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 16

What's REALLY the oldest profession?

Colloquially, whoring is considered to be the "oldest profession", but how true is this? Besides sex--violence, eating, and communication are pretty essential human activities as well. Might the mercenary/hitman, the hunter/fisherman or the bard/poet/entertainer be equally ancient occupations? How do we know that the idea of trading/bartering for sex is so ancient relative to paying for other essential services? Anthropologists, please weigh in.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It may depend on what you consider to be a profession. How about leadership? A tribal chief, or whatever, performs a task for other people (leading them) and, presumably, receives some kind of compensation (a share of the food without having had to grow/hunt/gather it himself (or herself), perhaps). Other primates have hierarchies, so I expect humans have for as long as we have been human (which is a subject for debate in itself). --Tango (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mother and Father. Wrad (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a "profession." --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Landlord? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Flint-knapper.--Wetman (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is just a saying but a good case could probably be made that bartering for sex is the earliest form of trade in the animal kingdom. Dmcq (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean 'trade' I guess. Couldn't the endosymbiotic theory of origins of mitochondrion be considered be considered a form of trade between the eukaryotic (or whatever) cells and the prokaryotic cells that formed the mitochondria? While this obviously preceeded animal evolution, it was a trade between two cells all animals are dependent on. Many bacteria transfer plasmids although you could perhaps argue this isn't a trade since the donor bacteria isn't guaranteed something in return* and I don't know if this definitely predated animal evolution. *I presume it's likely this evolved as there's a selective advantage to the plasmid being transfered. Of course this is sometimes called bacteria sex anyway... Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer really depends on what is meant by "profession." If it's used in the broad sense of an occupation or career, then the answer is probably flint-knapper (or, if even broader senses are intended, hunter-gatherer). However, profession more narrowly means an occupation that requires considerable training and specialized study, a definition that excludes prostitution, at least at the entry level. My guess would be midwife. John M Baker (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of that definition, I'd have to go with Wetman's flint-knapper. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The classic joke has it as follows - the answer is lawyers. In the beginning there was chaos - who do you think caused the chaos? --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DOR - Traditionally, something like flint-knapping would be considered a skilled trade, rather than a profession. Among the distinguishing factors are the relative lack of formality in admission to and organization of the trade and the fact that the trade does not involve the use of independent professional judgment. John M Baker (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, a key matter is to distinguish a 'profession' from a 'trade.' I'd pick priesthood. B00P (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Did any prehistoric religions have an organised priesthood? I think religious leaders would learn in the same way other specialists learn - through apprenticeships. So where do you draw the line between professions and trades? --Tango (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The boundaries between skilled trades and professions are fuzzy and elusive, and some are difficult to justify. For example, electricians are usually considered to be members of a skilled trade, and our article is explicit on this point, but electricians do meet most of the standards for a profession. I guess the justification must be that electricians do not receive as much formal education as most learned professions; they do have formalized training, restrictive standards on admission, and the use of independent professional judgment.

Priests traditionally are professionals, so they would be another candidate for the oldest profession. However, flint-knappers probably could pick it up by observation and practice, with no real standards to show if they were flint-knappers or not, and no independent professional judgment is involved. John M Baker (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

US Social Security numbers

Will US Social Security numbers be reused after a moratorium period if the first person to have that number dies? That is if they are needed... Or has the US gov't not thought that far ahead? How many numbers will be possible given the current number of digits? Dismas|^(talk) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the restrictions, there are, AFAICT, 987,921,198 possible viable SSNs (absent the conditions, there are 1 billion [10^9] combinations). 68.248.234.20 (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we won't be running out of numbers any time soon then... Dismas|^(talk) 04:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, and if we did... we could just add another digit, and get 9 billion more combinations. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And such an action would cause massive problems for virtually every computerized personnel system. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering a birth rate of 14.2 per 1,000, a net migration of 3.05 per 1,000, and a current population of 305 million, roughly 5.2 million new SS numbers are needed each year. This figure doesn't include SSN's of people who migrate out of the U.S. Considering the current population and that the Social Security system is 73 years old, it is likely that nearly half of the available numbers have already been used. By my back of the envelope estimation, all of the remaining numbers will be used within 100 years. —D. Monack ^talk 03:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we'll have a Y2.1K problem, and thus a whole bunch more employment for computer programmers! Except this time around, they'll be offshore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are poor people in USA really buying homes?

I have seen several claims that (depending on the time and source) approximately 40-46 percent of poor households in USA own their home. My two dozen co-workers and I each earn within a few cents of minimum wage; none owns a home or has any real hope of owning one. Our ages are well-distributed (twenties through fifties) and none has any children to support (a few of us have adult children, but no minor children to support).

So some of us are wondering how millions in USA who are poorer than we (since none has any children to support, none are considered poor) own homes while we have no hope of doing so.

How do these poor homeowners do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.2.70 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was one reason for the subprime mortgage crisis. People who could not afford mortgages got them anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It was made possible because the US government decided that "everyone should own his own home" and interfered in the housing market to make this happen. Specifically: (1) the government established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government controlled corporations that were charged with buying mortgages from banks so that the banks were able to make additional loans; (2) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were (a) exempt from filing requirements so that their activities were partially hidden from the public view, (b) implicitly backed by the US government -- meaning that, if FM and FM were to go bankrupt, it was understood that the US government would bail them out; (3) Congress put political pressure on FM/FM to buy "high risk" mortgages (mortgages to people with spotty credit, low income, and un-documented income); (4) the government put political pressure on private banks to loan to lower income people. The end result was a system in which banks were pressured to, rewarded for, and shielded from the risk of making loans to people who couldn't pay off the loans. Wikiant (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that you take some enjoyment in repeating the Republican take on the current crisis as often as possible, but in this case the question wasn't about that at all.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC with above) There are many things which contribute towards people being able to own their own home. In some metropolitan areas (say Washington DC or LA) it is impossible for all but the upper middle class and richer to own a home; 1500 square foot homes are routinely still selling for half a million dollars or even more; modest-sized homes are still out of reach for most poorer families. However, in other places, it is still possible to buy a similar sized home for less than $100,000. I own a similar sized house in Raleigh, North Carolina with a ~$150,000 mortgage, which puts the monthly payments in range of what rent would be in a similar sized apartment. There are rural areas where similar sized homes could sell for much less, thus there are many places where "poor" people can afford a home that richer people in other areas could not.

Furthermore, home prices have risen faster than incomes over the past 50 years or so; many poor people may have purchased their homes when the value was more within their reach. Take a look at these charts: US median incomes and US median home prices. Just looking at national averages; in 2000 the median income was $50,557 (2007 dollars) and the median home price was $119,600 (2000 dollars), this means that a home was more than 2x a years salary for a person. In 1970, the same income number is $41,620 while the same home number is $65,300 which is only about 1.5x a years salary. While these are very rough numbers, it is simply that in the past, housing occupied a smaller fraction of a person's budget, which means that poorer people could better afford to buy a house. If you bought that house in say, 1990, you also bought it with 1990 dollars, which means that while your income may have gone up due to inflation, your mortgage payments remained constant for that whole time; which is why real estate can be a good investment; your income will rise while your payments remain constant. Thus, a poor person, who we already can see could better afford a house in the past, is in a better position to be still owning that house than a richer person trying to buy a house in TODAYS market. --Jayron32 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed a few times that when Americans say "average income" they actually mean "average household income" which, with many households being couples, the average individual adult income would be something like half this. 78.144.207.41 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that most of these 'poor' homeowners didn't buy homes while poor. My readings suggest that roughly three-fourths of poor homeowners do not have a mortgage, leading to the inference that these three-fourths either bought their homes decades earlier when (a) they were working and had above-poverty income, and (b) prices were much lower and homes were more affordable than today. I believe there is also a significant number of poor homeowners who acquired their homes through preferential, non-market processes. For example, years ago I knew a single mother on welfare ('the dole') who bought her home in a declining neighborhood from her grandmother at preferential price and terms. Today I know a poor woman who inherited her home, and surely there are more than a few others similarly situated. Also, I believe that the percentage of poor who own homes has actually declined in recent years, which would suggest the seemingly high rate has not been driven by subprime lending, which I think has gone primarily to working class people earning more than a poverty-level income. (It's pretty darn hard to qualiufy for a mortgage without a job or other aubstantial and consistent income.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.2.70 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Own your home" is much different from "could now buy a home." A lot of those poor homeowners are elderly poor whose only savings are the home the live in and that they bought or inherited many years ago. -Arch dude (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Most poor homeowners fall into one of two categories: 1) People who bought the house when working and not poor but who are now old and poor because their only income is meager social security; and 2) People who inherited their homes or bought them at a modest, nominal price from an older family member. There is probably a third and smaller category of poor people who inherited or were given a little land by family members and who then built their own house (perhaps with the help of handy family members) on that land. I'm guessing that poor homeowners are most common in the rural South where land prices have always been relatively low and where incomes are low by national standards. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you (the OP) live in a city? I'm sure home ownership rates, even among poor people, are much higher in rural areas than big cities, because it is much cheaper there. I think city-folk tend to be wealthier on average which would compound the effect. TastyCakes (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What cartoon is this describing?

An article by Peter Denning (available here) describes the following:

It was in 1964, I think, when I first saw the now-famous New Yorker cartoon of a classroom of the future. The picture shows a tape recorder on each student’s desk and a tape player on the teacher’s table. The machines whir quietly -- and no one is in the room. Thus did the cartoonist skewer the stereotype of the classroom as a venue for transmitting information from teacher’s brain to student’s notebook.

Apparently, the New Yorker staff haven't been able to find this cartoon given this information from the article. Can anyone suggest the actual source of this cartoon? Sancho 02:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It may have been the New York Times rather than the New Yorker. See this archive [1] I found using a google search for the terms cartoon classroom of the future tape recorder 1964. This seems to have been a hot topic in 1964. This may be a dead end, as it requires paying the NYT to actually see the contents of the archives, but it may be what you are looking for. --Jayron32 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times article has a number of silly taperecorder-themed cartoons in it, but nothing like the one described. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also a similar scene in the movie Real Genius which may be referencing that cartoon... --Jayron32 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did some rather quick searching around on Google Images with a variety of probable phrases. (You can get all cartoons if you select the "line art" option under the "Advanced" menu.) I don't see anything resembling it (and it doesn't sound like a New Yorker cartoon to me, anyway). Dare I put forward that it is not as "now-famous" as this author believes? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hideous mermaid image

I posted this on the Science Desk with no success, despite many valiant attempts from contributors. Here's the original query: Ages ago, I found on the internet a black and white illustration, possibly an engraving, of a skrinkled up little corpse of a purported mermaid - not the Feejee Mermaid, but one less human, more ghastly. I wanted to use it on the cover page of something I'm writing, but foolishly I seem to have deleted it from my files. Can anyone find it for me? (I'm thinking now it may not have been a mermaid after all, but just some random scientific curiosity from a wunderkammer somewhere).

Thanks in advance. Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I found this on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33338389@N06/3104510406/...

hotclaws 07:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hotclaws, but it was less human looking, a better, darker etching.Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why'd they rename it Dominican Republic?

The answer isn't available anywhere on Wikipedia! I want to change that. Why did the revolutionaries rename it La Republica Dominica vs. Santo Domingo or something else? Why? NickDupree (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that other countries are named with descriptive names like "Czech Republic" (republic of the Czech people) or "United Kingdom" (a kingdom formed of 4 substituent countries). The capital city is "Santo Domingo" and the people are called "Dominicans" so the name that best describes the "republic of the people who are called Dominicans" is the "Domincan Republic". It's probably so simple an explanation that it does not bear elaborating on. Many countries official names carry some form of "<blank> Republic" or "Republic of <blank>". For some states, there is a more common form of the name, for example "China" as a synonym for "People's Republic of China", which is the real name. For other states, there is no "common" synonym, so we use the full official name "Czech Republic" or in this case "Dominican Republic". --Jayron32 05:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Prior to independence, they were Spaniards; DR was the colony of Santo Domingo, then Spanish Haiti, and I was not aware their people were called "Dominicans" then. If so, when did they begin calling them dominicans? And Why? NickDupree (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the article, they actually named it "República Dominicana" (Dominica is a completely separate Caribbean island). That name uses an adjective form corresponding to the noun "Domingo"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. They are Santo Domingo-ans, essentially, as that land was the colony of Santo Domingo. NickDupree (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a book from 1830 written by a Cuban, which in one place refers to the people of Santo Domingo as "los dominicanos" (it doesn't seem to be a reference to the Dominican order). So the usage apparently predates independence. --Cam (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the city of Santo Domingo was named after Saint Dominic. The Spanish version of Saint Dominic's name is Santo Domingo. The Spanish name Domingo is derived from the Latin Dominicus, so the Latin version of Santo Domingo is Sanctus Dominicus. Spanish often uses the original Latin form as the basis for adjectives related to a Spanish noun. Hence the inhabitants of Santo Domingo were known as dominicanos. Marco polo (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As does English, often. Not that I was ever consulted (*sniff*), but it was decided back in the early days of the settlement that the people of Melbourne would be called not Melbournians, but Melburnians, from the presumed Latin version of the name. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proleptic etymology, as it were. —Tamfang (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What was Hitler's opinion of Republicanism?

I was surprised to read in Hitler's table talk that he criticized Napoleon for making himself emperor, and believed aristocratic republic were the best government? Was the Third Reich considered a republic? Did Hitler see the Reich as a third way between republics and monarchies? --Gary123 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hitler government was clearly republican. Republican is not synonymous with liberal democracy; pretty much any government that is not a monarchy is a republic. Hitler and the Nazi party were elected to their position; lots of republics have heads-of-state with indeterminate terms of office, so that isn't really the dividing line between republic and monarchy. Even most dictatorships are nominally republics. Its a very inclusive term that can be applied to any government where access to executive power is not restricted to a noble/royal class.--Jayron32 05:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

See the first sentance of our article Republic. "A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government." This broad definition clealry includes the Third Reich. --Jayron32 05:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler held a great contempt and suspiction against monarchists and the nobility, even if some high ranking Nazis belonged to the nobility (like von Ribbentrop). This can be seen as one of the differences between Nazism and Fascism (Nazism is sometimes seen as a sort of Fascism, but there are too many differences for this to be true, I think). Fascism in Italy and Spain was monarchist and used the monarchy as a symbol for the nation and a link to the past. Nazism was more radical and wanted to create something new. So, to add this to the previous answers, yes, Nazi Germany was a republic. E.G. (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Practically speaking, how was Hitler different from a Monarch? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Practically speaking he did not even have a son or a daughter, a line of succession... --Olaf Simons (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Monarch article, it doesn't seem to establish that as a requirement. However, maybe the term "Emperor" fits Hitler better anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing is confusing a monarch with an autocrat. Some monarchs are autocrats—some are not (think of the UK royals). Hitler was an autocrat, but he was not a monarch. It was not a hereditary rule, which is usually what is defining to a monarchy (elective monarchies being the exceptions). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy merely means that the executive authority of the government rests in a closed "royal" or "noble" class which no one has access to except those with a hereditary claim to royalty or nobility. Even in elective monarchies such as Poland or the Holy Roman Empire, the monarch had to be chosen from among eligible members of the royal classes; the Kingdom of Poland, for example, often elected its monarchs from younger sons of other ruling houses from across Europe. The deal with monarchies is that the access to power is closed UNLESS you are born into the ruling class. Republic refers to any government where theoretically ANY member of the society could be the Head of State; that is being born into a certain class is not a requirement for access to power. That's why the Third Reich is a republic; though not a democratic republic. Hitler's rise to power was not a function of his class at birth but of his own personal power and ambition and skills, without regard for his class. Democracy is not a requirment for a state to be a republic, merely that the executive power is not closed to anyone who isn't royalty. --Jayron32 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fascism is much more accurately called a dictatorship than a republic. Government cannot be divided into a simple duality of monarchies and republics. As far back as the ancient Greeks, men were well aware of dictatorships that fell into neither category, and would not have called Hitler a republican. --M@rēino 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In principle you are right, but Nazi Germany was not a monarchy either and for the reasons named above it was more close to be called a republic than a monarchy, if these two were the only options to sort by. – Also, it was not Fascist, it was Nazist. There is a difference between these two ideologies (which has been discussed on this reference desk before not long ago, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_July_26#Nazism_vs._Fascism). E.G. (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If Hitler ever said that about Napoleon, I doubt he meant anything serious with it. If you google "republic" on site hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/, you can see that whenever he uses the word, it is in a negative context. He didn't consider himself a "republican", but an advocate of a "Reich": "That is why we must face the calculators of the materialist Republic with faith in an idealist Reich." "In order to look upon such a deed as abhorrent one must have the republican mentality of that petty canaille who are conscious of their own crime." All in all, when he heard "republic", he thought "Weimar republic", and when he heard "Weimar republic", he thought "Jews, Commies, democrats, traitors" (see especially hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is, incidentally, where the Fascism really comes in. Fascism is primarily an idealist philosophy, and opposes itself to materialist ones (even while it reaps their technological rewards). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is why I was so surprised by Hitler's table talk, where he claimed he supported an aristocratic republic like Venice, with a weak people's assembly, and an appointed senate that elected the Fuhrer. He also claimed to support a strict separation between executive and legislative branches, and military role in politics. While nearly all regimes call themselves republic, I would not have thought hitler would have valued republicanism even as a theory to aspire to. Does anyone have more details on this? I have not read Hitler saying anything similar in any other work. Is it possibly a forgery?

This is the passage from Hitler's Table Talk I'm referring to:

"As regards the government of Germany, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. The Reich must be a republic, having at its head an elected chief who shall be endowed with an absolute authority.

2. An agency representing the people must, nevertheless, exist by way of corrective. Its role is to support the Chief of State, but it must be able to intervene in case of need.

3. The task of choosing the Chief shall be entrusted, not to the people's assembly, but to a Senate. It is, however, important that the powers of the Senate shall be limited. Its composition must not be permanent. Moreover, its members shall be appointed with reference to their occupation and not individuals. These Senators must, by their training, be steeped in the idea that power may in no case be delegated to a weakling, and that the elected Fuehrer must always be the best man.

4. The election of the Chief must not take place in public, but in camera. On the occasion of the election of a pope, the people does not know what is happening behind the scenes. A case is reported in which the cardinals exchanged blows. Since then, the cardinals have been deprived of all contact with the outside world, for the duration of the conclave! This is a principle that is also to be observed for the election of the Fuehrer: all conversation with the electors will be forbidden throughout operations.

5. The Party, the Army and the body of officials must take an oath of allegiance to the new Chief within the three hours following the election.

6. The most rigorous separation between the legislative and executive organs of the State must be the supreme law for the new Chief. Just as, in the Party, the SA and the SS are merely the sword to which is entrusted the carrying-out of the decisions taken by the competent organs, in the same way the executive agents of the State are not to concern themselves with politics. They must confine themselves exclusively to ensuring the application of laws issued by the legislative power, making appeal to the sword, in case of need. Although a State founded on such principles can lay no claim to eternity, it might last for eight to nine centuries. The thousand-year-old organisation of the Church is a proof of this—and yet this entire organisation is founded on nonsense. What I have said should a fortiori be true of an organisation founded on reason."

--Gary123 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I just stated some lines above, Hitler was not a Fascist, he was a Nazi (also see the discussion from this July which I linked to). Even if there are similarities between the two ideologies, there are many differences too. E.G. (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny. The quote sounds like a lot of nonsense ... which IMO proves its authenticity. The authority of the Chief of State is "absolute", yet this authority is held in check by "an agency representing the people". The individuality of the Senators doesn't matter, yet each individual must be capable of distinguishing "weaklings" from "best men". "The executive agents of the State are not to concern themselves with politics" - so either the Chief does not concern himself with politics (absurd), or he is not part of the executive branch but rather stands above everything (making the separation of powers meaningless), and "executive branch" actually means "executioners" (this seems very likely, given the obsessive talk of swords and the fact that he thinks the Party's "executive branch" are the SS and SA!) - so he is really saying "I don't want the guys with weapons to displace me from power". Finally, the state supposedly has a separation of branches of power and a system of checks and balances, and this is exemplified with the ... Catholic Church! "Table talk" is a very accurate description for this. I doubt that he was capable of seriously contemplating the future of his Reich beyond his own fate. In this respect, history proved him right, of course.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Libraries

I'm trying to find a list of the 100 (just an indicative number) biggest libraries of the world. Not only English/American libraries. I know Wikipedia has a List of national libraries, but it doesn't list their size. Even searching in their own articles doesn't always give a reliable valuation: how many items are kept in Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze? I don't konow! --151.51.38.205 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be able to find something on the Worldcat site. Worldcat is the unified online "card catalog" for 71,000 libraries. I'm not sure how to ask Worldcat for a list by size. -Arch dude (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

List of the largest libraries in the world on Listphobia. No sources for the numbers though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The list I have posted only mentions the number of books in the libraries and excludes documents, prints etc. Now we only need to list the next 90. I can contribute by mentioning that the Royal Library of Copenhagen holds 4,7 million books. Though what position it has on the list I do not know. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This page has some information about the size of several other university and national libraries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, the fact that some libraries only mentions the number of items, while others only mentions the number of volumes (books), makes it somewhat difficult to create an accurate list. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Using debit or credit card in supermarket - how much info can they get about me?

Would using such a card give them an electronic record of my name, as well as identifying all my visits and purchases at the supermarket by keeping a record of my account number, for example? I'm just curious about this regarding data warehousing etc. 78.144.207.41 (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It likely depends on the location. In some locations that will probably be a privacy violation unless you've signed something agreeing to it which you obviously haven't if it's a random store. (For a member card, things will obviously be rather different) Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agricultural Subsidies

Where can I find out how much the US Government has spent on agricultural subsidies? --Elatanatari (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I typed "how much does the U.S. government spend on agricultural subsidies" into google and it gave me this: [2]. There's several useful links there. Google is a wonderful thing. --Jayron32 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've used it ALOT. But I'm trying to figure out how much in total over the last 66 years the US government has spent on Agricultural subsidies. That's what Google hasn't given me.--Elatanatari (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You will find some tables at this site, including outlays for agriculture. Of course, total outlays may be greater than total subsidies per year, depending on how you define the term subsidy. If you need to get more fine-grained than that, you may need to spend some time at a library with a government document collection inputting detailed budget numbers from the pre-digital years. On the other hand, if you are able to access a database of articles in scholarly journals, you may find that somebody has already done this research. Marco polo (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

UK's action in Turks and Caicos Islands

Are there any precedents (recent) for this kind of action - suspending the government for two years, etc. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Northern Ireland (see Northern Ireland Assembly#The modern Assembly and suspensions). Nanonic (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Something similar happened during the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, didn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a TV news station?

I was watching a video on YouTube. The video was about the boiler explosion aboard the SS Norway. One news station in Miami, Florida obtained a home video of black smoke coming out of one of the smokestacks aboard the vessel. The station identified itself as Just One Station. Is there really a Just One Station? If so, does it have a website or any other information?69.203.157.50 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a tagline used by stations of the Sunbeam Television family, which includes two stations in Boston and one in Miami. The implication seems to be "This is a story you can see on Just One Station" (i.e. an exclusive news story). See this google search where the line shows up on news carried either by WHDH-TV in Boston or WSVN in Miami. --Jayron32 00:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

August 17

List of Arts and Sciences

Is there any list in English Wikipedia which covers the existing arts and sciences in the world. I have checked lot of lists but couldn't find the required one. I want a complete list, like a partial list shown in Urdu Wikipedia (link bellow)

http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%81%DB%81%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%AA_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%88%D9%85

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.205.224 (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I require a list of arts and sciences like this Acarology Actinobiology Actinology Aerobiology Aerology Aetiology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.204.62 (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian ballot paper of 1955

Is there anywhere online were one can find image (scan or photo) of ballot papers used in 1955 Indonesian elections? --Soman (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

meaning of ww2 japanese submarine designations

hello. what is the meaning (if any) behind the japanese designations for their ww2 subs? like I-xxx, RO-xxx or HA-xxx. german U-xxx, U came from Unterseeboot, american SS-xxx was Submersible Ship, but hard as i searched, i can't find any explanation for the japanese codes.

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"RO" is "呂" in Japanese. "I" is "伊". "HA" is "波". Together these spell 伊呂波-- in other words, it is the beginning of the iroha poem, akin to calling the lines "A" "B" and "C" in English. Shii (tock) 19:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a Captain Cook work

Does anyone have The Journals of Captain James Cook on his voyages of discovery, Volume 3? I am researching Myrmecia esuriens (a species of bulldog ant), and have found an interesting snippet regarding this ant in a google books search. Would someone be able to provide a full quote from the work? Maedin\^talk 11:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One shouldn't get one's sources at second hand, I know; but if you just want to see what the journal says, I think the second quoted excerpt in the "Historical footnote" box on page 7 of this is the passage you're interested in. Deor (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's actually extremely useful, thank you very much! Not ideal, but it will have to do for my purposes. Maedin\^talk 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tracing the movements of George VI of the United Kingdom

Hi. I'm developing the Carrow Road article (feel free to help out). I have RS to say that King George VI visited a match at the ground on 29 Oct 1938. It makes sense to me that this took place during a royal stay at (relatively) nearby Sandringham House, but I'd love to be able to verify this. Is there a reliable source (preferably online!) that could help confirm this? The Times royal engagements column? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Norwich City Council say he was there on that day to officially open the newly built City Hall and then wandered down for the Millwall match. Nanonic (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice detail, but I'm still wondering where he kipped that night/the night before. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha! From The Times Oct 15, 1938; pg. 9; Issue 48126; Start column: B ArticleID: CS151597903. "The Royal Visit To Norwich"

"When the King and Queen go to Norwich on Saturday, October 29, they will drive there from Sandringham with Sir Samuel Hoare as Minister in attendance. After laying a wreath on the war memorial, and inspecting ex-Service men and youth organizations, the King and Queen will take up their positions on a dais outside the City Hall. The Lord Mayor will offer to the King the Sword of State, and will then read a welcome to which the King will reply. The King will then declare open the new City Hall, and after the ceremony the Lord Mayor will offer the King a baton to commemorate the occasion.

The King and Queen will take luncheon with the Lord Mayor in St. Andrew Hall, and afterwards the Queen will visit the Norwhich and Norfolk Hospital to open the Geoffrey Colman Memorial. The King will drive alone to Carrow Road football ground to watch the match between Norwich City and Millwall. Later the King and Queen will visit the Norwich Lads' Club and then the Mutual Service Club before returning to Sandringham by car."

and - The Times Oct 31, 1938; pg. 11; Issue 48139; column: A ArticleID: CS184759135. "Royal Visit To Norwich New City Hall Opened, The King's Tribute FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT. "

"The King went to see his first Football League match - that between Norwich City and Millwall - and was given a warm welcome by the large crowd. The ground was beflagged, and the arrival of the King was announced by a fanfare of trumpets. The crowd joined in singing the National Anthem, and the King walked out on to the field of play to shake hands with the players and referee. Then someone started singing "For he's a jolly good fellow," and the entire crowd took up the song. The King remained to watch the play for a quarter of an hour."

HTH Nanonic (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that is really quite outstanding. Thank you very much. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Terms of the lease of the New Territories, Hong Kong

This may be a difficult one. I have had this question in mind for years, but never found the answer, so I am coming here to see if it is true that the ref desk is doing wonders :-) Here it is: the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory "was a lease signed between Qing Dynasty China and the United Kingdom in 1898". Did the UK have to pay any sort of annual "rent" for the "lease", or was it just "free of charge"? And if that's too easy, what about Guangzhouwan? Thanks a lot! olivier (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread on Google Answers is all over the place but seems to say there were no payments or rent due. There seem to be numerous references, though two of the references I clicked were bad links. Tempshill (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Google Answers thread cites printed sources that may not be available online. The answer offered there, that there were no rent payments, is confirmed by the actual text of the agreement, on pp. 295 and 296 of this source, which does not mention any payment. Now, if you scroll back to page 293 of the same source, you will find the lease agreement for Guangzhouwan, which likewise fails to mention any payment by France. It seems likely that there was none. Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much! I am impressed by your ability to find these kind of resources. You guys are really doing a fantastic work here! olivier (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

White vs. APL family

Is japanese husband vs. white wife majority of interracial Asian family or is it the other way around. Becasue in my neighbor, husband is Japanese and wife is white. Same thing I saw on TV a Japanese man vs. white women on a date. I thought in general is an white husband vs. APL wife is most common IR family this is what happens in Chinese school TZU Chi orange county by looking at students last name of "olson" "myers" "Valverde" "Rother" obviously tells, and with facial looks I see alot of white dad, and most moms is chinese. What about Philipino or Cambodian faily is IR family work my white dad vs. APL mom or is it APL dad vs. white mom?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

From my personal observation, it appears the other way around in my part of the US. Googlemeister (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a very similar question asked a few weeks ago? The way the question is phrased and the fact that the guy seems to claim he can tell whether a half Asian has a white mother or father based on looks make me think this he's trolling. But yes, on the off chance that he's not, I would agree that the other way around seems much more common in North America. TastyCakes (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that that portion of the OP was just saying, "I can see from facial features that the child is mixed Asian and white, and I infer from the non-Asian surname that the father was the white parent (assuming parents were married and the child took the father's surname)". WP:AGF. --Sean 13:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the data that you want.--droptone (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is most straight-up link--69.229.39.33 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion to the graph Asian indian vs. white ratios est. tie. The way I estimate is top number be east asian husband, white wife, and bottom number will be white husband, east asian wife. For white-indian group seens odds equally tie of 20/20, for chinese-white seems like 20/30, for philipino-white ratio is 20/40, for white-japanese is 25/35, and white-korean is 25/50 and white vietnamese is 10/20. in conclusion seem like generally a white husband vs. asian wife is twice moae likely than asian husband vs. white wife but rversal still seems alot. Now I can add up all those ratios and avg. them up to do my own math. The only distintive race is black-and white. Black husband vs. white wife is far more likely than white husband black wife. Steve Sailor said.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done math on Microsoft excel: Total estimate APL husband, white wife: 33/89 Total estimate white husband, APL wife:56/89.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

islamic monks?

Does Islam have anything similar to monasteries and monks from Christianity or Buddhism? Googlemeister (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whirling Dervishes? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading Monasticism#Islam and monasticism. Nanonic (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Elections of Kenya and mozambique

Do Kenya and Mozabique allow leader to run as long as they want or now they set bar of two-terms only election. This one said Mwai Kibaki will be gone by 2012, and Joaquim Chissano last until 2004, and he's only 65 years at then, and he's younger than John Kufuor. is it because of the constitution or those guys want to quit. Yes I know alot of countries only allow two term election, but once they allow them to stay for >20 years. Daniel Arap Moi was in office for 24 years, joaquim Chissano was in for 18 years.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Kenya has two-term limit since 1991 (See here [3], I couldn't find that fact on Wikipedia). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mozambique also appears to have a two five-year terms limit. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Congress (in the US) have a source control system for the actual words going into a bill?

If I can lock a project so nobody can make any changes without my knowing it, is the government doing any better to keep just anybody on the inside from slipping a small sentence into a 1,000+ page document, and if there is something strange in there, to be able to see who added it and when? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you could explain your question a little bit more? I'm a little confused as to what you're talking about. Do you mean can the Government check-in on or control Wikipedia? What do you mean by the word "project?" ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the question has anything to do with Wikipedia, but deals with control of the contents of legislation. There have been famous incidents in which either errors or substantive content have slipped into revised versions of lengthy bills as they moved through the amendment and conference processes. In general, "the bill is being pushed forward too fast for anyone to read it" has been a complaint I've heard about various pieces of legislation going back at least to the 1970s and I'm sure earlier. In answer to the original question, I'm not aware of any new methods recently introduced to address the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bills are often impossible to read anyway, since they usually consist of diffs like "From section Amendments, Item 1, Sentence 1, strike the words 'shall make no', and insert 'oughtta make a'". I doubt legislators read any bill before passage; pity the staffers. --Sean 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've not heard of them using anything like a real source control system; just committees and clerks. It can be quite difficult to figure out where a given sentence in a bill came from, and to maintain total control over the text of very long bills. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea for the benefit of the poor staffers who are tasked with reading them. (I'm not asserting they actually do.) Tempshill (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes things will get slipped in, like when Senator Leahy slipped something into a bill to try have Lake Champlaign declared to be the sixth Great Lake. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, more sinisterly, when Sen. Chuck Grassley reinserted a clause into the Tax Increase and Reconciliation Act of 2005 that had been rejected by both houses. In doing so, he violated not only the spirit of conference committees, but also the entire principle of representative democracy. Sadly, he has yet to be prosecuted of this heinous act. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. Did he break any laws in so doing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, legislators' official actions are above the law due to separation of powers issues. This gets enforced even in cases of outright felonies, so Grassley's sort of legerdemain has basically zero chance of being prosecuted. --Sean 13:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While I would describe Grassley's actions as unethical, it is sadly not that uncommon and certainly not illegal. Other conference committee members and their staffs are supposed to keep an eye on these kind of shenanigans. These committees are bipartisan for a reason. —D. Monack ^talk 09:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So how were these instances like what you shared of Senators Leahy and Grassley traced back to them? An electronic log, a paper trail, or the old fashioned grapevine? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say that I find it utterly bizarre that an individual legislator can "sneak" a clause into a bill. I've never heard of this ever happening in any other vaguely democratic country. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Do other countries pass 1,000 page bills, or are they generally kept manageable (which would make shenanigan detection simpler? Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know for sure about the size although I believe they tend to be shorter but definitely in Westminister parliamentary democracies I know of, bills tend to be fairly narrow in the sense they have a specific focus and don't get the sort of strange almost or literally unrelated stuff usually into bills that are very likely to pass that you seem to get a lot in the US [4] as famously described in The Simpsons episode Mr. Spritz Goes to Washington. I've read a few of these before on wikipedia, perhaps there's even an article describing the practice but can't seem to find it. While omnibus bills do exist, even they tend to have a more specific focus where the you can understand the provisions being part of the bill unlike in the US where they sometimes seem to be just a bunch of stuff stuck together in the hope they all pass. (This doesn't of course mean certain clauses may not be controversial.) The other thing is perhaps the greater adherence to the party structure. Crossing the floor tends to be a lot rare and people tend to vote along party lines and most bills come from the government of the day (even if it's a minority government). This tends to mean (IMHO) it's a lot more difficult for a lone MP to sneak something into a bill and you can be sure if they do, they'll get into deep shit. The government may 'sneak' provisions in at the last minute but even that I think is less likely due to the furore it will cause and in any case this isn't a case of them presenting a different bill then what people voted on earlier but specifically amending the bill with the support of parliament [5]. You can't just change the wording and hope no one notices. (You may be able to at the select committee stage but as I outlined, that's probably a lot less likely.) It's worth remembering that while the actions may not be illegal as mention by Sean, this doesn't prevent the party or parliament stopping them if they wish to. In most cases they could sanction the person for such actions (or at least change the rules so they can) in some way. Also, you could pass a bill to remove the provision that was snuck in. BTW, I can't find any references to what you're referring to about Chuck Grassley, was it this? "Grassley was eventually able to attach an amendment to a piece of legislation that went into effect in 2006, which increased taxes on Americans" Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Under Standing Orders (notably SOs 65 and 77), amendments to Bills in the British House of Commons must be relevant to the Long Title, and the Speaker will enforce this requirement. That prevents the logrolling common in the US Congress. Matt's talk 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not always obvious when they "slip in" this kind of legislation. There was a famous case that came up during the 1992 presidential campaign where Ross Perot had lobbied/bribed some legislators to insert language in a general tax cut bill to say something along the lines of, "if you took more than $30,000 in losses between 1974 and 1978, while having enormous ears, on investments concerning a brokerage with initials DGF, and have an absurd squeaky drawl, then you get a rebate". The provision was argued on its merits, but only affected a single person in the whole country --- Ross Perot would have gotten a check from the IRS for $15 million. --Sean 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mexican vs. white interracial marriage

The OP above link was about Asian-white families. I found no source about mexican vs. white interracial marriage. Is is mexican-white families is it most common for white husband vs. Mexian wife or is it most common for mexican husband vs. white wife. This is kinda dubious to me becasue in general males skin seems to be daker than females skin.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't most Mexicans "white people"?!? --Jayron32 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Scratch that. Did the research. Most people from Mexico are Mestizos of mixed European/Native American descent. Now, are you refering to Mestizo-white marriages within Mexico, or mestizo-white marriages worldwide? Because "Mexican" is not a race or ethnicity; its a statement of national origin, and something like 9-17% of Mexicans are themselves characterized as "white", so it is entirely possible to have a white Mexican marry a white citizen of another country. --Jayron32 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. a Mexican-American can be white and Hispanic - and that would not, necessarily, be considered multi-racial. U.S. Hispanics are about equally likely by gender to be in a intermarriage (except for recent Central American immigrants where women are slightly more likely.)[6] Color of skin is not considered a particular factor between genders. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean Mexican Hispanic versus native US intermarriage. Which one os most common. A Hispanic husband vs white US wife or white US husband vs. hispanic wife.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive categories. Hispanic is a U.S. census designation which describes a person's linguistic background where as White describes ones ethnic background. It is possible to be Hispanic and White simultaneously (see Isabel Allende, as well as Hispanic and Black (see David Ortiz) or Hispanic and multiracial. Your question is still impossible to answer because you are asking for a comparison of two non-comparible things. Its like asking "Did you eat mashed potatos for dinner or take the train to work". Hispanic and White refer to two different things entirely. --Jayron32 02:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And I might add that "of Hispanic race" and "native US" are not mutually exclusive either (unless you mean Native Americans). DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, don't be obtuse. He means Mestizo. He means the fact that most people of Mexican origin that one interacts with (at least, in Southern California, where the OP is from) have dark hair and brownish skin. Obviously the lines between the "races" are blurry as always but he's asking about general trends, not biological precision. (Obviously in such a situation you'd get many Puerto Ricans and other non-Mexicans who look similar swept into the same perceptual category, which I'm sure is fine.) I don't know the statistics, and I don't know if they are out there, but I am sure you could do a survey to find out (even if you just used self-identification). Obviously the US Census won't work for this because their categories are not set up to answer questions like this, but lord knows their categories are pretty problematic on a number of fronts. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either are being obtuse. Some earlier questions were asked were Mestizo specifically came up and some explanation of why the OP's question was unanswerable. Despite that, the OP continues to use terminology that is confusing and so it remains unclear precisely what the OP is referring to. Perhaps the OP doesn't even understand the difference, in which case it's wise he or she learns before asking questions since it's unlikely he or she could understand the answers otherwise. If the OP wants to know about Mestizos - white marriages, then he/she should ask, but at the current time hasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what the OP wants, frankly. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

citing music

I posted this question on the Help Desk (where it belongs) but since it's sort of arcane, I thought I would cross post it here in case any musically-minded editors have some feedback.

In the past, I've worked on the article for the Harvard Glee Club, a choir that has had a lot of music written for it by various composers. I added a list of all such pieces that I could identify. Each of these pieces carries a note that says it was written for the harvard glee club, and I clumsily tried to explain that in the list introduction. In my attempt to get the article "good" status, an editor specifically complained that this list was unsourced. I would like to give another go at getting "good" status but I think this is the only issue from last time that will be hard to fix. Is it really necessary to manually cite each item on the list? What is the difference between doing that and simply stating at the top that each piece carries the dedication note? It's all good faith anyway, since no matter how it's cited, people will have to go look up the pieces to "prove" the citation is correct. The only difference I can identify is that the former will take hours and hours of work. Any feedback would be appreciated! Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Judaism Ethnic divisions vs. denomination

Is there a website where they have a chart that shows the ethnic divisions of Judaism versus the denomination of Judaism (e.g. Mizrahi vs. Liberal, Mizrahi vs. Conservative, Mizrahi vs. Reformative, etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.71 (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for, but these articles might help: Jewish religious movements & Jewish ethnic divisions. Note that denominational differences in Judaism tend to be solely among Ashkenazi Jews. —D. Monack ^talk 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Labelling Jews is not like labeling professions -- you're a dentist and he's a lawyer. Jews will tend to label themselves differently from how others would label them. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Districts of West Bengal versus religion

Which districts of West Bengal have significant number of Muslim population? Which districts of West Bengal have significant number of Christian population? Which districts of West Bengal have significant number of Buddhist population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.71 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the Indian census records its religion data in this way. Shii (tock) 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

August 18

North Americal Aboriginal Treaties

Is there a compilation of Treaties between the various Aboriginal peoples of the Western Hemisphere (i.e. Canada, the United States, Cnetral America and South America) and the governments of these counties that include Treaties broken by either the Aboriginals or the governments (may as well include Britan, France and Spain in the mix). I am interested in how many treaties have been developed, how many broken and by whom. How does this compare to Treaties made with other Aboriginal peoples (e.g. Australia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.242.32 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have Category:Treaties of indigenous peoples of North America, which is a start, although it is heavily skewed towards the US. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There has never been any sort of treaty between the indigenous peoples of Australia and the rest of the Australian populace. But New Zealand had its Treaty of Waitangi. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Treaty page of Canada's Department of Indian Affairs: [7]. Treaties are very much alive in contemporary Canadian law, and recent land claim settlements are considered to be modern-day treaties. Treaties benefit from special constitutional protection in Canada. --Xuxl (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations also conducted a comprehensive study of treaties with Aboriginal groups, in the 1990s, called the: "Study on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous populations". I don't have the time to go through the UN website, but there should be some documents there covering other countries in the Americas. --Xuxl (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Caucasian Eyes

If oriental eyes are called Epicanthic Fold. What is the technical word for the caucasian eyes? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not called an Epicanthic Fold, they have an epicanthic fold. Caucasian eyes do not generally have one. See our article titled epicanthic fold. --Jayron32 01:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

rotten vegetables at protests and theater

Where there vendors that sold the rotten vegetables during protests and theater acts for profit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.42 (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Covent Garden was a theater district and also a flower, fruit, and vegetable market, so I imagine that materials would have been easily to hand... AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Danish titles

Ok I notice that throughout Danish history the King of Denmark had had many titles. Queen Magrathe II (spell it wrong) renounce all these century old titles except for Denmark's King. I was wondering what were the ALL the titles of she renounced and what were ALL the titles that were claimed by her predeccessor. Forget about the obvious ones, Norway and Sweden. And did Christian I of Denmark's descendant continued to use the title of Count of Oldenburg nominally even though Christian I gave the rule of the County to his younger brother? I read here that Christian IX of Denmark used it. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the ones I know.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• King of the Goths
• King of the Geats
• King of the Wends
• Duke of Schleswig
• Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg
• Duke and Count of Holstein also Holstein-Rendsburg
• Duke and Count of Stormarn
• Duke and Count of Dithmarschen
• Counts of Schauenburg
• Count of Oldenburg
• Count of Delmenhorst
• Count of Wildeshausen (maybe or maybe not?)

Anybody?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacy: Good or bad based on who does it?

Hi there. I'm trying to remember the correct name for a logical fallacy that goes like this: "Doing X is only a bad thing if A does it. If B does it, it's a good thing." Does that fall under argument from authority? Regards SoWhy 13:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no fallacy involved. A fallacy is a type of flawed argument, and all you've got there is a pair of statements with no argument to support them. Algebraist 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Algabraist is right per se, you may mean one of several fallacious arguments. I think you may mean the association fallacy. --Leon (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly cases where it is not a fallacy at all. Many people would consider that imprisonment, even killing, is proper when done by the state through a court of law. Hardly anyone considers the same things proper when done by a private individual. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(To DJ Clayworth) That's true, but I'm not sure if that's what the asker meant. My guess is that they were refering to the association fallacy as that is a common one. (To the asker) If you haven't time to check the link, the association fallacy is that in which anything associated with an individual or group perceived as bad is said to be bad. For instance, driving a car could be said to suggest criminal behaviour because criminals drive cars. This needn't always be a fallacy; the label is used for occasions when it is.--Leon (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no fallacy, it's an assertion of contingency. Getting a heart transplant is good if the patient needs and wants one. It is not so good when they do not. If there were to be any objection to assertions of this nature, it would be more to the tone, perhaps less to the content. Condescension or dictation is rarely welcome. Vranak (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this be an example: two biologists are sitting around discussing the deficiencies of evolutionary theory, but when a fundamentalist Christian joins in the conversation, the biologists recoil with horror and refuse to grant any weight to the objections of the Fundamentalist? If so, then it's a sort of case of an argument from authority, but does not seem like a particularly striking case of it. The problem arises when the insiders require excessive demands on anyone joining their discussion. Chomsky has a section in an article where he discusses how folks in the political world demand degrees to establish your credentials when discussing political matters but mathematicians never objected to Chomsky's papers in their field without the proper set of credentials.--droptone (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics is different from biology. A mathematical paper can be carefully read and its accuracy and rigorosity checked regardless of who the author is; author's identity is not a factor. Biology is very different. It often takes years to perform an experiment, and the amount of subtle skill that is involved in planning, doing, and analyzing it properly is staggering. People reading biological papers do - and should - look at the list of authors to judge how low is the chance that the results are false. Politics is different from both mathematics and biology. Politics is not science, it is an opposite of science (namely, politics is a practice of concealing the facts whereas the science is a practice of uncovering the facts). Therefore, Chomsky's statement seems to be in the "mu" category, it is neither right, not wrong, nor meaningful. Now, regarding of the evolutionary theory, the biologists - if they are good biologists - will accept any new factual finding, no matter how strongly that would alter the established theories. Fundamentalist religion, however, does not permit such liberty. That is the core difference between modern science and dogmatic approach. It remains to be seen, however, how the biological community is really going to react to a finding that alters the established understanding radically. --Dr Dima (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think it "remains to be seen" at all, it happens all the time, not just in Biology but in all the sciences. Anyone who manages to prove something that "alters the established understanding" is typically awarded the highest accolades in science, like the Nobel Prize. It is after all what Darwin is so famous for: He crumbled the very pillars of established understanding at the time. Conversely, anyone who even questions the established understanding in theology was in the past typically burned at the stake for being a heretic. Vespine (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any religion where there are two good Gods?

Is there any religion where there are two good Gods? I know there are certain dualist religions like Manicheanism and Zoroastrianism that have one good and one evil God. And certain polytheistic that have many good Gods. IS there any religion that has only 2 Gods, both of whom are good?--Gary123 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wicca has two, a God and a Goddess. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At least some Wiccans would disagree with atributing a good (or evil) label to their gods though. Rmhermen (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a very "organic" example, but I believe the Manianga Christians of what is now Zaire were visited by Christian missionaries at a time when they already worshipped a single god - so they adopted the new Christian god while keeping their old one. Don't have it to hand but this is from Simon Bockie's Death and the Invisible Powers.--Declan Clam (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cao Dai. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I see no evidence of "two good gods" in the Cao Dai article. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Caodaiists worship not only God, the father, but also the Goddess..." 152.16.59.102 (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see it now. Thanks. In the wider context of that article section, it seems potentially arguable whether this represents belief in two separate deities (as per the OP's enquiry) or merely two aspects of a single deity, much like the concept of the Christian One God being at the same time a Trinity, an interpretation that some have argued was introduced into early Christian thought from Celtic Druidism, in which the triune nature of deities was/is a commonplace. Some modern Wiccans embrace a similar approach, wherein the Lord and Lady can be considered the male and female aspects of a single Great Spirit, and at the same time can be approached through their functional triune aspects (e.g. Maiden/Mother/Crone), and also as related but distinguishable geo-temporal manifestations (e.g. "Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Inanna", as the popular chant runs). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of India vs. Buddhism

So far, I know that ethnic group Bengali has some Buddhist followers, according to Bengali people article. What about ethnic groups Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, Assamese, Gujarati, and Oriya? Do they have some Buddhist population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.24 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All of these ethnic groups number in the millions. At those numbers, you are likely to find "some" of any of the worlds major religions. I would expect not only Buddhists, but Christians, Muslims, and Hindus in all of these ethnic groups. You can search our articles on these people, for example the article titled Marathi people mentions Buddhism as one of the minority religions of the Marathi people; though it does not give numbers. Still, since your threshold is "some", I think that you will find Buddhists among all of these people. Just search for the Wikipedia articles on these people groups, and most of them should describe the religion of those people. --Jayron32 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Buddhist

So far, Bangladeshi Buddhists celebrate only Buddha Purnima? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.24 (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia sentient?

Is Wikipedia sentient?

Obvious question.. We got sentience when cells got organised into humans, we know that.

How about when atoms got organised into molecules and molecules into cells??

Or when humans got organised into classes, like classes of knowing..

Our neurons got together by talking and made me

and you, and everything

and all that

just lying all around

You want references.. look through your eyes and listen.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayelamb (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, now we have to add to the disclaimer that Wikipedia's Reference Desk is not a place for original free verse.209.244.187.155 (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not sentient. See sentience. If you want to make up your own definition of sentience to be what you think Wikipedia is, then it may meet your special little definition. By the real definition, Wikipedia in no way is remotely sentient. -- kainaw™ 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If an entity is sentient, it will take steps to thwart decay and evaporation. Without contributors and the tech support guys, Wikipedia will disappear. So no, it is not sentient by any sensible definition. Vranak (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not sentient. What would lead you to think such a thing? Wikipedia (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

One could apply the turing test to the Wikipedia servers and determine it that way... --Jayron32 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to scare the shit out of the tester, sure. I've seen what passes for language in some of these people. HalfShadow 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just the other day, Wikipedia was heard singing the old standard, "I'm Getting Sentiental Over You". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Is an ant colony sentient? Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to start by defining "Wikipedia". Do we mean the encyclopaedia or the project as a whole? If we mean the whole project, including the contributors, then we're into the realms of crowd psychology. There are arguments that a crowd acts as a sentient being in its own right. Not arguments I think a great deal of, admittedly, but they do exist. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is now, I reach out with my noodly appendages. FSM (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

16th century

I am working on a series of books set in the late 16th century, but would really like more information than I have found so far on the period. i was wondering if there were any websites with a lot of detailed and reliable information on the time, particularly of england and france during the months leading up to Henry IVs coronation. I would like to find more details of the events leading up to that, so far I have only been able to find about three things happening in the coutry for that whole year. I am hoping to make the series as historically accurate as possible, the way people act, how places look, clothes people wear, news events heard about by different characters, is there any way I can find such things on the internet, rather than trying to find a library with all the relevant books.

To start with, for the first few pages, going out for a drink in london, what might the pub/tavern/whatever be like inside, what would people be doing there?

88.108.78.104 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few pointers: Be careful not to project present-day categories onto this much earlier time period. For example, Europeans in the late 16th century didn't have the same idea of news that we have. Certainly there were events, but there were no news media. There was the occasional poster or broadsheet commenting on current events, but most "news" would have traveled by word of mouth, mainly in public meeting places, and particularly in churches, where sermons might address issues of the day. Common people would not have been interested or have wanted to discuss distant battles or coronations, for example. The only reason a distant battle might matter was if a loved one (or perhaps one's lord) had died in it. Speaking of lords, it is important to remember that class relations were much more formal and probably more rigid than they are now. Most people acknowledged fealty to lords beneath their king. Land-owning aristocrats were much higher than merchants in the social order. Wealthy merchants were typically lower in the social order than the gentry (affluent commoners who owned land). Farmers who owned even small plots of land and barely subsisted were higher in the social order than landless laborers. If someone from our time were to travel back to that time, one of the first things we would notice would be the stench and the filth, especially of cities. People seldom bathed during this period, and raw sewage often flowed through the streets and waterways. Mangy dogs and livestock would be a common sight, even on city streets. As for people's appearance, my advice would be to look at art drawn during your period. That art is more likely to show aristocrats and wealthy merchants than commoners, but as long as you are aware of this bias, you can pay special attention to the poor to middling peasants, who made up around 80% of the population of England and France at this time, or to the low to middling shopkeepers and craftsmen whose families made up a large majority of townspeople. In terms of how people acted, be careful not to project Victorian morals back onto this earlier period. Certainly most people were aware of Christian moral strictures, but that is not to say that most obeyed them strictly, though upper middle class townspeople, with their bourgeois sense of discipline, typically tried harder than most. During this time, prostitution was carried out relatively openly, and venereal disease (along with many other kinds of disease) was widespread. Marco polo (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do recommend a trip to a good library for research. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fugger family ran one of the most systematic news-gathering operations of the late 16th-century (and historians have found their archives to be of interest), but it was run for the commercial benefit of the Fugger private trading house. There were no real newspapers during that period, but in some of the countries with relatively widespread literacy and less repressive governments there was a lot of pamphleteering... AnonMoos (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Backing up, I would also point out that, while we would find people and places at that time filthy and smelly, people of the time would have taken the filth and stench for granted. They would probably be surprised by our well-scrubbed and antiseptic persons and places.

It is hard to do more than speculate about what one might have found in a London tavern in the late 16th century. It probably varied a lot from tavern to tavern. This was before the spread of modern restaurants, so these would have been both eating and drinking places. I don't think, though, that we have many accounts of what went on in these taverns, so it is really hard to do more than speculate, starting from an understanding of the social history of the period.

AnonMoos is right about pamphlets during this time, though these were not impartial sources of news but partisan tracts. Also, they would have been read only by the educated minority. A large share of the population during this time was probably illiterate. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Google " Shakespeare's London ".--Wetman (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's set a few years earlier, but you might find the many novels and books in the 1632 (novel) series interesting, including 1632 series. I'm reading "Grantville Gazette" volume 9 at present. Edison (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, does anyone know how longit would have taken then to travel from London to Bath, or from London to Paris? And where might someone in the city have gone to gather provisions for such a journey? 88.108.78.29 (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin Language in Hieroglyphic Bible

I have obtained 80 digital photograph negatives taken in 1996 at the Library of Congress in Washington DC of the "Hieroglyphic Bible". These photographs are of the story of Christ's Birth. I have verified the language to be Latin.

I would like to know the origin of this Hieroglyphic Bible written in Latin.

I don't know anything else about this book except; In 1996, "The Easton Press" out of Connecticut commissioned IGT to do the digital photographs of several rare books at the Library of Congress. The Hieroglyphic Bible was one of those books.

Can you help?

Thank you

>>>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.239.156 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is this article, but you have to log in...do you have any pictures? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)]

This must be it! Yes?--Wetman (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so, as the item to which you link is clearly written in English, not Latin. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So "Hieroglyphic Bible" just means "illustrated Bible"? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The one Wetman linked to seems more a "rebus Bible" than an illustrated one. Deor (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

August 19

Queen Rania of Jordan

Wow, is she one of the politician's wife. Seriously, she went to WEP? I've saw her meeting with Abdoulaye Wade, have she meet other African national leader or just Wade. Becasue WEF participants is at least 5 African politicians at South Africa, or Queen Rania have met all the African politicians. I don't see her wth other African politicians on Google images.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

She is not the wife of a politician, exactly, she is the wife of the King of Jordan, Abdullah II. Jordan is not an African country, and monarchs of modern constitutional monarchies are usually not called politicians, and are often considered "above" everyday politics, although the actual degree of political power they exercise varies from country to country and the reality may differ.

Since Abdullah and Raina have been married for over 16 years, she has probably met most if not all of the African national leaders who have visited Jordan during that time. It is likely that she has also accompanied Abdullah on many if not most or all of any overseas visits he might have made to African nations, and similarly would have almost certainly met the leaders of those nations on those occasions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

She probably have met John Kufuor.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Found it list of attendees. Simple text google search is effective. They dn't have to been seen on google image.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(Supplementary question transferred from my (87.81.230.195's) talk page. Please don't do that, 69.229.39.33, I have no special interest in or knowledge of these individuals - indeed I had not even heard of them before your first question).

Is this possible when Queen Rania meets Africa leaders like John Kufuor, the two erson in meet don't have to be post on internet image. Could not posting images of two important person in meet be for a safety issue? Do internet not have to show Queen Rania with Mwai Kibaki together?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how posting an image of any such meeting happening in any public place would be a safety/security problem: by the time the image appears the meeting will be over, so it could not be, for example, the target of an attack. If all or part of the meeting takes place inside some building that itself should not be shown in case its security is compromised, then those controlling the security of the meeting will not allow pictures to be taken, or if taken for some official purpose, released.

I suppose it's possible that if some people have a reason to strongly object to such a meeting, someone could use a picture of it as part of their propaganda, but most such meetings are official and publicly acknowledged events, not secret, so suppressing pictures of them might itself be a counterproductive move.

As for your other questions - which seem to boil down to the same question repeated - no, of course "the internet" does not have to have such images posted on it. The Internet is not a single entity run by a particular body, it is the collective name we give to the link-up of many, many different and independent systems which have no overall common "rules" except the purely technical ones that ensure the links are possible. Nor is it an official Journal of record: some individual journals of record may, now or in the future, be placed on the internet; however, it is unlikely that any journal of record has to publish any particular image, as opposed to information in text form. Any image appears "on the internet" only because someone, somewhere has chosen to post it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What novel was this?

I remember reading a novel where the main subject gets shipwrecked on an island of dwarfs (they shot him with tiny arrows), and later goes to an island of giants. What was its title? 67.165.107.70 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks very much like Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. olivier (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That it is. Steewi (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of waxing pedantic, I'd like to point out that the Lilliputians whom Gulliver encounters aren't anything dwarves. People with dwarfism are very short, true, but they certainly aren't tiny -- it's just that their proportions are different from those of average people. The Lilliputians, by comparison, were actual miniature humans, "less than six inches" in height, with the proportions of an average person. A dwarf could still hold numerous Lilliputians on the palm of his hand. (I realize that the original poster's first language may not be English, which would easily explain his choice of words, but, you know... pedantic.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the confusion may arise from popular media like the Fleischer cartoon which depicts the Lilliputians as dwarf-like. This is a little off the track, but biologically speaking you would not find 6-inch humans with the same proportions as normal humans. Just as you would not find Brobdingnagians in human proportion. There's a term for this, but I don't recall what it is. Of course, Swift's work was intended to be a satire, not a biology textbook. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What we have seems to be at Square-cube_law... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To illustrate Captain Disdain's point: In Brobdingnag the Queen's dwarf stood only thirty feet tall (short in comparison to the regulars, even dwarfed by the nine-year old Glumdalclitch) and tormented Gulliver out of jealousy for being the new short sensation and rendering the dwarf unspectalularly normal-sized. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the Lilliputians are a twelfth our height, while the Brobdingnagians are twelve times our height. B00P (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes conversions simpler if you are using the base 12 imperial measurements. Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Order in the next ten minutes!

Quite often a commercial or infomercial will offer a special deal if you call within the next ten minutes, the next twenty minutes, before the end of the infomercial, etc. Does anybody know if they actually enforce these time limits, or is it that it's just a ploy and they give the special offer to everybody? Would they really keep track of every time the ad happens to be aired on every network? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In the US, it is usually a recommendation (check the fine print) due to this.--droptone (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be in the slightest related to the question - which was about ordering in the next 10 minutes, not delivery in the next 30 ???83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mea cupla, I misread the question.--droptone (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP is correct - they just offer the "discount" to everyone, as it is actually their official price. It's an encouragement to get you to actually order (quickly, without thinking it through) due to the amazingly über-great deal you'd get (a whole other set FREE?!?!?!?) rather than just ignore it. You're more likely to just jump the gun and buy it if you think it's time-restricted. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And if we assume that the "discount" is in fact the standard price, it's worth recasting the offer. Rather than "$19.95, and get a second one free!", the ad should be viewed as "$10 per with a minimum order of $30 (factoring in shipping charges)". This should be contrasted with buy-one-get-one offers at reputable brick-and-mortar stores. For example, if my local grocery is advertising two-for-one on chips, I also retain the option of buying one at half cost. — Lomn 13:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, if they are pressuring you to buy in the next 10 minutes, it bears further investigation as to the fishiness of the deal. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One way to answer the question is to find out if advertisers are given exact air times for their commercials. If they are not, then it is highly unlikely that they have a person monitoring the television to start a stopwatch, especially if there is regional variation in the airtime of the commercials.--droptone (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always taken those ads with a grain of salt. They never say "Only those who call in the next 10 minutes will get the special price". So, if you call within 10 minutes, you're OK; and if you call later than that, you get exactly the same deal. It's a ruse to get people to act quickly, by pandering to their assumptions about what the English language actually means. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Words to Live By: If someone offers you a deal on Monday that will no longer be good on Tuesday, it wasn't any good on Monday, either. B00P (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Often the commercial offering the 10 minute deal goes on for 30 minutes, with the deal included. They also repeat nightly ad nauseam with the same 10-minute offer. I live fairly close to the shop outlet of one such As Seen On TV outfit, and the shop prices seem to match the advertised 10 minutes price; sometimes they are "just out of" one or other "extra free gifts".

There are two versions of "two for one" in Australia. "Buy one get one free " means you pay for one; you are not forced to take the second. "Usually $3 now 2 for $4" means you must buy 2 to get that price; buy only one and they charge the $3 single price. So of course for the extra buck everyone buys 2 and they shift more stock (possibly high enough to trigger an even bigger bulk purchasing discount for themselves). - 125.63.157.224 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Relations

Ok, does anybody know the closest relation term form William I of the Netherlands and Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. The closest I got was third-cousin onced removed; they both descend from Augustus the Younger, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me until this evening (BST) and I think I'll be able to get you a definitive answer. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can, can you tell me Philip the Good and Elisabeth, Duchess of Luxembourg's relation.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Francis and William were third cousins, I believe, as they were both great-great-grandchildren of Louis Rudolph and Christine Louise. They were so distantly related that their relation is unnotable. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked my database, and my calculations agree with yours. Philip the Good and Elizabeth of Görlitz were second cousins once removed, since they were both descended from the blind king of Bohemia. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I didn't see that William was also descended from Louis Rudolph. Also I need someone confirm these others Dukes of Luxembourg. Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria and Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor were second cousins. Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria and Philip V of Spain were first cousin once removed. Right?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Two more questions unrelated to these others but it about Luxembourg. What happen to the list of Counts on the list wikipedia has? Was it edited over. Also why was Charles the Bold numbered Charles II when he was the first duke of Luxembourg with that name. I changed it but I not sure if its correct. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Social responsibilities

1-I would like to know the exact definition of the social responsibilities? 2-types of social responsibilities with explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damn king (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more detailed in your question? As it stands now, this looks an awful lot like a homework assignment, which we do not answer. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's so vague, the OP seems to think we can read minds. The social respnosibilities in reference to what? Those of professional teachers, politicians, everyday citizens, who? This makes it look even more like homewwork, as it seems that the OP ishiding the context on purpose.

Note to non-English speakers, the article "the" is the problem here. It implies the OP wants specific ones, rather than just a definition of social responsibilities, period. I don't know if the person is a native speaker or not, but I have seen this mistake before. it's best to just come out and explain that, though, to avoid confusion.Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons Behind Structure of Names

In most Western European cultures names are written First Name/Last Name e.g. John Smith. In many Asian cultures (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese) names are written Last Name/First Name e.g. Smith John.

What is the reason behind this difference?

Is there a historical, cultural, or religious reason? Is this the product of two divergent proto-languages? Is the prevalence of the Western European naming convention in other parts of the world (India, Africa, South America) the product of imperialism?

Finally, by world population, which is more common?Havener84 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of this is/may be covered at Personal name#Name order, or in links from that page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be some connection with branching, but such connection will have been masked by borrowing among cultures whose languages do not have the same configuration. As an example of what I'm thinking of, consider that historical Japanese names such as Tokugawa Ieyasu are often read as 'Tokugawa no Ieyasu], with the attributive particle 'no', as though meaning 'Ieyasu of the Tokugawa'. This order (modifier-head) is normal in Japanese grammar, limited in English ("John's story" but not normally "the city's story") and unavailable in French. --ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] To answer your questions roughly in order, the reason for the difference is that people in two different parts of the world developed two different ways of ordering names. (Actually, it is more complicated than that. Hungarians independently developed a system in which the surname comes first.) In the case of East Asia, the practice of putting surnames first probably originated in China in the first centuries CE or so and then spread from there, since Chinese culture was influential in surrounding countries. In the case of Europe, the convention of placing surnames after given names developed about 1000 years later during the late Middle Ages. You are right that European colonial powers then spread this convention to the Americas and other regions. Before surnames developed or spread, people had given names and sometimes cognomens or other kinds of appellations to distinguish them from others with the same name (e.g., Jesus of Nazareth). Still in some parts of the world today, such as Indonesia, Afghanistan, and the Arab world, surnames are far from universal. Really, I think that the East Asian and Western systems are different by chance. Some, I think, have argued that the Chinese place more importance on clan or family membership and therefore prioritize the surname by putting it first, whereas more individualistic Westerners place the given name first, but this is hard to prove or disprove. This difference is unrelated to proto-languages. The development of surnames came much later than the dates of hypothesized proto-languages. Also, the Asian naming conventions took root in unrelated languages such as Chinese and Japanese. Chinese has a similar standard word order to English and German, so syntactical differences don't explain differences in the order of names either. By world population, the Western pattern is certainly more common. Marco polo (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there's the deal that not even all of Europe and the Americas has the same system. While most of Northern Europe and especially the Anglophone parts of the world use the simple "First Name + Father's Surname" practice, Iceland still uses the "First Name + Father's First Name + son/dottir" system formerly prevalent in Norse countries, and most of the Hispanophone world uses some varient of the more complex Spanish system. --Jayron32 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Iceland and Spain do follow the general Western pattern of putting the given name first, which is what the OP asks about. English John Johnson and Icelandic Jan Jansson (or whatever the form is) do not represent entirely independent developments. —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In reference to what Marco polo wrote above about the European naming convention having developed in late Middle Ages, wasn't that, at least in part, influenced by the much earlier Roman naming convention? — Kpalion^(talk) 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So it's quite non-East-Asiocentric to call it first name and last name -- if they are reversed, they would similarly switch accolades. Given name and surname would be more appropriate, eh? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Then there's the convention in Spanish-speaking countries to include both the father's and mother's name in one's own name. Hence you actually have two surnames. As with Roberto Clemente Walker, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The first Women suffrage?

Which nation was the first to grant women the right to vote? I know New Zealand is often mentioned (1893), but wasn't that a British colony at the time? Which independent nation was the first?

And, another question: even when it does comes to the right to vote in local elections, colonies, non-independent states etc, was New Zealand the first? I have heard there were areas were women could vote in the 18th-century.--85.226.42.223 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Try Women's suffrage --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good article, but I know articles are always being updated here, so perhaps someone knows more? It doesn't clearly state an answer on either questions: was Sweden (1718) the first independent nation to indroduce woman suffrage? The article only say it is a contestant. And should it also be considered the first nation to grant local suffrage? Or should that be Corsica (1755)? The article doesn't specify. --85.226.42.223 (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably because definitions like "independent" and "local suffrage" are fuzzy. It is not that it is missing information, so much as ducking the "first" question and not getting drawn into a discussion of what these nebulous terms are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean nationwide suffrage? Because the US state of Wyoming (which was a territory at the time) granted women the right to vote in 1869, though the rest of the nation did not. According to Women's suffrage, Australia granted it in 1902, after they were an independent nation (NZ did not become independent until 1907). Googlemeister (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Women's suffrage in New Zealand says that of countries presently independent, New Zealand was the first to give women the vote in modern times.--Shahab (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The question of independence is also fuzzy. The 6 British colonies federated in 1901 to create the nation of Australia, but whether it was automatically a new independent nation or still for all intents and purposes a (super-)colony of the UK is very much open to debate. There is no universally accepted date on which Australia became independent. Some say it was not truly independent until the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1942, backdated to 1939. Some even say it was not truly independent until the passage of the Australia Acts in 1986! -- JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that on some issues only the women decided, there's the Iroquois Confederation in the 18th century and possibly as far back as the 16th. B00P (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Sweden should be considered the first independent nation to grant women local and nationwide suffrage? Sweden had women suffrage during the age of liberty in 1718-1771. --85.226.47.46 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Then there's the question of not just allowing women to vote, but also of allowing them to be elected. South Australia (then still a British colony) was the first place in the world that allowed women to be elected as members. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Opportunity cost

Hello good people at the reference desk. I have a question to ask related to economics, and I'm hoping you fine folks could help. It's related to opportunity cost. Now I have read the article on opportunity cost and understand it fully. But my professor of managerial economics has written something about it in a book (published by oxford university press) that I don't really understand. I am reproducing it below and hoping you can explain to me what is meant.

".... In the above example, economic cost is higher than the accounting cost. Does this always have to be the case? Let' take another situation. Realte Builders has taken earth moving equipment on lease for a period of two years, at a lease rental of Rs. 6000 per year. This rental has to be paid, regardless of whether the equipment is used (or not). The question to be answered is:; How would one cost the machine? A straightforward, accountant's answer would be Rs 6000. However, an economist would not agree with this. The economist would value the machine at its opportunity cost. What would the opportunity cost be? If Relate Builders could sublease it for a year, the lease rental that it would get, say, Rs 3000 per year will be the opportunity cost of the equipment. This is the amount to be foregone if Realte Builders decides to use it itself. It will not be Rs 6000 because that has to be paid regardless of the usage. If they cannot sublease the machine, the opportunity cost would be zero. We now have a case where the accounting cost of the machine is Rs 6000, while the economic cost is either Rs 3000 or nil, depending on whether it can be subleased."

I cannot understand the last line. At all. How is the economic cost either Rs 3000 or nil? Shouldn't it be Rs. 6000 only (or rather greater, including the opportunity cost of the interest accrued on the sum of Rs. 6000? Many thanks, and apologies for the long question. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If we hang the whole thing on the definition "Opportunity cost is the value of the next best alternative forgone as the result of making a decision", then we can see where your prof is going, and why he is wrong. The next best alternative to possessing the earth-mover, given we have taken the decision to possess it, is to lease it out (hence his 3000 or 0 values - these depend on the market for subleasing the equipment) but we must also consider the additional earth moving costs arising out of not having access to the machine (and this will depend on how much earth moving will be done in the period under consideration, and the marginal cost of alternative earth moving strategies). In short, the value of the next best decision, in this case, is the rental we get plus the additional costs we face. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why, even in a simplified example, he neglected to cover the downside costs. But to be clear, the value of 6000 has nothing to do with opportunity cost in the context in which your prof is framing the discussion, though there is clearly a separate Opportunity cost of capital attached to the decision to spend the 6000 on a digger. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok so if I understand correctly, the decision to get the earth mover on rent has already been taken. The Rs. 3000 or Rs. 0 figure is the opportunity cost of using the earth mover for building (respectively if it can be subleased or not). For calculating economic cost we ignore the amount already spent due to the decision to take the earth mover on rent - a decision which has already been made. Whereas for calculating accounting cost we take the rs 6000 figure into account. Correct? --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Our article on sunk costs may help to understand why the Rs.6,000 is irrelevant. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How would the Black Plague have impacted Native Americans, Australians?

From the article on the Black Plague, I'm presumng that it didn't reach the Americas, or Australia. My question is, if it had, would the impact have been much different than the other diseases Europeans brought with them? I've often heard that things which weren't as bad for Europeans, such as measles, were pandemics in the Americas. But, my hunch is that it ws really a large combination of many diseases that killed a vast majority of natives - it wasn't any one specific one.

Also, given the travel times of the late 1340s, and the quickness with which that plague spread, I wonder if - provided the lands were discovered before the black Death - ships carrying supplies would have even gotten to the Americas from England, France, etc., before the whole crew perished. (This idea comes becuase it was a discussion on an alternate history board that brought this to mind.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The plague reached Iceland and Greenland, so it's not impossible that it would have reached North America, although by then the Norse were no longer travelling there anyway. I don't know what would have happened, but I don't see why it would have been any less devastating than it was in Europe. Apparently the plague also reached as far south as Cambodia, but at that point there was no contact at all with Australia. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the sanitary conditions between the two cultures? Wasn't the large population of lower class population in Europe, living in both urban and feudal squalor a significant contributing factor to the extent of devastation? If so, what kind of conditions were the natives on the undiscovered continents living in? I know that the population was pretty large before European influence devastated it, but was it comparable to the arguably overpopulated conditions of Europe? —Akrabbim^talk 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Where black rats prevalent in the Americas at the time? I would speculate (since any kind of conclusion to this question would be speculation) that the living conditions of the plains indians with their nomadic ways would have limited exposure to rats and hence disease would have been more limited. Places like the cities of the Inca or the Aztec would probably have had the same results as European cities like Paris or Bologna. Non-nomadic peoples who lived in far apart small villages? I would imagine it as similar to rural villages of Russia but I really don't know. Googlemeister (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, in North America there weren't likely dense enough urban centers to allow for the spread of the plague in the ways it was spread in Europe. However, consider Central America, which had a strong urban culture, and some very large cities, such as those of the Aztec and Mayas. One could envision that, while plague would have had a hard time taking hold in the Great Plains of North America, it may have been devastating to the urban cultures of Central America. --Jayron32 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be slightly backwards. By some estimates, the population of North America was sparse because the very first European diseases brought by Vikings and fishermen had already killed off 90% ofthe population before the "first" European explorers ever got here. IF Plague had arrived first, the result would have been the same. -Arch dude (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

North America did have a high population, probably much higher than the standard story tends to give it, but what it did not have is urban centers. People in North America tended to live in smallish villages rather than the large cities of Central America. Remember that by some estimates, Tenochtitlan may have been the largest and most densely populated city in the world at some time; that type of close quarters is exactly what a disease like the Black Death needs to sustain an epidemic. While there were likely millions of North Americans at the same time, they weren't piled on top of each other in dense cities, they were spread out in small-to-medium sized villages (on the coasts) or lived a transhumant or nomadic lifestyle (in the Plains). --Jayron32 01:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No the diseases came hundreds of years later during the contact with fisherman and early settlers during the 16th century, not from the Vikings in the 11th. See also [[Population history of the Population history of American indigenous peoples. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; wow, I didn't realize it reached as far as Greenland and Cambodia. Yes, I hadn't really thought about how spread out and nomadic the Plains cultures were. Probably similar for sub-Saharan Africa, too, I would guess? Although, it does seem to have struck Egypt pretty hard; I'm not sure how far south it went in Africa, either.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to have rats to have plague. Any small mammals work pretty well. Hence most cases of plague today in the US are caused by gophers and squirrels and things like that. But yeah, I'm not sure the population density was high enough to sustain a pandemic. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder whether the native Americans would have tried to kill off all the cats, like the Europeans did for superstitious reasons, and possibly allowed the rodent population to grow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing a domesticated cat in any Westerns. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need domestic cats to hold the rodent population down, just various predators - which might not have existed in the cities of Europe, especially after they tried to rub out all the cats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't house-cats are old-world animals? I suppose they could go after ocelots. APL (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the superstition that led to killing off so many cats may have contributed to the massive death toll among humans - which is poetic justice of a sort. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) To answer specifically the question about whether it would have been worse, those realities come from the fact that when the Europeans introduced various disease to the Americans, it was the first time anyone in the Western Hemisphere had seen them. Europeans had been dealing with various iterations of the same diseases for the better part of two millenia (for the most part - the Black Death was a big exception) and so had developed levels of resistance, lessening the effects. The Americans had no such chance, and were thus rapidly exposed to new, highly-virulent diseases, and as such had no chance to build up resistances over hundreds of years. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The reverse also happened to some degree. Thank the new world for syphilis. Googlemeister (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Map of Napoleon's trails

Does anyone have a map of Napoleon Bonaparte's conquests during his lifetime similar to this one of Alexander? File:MacedonEmpire.jpg I've googled for one but tend to just get maps of his empire or specific battle plans. Alientraveller (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The maps exist for specific campaigns, such as his russian campaign or his eqyptian campaign. See this google image search. Its a start. --Jayron32 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off subject, Charles Minard's flow chart is a wonderful visualization of the Russian campaign. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not too detailed, but in Colin McEvedy's Penguin Atlas of Modern History there's a map of Europe in 1812, which gives you a reasonable idea of Napoleon's realm at its high water mark... AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

white people to have a darker skin tone

Is this possible for white people to have a darker skin tone? Sometimes black people is consider as "Color people" because some of them is not too black. Is Asian consider as white or "non-whites"--69.229.39.33 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Skin coloration is determined by melanin, which is largely determined by genes; see the human skin color article for details. Referring to Asians as "white" or otherwise is a cultural viewpoint; see the Race (classification of human beings) article. Tempshill (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It could well be a political thing - the Taiwanese were classified as "whites" under Apartheid South Africa, while the mainland Chinese as "coloured", even though both belong (almost entirely) to the same ethnic group (Han Chinese). The reason is that South Africa had relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan), and the Taiwanese were frequent investors in the country, whereas it did not have relations with the People's Republic of China (mainland China). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In the US, there was actually a Supreme Court case on the question of whether Asians were "white." In Takao Ozawa v. United States (1922), the Court ruled that for the purpose of immigration laws, when they said "white", they meant the more technical term, "Caucasian," and thus Japanese weren't "white". Then, in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), when an Indian argued that according to anthropologists, Indians were "Caucasian," the Court then said that when they said "Caucasian," they really meant "white". Good ol' American justice. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think those were both good decisions. The court is saying, in both cases, "we all know what is intended by the terminology, stop trying to game the system". Of course, if were writing the laws the colour of someone's skin wouldn't get a mention, but that isn't the point. --Tango (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's kinda the point. The decisions basically point to an arbitrariness of the definition, which isn't very good from a legal standpoint, whatever it is. It's basically an equivalent of "I can't define whiteness, but I know it when I see it," which while amusing (in the case of obscenity), is actually pretty problematic from the point of view of the law. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Tempshill pretty much explained it. It's all about genes, so one daughter may be a relatively olive color while another can be extremely pale. It's not to difficult, all-in-all, to have someone who looks to be of African descent actually be about 70% European, or vice-versa. There have been plenty of cases of this being found out due to genetic testing. Terms such as "White" or "Colored" or "Asian" are subject to national, cultural, and social inertia, and so are not accurate measures. They try and group people, when really it's just a very wide-ranging spectrum. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not all about genes - tanning can make a significant different to skin colour, at least for "whites". --Tango (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. "No, honey, I swear it wasn't the delivery man/milkman/pool boy/hot guy at the bar, our baby is just got a tan!" ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The pseudo-scientific "race-scientists" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries divided the "Caucasian" race into the "Nordic", "Alpine", "Mediterranean", and sometimes "Semitic" sub-races, with "Semitic" tending towards black in parts of northern and north-western Africa. Also, the Nazis supposedly declared the Japanese to be "honorary Aryans" in the 1930s... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Honorary Aryan. Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Vin Diesel white or black? The line between the two "races" is entirely arbitrary, and even amongst so-called "pure-blooded Europeans" you get very dark skin (e.g. the dark olive complexion that is not uncommon in the Mediterrean region). "Whiteness" is a cultural construct with only limited appeal to actual skin color. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Science rejected the concept of race as a useful classification some time ago. It is sometimes useful to use race as an easy way to describe certain socio-economic groups, but that's it. --Tango (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins discusses this very topic in his book The Ancestor's Tale. He calls it the tyranny of the discontinuous mind, in that humans have a hard time accepting that certain things don't have rigid boundaries and we tend to extrapolate boundaries even when no such boundaries exist, including in human races. You can actually read some of the relevant chapter in this Google Preview of the book. Vespine (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins himself is about as white as they come. Race and culture and language and religion are all interesting entities that should theoretically be neutral, but countless humans have used them to put down other humans - including when they get it wrong. Babe Ruth was thought by many to have "Negro blood" in his ancestry, and was often called by race-baiting names, despite the fact his ancestors all came from Germany and were simply darker complected than the average northern European. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, in what way is Dawkins' own ethnicity relevant to his espousal of the concept of the tyranny of the discontinuous mind, and how do your further observations, valid in themselves, relate to it? I ask because while you may well have some logical argument in mind, I'm unable to discern it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as he ridicules the importance of religion, he also ridicules the importance of race. By "importance" I mean their perceived importance in human culture everywhere. And ironically he is the product of a particularly supremacist culture, which is not his fault, but it's still the way it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your thrust, and broadly agree, but while Dawkins' culture of origin - white British-colonial Kenya - can reasonably be described as "a particularly supremacist culture", don't you think that his expressed views demonstrate his transcendance of it? I suggest that your observation "Dawkins himself is about as white as they come" was perhaps over-elliptical and open to adverse misinterpretation. Apologies that this is beginning to veer towards a debate and away from the original topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

August 20

Education system in Bangladesh

Is there a site where they show type of schools based on grades (e.g. gr.1, gr.2, etc.) in Bangladesh? So far, I know that Gr.11 and Gr.12 means you are in college and if you pass metric meaning Gr.10, it means you pass high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.166 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: . Do NOT sign in articles.

I'm checking it out now. Just wait a couple of seconds and I'll come back with an answer! --Srinivas (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

World Trade Center site

before the construction of the world trade center in NY what was in the are before? what neighborhoods, landmarks, parks were there? and are there any photographs of the area before the WTC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This site [8] (including lots of interesting details on the construction and some photos) indicates that it was part of the Hudson River / NY Port which was filled. They mention that excavations may find old wharves or even buried ships. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the PBS documentary, part of it was a street with a lot of radio / electronics shops... AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Our article Radio Row has some coverage of the former neighborhood. This Google search turns up some images. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Scipio the younger death (129 BC)

Scipio Aemilianus Africanus's death of 129 BC seems to be a mystery, with three possibilities. Suffocation has some interest to me as a good option. Apparently at that time they burned charcoal as evening lighting. Charcoal burns much oxygen and if the room (i.e. bedroom) Scipio was using for writing up his speech against the agrarian proposals of the Gracchi was enclosed (intentionally or accidently) could he have run out of good breathable air? His speech would have been long, so perhaps he took hours to write it up and maybe fell asleep in the process - never to wake up.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible, although it seems unlikely that the Romans would construct unventilated rooms, both because they only had fire for illumination and cooking, and because of the outside heat. The Gracchi probably had something to do with it... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds logical of the work of the Gracchi and/or perhaps Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi. Maybe even Sempronia, since she was their sister. Maybe they (his enemies) closed the vents to the bedroom he was sleeping in, which would be death by suffocation. Suffocation is referenced here as a possibility. Could a bedroom be referred to as a "lower chamber"? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That author, Ian Worthington, actually concludes that Scipio had a bad day, ate and drank too much back home, and choked on his vomit while he was sleeping. Our article says there were wounds on his body, but Worthington says Plutarch remarks that there were only rumours of wounds. Worthington's other possibilities are some sort of scheme by Cornelia and Sempronia, suicide, and murder by political enemies (Italians, Romans, or the Senate), but he rejects those. I don't know about the sources here, or the authority of modern historians, so hopefully there is a real classicist around who can help you out, but that, at least, is what the rest of Worthington's article says. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking further as to what Ian Worthington said. In this source it says Gaius Papirius Carbo may have caused him to be strangled.

Would a bedroom have been referred to as a "lower chamber" in those days?

To confirm, then typically Scipio would have in all likelihood burned a few fires for lighting to see to be able to write a speech on his tablet. Correct?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This source talks further of the marks on Scipio's body.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's CSI: Ancient Rome when you really need it? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Now that we have assembled all the suspects into the courtyard, I shall cut the head off of this chicken and the fates will guide it to the culprit." Googlemeister (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Economic state of Britain, circa 1965-68

Hi all. I'm a History MA student currently trying to desperately finish his dissertation, which is devoted to analysing government and public attitudes towards civil defence in post-war Britain between 1945 and 1968. I'm at the very end, essentially, looking at why exactly the Wilson government decided to end the Civil Defence Corps in March 1968. One of the main reasons I've pegged is the need to economize - something all British governments needed to do post-war. However, economics has never been my strong suit, and lookign through my secondary sources is getting a tad confusing. Was there some kind of economic problem the country was facing during that period - a recession, a slump, a run on the pound? I'd be dead greatful if someone could give me a clue about that - I can hook out a reference from my secondary sources after that. Cheers for your help. Skinny87 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, while it's by no means a complete list, Wikipedia's Category:Labour disputes in the United Kingdom gives only one industrial action during the 60s, the Power dispute of 1964. The Economy of the United Kingdom says Following the end of World War II, there was a long interval without a major recession (1945 - 1973) and a growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s. According to the OECD, the annual rate of growth (percentage change) between 1960 and 1973 averaged 2.9%., but the references are books so I don't know if they have more detail. This h2g2 article also suggests it was pretty smooth sailing economically, although doesn't have much data. As far as the overall economy goes, I think it's safe to say it was growing during that period, but I think it'd be equally safe to say there were probably some areas of the country and economy that had some sort of problem... I'll try and find the actual figures for the size of the economy. TastyCakes (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This OECD site gives some relevant data. It doesn't give the GDP for Britain during that period for some reason, but it shows household consumption increased throughout those years. TastyCakes (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was...unexpected. Thanks anyway. Damn, I was sure there were economic troubles. Skinny87 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess 1968 (before the oil shocks) was a lot closer to Swinging London than the Winter of Discontent... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are probably onto something. Check out our article I'm Backing Britain. During the 1960s, the expansion of the British state outran the expansion of its economy, leading to government budget deficits and contributing to inflation, both of which put pressure on the pound sterling. In 1967, the government of Harold Wilson was forced to devalue the pound sterling, which would have added to inflationary pressures. So, while the economy was expanding (though rather slowly in real terms in the late 1960s), the state faced growing claims on a limited revenue stream and was forced to prioritize. Roadbuilding, building of housing estates, and expansion of the national health service could all have been higher priorities for a Labour government than civil defense. Marco polo (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Marco, you are a real life-saver, cheers! That's exactly what I need - and the article is even sourced, which is a bonus. Thanks all, that should mean this is resolved now. Skinny87 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to attribute the main author of the article, I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Or his literary pseudonym would. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Mass murder in Ancient Rome

I'm reading the book Roma, by Steven Saylor, which is a fictionalized history of Rome up to the time of the Emperors. He mentions running across an episode in Livy where Livy talks about a strange plague running through the rich men of Rome where they were dying from mysterious sources. According to Livy, and incorporated into Saylor's story, a large group (upwards of 70) of matrons were poisoning the rich men for a variety of reasons. They were apparently organized, and teaching each other poisoning techniques. Has any other historian written about this episode? It occurred in 332 BC. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be 331, actually - here is the text of Livy about the event (in Latin) (and notes). Here is a translation of Book 8 - it's in chapter 18. I typed "livy matrons poisoning rich" into Google books and there seems to be a few discussions of it. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, but what I'm wondering is, are there any other historians who mention this event, that don't derive their information from Livy? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

us life expectancy by quartile?

i can easily find u.s. life expectancy in lists with other countries, but the assertion that there are http://www.livescience.com/health/080422-bad-life-spans.html> "2 americas" ("What the new analysis reveals is the reality of two Americas, one on par with most of Europe and parts of Asia, and another no different than a third world nation") leads me to wonder if the quartiles look very different? couldnt find any lists like that, anyone able to do any better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.121.232 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This study grouped US counties into deciles of roughly equal population by indicators of "socioeconomic deprivation" as outlined in the article. The decile of counties with the greatest socioeconomic deprivation (as shown in this table) had a life expectancy of 71.5 for men and 78 for women. This falls somewhere between the average life expectancies of Nicaragua (69.4 men; 73.8 women) and Mexico (73.3 men; 79 women), according to the CIA World Factbook. It is well below the averages for Cuba (75.2 men; 79.9 women). The least socieoconomically deprived decile of counties (i.e. the most socioeconomically advantaged decile) in the United States showed a life expectancy of 76.9 for men and 81.3 for women. This was significantly lower than the numbers for Japan (78.8 men; 85.6 women), Canada (78.7 men; 83.9 women) even though the per capita GDP of both countries is not only well below that for the most affluent decile of US counties but also below the average for the United States as a whole. The numbers for the most advantaged decile of US counties are comparable to the average for the United Kingdom (76.5 men; 81.6 women). Marco polo (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Very informative! You listed Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom in relation to where the top decile of the US would place... (with UK and US "comparable"). Does this mean that if the top decile of the US were in fact the US average, the US would be somewhere around 25th on [Wikipedia's list]? Also I take it your paragraph compares the US decile to averages (and never deciles) for the other countries because you couldn't find such an already compiled list? If so I am also interested in a list or study showing multiple countries' life expectencies by decile (or quartile), just as you have found in the study about the US. Whether or not you can find these statistics, thanks again for your work on the above! 84.224.48.226 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The study that I cited was an academic study specifically focused on deciles of counties in the United States. It is not so likely that similar studies have been done on other countries and still less likely that I would find other such studies online. I'm glad that my earlier work answered your first question but doubt that an attempt to answer this additional question would be fruitful. Marco polo (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dancing about architecture

Have any dances about architecture been performed? NeonMerlin 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In Irish set dancing, there's a pattern called "around the house," (shown here under "house around") but it's not really what you're asking about ("around the house, and mind the furniture!"). I found Dance and the architecture of the Hindu temple. Youtube has quite a few clips with titles like dancing to, dancing for, dancing about, and dancing with architecture. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done a modern contra dance of American origin which was written for a particular dance hall which had a pillar in the middle, and you could dance around the pillar without it getting in the way. I wish I could remember what it's called. I can think of a few dances which are written about gardens and garden plans (Spring Garden). Others have architectural names, particularly Red House (from Playford's Dancing Master) comes to mind. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In Primary School (UK 7-11-year-olds), one of our playground dancing games involved singing "In and out the dusty windows." Never did figure out what that was really about. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't know, this comes from a famous quote "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old Flanders and Swann joke, spoken by Michael Flanders: Someone once said that architecture is frozen music. Donald Swann's music has been described as "defrosted architecture". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Uganda and Senegal election

page 5 and 6 For Uganda they said Yoweri Museveni's second term expirys in 2006 but he won 2006 election, would been his 3d term. The constitution only allow him to run for two terms. Why is he allow to run for 3 terms. Did Uganda cancel the two-term rule policy? Or this is his last round. For Senegal Abdoulaye Wade's net second term is 2012 but his gross 2012 would been his 3d? He won election in 2000, but the law pass in 2001 does this mean he gets one extra term?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Constitution of Uganda, amendments promoted by Museveni supporters in 2005 removed the two term restriction for the Ugandan presidency. I don't understand the question about Senegal. - BanyanTree 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What the OP is saying is that the term limit in Senegal was passed during Abdoulaye Wade's first term, so the question is if that first term is exempt from the term limits. From what it says on Politics of Senegal it sounds like that is the case, but I don't have any knowledge of Senegal's constitution. Rckrone (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Displaying flag

Hi I live in New Jersey and I was wondering if it's legal to display a flag of another country in front of my house without also displaying the American flag? If this question can not be answered here, can someone tell me where I can find out? 173.3.114.110 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's unlikely to be any valid law against displaying another country's flag, as such, because that would be a violation of freedom of expression. But there could be zoning laws that cover the matter. Like maybe you can't just stick a flagpole in your front lawn, due to regulations about signage in general; but you might be able to put a mounting bracket on the side of your house somewhere and put out a flag, just as many do with the U.S. flag. Even if there's no law doesn't mean you'll get off scot-free, though, as it depends on the flag. If it's a flag with some negative social connotations, you might get egged, or worse. But to find out for sure, call your city hall - only don't ask if it's illegal, ask what the rules are for displaying flags. One other thing I thought of is that displaying the flag of a country with whom the USA is at war could be a problem, as it would imply support of an enemy. P.S. What flag are you wanting to display? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This link seems to have a lot of material about this, at least for federal law. Tempshill (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the U.S. flag code. It's primarily about flag "etiquette" - how to display it and use it. It includes how to display it when it's displayed with other flags, for example. It makes no statement that I can see about displaying only another country's flag. Again, the best advice (since wikipedia cannot officially offer legal advice) is to contact your local government and ask them what the rules are, if any, for the display of flags. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's legal, which I think it must be given constitutional freedom of expression, it may not be the best thing for your relations with your neighbors, but of course that's your business. Marco polo (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is yet another example of cultural differences, but let me just say that I find the thought that the display of another country's flag could, by itself, negatively impact one's relations with one's neighbors kind of bizarre and depressing. Clearly the way people feel about flags in different countries varies a great deal... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The flag code is just a suggestion. Guidelines not law. And even the flag code doesn't say it's wrong to display another national flag, just that if you show the American flag with it the American flag should not be displayed lower than the other flags. (Excepting the UN flag) Lots of people display foreign flags with no trouble at all. APL (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is very little in the flag code, other than public burning as a protest, that carries any penalties with it. I would still like the OP to tell us more details. If he's intending to fly the rebel flag in a black neighorhood, for example, that might not be illegal but it wouldn't be too smart. Or flying the Nazi flag in a Jewish neighborhood. Or a Yankees flag in Boston. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service on federal law and other issues related to the American flag. The flag code, which is in Titles 4 and 16 of the United States Code, "does not prescribe any penalties...nor does it include enforcement provisions." It's "a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups."

All the provisions in the code related to flags of other nations have to do with flying them along with the U.S. flag. Likes neighbors of mine, you're entitled to display on its own the flag of the Republic of Ireland, of Italy, or any other nation on its own. No doubt some town somewhere in the U.S. has an ordinance against flying, say, the flag of a Communist country, but I doubt that would stand against an assertion of your free-speech rights. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An obvious example could be flying the flag of Ireland on St. Patrick's Day. That would be very unlikely to cause problems. Flying the Nazi flag would. And while it might not be illegal in and of itself, if it triggered civil unrest, whoever hoisted it could probably be charged with "inciting a riot". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that flying a Nazi flag would trigger civil unrest - that would require the community to be full of very violent anti-Nazi people. Almost oxymoronic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what: try it and report the results back to us. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a small riot in Calgary this year when Nazis and anti-Nazis clashed. I think more Nazis were injured than anti-Nazis (and one reporter). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the community I suppose. There was a recent Australian incident of a person flying the Nazi flag in their yard - when confronted, they claimed they had no idea the flag stood for *anything*, and the incident seemed to have dissipated with some embarassing looks. I get the impression that supporting Nazism would be so ridiculous in an Australian context that nobody was seriously concerned, except perhaps for the level of intelligence of the household in question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Public burning of the flag is still protected by the US 1st Amendment. A Constitutional amendment is introduced yearly that would carve out flag-burning from the 1st Amendment, and the amendment always dies in committee. Tempshill (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there are various scattered local laws against flag desecration, possibly disguised under "disturbing the peace". But flag-burning as a protest, at least within the USA, happens so seldom that such an amendment would serve no purpose except to encourage it. Ironically, the proper way of disposing of a U.S. flag is by... burning it! Privately, and reverently, as opposed to tossing it in the trash or making a spectacle of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The 1989 Supreme Court decision on flag-burning is Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The original poster appears to have been a drive-by who won't answer the question of what specific flag he wants to fly, so there isn't much else to say about it at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of the answers, though, is that there's no need for such specification. The US makes no prohibition against the display of national flags. Additionally, I would encourage you to strike your description of the original poster. We specifically note that it may take days for an answer to form; disparaging a user for not checking in within hours is uncalled for. — Lomn 13:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If he's intending to display a flag of an enemy nation, it could in fact be illegal. Until we know exactly what he's got in mind, we cannot answer his question with certainty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What would define an enemy nation in this case? I dont believe the U.S. is at war with any state at present. Fribbler (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Iran and North Korea come to mind - and definitely al-Qaeda, if they actually have a flag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't have a flag, I believe. Iran and North Korea, while the U.S. doesn't have diplomatic relations with these countries, are not at war with America so surely it wouldn't be illegal to fly their flags? Fribbler (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's consider a real worst-case scenario. Let's talk about an illegal movement advocating the violent overthrow of the established government which also, incidentally, wants to dispose of basic human rights. Can you fly their flag? You sure can. You can fly it for nearly 40 years atop a state capitol building. You can incorporate its design into a state flag (or two). You can find every tacky manner imaginable of sticking it on your pickup truck. So no, display of a legitimate national or pseudonational flag is not illegal. — Lomn 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The rebel flag is a symbol of a self-styled nation that already lost a war to the USA, and obviously its usage is controversial but not illegal as such. The Confederacy is not currently an enemy nation, in fact it's not a nation at all. It would be like flying the flag of Yugoslavia or something. But if al-Qaeda had a flag, someone flying it would certainly find themselves under intense scrutiny, to say the least, as al-Qaeda is unquestionably an enemy of the USA. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But to be clear though, it would still be legal.

Some anecdotal information: in NYC you sometimes see Puerto Rican, Dominican or other flags flying off fire escapes or on cars and I've never heard of anyone making an issue of it. The reaction you get is going to depend a lot on the culture of where you happen to be. But keep in mind that it is your right. Rckrone (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, it may be a good idea not to use certain terms too liberally. Especially terms with legal meaning like "enemy nation". The US is not at war with any state and has not done so for a fair while. It is not at war with North Korea, nor with Iran. It is not at war with Al Qaeda either. I use "war" here in its precise sense. Not a figurative sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, have we signed a peace treaty with al-Qaeda? I must have missed that headline. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify the U.S. Flag Code: When a bill is enacted into law, it is recorded in the United States Statutes at Large, then codified in the United States Code. The appropriate agencies then create the administrative laws that deals with enforcement. These laws are published in the Federal Register, then codified as the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Flag Code sets no penalties and there is no agency or administrative law that enforces the code. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Flying a Mexican flag as a protest against US immigration policy might result in animosity amongst your neighbors. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

August 21

hair care during WWII

Which brands of shampoo contribute to the war effort during World War II? Did any servicepeople use a specific brand? Did any civilians on the home front use another specific brand?69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Drene, Halo, Lustre-Creme.--Wetman (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The "weekly shampoo" contributed to the "simple, almost waveless coiffures that are becoming a wartime fashion" as of February 19, 1944 in the NY Times. The snippet does not give the brand preferred. A library trip will be required to get the full article. "Kreml" was one advertised brand[9] which kept the "brilliant sheen" for days. In other words, daily shampooing was not happening at home during the war. Without daily shampooing, there was likely less of a need to replace the oils washed out. Halo was apparently a detergent shampoo, hence no "soap film" to dull the hair. Edison (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Anselme Lavigne

Who is Canada was Anselme Lavigne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.154.25.134 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Quebec : "One of its original main axes, Anselme-Lavigne Street in the Westpark neighbourhood, is named for a farmer who sold his land to the Belcourt Construction Company."83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also a park and a school named after him there. He seems to have been the first mayor of Dollard-des-Ormeaux, not just some guy who sold a farm. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Should religion be separated from the Humanities Reference Desk?

To all concerned users of RD/H:

There is presently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk regarding the possibility of splitting religion questions away from this reference desk to a Religion Reference Desk. Input from the community of users most affected by / interested in this proposal would be welcome.

Thanks, Lomn 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon's burial arrangements

I recall hearing that Napoleon is buried in 7 coffins. Does that mean that he was dismembered with various parts going into separate coffins, or that he is intact and the coffins are like Russian dolls? Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it refers to the bits that were removed at the autopsy? His penis was supposedly removed...here is a Straight Dope article about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If he was dismembered, I bet they were really small coffins. Like shoebox size. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The article on Napoleon references moving his body at some point, with no hint that they had to move 7 different things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This article I found at random in Google [10] suggests the Russian dolls scenario. I know he's under some big stone thing, as I recall seeing a photo of Hitler visiting Napoleon's tomb. Hitler apparently admired Napoleon, and sought to emulate him (such as by invading Russia during the winter).

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler invaded Russia in June, near the first day of summer. Where did you get the idea that he invaded during winter? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

He said Hitler emulated Napoleon; he never said he was smart. HalfShadow 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when nwinter came around he was still invading... Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya, the official tomb is this one in Les Invalides. It certainly seems he's all there... TastyCakes (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Able was 'e, ere 'e saw Elba. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the story depicted in the execrable movie Monsieur N. (2003), then none of his parts are at Les Invalides, and the body there is that of an officer named Cipriani. The story goes that Napoleon was spirited away to Louisiana, and died there. In the meantime, he married an Englishwoman, travelled, and even secretly attended his own funeral in Paris. But this has no historical backing at all; I can't even imagine where the myth could have come from. See also my question @ Talk:Napoleon I of France/Archive 3#Monsieur N.. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's another Hitler parallel: The fable that Hitler didn't actually snuff it, but instead fled Germany and moved to South America along with some of his Nazi pals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No survivors of Unit 731?

It is said that no victims (not meaning the victims of plague-bombings) of Unit 731 survived. But several sources on the net cites information about a rebellion within the unit 731 building at Beiyinhe, the predecessor of Ping fan, in c. 1934. This rebellion is cited in Factories of death: Japanese biological warfare, 1932-45 (Sheldon H. Harris) [[11]]. The rebellion, led by a man known as Li, was successfull, and several prisoners of the Unit 731 eskaped and joined the partisans. According to this, these victims, at least, survived. Have they never been identified, never given their testemony? At least, this means that they were actually survivors, unless I have misunderstood the story? I have only read about it here, so perhaps some facts are missing. Were they perhaps captured later, and that's why it is said that there were no survivors?--85.226.47.46 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical woman

I am looking for the article on a dead European woman but I cannot remember much. She lived in the 19th or 20th centuries (probably the 20th) and lived a very interesting, wild, libertine life. She is famous for being an author, and lived in Paris at one time. The Wikipedia article has excerpts of some of her letters to various men in it. Sorry, can't narrow it down much :/ Thank you for your help! Mac Davis (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Alma Mahler-Werfel, except she was a composer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try Category:19th-century women writers and Category:20th-century women writers to start. —Akrabbim^talk 18:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume Cricket Bugs is referring to Alma Mahler-Werfel. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Meanwhile, I thought every 19th century woman in Paris lived a wild, libertine life; so it's hard to narrow it down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Colette ? George Sand ? Anais Nin ? There are quite a few persons matching your description. --Xuxl (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Gertrude Stein? Subject of the famous poem, "There's a wonderful family named Stein. / There's Ep, there's Gert, and there's Ein. / Ep's statues are junk, Gert's poems are bunk / And nobody understands Ein." AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Probably not whom you had in mind, but Anne_Lister seems to have spent significant time in Paris... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek orthodox church

I was wondering, are the people that carry out services called priests in Greek orthodox churches? For example, at a Greek wedding would it be presided over by a priest or is there another name? Would they be called "Father <insert name>" or something else when referring to them? TastyCakes (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The answers can be found at Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Holy_Orders.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so they are priests? Would you refer to them as "Priest <blank>" or "Father <blank>" or what? TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The other ordained roles are presbyter (Gr. πρεσβύτερος, elder), which became "prester" and then "priest" in English, and diakonos (Gr. διάκονος, servant), which became "deacon" in English (see also subdeacon).

I'm not sure - it might depend on whether you got a 'presbyter', or 'diakonos', In english I'm sure "Father ....." is polite in the western church. I don't speak or know greek though - if you're going to a greek wedding you'd better wait for someone who knows the lingo.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks alot. TastyCakes (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An old friend is a convert to Orthodoxy and a priest--his Facebook name is "Father ____ _____" so I'd say Father is acceptable (if not preferred), although I couldn't assure you that this would also be true in Greek. I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make, though. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Religious figures are generally pretty genial people, so I'm sure if you asked him that he'd be happy to explain the proper form of address. There's no harm in ignorance if you're willing to learn. Just start out with "Excuse me, Father ___. By the way, is it "Father" or is there a better form of address..." Dismas|^(talk) 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say "Father" is an acceptable form of address for any clerygyman of any faith anywhere. It's respectful, and it's the default form that's widely used. If they actually use a different style, they'll tell you but they won't make a big deal out of it. I've never heard of any clergyman being addressed as "Priest ___". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Image - story behind it

Something to do with one of Charlemagne's knights, anyone know?83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's Renaud de Montauban, a.k.a. Rinaldo di Montalbano, trying to survive a fell beast as he escapes the Castle Altaripa, in Legends of Charlemagne. You can read more about the illustration here and the source material here. Search for "Altaripa, which was hung with human heads, and painted red with blood" for this exciting episode. --Sean 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, Thanks - that reminds me of another question I've been meaning to to ask.

Would it be in bad taste to note that he appears to be running away and hiding from it? HalfShadow 02:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He might call it "gaining tactical advantage". :-) And the "in bad taste" question depends on what you mean. If you wonder if it would be in bad taste to say so in person, I'd say it would be an oddly committed chivalro-phile who was offended at the suggestion. If you wonder, though, whether it ought to be said in an article on (or including) the image, of course you'd simply need to find a verifiable source that says so. If it's an accepted interpretation, then cool, and if not, then I guess we'll have to keep our opinions of Renaud's bravery to ourselves. :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Bravely fled Sir Renaud"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Brave, brave Sir Robin Renaud. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Sir Renaud has a cunning plan, which he is about to demonstrate to the beast. I assume that, and not that he starved to death on a ledge in a dungeon due to fear - since that would not make, in my opinion, a classic story, worthy of retelling from generation to generation...(no spoilers please - I haven't read it yet)83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No spoilers? OK, then I won't tell you about the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Actually, this illustration looks to me like Brunhilde being frightened by a rodent of unusual size. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Chanson de geste - adaptations

Are there any adaptations of these sets of stories eg film What about the ley of Roland for instance, I find it difficult to believe that the french have missed the opportunity to convert into film (eg as per robin hood, king arthur etc etc)

Wikipedia doesn't mention any I found, - do they exist? (And if not, why not???)83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's La chanson de Roland, and a TV series, Charlemagne, le prince à cheval. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

With Klaus Kinski The Song of Roland (film) - sounds vaguely promising.83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I never thought of Klaus Kinski as the romantic type, which is the way I've always imagined Roland. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

August 22

Entrepreneurship/business question: the success of iTunes

Why do you think iTunes succeeded? I mean, it seems pretty useless to me. It's certainly expensive (1$ a song is okay if you're just going to get 2-3 songs) and, with all that music easily available for free (though in maybe not-so-legal places sometimes)... I just can't come up with a reason for its success. So, what do you think? Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The illegal/semi-legal P2P programs are pretty crappy these days. Personally, as someone whose computer might as well be run by tiny gnomes, simple programs like Sharezaa or the like are easier to use than, say, torrents, so I imagine it is the same for other non-technically-minded people. It's much, much faster to grab something from iTunes. I would therefore guess laziness is a big reason. Also, since songs are actually 99 cents, it seems a lot cheaper than a dollar, even though it isn't. So it's the same reason anyone does anything, laziness and ignorance... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are really two questions here. First, why do people buy music when it's available for free? A lot of people either don't feel comfortable stealing, don't know reliable ways to, or are happy to pay in order to support the bands they like. Second, why do people buy music from iTunes rather than other sources? iTunes has obvious advantages over buying CDs: it's more convenient than having to go out and by a physical disc or wait for one to ship, and it also tends to be a little cheaper ($9.99 per album is usually less than elsewhere). As for other digital music stores, I would chalk it up to superior visibility and marketing that comes with being a big company like Apple. The main drawback to buying from iTunes rather than other places was the DRM until they removed it, but I think most people don't care enough. Rckrone (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. That's more or less what I was thinking. But, Rckrone, please, don't say that downloading music is "stealing". You can say "illegally copying" if you want to. --Belchman (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An economist might also point out that itunes is a monopoly waiting to happen. A [natural monopoly] is one where market power comes from the economies of scale inherent in the particular industry. Economies of scale occur when the fixed cost of a business are high but the variable costs are low. In this context a variable cost is one that varies with the number of units the business sells. A digital music store is a perfect example of such economies of scale. It costs Apple tonnes of money to develop itunes and the store, host the downloads and do all the advertising they do. But it costs them next to nothing to actually supply you with a song when you click purchase. The only thing they have to pay for is the additional bandwidth you use when downloading that song. No CD, no case, no labour, nothing. Once they had a large customer base (which was made easier by the success of the ipod) it was almost inevitable that they would succeed.--124.171.182.106 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also the case that in the music industry, digital rights and etc. were tied up for years and years before deals could be worked out. Only a few "buy digital music online" stores actually have catalogs that most people are interested in—basically iTunes and Amazon.com are the two players who have managed to work out the necessary legal mumbo-jumbo in order to secure the rights to sell the music on a large scale. The legal aspects of it almost guarantee that only a few large players are going to be able to break into the market itself—only they will have the negotiating power to keep their costs low so the whole thing can be profitable. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice thoughts too, thanks! --Belchman (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Truths which are allegedly created by opinions about what the truth is

Maybe this should be on the Linguistics desk, but it's also sort of philosophy-related, and I'm looking at it more from a philosophical point of view than a linguistic one. Is there a term for cases where the "correct" answer to a specific question is claimed to be entirely dependent on what people think the correct answer is? (I don't mean cases where someone says "there's no correct answer" or "it depends on how you define it", because it's being asserted that there is a correct answer — it's just that the correct answer is created by the attempt to find it, rather than existing abstractly. I also don't mean cases where someone says that all truth is a matter of opinion.)

For example, I see a lot of arguments about whether Turkey is a European country. Some say it is and some say it isn't, but some say that "Europe" is just a label and therefore means whatever we say it does, meaning that our own opinions as to whether Turkey is in Europe or not actually shape the correct answer to the question. The argument goes that if everyone considered Turkey to be European, that would by itself mean that Turkey is truly and genuinely European, and that conversely, if no-one saw Turkey as European, that fact alone would mean that Turkey wasn't European, completely regardless of anything else. Thus, the argument goes, you shouldn't really argue about the "correct" answer to the question because the aggregate or outcome of the argument is the only thing which could create such a thing as the correct answer. You could take similar approaches to questions like "is this thing red or orange?", or "is Cantonese a language or a dialect", or really, anything that involves applying labels to things. You could also come up with claims about wants correlating to good ideas — for example, someone might claim that if a country wants to abolish its monarchy, then that in and of itself makes abolishing the monarchy an objectively good idea, but that if the country doesn't want to abolish it's monarchy, then that is enough to make keeping the monarchy the objectively correct choice — that is, the chosen option is correct because it is what was chosen, and for no other reason.

Setting aside the issue of whether this is a valid line of reasoning, is there a term for it? Do we have any articles which cover concepts like that? -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy and begging the question gently approach this subject before backing away in fear for what they are unleashing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Can there be any doubt that "Turkey", "Europe" and "country" only have the meanings people assign to them? Surely Turkey was not a country in Europe when dinosaurs ruled the Earth? --Sean 12:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to rely on verifiability, not TRUTH, and articles are the result of consensus among editors. Therefore, all articles are examples of your thesis. -Arch dude (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as everything we perceive is filtered through our own senses, we can truly not be 100% certain that we aren't just some autistic child imagining the entire world into existance. At some level, we must accept the truth as we sense it, because it becomes impossible to operate in the world if we do not. Insofar as elements of the truth are inventions of the human mind or of human culture, Wikipedia reports those human cultural truths, such as which cultural sphere Turkey belongs to, as best as can be verified by reliable sources. Being an invention of human consciousness does not make something less real than being a rock. --Jayron32 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a term for it, beyond "semantics", but what I call it is the tendency of humans to invent a label that doesn't quite work, and then to argue over whether something fits the label or not. Being in Europe vs. being in Asia is one obvious example. Another is the matter of different races and who fits into them. Religion and politics also come into it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably the term you are searching for is semiotics which includes not only semantics, but every aspect of communication and obtaining meaning through words. --Jayron32 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See social constructivism, nominalism, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

War Declarations

I am looking to build a database of official war declarations. It should be for wars between two nations (no coups, no civil wars). Is there already a database compiled, either electronically, or bound (I'd hate to reinvent it)? In addition to UN security council resolutions (such as this), I'm also interested in official declarations, such as these. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus on premarital sexual relations in Abrahamaic religions

Is there any research or academic opinion on why the three Abrahamic religions have such a strong focus on proscribing premarital sexual relations, and if so, what is it? I would have thought (perhaps naïvely) that, given the pleasurable experience of sex, and the strong biological urge to engage in it, plus its necessity for population growth, that declaring it "sinful" seems illogical and counterproductive - hence my question.

I am aware that this is a sensitive topic, and I sincerely hope that I have not offended anyone with my question - if I have, I apologise. I would be most interested in answers that go beyond "(insert deity of choice) said so", but you are of course at liberty to give me this response if it's a conclusion that research has come to :). — QuantumEleven 18:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why premarital sex is a bad idea for social reasons; not the least of which is that in most human cultural situations, having a stable two-parent household presents noted advantages for the children of that household. To discourage irresponsible behavior which may have the unintended consequence of the birth of a child into a disadvantaged situation can only be seen as a positive thing. Remember, there was no birth control pill thousands of years ago, and people who actually sat down and thought about it probably realized that it was somewhat irresponsible to bring children into the world when you are unprepared to actually raise them properly. Just a thought. --Jayron32 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good explanation. It's important to keep in mind that the Ten Commandments do not prohibit premarital sex, but only adultery; i.e. "unfaithfulness", and that's what typically rips a marriage apart. Discouraging premarital sex also discourages "shopping around". In fact, despite the official proscription, among conservatives there is a high degree of tolerance for premarital sex of couples that stay faithful to each other in the long haul (the Palins are an obvious example). There's also the old saying about married couples: "The first child can come anytime, the second one always takes nine months." The real issue is not so much premarital sex as it is "faithfulness" - both before and after marriage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue of legitimacy. The Abrahamic religions tend to be patriarchal and patrilineal (some might even say misogynistic) - authority, heredity and standing travel down the male line. It's relatively easy to tell who someones mother is, but prior to DNA testing, it's much harder to tell who the father is. Not having an officially recognized father was a big blow to your social status - it's the original meaning of the term bastard. If people are married and only have sex within the marriage, it's easy to tell who the father is, and more importantly, it's easy for the father to be sure the child is his. One way of ensuring that no extra-marital pregnancy happens is to put *strong* prohibitions on all sex outside of marriage, which, given the morals of the day, resulted in eye for an eye type punishments. Having children wait for marriage wasn't too much of a burden, as most in those days married as teenagers* - people didn't wait 'till their late 20's/early 30's like many do now. *(Note to nit-pickers: "teenagers" encompases 17-19 year-olds as well as 14-16 year-olds - my main point is that there weren't many unmarried 22 year-olds running around.) -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Which accounts for why that one gospel goes to great lengths to lay out the lineage of Joseph as being descended from David - apparently having forgotten that Joseph was (supposedly) not the father of Jesus. The OP talks about "pleasurable", and that's where the religious conflict comes into it. You won't hear religionists talking about "pleasure", but about the need for family stability. The bottom line is that strict religionists consider the primary purpose of sex to be reproduction, and reproduction is supposed to happen only within the proper boundary, i.e. marriage - which is at least part of the reason that homosexuality is hated so much by strict religionists - because it is, by definition, connected only with pleasure, and totally disconnected with reproduction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider the role of concubines. Abraham had Ishmael by his concubine Hagar, before Sarah conceived Isaac. Obviously this pre-dated the 10 Commandments. What had changed between Abraham and Moses to make concubines illegal? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One should also consider that the actions of every biblical character are not always supposed to be as "positive" role models. After all, in the Hebrew/Christian scripture, Ishmael was not the son God was talking about when he promised he would bless Abrahams decendentants as a chosen nation. Even King David, arguable the most important hero of the entire Old Testament, possibly excepting only Moses himself, does LOTS of stuff which is not supposed to be repeated by good boys. The deal with Isaac being the son through which the nation of Israel is born is that he was the legitimate son born within wedlock; it's a pretty obvious lesson even in the Pre-Mosaic Hebrew world. Trust in God, believe he will keep his promises, and even if you are in your 90's he will grant you the son he promised to be the father of His nation. Ishmael was NOT similarly blessed because Ishmael represented Abraham's own attempt to solve his problem outside of God's plan. Just because someone does it in the Bible does not mean it's OK... --Jayron32 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Tangential to the original question but relevant to some of the comments is the argument put forward by Erich Fromm (and I'm sure by others) that churches find that sex tends to be something that challenges their control over their members, so they often demonise it or make it dirty or shameful. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a "scripture reader"?

I have translated Settle-Carlisle Line for the German wikipedia, but am stuck with the sentence The Midland Railway helped pay for scripture readers to counteract the effect of drunken violence in an isolated neighbourhood. There may be no direct translation for "scripture reader", but without knowledge of the meaning of these words I cannot even paraphrase them. BTW: am I right to understand that the Midland Railway paid only part of the salary of these people? --Telford (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference is a bit vague. I take it to mean that people were brought in to read from the Bible, as an organized activity, to try to keep the men occupied during their spare time, and keep them away from the booze. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is likely an idiomatic term, which the direct translation fails to fully capture. It could mean anything from actual people paid to read directly from the bible, to priests or ministers or deacons or religious missionaries or anything else. A native German speaker may be needed to parse the original language and give a better translation... --Jayron32 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on a google search, a scripture reader was someone paid to read edifying passages from the Bible to poor people in their usual habitat. Here is an example. -Arch dude (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Option: "Die Midland Railway beteiligte sich an den Kosten für Bibelelesungen, um Alkoholmissbrauch und Gewalttätigkeit in den isolierten Wohnlagern der Bauarbeiter vorzubeugen." If those readers were clerics you may want to use the term "Laienprediger". I assume that the relevant church - possibly the RC church, as many of these railway workers were Irish - covered a part of the expenses. Grüße aus Wien.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If "laienprediger" means like it sounds "lay preacher" then that could be a good term (assuming it doesn't have too many specific connertations in german).

I'm fairly certain that the "scripture readers" were not ordained priests. That's born out by people on the web (of catholic extraction) saying that their grandfathers were scripture readers. It seems possible to me that they may have come from one of the newer faiths, specifically the evangelical - though not necessarily true.83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cum Natura Humana

I'm looking for the text of a papal bull that begins (and therefor titled) in those words. It suppose to be given by pope clement V. Every detail will be helpful, a complete version in Latin or (best) in English will be most helpful. 95.86.95.18 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Our article List of papal bulls has 12 entries for Clement V, none of which carries the title you specify. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Using google and typing "Cum Natura Humana papal bull" into it, I get these results: [12], includes several Google Books links which idicate it was a bull of Clement VI (not The Fifth) and this one in particular: [13] on the life of Clement VI notes that Cum Natura Humana was a likely forged bull, but that the bull itself supposedly provided much of the justification for the sale of indulgences. In general, a good first step in any search for information is to type the exact text of what you are looking for into Google, or play around with it for 5-10 minutes to see if any good results come up. --Jayron32 20:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, there appears to be enough source material out there to create an article about Cum Natura Humana based solely on that google search up there. It appears, though a forged document, to have still be a significant one in the history of Christianity. Even important forgeries are quite notable... --Jayron32 20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This google search: [14] turns up some interesting leads for the text; here is a set of footnotes which cites it directly and gives a way to find a text version should you be so inclined. --Jayron32 20:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not what i'm looking for. In july 6, 1348, as wikipedia itself states, clement VI (my mistake: not V) declared a certain declaration about the jews (it was the first out of two during the black death plague). I have a reason to suspect that this declaration or the other is the Cum Natura Humana. 1348, as I said, and not the 1350 papal bull about the jubilee. 95.86.89.60 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Googling confirms the existence of a 6 July 1348 bull enjoining the Black Plague-associated extrajudicial killing of Jews, but I don't find a name. Two sources you might check: the L'Histoire article that is footnote two in Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages), to which a sentence describing the bull and killings that took place notwithstanding its proscription is sourced; and Norman Cantor's In the Wake of the Plague (Template:ISBN-13)—a paper on the impact of the Black Death cites "Pope Clement issued a papal bull to stop the killing of Jews" to page 154 of that work, a page that is apparently not amongst those accessible via Amazon’s “search inside” function. 99.154.82.172 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

August 23

Internal heirarchies in Venetian guilds

Can anyone tell me how Venetian artisan guilds were structured in the 16th Century? were they democratic? who was the head and what was his title? I'm especially interested in the glassmakers.

Thanks in advance Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Since popping over to Europe to save the day with the help of a smart, gorgeous sidekick isn't a viable career option . . .

I'm fascinated by the universe of symbolism, but the profession of "symbologist" is just something Dan Brown made up for his hero Robert Langdon. Is there anything like that really out there in the academic world that would allow me to explore how humans throughout the ages have used, abused, and been impacted by symbols, openly and otherwise? If there is, what would it entail exactly? Is there some field of study that would encompass both "symbology" and folklore, another interest of mine? In folklore I'm interested in the underlying meanings, the symbolism as it were - what the stories really mean to us, what our need is for stories. I want to know what our need is for stories and symbols. What kind of field could I go into, where I could study not only our stories and our symbols, but why it is that they have such power over us? - Future Symbologist?