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

November 25

Largest parliament buildings

I first asked this question on the Mathematics desk, as it is statistics-related, but apparently that wasn't the appropriate forum, so I am trying again here. After much searching on-line, I haven't been able to find a single list of the largest parliament buildings in the world, either by floor space or by volume, despite the fact that I have come across claims for a couple of such buildings about their relative position on such a list. I do know that the biggest (and heaviest) of them all is the Palace of the Parliament in Bucharest; what I am looking for is information on at least the top-five to top-ten (and I am particularly interested in the relative position of the Palace of Westminster). If the source is reliable, that would be a much-appreciated bonus. Waltham, The Duke of 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to discourage anyone, let me point out some things that might have got in the way of assembling such a list. Most difficult is how one defines the parliament buildings so they can be fairly compared. The Palace of Westminster, as I recall, is actually a complex of buildings, as, I think, are the parliament buildings in Ottawa (Canada). What parliamentary or congressional functions would you include or exclude, after the main deliberative chamber or chambers? The Clerk's offices? The presiding officers' suites? Committee chambers? Individual members' offices (which fill several buildings on Capitol Hill in Washington)? The offices of the legislative staff, researchers and legal counsel? The suite or office reserved for the Head of State? The Gardens? The dining rooms and library?

Other problems would be: are you considering only national legislatures, or also considering state and provincial ones? And the area/volume one you alluded to: how do you want to compare high-rise with single-storey buildings?

And, as a Rhode Islander, I can sympathise with your dilemma, because the Rhode Island State House (designed by McKim, Meade and White and built in 1900) has long boasted of having the "second-largest unsupported marble dome in the world", or perhaps only the fourth-largest. This is always shaky ground to argue about because apparently no one has assembled a universally-accepted list of large marble domes by size. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We are somewhat hamstrung, definitionally speaking. But I'll just mention that Parliament House, Canberra is one of the largest buildings in the Southern Hemisphere. It's all under one roof and it would have to be one of the largest Parl Houses in the S.H., if not the largest; and probably in the top 10 overall. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has already researched this, I would guess it might be the Guinness World Records people - perhaps you could try asking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for someone who has the book/can get it in a library to take a look for you. I guess you've already found List of legislative buildings, Category:Legislative buildings, List of buildings and structures and List of largest buildings in the world, though none answer your question. (So I hope the Guinness idea helps!) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I realise the difficulties of compiling such a list; I seem to have taken for granted that one would exist because of claims I have seen, but it now becomes obvious to me that such claims may have easily been based on original research, each with its own criteria. If I had to define criteria of my own, I should probably include, apart from the buildings containing the chambers, those that would i) contain parliamentary offices and committee rooms, and ii) be wholly owned and used by the parliament—or maybe the government. (I initially thought of restricting office buildings to the purpose-built ones, but the exclusivity criterion works better.) That would discount buildings used only as residences for officials, libraries or dining halls, but again these are buildings that would be unlikely to be large enough to claim a place in the list. Unless they also included offices, in which case they'd qualify. I'd use "legislative" in its wide sense: federal, national and sub-national parliaments. "Floor area" is a simple enough concept, I think, although I am not entirely certain about the technical details. It would seem to be the total area covered by all floors, probably including the internal walls and maybe the external ones as well. The volume would be the external volume taken up by the building, with a reservation about counting any basements.

And thus we'd soon arrive at a set of criteria, probably reasonable but inevitably arbitrary. Now that the fun part is over, let's get someone to do the research for free. :-P Seriously, though, I simply meant to use the information as an interesting piece of information that would contribute to a lead section fully aware of its subject's importance. I could go for the almost certainly true "one of the largest in the world", but I still need a source. Maybe I could pursue a different line of inquiry—it is quite possible that it was the largest in the world at its time. I may have actually read something to that effect (although those travellers' accounts often rank sensationalism above accuracy), and it certainly is true about many aspects of the building.

(To address a minor point: Although some consider it a complex, I believe that the Palace of Westminster is officially a building, and that also seems to be the prevailing view. It certainly qualifies as one in the technical sense, and is not very different in some aspects from, say, the (much larger) Pentagon, the five rings of which nobody regards as separate buildings. Its sprawling size may be a reason why many people consider it a complex, but I see it as more of an anachronism: the Old Palace really was a complex, and people still tend to refer to each House's precincts as separate addresses. "House of Commons" may be the body, the Chamber, or the entire half of the building belonging to the House.)

JackofOz, I am not surprised to hear this. It's a very large building, and the Southern Hemisphere is not nearly as full of those as the Northern. If I remember correctly, its main parliamentary rival must be the seat of the Argentinian parliament. On another note, I read some time ago a very interesting lecture given to Australian Senators on parliament buildings and how they affect the politics of their country, or something like that. It's in a huge .pdf document which I cannot open right now, so there is a tiny possibility the link is wrong. Especially interesting was the speaker's point about Parliament House itself, concerning the consequences of having the executive sequestered in a separate wing, away from the MPs, the press and the public.

WikiJedits, I actually have the book (this year's, I think). It is in my other home, but I expect to be able to have a look in a couple of days. However, even if it mentions the subject, it will only name the single largest building, which I already know. My question here concerns numbers two, three, etc. There might be something on their website or some archives; the Palace of the Parliament is not a very old building, and there could be an entry for the previous record-holder, possibly number two or three now. Waltham, The Duke of 06:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Using animation to recreate news?

[1] (Youtube, starts at 2:00) So Apple Daily (Taiwan) and Apple Daily (Hong Kong) have this new feature where they recreate news events with some pretty realistic animation. Are there any other media organization known for doing this? I would love some links. F (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC) To clarify, lots of media uses animation, but I want to find ones that do it better than Apple. F (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. There's a news show on one of Slovenia's stations that is known for two things - unbelievably heavy-handed use of bombastic superlatives (they would probably find a way to describe a cat being stuck in a tree as shocking or inconceivable), and ridiculously lame animations used to recreate news events when no footage is available. There was one particular animation of three almost stickman-like figures chasing a forth one, but I can't find it right now. There is some not too exciting animation in this video, at about the 0:20 mark: [2]. I'm sure there's more cases like this around the world. --TomorrowTime (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly on the same level though. Apple's graphics are almost like a video game. F (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well they can't be that impressive then. If they looked like they were from the latest Pixar blockbuster, now we're talking... And the one TomorrowTime linked to also looks like it could be from a video game albeit not a particularly graphics intensive one Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Newsroom computer artists like to do something different from their usual work of putting together backdrops and photo montages. Plane crashes are particularly prone to getting the animation treatment - there was a plane which ditched off Christmas Island recently that got animated on ABC, and every time I saw it it irked me that they'd used entirely the wrong type of plane! FiggyBee (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe they only had limited plane models and use the closest one they had. (Making a new model would likely take too long.). I'm presuming of course we're talking about a similar looking plane rather then the plane was a Cessna 172 and they used a model of a Airbus A380 Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a Cessna CJ1 rather than a Jet Commander. Similar class of aircraft, but I know which one I'd rather ditch. FiggyBee (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The video in the youtube is well-done, but it's still obviously animation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this really Romanesque?

Additional photo here

If I understand a source correctly, St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Wapakoneta, Ohio (built in 1899) is supposedly a Romanesque church, but it looks like a Gothic Revival structure to me. Who's wrong? Nyttend (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks fairly Romanesque Revival to me, with few, rounded windows and simple brickwork, rather than the many pointed arches and busier stonework typical of Gothic Revival. I believe the shape of the arches (round vs pointed) is the main diagnostic feature. FiggyBee (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Romanesque label may well have been applied due to the lack of pointed arches, but in other respects it does look rather in the Gothic revival to me - compare the (original) Brick Gothic of Doberan Abbey - as the Ohio church has what appears to be a large rose window (Romanesque rose windows are uncommon and smaller), two spires (not found in the Romanesque) and is built of brick (very unusual for a Romanesque building). But many architects working in the revival styles weren't at all concerned by mixing up their styles, particularly by the end of the 19th century. Warofdreams talk 17:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, and even from a similar angle, there's the Chartres Cathedral, a gothic cathedral with a Romanesque spire and a "Flamboyant" spire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good comparison, but note that the spire you describe as "Romanesque" is actually early Gothic. Warofdreams talk 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You might be right. I got my description of it from some book or article years ago. I claim no expertise on the subject. This article,[3] the first one that showed up in Google under ["chartres cathedral" spire romanesque] says what I said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. The "Romanesque Revival" designation was for a complex consisting of the church and the school next door (you can just barely see it in the picture that's still here), and I had wondered if the Romanesque Revival designation was primarily for the school. Most Catholic churches of this vintage in this part of Ohio are clearly Gothic Revival, so I was quite confused by this specific one. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

geeks,freeks,and freekshow a famous artist

I'm looking for a book [bio] about a circus geek that is his collection of photos and artwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.17.147 (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried a bookshop? If you are asking us to identify a book from that description, it is not very much to go on. Can you tell us more about it?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychological effect I: suicide on the train track

If someone commits suicide by throwing himself in front of a train, does it traumatize the train driver for his whole life (as is generally assumed)? If yes, why is it like that? Normally, there is absolutely nothing the driver can do to stop it.ProteanEd (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how traumatic it actually is for drivers, but I would imagine the feeling of helplessness is part of the trauma. They are seeing the horror unfold in Prokhorovka (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)front of them, and they are the driver, in charge of the situation and keeping everyone safe, but they are unable to do anything.

And having blood, guts and brains splatter the windscreen in front of you is not an everyday occurrence either. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't call it everyday occurrence for the train driver either, but in general it is a everyday occurrence in Germany. Apparently it happens 1,000 times every year there. Two recent famous cases are the suicide of Robert Enke and Adolf Merckle. I do believe that German train drivers must count with hitting a couple of people through their working years, unless they have many, many thousand train drivers. Furthermore, Wikipedia even has a category for that: [[4]]. Of course, that doesn't make it an everyday occurrence either, since Wikipedia has Category pages for everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.99 (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've witnessed a few accidents, luckily from a distance. There is kind of a feeling of helplessness, knowing something bad is about to happen and being powerless to stop it. It could be pretty nerve-racking for the engineer in that example, and could require therapy to move on from it. And yet, even on his worst day, that engineer is basically in better shape than the guy he hit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This article from the Toronto Star may provide perspective. Apparently, Toronto averages a couple of attempts and one "success" a month and many drivers live through multiple jumpers. As the story points out, it can be extremely traumatic to the drivers - precisely because they can't do anything. Matt Deres (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychological effect II: trauma after torture

Although I am not questioning the horror of it, why would physical or psychological torture leave a trauma for life? There are other circumstances in life that are also painful. Just imagine that a car hits you and break your leg. That's something that can happen every time again.--ProteanEd (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the article Psychological trauma? Different people react to things in different ways, and to address your second example, many people who are involved in even quite minor car accidents have a fear of driving or traffic for years afterwards. FiggyBee (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple - there is a major difference between an 'accepted' accident that occur randomly from time to time and a pre-meditated (even planned) incident. Intent is everything. ny156uk (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the implication of what people will do to you is hard to overcome. We'd like to think that everyone is more or less benevolent, and that's more or less true, but torture would certainly have you wondering how and why anyone could do such things to a human being, particularly you. We have to account for that complete lack of empathy and what sort of conditions lead to it. Vranak (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasis too the other side of 'Different people react to things in different ways'. Many people have emerged from things like Auschwitz with no discernable psychological harm at all. People really are different in this respect. There are lots of kind caring people who can go along to something like a train crashing into a coach and clear the whole business up without it disrupting their dinner or sleep. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack on this video

On the Fortnum & Mason website they have a video about the store which has a very lovely soundtrack, just wonder if anybody knew what it was. --Thanks, Hadseys 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) P.S isn't it a great little shop

Someone will probably be along with the answer shortly; but my guess is that it's from one of Handel's oratorios, though I don't recognize the piece offhand. Deor (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know it, but Handel certainly sounds right to me. You could try asking one of our noted Handelian editors at User talk:HWV258. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching for a quotation

This is a bit of a long shot, but one never knows. (Incidentally, if this question is more appropriate for the Entertainment desk, please move it). In 1995, Alan Bennett made a documentary on Westminster Abbey ([5] on IMDb, if it helps). At one point, he mentions James VI and I's opposition to tobacco, and goes on to mention that, when the king's tomb was opened by a Dean of the Abbey in the nineteenth century, a broken clay pipe was found by the coffin, "presumably left by one of the workmen who had put it [the coffin] there.". There's a brief pause, and Bennett then recites an appropriate "Pale death with impartial foot" quotation. What I'm trying to find out is - what was that quotation? It _wasn't_ "pale death with impartial foot", if that needs saying. Does anyone else remember the documentary and the line? Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And, we have an article on the documentary - The Abbey (documentary) - if it's of interest. Tevildo (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say I knew it by heart, but actually I googled your quote (in inverted commas) and behold: "Pale Death, with impartial foot, knocks at the cottages of the poor and the palaces of kings. / Pallida mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas regumque turres." Quintus Horatius Flaccus Horace 65-8 BC [6][7]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I misread the question again - perhaps this....

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power, / And all that beauty, / all that wealth e'er gave, / Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:- / The paths of glory lead but to the grave. (Thomas Gray) Alansplodge (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hence the title of the Stanley Kubrick war film, Paths of Glory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A personal favourite quotation of mine. So true, as well. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Germany question

I have come to understood that Adolf Hitler was the only person ever to be both President of Germany and Chancellor of Germany simultaneously. Is this true? JIP | Talk 20:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was never President of Germany; he abolished the office and absorbed its powers into the new rank of Führer. No-one else has ever been both at the same time (or even not at the same time). except possibly...FiggyBee (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely correct. In any case, Friedrich Ebert was Germany's Chancellor, after the fall of the Kaiser, although he never used the title. He was then elected President (but did not hold both positions at the same time). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Adolf Hitler's rise to power answers this question. Shadowjams (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching for a quote on writing

Trying to remember the source (and content!) of a quote. I think it was from Annie Dillard?

The gist of it, or my recollection of it, not even close to the actual quote: Don't save up your "good ideas" for fear you'll run out. Use them and you'll get more. Store them for later, and when you try to retrieve them, they'll be gone. 198.161.238.18 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this:- "Do not hoard what seems good for a later place in the book, or another book; give it, give it all, give it now. the impulse to save something good for a better place later is the signal to spend it now. Something more will arise for later, something better." Annie Dillard (The Writing Life)[8] Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, that's exactly it, thank you! Now that I have that, the rest goes like this: "These things fill from behind, from beneath, like well water. Similarly, the impulse to keep to yourself what you have learned is not only shameful, it is destructive. Anything you do not give freely and abundantly becomes lost to you. You open your safe and find ashes." 198.161.238.18 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for getting me to search for it - I had never heard of Annie Dillard. Either I'm more ignorant than I'd imagined or she's not well known on this side of the pond - I'm hoping the latter... Alansplodge (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we write a "Resolved" over this? How were you able to find it, Alansplodge? Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I googled ANNIE DILLARD QUOTES and flicked through a few pages. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty good. I'm impressed. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

November 26

Tashan Family- Turkey

What the meaning of "Tashan" the Turkey family name? Is there any historical information about this tribe? Where they lived exactly in Turkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.129.84 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Surnames in Turkey were only chosen by most people after World War I in the reign of Ataturk. Many people chose their surname after their place of origin, such as one of the places called Taşhan in Turkey (in Siverek, in Of and in Kocasinan). Steewi (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Edited for formatting Steewi (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the Surname Law (Turkey). See also Turkish name. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the meaning of the name? What its mean in Turkish? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.12.189 (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Steewi has suggested that it might have come from a placename, though he did not give any references for this. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the meaning of the name Tashan? Is there any relation between this surname in Turkey and Chechnya in Russia, there are many family hold this names in Iraq, Syria and Jordan and they claim that they are originally from Chechnya. Is this right?

ACORN

I am posting here at this reference page per your instruction, namely;

"Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk."

I used Wikipedia to read up about ACORN after discovering the scandal at http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/breaking-san-diego-acorn-document-dump-scandal/

It seems to me that the Wiki article is a little one sided, in the absence of details about the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County, which apparently dumped thousands of sensitive documents on the evening of October 9th,, just days prior to the Attorney General's visit.

This is important information because;

"The laws governing how sensitive, personal information such as social security numbers, driver's license numbers, immigration records, tax returns, etc. must be treated are very stringent, and thus it seems as if ACORN may have committed serious violations in that department alone, with thousands upon thousands of potential plaintiffs."

I am bringing this matter to the attention of Wikipedia, to see if your entry about ACORN will be improved to reflect this development in the saga.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.85.33 (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Come back when an actual law enforcement agent starts prosecuting. F (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see you factual question. If you have problems with the article, the article talk page is the proper venue, or WP:NPOVN. But unless your have better sources than a partisan blog, I doubt you will get anywhere. Please read and understand WP:V and WP:RS first, to avoid wasting your and our time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are always interesting to read to see how controversial articles have developed. (Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, for example) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article its talk page is a good place to start - just like the bit you quoted said. And as it said this is where you'd ask questions but I don't see a question. TheWP:5P is something I'd advise reading before trying to edit the article itself. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the meaning of the name? What its mean in Turkish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.12.189 (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Line added to wrong section, and duplicated above --ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes' sexuality

Hi!, I read that he was not heterosexual, but what was he?, was he gay?. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article mentions nothing to suggest it, but it does mention he had an interesting relationship with them. I guess he could be considered a notable asexual, but the evidence isn't really there. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While to a reader nowadays it is relatively easy to assume that Holmes was indeed a closet homosexual, I believe you are closer to the mark, Prokhorovka. Irene Adler is introduced as something along the lines of: the only time the otherwise cold and detached Holmes showed an interest in a woman; and he is described as a bit of a mysoginist - he doesn't believe women can hold a candle to men intelectually, and Adler is the only woman Holmes meets that (in Holmes' opinion) could, which is why he expresses romantic interest for her. IMO the description "asexual" is closer to the truth. This is, of course, my own OR. --TomorrowTime (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Irene Alder#Holmes's relationship to Adler Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes was, of course, a fictional figure, and since nothing was written about his sexuality by his creator (who also as far as we know made no Dumbledorian pronouncements about it) we can only say that it was unknown. However Holmes has a huge following, and many people have speculated about his sexuality. This obvious search provides some links to people's speculations. Homes has also been subject to many interpretations, and one person may interpret him as gay, another as heterosexual, another as asexual. There cannot be a definitive answer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We have actually already had a discussion about this a few weeks ago, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 3#No girlfriend —Akrabbim^talk 16:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Funding a genocide

Financially speaking: How much did the Holocaust (from the institution of the Nuremberg laws to the end of WWII--i.e. not counting the post WWII restitution) cost the Nazi government? has someone calculated a rough dollar figure for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.135.122 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they made a profit on it, as the homes and possessions of murdered Jewish people were given to loyal Nazis and friends of Nazis, or auctioned off at cheap prices. That was partly why Germans had a high standard of living during the war, the other reason being the occupation troops being paid very high salaries (in the local currency that the occupied country was forced to print and give to the Germans) and sending lots of food back from the occupied countries. There are two books written about this in recent years - do not remember their details unfortunately. The Nazis also got free labour as well. 78.146.191.42 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

They couldn't possibly have made a profit on it, because the Jews who lost property or were forced into slave labor were citizens of the Reich or the occupied territories, so their property and income was part of the national income already. --M@rēino 21:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a sort of economic bookkeeping technicality to me. It is like saying that managers who steal their employees wages are doing nothing wrong, because they are all part of the same organisation. Although that is too trivial an analogy for the gravity of what happened. If you have a constant amount of wealth that is shared among a lower number of people, then the per-capita wealth will rise. 78.151.134.191 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While individuals may have profited from the Holocaust, I've heard it argued that instigating the Holocaust was, overall, a huge drain on the Nazi war effort. As well as fighting an "all out war" against the Allies, it was devoting large amounts of time, energy, money and logistical planning to finding and exterminating Jews on an industrial scale. Sure there was some slave labour they got out of it, but I think it's arguable if the average slave is as productive for a war effort as the average volunteer, which presumably the average Jew would have been if the Nazis didn't have their anti-semitic ideologies. And there are millions of Jews who were murdered or imprisoned that weren't put into slave factories, whose voluntary labour presumably could have been used in the war effort had Jews not been vilified and victimized and economically marginalized by the Nazis.

So although I have no idea if anyone has put a number on how much the Holocaust cost, I will suggest the somewhat glib answer that it may have cost Germany the war. I don't know if that's really true either, since the madness that generated the Holocaust can't really be separated from all the other crazy mistakes Hitler made. TastyCakes (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Driving Albert Einstein. Lise Meitner, and many others into exile certainly didn't do anything to ensure that Germany would have the best chance to build the first nuclear bomb... AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but at the time that they did that, they didn't really think that an atomic bomb would be vital. Remember that they expected to win pretty quickly. The Manhattan Project was pretty optimistically conceived even for the U.S., who threw everything they had at it. (And, of course, Einstein and Meitner actually had next-to-nothing to do with actual nuclear weapons programs...) --Mr.98 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn. You're ignorant. Nazi Germany had a nuclear program that they started in 1939. Einstein left Germany in 1932. No Jews were forced to leave. He left by his own volition.--Drknkn (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? Many Jews who were intelligent and aware of the trend of events and had the resources to leave left because they knew that it would probably be better for them to go rather than stay. AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

When the options are "leave" or "stay and be persecuted/enslaved/killed," what would you choose? I'd say "forced to leave" is an accurate assessment. Oh, and the nuclear program was in place but, as Mr. 98 said, was not a priority. The Nazi belief that the war would be swift, and their lack of effort in research because of this, is very well documented. You might want to do some more research before calling people "ignorant" in a public setting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The question was about the government, not the national economy, and it is indeed possible for a policy to contribute more to the public purse than it costs in spending. Whether it contributed more to the public purse than it cost the economy or nation is an entirely different matter. As for the economy and finances of the Third Reich, a rather academic place to start (and one that reminds us the Nazis were not solely focused wholesale murder) would be Adam Tooze’s “The Wages of Destruction:.” DOR (HK) (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is another similar book to that on the same subject, whose details I forget. 89.242.102.107 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the idea was to build annihilation system that would supply itself. So prisoners in concentration camps were forced to run the Nazi machine (like the Sonderkommando). Also, many of the largest German corporation occupied enormous numbers of forced labours. For instance, Simens corporation had about 100,000 of them back then. The only daily 'payment', beside murder and satanic tortures, was usually one mouldy slice of bread -to keep them working to their death. You can also add the plunder (even of hair and golden teeth) and find that the greedy Nazis had huge profits. Infact, historians claim that the plunder of Jews yield signficant effect on the currency of the third reich and in any case, and even that concentration camps were non-profit organizations on the paper, was not negligible. Sadly for Germany which was taken over by those Nazis, the holocaust did take a price: many of its greatest minds, Jews, escaped to USA, USSR and other countries and Germany lost significant part of its Human capital. However, one huge profit Germany did gain from the war is the infrastructure for present days German industry that was largely built then, instead of becoming to another failed communistic state--Gilisa (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

November 27

Muslims and Homosexuality

Are there known Muslims who have supported, or at least, been more open-minded toward homosexuals?. Or Muslim politicians, actors, footballers, don't know... --190.50.81.193 (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't this question show up recently on one of the ref desks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See the articles

• Liberal movements within Islam
• Al-Fatiha Foundation
• Arsham Parsi
• Faisal Alam
• Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees --AquaticMonkey (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Irshad Manji? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See also LGBT topics and Islam, especially the oddly named Homosexuality_in_Islam#LGBT_movements_within_Muslims. It also has a section called "people", which lists a dozen or so: Afdhere Jama, editor of Huriyah; Irshad Manji, Canadian lesbian and human rights activist; El-Farouk Khaki, founder of Salaam, the first queer Muslim group in Canada; Arsham Parsi, Iranian LGBT activist; Maryam Hatoon Molkara, campaigner of transsexual rights in Iran; Faisal Alam, Pakistani American LGBT activist and founder of Al-Fatiha Foundation; Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni; Malik Ayaz; Pav Akhtar; Usman Sani; Waheed Alli, Baron Alli, British gay politician; Yusuf Kabir; Enchant of Hope; Abdellah Taia, writer.

Perhaps there may be useful links within Human rights in Islamic countries. Imaan is the UK equivalent of Al-Fatiha. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, from a more traditional historical religious point of view, Mukhannathun has a lot of references to interesting early Hadith (though a "Mukhannath" in early Islam is not precisely equivalent to a gay man in modern western societies). AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi is in favour of Civil Partnerships for gay couples, as stated on Question Time. Sam 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

I would suppose modern, secularized Muslims are generally as open-minded towards homosexuals as are modern, secularized Christians. E.G. (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that assertion? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the burden on proof would be on the counter-claim. Unless there is some reason for Muslims to have different views on homosexuality than Christians, we should assume they don't. --Tango (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The key word is "secularized." People who follow Abrahamaic religions, but are primarily secular in behavior, are often more tolerant of LGBT issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Difference between personal per capita income and per capita income

The article States of the United States of America by income has separate lists for "States ranked by personal per capita income" and "States ranked by per capita income". But personal per capita income redirects to per capita income, and that article doesn't mention the term. What's the difference? — Sebastian 05:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Per capita means per person, so "personal per capita" is redundent: there is no difference. However, be careful what you're using it for, as income isn't the same as disposable income or actual private consumption. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

UK law/crime question

I was discussing crime earlier with some friends, and a thought was raised, if a person with no prior record(meaning no fingerprints/dna/etc on the police database) in Britain committed a crime and was caught and they refused to say their name, or anything at all, would the police be able to find out who they are? If they couldn't, would that mean they wouldn't be able to charge them with anything? Thanks--86.189.5.207 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This scenario has been played out a number of times on The Bill and other cop shows, where they always end up identifying the person. In real life, there are cases where the person has remained unidentified for a long time, possibly forever. As for whether an unidentified person can be charged, I don't know. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The person would have to also have nothing on them that could link them to an address or other person, either of which would identify them. Given that people are typically arrested at a time not of their choosing, it is rare I would assume for this to occur. It's a fair thought though. Prokhorovka (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need to establish the identity if you can establish that he or she did the crime. You can serve them in person. And especially in Britain the Queen can probably do you in personally with one of her theoretical reserve powers if needed ;-).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If the Queen visited me personally to do it, that would be worth committing a minor crime to meet her! Prokhorovka (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

She has servants to do that (called "The Police"). Being in prison in the UK is sometimes referred to as being "a guest of Her Majesty". Oscar Wilde said that if that was how she treated her guests, she had no right to have any. Alansplodge (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You can of course be detained 'At Her Majesty's Pleasure' although I don't think that would happen for refusing to identify yourself Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The far more common scenario is where the criminal has a false identity, and they stick with it. This means their other identities (and any crimes committed under them) are not found. While less likely to work with computer fingerprint comparison, DNA, and facial recognition, this still happens surprisingly often (because data isn't shared between agencies, errors were made when taking samples, the old crimes were from before such samples were taken or added to the database, etc.). I disagree with the earlier statement that, since criminals are arrested when they aren't expecting it, they are likely to have identifying documents on them. They just don't carry such documents, and any they do carry refer to a false identity (maybe stolen from somebody else or maybe made up). StuRat (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If the police can't identify someone they take a photo of them and send it around various agencies, take it round the local area showing people, give it to the media to distribute, etc. Usually somebody will recognise the person. --Tango (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Like the famous 2005 "Sheppey Piano Man"[9]; although they didn't want to charge him, just find someone to take him off their hands! Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As others have stated they may not need to identify you if they already have sufficient evidence you commited a crime. They may just charge you as John or Jane Doe. But identifying you may be useful e.g. to find out if you have other criminal convictions, are in the UK legally and if you really refuse to identify yourself why you are refusing. As has also been stated they will probably attempt to identify you via other means. Note that they can arrest you if they suspect you've commited a crime (or are about to commit one etc) and you refuse to provide an identity [10]. This outlines what they may do (take photos etc) if you don't identify yourself [11].

Note also that in certain circumstances, e.g. when they believe you've commited anti social behaviour [12] and a bunch of other stuff possibly depending on where you live (I mean beyond England & Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) [13] [14] they have the power to compel you to provide a name and address (meaning if you don't you'll be fined). This primarily refers to police community support officers and in cases that have been designated, my guess is that normal police officers have this right to without it having to be designated but I don't really know. In any case, it highlights the fact that committing a minor offence to see what happens is going to be a bad idea, not only are you likely to be charged with whatever offence, you'll probably get another fine for refusing to identify yourself. (And going to court has a number of bad effects, e.g. you'll likely have to report this whenever you visit another country and need to be interviewed etc and may be even denied entry, even if normally entilted to a visa on arrival.)

There may also be other things they could charge you with, e.g. hindering a police investigation but I'm not really sure about that since you do have a right to silence and in fact in a number of discussions about the "power to require name and address" I've seen it mentioned that the section may be regarded as going against the right to silence (and perhaps right to privacy) but it's considered necessary and proportionate e.g. [15] which suggests to me unless it's specificically outlined in law it won't be an offence.

Also as anyone who's ever watched a British police show will know while you do a have a right to silence, not saying something can have an effect on your defence in England & Wales as juries are allowed to draw inferences [16] [17] (also see the previous wikilink) although they can't convict you solely on your silence and I don't think it would be particularly common that refusing to identify yourself is likely to harm you defence (since AFAIK like here in NZ and a number of other commonwealth countries, it's rare that previous offences may be presented to juries therefore it's not going to be common that refusing to identify yourself can result in any negative inferences). I guess if you really never identified yourself and they never found out then it may count against you, e.g. they may say you're afraid they will find further evidence against you if they know who you are. Finally it's possible that you could be guilty of contempt of court if the court compels you to identify yourself and you don't, but again I don't really know if they could, since it may go against your right to silence. I'm presuming of course there isn't anything specific set out which allows them to do so, I haven't found any besides the power to compel which only results in a fine (well of what I've seen so far, there could be harsher penalties in some cases).

P.S. If we're wrong about them being able to charge you without identifying you, then the situation is likely to be quite different and I doubt holding you for contempt of court would be a problem.

P.P.S. It's possible that this issue has just never really came up in court, because few people try it, and of those that have they've been identified through some other means. As StuRat says, the greater risk is probably people providing a false identity. If you don't identify yourself, police know they need to try and find out who you are and probably eventually succeed. If you say you are StuRat when you are actually JackOfOz then they may just accept you are StuRat.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have an interest in this field, what is it called?

It includes things like the cultures of different communities, how communities and cultures develop over time, how people are influenced by their cultures/communities (as part of their identity) and interaction between communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.234 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthropology and/or Sociology? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Human geography TheFutureAwaits (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Social capital covers part of this. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As does Psychogeography - the first two answers cover the field more thoroughly, though. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychogeography is not a field, it's a joke.—eric 02:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Social anthropology which is a sub-field of anthropology.
Sleigh (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian Forint *Certificates*?

~15 years ago, I was in Hungary and a friend was exchanging *a lot* of money. If I remember correctly,the banknotes he got were large, cardboard certificates. I don't know which currencies he was exchanging - I would think that he was converting USD to Forint, but I can't find any reference to large FT currency certificates. Perhaps Kroners? This was probably before the "new" forint started circulating (what we used to call the "communist" Forint - don't know) if that helps. Any ideas what those certificates could have been? Tewner (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

psychology question

at exactly 1:00 into this video I don't understand why Aldrin doesn't just put his hand on the bible, which is held out nonthreateningly (with the person's other hand in his pocket) and say "I swear I walked on the moon". That's what I would have done, followed by: "now will you get away from me". Instead, it looks to me like he spent just a split second thinking about it, and decided, no, he wouldn't do that. I don't really understand why not. I mean, I know I wouldn't swear on the bible for things that aren't true, but for things that are? It just seems like, in economic terms, the marginal cost of sticking his hand out and putting it on the bible and saying he swears he walked on the moon is just much smaller than continuing the incident. I don't understand why it went down the way it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.102 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

also, more evidence of the split-second thinking about it is that he got really riled up by being called a coward (punched someone on camera), at the end of the video. For me, it would rile me up much more to be called a coward after I thought about doing something and decided not to, then at a random time. Is this a correct psychological analysis?

Note: all of the above questions are psychological ones. 92.230.68.102 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what he experienced at that moment was a disconnect between religion and science and it made him pause to think for a moment. And also why should he comply with anyone accosting him? Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

that's a good, plausible reason for the pause. Any other ones people can suggest? As for your second question: becfause it's easier, faster, etc. There's just a small incremental (marginal) cost in that situation. 92.230.68.102 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth should he? Just to please some nutjob? Is this a troll? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The video shows him being harrassed, chased and his path blocked. The only sensible thing to do is get away, which he tried to do in several switches of direction. Your question is backwards, I think. What possible reason could the harrasser have for expecting anyone so approached (from behind, unawares) to react positively to his "request"? Thrusting something at anyone, even if you claim it is a Bible, is a bad idea if what you want is co-operation. Bielle (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If he did swear on the Bible, the guy would still wouldn't have believed him. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that's hilarious. Unsurprisingly, Neil Armstrong refused as well. Bart Sibrel#Dealings with Apollo astronauts has more information. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The man has harassed Aldrin in front of his family, called him a liar and a thief, tried to interfere with what he is doing. The pause was probably to take a deep breath and calm down. He has every right to be extremely annoyed - I think Aldrin shows remarkable restraint throughout the whole thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the whole movie? It's one hour consisting mainly of this guy harassing elderly gentlemen who happen to be ex-astronauts. And the moment in the video is not the first time he had harassed Aldrin, either. My guess, Aldrin just got really, really, really fed up with Sibrel, and the last thing on his mind was fulfilling some whim of his, no matter how brief a time it would take, and be it connected to the Bible or not. --TomorrowTime (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The more important and interesting question, to me, is what makes Bart Sibrel do this? Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One of these days, Bart, pow! straight to the moon! --TomorrowTime (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not allowed to provide medical diagnoses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Good punch. Why couldn't that policeman get rid of the nutter instead of letting him go on with his harassment? Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's not a policeman, I think it's just the hotel bellboy or doorman or something. He does say: "This is a hotel, you cannot solicit on this property." --TomorrowTime (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that Buzz Aldrin is actually quite religious - see the last paragraph in Buzz Aldrin#NASA career. Astronaut (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Religious people can also get narked by people calling them liars and thieves and cowards and generally harassing them. Is it the bit about being an elder? I suppose there is something there but the presbyterian church never struck me as one to turn the other cheek. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people would find it offensive to their religious beliefs to use the Bible in such a trivial way.There are admonissions in it about how you swear oaths and what you swear them on..hotclaws 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith, to which all stripes of Presbyterians have historically held, opposes the use of an oath in a situation such as this. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) and other denominations that began as radical dissenters often refuse to take any secular oaths, which is why "[solemn] affirmation" is an alternative accepted in the Constitution for things like officers' oaths of allegiance in Article Six, presidential inaugurations (Article Two, section 1) and the declaration required for a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The Biblical basis for such opposition to oaths is in Jesus' new commandment in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:33-37:

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

—— Shakescene (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Aldrin (and the other Apollo astronauts) have been harrassed their whole lives by people like Sibrel. Do you really think Sibrel, or any other hoax-believer, would be mollified by a swear on a Bible? They've been accusing these astronauts of lying for decades. Swearing on the Bible won't do anything to help, and Sibrel knew that. This was just confrontation for the sake of making money on Sibrel's part. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He was probably hoping to add perjury and blasphemy to the list. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Port city moved to another country

which are port cities which moved to another country during course of historyfor various reasons or for that matter list of cities which belonged to different countries at different points of time

a wikipedia entry compiling them may be of help to researchers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.77.148 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

At least in Europe and until WWII, borders were never very stable, so if you pick almost any city comparatively close to a border, chances are it has changed countries in the past. You should also bear in mind that "countries" as we know them now are a relatively recent development. Perhaps the best known port city to change hands is Gdansk, though. There are more, though, like Trieste, for instance --TomorrowTime (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Others that come to mind include Vyborg and Pechenga (both formerly Finnish; Pechenga isn't much of a port, though) and Kaliningrad (formerly German), all taken by the USSR during WW2 and kept afterwards; Nice, ceded to France by Italy in 1860; and Antofagasta, Iquique, and Arica, all taken by Chile in the late 19th century from Bolivia (and Arica was also in Peru before that). Of course, these examples refer to cities or districts that have changed hands between already existing independent countries. Cases where a newly created country contains a port city, or where colonies of one country change hands to belong to another, are (I think) far too numerous to be interesting to list. --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, November 27, 2009.

Indeed so - Colón, Dili, Tel Aviv, Karachi, Chittagong, Singapore, Riga... not to mention all those cities which used to be city states - Venice, Hamburg, and the like. Another that's been missed between two existing cities is Walvis Bay - and, of course, there's both Hong Kong and Macau. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So lemme get this right: by saying "indeed so" you are agreeing that it's not interesting to list them, and then you're doing it? --Anon, 00:52 UTC, Nov. 28.

'm saying indeed so to the idea that there are a lot of them, and them listing half a dozen or so easy examples followed by ellipsis to indicate that the list is a long one. I'm then getting onto more relevant material with one that changed hands between already-existing countries. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And many formerly-dependent but now-independent countries with long coastlines, for starters: South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (Dhaka), Chile, Mexico, Peru, Kenya (Mombasa), Ireland (Dublin, Cork), the United States of America, Greece, Slovenia, Croatia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, .... —— Shakescene (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dalian, aka Dairen aka Port Arthur has changed hands many times; see First Sino-Japanese War and Treaty of Shimonoseki, Russo-Japanese War and Treaty of Portsmouth... --Jayron32 04:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the most-noted loss of an English port was that of Calais in 1558, after England's unsuccessful involvement in Continental wars as a result of the Spanish King Philip II's marriage to Queen Mary I Tudor (one of a number of such unfortunate continental entanglements brought by royal marriages and inheritances, e.g. William and Mary's.) Mary I (1553-1558) said that when she died, "Calais" would be engraved on her heart. This loss of England's last Continental port was later balanced by the winning of another seaport, Gibraltar, in the Treaty of Utrecht (1714) after a more successful war on the Continent. ¶ Portugal's overseas empire consisted of a string of seaports around the world which later changed hands (often to the Dutch), including Cape Town, Macau, Goa, Damao, Colombo, Malacca and Dili (Portuguese Timor, now East Timor). France kept a few Indian enclaves (after losing Indiad and and Canada to Britain in the Seven Years War of 1756-63), such as Pondicherry and Chandigarh. Both the Portuguese and French enclaves were later absorbed into the Republic of India.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then there's Berwick-upon-Tweed, at one time responsible for a quarter of all Scotland's customs revenues, which changed hands between Scotland and England at least 13 times between 1147 and 1482. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Every port city in Finland, since Finland was part of Sweden until 1809, then ceded to Russia and then independent from 1917 onwards. Most port cities along the southern and western shores of Sweden and on Gotland, becuase those areas used to belong to Denmark and Norway until the 17th Century. Every port city on the eastern and southern side of the Baltic, because Estonia, Latvia, Livonia and Poland has been parts of other realms for long times and Germany used to be many states (Prussia, Mecklenburg, Holstein, the free cities of Hamburg and Lübeck). Every port city on the Mediterranean, becuase the realms have changed there many times since before Christ. Probably every port city on the shores of Africa, since most of them were founded before the present countries gained independence during the second half of the last century. We can go on... a list of ports which have never changed hands would be much shorter. E.G. (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The Women liberation reform of Peter the great

When Peter the Great modernized Russia, it must have meant great changes for women. Russian noblewomen, I believe, were confined to their homes quite like muslim women and forced to vear veils. Peter forced the noblemen to take their wives to court, dance with them and sit at the table with them openly. Exactly when did these reformes occur?--85.226.46.84 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reforms of Peter I of Russia gives a date, 1702.--Wetman (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Can you or some one else tell me: when was the first ball held at court, and the first banquet with both genders? Was it the same year, 1702? --85.226.46.84 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Magnesia

In this article it gives a breakdown of military groups under Background. Is there a good online reference of this, like from Plutarch or the like? Would like to get further on the two phalanxes and the 16,000 "semi-professional" military settlers giving as total apparently around 25,000 to 26,000 men. Is there further reference on the 1,200 steppe-nomad horse-archers? Also reference for Antiochus also arrayed scythed chariots? And an online reference (Livy perhaps) where Antiochus also had 6,000 heavy cataphract cavalry. Is there an online reference of Antiochus III the Great being called "Basileus Megas"? Thanks. 64.138.237.101 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Livy XXXVII.39-40.—eric 01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Appian 11.31-32.—eric 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't find any online references for 'Basileus Megas', but apparently Ma, John. (1999). Antiochus III and the cities of Western Asia Minor. pp. 272-6. OCLC 41137527. concludes he was 'Great' after 205 and 'Great King' after 200.—eric 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks eric, appreciate your great answers. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

November 28

The First Indo-European Tribe in Europe

The Sami people and Basque people are the indigenous people of Europe, but they are not Indo-Europeans. What the first Indo-European tribe to arrive in Europe and made settlement? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to say, but the article Indo-European languages indicates that the oldest attested group of Indo-European languages is the Anatolian languages of which the Hittites were speakers, as early as the 16th century BC. The Hittites never ruled Europe proper, but did control most of Asia Minor and so were close, and likely had a large influence over much of southeastern Europe. As far as truly, honest-to-goodness state societies in Europe which were unambiguously Indo-European in nature, then Mycenaean Greece or the Minoan civilization may be another call. The Myceneans were unambiguously Indo-European, but the Minoans spoke an apparently unrelated language. --Jayron32 04:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on the question of the "PIE homeland". For the last 20 years or so, the biologist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and archaeologist Colin Renfrew have advocated an Anatolian center from which the Indo-European languages dispersed, and this hypothesis has received a lot of press coverage. However, actual linguists tend to favor a center from which the Indo-European languages dispersed located in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine (east of the Dnieper). In this case, Indo-European would have been geographically European as far back as we can trace back its origins, since the PIE homeland would have been west of the Ural mountains and north of the Caucasus mountains... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tartars of the Rhyn-Sands steppe (Nikolai Leskov)

In a central episode of Nikolai Leskov's 1873 novella The Enchanted Wanderer, the Russian protagonist spends ten years with Tartars living on a distant steppe "somewhere near the Caspian Sea" in an area he calls the "Rhyn-Sands." The author attributes to them various characteristics (e.g. non-Christian, polygynist, avid horsemen) and certain behaviors and practices (e.g. they remain in their tents during periods of hot weather). Who might these people be and where is their homeland? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Some preliminary information: This refers to the Рынь-пески (Ryn Sands), now in Kazakhstan and known as Naryn Qum in the Kazakh language. They are at about 48.5 degrees N, 49.5 degrees E. --Cam (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

On looking further, I see that we have an article about it: Ryn Desert. --Cam (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

...wherein is stated, inter alia: "Temperatures can reach extreme highs of 45°C to 48°C during summer..." ! -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do so many names of British branded medicinal products begin with the prefix "ben-"?

E.g. benadryl, benylin.--Damriteido (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this page Greek and Latin roots in English, ben is a latin root that means good.

benadryl = goodadryl

Pollinosisss (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The famous tower clockwork, then, must mean Big Good [or maybe Big Well - see below]. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

:)Since it's taken from the name of Sir Benjamin Hall (IIRC), it actually could be translated from Hebrew as "Son of Big"! Grutness...wha? 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the "ben" would have to come first... AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Latin language, the root is most often "bon-", while "bene" is a special adverb form. AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's often used to mean "well", as in nota bene (note well), and maybe "well" is what the manufacturers are trying to convey ("well" vs. "sick"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In Latin, bene means "well" in the adverbial sense, as in "Well done!", but it doesn't really mean "healthy" (except indirectly when it was used in certain phrases equivalent to "It is well with me" etc., though it's still an adverb in such phrases, not an adjective)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not personally aware of any british branded medicinal products that begin with the prefix "ben-"; benadryl, benylin, benecol and bengay are all brands owned by an american company. Others listed at the CDC beginning with ben- include Benemid (which I've never heard of in the UK) and Bentyl/Bentylol (which is only sold under those names in the USA). Nanonic (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bengay, formerly spelled "Ben-Gay", a topical muscle rub and analgesic sold over U.S. counters, derives its name from its developer, Dr. Jules Bengué; it's an anglicisation, or Madison-Avenification similar to Chef Boy-Ar-Dee for Ettore Boiardi. Pfizer Corporation produced Bengay until selling the brand to Johnson and Johnson; I don't know if either of those firms produced any of the presciption drugs beginning with "ben". As for British products, H. G. Wells wrote a novel about patent medicine called Tono-Bungay. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Name for type of joke

There may be no answer, but I'm looking for a name for a certain type of joke - the one where you reference two subjects, A and B, and then you say "One is [list of characteristics associated at first glance with B, but also humorously applicable to A], and the other is B." I've found this joke to be extremely common, and yet I know of no simple name by which I can refer to it. Maybe a "one is and the other is" joke? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is misdirection. That particular joke is used almost nightly by Craig Ferguson. -- kainaw™ 23:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An example could be this one, from Doonesbury a few years ago, which as I recall they said was merely one they had "heard", not originated: "What's the difference between the Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh? One is a flaming Nazi gasbag. The other is a dirigible." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A less actionable one might be, "What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?" "One's a slimy scum-sucking bottom-feeding scavenger, and the other is a fish." I don't think there are enough of these jokes that they constitute a genre, but somebody could easily prove me wrong. PhGustaf (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If there enough of them to spread out over 32 or 64 pages, a book could be published. It merely lacks the title. (JoAnne Worley published a "Chicken Joke Book" in the late 60s, and that was spread pretty thin also. So it can be done.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the general category for these kinds of jokes would be riddles. Then they could be separated by type. Whatever those types might be. Like this antique: "What's the difference between an underweight person and a dental procedure? One is too thin, the other is tooth out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Then there's this type, which came in the early 80s when the team in question was rather weak in the field: "What do the Chicago Cubs have in common with Michael Jackson? They wear one glove for no apparent reason." Or this one: "What do the Bears and the Cubs have in common? They both win once a week." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

These jokes don't have to be riddles. I pointed out above that Craig Ferguson uses them nearly every night. He never begins with "What is the difference between..." He just states that they are different as in: "Being a late night talk show host is a lot different than being a school teacher. One hates his job, acting like a cheeky monkey as he panders to an audience that would rather be doing anything other than listen to his lame excuse for entertainment... and the other is a late night talk show host." Also, I realized that when I stated it was comic misdirection, this is the simplest form of comic misdirection. The complex form requires the comic callback also. For example, Emo Philips did a very complex one at a show I saw a long time ago. The show began with a few one-liners and the question, "Have you ever had a really weird dream?" The rest of the show was jokes about a very weird dream that involved driving in the sewer and finding a door with a mysterious light coming from behind it. He met his mother who had a huge bowl of sauerkraut. The surprise caused him to pass out right on the spot. As the audience waits for the next part of this weird dream, he states softly, "...and that was when I had this really weird dream." -- kainaw™ 04:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

November 29

Does Islam forbid football?

A group of teenagers (and some kids), ages 10 to 15, were sentenced to receive 38 lashes each of them for playing football. According to the court, they were wasting time playing football because it's an un-Islamic thing. [18] - --190.50.81.196 (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if it does, there are a large amount of teams from Islamic nations in the AFC and CAF that are being naughty. Incidentally, Al-Shabaab (Somalia) are a bunch of complete lunatics. Nanonic (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a key difference between a group of people, wishing to exert absolute power over a group of people, and using fear to cow them and religion as an excuse to exert their power, and genuine religious belief. Islam itself has no such proscriptions. There are likely, however, people who are willing to use Islam as a means by which to force weaker people to their will. --Jayron32 02:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sports have sometimes been used as a target for repressionists in the west as well. In the Somlia example, I wonder about the quality of play. Note that the quote was "a waste of time, and un-Islamic". The first part of that could easily be argued, for example, in regard to the three NFL teams that are 1-9 at the moment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And going back to the original question, it's worth remembering that Islam is almost as diverse as Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised to find some group that forbids football in Islam.Sjö (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, there have been western countries that also forbade the playing of sports from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As has been said football is very popular in the islamic world, but it also runs into difficulties as it is either seen as a waste of time when you could be worshiping or studying, or occasionally seen as a focus of dissent. Here is a fatwa setting out an islamic flavor to football rules [19], here are some earlier people getting puritanical about football [20] and here is scotland banning it Football Act 1424. meltBanana 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

exact date in 1980

What was the exact date in which L.C. Bates died in 1980? What did he die of?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Read for yourself. See the Wikipedia article L. C. Bates, and this reference linked from the Wikipedia article, which states his date and cause of death. --Jayron32 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, does the Daisy Bates Elementary School have any school colors?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Diana Spencer

I do apologise for this, since I am certain I have asked this question before, it is just that I cannot find where it is in the archives. My understanding is that Diana Spencer, on her father's side, was a descendant of King Charles II of England through four illegitimate sons:

Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Grafton, son by Barbara Villiers, 1st Duchess of Cleveland Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and Lennox, son by Louise de Kérouaille Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans, son by Nell Gwyn James Crofts-Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, leader of a famous rebellion, son by Lucy Walter She was also a descendant of King James II of England through an illegitimate daughter, Henrietta FitzJames, by his mistress Arabella Churchill. On her mother's side, Diana was Irish and Scottish, as well as a descendant of American heiress Frances Work, her mother's grandmother and namesake, from whom the considerable Roche fortune was derived.

The Spencers had been close to the British Royal Family for centuries, rising in royal favour during the 1600s. Diana's maternal grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a long-time friend and a lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Her father had served as an equerry to King George VI and to Queen Elizabeth II.

So she was also a distant relative of Sir Winston Churchill. But my question is, since these ancestors are illegitimate, how can her sons William and Henry be legitimate heirs to the throne ? It is unfortunate that a particular person is punished themselves for something their parents or ancestors didn't do, then did do, that is, didn't marry, but then did the deed, but there it is, especially as some are claiming Elizabeth the Second is not the genuine Queen due to the alleged illegitimacy of her ancestor Edward IV, and that over 550 years ago. What is the Law regarding this, since I am sure that anyone due to marry an heir to the throne, with a view to creating further heirs to the throne, would have been thoroughly checked out to make sure the issue was going to be entitled. The Russian.C.B.Lilly User:Christopher1968 05:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It was explained before, didn't you read the explanation? Anyway, the Tudors hardly had any respect for Richard III's self-serving legal manipulations... AnonMoos (talk)

Didn't I just say I cannot find the original place I asked the question, so I cannot read the explanation. However, I would be happy to, to read it in its original place I asked the question, if someone would please inform me where it is. Thank You.

In addition, I have another question. What was the name of the lady who, from what I understand, died of a heart attack upon hearing that Martin Luther King had been assassinated ? Thank You. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why didn't you ask somebody for help in finding the earlier replies in the archives, instead of going through the whole long rigamarole again? AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference ? Don't worry about it, why get snotty ? Might have been quicker for you to have told me the answer, since it appears from your first tirade that you knew the question I was referring to, but never mind, I found it in the archives for Nov 16, and thank you to those who answered it then. I apologise for any trouble that might have been caused, and having now read the explanation, I now understand it. Strange they only need one legitimate line, but if it makes them happy, that's fine. Long may they reign.

With reference to my question on who the lady was who died, I understand she may have been a receptionist at Mr. Bailey's Lorraine Motel, but again I cannot recall her name. Shame that one bullet should cause so much death, not only to Dr. King, but this innocent woman, and sparking off the many riots Dr. King would have not wanted to occur. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your previous question about Diana and the answer are here[21] (third question down). I assume your question refers to this [22] speculation. Elizabeth II is the genuine Sovereign because she has lawfully acceded and has had a lawful Coronation. As far as I know, there is no way of challenging that; especially on an unprovable hypothesis about an event half a millennium ago. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just one thing: a coronation does not make a British monarch the monarch. It's only performed on people who have already been acknowledged as the monarch, and usually at least some months after the event (because it takes a long time to organise). Elizabeth became queen on the instant of her father's death. So her coronation is worth mentioning in the present context only to demonstrate that she was fully accepted and acknowledged as the monarch, but not if you intend it to mean that the ceremony conferred the monarchy upon her, which it didn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no proscription against a monarch having illegitimate lines somewhere in their past. All that is required is one legitimate line, and under most circumstances this legitimate line will be as short as parent-to-child. Elizabeth II is legitimate because she was born legitimately of her father, George VI, and you can trace such legitimate lines back at least as far as Henry Tudor, who seized the throne by conquest, and made his son and successor Henry VIII a legitimate heir by marrying Elizabeth of York. Through Elizabeth of York, you can trace a fully legitimate line back through Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York back to Edward III and thus all the way back to William the Conquerer. There is thus a legitimate line of legitimate children that can be traced from Elizabeth I all the way back to William the Conquerer. In the other direction, Elizabeth's son Charles, Prince of Wales is her legitimate son by Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and Charles's two sons, Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales were his legitimate sons by Lady Diana Spencer. The fact that you can trace illegitimate lines in Princes William's and Harry's past is irrelevent; there is a legitimate line that can be traced all the way back to William the Conquerer. Regardless, they are the legitimate children of the legitimate son of the current monarch, and so would be perfectly legitimate heirs to said throne. --Jayron32 20:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question "What is the Law regarding this", the relevant law requires descent from Sophia of Hanover, not from William the Bastard. Thus, any questions of the legitimacy of Edward IV, who lived 200 years before Sophia, are moot. FiggyBee (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, its a good thing that Elizabeth II is also a legitimate decendant of Sophia of Hanover (who herself was a legitimate decendant of William I, via James I and VI and thus via the same line as Elizabeth II), and thus her legitimate children and grandchildren are also legitimate heirs (barring a sudden conversion to Catholicism or marriage to a Catholic). --Jayron32 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) First to answer your question of why it's better to ask for help then to re-write the whole question, firstly it saves you time. More importantly, while you did mention first up that you couldn't find the question, it's possible someone could miss this meaning they would read the whole question only to discover/remember it had already been answered, wasting their time as well. Remember RD answerers are volunteers. Note that you should not expect someone to rewrite earlier answers. People may offer to find earlier questions & answers but clearly re-writing an early answer is just a waste of time.

In terms of your comment that it's surprising that you only need one legitimate line suggests you still don't really understand how this works. The legitimate eldest son or the legitimate eldest daughter if their are no legitimate sons of the current monarch is the heir to the throne, and the legitimate eldest son or legitimate eldest daughter if there are no sons of the heir is his/her heir. Who the spouse (mother/father) is, doesn't matter provided they are married. There are a few additional legal requirements, e.g. no Catholics but they don't relate to the spouse's heritage. And technically there was some question of suitability of the spouse hence why Edward VIII of the United Kingdom abdicated but this does concerns the public acceptance and primarily because Wallis Simpson was a divorcée rather then any legal requirement.

In the past it would generally be expected for the spouse to be of the nobility but that was purely a social expectation and if it later turned out they weren't or if questions were raised of the legitimacy later well that would be something 'polite' people wouldn't talk about and no one would question the legitimate heredity of any children solely because of questions over the spouse's heredity. But all this has largely disappeared now anyway. (Note that even if someone does marry a Catholic their children are still in the line of succession if they are brought up as Anglicans.)

These expectations generally lead to fairly inbred populations so in reality you'd probably usually find some legitimate line of succession but it could easily be a long one (HRH The Duke of Edinburgh is currently perhaps 493, he would have been something else at the time of his marriage and birth of his children but anyway clearly rather high up) which would require many deaths before it became of any relevance (so why would it matter?) and in any case if there was a 'suitable' spouse but he/she wasn't in the line of succession it wasn't of any relevance.

Unless we're talking about a brother & sister and the only two children of a monarch marrying (and they can't marry!) then there's always going to be someone higher up in the line of succession then one of the spouses who isn't one of the spouses (and of course in such a case once the child was born they'd be higher up then their mother). Remember if William marries Princess Maria of Yugoslavia but then dies without children she would just become (presuming no other changes) 98th in the line of succession and still largely irrelevant, the next heir would be Henry. (And Kate Middleton is not in the line of succession AFAIK.)

To use a related example, while inheritance laws vary somewhat in many countries the issue (probably children and the children of any dead children) will be entilted to some inheritance (often the spouse too but let's not complicate things) if the death is intestate. In such cases legitimacy used to matter in a number of countries and does still matter in some e.g. Malaysia [23] [24] and Singapore [25]. However who the spouse (mother/father) is rarely did or does. E.g. if a rich person dies without a will, the children of any dead children may be entitled to a share of the inheritance, no matter that the spouse (or mother/father i.e. son or daughter in law) did not contribute to the building of the fortune and wouldn't have been entilted to it if not for their marriage (and in fact may not be entilted to if even after the marriage). In this case, we aren't talking about a single heir, but you can see the same thing.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that William I of England was himelf illegitimate, so implying that probably all heirs to the English/British throne have illegitimacy in at least one generation of their ancestry. Of course William didn't succeed by inheritance to the English throne, but took it by right of conquest (based on a rather dubious claim of descent). --rossb (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon kings didn't necessarily inherit the throne - they had to be appointed by the Witan, who would sometimes choose the ablest of the royals rather than the next in line. Harold Godwinson was selected in this way. After Harold's death, the Witan appointed the 15 year-old Edgar the Ætheling who had been previously passed-over in favour of Harold. Not long afterwards the Witan forced Edgar to submit to William, on whom they conferred the crown, making it a lawful succession. Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Germany Double Summer Time in the Second World War

Did Germany adopt Double Summer time during the Second World War, thus moving from UTC+2 to UTC+3. If so, what were the dates? Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the Germans often imposed their time on the countries they occupied (no more 20-minute difference for Belgium), an interesting derivative question would be whether they also imposed double or triple Summer Time. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, it's not straightforward, but according to Doane's "Time Changes in the World" Germany observed Double Summer Time from 24/5/45 to 9/23/45. In Berlin and Soviet-occupied areas some cities adopted Moscow time (i.e. German Double Summer Time) but other cities did not. There are all sorts of complications. For example, when Soviet troops marched into Leipzig, they adopted Double Summer Time but for the railway only. In the smaller cities of Saxonia, all the people adopted the time of the railroad clock, which showed German Double Summer Time. In the East Zone, Double Summer Time was also adopted in 1947 from May 11 but only until 29 June....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a summary of historic summer-time changes in Germany at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt website. It agrees with Shantavira, i.e. double summer time was only used in Soviet-controlled areas after surrender, in 1945 and 1947. --Cam (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I'm not sure if that was only in the Soviet zone; it seems to me that the CEMT in 1947 held for all zones. But be that as it may; the list makes it clear that there was no CEMT during WW2, which seems to answer both the original question and Shakescene's conjecture. — Sebastian 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What name was J R R Tolkien known by?

John? Jack? J R R? It's not in the article, nor on its discussion page. Anyone know for sure? Peter Greenwell (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This page [26] says "his family only called him Ronald, and later his friends called him "John Ronald"." Pollinosisss (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis (known as "Jack"), a friend of Tolkien's, had a nickname for him. My memory says it's "Tollers"...my copy of volume 1 of Lewis's letters (when he was just befriending Tolkien) only refers to him as "Tolkien", but I'm finding quotations from books on The Inklings that use "Tollers" as a nickname. I think its use probably only extended to other members of that social group, but it's hard to say. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.227.159.200 (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Map of International humanitarian aid given, by country

Has anyone ever created a map or chart of humanitarian aid provided, listed by country? Measured in currency (US dollars), or percentage of GDP, or both.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.255.118 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Provided by or provided to countries? Government aid or NGO aid or total? --Jayron32 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is similar: http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=363

Prokhorovka (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Song

There is a song with the lyrics "I don't like sleeping alone" (this line sung by a female) in the chorus. In the chorus, a male singer sings also. The song sounds kind of indian. The chorus is electronic, but the verses have rap (I think).

The song might have been a hit (single) recently (possibly in the last 3 years). What is the artist and song name?174.3.102.6 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Try the Entertainment desk, the people over there are great with this kind of question. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Try this google search. —Akrabbim^talk 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Christadelphian and Advent Christian Churches in Sydney

Are there any Christadelphian churches in Sydney? If so, then what are they? Are there any Advent Christian churches in Sydney that are not Seventh-day Adventist? If so, then what are they?

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a website [27] which gives # Sydney Ecclesia, Shaftesbury Road, Burwood, New South Wales

1. Sydney Companion Ecclesia, Woodbury Road, Glenbrook, New South Wales

You may not have found these before because their word for "church" is "ecclesia", which is the Greek word for "church". --TammyMoet (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any Adventist churches that aren't Seventh-day Adventists anywhere. Hope that answers your question. By the way, Google is your friend and will get you quicker answers than you can get here! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

November 30

Research on Social Interaction / Craving

Hi! I was wondering if someone could point me to the correct terms / things to research on this concept.

I feel that people have a craving for just "being" around people (whether or not there is any social interaction). Like someone who is self-employed who likes working in a coffee shop to be around people. I feel that being around people makes a person feel less lonely, if that makes sense.

Is there a concept in sociology to describe this phenomenon? Could anyone point me to what I can further research? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Extraversion and introversion may be of interest. Extroverts tend to enjoy being around people. Pollinosisss (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In sociology the closest concept is socialisation, but specifically for what you described, the psychological concept of Extrovert personality is more suitable-as Pollinosisss suggested.--Gilisa (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Roll Credits

In TV and movie intro credits, most of the actors will have their name only (eg. Adam Alpha), but sometimes they get credited with a: AND Bob Bravo, or WITH Charles Charlie, or STARRING Daniel Delta. Is there a rule/informal convention that governs who gets a credit prefix and what they get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.135.122 (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions similar to this one have been asked before. Basically, it boils down to A) the convention that the show uses and B) what the actors agree to in their contracts. The contract will often spell out how and in what order they should be billed. Dismas|^(talk) 06:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Billing is definitely something that actors (or their agents) negotiate over. I don't have a citeable source, but I'd seen it stated than an "and" credit is seen as better than a regular one. This provides a way to resolve things when there are two actors who each think they deserve first billing -- one gets it and the other gets "and". An interesting example is The Longest Day, where the cast credits begin by saying that they will be in alphabetical order, but end with "and John Wayne" (and no, he wasn't alphabetically last). My impression is that "and" credits are more likely to be used if the part is relatively small, but important.

(Another solution to billing conflicts, by the way, is "diagonal equal billing", where one name is to the lower left and another is to the upper right. One case where this was used was The Towering Inferno, a movie made by merging two existing projects into one; the two male leads demanded exactly equal treatment. The opening credits for Key Largo, with three names on the first credit screen, may be interpreted as having two of them placed in similar fashion.)

--Anonymous, 08:18 UTC, November 30, 2009.

Interesting question -- for a long time, I've wondered why Hill Harper gets a "with HH" on CSI:NY. Never really thought of him as some kind of master actor? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And somewhat related, you may or may not have noticed that in the opening credits, the director is nearly always listed last. Whether that's due to convention or due to union rules, I'm not sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A similar question, why do these "and" credits often also include the character's name? What's so special about that character? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sense of Time and Space when driving

I'm from Vancouver BC, Canada, and I think nothing of a 2 hour drive to go to other towns and such (Seattle, for example.) Even Portland Oregon at 6 hours away doesn't seem to much of a stretch, and Calgary or Edmonton at 12 hours isn't totally out of the question (though very unusual to drive). Ottawa, the national capital, is at least a couple of days non-stop, while Newfoundland is closer to Ireland than it is to me.

Nevertheless, given that Canada is so huge, these distances are pretty standard fare. What constitutes "too far" in Europe? Would 2 hours seem ridiculous? I mean, Canada is practically as big as Europe. I realize the question is subjective, but any thoughts?Aaronite (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer for Europe, but in Australia we also have long distances between places, and so many of us (myself included) think nothing of a two or three hour drive. --121.127.200.51 (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In Malaysia a drive from Kuala Lumpur to Penang or Singapore (4-5 hours) or even Alor Setar (5-6 hours) or Kota Bharu (7+ partially due to the lack of good roads [28]) or for that matter even Penang to Singapore or Johor Baru (8 hours+) and similar things wouldn't be uncommon particularly given the Balik kampung that many Chinese and Malay Malaysians do every year (no wikilink sadly although discussed in Chinese New Year & Hari Raya Aidilfitri to some extent or see [29]). The rise of budget airlines like Air Asia has probably reduced the popularity of driving particularly since those who can't afford the price of air travel may not even own a car so will be taking a bus instead (or perhaps train but I think buses are much more popular because they're usually faster and not more expensive) but there's still a large number that do it as traffic jams at toll plazas will atest. Incidentally, I can say from personal experience many people drove for longer times in the past, before the North-South Expressway, Malaysia was completed Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it varies from person to person, but speaking as a UK resident, I get reluctant from 4 hours and up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokhorovka (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the UK - a 2-hour drive is nothing. That time might get you 1/3 way up the length of England if the traffic/roads are clear! In terms of a drive it's not considered 'too far' by anybody I know. Sure it's not my 'standard' driving time - I live in the north and the most I tend to do is trips of about an hour - that way I can get to Manchester, Newcastle, Whitby, The Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors etc. etc. so apart from visiting family/holidays there's really no 'need' for me to drive more than about an hour, but i'd certainly not consider >2 hour journeys to be 'ridiculous'. 10:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The UK is a crowded little island and even a short journey can turn into a major undertaking. My 15 mile commute (going out of London against the traffic) took an hour this morning; the worst ever for the same journey was 3 hours. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where I live in south-east England, we have six or eight towns and two cities within one hour's travel by car or train, and they cover all day-to-day needs. I might be doing a longer 2-3 hour drive to see friends or family about once a month. A 4 hour-plus car journey is an occassional event for me - say once or twice a year. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As somebody said : in the UK, 200 miles is far; in the USA, 200 years is old. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Many cities in New Jersey are 2 hours from Philadelphia, and most would think such a drive way out of the ordinary to make on a constant basis for no real reason, but a guy driving from NJ to the Five Towns on Long Island for a date with a really rich girl will see no problem with the journey, even if it takes more than 2 hours. Perhaps its because most of the travel time is consumed by traffic and not distance. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I live near Toronto, which is a much more densely populated part of Canada than where Aaronite lives, and 2 hours is pretty far for me. But then, everything you could need is in Toronto, which is 15 minutes away at best (in the worst traffic it has taken me 2 hours to drive 30 km, but that is pretty rare). My parents are 2 hours away, and that is far enough that visiting is a special occasion. Even driving an hour or less to the north is a special occasion, that's "up north" to "cottage country". Similarly to the US border, which is only an hour or less to the south. Ottawa is 4 or 5 hours and that might as well be another planet. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also near Toronto, and used to live near London (UK). I drive much further on average here than in England, because things are that much further apart. I drove 30 minutes last week to a nice restaurant for my wife's birthday. An hour to get to a good walking trail for the afternoon. Two hours to ski for a day. Those are not ridiculous things in England, but I do them much more frequently here. As Gandalf says, if I drove for half an hour in England I'd pass dozens of spectacular restaurants, so why would you do that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who moved from California to Massachusetts, I would just want to note that distance and time are not the same thing in such places. I am used to long drives that really get you over long distances—things are far apart but the roads are pretty clear in central California. In densely-populated regions, like the Northeast, it is not the case at all—you can spend an hour just trying to get twenty miles away depending on the route. Driving in the large, open spaces is a very different thing that driving on packed highways or through big cities, in my experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Swiss judges/neutrality

List of judges of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland All the judges have a political party listed after their names. Do they belong to those parties? Does this impact on their neutrality/independence? F (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article says it's the "party nominating that judge". Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland doesn't give much information, but the French version seems to say that the Federal Assembly tries to balance the various linguistic and cultural communities in the country, so presumably having a mix of political backgrounds is part of this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Epic battles in 16th and 17th centuries

which epic battle in 16th/17th century resulted in about 100,000 were killed or wounded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.99.207 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of epic battles then (Battle of Mohacs? Battle of Lepanto? Battle of Vienna?) but I don't know if any were that big. There is a big list at List of battles 1401–1800. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for good fiction/non-fiction about female messiahs

I am looking to purchase a book (hopefully bestseller) in which the protagonist is a female messiah/chosen one/etc. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.4.8.12 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search for female messiah novel produces Ann the Word : The Story of Ann Lee, Female Messiah, Mother of the Shakers by Richard Francis, non-fiction. Daughter of God by Lewis Perdue, fiction. The Last Day by Glenn Kleier, fiction. There may be more. 89.242.99.245 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Importance of good grades after some years

How important are good grades after you have been working some years? I have the impression that whether the goods not the bad grades that I got have any influence... ProteanEd (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Working where, and for how long? Good grades at what level of education? (Without any further info, I'd have to guess that your grades in school are completely unimportant.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an impossible question to answer, as it infinitely varies according to what you're after in life. Some employers don't care a jot for any kinds of grades. Some are obsessed. FWIW, when I recruit, I pay little attention to them, but in a former job, my boss was an educational snob and pushed hard to get me to appoint candidates with the best educational background. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Like everything in life, it depends, but here's the general view: in most professions, your actual grades decline in importance as you spend more time in the workforce. Grades are used as a rough proxy for various attributes (intelligence, personality traits, social class, etc) and the utility of that rough proxy matters less and less when there is more immediate information. This isn't true for all professions though, as I've been told that your class rank matters for longer in law than it does for other professional domains. Things like independent projects and actual experience seem to be more valued in computer science/IT-related fields.--droptone (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience in the Library field, good grades are totally irrelevant. Once you complete your Master's or Diploma in Library Science, it doesn't matter how well you did, so long as you have that piece of paper. I don't know too many employers who ask for a transcript. What really matters is quality of interview and/or CV. I suspect in many other fields this is true. Aaronite (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the OP. I meant after your bachelor, and not trying to get into a graduate program yet. If you have been working some years, apparently only what you did as an employee seems to be evaluated. Would that mean that good grades are useless after a while? (perhaps excluding fields like law or PhD candidates.).ProteanEd (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article on and term for "reading to" (e.g. children)

The Dutch Wikipedia has an article on (actually "voorlezer"), meaning reading to someone (e.g. children). Is there a corresponding article in the English language Wikipedia? (Reading mentions it briefly, but there is probably more to say about this.

Secondly, is there an English term for this other than "reading to"? You could say "to recite" in some situations, but not when to children.

Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is bedtime story (a rather short article). You can say "telling a story to" rather than "reading to" (telling a story includes telling stories from your head as well as from a book). --Tango (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)