being kept down by foreigners (many of whom, such as Prussians and Russians, were non-Catholic). By contrast, among the Czechs Catholicism can be identified more with foreign oppressors than with Czech nationalism -- since on three separate historical occasions, politically-active Czechs pretty much chose a religion other than the Catholicism of Rome (i.e. Greek Othodoxy ca. 900 A.D., Hussism in the 15th century, and quasi-Protestantism in the early 17th century), only to have Catholicism imposed by German military might each time... AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

August 3

Henry VIII's dual titles and powers: precedent?

Henry as King, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Head and his heirs as Supreme Governor of the Church of England...could that be a parallel of Prince-Bishops and Cardinal-Dukes and Cardinal-Kings, or Grand Masters of a military order, such as the Templars and Hospitallers? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be. It depends upon one's opinion, and the Ref Desks aren't designed for people's opinions. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really: Henry and his actively-participating-in-government heirs (I say this because recent monarchs haven't played an important part in government) were always more along the lines of what was generally called Erastianism — the government attempting to rule the Church. The examples you cite are all of ordained men, but English monarchs haven't been ordained. For an example of this point: until recent years, women were not ordained as clergy in the Church of England, but I'm unaware of anyone who objected to a woman being the Supreme Governor but did not object to her being queen and would not have objected to a king being the supreme governor. Finally: military orders are quite different — even more than Prussia, the military orders were armies with states, quite unlike England or other "normal" countries. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget "His Royal Wideness". Although that might have been unofficial. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Should athletes taking Stimulant be banned from competition forever?

Should athletes taking Stimulant be banned from competition forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylezhangxz (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of the page: the reference desk is not a place to ask for opinions. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nyttend and I will not answer with my opinion on the matter - although you may be interested in this consideration of the subject of drugs and sport by Malcolm Gladwell (http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2008/01/war-on-drugs-co.html). We also have an article Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport that is pretty indepth, has a lot of information and references that is well worth reading for more info on this issue. 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

Contributors who take stimulants to up their edit count should definitely be banned from Wikipedia forever (and a day). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dover, Connecticut

Is anyone familiar with the location of Dover, Connecticut? This page from Bay Village, Ohio (in the Connecticut Western Reserve) and this article speak of such a location, and this USDA page discusses recent activities in Dover, Connecticut. However, searching the GNIS for "Dover" in Connecticut yields only the Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School and Webatuck Creek (also called the Dover River, but not the river mentioned in the USDA page), and I can't find such a location on Google Maps. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, only about a half mile of the Tenmile River ("which flows through Dover, Connecticut," according to the USDA page you cited) appears to flow through Connecticut before it joins the Housatonic, and I can see no settlements along that stretch in the Google map. On the New York side of the state line, however, there is the town of Dover, New York, which includes the communities of South Dover, Dover Furnace, and Dover Plains, all near the river. Could this be some sort of error? (According to the history section of the WP article on the New York town, it was formed from part of the town of Pawling, which was the locus of a boundary dispute between New York and Connecticut, so at the time referred to in your first two links, the town may have been considered to lie in Connecticut.) Deor (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The boundary dispute sounds like a real possibility. It could also have been a colloquial name for an area of an otherwise officially named town? Your links point to historical usage; this Google Books link to an encyclopedia entry for a Charles McLean Andrews lists his place of death as East Dover, CT, in 1943, which was the most recent use I could find. You might want to contact either the New Milford or Kent Historical Society to see if they have any information. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Place Names by Arthur H. Hughes and Morse S. Allen, published by the Connecticut Historical Society in 1976 has this, under its main entry for Sharon, CT

The N.Y. township of Dover is now West of Kent. Early maps show Dover in Connecticut, often in Sharon. 'A New Accurate Map of the English Empire in North America...by a Society of Anti-Gallicans; 1775' shows the Western boundary of Connecticut bulging to the West, and names only 4 Connecticut towns: Seabrook, New London, New Haven, and Dover. A pre-Revolutionary map: Conn., I.R. with Long Island Sound, etc.' shows Dover in N.Y. (Lewis 1812 Conn.) shows Dover at the end of a road, Northwest from Kent, and east of the Oblong. (1816 Conn.) also places it in Sharon.

Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the original Harlem Valley Times (New York) article that the USDA page claims to be based on. As you can see, the dateline and first sentence are "DOVER - The Housatonic Valley Association, devoted to protection of the Housatonic River in Connecticut, recently began initiatives to clean up and protect the Ten Mile River, which flows through this and other communities in the Harlem Valley." I think it's pretty clear that the page's author, reading the dateline and the mention of Connecticut in the sentence, mistakenly concluded that Dover was in Connecticut, whereas "this" in the newspaper's sentence actually refers to Dover, New York. Deor (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lending credence to Deor's theory above, the photo on the USDA page is captioned as being an image of "Harlem Valley, Connecticut." Though it's very close to the state line, Harlem Valley is in fact in New York. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Himmler speech

I'm searching, if possible, for the complete text of a speech from Himmler dated 5 march 1943 (I'm not totally sure about the date). He talked about the future policy of Nazi Germany regarding the administation of Europe, languages, civil rights and the resettlement of populations. He also talked about the creation of a new germanic indipendent nation called Burgundy (it was to be carved from eastern France, Belgium and parts of Switzerland). This new state was to be lead by Léon Degrelle and its capital city was to be either Dijon or Ghent. --151.51.10.14 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have not found this speech yet, but "Himmler Burgund" gets interesting results in German on the net (as you probably know, but maybe others are interested, too).--Radh (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Various Google results seem to imply that this statement came from Felix Kersten's memoirs, and not from a speech. --Chl (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But it also was a real political strategy, partly implemented (?), for a new Burgundy. With Léon Degrelle as Statthalter.--Radh (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Slave owners after abolition

What were the economic effects on slave owners after the abolition of slavery after the American Civil War? Also what were the broader effects on the economy after abolition? According to the article Slavery in the British Virgin Islands, "the original slave owners suffered a huge capital loss. Although they received £72,940 from the British Government in compensation, this was only a fraction of the true economic value of the manumitted slaves. Equally, whilst they lost the right to "free" slave labour, the former slave owners now no longer had to pay to house, clothe and provide medical attention for their former slaves." But I cannot find any information on the US. --AquaticMonkey (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You should find plenty of information on the U.S. if you search for economic division between the north and south. The plantation owners were not paid for their slaves, the land they owned was taken away from them, the house they lives in was usually burned down, and they lost most of their own family in the Civil War. All in all, the plantation owner was ruined. Here and there, you will find exceptions - especially around Charleston, SC. Sharecropping eventually replaced the plantations, but it didn't do very well. To this day, the south is still very poor with a few (very few) spots of wealth. That is why searching for causes of the north/south economic division will turn up a lot of information on what happened after slavery. -- kainaw™ 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Might also want to look at Civil War reconstruction. Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, however, that the loss of slaves was also tied in with the destruction of much of the Southern infrastructure, so it would be difficult to say how much of the economic loss would be due only to the loss of slaves, and how much was due to the destruction. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In one family I have studied, there were 16 slaves and a small plantation house or large farmhouse when the war started. At war's end, the owner still lived in the house, and the former adult male slaves became sharecroppers, each in charge of a piece of land, and provided an allowance for tools and a mule.They were paid by a share of the eventual crop, or nothing if there was a crop failure, or little if prices dropped. Not all of the South was the scene of Sherman's Destructive March Through Georgia. The sharecroppers were free to leave but most did not. I do not know if they were held in place by newly acquired debt for food and supplies, but it is possible. Bank credit was short, and property taxes, though lower than prewar, had to be paid or the whole place could be sold for taxes. "Notes" were used in the same way credit cards are now for buying and selling things, such as horses or mules, seeds, or tools, due to a shortage of specie or U.S. currency. Things which had been sold to the Confederate government for their currency were a loss, as was any pay which had been issued to soldiers. Edison (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Acting as a national leader

How come sometimes a national leader only stays one year. The one between Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma only last one year. The Rose lady one who took over Omar Bongo's death is a temporairly one, would she be able to last for a long time. i found some only last for less than 15 month. The one in Togo born in 1966 only last for 8 month.--69.229.108.245 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One possible explanation is that they were slated to become leader if the original leader were to die or resign, and it happened when there was only 1 year left in the original term. Or they could have died or resigned 1 year into a term that was supposed to be longer, or they were the head of a provisional government that only lasted 1 year. There are a lot of reasons why a national leader would only be in charge for 1 year. Googlemeister (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The leaders you cite are transitional leaders, who assume power because the standing leader has either died (Bongo) or resigned (Mbeki). In these cases, the country's constitution will usually designate the person who takes over as provisional leader until new elections can be held. This person will often hold a modified title such as "acting president" or "provisional president" and is not expected to stay in power beyond the short transition period. This also happens in Western countries. For example, Alain Poher was twice interim President of France, after Charles de Gaulle resigned in 1969, and after Georges Pompidou died in office in 1974. In each case, his term lasted barely two months. --Xuxl (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rosencratz and Guildenstern in Act 2 Scene 2 of Hamlet

In the part of Act 2 Scene 2 near the end, where Hamlet is talking to Rosencratz and Guildenstern, what part of their conversation does Hamlet start to suspect their not being truthful? This is not a school assignment, but for a fan fiction. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that from the very beginning Hamlet suspects there's something fishy: right after they meet R. says "the world's grown honest" and H. answers (238-241) "Then is doomsday near. But your news is not true. Let me question more in particular: what have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?". The way he asks them why they are there suggests to me that he expects them to lie (and therefore the news that "the world's grown honest" "is not true"). Then in 274-276 it's very clear he doesn't believe them: "Were you not sent for? Is it your own inclining? Is it a free visitation? Come, deal justly with me: come, come; nay, speak." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mere opinion ... Before he speaks to them, he explains that he believes everything is lies. Therefore, he should expect what they say to be a lie as well. The deeper question is if he is being overly careful because he is sane and protecting himself or is he just crazy? -- kainaw™ 18:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume, of course, you've read the other Hamlet fan fiction... --Jayron32 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Serbian coat-of-arms identification

The shield in the middle of this Scout emblem Image:-RepublicSrbska.jpg is somehow related to Serbia, but this is not the national shield. Can anyone identify it? Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Boy scouts? --Soman (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the logo of the Savez Izviđača Republike Srpske, which seems to be part of the Savjet izviđačkih organizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini — in English, the Scout Association of Republika Srpska, which seems to be part of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that much I know, I'm a contributor to WikiProject Scouting, I mean the shield in the middle, the coat-of-arms. Sorry for being unclear. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you even tell from that image what's on the shield? I sure can't. I think we need a better picture to give a meaningful answer. - Nunh-huh 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's really why I'm asking, if someone can identify it, we can clarify it. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason to suppose that it belongs to anything other than the Scouting org? Its design is typical of small institutions where no one has any heraldic knowledge or taste. —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Army's traditional use of American Indian tribal names for its helicopters

How and why did this tradition begin? Are their more Native American name uses in the other US Armed Forces? How does Native American community feel about this practice? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the army has also had helicopters that were named the Cobra, which isn't an Indian name. The Iroquois (aka Huey) was started in 1959 so naming after Indians probably started then. Not sure on the why though. Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

this site says that the convention came from Army Regulation (AR) 70-28, dated April 1969. The regulation has since been rescinded, but the practice remains popular, according to the website. I'm looking for actual text of the regulation, but so far no soap. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

… radio. Deor (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal veto in the UK

If I remember rightly, Queen Anne was the last British monarch to withhold Royal Assent; of course, with the modern constitutional system, this isn't likely, since the monarch always acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, what would happen if a private member's bill were somehow to pass Parliament over the opposition of the government? Would it be seen as unconstitutional/unorthodox/undemocratic/wrong/[insert other negative adjective here] for the Prime Minister to advise the monarch to withhold Royal Assent? Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill isn't quite what I mean, because the Commons never voted on it. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The government decides the schedule of parliamentary business, so I don't think a private member's bill can get as far as being voted on without the support of the government. Opposition days allow for subjects to get proper discussion and even a vote without government support, but I don't think an actual bill can get passed that way, just non-binding votes - a good example is the recent government defeat on the Gurkhas [5]. That wasn't a binding vote so Royal Assent was never an issue, but it was enough to make it political suicide for the government to ignore it. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you say "it doesn't matter, because it can't happen?" I was aware that it was unlikely, although not that it couldn't happen at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not impossible for things to pass through Parliament by accident (there have been occasions when Government whips have been absent and not blocked a vote which they intended to), so it is not inconcievable that a private members' bill to which the Government was opposed could pass through the House of Lords and then through the House of Commons by inattentiveness. However, in such circumstances the Prime Minister would cause a constitutional crisis by advising the monarch to withhold Royal Assent - especially if done in public. It is questionable whether the Monarch ought to seek advice from the Prime Minister before granting Royal Assent. The most likely way out of the problem would be passing a swift amending Bill to repeal the unwanted legislation, which might well be done before it could take effect. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is where a government does not support the bill but certain government members do, and they cross the floor to vote with the opposition. Uncommon, but certainly not unprecedented. If the bill then passes, the PM is no position to advise the Queen to withhold Royal Assent, as he/she would be assuming a position of authority over the will of the parliament. If the PM can't get his way through the parliamentary process, he can't get it the sneaky way. The Queen acts on the advice of the PM, but that has be tempered with a dash of common sense. If a nutty PM advised a monarch to issue a decree declaring all citizens aged under 40 to be legally insane (I've deliberately picked a absurd example), the monarch would be perfectly justified in saying "Piss off, Prime Minister". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I love the phrasing, "pass[ing] through Parliament by accident" :-) Thanks for the explanations; I was under the impression that every exercise of power was done after receiving advice, if for no other reason than ensuring that the monarch would appear politically neutral. Good point on the insanity thing; I'd not considered that. Would the monarch violate any written legislation by issuing a decree of any sort? I'm aware that the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta bar the monarch from doing some things, and of course custom bars the monarch from doing anything else. AFAIK, the last decree issued by a British monarch was when Edward VII decreed that Sir John Fisher not work on Sundays because his wife wanted him to be at home, and of course there was no punishment (at least not by royal agents; I don't know what his wife did) when the Admiral ignored the royal decree. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is far from unheard of for the government to lose a vote, but I don't think a Private Member's Bill can even get as far as a binding vote without the Leader of the House (who serves at the will of the PM) giving it the appropriate parliamentary time. You could try amending a bill that the government has put forward, but I think they could just withdraw the bill if an amendment they didn't like passed. I really don't think it could happen. Of course, if it did, it wouldn't take long for a motion of no confidence to be passed, so at most the PM could delay the passing of the bill by a couple of months or so. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can quite imagine the no-confidence vote if the PM were intentionally to ignore Parliament's decisions. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian House of Commons did pass a private member's bill "accidentally", as described above, in 1982, but it still had to get through the Senate, the equivalent of the House of Lords.

This was a period when Canada was moving away from symbols of its former dependent status to Britain, and for years the government had been dropping hints that they would be renaming Dominion Day to Canada Day, but they didn't actually do it. (When Prime Minister Trudeau had to refer to the holiday in a speech, he tended to use expressions like "the July 1st holiday".) But one day when only 12 members, all backbenchers, were present in the Commons (not even a quorum, but that didn't matter, as nobody called for a quorum), one of them introduced a private member's bill to rename the holiday, and it passed at once.

Canada's Senate practically never blocks legislation passed by the Commons, and they didn't this time, although they did delay the bill with extended debate. (Royal Assent, as usual, was then promptly given by the Governor-General.)

--Anonymous, 03:16 UTC, August 7, 2009.

There was a similar case in Australia in the 1920s. Voting at federal elections had never been compulsory, but a backbench senator thought it should be, so he introduced a private members bill to change the law. None of the major parties had a particular position on it either way. It passed through the parliament with very little debate, being seen as a minor, almost trivial administrative matter. Since then, compulsory voting has been the subject of far more controversy than it ever attracted at the time, and we're way out of step with most other developed nations, but it seems we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future because it's become an entrenched part of our political culture, at all levels of government. All thanks to some senator whose name would not be known to 1 out of 100,000 Australians. Even I've forgotten it. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

John Kufuor's graduation

From this they said Mrs Kufuor finish her training nurse while begin to marry John Kufuor in 1962. While she was train to be a nurse, does this mean she finish college in 1962 for her fourth year in university. John Kufuor must graduate high school in 1956 probably 1957? Is this possilbe for Mrs Kufuor to be one year younger than John? I don't think Terri Kufuor is full 70 years of age yet. I just think Terri Mensah is about same age as Kwame Kufuor-John Kufuor's younger brother.--69.229.108.245 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Judaen monarchy

Did anybody thought of restoring the Judaen monarchy under a King from the House of David or electing a non-royal one from the Jewish people during the time when they were trying to creat the Republic of Israel? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The last prominent individuals who claimed to be heirs of the Davidic dynasty, and so entitled to special authority, were the Exilarchs. Realistically, even if there had been a clear candidate for the modern heir of David (which there wasn't and isn't), the hard-headed Eastern European socialists who made up the core of the early Zionist movement were not greatly interested in resurrecting ancient absolutisms. Besides, you only have to consult the First Book of Samuel, chapter 8 to see what God has to say about it... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First book of Samuel, please expand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked that up for you, but I've never read a Bible before. Er...Someone called David "smote" someone called "Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah", along with a lot of Philistines and Syrians. Not sure how it's relevant, personally. Maybe I've read the wrong bit. Vimescarrot (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That happens to be II Samuel 8. On the other hand, I Samuel 8 is a very famous chapter in which God instructs Samuel to enumerate to the Israelites all the disadvantages and miseries of having a king ruling over them. This has been referenced many times in political debates down through the centuries. Unfortunately, our article Books of Samuel seems to de-emphasize this aspect... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would someone want to stick a king above them in this day and age unless as an act to roll back something really bad like in Spain? The same sort of question in relating to Ireland occurred earlier here WP:RDH#English succession. Where anyone could get the idea they might want to start up a monarchy I don't know. It just sounds like a non sequitor to me. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Zealots who want to rebuild a Temple on the holy mount might use a Prophet to declare "God's will" that they throw out the Moslems and demolish their structures, rebuild the Temple, and start the sacrifices, and a new Judean King to direct the military aspects of the enterprise. Some U.S. fringe Christian zealots believe that such a Temple rebuilding is necessary to cause the second coming of Christ. Edison (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, Jewish tradition is much more explicit in identifying the male-line descendents of ancient priests than it is in identifying the heirs of David, so it's not clear how such extremists could come up with a candidate for current-day Judean monarch who would have some degree of wider credibility among other extremists, or among the general Jewish public who take the Bible seriously... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a self-proclaimed prophet, like a modern Samuel, could announce that "God chooses...This one!" from among the supposed descendants of David. Edison (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

August 4

Agricultural maps of England & France

Does anybody know of any good websites with maps of English & French agriculture, showing where certain kinds of livestocks and crops are raised and grown, on a shire or provincial basis? Extra help if these are middle ages conditions--are there any maps of agriculture for pre-Norman England, such as differences between Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria? I'd assume that livestock such as sheep and cattle to be raised in the highlands, grains and fodder to be grown in the lowlands; pigs and chickens, fruits and vegetables in the cities...hunting and foraging in the forests, fishing and saltworks in the waters. Of course, that's general, so I was looking for more specific concentrations of this or that animal or crop being typical of one region over another. Thank you! 70.171.239.21 (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

for the uk try the first three maps from this search http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&um=1&q=land+use+map+uk&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20 also http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/16170508/10

Offline the times atlas of the world has far better maps of uk land use.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Land Utilisation Survey of Britain should answer 1/4 of your question-unfortunately the links don't seem to be working at the moment.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will be easily answered online - you need some archaeological books specific to the areas you mention - data as specific as you ask can be got by analysing deposits of animal bone/pollen/seeds etc. It's something archaelogists do, but they tend to write books about it, and the results are localised. I'd suggest by starting with an academic book on britain (and/or france) in the middle ages - with a section on agriculture, and following the references from there.

Alternatively do a search of academic archaeologists by their research interest/publications and see if you can find a department that specialises in this.

Additionally the doomsday book may help for the uk - but you will have to create your own map.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

American Cities

How does American history, and culture, justify the following. Creation of reservations for Native Americans, The Indian Wars, Trail of tears ect. But then they name so many of their cities with Native American names. eg. Cinncinatti, Chicago, Seatle etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it does - it's unintentially ironic.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't justify it. We simply do it. :) P.S. Cincinnati is not Indian. It comes from Latin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: IP address asked the same question on the Misc. page and I gave the same humble answer. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea: the guys who come up with ideas like wars with the Indians and Indian removal, etc; are off in the federal government over in Washington but the name of a city or region gets decided by the people living there. Duomillia (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

((copied from duplicated post))

Please ask questions at one reference desk at a time. You just asked the same question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Also, judging from your edit history I wonder if you are genuinely interested in getting answers or if your intent is to provoke other users into an emotional or disciplinary response.Sjö (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a snappy answer: We don't justify it. We simply do it. :) P.S. Cincinnati is not Indian. It comes from Latin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What, so even the Romans were oppressing Native Americans? That's just not right! ;) Franamax (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not american but for some deeds to land the title says basically 'By right of conquest'. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Some European courts during the colonial period did not generally accept as valid deeds to land in the present U.S. (excepting the portion acquired from France or Spain) "by right of conquest." The deed needed to show a purchase or granting of the land by the native inhabitants. It can be argued that land title was a foreign concept to the Native Americans, and they did not understand that they were permanently giving up all rights to the land. It can also be argued that the sellers may not have been empowered by their tribes to conduct such sales, or that they may not even have "had title to the land" since they were hunters moving through it rather than permanent residents of the district. This need to have "bargained and purchased" the land may be why Peter Minuit paid $24 for Manhattan in 1626, according to legend. (Of course if the $24 had been invested at 6% compound interest since then, it would now be worth $4,900,000,000). Edison (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In many cases, we didn't name the city. We simply reused the Indian name for the place - badly spelled and mispronounced, certainly but simply continued in use not granted in honor of. See Chicago, Michigan, Mackinaw. Others were named in honor of Natives who were actually held in high regard. Like Chief Seattle. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, in some cases, we actually "bought" land from the Indians. They found this rather amusing, since they did not feel like it was theirs to sell, but if some European-ancestried sucker was willing to give them money, they weren't going to turn it down. P.S. This philosophy still lives today, in the Native American instutions called "casinos". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In Plymouth colony there were strict laws against buying land from the Indians without specific permission from the local government. The specifically wanted to avoid having people take advantage of the Indians lest the Indians get pissed and get organized and start attacking the colony. Unauthorized settlements were one of the major causes of King Philip's War among other conflicts. Of course, by the later Indian wars, we Americans basically cleansed the land and simply took it. Not a pretty part of our past, and yet here we are... --Jayron32 03:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

History topics regarding Shanghai, China

What is an interesting, engaging topic for a 6-8 page essay about the history of Shanghai, China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.44.49.138 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you narrow it down to an area of interest - architecture, foundation of, parks of, geography, foreignors in etc. How about one on the port of shanghai.83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai was one of the primary places for the May Fourth Movement, a group of young writers who used literature to encourage social change, including famous writers such as Lu Xun, Ding Ling and many more. Now, Shanghai is still fomenting change in its business and fashion oriented society that encourages change (whether good or bad) away from the revolutionary government towards a Chinese version of Western capitalism. Steewi (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The New Culture Movement is also important in that idea. Duolun Road is a side track that I loved when I visited Shanghai. Steewi (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to hosting the May 4th (1919) Movement, Shanghai was occupied by triads in 1853 and 1927; partly run by foreigners from 1854 to 1945; (unknowingly) hosted the 1st National Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (1921); witnessed the Nationalist Party's blood purge (1927); and was the main geographic power base of the Gang of Four during the Cultural Revolution. Aside from the famous Soong family -- Ai-ling (1890), Qingling (1893), TV (1894), and Mei-ling, 1897 -- Shanghai natives include Lu Xun (1881), Chen Yun (1905), Tung Chee-hwa (1937), General Xiong Guangkai (1939), Yang Jiechi (1950), Joan Chen (1961), and Yao Ming (1980). DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary buildings in Ancient Greece

What might the building have been like which hosted a symposium of about 400 BC? In particular, what kind of window arrangements, if any - empty rectangular openings, some kind of shutters? - and what would the floor be like - a mosaic, wooden boards, stone slabs? 81.131.21.44 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In a private residence it would have been held in the andron, a room away from domestic areas and workrooms and probably off of a central court. Archaeologists identify these rooms by the elevated platforms around the walls for the couches (kline), and off-center door. Most would have been square, with space for seven couches—each wall about 4.5m which would fit two couches plus the butt end of one on the adjacent wall. The door would be in the space otherwise occupied by a couch, giving rise to its offset position.

The walls would have been mudbrick covered in plaster, clay, or limewash and the floor either earth, plaster, pebbles, or paved. Windows (if any) would have been high enough to block the view of passersby and those in neighboring buildings.

In civic buildings or sanctuaries the hestiatorion may have been a group of similar rooms, possibly larger and with more varied dimensions.—eric 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I asked this because I'm making a bit of 3D-rendered artwork, which so far contains the legs of a kline, a breaking jug (which I'll change to a kylix) spilling some watered-down wine, a mosaic floor (it looks nice, but I guess I'll change it to pebbles), and some interesting shadows cast from a window. There is a kind of meme that Roman windows have a criss-cross grid of wooden bars, so that's the kind of window I'm using, but is this even correct for the Romans (how would we know?) and, more to the point, is it a plausible window for the andron? 213.122.65.168 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WWII

Hi.. when I was 16... forty years ago I took a trip from Canada across the county and down through California. Just above San Francisco, it may have been a part of the Bay, I'm not sure, were miles it seemed, of former WWI Naval boats. There must have thousands of them just docked in the water there. Leftover from the war. I was wondering what had happened to them all. It's been a long time mystery to me as I have tried to find out before and didn't know where or how to look for the information. If you have any information on this where can I look for it. Were they scrapped did they take out to the ocean and sink them. How do I find out? My email is <e-mail address removed>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.138.235 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed your e-mail address, 96.229.138.235, to protect you from spam. Any responses to your query will be made here. Deor (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

These were ships of the National Defense Reserve Fleet at Suisun Bay. You can look for the disposition of a particular ship here, i image most were sold for scrap. Haven't yet found a table w/ overall numbers, but will keep looking.—eric 19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Plantagenet Inheritance

Hm. That header sounds like it would make a good title of a novel.  :)

OK, my question: Richard I of England died with no children. His younger brother John took the throne after Richard. But Richard had had another brother, Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, who died before Richard did. Geoffrey was older than John. Geoffrey had two children, his posthumous son, Arthur I, Duke of Brittany, and Arthur's older sister, Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany. Arthur was Richard's rightful heir, being the son of the next Plantagenet brother in line, but John had Arthur executed and Eleanor locked away for her entire life. My question is, did Richard ever acknowledge Arthur or John as his rightful heir, prior to his death? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously he must have told John83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. He may even have told John not to do it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - being a bit silly (too much BlackAdder as a child).

Proper answer : Those times, as you know where a bit rough, and the rule of force was as much a factor as the rule of law - specifically without a direct heir the inheritance (from any king) would be in doubt. Angevin Empire#John's reign and the collapse (1199 - 1217) makes it clear that other parties saw the lack of a direct descendant as a chance to increase their states.

Even if Richard had told someone it probably wouldn't have made any difference. (With the possible exception of the pope).

According to the article :"Richard I" quote (about John) "Richard forgave him when they met again and, bowing to political necessity, named him as his heir in place of Arthur, whose mother Constance of Brittany was perhaps already open to the overtures of Philip II."

, also at his death he quote "Richard then set his affairs in order, bequeathing all his territory to his brother John and his jewels to his nephew Otto" - both those are from wikipedia's articles, and annoyingly don't directly cite themselves.

However one thing isn't clear - whether or not these are from contemporary accounts, or (if you are of a suspicious type of mind) from accounts written during John's reign. (which would be suspicious for obvious reasons) - however on the surface he clearly name John as heir.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur I, Duke of Brittany was only one of the unlucky Arthurs in England's history, being an Arthur in line for the throne would seem to guarantee you wouldn't get it. See also Arthur, Prince of Wales. I remember a history professor of mine making the point that the name became somewhat cursed among the English royal families, and they specifically stopped naming their kids Arthur because of it... --Jayron32 03:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And of course, John became unpopular for kings also. Our John from above was not exactly a rip-roaring success as king, John the Blind and John Baliol had unhappy ends to their reigns, so Robert II of Scotland's son John reigned as Robert. Gwinva (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You forgot John the Good. I wonder if there are specific monarchs which the present Queen or her previous Throne holders in the direct line, actively tried to negate or conversely, express distaste towards to disown such ancestors. I assume that the example of not naming any sons John is one case. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There weren't many Matildas around (Matilda, Duchess of Saxony, granddaughter of the infamous Empress Matilda, being the last Matilda), not to mention how there was no Jane after Lady Jane Grey. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And there is the current Prince Charles, who has indicated that he might choose another regnal name, when his time comes, to avoid association with Charles I and Charles II. Gwinva (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was to avoid numerical issues with the Young Pretender, much as there hasn't been another James. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Culture of Privacy in Britain

It's common knowledge that Britain has a love affair with CCTV. Every single day the average Londoner is filmed a multitude of times in the CCTV capital of the world. 20,000 cameras are now being installed in private residences to monitor children in antisocial families. [6] It seems that the will of the people of the Isles is for privacy to become obsolete in favor of security. Culturally is there a reason that Britain is, ironically, motivated to move toward the world of the thought police? Sappysap (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out CCTV and policing: public area surveillance and police practices in Britain, and I am sure Google Print will have some more info on the subject - that's just the first I spotted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would take that news story with a pinch of salt. It is all over the tech media, but I can't find any mention of it in the mainstream media. I can't believe something like this would be announced and not be all over the popular press. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You might like to consider the gap between "the will of the people", and "the will of the government". Contrary to the views of Downing St, those two are not synonymous --Saalstin (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FFS. There is no plan to install 20,000 cameras in the homes of antisocial families. That's a stupid wired story based on an even stupider Daily Express story. See MeFi's take on it. Debates about privacy versus security don't start well when started from false premises. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is dissonance between Britain being where the government's cameras watch everyone more than any other country, and it being the country where restroom toilet doors and stalls form a complete seal from bottom to top, for utter privacy, compared to the U.S. where the doors and stall partitions stop a foot from the floor. Any U.S. Senator with "a wide stance" would be out of luck in London. Edison (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an insane generalisation, and one without any basis in reality. The majority of toilet stalls in Britain "stop a foot from the floor" as well. Try basing your claims on empirical evidence rather than internet hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've spent time there, so it is observation of toilet designs that are common there and never seen in the U.S., not "internet hearsay." Provide evidence that the totally enclosed toilets are NOT found in London and the no-privacy toilets are common. Edison (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The bogs in that blog (see what I did there?) are mostly older or higher class. Go use a loo in a modern cheapskate-built office or public convenience in a station or hospital and the "I can see your ankles" game is back on. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A bus station in Indiana even went to the extent of placing a large window in each toilet door. Perhaps they wanted to ward off Senators with wide stances from being indecent. I just recall that totally enclosing doors were much more common in restaurants or other public accomodations in London than in large U.S. cities. Edison (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I contest the OP's opinions. Britons detest CCTV, but the police and businesses (who install it) and occasionally frightened householders find it useful. And even if it were true, that has nothing at all to do with thought-police - I think you've misunderstood the concept of the latter. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But what is interesting is that while people complain about the invasion of privacy, police state etc etc, as soon as they are mugged/beaten/victim of a crime they call the police and are quite delighted when they find it's caught on CCTV and the evil criminals can be caught and punished (or, more likely, moan that the police are useless, are uninterested in solving crimes, and didn't have any CCTV footage). Gwinva (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet this is the country where, just the other day, a woman was forbidden the right to photograph her grandchildren at a public swimming pool due to privacy concerns: [7]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet what? Is this a question or just a general "let's bash Britain" thread?

I'm very disappointed that people have seen fit to feed this troll, and even more so that it has been used as an excuse for people to make irrelevant proclamations about toilet cubicles and swimming pools. Any more vaguely sneering generalisations you lot'd care to make about the UK? Get a grip. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

90% of content is created by 10% of editors

I vaguely recall hearing such a rule in relation not only to Wikipedia but the Internet in general, but I cannot recall its name, nor can I google it. I am pretty sure somebody here will :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For wikipedia, see Academic studies about Wikipedia, which has stats such as "the top 10% of editors (by edit count) were credited with 86% of persistent word views — the number of times a word introduced by an edit is viewed." I very much doubt that the ratio extends to the whole of the internet, where the vast majority are readers and the minority are authors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Though it is almost certainly true that there a vast ratio of difference between content providers and content readers/users. On the other hand, the ratio is probably much, much better than one would see in any other media (e.g. television, where the ratio is probably closer to a million to one or something like that). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

While true, I don't think that was what the statistic was getting at. I think it meant to show that despite it's millions of editors, most of Wikipedia is written by a relatively small number of them (say a couple thousand people). TastyCakes (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I understood that; I was referring to the other discussion about "the whole of the internet," as was asked about by the OP and discussed above. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe 1% rule (Internet culture), aka 1% of lurkers in a virtual community will participate, though The Guardian mentions "an emerging rule of thumb that suggests that if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will 'interact' with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it." - BanyanTree 01:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pareto principle.--droptone (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that what was I looking for, but thanks everyone for other links and comments! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Death of one person = death of the world

I've been told that both Judaism and Islam teach that the death of one human being is as the death of the whole world. Would anyone know where in either or both religions' holy texts this particular philosophy is expressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.138.181 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

While neither Jewish nor Muslim, John Donne (a Christian scholar/poet) wrote the famous and oft-quoted lines

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

in his Devotions upon Emergent Occasions which mirror that sentiment. Gwinva (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the Bible, and I don't think it's in the Qur'an. In the form "Whoever saves a single life, it is as though they have saved the whole world" it's apparently attributed to Rabbi Judah in the Mishnaic portion of Talmud Sanhedrin. AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

George Orwell, though not a Jew or Muslim, wrote in his short story A Hanging, "...in two minutes, with a sudden snap, one of us would be gone — one mind less, one world less." Tempshill (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it is from the Qur'an: "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind....." [Surah 5 Verse 32]". At least thats what a quick google brought up. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ma'ida, 32, though "corruption" is fasad, more commonly translated as "mischief". Note that it is specific to "the Children of Israel", apparently the Jews. - BanyanTree 09:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Judah predates the Qur'an by about 500 years. Traditional understanding of his statement is that by killing a person, you also kill all that person's potential descendants. I struggled to understand that, as it would bar the maxim applying to (for example) people beyond childbearing age, but on further thought, an elderly person can still save lives or help create them (by, for example, matchmaking). --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but from the quotes it seems as if the form of "killing a person" is only in the Qur'an, while the "saving a person" is in both. In regards to the OP the Qur'an quote seems more relevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Isnt there a quote inn the talmud that states "he who saves the life of one man, saves the world entire". Basically for every person who has died, the world's ended for them. --Thanks, Hadseys 10:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS NO INFORMATION ABOUT COPAS FARM , LONDON

Hi,

My name is IMRAN i am resident on UK, London. I had recently visited COPAS FARMS in Slough London, It is a very big farm of fruits and vegetables the entry fee is just 2 pounds and it is located in a village It is a very famous farm and about 100s of people visit there every day, And there is an old history related with this farm.

I am shocked to see that there is no information at all in WIKIPEDIA regarding this beautiful farm You may visit the website of this farm http://www.copasfarms.co.uk/newsite/home.htm

I would be verymuch thankful to you if you kindly pelase include the information regarding this beautiful farm, and make our WIKIPEDIA the global resource of knowledge,

THANKS AND REGARDS,

Imran.S.Maredia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.30.177 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly there does not appear to be anything about the farm that makes it notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Still, I'm glad that you had a great day out there. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Slough is not in London. That is all I have to say on the matter. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree it's not notable but I'm a bit surprised how little there is in Wikipedia about pick your own or farm shops or anything along those lines, see the rather small Rural economics for instance and how little it even lists. I guess nobody interested has bothered to spend a bit of time writing an article. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallholding has a bit more, but small scale agriculture appears to be one of those topics with which the type of people who write online encyclopedias as a hobby have little familiarity. - BanyanTree 09:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Although some sometimes like nothing more than throwing manure about or even writing shit (?).--Radh (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got to agree that currently COPAS farm is not notable enough to warrant an article. see WP:Notability83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact we only seem to have one farm that has been considered sufficiently notable for inclusion. By contrast, we have a dozen fictional farms.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Kostroma Moose Farm although maybe that's more like a ranch. Googlemeister (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

August 5

Lancaster (& Tudor) and York

Considering the fact that the houses of Lancaster and York no longer strictly included Angevin Plantagenets, but also their partisan relatives...about when did the Tudors become seen as their own house? I'm guessing the Stuarts decided to place emphasis on ancient British descent of the Tudors (and thus, their individuality), rather than their partiality in one English dynasty or another, each of which had greater claim to England than James I, even if he himself held a greater claim to both kingdoms combined. It seems ironic that the Lancastrians who were interested in Wycliffe under John of Gaunt, sternly anti-Lollard under Henry IV & Henry V and to eventually be assigned the "fidei defensor" title, should thenceforth institute schism. The Yorkists, who remained in Ireland and exile, would represent Catholic legitimism, "loyal opposition" and the "underdog". Thus, the Lancastrians were the court party and the Yorkists were the clerical party, going back to factions in the reign of Edward III, that exploded under Richard II? Do I have it right, that Tudor propaganda about the union of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York was a sham that lasted into the reign of Henry VIII, having plausibly been the ones to murder Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury (blaming Richard III and destroying Titulus Regius), executing the Clarence siblings: Earl of Warwick & Countess of Salisbury, nervously awaiting the White Rose (de la Pole, who died at Pavia plotting to retake England for York)? The Tudors were simply pretending to be neutral, but actively partisan to their roots as the uterine kindred of Henry VI. How could the Wars of the Roses be said to have finished in 1485, when the Tudor branch of Lancaster continued to face Yorkist and then Catholic revolts? Is it simply that the Throne would no longer change hands, as though that in and of itself, was "mission accomplished"? Perhaps the Tudor branch pretended Simnel and Warbeck were real people and not simply aliases of the true people they claimed to be? It is standard Machiavellianism; I have read that Henry VII was well versed in it. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A new British royal "house" is generally declared whenever the new monarch is not a direct legitimate male line descendent of a previous monarch, and the accession of Henry VII meets that criterion. As for the "princes in the tower", they mysteriously vanished when Richard III had control over the Tower through his appointees and chosen lieutenants, and he probably had the most to gain from their deaths, so the greatest suspicion will naturally fall on him -- in the absence of credible evidence pointing very specifically to an alternative culprit... AnonMoos (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a long time since I studied this period, but I was under the impression that the House of Tudor was created as an intentional piece of spin by Henry Tudor, to calm the particularist passions that had been so destructive for so long. I don't think they were pretending to be "neutral", just to be neither fish nor fowl. A subtly difference perhaps. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry VII was descended through a woman (Lady Margaret Beaufort) from John of Gaunt, so his coming to throne naturally marks a transition to a new "house", just as descent through Matilda marks the transition from Normans to Plantagenets, descent through Margaret Tudor and Mary queen of Scots marks the transition from Tudors to Stuarts, descent through Elizabeth (wife of the "Winter King" of Bohemia) and Sophia of Hanover marks the transition from Stuart to Hanover (Guelph), descent through Victoria marks the transition from Hanover to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, etc. The only royal "house" establishment in England which was more ideological than genealogical was renaming Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to "Windsor" in WWI... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a little convenient that the deaths of the Princes wasn't "revealed" until after Henry VII took the throne? If they had still been alive, his claims to the throne would have been null and void under law. But then, his wife had the better claim, and yet, nobody even considered her as ruling Queen. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There were plenty of ominous rumors circulating before the Battle of Bosworth, and Richard conspicuously refrained from dispelling such rumors by showing the princes publicly. It's certainly arguable that Henry VII's wife and his mother both had better claims to the throne than he did, but in 1485 the principle that the English crown could pass directly to a woman (as queen-regnant) was not yet firmly established, and ideas about the "crown-matrimonial" and men married to a peerage heiress sitting in the House of Lords were still well known... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered about Edmund (and Jasper) Tudor's maternal heritage from France and how that may have played a part in anything, but all I have seen is that his father Owen was considered a traitor by the Yorkists and Henry VI promoted Edmund (and Jasper) as his uterine brother...it is often said that Henry VII drew his descent twice from the "wrong side of the marital bed", which notes the Beaufort line, but nobody really comments on the Somerset line of Beaufort as it is also a double bastardy and potential claims from them in comparison to the Tudors, which introduced a different dynasty out of the same party. English claims to France depended upon a French ancestor, but who knows what Catherine of Valois's blood gave to Henry VII to any advantage. I surely would like to hear it. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, England had a significant tradition of rule-by-conquest. See Cnut the Great, William the Conqueror, Henry IV of England, Edward IV of England. Indeed, up to and including the Tudors, EVERY new house in England had been established via conquest and/or civil war, The Normans via the Norman Conquest, the Plantagenets via The Anarchy, the Lancastrians and Yorkists via the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors at Bosworth Field. The ascension of the House of Stuart would be the first peaceful dynastic transition in England since, like, ever... Generally, the conquesting King always had a legitimate claim (sometimes, but not always, the best claim) to the throne, but it cannot be ignored that without military success, none of these houses would have ever gained control of the throne. --Jayron32 03:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why Stephen of Blois would be considered Norman, when he was obviously French as much as the Plantagenets and even for most of his reign, Normandy was held by Geoffrey of Anjou. Then there are the cases of (Louis of France,) Philip of Spain, (Guildford Dudley, Mary Stuart's husbands) William of Orange, (George of Denmark,) and now it appears, that the Oldenburg collateral descendants of Queen Anne's husband will not assume his heritage and rights as successors, but envelop themselves within the "Windsors"...which seems to be a name of deception now more than once in the annals of monarchy. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Angevins didn't exactly take over by conquest, in that Matilda and Stephen came to an agreement that her son would succeed Stephen, although it was really only because Matilda's faction was gaining ground against Stephen's. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said conquest and/or civil war. Mathildas arrangement with Stephen to get her offspring named as heirs did not exactly happen over afternoon tea. See The Anarchy. --Jayron32 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Best NYC Photospots

Where are the best places in NYC for photos? (skyline, other unique photo spots) also where in New Jersey is the prime place to take photos of the NYC Skyline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As a casual observer, a nice picture can be taken of NY from under the Brooklyn Bridge, looking across the water as can be seen on the cover of the albumb world coming down by type o negative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Promenade in Brooklyn Heights is a great place to take photos of the lower Manhattan skyline. And you can stop at Grimaldi's on Old Fulton St. for pizza. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I can share a few of mine. If you want a long distance view of the skyline, Upper Mountain Avenue in Upper Montclair, NJ is superb. Jersey City would be a closer location. As you head into the Lincoln Tunnel from NJ, the skyline is priceless. The Battery is best viewed from Ellis Island or the Promenade on Brooklyn Heights. I am trying to recall spots further north on the island. A great photo can be had from the Great Lawn on Central Park facing South. Quuens would be a great spot to view the United Nations. Other wonderful Central Park sites can be taken from the roof of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

I could spend several hours detailing my favorite photo shoots in Manhattan. My preference is for the ones that show that how NYers live and not the overly commercial, nauseating ones. Across the street from Lincoln Center is another good shot. 75Janice (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)75Janice

The train line from Newark to Penn Station, or the roof of the apartment blocks around 233th street and Broadway has a nice view both north and south. SGGH ^ping! 11:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Senate quorum calls

I've been reading a lot of the Congressional Records and often, in the Senate, someone will call for a quorum call and it will get underway, and then someone will call for it to be cancelled and then it will be. This seems to happen several time a day. Is there any particular reason why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quorum call says "A member wishing to delay proceedings (for example, to allow other members time to get to the chamber in order to join debate) may request that the presiding officer determine whether a quorum is present.". --Sean 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another marvel of efficiency, that is... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As if they're fooling anyone. All a game. I'm reminded of something Will Rogers said, kinda like this: "A politician doesn't stand for much; but you can be sure of one thing - he stands for re-election!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Civilians on Apache AH-64D

Is it possible for me, Joe American, to ask to get a ride on an Apache AH-64D? Or do you have to know "someone"? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely possible for you to ask. Would not say the chances are good for your request to be granted. Googlemeister (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I found info on an Army Aviation open house that included Apaches, but no mention of getting rides. The Apache only being a two-seater would seem to make that particularly problematic; something like a CH-47 Chinook would let them get a significant number of people in the air. On the other hand, I'm sure it's not impossible -- civilians have ridden with the Blue Angels and the like, so why would Apaches be different? But that's back to knowing someone or being someone. — Lomn 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, this UK site offered the chance to bid to be the "first civilian to ride in an Apache". I'm skeptical that it would really be the first civilian (perhaps the first in the UK, but even that seems a stretch), but it emphasizes that it's not a common sort of request. — Lomn 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would love to get a ride in one! Oftentimes, you will see these lucky news anchors reporting from an Airforce base hitching a ride on one of the jets. I just wanted to know if I were to call the local US Army base here and ask them if it is possible for a civilian to get a tour of the Apache AH-64D and possibly be lucky enough to get a quick ride. How would the ride feel like? I vaguely remember being on a regular helicopter when I was little. Would riding an Apache AH-64D feel like being on a rollercoaster? Anyone one had any experience or are there any articles on this? --Reticuli88 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just phone an appropriate company in your area and ask to pay for a (civilian) helicopter ride? That way, the flight will go exactly where you want it to go (within air traffic regulations) and it can be arranged for a time convenient for you, without having to beg for favors... 14:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Salvation Army

I'm sorry if this is on Wikipedia somewhere already, but I was passing an insitution of the society above, and noticed a poster. Usually they're quite interesting as clever puns, but this one read "Sinners only" OWTTE. Is this an original sin thing? Something else? I'm going away, so I might not reply for a while. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a reference to the Christian belief that everyone is a sinner ("Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and all that). --Tango (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

True, Tango. It also emphasises that the church is there for people who know they aren't perfect, not as an exclusive club for those who think they are. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You're both right. It's a clever way of saying that "everyone is welcome". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jesus won't be welcomed in the Salvation Army?--Quest09 (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironic, ain't it? However, that theory could only be put to the test if He showed up at the door. When (or if) the apocalypse comes, I doubt the Salvation Army will be His first stop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's an old joke where Jesus meets an outcast sitting on the steps of a church, and asks what's up. "They won't let me inside" he says, and Jesus replies: "No they won't let me in either.". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They probably thought He was a hippie. Hey, I wonder... if Jesus were to write that statement somewhere, would He capitalize "Me"? And if he used the common expression, "Oh, Me", wouldn't that qualify as swearing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Personality tests in careers recruitment

In the recruitment industry, questionnaires are frequently found where the applicant is asked to rate themselves against a certain criteria. Beaverbrooks [8] online recruitment is an extreme example. Often, they are given a list of four statements and asked to pick one which describes them best, and one which describes them least. For example:

How did you respond to customers in your last job?

1. I always find them the solution they need.

2. I was pleased to see them, happy to help.

3. I was approachable.

4. I try and avoid conflict with them.

The applicant might say that (2) is most like them, and (3) least so. It isn't an easy question to answer subjectively, as the applicant does not want to admit to being unapproachable. It is an ingenious means of catching the applicant off guard, and brutally honest with themselves. From it, the recruitment firm determines if the personality is the sort they seek, sometimes even after analysis by a computer.

What is the name of this sort of test, and where can I find material on giving the "right" answer?My name is anetta (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a nanny, but you should give the answer that feels right for you, not the one that you think will win the job - because if you try to pretend you're the type they're looking for, but you're really not, then you're liable to be miserable. Besides that, it depends on the company. Any of the four answers could be what they're looking for. So answer as honestly as you can, and let the chips fall where they may. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Description 1 is obviously a false description of self, yet no one would want to say it describes them least.

• Description 2 is a reasonably favorable description of self; no one would want to say it describes them least.

• Description 3 is hardly a flattering way to describe oneself, yet at the same time one would not want to say it described them least.

• No one would want to describe themselves as description 4; someone may very well want to say that description 4 describes them least.

• I think this sort of thing merely requires thought. Maybe that's what the employer is trying to do -- provoke thought. Your mileage may vary. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's unlikely that being hired or not would turn on this one answer. Typically these kinds of tests ask the same question several times in different ways. Again I say, it depends on the job; any of the four could be the "best" or "least best" answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, I don't think the answers given on this sort of thing can matter much in a hiring decision. I guess it just shows if the applicant is thinking of all the ramifications of each choice. I think the whole setup is designed to be tricky. Maybe the human resources person is trying to impress someone else in the mega-grandiose-corporation. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen these kind of tests use quite effectively to help an potential application decide if the job would be right for them, rather than being used in the application process itself. That works far better since there is no incentive to lie. --Tango (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was getting at. If you perceive that they're hung up on answers to these kinds of bizarre questions, you might want to say, "See ya". I'm reminded of this Steven Wright story. He said he was in the middle of a job interview and pulled out a book and started reading it. The incredulous interviewer asked him what he was doing. Wright said, "Let me ask you a question: If I were driving at the speed of light, and turned on the headlights, would anything happen?" The annoyed interviewer asked, "How would I know?" Wright told the interviewer, "I don't think I want to work for your company." Anyone can take that aggressive approach - if they already have a job elsewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an aptitude test to me. Employers use them to find out if you are the type of person who they would like to employ, and for companies like Beaverbrooks (a chain of jewellery shops in the UK) they are probably looking for someone who is honest and likes helping customers pick the right out the right jewellery.

Beware though the psychological test used by a few employers. I was once asked questions like "Do you have a dog?" and "Do you love your father?" All very strange and totally unrelated to the job. Astronaut (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And many of these tests have some embarassing questions in them in order to attempt to discern how easy the subject finds it to lie. "How many times a day do you pick your nose?" Some recruiting agencies give the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test to recruits and will actually recommend a no-hire to the client based on the test results, even if the client loved the recruit in the interview stage. Tempshill (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to work for a company like that. Meanwhile, if you don't care whether you get the job or not, you could provide some interesting alternate answers. Like, "Oddly enough, my father is a dog." Or on the nose thing, you could answer, "So often you won't notice it after awhile." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You won't stand a job like that if you agonize, so I just see that you answered the question reasonably quickly without worrying too much. Dmcq (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, the way that personality tests (or intelligence tests, or pretty much any other test) like that works in employment is that they establish a statistically valid relationship between the test score and job performance. This is generally the product of extensive research done by the company. There is no way to know what score they are looking for or how you must answer to achieve that score. In reality, the answer to any individual question is irrelevant--all that matters is the total score--so there is no reason to get caught up over one question. Just answer it honestly. —Cswrye (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty bronzes and the sabotaged auction

What ever happened to the two bronze heads that were won by a Chinese art dealer who then refused to pay back in March?

I can't find any follow-up articles. Were they relisted? Sold directly to another bidder? Does Pierre Berge still have them?

61.189.63.167 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

August 6

"At your desecration"

Today I read that one phrase that commonly arises from the Cupertino effect is "at your desecration." This got me wondering: do there exist any ceremonies or rituals whose main purpose is to desecrate a person? If so, how can I arrange to have a desecration? NeonMerlin 01:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking merely to humilate or socially ostracize someone? If so, there is a European tradition of defenstration... --Jayron32 02:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I was thinking of something more antireligious. NeonMerlin 03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Excommunication is a sort of desecration I suppose. So was Hirohito's renunciation of divinity. But generally people aren't considered holy enough to be desecrated. Algebraist 03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aww, so you can live the consecrated life, but there's no option to live the desecrated life? Sounds unfair. NeonMerlin 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If the Black Mass actually ever existed, that's the ritual you're looking for. The Host is certainly desecrated. If you are female, then in some variants it looks like you'll be desecrated, too. Tempshill (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If a (dead supposedly christian) person is found to have been very very bad the body may be exhumed and buried on unsanctified ground.

In general only objects can be desecrated as far as I know. So it's not possible for us to desecrate you, sorry.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is to have your grave (or other mortal remains) desecrated after your death.. Good luck with that :)

83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are stories from long-ago conflicts of a winning general going into a conquered church on horseback, to desecrate it on purpose. It's a form of deliberately "adding insult to injury" (no article on that ?). --Xuxl (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, desecration of places and objects is fairly common, but we're talking about desecration of people here. Algebraist 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Most desecration is done floristically nowadays. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean "defile" eg "Please defile me", "I've been defiled". See also "corrupt" - "He led a corrupted life".

Thesaurus helps - perhaps you want to be "sacrilegious" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/desecrate verb profane, dishonour, defile, violate, contaminate, pollute, pervert, despoil, blaspheme, commit sacrilege.83.100.250.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

The Pope "demoted" some saints in 1969, but I don't know if there was a ceremony involved. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Woman in the Catholic church

How does the Catholic church get away with discrimination of woman?--Quest09 (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Be more specific. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't they get into legal trouble? If you are a woman and want to become a preacher, why isn't it possible? It is like as if Microsoft said that no woman could become software developer in their company....--Quest09 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a church rule based on their interpretation of the Bible. To try to force them to allow women preachers would likely be unconstitutional. Keep in mind that membership in a church is voluntary. If you're a woman who wants to become a preacher, there are other Christian churches that allow women preachers. Now, when they hire people for various jobs (such as working in hospitals), that would be a different story, as that has directly to do with hiring practices rather than religion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Where would it would be unconstitutional? Remember, America is not the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, it would be unconstitutional in the USA, as it would be a governmental intrusion on freedom of religion. As I said, being a priest or a nun is a voluntary position. Another rule, for example, is that you have to be a Catholic in good standing. That would likely not be the case for hiring at that hypothetical hospital, as it would risk violation of anti-discrimination laws. Otherwise, consider this: You were comparing it to Microsoft. A better comparison might be Hollywood. If they're looking for a man in his 20s to act in a particular role, a woman of any age would be automatically excluded, for fairly obvious reasons. Likewise, the Catholic Church holds the belief that the Bible restricts the priesthood to men. The government has no jurisdiction over the church's religious beliefs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, America is not the world, but in other places, where the Catholic church is represented, there are also regulations against gender discrimination. Non being able to be a female preacher isn't a form of discrimination? Actually, it doesn't matter if membership in the church is voluntary or not. "Membership" in any company is also voluntary. You could say: "no woman can apply for well-paid positions, but hey, we are not forcing woman to join the company".--Quest09 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee you, there is no place on earth where the government can force the Catholic Church to bring women into the priesthood. Their belief is that the Bible requires priests to be men. That is non-negotiable. Hiring practices are a different matter. When hiring someone for a job that is not provably a male-only job (such as a male actor, as I discussed above), the hiring party is not allowed to automatically disqualify women. That's a constitutionally-valid requirement, under the equal protection amendment, regulation of interstate commerce, and consequent laws created by the federal government. But the government has no jurisdiction over the church rules about priests. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, not every country has a federal government, and not every country's constitution is the same. Please try to make it clear which constitution you are referring to. Or do you believe that the US constitution applies in every country of the world? 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine a hypothetical situation where some totalitarian government enacts an "anti-discriminatory" law that would force Roman Catholic bishops to ordain women as priests (priestesses). But if any of the bishops complied, then, most likely, the pope would excommunicate him, so he would be no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church. A possible scenario would be that a local "Catholic" Church with priestesses would operate openly in such a country, but outside the Roman Catholic communion, while the actual Roman Catholic Church would either stop operating in that country or go underground. Note the the term "preacher" is not used a lot by the Catholics; Catholics have priests, and being a priest is a sacrament, not a job. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some local Catholic churches in the USA have in fact tried to ordain women priests, and those local congregations are then booted out of the church. Men-only in the priesthood is a non-negotiable rule. No government on earth can force the Catholic Church to bring women into the priesthood. If they tried, the Church would likely withdraw from such a country. It would be interesting if someone knows of such an attempt. I've never heard of such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And you're right that the priesthood is not a "job" in the conventional sense; as far as I know, there is no salary. But even if there were, it's out of governmental jurisdiction. "Preacher" is not a term I would connect with Catholicism, for sure. But I would point out that some other sects also forbid women in the ministry, even though it's a hired position. I think Missouri Synod Lutheran is one of them. One way to think of it is that a church is like a private club, and private clubs can set their own rules. If a woman wants to be a church minister, then she needs to find a church sect that allows it. If she's Catholic and wants to be a priest, then she missed the lecture on why it's men-only. The Catholic Church considers it be a Biblical doctrine. Non-negotiable, as I said. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's absolutely non-negotiable. There is, in fact, an ongoing discussion about it within the Church. I've read Roman Catholic theologians arguing that there's no scriptural basis for the men-only priesthood policy. And Catholic doctrine does change; it only takes very, very long time. There may be one day Roman Catholic priestesses – but we might not necessarily live long enough to see it. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And I wouldn't say it will never happen. But it won't be because of governmental authority, it will be because the Church changes its mind, or maybe I should say changes its interpretation of the matter. But I recall seeing a Catholic spokesman on TV some time back who talked about the distinction between Church and Biblical doctrine. He said that celibacy is a Catholic Church rule that could be changed tomorrow if they decided to... and that women in the priesthood was a Biblical doctrine, not subject to change. All of this, though, strays from the original question. I say that the Church gets away with discrimination for the simple reason that the government has no jurisdiction in the matter. Would you agree? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Me? Yes. I wonder whether Quest09 is convinced. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

People have tried, of course. Roman Catholic Womenpriests, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I couldn't see anything there about the pre-1978 policy, whereby men of African ancestry were prohibited from becoming priests, being considered illegal under U.S. anti-discriminatory laws. They also have a male-only priesthood. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the constitutionality (and expanding to the rest of the world) there are in most places exemptions where a certain job can only be done by members of one sex. Bathroom attendants might be a less controversial example. If the Catholic Church believes that the job of priest can only be done by a man (which they do) then they are entitled to hire only men. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely that should be (something along the lines of) "If the legislators accept the Catholic Church's belief that the job of priest can only be done by a man...". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't thing "believing" it can only be done by a man would be enough since it would make the entire law null and void since anyone can claim to believe anything. In the UK, I think there is an explicit exemption for religious ministers. --Tango (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of believing that only a man "can do the job" - it's a matter of religious interpretation that "this is the way God wants it." No other profession could legitimately make a claim like that. It's also entirely possible that U.S. laws explicitly exempt certain professions for various reasons, including the Catholic priesthood. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Catholic Church can legitimately make that claim. It is no more legitimate than me claiming that the Invisible Pink Unicorn forbids me from employing women in my convenience store. --Tango (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Quest09, the specific, closest-at-hand reason in the US that they can get away with it is that US federal law regarding gender discrimination is primarily vested in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against women in employment. Baseball Bugs, though he has not cited any sources in this thread and is incorrect about his assertion about 'voluntary' positions being somehow exempt from federal law, is correct that enforcement of the Civil Rights Act against the Catholic Church would violate the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. If an eager federal commission were to try to enforce the Civil Rights Act by trying to fine the Church, or by attempting to get a court order to force the church to hire a woman as a priest, any court in the land would immediately strike down the attempt as unconstitutional on its face. (Edit: That's because the Constitution has primacy over any federal law, and laws are not to be enforced where they violate the Constitution.) I have not heard that any agency has tried this. In the US, a related and more thorny question would involve gender-specific groups and their hiring (like the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America and their "hiring" of Scoutmasters, or maybe a battered women's shelter that argues that only women should staff the shelter.) Tempshill (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any constitutional requirement that Hooters hire male servers? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. You get into issues of "what's required for the job". In the case of, say, a computer programmer, sex discrimination and race discrimination would be illegal, because it's not a job that's gender or race dependent. Being a Hooter's server, or being a leading man or leading woman in a movie, or being an NFL player - those are pre-defined as being gender-dependent. And if the movie role requires a particular race, then it would also be race-dependent. But being an NFL player is not race-dependent, it's talent-dependent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And theoretically, if you had a woman who was better at football then most NFL players, she could probably be on a team as well, though culturally and biologically it is not particularly likely. Googlemeister (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? That is not the case in most sporting events, such as almost everything at the Olympics and football in the UK. The main sport I know that does routinely hold mixed events is chess. Algebraist 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See Civil Rights Act of 1964#Title VII. There are exemptions for a few employers, including religious groups hiring people for jobs connected to their religion. Incidentally, what's all this about priests being voluntary? They get paid a salary, how else would they live? --Tango (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose someone could be ordained as a priest but not employed in any priestly capacity. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Protestant church ministers typically get paid. I don't know about Catholic priests. I thought Catholic priests were supposed to give up all worldly possessions, and that anything they "own" after joining the clergy basically belongs to the church. However, maybe a Catholic here could straighten out the facts. We still have to get back to the original question - the way the church "gets away with" disallowing women in the priesthood goes back to freedom of religion, i.e. freedom from government intrusion in religion. The Catholic Church's view is that God wants men only to run the Church, and that a command from God overrides any laws that someone might try to pass. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church, it might differ from country to country. Germany could be a special case, because there people who declare adherence to a particular religion are taxed extra and the tax money then goes to religious communities. I don't know if that includes pays for individual priests. In Poland, where I live, money earned by the Church – collested during masses, from donations, investments, etc. – is generally not distributed to individual priests, so they cannot be considred Church employees. They get their money mostly from the people in their parish, charging them for baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc. Thet're not required to give up all of their belongings to the Church and if they're very popular with the churchgoers, they may actually get quite rich. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I answered the question already. Whatever the doctrine may be of the Catholic Church, they are immune to any action under the Civil Rights Act, because of the First Amendment. Tempshill (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the USA. Questions have been raised about other countries. My assumption would be that most governments don't want to mess with the Catholic Church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The British government took them on. Not regarding women priests, but regarding gay adoption. The church requested an exemption from discrimination laws so their adoption agencies wouldn't have to accept gay couples adopting and were refused. (I don't know if the church has decided to go through with its threat of shutting down the agencies or will relax its rules. I don't think the new law has come into effect yet.) --Tango (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical thinking and logical thinking

Is there something like logical thinking that is not critical thinking? I mean, logical thinking redirects towards critical thinking, but I don't have the feeling that they are the same. I thought logical thinking was the ability of processing mathematical information, but critical thinking was more than that. --Quest09 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The article on logical reasoning claims that there are three types. If you use this division, then there really is no difference between inductive logical reasoning and critical thinking. Typically critical thinking used to mean something non-formal, whereas inductive logic can get quite formal, so there may be the key difference. It is also possible that by "logical thinking" they mean "thinking using deductive logic", in which case it would be quite different from critical thinking. Deductive logic requires no critical thought, just the application of logically valid operations to sound premises. Whereas, critical thinking typically requires you to spend more time judging the veracity of the premises than on the logical operations used (though you will likely cover logical fallacies). In many logic classes, you will spend most of your time working on logical operations to variables (so if P then Q, given P, conclude Q) and minimal time doing argument reconstruction; the reason for this is that a large number of actual philosophical arguments cannot be adequately expressed in simple first-order logic that is taught in most intro to logic classes. Does any of this explain the possible difference between the two forms of thinking?--droptone (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the article "Critical thinking" , it includes some aspects of subjective thought and analysis of errors brought about by subjective thinking.

..whereas "logical thinking" should/might be purely objective - maybe you are thinking of the related Deductive reasoning and Inductive reasoning.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And maybe it's worth recalling that critical (like critic, crisis, criterium) comes from κρίνω, to judge; a critical thinking is aimed to take a decision. --pma (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an interest in the similarity between logic courses and critical thinking courses, so I've checked into them at each university I've worked at (five so far). From the point of view of "what is the content difference between a logic course and a critical thinking course?", logic is heavily mathematical. It involves a lot of proofs and/or computer programming. Critical thinking is the exact same topic (true-false logic) with as much of the math removed as possible. Of note, all of the logic courses have been in a science discipline (mathematics or computer science) and critical thinking has been in a humanities discipline such as philosophy. So, the topic is the same but how it is taught is different. -- kainaw™ 18:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional Requirement(s) to Stand for Election to the Office of the Vice-President

While reading up on everyone's favorite source of Jon Stewart mockery, I encountered the following sentence in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#State_legislatures:

The only political office to be affected would be the presidency, which is the only position for which there is a specific constitutional citizenship requirement.

Now, in my U.S. Government class, we were very clearly told that the President and the Vice President have the same requirements for the job, while those in lesser posts still in line for the Presidency may be (s)elected despite not meeting some Presidential requirements, but will then simply be passed over should they otherwise have been next in line (see, for example, the second sentence of Madeline Albright#Secretary_of_State, or the selection process for the designated survivor). At least one person agrees with me on this— see the question at this RD/misc archive entry, which asserts and presupposes that my understanding is correct. However, this entry presupposes the opposite, which also passes without comment, and the best reading I've been able to give to this wonderful annotated Constitution resource does seem to suggest that one can elect a Vice President ineligible for promotion, who would then simply be skipped in the event of a succession. Which is the correct reading; does the quoted sentence, above, need to be redacted? Jouster  (whisper) 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". Algebraist 14:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, crap. It's always the last sentence, ain't it? Okay, so that sentence needs to be revised in the Birthers/citizenship conspiracy theory article. Thanks. Jouster  (whisper) 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And it's been modified, with credit and thanks to you in the edit summary.  :) Jouster  (whisper) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The complicating factor presumably could be the line of succession established by Congress many years ago. However, it's reasonable to assume that anyone in that line of succession who is not a natural born citizen would be skipped over - if it ever even came to that, which if it did would mean we've got a disaster on our hands anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, it's a two-part system. The first part is the requirements in Article 2, Section 1, which specifically apply to anyone wishing to assume the office of President. The second part exists solely of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of Amendment 12, which states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States," when talking specifically about (s)election. Thus, one can (s)elect a person in line for the Presidency who cannot serve as President (viz. Madeline Albright), with two caveats: you cannot select a Vice President (or a President, obviously) who cannot serve as President, and nor can someone not qualified to do so, serve. Quite a tidy little system, actually. Quite a pisser if you're a 34-year-old Speaker of the House and your birthday's tomorrow when you lose both the VP and the President, though. Jouster  (whisper) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a very good likelyhood of a speaker that young, but I suppose it could happen. Googlemeister (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the Speaker of the House were that close, they would likely stall for a few days till he was Constitutionally eligible to be President, then they'd swear him in. Joe Biden was elected as a 29-year old to be Senator. You do need to be 30 to serve as a senator, so he simply waited to take his seat until his 30th birthday. The apparatus of the executive branch would keep working just fine without a president for a few days; if it were going to be months or longer they may skip over the Speaker, but otherwise they'd likely just let the President pro Tem of the Senate act as president for a day or two till the underage speaker became 35 and could assume office. See David Rice Atchison for a similar situation. --Jayron32 00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindenting)

This is wrong in several respects. First, in the US it is now considered vital to have a president or acting president able to act at all times in order to be able to respond to any sudden and massive attack against the country. Second, under the Presidential Succession Act if the President Pro Tem becomes acting president because there is no president or VP and the Speaker is ineligible, then he remains acting president until the end of the elected president's term. It's only the officers still lower down in the succession who can lose a position as acting president when someone higher in the succession becomes ineligible. Third, an acting president does not become president and therefore would not be sworn in. And fourth, it's not the swearing-in that makes the president the president, it's the constitutional specification: in the Atchison situation, Taylor was president even though unable to exercise the powers of his office that day. --Anonymous, 03:57 UTC, August 7, 2009.

Falerii

What would the main industry be of this ancient civilization from the 5th century BC to the 1st century BC?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Etruria, it was the production of olive oil, wine and trade of faience pottery to Egypt, although it is general for the area and doesnt give any specific time. Livewireo (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

adoption in 11th-12th century Judaism

If a Jewish woman with a son from a previous marriage marries again, could the son take the step-father's name (ben whatever) if he wanted to or would he keep his biological father's name? I know sometimes a nephew would be adopted by his uncle and would take his name. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

unemployment numbers

Typically, we are shown on the news the total number of new people filing for unemployment each month here in the US. What was that number August 2005? Googlemeister (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy cats, Batman, Google has an interactive graph of unemployment data if you google "unemployment statistics us". You can click, say, "Bell County, Kentucky" to the left and it overlays that data in a different color. Sweet. Anyway, this link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics seems to almost have what you are looking for. Tempshill (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

These weekly press releases from the DOL cover August 2005: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. The answer appears to be about 1.3 million initial filings for unemployment insurance. --Sean 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ratio of mean average and median average incomes

What is this ratio for countries such as the US and UK? (It indicates, I think, how much more money the median person would get if everyone had the same income). 92.26.30.9 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You can find the mean and median figures in the Statistical Abstract of the United States (available on line). I recall there being around a $4,500 difference between the mean and the median household incomes and that the median was somewhere around $39,000. So, that would put the ratio at approximately 1.12. Note that you need to specify whether you mean "wage income," "household income," "personal income," etc. -- each has a slightly different definition. Wikiant (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the income per person I'm interested in. 92.26.30.9 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Before or after tax? Before or after benefits? Everyone or just people of working age or just people actually working? What about people working part time? "Income" is a very broad term and can refer to a great many different values. I would suggest you choose your definition based on what definitions you can find the information for, although you need to be careful to make sure the same definition is used for each country you are interested in, otherwise you can't easily compare the ratios. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the UK, the BBC has (from ASHE) £26,020:£20,801 which is roughly 1.25 or 5:4 (gross income, full and part time workers). A slightly lower ratio occurs for full time workers only.[14] AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 7

Execution Reactions

What was the reigning monarchs of the world's reaction to the execution of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. I knew the Holy Roman Emperors, Marie Antoinette nephew, was indifferent but what about others European monarchs or any non-European monarchs, if their was any that had contact with France or the French Royal Family at the time.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

They pretty much universally denounced it. The French Revolutionary Wars were largely a reaction whereby all of the major Monarchies of Europe tried (unsuccessfully) to put an end to the French Revolution. Even countries that pretty much always hated France (Britain, Hapsburg lands, Prussia, etc.) all agreed that, as much as they were rivals of France, the idea of regicide hit a little too close to home, especially in England, who had tried and failed their own little anti-monarchical revolution (see English Civil Wars). --Jayron32 05:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Did King Charles I think the revolution failed? Edison (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edison, that was rip-roaringly good fun. Thanks for wryness! A Merry Old Soul (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The strongest voiced opinions against the revolution and its actions was probably from Catherine II of Russia and Gustav III of Sweden who actively supported and recognized the emigrants as official emissaries. But even supposedly neutral countries like Denmark, who profited from neutral trade because of the war, there was no love lost among the royalty the reigning crownprince Frederick who probably only was convinced to keep the neutrality despite his personal feelings on account of his advisors. Overall it is safe to say that the idea that a monarch could be killed by their own people did not appeal to any royal person. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What was the name of the Republican Hispanic Supreme Court nominee?

• What was the name of the Republican Hispanic Supreme Court nominee whose nom the Dems quashed? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You might be thinking of Miguel Estrada, except I don't think that was for the Supreme Court. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Secular Humanism and World Government

Removed soapboxing. The Reference Desk is not here for you to promote your views on secular humanism. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that even Corliss Lamont acknowledges the polytheistic origins of humanism. Is that true?

Bowei Huang (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me this general topic came up some weeks ago. This is basically spam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bowei Huang's religious curiosity is a kind of a staple here. I don't think he ever receives very satisfactory answers, because the questions tend to be kind of vague, but that doesn't seem to bother him. Go figure. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because for him the answers are less important than the "questions"? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant Zumwelt

The book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! mentions a Lieutenant Zumwalt who worked at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project in WW2 ("There was a Lieutenant Zumwalt who took care of me. He told me that the colonel said I shouldn't tell them how the neutrons work and all the details because we want to keep things separate, so just tell them what to do to keep it safe.") Any idea if that guy is/was related to Adm. Elmo Zumwalt who was later the chief of the Navy? I'm pretty sure he wasn't the same guy. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have no proof, but I suspect it is:

• Lloyd Robert Zumwalt (1914-1998) was a nuclear chemist from Richmond, California, who worked for the Manhattan Project during World War II. After working for General Atomic in the 1960s, he was a professor of nuclear engineering at North Carolina State University from 1967 to 1980.

• I found one reference that gives his rank as captain; perhaps he was promoted. This is good enough for a start; research it yourself. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)