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

March 28

what does the bible actually say about pedophilia on part of priests?

what does the bible (or catholic dogma) actually say about pedophilia on part of priests - ie can someone quote scripture (or pappal bulls and the like) saying that it is wrong for priets to do that? Or could it be a thing where scripture/dogma is silent on the issue, so we have only just everyday morals and law, but no scripture/dogma for it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.95 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Church's celibacy doctrine for its clergy, combined with the Biblical proscription against homosexuality, would pretty well cover the bases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It may have escaped your notice Bugs, but none of the priests accused of abusing girls are female. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And what's it got to do with homosexuality? That's attraction between adults of the same sex. Pedophilia is pedophilia, regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. In terms of Catholic dogma, ALL sexual activity is sinful except between a man and a woman who are validly married to each other in the eyes of the Church. That includes masturbation; same-sex sex; adultery; pedophilia; incest; bestiality; sex with a new spouse after divorce and remarriage, and before the old spouse has died; sex with a surrogate where the spouse is unable to conceive; rape; prostitution; you name it. Go here and search for the word 'sexual'. Item 2389 is relevant. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Priesthood is not part of Biblical church organization in the New Testament. The only offices discussed in the New Testament with regards to church leadership are pastors ("overseers") and deacons. So it doesn't say anything specifically about priests. Some relevent passages regarding sexual relations and church leadership from the New Testament are:

• Acts 15:22-29 is a short letter written by early christian leaders to all churches, telling christians to avoid, among other things, "sexual immorality", again without defining it.
• 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 Paul asks all people to avoid "sexual immorality"; however he does not define it specifically.
• 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, Paul states that it is preferrable for people to not have sex at all; but if they MUST have sex then they should be married first.
• The two letters to Timothy are generally taken as instructions on how to be the spiritual leader of a church (pastor) and 2 Timothy 2:22 tells pastors to avoid "the evil desires of youth", which could be interpreted in many ways. 1 Timothy 1:3-13 says that, among other enumerated sins, "adulterers and perverts" aren't fit to be church leaders.
• The most important passage in this regard is 1 Timothy 3 which describes the qualifications of both "overseers" (pastors) and deacons. It states clearly that "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable..."

These were just the few that I was able to dig up, there are likely many more. There are dozens and dozens of biblical passages that state pretty clearly that having sex with little boys and girls is probably a bad idea for anyone. --Jayron32 01:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymological sidelight -- the English word "priest" historically derives from the Greek word presbyteros (you can see an intermediate stage in the name of Prester John), though it corresponds in meaning more to the Greek word hiereus... AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual means "same sex". Celibacy has to do with heterosexual or "other, i.e. opposite sex". As Jack says, the Church considers any kind of sexual activity outside of marital relations to be sinful. The purpose of sex is reproduction within a marriage framework. All that stuff Jack lists either cannot lead to reproduction or is outside of the approved rules for marriage, therefore it's sinful. P.S. That's the Catholic view, not necessarily mine. P.P.S. Celibacy is a Church doctrine, not a Biblical doctrine, and could be changed tomorrow if the Church decided to. That would have no impact on the items on Jack's list, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you should have signed before your P.S., not after --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the original definition of celibacy has nothing to do with sex, heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. The word celibacy is derived from the Latin caelibatus, a variant of caelebs, meaning "unmaried". That's what "celibate" means with respect to Catholic priests - simply that they should remain unmarried. As pointed out, this also implies that they aren't supposed to have sex, as the only "acceptable" way a Catholic is supposed to be sexually active is with their spouse, within an officially recognized (by the Church) marriage. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The original poster can find some related information here. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of "Your Child Is in Danger!" indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/19931008a/article_01.htm. Today the official website is http://www.jw.org, but 1993 publications are not there at this time.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)]

I haven't followed all the links, but what I haven't seen in this thread is a cite giving a scriptural or other reference for pedophilia being any worse than other non-marital sex. I think the concept that a child is incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activity with an adult is common in legal systems today, thus making pedophilic sex the equivalent of rape (and hence the expression "statutory rape"). Is there any Biblical passage or doctrine to support a similar view, or at least saying that non-consensual non-marital sex is worse than consensual non-marital sex? --Anonymous, 02:32 UTC, March 28, 2010.

If you are asking if there is a passage that specifically says, "Is it wrong for a priest to have sex with a child," then, no. There isn't. As most people above have posted, it's covered by various proscriptions, but not one specific one. I can't give a citation because there isn't anything to cite. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't split hairs here; there is no degree of bad/worse/worst. Aaronite (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To Anonymous: From a theological point of view, there are no rank order in sins; while secular authorities may assign various crimes different degrees of punishment; and while people may hold certain crimes to be personally more heinous than others, sin is a binomial state of affairs. According to Christian theology, God is perfect, and therefore cannot allow sin into his presence. All sins cause eternal seperation from God. Again, according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is therefore the sacrifice that redeems or atones (makes up for) all of the sins of humanity. Since all sins cause seperation from God, and there is no sin that Jesus's death did not absolve Christians from, there is no point in ordering or ranking sins. From a theological standpoint, paedophilia isn't any worse than any other sin. This doesn't mean that the act is not heinous, and should not be met with the full force of secular law (the bible repeatedly tells Christians to submit to secular authorities); just that from the point of view of one's place in heaven, sins of a sexual nature, even rape and paedophila, aren't considered a greater or lesser impediment to eternal salvation than any other sin. Aaronite is correct here as to the bible not splitting hairs; the whole point of the New Testament is an end to the old Jewish system of lists of offenses and prescribed sacrifices to atone for them, and a new way of thinking about sin and one's relationship with God.--Jayron32 04:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I thought there were mortal sins and venial sins, sentences in purgatory of various lengths for sinners who don't quite merit eternal damnation, and (as of the time of Dante) nine concentric circles of hell for those who do merit damnation, according to just what they did. They may have had to add more circles in recent years, for spammers, internet trolls, and the like. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for Protestants, not since the Reformation, and for Catholics, probably not since Vatican II, except for small groups of Traditionalist Catholic sects like Sedevacantism. Since Vatican II, concepts such as purgatory have continued to be part of official Catholic doctrine, but have been de-emphasized in favor of a more bible-centered view. Dei Verbum, the major Vatican II document regarding theology and doctrine, affirms the sacred nature of extra-biblical concepts like Purgatory, but also removes such concepts from a central position in Catholic doctrine and dogma. --Jayron32 06:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had Catholic religious instruction when I was a kid (long after Vatican II) and I'm quite sure I learned about cardinal sins then. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A more specific question might be whether the Bible has anything specific to distinguish rape as particularly undesirable (I think the evidence has been quite large that these were not exactly consensual relationships). Is there anything other than Sodom and Gommorrah that specifically discusses rape? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a commandment to stone to death rape victims under certain circumstances. It's in one of the more obnoxious books of the OT, probably Leviticus or Deuteronomy. DuncanHill (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In ancient Israel, an engaged maiden who was raped was not punished if she screamed. (See http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-23.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-24.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-25.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-26.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/22-27.htm.) -- Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> Please keep in mind the following:

1. the notion of 'pedophilia' is a modern, western idea. evan as late as as the 18th century, it was not at all uncommon to consider people as young as 12 and 13 to be marriageable (or at least sexually active - Benjamin Franklin reportedly cavorted with 13 year olds in France, and Mohatma Ghandi was married at 9, if I remember correctly, and began living with his wife at 12 or 13). That has become distasteful (and illegal in much of the modern world) mostly because of extended childhood and improved medicine. mandated high school, career orientations for both boys and girls, plummeting rates of mortality amongst infants and expectant mothers: These all have placed a pressure on families and children to stay out of the world of sex/marriage/family until late teens or early twenties. any mention of pedophilia int he bible would have had to refer to children under the age of 10, and anyone caught molesting a child under the age of 10 in the ancient world would have been quickly and quietly stoned to death by the other people in the community. No one would have thought to write it down as a rule.
2. God (should you believe he exists) is not an accountant, and is not 'tallying up' the number and severity of each sin. Breaking their vow of celibacy is sin enough to keep a priest out of salvation (which is assumedly their goal).
3. The Catholic Church is about forgiveness, and confession is strictly private. It was stupid of the Church not to encourage father-confessors to encourage priests who commit such sins to leave the priesthood and enter monastic life. but don't fault them for trying to save the souls of their priests. --Ludwigs2 13:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Matthew 18:6[1] hits the nail on the head (quoting Jesus) "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Alansplodge (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties may find the following passages from the CCC worthy of note:

§2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

§2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered"(CDF, Persona humana 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

--Aryaman (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You get those sections from the link I provided above. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the CCC in print, which comes with a handy index. Sorry to have overlooked your link. --Aryaman (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers to my subsidiary question above. (Well, except for the sigh, but I forgive that.) --Anonymous, 02:55 UTC, March 29, 2010.

Ahh...I suppose I'm too late, then. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Prostitute tea

Do you think the marketing people who came up with the packaging for Arizona Diet Green Tea - With Ginseng realize they put a Japanese prostitute on the label? That's kind of odd since both Green tea and Ginseng are usually associated with China. Although I think the label is very pretty, you would think they could come up with something other than a prostitute. I would guess the picture was chosen because they probably thought it was a Geisha. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They grow tea in Arizona? DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

--Tagishsimon (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider the average American consumer. If you were to ask most of them to name a country associated with tea, besides England, they'd likely name Japan. With ginseng tea, they wouldn't even think England first and go straight to Japan. Ask them to name something about Japan and there's a good chance they'd come up with geisha. Show them that picture and they'd say it's a picture of a geisha woman. Marketing isn't about truth. Dismas|^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

These kind of mistakes happen everywhore.

HA!!! --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The real question is: does it sell more tea? perhaps it was a marketing decision. --Ludwigs2 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were to ask what the average American consumer would respond, are you willing to bet all of the tea in China Japan? (FWIW, India was the independent second choice of both me & my wife, after England.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Geishas were not really simply common prostitutes, and Ukiyo-e type artistic depictions have had a strong following among some in Western cultures since the 1870s... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture is of a Japanese courtesan. They primarily served as prostitutes and only later learned refined skills such as singing and dancing later on (unless they were an apprentice, then they learned it earlier). Once the government cracked down on prostitution, the Geisha replaced the courtesan in popularity. But some Geisha eventually fell into the practice of sleeping with clients. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No Ghost I do not! I agree with your assessment entirely -- that it's pretty. When I see that picture, I think refined, classy, elegant, not a vulgar working woman. Vranak (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that an American prostitute; in hot pants, fish net stockings, stiletto heels, and with more make-up than Tammy Faye Bakker, is not as "refined, classy, and elegant" ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You said it, not me! Vranak (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

More like "crassy". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hand car"--means of transport

I found the following image: http://www.harappa.com/magic/7.html, taken in 19th century British India. I've never see or heard of such a "hand car" before (where the passengers, sitting in which is essentially a very small, bare-bones railroad car, are pushed by manual labor on a track)...were these in common use in India or elsewhere? Did the passengers and laborers travel on actual railway tracks or special tracks exclusive to that purpose? Seems dangerous and/or impractical, depending....Thanks! If this is the wrong Ref. Desk, please let me know. --达伟 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And while you're answering the above question, if you could also tell me what the handle is for, I'd appreciate that. Is it a brake in case the people pushing can't keep it going slow enough on a downhill slope? Dismas|^(talk) 13:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Our articles hand car and draisine may enlighten you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, "Handcars are a recurring plot device of twentieth century film comedy" (especially the kind where two people stand on either side of a "see-saw" type handle and alternately move it up and down). If you've watched 4 or 5 Hollywood movies set in the American West in the second half of the 19th century, then there's a good chance you've seen a scene with a hand-car... AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, Blazing Saddles has a handcar scene early on. (I see the handcar article already mentions that.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And, more recently, O Brother, Where Art Thou?. However, note that this type, where the occupants propel themselves, is fundamentally different from the type posed in this Q, where one person or group pushes the cart containing another person or group. This type is more like a rickshaw, and implies a great disparity in wealth and social status. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I tried to cover my bases by doing a Google search that turned up little...don't know how I neglected to look on WP first!--达伟 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that in the illustration, no crossties (sleepers) are visible. In most early railway construction, the crossties extended quite a ways above the gravel or "ballast." In that case, it would be slow and impractical for four men to stumble along hitting or missing the ties as they step smartly along. It would take a lot of expense to completely cover the cross ties just to provide level footing for the four pushers. A puzzle, all in all. The ties did not just rest on dirt because in a climate where the temperature dropped below freezing and there was some precipitation, the frozen dirt would heave and displace the ties. Gravel ballast provided drainage [2]. The 2 man pumped handle handcar could go faster than the 4 pushers could push . A handcar sold for $25 in the early 20th century, and a handcar could carry 3 to 10 men, so the two officials could have been passengers. A handcar might weigh 800 pounds and be capable of 12 to 20 miles per hour[3]. Edison (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

First, we aren't talking about early railways -- the date given on the web site is 1895, and the works of engineering visible in photos 6 and 13 and the size of the station in photo 15 confirm that that date makes sense. But in fact, most early railways did not lay the ties, or sleepers as they say in Britain, on top of the ground. That was mostly an American practice, where the railways were built as cheaply as possible. In the 1994 book "Early Railways" by Rodney Dale (Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-521007-7) you will see that many of the illustrations show no visible ties -- they're completely buried in the ballast -- and the others practically all show just the tops visible, as is usual today. In fact the practice of burying the ties lasted at least into the late 19th century in Britain (I'm not sure whether the idea was more for appearance or because they thought it helped protect them from the weather or something) and I don't think it's surprising to see it being done in British India.

Here are some examples (three British, two other countries):

1. This photo, found on this page, has no date, but judging by the engine, must be 1830-1850.
2. This photo, found on this page, has no date, but the railway closed in 1935.
3. This photo is dated 1905 on this page
4. This photo, found on this page, shows an Australian example. According to Wikipedia the train began running in 1921, so the photo must be no earlier than that.
5. This still, found on this page, is from one of the first pieces of movie film ever publicly exhibited, in 1896. The location is in France.

--Anonymous, 04:14 UTC, March 29, 2010.

The book cited above, page 175 from 1915} shows that it was not U.S. practice to place the ties on the ground, but instead on a base of ballast. For whatever reason, it was not common to completely cover the ties with ballast. It is incorrect to claim that U.S. railways were built "as cheaply as possible." Temporary lines, such as timber harvesting or Civil War supply lines, or the initial pioneer installation of a line through the wilderness might be built without all the ballast of normal operation. Each railroad had a "standard plan" for the cross section of the roadbed, which had to be complied with. Edison (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In your previous comment you were talking about early railways, and my remark about "as cheaply as possible" was in that context, or as you say this time, "initial pioneer installations". As you see yourself (you're now citiing a 1915 book), practices changed later. --Anonymous, 19:32 UTC, March 29, 2010.

Correlation between the Sharpeville Massacre and Cato Manor Massacre

Having done some research prior to the celebration of Human Rights Day here in South Africa (21 March) which commemorates the Sharpeville Massacre in which 69 people were killed by a group of policeman manning the station at Sharpeville on that day in 1960, I was surprised to note that there is no cross reference to the incident two months earlier at the Cato Manor police station some 550 km from Durban.

According to your Cato Manor article “On The 23 January 1960 an angry mob attacked 4 white and 5 black policemen at the Cato Manor Police station; they butchered the men and mutilated the bodies. The mutilated bodies, with genitals stuffed in their mouths, were then dragged through the streets by the mob.”

I think that the cross referencing of these two articles is imperitive in order to give a balanced view of the Sharpeville incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.208.52 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page, not here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that you can add those links yourself. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

History of writing out currency amounts on checks

I had a hard time explaining to a young friend how to fill out a personal check. Besides the cardinal number for the amount, one much also spell out the amount using English words. I've seen these for cashier's cheques, money orders -- any certificate that has monetary value. What's the origin of this? And why do we still do it? --68.103.143.23 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason for it is because it's easier to change "$50" to "$500" by inserting a strategic zero than it is to fraudulently change the written word "fifty" to "five hundred"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, but it probably has to do with avoiding ambiguity. Much like a legal contract would state (for example), "the term of this lease is for twelve (12) months" -- which has the amount spelled out both in numerals and in words. I believe that I saw somewhere that it is the written word that is the legally controlling amount ... despite what the numerals indicate. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

After reading AnonMoos's post above, my comment (above) makes even more sense. That is probably why the written word controls over the numerical symbols ... to avoid forgery and alteration of the amount. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't think either the amount in words or the amount in figures have any precedence over the other, because if there were any discrepancy between them, the whole cheque would be void as no bank would honour it. If anyone knows differently, I'd love to see a cite.-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

When writing prescriptions for narcotics, it is recommended to include the number of tablets in both numeral and word form to avoid fraud -- I'd say it's the same here. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been phoned by my bank about a cheque I wrote where the numerals did not match the words. (I am in a small town and the bank manager knows me.) I just confirmed the words and the bank then honoured the cheque. I don't know what would have happened differently, if anything, if I had confirmed the numerals rather than the words. Bielle (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I clearly remember studying a "famous" legal case, where this was the exact issue at hand. And the legal principle held by the court was that the written words printed legally controlled over the numerical amount printed. I will have to look for the actual case citation. But, I definitely remember studying the case. (This was a case in USA case law, by the way.) It has stuck in my memory after all these years because, at the time, I remember thinking to myself, "wow, I never knew that". Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

There are checks in the Cairo Genizah dating to the Middle Ages that are quite similiar to ours -- they have the amount written out in both numerals and words. So this is not a new idea. See [4]. -- 76.190.138.251 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The sum expressed in words does not have precedence over the sum expressed in numerals, but the bank is (generally in Commonwealth jurisdictions) required by law to pay the lesser sum if various sums written on the cheque differ from each other. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, the written word legally prevails over the numerals. Here is a source that I found ... although this is not the legal case for which I was originally looking (and referenced in my post above). It states: "The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been adopted by all of the states with some variations, but the following is pretty universal. UCC Article 3 on negotiable instruments, which includes checks, covers your situation. § 3-114. Contradictory Terms of Instrument. If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers." The source is Amount Discrepancy in Check Between Number and Words. That link also contains other pertinent links. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

How odd. Why do we bother with the numerals then? Could I just use that space to sketch out a tiny version of my favorite cartoon character? APL (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In some sense, for the same reason you have to type a new password twice - to make you check your work, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But the computer cheques the passwords match and will make you fix them if they are different. Apparently US banks don't make you fix errors, so it doesn't serve any purpose. Very odd... --Tango (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but remember that the above UCC Code Section only applies when the two amount formats (numerals versus words) contradict each other. If one -- or the other -- is left blank, then there is no contradiction, and that given amount will dictate (regardless if it is a numeral or the numerical counterpart in words). Of course, leaving one section blank on a check may be an invitation to tempt a fraudulent entry in that blank spot. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

By the way, Chinese has a special set of "financial number" characters to make changing values harder (fraud would be much easier using the ordinary number characters, where one horizontal stroke is "1", two horizontal strokes is 2, three horizontal strokes is "3", and two crossed strokes is "10"). See Chinese numerals... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember being told in a History of Mathematics course at university is that one of the reasons that Indo-Arabic numerals were slow to displace Roman numerals was partly because merchants feared the new numerals were more vulnerable to fraud. It was apparently common practice to write a final Roman i, as a j to make alterations harder - and of course in ROman numerals you couldn't simply increase a value by a factor of ten. David Underdown (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

damaged aircraft auction

It's understood Flight 1549 was up for auction. The auction ended just recently. How much money was brought in?24.90.204.234 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Source of quotation, probably from W.B. Yeats

I would like to use the following quotation in a talk I'm about to give and would like to cite it correctly:

"All rising to a great place is by a winding stair."

I believe the quotation is from William Butler Yeats, but have not been able to find it in his Collected Poems. I know that Sister Corita used this quotation in at least one, if not two images she created prior to 1973, but I have not been able to find these images either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankellen (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Google consensus is Francis Bacon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In Bacon's essay Of Great Place to be precise. Yeats did have a volume of poems called The Winding Stair and Other Poems with the winding stair motif in the poem A Dialogue of Self and Soul. meltBanana 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario

What would happen if unemployment in the United Kingdom were to reach 100% what would happen. I know the country would go bankrupt but in reality what does this mean, the country's just left to rot or do we get bailed out by the IMF. . . ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.195.77 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That would mean there are no businesses operating at all. It might be useful to see what conditions were like during the Great Depression, when unemployment was quite high, and extrapolate from there. It's also possible someone has written about such a scenario, which you might be able to find via Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how that could ever occur. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at present, no, as the economy would collapse long before then. However, one can imagine a future time when automation has improved to the point where human workers are obsolete. Then, it could happen. This would mean capitalism would no longer function, as only owners of the means of production would have any income at all. Something more like pure socialism would result, with everyone sharing in the wealth created by the machines. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For which see The Soul of Man under Socialism, By Oscar Wilde. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If nobody's working, then nobody's got money, and nobody's buying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Under capitalism, yes, hence the problem. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from StuRat's automated world (which requires some really impressive AI), the only way I could see that happening would be if everyone reverted to subsistence farming. While they would be working, they wouldn't be contributing to the larger economy (of which there would be none). If nobody was working, they would just die, obviously. If the UK has got to that stage, we have to assume it is a global super-crisis and the IMF wouldn't be any help. --Tango (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

When the XIX century bringed the Industrial Revolution, it came with a number of philosophers that proposed new economic ideas. In the same way, if humanity ever reaches a state where automated work is so perfect that human workers are not needed anymore, such a revolution should force us to design a new economic system, different from capitalism, in order to take the most advantage of the new posibilities. MBelgrano (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And we will likely be forced to change long before we reach 100% unemployment. Even 30% might be enough. StuRat (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As with the Great Depression, which is why we have a measure of socialism already, i.e. a "safety net". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth looking at the economy of Nauru article; Nauru has an estimated 90% unemployment rate. Warofdreams talk 01:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Social care and "safety nets" are provisional measures, they still work with the idea of unemployment being a temporary problem that may be fixed soon. The hypothetic scenario of full automated work would mean that unemployment would be permanent, so it would be needed a radical change of paradigm MBelgrano (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would actually happen, though. I expect there will always be jobs that humans do better than computers/robots, those jobs may just be different ones than people are doing now. If we don't need people doing all the now-automated jobs that will free them up to do other jobs. Perhaps, for example, teaching won't be fully automated and lots of people that have been replaced by computers will become teachers and every child will get 1-on-1 tuition. Perhaps having people working for you, instead of robots, will become a status symbol and lots of people will go into domestic service and we'll have Great housees again (if the number of available jobs reduces, wages will go down and employing servants will become affordable for many again). The rich that are employing the servants would either be those that own capital (as they used to be) or those that have skills that computers can't (yet) match. Or perhaps half of jobs will replaced by robots and people will share the other half, since prices will have gone down and everyone can afford to work part-time, although I'm not sure about that: while people could afford not to work full-time, many would probably prefer to anyway and thus be twice as rich. But anyway, however it happens, I doubt we'll ever end up with total unemployment. There will be changes in what jobs people do and maybe how much they work, but people will always have jobs. --Tango (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We are already living in an age of automation, machines, and computers, if not many robots yet. If you required everything to be done by hand-crafting, then I imagine the workforce would need to increase by many times to achieve the same output. Many people (at least in the UK) already have a proportion of their income, sometimes all of their income, from "free" money given them by the state.

So if trends continue, in the future there will be a few innovatory business people with fantastically high incomes who live in great luxury, but who pay a lot of tax. This tax will be shared out as "benefits" among the proles, who with increasing population densities live in the equivalent of council flats. Reminds me of ancient Rome, but instead of bread and circuses its benefits and telly. Update: as noted below, more and more people would be students for longer and longer. At least even someone on the dole in the UK has a higher standard of living than a King of a thousand or more years ago. 84.13.173.45 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the unemployment figure is counting those in the workforce who do not have jobs. There are large groups of people who are never included as part of the workforce: students, housewives, farmers (in many countries), royalty, & nobility. (Unless there is some provision for out-of-work peers somewhere.) If automation replaced large numbers of jobs, but those people did not need to work to earn a living, then they would not be counted as part of the workforce. Thus the employment rate would not rise to high rates in this scenario.

Again, consider the OP's scenario: due to a crashed economy, everyone is out of a job. I remember reading anecdotes (as well as hearing tales from that generation) of the Great Depression in the US where commerce came to a halt -- for all intents & purposes -- because there was no hard currency to facilitate exchange. (In those days, they did not have credit or debit cards, & checks were often processed by the bank exchanging the actual check with cash.) In that instance of a crashed economy, people fell back to barter to get the things they needed. So one person would offer to chop wood for another in exchange for a hot meal; should that first person actually be counted as being employed? (That is a question which all governments consider, & many come up with some interesting ways to define "employed", not all of which the average economist would agree with.)

That example leads me to state that 100% unemployment would be impossible: there is always someone who has enough of something of value to hire others to do work for her/him. Even in places like Nauru (mentioned by Warofdreams above) or Zimbabwe (with reportedly 80% unemployment) or numerous US Indian Reservations (reportedly 75% unemployment), there are people with income. And what happens in those situations is that the folks with incomes are providing food & shelter to many of those without incomes -- usually family members, but sometimes friends. (Of course, in those situations shelter becomes free because the landlords & banks are unable to collect rent or mortgage payments, so what the dependents are getting is food.) And since they have some money, they have to pay someone for food, other goods, & services. But because that supply of money is limited, the quality of these things deteriorate; people who are good at providing them leave & those behind find a lot of the infrastructure which allows them to provide these things is broken or missing. So while it is hypothetically possible for the UK to hit 75+% unemployment, that would mean much of the country would experience a colder & less violent version of life in many parts of Africa. And probably without many of the exotic animals, too. -- llywrch (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why less violent? Masses of people who are starving to death can get pretty violent regardless of how they behave when everything is going well enough. Googlemeister (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How are nurses who kill caught?

I mean, there are a lot of examples of nurses who've killed patients, I mean, how are they caught?, what's the evidence?. I am not sure if I can exaplain what I mean. A serial killer who uses knife, rape, etc. can be caught by his/her DNA. So, what's the evidence in the cases of nurses who kill? --190.178.150.51 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Start with the page Angel of Death and go from there. In the first case listed, there were suspicions about a high quantity of similar deaths happening while a particular nurse was the only one on duty. That observation can start the snowball rolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the developed world, anyone that dies without there being an obvious cause will be given an autopsy. That will usually establish the cause of death. If it is something like a drugs overdose while they were in hospital then someone will look at the patient's notes and try and work out what happened. There is a lot of paperwork done in hospitals and one of the reasons for it is to enable them to work out what happened in the event that someone dies that shouldn't have done. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are that careful with autopsies. At least in the US, anyone who is old and/or sick when they die seems to bypass the autopsy table, which would be most of the people a nurse might kill. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, anyone that hasn't been seen by a doctor in the last 2 weeks is automatically autopsied. With anyone else, it depends on whether a doctor is confident stating their cause of death on a death certificate and signing it, I think. If the nurse killed someone that could easily have died anyway, then they might get away with it fairly easily. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But Tango, in the case of Colin Norris, he gave overdoses of insuline to his patients (four women) and was caught just because his colleagues reported him because of his ironic comments. So, there weren't autopsies to those women. --190.178.150.51 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article doesn't go into details about how he was caught, but it does say none of the women was terminally ill, so there would almost certainly have been autopsies. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the law of probability works against all serial killers, whether they are nurses or the "regular" Jeffrey Dahmer type of killer. That is, after several murders, they get over-confident, they make mistakes, they get sloppy, more evidence piles up, the "coincidences" start to make the authorities suspicious of the suspect, etc. This would be the case for anyone who engages in serial killings. So, having a nurse/patient relationship is not particularly germane when considering that the probability of getting caught increases as the body count (number of victims) also increases. So, yes, it may be pretty easy for a nurse to escape detection after 1, 2, or 3 suspicious deaths ... but less so after 20, 25, or 30 suspicious deaths on their watch. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Hospitals are paranoid, so they keep very careful records of deaths and compare their in-house statistics against local and national averages. If a hospital is showing a death rate that is statistically different than the national average - particularly if a particular type of death is greater than the other averages - they start looking for the cause. usually they'll start with things like equipment overhauls, disinfection and other forms of disease control, and etc, but the will eventually get around to examining personnel to see if any particular is associated with the rise in deaths. sadly, things like that are usually interpreted as malpractice, and the person involved will be quietly dismissed without any hint of scandal. It may take three or four different jobs before someone starts to put 2 and 2 together. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You could just as easily be describing how molesting priests get moved around until their activities finally catch up to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Right ... or nurses who kill ... or employees who steal ... or accountants who are incompetent ... or auto mechanics who overcharge ... or any such variation. This is sometimes referred to as "the dance of the lemons". Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Aha, hadn't heard that one before. "Dance of the lemons" is all over Google. One of the early entries says that a less delicate way of putting it is "passing the trash". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Do note however there's an obvious difference between a nurse being fired and the organisation who fire them never, ever wanting them to work in their organisation again, and priests being moved around within the Catholic church (which can be considered one organisation). A more relevant example would be if the priest is defrocked from the Catholic church and goes and joins the Anglican church. There is greater similarity between the Catholic church and teachers who are apparently sometimes moved around but within the same district or whatever when it becomes apparent to parents in the school they're at that they're incompetent. However in the cases of teachers we're primarily discussing incompetence, which at worse may lose them their registration and is different from the cases of nurses and priests were we're discussing criminal conduct. However even in the nurse case, it's my understanding the reason the hospital didn't do anything is because they thought the nurse was simply incompetent which in some cases could amount to criminal conduct in itself and perhaps they weren't interested in investigating further, it's a resonable explaination. However if a priest is accused of sexual abusing children, they're generally either guilty of criminal conduct or the accusers are lying, there's little possibility the priest is simply incompetent. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The "dance of the lemons" generally refers to the first organization not wanting to be "bothered with" pursuing any allegations or suspicions against the "offender". This can be for many reasons: too expensive; takes too much time; takes too much effort; the case may be hard to prove; the chance of a successful conviction may be slim; it may be hard to prove the allegations / suspicions; etc. Thus, it is easier for the first organization to simply get rid of the offender and pass him off onto the second unsuspecting organization. Then, this cycle continues as the second organization engages in this sort of dance with a third organization, etc. And, so, we have the dance of the lemons. Usually because assuring a successful conviction or proven allegation is just too hard, and it is much easier to sweep the problem under someone else's rug. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

I swear if I ever start a band (it's highly unlikely that I will anyway), I will name it "The Dance Of The Lemons". Sounds pretty bad-ass, huh? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Harold Shipman, he was caught after altering the will of one of his victims so that he benefited. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but the case of Susan Nelles was an extremely famous one in Ontario in the 1980s. --Xuxl (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(Business Valuation) Sales / Headcount -- a meaningful statistic?

I just got back from a campus recruiting trip for my joint venture, and at this particular presentation I unveiled a chart comparing sales per person growth (350%) (SPP from here) to headcount growth (150%) over the past 5 years. My point was to show that the company was not just expanding its numbers, but also dramatically expanding its market-share & that value creation per employee was way up. It served its purpose, making a strong impact on all the impressionable college seniors. At the same time, I had this nagging thought in the back of my head that this particular comparison was rather limited in its validity. For example, our foreign parent company's SPP is roughly 200% ours, while our domestic parent company's is roughly 25% ours -- nevertheless, both are widely praised as successful companies in their industry. This is a huge discrepancy! Furthermore, I suspect SPP to be biased towards tech companies who can create more value with less workers... I haven't checked but I'm guessing McDonald's would not fare well in this comparison because it employs so many thousands of people.

So, my question: is this comparison useful? is it a standard business valuation metric? should I abandon it entirely? It does seem useful if you're only looking at one company's history... Thank you for your time! 61.189.63.151 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not useful for comparing companies in different industries. I think you are right that it is most useful for comparing one company at different times. It is a similar idea to looking at "like-for-like sales growth". That is where you only count sales in stores that existed at both times you are interested it (so you don't count stores that have closed or ones that have opened in the intervening time). That is very commonly used, since sales increasing just because you have opened new stores isn't very interesting. --Tango (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See our recent discussion here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_March_19#sales_revenue_and_employees. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tango's summary, but this or something like it could be useful for comparing two or more similar establishments in the same company or industry. For example, if two Fleshburger™ outlets in different US states had markedly different sales-per-employee ratios, it might be a clue to relative inefficiencies in one, though there could be other/additional factors in play such as different regional tastes, suggesting a change of product (to, say, Flesh-kebabs™). Similarly, an international manufacturing industry with overcapacity among several plants might consider it, most likely combined with other factors such as different local wage levels, in deciding which one(s) to close. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Headcount is a highly unreliable metric. When the board sets tight headcount constraints, managers downstream play games with "outsourcing" or "contracting", dividing labor into two castes... Oh yes, we cut headcount by two and then hired seven part-time slaves... Dig deeper and retrieve actual work hours data which may be suprisingly inconsistent with politically-motivated headcount numbers. Professional in-depth industry studies also attempt to add estimated work hours spent by subcontractors (businesses, not quasi-employees), it's a laudable effort but the error margin and uncertainty may bee too high even when comparing apples to apples. Say, an oil refinery to an oil refinery. Comparing, as in your case, a subsidiary with its holding company is comparing apples with ... apple crates. NVO (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 29

Why is wikipedia possible?

Knowlegde is a commodity as well as power. Sharing your knowlegde with others, though it is great, will decrease the sharing peoples' competitveness over others. If everyone is aware of this idea, then how possibly could Wikipedia be formed? What are in the editors mind when they are contributing to Wikipedia? Personally I love Wikipedia as selfless global project. I am just curious about how do people get rid of their selfishness.--Lowerlowerhk (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, cooperating on a project like this is not necessarily completely unselfish; you can learn a lot from others while working on wikipedia, which might improve your competitiveness. Apart from that, selfishness is not the only motivation people have. There are also things like pleasure in cooperation, the satisfaction of contributing something that's useful to others, the desire to share information you find important or interesting, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a zero-sum game. If we share knowledge, we are both better off than if we don't. And, of course, there is the peacock effect. By contributing to Wikipedia, we advertise how smart we are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a story about the mistress of selfishness Ayn Rand herself (she wrote novels about the virtues of being selfish). The main character of Atlas Shrugged gives a 100+ page speech in the middle of the book, which the editor at the publishing house wanted to shorten drastically. Rand wanted to keep the speech enough that she ended up unselfishly agreeing to pay the extra printing and paper costs incurred by keeping it in the book. What it all means is that people like to share their ideas, and will undertake sacrifices in order to do so. You might ask yourself why anyone joins any volunteer project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.47 (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Although if you dislike Rand, or even if you don't, you could say it's at least vain to pay for the printing of something readers would rather not have... Personally, what I get from editing Wikipedia and answering questions includes a distraction from unpleasant chores, such as actual work, as well as the satisfaction of having been of service. The latter is no mean thing, as anyone knows who has ever given directions to a stranger. A trivial service, and yet you can bask in that warm feeling for hours. (None of this is intended to disparage altruism.)--Rallette (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's also quite interesting that Jimmy Wales is a self described Libertarian and Objectivist. TastyCakes (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Altruism. (otherwise known as "enlightened self-interest"). --TammyMoet (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Reciprocal altruism may be more accurate. The OP should read The Selfish Gene. --Mark PEA (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See also free software movement, which Wikipedia, if not really part of, is certainly strongly influenced by. Although an encyclopedia isn't software, both are easy to distribute and copy, and also amenable to incremental changes by lots of people at once. Paul (Stansifer) 12:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for a paid job as an Editor or perhaps a writer, it can look good on your CV/Résumé. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that. The amount of time it would take for a potential employer to determine what your real contributions were is probably prohibitive—they won't look at it. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's not that hard to find someone's contributions? Mitch Ames (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference is also partly due to the differences between a Professional and an Amateur (not that professionals don't use their knowledge to improve Wikipedia). A lot of information in Wikipedia is people engaging with their passion by improving content or making content available. E.g. I take photographs - I could withold those photos and only let people who pay 'use' them - that makes sense if i'm a professional (ignoring the 'free' content discussions for now) but as an amateur i'm just happy to try get my work seen, to share my passion with others and to maybe get some feedback and learn how to be better. Flickr lets me do that. The license I use means anyone can use my photos for free on a non-profit basis (e.g. in a blog, a charity website whatever) but must negotiate to use them in a for-profit scenario. I'm a bit half-way house that way, but there's plenty of entirely free license-free imagery that people will share. All the answers so far have been great, I hope this explains a little more about how things differ when it is an 'occupation' (professional) or a 'hobby' (amateur). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of serious academic studies about what motivates people to edit Wikipedia. Simple explanations like "altruism" don't really account for the full spectrum of why people do it (especially since most psychologists think that literal altruism would be a very rare thing to witness indeed, and could not sustain a community), and why they spend hours and hours of their own (presumably valuable) time on this of all tasks. (And not, say, working at a soap kitchen, or making tons of money to then donate to the poor.) Academic studies about Wikipedia discusses some of these though they don't seem to have much on the motivation models (they do note, though, that a minority of editors produce a majority of the content, which is useful to know in thinking about editor behavior)

This paper, for example, is from my skimming a pretty good overall breakdown of the many, many facets of answering this question. The are different motivations for different types of editors, there are different things that editors get out of it (knowledge, interaction, positive feedback, a feeling of belonging to a community, etc.), and so on. There is not going to be a one-word answer that sums up Wikipedia's success or model adequately. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia to impress the chicks. —Kevin Myers 13:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sharing your knowlegde with others, though it is great, will decrease the sharing peoples' competitveness over others." I can't make head nor tail of what you are trying to say here.Knowledge is not always something that can be bought,bartered or sold.There is such a thing as love of knowledge for it's own sake.You now owe me 10/6 for this answer..88.96.226.6 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The editing of Wikipedia is a product of the Internet age. Just like gold forms in veins in rock within the crust of the Earth, the Internet gives birth to Wikipedia. It is a freaky coming together of dictionaries, encyclopedias, books, and newspapers in the environment of easy access to information, facilitated by the software of the Wiki that makes collaboration possible to recompile information in one place. Editors get up to speed by understanding the reliance on reliable sources. Other than that it is the usual glue of sociability, tempered by animosity, that keeps the beat going. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fun. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is one commodity that can be given away and yet still be retained. Besides, enlightenment of humanity is in the best interest of everybody. Vranak (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Refrain from trying to define knowledge, it'll only confuse people.200.144.37.3 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What? Vranak (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Mr. 98: it's true that the vast majority of edits to Wikipedia come from a relatively small number of editors. But most of those edits—categorization, spelling corrections, project space and talk page edits, etc.—don't actually add content. The one study I know of (from 2006) that checks for actual amount of content contributions, indicates that most of the content (at that time) came from anonymous editors. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That study was limited to the article Alan Alda. My own experience over the last 6½ years on a broad front, is that permanent content comes from logged-in editors. "It turns out that the people who believe in truth and objectivity are at least as numerous as all the crazies, pranksters and time-wasters, and they are often considerably more tenacious, ruthless and monomaniacal. On Wikipedia, it’s the good guys who will hunt you down," observes David Runciman, Cambridge University, reviewing Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution; his is the most sensible description of Wikipedia ever: read it.--Wetman (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2006 study started with the Alan Alda article, but then says "I don’t have the resources to run this calculation across all of Wikipedia (there are over 60 million edits!), but I ran it on several more randomly-selected articles and the results were much the same...". David Runciman's review of Andrew Lih's book doesn't (IMO) say much that we don't hear all the time on-wiki, but I might look for the book anyway. Thanks for the link. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Added: a follow-on to the 2006 article mentions that he processed about 200 articles, and even the exceptions he found to the pattern turned out not to be convincing. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

what atheism

what does athist's du actualy just live a normal life or what cus i am new to atheism what?? is there many other atheist's out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by The eldar scrolls (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is an article which describes the various types of belief systems athiests posess. A related set of belief systems is Agnosticism. Other than the obvious (like clergy) atheists generally occupy all sorts of jobs, and live in all parts of the world. --Jayron32 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you'll find atheists in the clergy. I doubt you'll find a great number that are open about such (lack of) beliefs though. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're wondering how atheism is reconcilable with morality, you could look up ethical humanism etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you are looking for some role models, there are Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Julia Sweeney, Pat Condell, Tim Minchin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Isaac Asimov, Ayn Rand, Emma Thompson, Douglas Adams, Simone de Beauvoir and the Marquis de Sade ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're religious. Analyse your own life, pick out the bits where your activities are religion-based, and replace them with with either a) doing something else (like doing homework or playing Tetris) or b) doing it for a different reason (philanthropy, perhaps). Unless you take religion very seriously, atheists basically live the same. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But make sure to factor in arguing on the internet with Christians. That seems to take up at least the equivalent of church per week for most atheists I know. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I play online word games against Christians instead. Unless I manage to argue with unusual brilliance, this comes to much the same thing and is less emotionally fraught. 81.131.10.167 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, normal life. Probably just like yours, except we get to sleep late on Sundays. APL (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian services are now available in Sunday afternoons or evenings, believe it or not ;) . Many religions outside Christianity also do not observe Sunday as the day of worship. --Kvasir (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is a mental stance. And it need not be particularly long term. One can believe in God one day and not believe in God the next day. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, by flipflopping between many religions, you can anger all kinds of deities! Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK as far as I recall from surveys at least half the population are aethiests. Hardly anyone goes to church. The US seems to be more religious, and I find its guns'n'bibles stance difficult to reconcile. 89.242.246.24 (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet an enormous number "claim" they are Church of England by default. This is particularly prevalant in things like marriages were a church wedding is seen as a desirable experience - I know of many couples who have had a church wedding despite almost never setting foot in a church before or since. No wonder statistics, in articles such as Demographics of atheism, seem skewed. I've raised the question at Talk:Demographics of atheism#United Kingdom.

As for atheism, the OP was talking like atheism was a religion. I really don't think it is just another religion in which one believes or has faith and there is no official conversion ceremony or regular gatherings. We are just people going about their normal lives. Astronaut (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There are aspects of atheism that seem religious, such as the "dogma" that God cannot possibly exist, and therefore any apparent evidence to the contrary must be disregarded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have read the Book of Atheism (revised edition by Malaclypse the Younger), which absolutely forbids dogmas and in particular "dogmas" of any kind (if you can't find the passage, get the official version with the secret appendices). Or you misinterpret Occam's razor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the forbidding of a dogma, also a dogma? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but a dogma is not necessarily a religious matter. The 5 Pillars of Wikipedia are in effect its (her?) dogma; even though one of them is the very undogmatic statement that we have no firm rules, except these five, one of which is that there are no firm rules, except these five ..... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@Bugs: atheists typically won't say that god cannot possibly exist. They might say that believing in a god is like believing in unicorns - possible but astronomically improbable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually from the results of two surveys - which sadly I can't cite - it was apparent that most of us in the UK self-identify as Christians but can't be bothered to go to church. 81.131.10.167 (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that that is terribly germane to living a Christian life. The ones who go because they actually enjoy going, they're OK. But the ones who go because they feel it's a duty, well, they may as well stay at home. Sometimes the most Christian people are found among non-churchgoers, and vice-versa. If I recall, there's nothing in the 10 Commandments about having to attend a church every Sunday; all it said was keep holy the Sabbath day. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/hebrews/10-24.htm; http://mlbible.com/hebrews/10-25.htm: http://mlbible.com/james/1-22.htm; http://mlbible.com/james/1-23.htm; http://mlbible.com/james/1-24.htm; http://mlbible.com/james/1-25.htm.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What? How are any of these biblical quotes relevant to this discussion. Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to Jack of Oz with Bible quotations about assembling together and about living a Christian life.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign Debt Defaults

Hello Wikipedians

I have been thinking about sovereign debt crises, and was wondering if someone could give me some information. Sovereign debt default almost always occurs when the debt is priced in a currency other than that of the country involved, because otherwise the country's central bank could simply print more money in order to pay order to pay its obligations. (Or rather: the country's central bank/government would have to consider it worse to have high inflation than to default on its debt). When was the last time (or even better: does anyone have a list of all the times) that a country defaulted on its sovereign debt when it was priced in its own currency? Thanks! 91.84.177.93 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what the most recent case was, but it happened many times historically when governments refused to redeem their own paper money (look up "assignat", "not worth a continental" etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Historically, from at least medieval times until 1971, most sovereign debt was payable in silver or gold. During that period, all or most countries' currencies were based on a silver standard or a gold standard. For example, between 1900 and 1933, the U.S. dollar was defined as 1/20.67 of an ounce of gold (that is, an ounce of gold was defined as worth $20.67). So during that period, governments did not borrow in a currency that they could completely control. Instead, typically, they promised repayment of debts in terms of precious metals. During this period, there were plenty of instances in which governments defaulted on their debts. After 1971, virtually all currencies in the world were fiat currencies, whose value was not linked to anything tangible. As a consequence, governments issuing debt in their own currencies could theoretically inflate their way out of that debt. However, since 1971, investors have not been willing to fund government debts issued in currencies investors deemed unreliable, or they have demanded prohibitive interest rates to do so. So most countries have had to issue debt denominated in currencies investors deemed trustworthy, such as U.S. dollars. The United States has enjoyed the ability to issue debt denominated in its own currency. A few other countries have also enjoyed this ability, mainly in western Europe, but also Canada, Australia, Japan, and perhaps a few others. Since 1971, I am not aware of any country that has defaulted on debt issued in its own fiat currency. As you say, a number of countries (not including the United States) have defaulted on debt issued in U.S. dollars. However, it has been not quite 40 years since the abandonment of the gold standard, and we are really in uncharted waters as many governments' outstanding debt seems to mushroom. Debts in many countries (including the United States and the United Kingdom) are now much higher as a multiple of GDP than they have been at any time since 1971. While it is true that no government with a hard currency has defaulted on debt issued in its own fiat currency as of yet, we don't know whether some government might choose that course rather than the course of inflation if the government finds its debt burden intolerable. Marco polo (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that during the early stages of the German interwar hyperinflation, the German government paid off a significant amount in war loans to Sweden (?) before they realised what was going to happen. So I'm thinking not all pre-1971 sovereign debt was fixed in something tangible. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Russian government defaulted on ruble-denominated debt during the 1998 Russian financial crisis. (I think they called it "restructuring" the debt, but it's the same thing, since I don't believe they gave the bondholders any say in the matter.) --Tango (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this group against the law?

[5] Thanks. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Chinese, but it seems to have something to do with paedophilia (according to Google Translate). Without knowing precisely what it has to do with paedophilia, I can't even guess about its legality. Its legality may also depend on which jurisdiction you are interested in. If you are interested in whether it is illegal for Facebook to be hosting it, then US law is probably the relevant one (and the Communications Decency Act probably protects them, as long as they take it down upon being notified about it). If you are interested in whether it is illegal to be a member, then it is probably Chinese law that matters (I'm assuming the members are mostly in China). I know nothing about Chinese law on the subject. If you are concerned about it, I suggest you report it to Facebook and let them deal with it. --Tango (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The application name asks: "Who engages in pre-adult sex?" or better phrased: "Who engages in sex before the age of majority?" Without installing the app and hence knowing the content, I can't tell you what it's for. But on face value it's seems like a survey, and probably not illegal. It definitely has nothing to do with paedophilia. Note that in most of the Chinese-speaking world the age of majority is 18 (It's 20 in Taiwan but this app uses simplified characters). --Kvasir (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Google translated it as "Who is having sex with minor?" (emphasis mine). You would translate it as being more like "Who is having sex as a minor?"? The former is clearly about paedophilia. --Tango (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, I didn't need translation. --Kvasir (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not the thing. The thing is what the text actually means. I asked you to clarify your translation, why didn't you just do that rather than make a sideways insult about me not speaking Chinese? --Tango (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tango: age of majority in many jurisdictions is 18, but age of consent is 16. Minor =/= paedophilia in these jurisdictions --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Illustrious 14 Romans

Petrarch's last "Illustrious Romans"

Who are these men? Moved to Language Desk.

The first is obviously Scipio Africanus.

Caesar is Julius Caesar.

Pompeo is Pompey.

Octaviano is Augustus.

Vespasiano is Vespasian.

Can someone give me the names of the others.

What does the very last line say?

Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Quintus Caecilius Metellus is any one of the 10 or so members of the Caecilius Metellus family with the same name.

Marco Porcio Catone is probably Cato the Elder.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And lastly Trajan. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

...for Et ultimamente Traiano. ANTHIOCORE de Asia is actually Anthioco Re di Asia, "Antiochus, king of Asia". There are a long list of Antiocus, but don't forget Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, last of the Seleucids. PAVLO:Emilio is not Paulus Aemilius, but MARIO:Arpinate is Gaius Marius of Arpino.--Wetman (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Illustrious_14_Romans, where this was moved and, mostly, answered. Your opinion on PAVLO:Emilio is at odds with the current suggestion there, the rest is in line. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Medical staff, Civil War

In the context of American Civil War medical care, what was an "orderly," what did they do? If this job does not in fact exist, who did the non-surgical jobs, like moving patients, in a field hospital? Thanks. 75.11.184.53 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.184.53 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There were male nurses, as well as soldiers who were recuperating from illness or injury. Edison (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. One more question- if wounded soldiers were being kept in a civilian's home, how great was the obligation of the residents to help? 75.11.184.53 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.184.53 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the North, I don't think that the third amendment was suspended or violated during the war (meaning the answer is "no obligation"), but perhaps I'm wrong. 63.17.82.46 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The expectation and requirement would be to stay out of the way and not interfere, if the civilian did not feel called upon to help in some way. Edison (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Orderlies were used by surgeons, perhaps with more of the older definition of valet/assistant than of trained medical staff. Many descriptions of them as responsible for carrying the surgeon's kits of tools. See [6], [7], [8]. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks so much. 75.3.205.189 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oldest people in Rome?

I'm wondering, are there any well documented "old age cases" in ancient Rome? As in people reliably known to have lived to X years? If so, how old were they? Did anyone reach 80? 90? TastyCakes (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about well documented, but see Category:Ancient Roman centenarians. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah neat, I wouldn't have thought people back then could live to be so old... TastyCakes (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Then an explanation is in order. The maximum human life span seems to have always been around 130-140 years. All that has changed, even with our current technology, is to move more of us closer to achieving that maximum. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We just had a similar question a couple of weeks ago. There's nothing different about ancient people, except the higher death rate for children/poor people (and I suppose the greater chance of dying in battle or of some kind of epidemic). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the previous question, about nonagenarians before 1900, which lists some ancient and medieval ones. Cicero's wife Terentia is a famous Roman centenarian. Eighty or ninety wouldn't have been uncommon in Rome. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thanks guys, sorry for the repeat question.. TastyCakes (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

advance reading copies

• List of used book conditions
• http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=1161242

Unacceptable: Moldy, badly stained, or unclean copies are not acceptable, nor are copies with missing pages or obscured text. Books that are distributed for promotional use only are prohibited. This includes advance reading copies (ARCs) and uncorrected proof copies.

Why do they classify advance copies under "unacceptable"? I have some ARCs. They are certainly sought after if the books are popular and worth studying. -- Toytoy (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wild-assed guess (drawing on some book trade experience and decades of book collecting), but I believe that publishers usually supply advance copies (to reviewers, etc.) on the official contractual condition that they are not resold (in part, probably, to try to prevent their notional publication-date embargo being broken), so Amazon would be at risk of abetting a breach of contract (by the seller with the publisher) if they allowed such copies to be sold through them.

In practice, of course, reviewers often make a bit of extra money (and avoid their house becoming entirely filled up with books) by selling their review copies second hand. When this is done on an individual basis through the (geographically scattered) reviewers' local book dealers it won't show up on the radar, so the publishers turn a blind eye, but if a good proportion of the sellers instead used Amazon it would collect many 'illicit' copies in one place and become too noticeable to ignore. Presumably the "unacceptable" here doesn't therefore mean unacceptable to potential buyers (I, too, happily buy ARCs and Uncorrected Proof Copies), but legally unacceptable as items for Amazon to carry. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not always legally clear who owns advance copies, or whether the "no sale" provision of them is legally binding. Amazon want an easy life, and don't want to be referees in a three-way fight between a bookseller, a buyer, and a publisher who claims they either own the ARC outright or at least that the seller is legally prohibited from selling. This blog entry (which claims to be by a former Director of Sales and Marketing at Amazon's competitor Alibris) goes into some detail. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Amazon has changed it policy to allow some selling ARCs as collectibles, if the edition is out of print. Read the rest of that page: "Sellers approved to list in "Collectible" condition may sell advance reading copies and uncorrected proofs of out-of-print books as Collectible. Advance reading copies and uncorrected proofs of in-print or not-yet-published books are not permitted."John Z (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a large bookstore in New York City (literati from there probably know which store I mean) that buys and sells probably thousands of ARC's every week. A lot of book reviewers operate from NYC, and they get a ton of (unsolicited) review copies from publishers that they crate up and bring over to the store to sell or trade for other books. The publishers whine and gnash and shed copious tears of impotent rage over this, but there's nothing they can do. (Actually this was the situation was some years ago; I haven't been there lately so I can't be certain that it's still going on).

You should also understand that publishers have even complained about Amazon selling used books (apparently the publishers think anyone who wants to read a book should buy a new copy) even though selling used books is a venerable and generally respectable industry. So what the publishers want, and what readers and the law think are ok, don't necessarily coincide. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the publishers are just blustering and bluffing. Some textbook publishers have enormous cheek, they print a cover notice that says "keep textbook prices down, don't resell this review / promotional copy" They appear to hail from the Bizarro World where supply and demand work differently. Halfway down this page is a blogpost "Proof Negative" I found from following links in a link above, explaining how there is no legal obstacle to selling ARCs; as I mentioned above, Amazon now allows some to sell old ones.John Z (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How usual is it to have no friends?

How usual is it for a 17-year-old with no mental issues and who isn't a bully to have no friends? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Skimming our article Friendship, there's a section about the decline of friendships in the US claiming that 25% of Americans have "no close confidants". Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Often people having vastly different numbers of friends to each other is simply because they define "friend" differently. As Comet says, having no close confidants isn't unusual (I don't really confide in anyone). Are there people you know and like that you'll chat to if, say, you're in class waiting for your teacher? They could be called friends by a looser definition. --Tango (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Without, I hope, seeming to offer an unqualified diagnosis, I can say that in my experience, lack of friends can itself be a symptom of "mental issues". —Steve Summit (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be quite common. Edison (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Tango's onto it, by raising the question of how one defines a "friend". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. At 17 I had no 'good friends' but plenty of 'casual friends'. Vranak (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are male, try getting a girl-friend. There's plenty of girls in the same situation as you. 84.13.180.45 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use a concordance (http://bibletab.com/) to see what the Bible says about friendship (http://bibletab.com/search--friend).

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This a reference desk, not a church. Please do not preach here. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily discount ideas found in the Bible as preaching. Wisdom is wisdom, no matter the source. Vranak (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked about how usual it is. I think it is obvious the OP is referring to the present day. I don't think a source that is thousands of years old is going to be much help. Cultures change and the nature of friendship changes with them. --Tango (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The nature of friendship changes over time? Is that your final answer? ;) Vranak (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I was asked a question... --Tango (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tango, at least wavelength provided a refernce, something you neglected in your answer to this OP. Googlemeister (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to Meister? Vranak (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can find a reference if the OP really wants me to, but don't think my assertion is fairly obviously true once it is pointed out. I don't usually provide references for such answers and very rarely get complaints. --Tango (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You can see quotations about friendship from a variety of sources at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friendship. I remember seeing in a public library a copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, in which quotations from the Bible had cross-references to quotations from other sources, and vice versa. Thus, a reader can compare what different sources have said about a particular topic. Some people believe that the Bible contains the wisdom of God (http://mlbible.com/2_thessalonians/3-2.htm), and for them the Bible probably trumps (supersedes) has priority over all other sources of wisdom in cases of disagreement. Other people do not have that belief (http://mlbible.com/1_thessalonians/2-13.htm), and for them probably all sources are valued equally, at least at the beginning. It is up to each reader to decide. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising the wording of my comment: "trumps (supersedes)" --> "has priority over". -- Wavelength (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)]

If we're venturing into philosophical discussion on friendship, I have something to add:

"The knight of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends." -- Nietzsche, Ecco Homo

Vranak (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Ecce_Homo_.281888.29. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Graham wrote the essay Why Nerds are Unpopular. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how usual is it is, it's good to have some. Do you socialize much? I don't understand all this stuff about nerds being unpopular, I was the biggest nerd in the world during my youth (I still am I guess) and I was extremely popular, my football captain friend amazed at the amount of people who knew me. Heck I dn't know how a lot of people knew me as well as they did and i'd never heard of them.--92.251.191.108 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

From The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce: Friendship: A ship big enough to carry two in fair weather, but only one in foul. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Martin.

March 30

Proper Way to Observe a Baptism

Hello. One of my immediate family members is getting baptized after service finishes. In order to attend the baptism, should I attend the service? (I have not attended service for a while. At this time, I do not know whether I am a follower of the religion.) I would like your honest opinion. Thanks very much in advance. --76.64.12.49 (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Details will depend on the church and its denomination, but often the baptism will be considered as part of the service (albeit happening at the end) and general members of the congregation will remain, to celebrate the event and welcome the new member formally to the church. As such, it may be uncommon for people to arrive just for the baptism (and difficult to time right); some celebrants and congregations might consider doing so disrespectful. Whether to sit through the whole service is a matter for your own conscience: you wouldn't be the first quasi-believer to thole a service for the sake of a loved one's feelings. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in the book How to be a Perfect Stranger (conveniently readable on Google Books, at least in part), which is a guide to attending other people's religious observances. It's almost universally considered appropriate to attend other people's religious ceremonies, regardless of your own beliefs. (Different denominations and churches have different rules about who may take communion, though. It's always acceptable to abstain if unsure.) Paul (Stansifer) 03:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-believers are usually strongly welcomed in protestant traditions, especially at baptismal services. If you're familiar to a lot of people in the church, you'll likely have some questions about whether you'll be coming the next week, etc. You don't have to agree to do so. You can politely decline. Turning up to just the baptismal section might be considered a statement of unbelief. Care should be taken if you choose that to be subtle about it.

In a lot of adult baptism services (and many infant baptism services), the congregation is invited to promise to support the baptisee in their spiritual development. It's not impolite to remain silent if you don't agree (in fact, it may be rude to do so if you do not agree). It's polite to decline a communion/eucharist if you're not a believer. In some churches you can ask a priest for a blessing instead. If in doubt, ask someone. Christians are usually encouraged to welcome visitors and answer questions. Steewi (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be rude to shout "Blasphemy!" during the service. Remaining silent would be quite appropriate and supportive. Edison (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul's link to How to be a Perfect Stranger looked interesting, but I got a "No preview available". Temporary or regional problems, or an incorrect link? Astronaut (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Must be one of those regional things; it came up for me in the U.S. Deor (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Google Books may restrict access based on location sometimes (I'm not sure). I was able to see it from two different locations in the US. I bet it's available at libraries. Paul (Stansifer) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Chinese male face with political tentacles

does any one know what the chinese male face with eight tenticles and political saying written in them means...its a picture with references to the 1800"s... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.200.120 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A nonce image needs a visual reference if it's to be explained. Any on-line source?--Wetman (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you are referring to, but based on the description (tentacles, 1800s) I'd venture it was similar to this one? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not political, it's erotic. (Unless one considers erotica to be political.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone make a note of this: Bugs finds this drawing erotic. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. But a woman might. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And it would be good if someone could take a shot at translating the writing. It could be something like, "Slowly, Squidward peeled off her kimono, exposing her lovely..." or it could just be a set of recipes for squid sushi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read that a lot of pornographic work in the 18th-19th centuries was political satire. I'm not looking for the source for this, because I'm at work. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a famous woodcut known as The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. It was made around 1820 by the Japanese artist Hokusai; we even have an article on the genre it apparently started, tentacle erotica. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the kind of picture being discussed is probably the classic "octopus taking over the world" type of political portrait. E.g. [9] [10] [11] [12], content6.clipmarks.com/image_cache/ammcc/512/8A7EA55B-AF28-4EA9-A58B-1371B5A0083B.gif, content7.clipmarks.com/image_cache/ammcc/512/41675F32-FFB5-4A81-88DD-DBAB347C3688.jpg (last two cannot be linked because of irritating spam filter). In all cases these usually are just meant to expanding influence/power of the feared people/country/group. Its a pretty generic form of propaganda—put anything you want as the octopus (the US, the USSR, the Chinese, the Jews, the Nazis, the Communists, Microsoft). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FAA Violations

Has there ever been a case of a civilian getting arrested after dropping something out of a plane? I'm positive this would be against regulations but I imagine this must happened at some point. Like has a crazy person ever thrown heavy objects and been charged with a felony? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"...dropping something..." Like what? A conscripted airman dropping bombs on the enemy during wartime, or these guys parachuting with their car? Astronaut (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why I specified civilian. Specifically something dangerous like tennis balls over a neighborhood. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US the relevant law would be 14 CFR 91.15, entitled Dropping Objects, which reads:

No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.

anonymous6494 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, so has anyone ever been prosecuted for violating this law? 199.172.169.33 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, tennis balls probably wouldn't be very dangerous. They are quite low density, which means their terminal velocity would be fairly low. If my calculation is correct, it would be roughly 26 m/s. A professional tennis serve is more like 55 m/s and they don't cause too much damage if you get hit by one (it hurts, though!). --Tango (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I once was hit by a (non-professionally served) tennis ball squarely on the right ear. I can attest to the pain, and it also causes quite bad dizziness for a minute or so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha okay bowling balls then. Has any civilian ever been prosecuted for dropping heavy objects? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably a small private plane flying at low altitude that could be opened without sucking everyone out, and then presumably something could be drop. That wouldn't happen with a commercial airliner, or if it did, the one who did it would be in a lot bigger trouble than just for dropping something from the plane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes exactly I'm thinking it would have been out of a small craft like a Cesna. Perhaps a pilot just making a dumb decision? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a job for Google. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Or a Stuff Jump gone wrong. --Tango (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

While I don't know the answer to this question, I can testify that it's easy to open small airplanes without problems. The majority of the pictures in Commons:Category:Aerial pictures by User:Nyttend were taken through partially-open windows of a Diamond Eclipse or a Diamond Star. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, just a point here: Aircraft cabins are airtight, are they not?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 13:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Never drop a turkey from an aircraft. Woogee (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Or a Coke bottle. —Kevin Myers 06:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Angel(?) Danyal

Hello together, does anyone know anything about the (fallen?) angel(?) Danyal, maybe mentioned in the Book of Enoch? An casual online acquaintaince of mine asked who he is, I didn't know; today I've been to the library of the local university, but I coulnd't find anything specific. Maybe it has also to do with islamic mystics/angelology. Could you please help me? Thanks in advance! --137.250.100.49 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored question deleted without explanation by another person. Astronaut (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a small article about Daniel (angel) and a much bigger one about the Book of Enoch. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is it, thanks. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (IP)

Unknown Asimov book?

When I was a boy, I read a book that I believe was written by Isaac Asimov, but I'm not entirely sure. All I can remember was the ending: because humans lived either (1) on other planets, or (2) in spaceships, and because all energy used by humans was generated by tons of satellites ringing the sun, Earth was uninhabited and seen as an obstacle to progress; consequently, the leaders of the humans were sending in spaceships to blow up Earth to get it out of the way. Any idea what the name of this book might be? Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like Asimov. The concept of artificial satellites completely surrounding the sun is called a Dyson sphere and I don't think of it as an Asimov theme. Check Dyson spheres in fiction and see if anything looks promising. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it sounds more like a Dyson Ring than a Dyson Sphere. --Tango (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read a lot of Asimov's work and that plot doesn't sound familiar. Was it a full book or a short story? (Asimov wrote a lot of short stories.) --Tango (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember for sure, but now that you ask, a short story does seem rather possible; I vaguely remember reading several Asimov stories around the same time, but only checking out one or two books from the library. The only other work that I read at that time about which I remember anything was something about life on other planets; he proposed that Jupiter was habitable (I guess maybe he didn't know how much pressure there was on the surface?) and thought that Pluto was as large as Earth. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP suggests that I look at Dyson spheres in popular culture; while it mentions one Asimov work, "The Last Question", it's plainly not that. It was definitely some sort of Dyson sphere, although I can't remember whether or not a ring, sphere, shell, etc. was the proper description. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I recall that ST:TNG episode about the Dyson sphere, and here's what I didn't get and still don't. It was depicted as being a solid shell. Forgetting the practical question of how you would assemble it and what the environmental impact would be, where would the raw materials come from? You're talking about something that's way much larger than the sun, and no matter how thin you make it, it's still going to require melting down a a lot of planets to build it from. Anyone know the (theoretical) answer? I didn't see anything about it in the article, but maybe I missed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Replicators. Duh! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. I don't buy it, but I see. It sounds like the equivalent of the old theory of skimming hundredths of cents of interest on bank accounts and turning yourself into a millionaire. Never mind that the bank would have to have about 100 million accounts in order to achieve that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the principles of Star Trek physics. A replicator is an example of Plot-Based Technology (tm). It can produce everything needed by the plot, and nothing that would destroy the plot. It can, for example, make "tea, Earl Grey, hot", whenever Picard wants it, but no drinking water when the plot is to obtain water. So if the plot calls for a Dyson sphere, it can make a Dyson sphere, but it will be hard-pressed to make the penicillin that would safe the last of the Dyson Sphere Engineer from the Klingon influenza. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean salami slicing? Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is explained very well in the first Ringworld book. In fact, the "ringworld" in that book was built precisely because a true Dyson sphere would require far too many raw materials to be practical. Even building a ringworld would require an entire solar system worth of materials. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused — are you suggesting that I'm remembering a Star Trek book? I've never read anything of Star Trek, so it can't be that. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Answer: Fiction. It's always a plot hole. The article itself points out that there probably isn't enough mass in the solar system to make a shell. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Marrow features something much larger than a Dyson sphere. It was built by nanomachines completely disassembling a gas giant. Staecker (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article talks about a ship the size of a gas giant - that is much, much smaller than a Dyson sphere. --Tango (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Dyson sphere#Dyson shell section has a paragraph about where to get the building material. Dyson originally wrote there was probably enough material in our solar system to make a 1 AU Dyson shell that was 3 meters thick; but this incorporated hydrogen and helium, which are "not much use as building material", as our article primly puts it; so you'd use nuclear fusion to convert lots of hydrogen and helium into stuff like iron that's more useful. A later estimate by some other guy, excluding the hydrogen and helium, thought you could make a Dyson shell 8 to 20 centimeters thick, based on the already-usable material in our solar system. Most of this is the metallic cores of Jupiter and Saturn. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a suspicion such a project would prove to be about as useful as the Great Wall of China, only at much greater expense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Having though long and hard about this I wonder if Larry Niven is your author? He wrote about Ringworld which is a possible Dyson Sphere compromise and the Pierson's Puppeteers blew up their sun and moved out the planets in a Trajan rosette....hotclaws 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's by Niven. The plot sounds sort of familiar to me too. I'm imagining a more jocular writer like R. A. Lafferty. And everyone knows that Dyson rings/spheres/shells are made of scrith. ;) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moral terpitude

What is this?--79.76.190.44 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gross moral turpitude is "raping large numbers of nuns", according to Howard Kirk. However you probably want this article to tell you the normally understood meaning. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

March 31

Aryan vs. Japanese racial superiority

Hitler and the Nazis claimed racial superiority. Everyone else was supposedly racially inferior. Why would the Japanese, who also claimed racial superiority, choose to fight on the side of a dictator who thought they were a mongrel race? Why would the Italians? They're not exactly blond haired and blue eyed either. Wouldn't Japan and Germany eventually have to face off against one another? Was this point exploited by Allied propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammeg01 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See Honorary Aryan. Woogee (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Justification and true reasons can be different, you know. Just because they justified their actions by claiming racial superiority, it doesn't mean that they actually believed it. People usually only make bold claims ('Aryan blood is pure blood! All else is inferior!') when the veracity of those claims is dubious to begin with. See Big Lie. Vranak (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wartime makes for peculiar alliances. Such as the partnership with Joe Stalin's USSR. Right after the war, they became the enemy and Germany and Japan became essentially allies (the situation parodied in 1984.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

One should realize that slogans for the unwashed masses are but a pale second to expediency and politics, and always remember the old sayings: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "war and politics make strange bedfellows". Flamarande (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. We fought two wars against the British, yet here we are allied with them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Germany too...

For further info on that point, listen to Tom Lehrer's song "MLF Lullaby" (a proposal which, perhaps thankfully, was never realized). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Dumb Century noticed this and unearthed for us all a fake front-page news story dated September 1, 1939, entitled, "Japan Forms Alliance With White Supremacists in Well-Thought-Out Scheme". (If you are unfortunate enough to not have access to the book, this link seems to have the news story.) It concludes with a quote from Hitler on the occasion: "I salute you, chinky-dinky rat men, who have been given life by the confused hand of some long-dead pagan deity," he said. "When Germany stands victorious on a conquered Earth, and Aryan supermen wipe out the undesirable mud races one by one, your like will surely survive to be among the last to be exterminated." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler had a great admiration for Italy, both for its Fascist politics and for its artistic richness (he was a failed painter). Nazi scientists even declared that the ancient Roman people were of pure nordic blood (I think they found some rune inscriptions in Val Camonica). Hitler decided not to invade Sud Tirol, an ethnic germanic region in Italy, he instead gave to Italy egemony over the Mediterranean sea. Not every Nazi official thought the same (Goebbles was annoyed by the fact that Italians were offended when considered different form Germans). Hitler was also admired by the total devotion of Japanese people for their Emperor (he had the same feelings for Muslims), but he undoubtely considered them an inferior race (when asked about his alliance with Japan, Hitler said that he would be more than happy to make a deal with the devil himself in order to win the war). I think that's also important to note that the principal policy of Nazi Germany was Realpolitik. When Mussolini was defeated, Germany planned to annex large parts of North-Eastern Italy and even to reward Cossak Nazi fighters with Carnia (it was to be called Kosakenland). Hitler initially intended to keep Netherlands as a partial indipendent nation just to maintain their colonies in the East. When they promised Dutch colonies to Japan, they changed their mind and decided to integrate Netherlands as a province of the Reich. Hitler was initially more than eager to give to Britain free hand over their Empire in exange of total German domination over central Europe. Hitler was extremely skilful when it comes to flatter other nations and people with incredibly big prospects: to Italy a New Roman Empire, to Hungary egemony over the Pannonian plain, to Bulgaria Macedonia and eastern Greece, to Finland parts of Russia (for example Karelia), to Japan the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, ... --151.51.45.45 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a failed painter. I'm reminded of Samuel Beckett's "To be an artist is to fail as no others dare fail". Hitler certainly dared to do things that nobody else would have dreamed of doing. But not in a good way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If human life is taken as inviolable, certainly. If not -- well it's an ugly stew but it's been frequently served throughout antiquity, and even today. Vranak (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

primal fear and catatonia

Does primal fear/self preservation override catatonia- for example, would a vicious, barking german shepherd leaping at someone snap them out of a fixed catatonic position? How about something like the room being on fire? Would they respond to any external stimulus (i.e. reflex actions like pulling your hand away from a flame or blinking the eye when an object comes at your face quickly)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammeg01 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would look to Thích Quảng Đức as an example that would suggest otherwise, although a barking dog may have a little more force and personality than mere flame. Vranak (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since catatonia is often considered to be an extreme form of fear reaction, an increase in the level of fear would be unlikely as a solution - it's more likely to deepen the state. --Ludwigs2 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Deer in the headlights and so on. What, no article? No mention in the deer article? Vranak (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cite references, you slobs. Our Catatonia article does not claim it's "often considered to be an extreme form of fear reaction", probably because it is not. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be polite. For your good as well as ours. Vranak (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

An Interesting GK Question

I am looking for the place which is the birth place of

1. one of America's most popular female singers, 2. the mother of one of America's most distinguished senators 3. America's youngest political office holders of all time

It was also long time home to one of America's favorite fathers

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.76.229 (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you direct us to the URL of this quiz? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How much money is in it for the Reference Desk? We need some hard disk upgrades. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the youngest president was Theodore Roosevelt, he was born in New York. THere's many a famous female singers from New York and no doubt many distinguished senators from there too. Not sure if 'youngest political office holder' means President or just youngest person in the senate/congressman who my google-fu suggests was Harold Ford Jr who was born in Memphis - which is home to Tina Turner (though isn't she from Nutbush?) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she is from Nutbush, which, contrary to the song "Nutbush City Limits," is actually unincorporated and therefore has no city limits. It's not rare but not unheard-of for teenagers to be elected to city councils in the U.S.; there has even been an 18-year-old mayor in Michigan and an 18-year-old state legislator in Ohio. It's hard to imagine a younger office holder outside of a monarchy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Has the UK population become very much more intelligent in recent decades?

I've nothing against lots of people going to university, but I'm curious about the statistics. When I went to university only about the top ten percent of the ability range did so in the UK. But this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8596504.stm says that around 50% now do so. I'm surprised that someone with an IQ of 100 (or less) should be able to complete a university degree.

What is the explaination? Has the population become considerably more intelligent in recent decades, so that an average IQ is the equivalent of an IQ of 125 or more in the past? Or is there some other explaination? Thanks 78.147.25.63 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, the comparable phenomenon could be explained as devaluation of the degree.--Wetman (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the degree may have been devalued, but that's perhaps the result not the cause...the cause may be that the educational system is able to get people to a higher level of learning (not be confused with intelligence) than they once were, and the economic ability for more people to go to college (US)/university (UK)...--达伟 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, in other words, "dumbing down" the curriculum. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Average intelligence isn't going to increase in a few decades via evolution, as that would take many thousands of years and a strong evolutionary pressure (such as stupid people all dying). You could possibly increase intelligence that quickly by artificial means, such as eugenics or genetic engineering, but obviously that hasn't happened anywhere, yet. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the mean value of IQ test scores (which may or may not correlate with whatever we call "intelligence") has certainly been observed to increase over time - this is called the Flynn effect. IQ tests are re-normalised periodically to correct for this (so that the mean score is set back to 100). Gandalf61 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be because learned behavior can change far more rapidly the biological evolution could. And my personal observations would indicate that genes account for less then upbringing. Googlemeister (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been various explanations of the Flynn effect from statistical anomalies or people being more used to the style of test to better education or even better nutrition. The article has some discussion of possible causes. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

IQ is a measure of ability to do IQ tests, it doesn't necessarily correlate particularly strongly with ability to perform well in higher education. It is probably a combination of better primary and secondary education and devalued degrees. It is very difficult to get conclusive evidence for this kind of thing, though. You can't, for example, just give a 1960s exam to current students and see how they do, since they haven't been taught to the same syllabus. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, the general result is that the "bottom" has expanded a lot in the last many decades. The top is still the top, but there are tons of opportunities for non-top-10% students to get degrees of one sort or another. Amongst academics it is pretty common knowledge that the students at these schools (mostly the ever-increasing state schools that are at the bottom of the prestige system) are on the whole a lot less prepared and able to perform than students at the more competitive schools. I only offer this up as a caveat to the "dumbing down" approach—it's not that the entire system needs to be "dumbed down" to accommodate more people of less skill, it just requires that you create more places that are less competitive and have lower standards. The "good" students are still on the whole going to "good" universities. It's just that there are more places available for students who wouldn't otherwise be able to get into the top schools (for a variety of reasons, not just intelligence). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is about the UK. What about these "Foundation" degrees that I've vaguely heard about? Does everyone take the kind of degree I did, or are there watered down lower-ability versions now that are still called "degrees"? 78.147.25.63 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Foundation degree explains it. It isn't equivalent to a regular degree, it's a vocational qualification that takes a year or two. Officially, all Bachelors degrees are equal (although they come in different classifications - 1st, 2:1, 2:2, 3rd and pass), but in reality a degree from a better university is better. Degrees in different subjects have very different earning potentials as well. --Tango (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they've gotten smart enough that they're slowly taking back their empire, using brains and not just braun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the only barrier to higher education today or in the past has been a lack of ability. If only 10% of Britons attended university at some time in the past, I doubt that they were the top 10% purely in terms of ability. Class and class expectations surely played a role. An intellectually gifted son of a mechanic might have been convinced by his family and even his secondary-school teachers that it would be a waste of his time to try for university and that he should attend a trade school instead. I don't live in the UK, but my sense is that class prejudice has lessened in recent decades. Similarly, intelligent young women might have been discouraged from attending university in the past because it would complicate their marriage prospects or be a waste of time for a person whose object in life was marriage and motherhood. This is obviously no longer true. The result may be that today's undergraduates are not much less able than the students of years past, but that they are more numerous because they come from a wider range of backgrounds. Marco polo (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So now all the hairdressers and car-mechanics are getting foundation degrees? (Excuse me showing a flash of intellectual snobbery). In other words its just a renaming of whatever they did before? 78.147.25.63 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Another change that has taken place in the UK and other developed economies in recent decades is the decline in manufacturing, agricultural, and artisanal employment, which did not require a university degree, and a dramatic increase in "white-collar" jobs requiring a university degree. I'm not sure whether hairdressers and car mechanics in the UK need university degrees. I rather doubt it. However, the denizens of the vast office complexes that have sprung up in city centers and near motorway junctions since the 1960s are required to have university degrees. So there has been a change not only in the supply of degree candidates but also in the demand for degrees. Again, I don't think that we can necessarily draw any conclusions from this about the qualifications of the degree candidates. Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Any useful measure of intelligence will include just that -- a defined measure. General knowledge of the arts, sciences, world events, facts and trivia -- is that what you are asking about 78.147? Vranak (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Some other factors in the UK... 1) Many more university places than 30 years ago and many Polytechnics are now universities. 2) Teachers are much more focussed on exam success than previously - it now affects their career prospects and the success of the school is measured in results. This was not the case 30 years ago. 3) A Levels used to be marked so that a fixed percentage of those sitting the exam received a specific grade (ie maybe only the top 10% would get an "A" grade). Now there is only a 3% failure rate. Alansplodge (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Being a citizen of the UK, my impartial, well-reasoned, highly-intelligent and unequivocal answer is: yes --Jubilee♫clipman 12:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Impossible feats of heroism?

I was doing some research on my great-great-grandfather, and I found some records of his particularly impressive. So impressive, in fact, that I find it hard to believe that he was actually involved in both in so short of a time. First we have the 1917 article "Northern New York Man Gets Medal for Heroism", where Chief Gunner's Mate John F. Woolshlager of Castorland is given a letter of commendation from the Navy for saving the life of a man on the USS Wyoming during WWI. It goes on to say that he will be re-enlisting in the Navy later that year. Then we have this citation, the Distinguished Service Cross, being given to First Lieutenant John F. Woolshlager (again, of Castorland) for heroism in the battle of Grand Pre in 1918. My great-grandfather, his son, born 1921, is the only other John F. Woolshlager I can find. So, my question is this: could these two records really be talking about the same guy, or is the only conclusion that there were three generations of John F. Woolshlager's in Castorland? (Or maybe something I haven't thought of?) —Akrabbim^talk 16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They could certainly be talking about the same person, though he would have had to be promoted from enlisted to officer in the time between. There does not seem to be a wikipedia article for the battle of Grand Pre in 1918, only the one in 1747. Googlemeister (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only would he have to have been promoted to officer status, but would have to have transferred from Navy to Infantry. Of course the US joined WWI between the two, so it is just possible that John F. Woolshlager thought he could serve his country better in the Infantry during time of war. How big was the barrier between enlisted and officer class in the US in 1917? I know that in the UK officer status was very much a class thing, and promotions to officer were very rare. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Promotions in the navy were not to do with class, but with proving oneself in battle, the problem was that naval battles were very rare in the decades prior to 1914. 80.47.196.55 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is true that before WWI being commissioned from the ranks was fairly unusual, but it became considerably less so during the war due to the rapid expansion of the armed forces, and of course the Chief of the Imperial General Staff for part of the war had himself risen from trooper in cavalry regiment to field marshal, see William Robertson.

In answer to the actual question, it's certianly not impossible, I don't know how availble US census records are for that era, for the UK I'd be checking the 1911 census to see if there were other people with that name - immigration records might also show if there were others. David Underdown (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You could always submit a request for records to the Personnel recordscenter in St Louis for his military records and see what it says. Chances are good his navy record may still be there although a large amount of the Army records (about 80 million) were destroyed in the 73 records fire. You could also contact the Naval Historical Center or libary/archives at the washington Navy Yard and see if they haev anything on him. They may not have a bio on him on hand but they maintain all the cruise logs for naval vessels and have lists of personnel, ship crews, certain awards, etc and tey might be able to look that up for you. --Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing about looking up his records. I looked up my grandfather's military record and it didn't take very long for them to send them to me. The xerox copies they sent showed evidence of both charring around the edges and water damage. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The LDS have digitized all names in the 1880 US census and made them public [13]. No Woolshlagers there. The guy you know about was quite likely not born then, but this can be an indication that he did not have a father with the same name who lived in the US in 1880. Of course, his father could have immigrated after 1880, changed his name, have had his name misspelled, or be missing in the records even if he lived in the country at the time. Jørgen (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of material removed: Same man was found in 1900, 1910, and 1920 federal census, and in 1920 he was living in an army hospital, listed as a patient, and notes that he was an army officer. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you found them in the 1900 Census as well. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone else is wondering (as I did) Grandpre is in the Argonne Forest; the battle took place in October 1918. The best map I could quickly find was provided by a hotelier [[14]] Zoonoses (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you know, WHAAOE - Grandpré, Ardennes. I couldn't find it earlier since I was looking under "Grand Pre". Auntieruth, I guess that census material confirms that he did somehow jump from enlisted Navy to Army officer somewhere between 1917 and 1918. Thanks for all the help everybody. Just as a side note, I don't suppose that those two events of recognition would qualify for Wikipedia's notability requirements? (I started a userspace draft just in case.) I'm thinking it's possible, but I'm not keeping my hopes up. —Akrabbim^talk 02:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he quite makes notability, although the hedaline of the first article refers to a medal, the body of the article seems to suggest it was more a letter of commendation, and it's generally been held that only (for the US military) Medal of Honor recipients where we can assume notability - see WP:MILPEOPLE. The articles Forest of Argonne and Meuse-Argonne Offensive should help give you a better idea of what was going on at the time. David Underdown (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability in the greater world is not the same thing as notability at home. You might consider showing your documents to the local VFW or American Legion post. Some of them have museums displaying documents and medals and photographs. You might get free drinks for a while (until they start asking when you're going to West Point....) Zoonoses (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What happened to old Chinese coins when dynasties fell?

Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancient coins, unlike most modern ones, had value because of the precious metals they contained. Therefore, the old coins would have retained their value. The new dynasty might have offered a trade-in period where the old coins could be traded for the new ones (and then melted down the old ones to create more new ones). If not, the old coins would likely stay in circulation along with the new until they became rare enough, due to normal attrition, that people started keeping them as collector's items. And, even if there was a trade-in period, some old coins would survive in ship wrecks, buried in people's back yards, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the most logical explanation for it. It would have basically been an exchange ("Give us your old coins, we'll melt them down and give you new coins"); essentially the same idea as the modern gold exchange, except that the thing you got back also had value. Cam ^(Chat) 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember, the Chinese fully understood that the "value" was largely conventional: they invented paper money (as well as the paper it was printed on and the technology of printing with ink). The coinage that remained in circulation was not necessarily the newest, but the most debased, i/e. the coins with the least intrinsic "value": "Bad money drives out good".--Wetman (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Did Bill Gates start Microsoft with his parents' money?

The article History of Microsoft didn't say, or I didn't see it. Thanks.20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Triumph of the Nerds has quite a bit about the origin of Micro-Soft. Between it and History of Microsoft we get that he remained at Harvard (using Harvard's computers) until he and Allen had persuaded Ed Roberts to start selling Altair Basic, and only then did he quit and go to Albuquerque where they founded Micro-Soft. So at that point Micro-Soft would be cash positive - I don't know to what extend, but Altairs were selling like crazy so it's very likely they were making a reasonable income. In Albuquerque they lived, and worked, in the Sundowner Motel opposite MITS' office (so he clearly was living on little money). Triumph of the Nerds suggests, but doesn't say for sure, that they grew purely from generated revenue (it does say that Apple did, a few years later, with a very similar growth curve). So, beyond paying for him to be at Harvard, there's not much indication that his parents gave much help. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't fully answer the question, but this Cracked article may be of interest to you. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Find board of directors of california corporations

Where can one find the members of the board of directors or officers for a california corporation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VedanaCo (talk • contribs) 18:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Start with the company website, then the California Secretary of State, then the SEC website. [15] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantatas

Which J.S. Bach cantatas were written in the key of C major?96.232.11.68 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bach article has a lot of links and references that may be of help in tracking this info down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This [[16]] seems to be pretty comprehensive for Bach cantatas in any key. Zoonoses (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of learning Irish?

This is an honest question and I don't want to offend anyone, I just would like to understand something. Why does the Irish government want to create a bilingual Ireland (Irish/English) and not just use the language they're currently native speakers of, that is, English? I see no practical reason for doing so, only maybe "national pride" or something. So, why do you think that is? --Belchman (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"'National pride' or something" was spot on. The Reference Desk is not a substitute for an opinion forum, however.--Wetman (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone want their home country's ancient language to die out? That is like everyone in China switching to English as the national language. There is actually a very good short film called "My Name is Yu Ming" about a young Chinese man who learns Gaelic and later travels to Ireland to learn no one speaks it. It is basically a call for people to learn the language so it won't die out. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA0a62wmd1A&NR=1. - Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Why would anyone want their home country's ancient language to die out?" If my home country had an obscure and isolate language which is clearly worse than English I would support switching to English completely. Of course, not using it in everyday and formal communication doesn't mean that we will completely forget the language, as we haven't completely forgotten Latin, for example. --Belchman (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommend Mark Abley (2003). Spoken Here: Travels among theatened languages., which discusses the various reasons why languages die and why some people work to sustain or revive them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No one speaks it? See Gaeltacht. Woogee (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Wetman that our opinions are not appropriate, but I hazard a guess that the records of debates and reports of the Houses of the Oireachtas will somewhere show justifications given for public expenditure necessary to foster the Irish langauge. So there are factual paths still open to us. Education in the Republic of Ireland notes that "a student attending a school which receives public money must be taught the language". Ah/ Here you go. An Irish Government Statement on the Irish Language 2006 sets out their fairly contemporary thoughts on the matter: "The Government believes that the Irish language is of particular importance for the people, society and culture of Ireland. As a spoken community language, Irish is unique to this country and is, therefore, of crucial importance to the identity of the Irish people and to world heritage." and goes on to set out a 20 year strategy for the language, or, if you prefer, "Cuirfear straitéis fiche bliain don Ghaeilge le chéile bunaithe ar na cuspóirí atá leagtha amach sa cháipéis seo."

The government statement asserts that "according to surveys and opinion polls, most of the population believes that Irish is of particular importance for themselves personally and/or for the country as a whole." Perhaps it is then an expression of the will of the people?

Meanwhile, here's what the Irish green Party has to say in justification for policy relating to the Irish language. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that one reason we want to keep a language alive is the same reason we like to have fine art. A more practical reason is that it keeps access to existing historical records and literary works easier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In a related vein, the same question in regard to Scottish Gaelic, was the subject of this episode of David Mitchell's soapbox. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

People take pride in their language. It's part of their shared heritage and entity. It connects them to their sense of their deep past; it is a rich cultural product. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

James Joyce around 100 years ago had something to say about this subject. His opinions are explained more concisely in Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man than in the later books Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake. Hemingway claimed Joyce spoke Italian in Paris (and both his and Nora's children had Italian names). Then there's Samuel Beckett who wrote his plays in French, translating them into English himself. If Beckett spoke in Irish it was only to curse. (Not to say there's anything wrong with a good cursing vocabulary -- bot unfortunately, English is woefully bereft of good curse words). Zoonoses (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Euphonics, perhaps. The French would never give up their language, I'm sure, due to its 'ear feel'. Irish may have similar euphonic features . Vranak (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The deal with language is that language is more than simply code for ideas. Language is part of the culture in which it develops, and when a language is lost, there are parts of the culture that are lost with it. For one thing, there are concepts in each language that cannot be properly expressed outside that language. The linguistic and cultural context is lost. Consider a language like German for example. A German word like "Volk" lacks a single, easy to translate word in a language like English. We say it means "folk" or "people" or "nation" or whatnot, but its a cumbersome thing to express outside of German. There's something in the German character and culture that gives the word its definition; all Germans know exactly what it means, but its hard to translate properly outside of German. Schadenfreude is another example; no single English word or phrase properly captures its meaning. The bullshit story about Eskimos having 100 words for snow is bullshit, but it has a nugget of truth in the idea that the language of a people is intimately tied into the culture of a people; and it is impossible to fully preserve a culture if the language is lost. Its part of why the French are so fiercely protective of their language; theres value for French people in French culture, and French language is part of that. So when a language like Irish Gaelic dies out, it takes aspects of Irish culture with it. Irish culture becomes less "Irish" when it loses its language. --Jayron32 04:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the decision to support and promote Irish was made (officially) over 80 years ago, and unofficially in some of the various Irish independence movement even earlier than that...people's worldviews and political debates tended to be grounded in different sets of assumptions and values to some extent then--similarly, I would think the question of "what justifies the public expense of promoting Irish?" would be seen as a question whose answer is self-evident, among most of those in the leadership of the independence movements and subsequent early independent governments of Ireland--达伟 (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Am fear a chailleas a chanain caillidh e a shaoghal (Scottish Gaelic). "He who loses his language loses his world." A useful paper here[17] on the revival of Manx Gaelic. Alansplodge (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On this, see Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.--152.3.129.3 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

One phrase to search for is language revival. That will lead you to websites, including blogs, that will give you opinions we are not supposed to indulge in here. For example, The Revival of Gaelic. Given your understandable cynicism, you may like this report: Modern Irish: A Case Study in Language Revival Failure. An Irish travel writer named Manchán Magan tried to go around his own country speaking Gaelic, for a programme called No Béarla, and so has an unusual perspective on the situation of his language. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be tought, it's stupid that it is, it takes valuable study time from actual important subjects.--92.251.164.176 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April 1

Question or Query

This question is from an IP who is suspected of being a recurring troll

Dear Wikipedia, Me and my friend got in a fight about religion. My teacher told me to write an essay about it, so I need some answers from you guys. Should I sue him for punching me? What is the best cure for a black eye? Do you think we will be friends again in the future? What is the one true religion? Thanks for your help. Feel free to debate the answers and then get back to me. My number is (redacted). Your friend, A. Foole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.51.204 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC) It's not our place to tell you It's also not our place to tell you (but I would recommend an ice pack) We don't know you or your friend, so that is something for you guys to decide That's like asking what is the greatest rock band ever or who is the most beautiful actress ever. It's purely subjective. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Wait, "A.Foole"? Is this guy/girl a troll? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Our first April Fool's Day post. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty good, though, and harmless - a non-subtle summary of the types of questions we're not supposed to answer. It could maybe serve as an example. I could think of additional items, like "What's the answer to the following question my teacher asked today? [Quantity of bricks in the Great Wall of China.] I need to know by tomorrow, so hustle it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How many molecules are in Leonard Nimoy's butt? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About tree fiddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.66.128 (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"What's the question if the answer is 'no'?" --Jubilee♫clipman 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is, "What does N-O spell?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Will there ever be a boy born, who can swim faster than a shark?

Will there ever be a boy born, who can swim faster than a shark? --92.244.158.105 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This question is a quote from The Office. Do you really want an answer? --Cam (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather dubious, for the simple reason that men are adapted for pedestrian locomotion, while sharks are at home in the sea. Vranak (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be crystal balling to say "never", but I could ask a similar question: Will there ever be a shark born that could outrun a normal human being on dry land? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If the shark were at the point of death and the boy were Michael Phelps, yes to the original question. Wrad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hence my qualification about a "normal" human being. Not that Stephen Hawking isn't "normal" necessarily, but if his wheelchair's batteries failed, a shark on land could probably catch him - just as a disabled shark might well be outswum. So we're presuming physically fit participants. "Now, for my next impression... Jesse Owens!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this site:

Sharks typically swim with the even, liquid grace of a creature completely at home with its place in the Universe. Large sharks generally cruise at a leisurely 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometres) per hour. Because most species fare poorly in captivity, the maximum swimming speed of a shark has seldom been measured. The Blue Shark (Prionace glauca) is an open ocean glider, planing on wing-like pectoral fins and flattened belly. There exists a dubious record of a small Blue Shark about 2 feet (0.6 metres) in length which was found to swim steadily against a current at 17.7 miles (28.5 kilometres) per hour and was reported to achieve 43 miles (69 kilometres) per hour in short bursts. The most reliable record of a Blue Shark at speed is 24.5 miles (39.4 kilometres) per hour for a 6.5-foot- (2-metre-) long individual.

And according to this site:

Top swimming athletes are said to average 5.25 mph. But in the case of Phelps, let’s round up to 6 mph.

So that means that depending on the shark, there are some swimmers who can outpace them at cruising speed. However it seems that in most case swimmers would have to quadruple their current top speeds which seems unlikely without either serious physical, genetic, or robotic assistance. And even then it is still likely that the sharks will be able to consistently outpace them both sprints and across long distances (unlike, say, horses, which have a more spotty record). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bellic reasons

[18]

Why did the maharashti navy sink these ships if they were not in bellum?174.3.113.245 (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Finding the names of my grandfather's parents

Hi, I was wondering where you guys think I should look to find out the names of my great grandparents (the parents of my father's father). My grandfather was in WWII, and I found his listing in the Social Security Death Index, but what shows children or parents that is in the public record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.66.128 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends where you are, and where your great grandparents were from. If you know the name of your father's father, and he was born in the UK, you can search online on FreeBMD [www.freebmd.co.uk] and find his birth record. This gives you the reference you need to order his birth certificate from the GRO (General Register Office) [19]. This will have the names of his mother and father. Sorry I can't help with anywhere else - maybe someone else will be along shortly who can. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The original poster's IP address geolocates to Illinois. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This website could probably help you, as I have used it for the same kind of thing with success. After searching the name, if there are results in the WorldConnect database (which stores a large number of geneological data points), the entries contain birth/death dates and locations, names of parents, and spouse names. Then you can filter by more specific criteria, or further search for the parents' names, and see their information, and so on. There are additional resources at the external links of our Geneology article. —Akrabbim^talk 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

[20] This is another good site and is completely free. Wrad (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I found out the names of my great grandparents. Is there a way to find out someone's maiden name? The problem is she was born in the austro-hungarian empire, she might have gotten married there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.66.128 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About my grandmother

She could be, if you are an aphid.

Is my grandmother a virgin? I asked but she refuses to answer. 122.107.207.98 (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

She probably considered the source. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this another case of a troll having fun on April Fool's day? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya think? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be asked for laughs, but depending on the circumstances, a grandmother could indeed still be a virgin. For example, if all her children (including your parent) were adopted, there is a possibility that she could have remained a virgin. Or if your parent came from your grandfather's first marriage (so she is technically your step-grandmother). Depending on your/her definitions of "sex" and "virgin", there are other ways too. e.g. artificial insemination. There's a question later down on this page WP:RD/M#Pregnancy_without_sex which is related. During sex education courses I was told that it is indeed technically possible for a woman to get pregnant during non-penetrative sex, as long as there is an unblocked route to the fallopian tubes. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Who was the first US president to refer to the USA as a democracy?

Who was the first US president to refer to the USA as a democracy? --Gary123 (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think Washington. Do you have reason to suspect otherwise? --Cybercobra (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the rhetorical use of the phrase is probably very old. I doubt anyone has ever seriously argued that the U.S. government is a direct democracy. However, it's perfectly reasonable to categorize the U.S. as a representative democracy, and in that sense it is a "democracy". Blurring the distinction between direct and representative democracy is a standard sort of technique in rhetoric, that can be used to make arguments more persuasive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Weren't there leaders before Washington that were elected as "President of the Council" or something? I am British, BTW and they don't teach us this stuff: I just saw it on telly sometime back :) --Jubilee♫clipman 11:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who (if anyone) was in charge before Washington, but they would not have been a President, so they could not impact this particular question. Googlemeister (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Articles of Confederation (1777-1787) had the office of the President of the United States in Congress Assembled, of which there were 10, plus some Presidents of the Continental Congress during the early revolution. There's not much common between those and the present office, though, save the use of the term "President". The early office was legislative rather than executive, but even then doesn't approach something like a Prime Minister. Rather, the President of the Congress was a role more akin to a Speaker of the House (in both the present US and British systems). — Lomn 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC

But the articles of Confederation are not the US Constitution, which is the document that creates the office of POTUS. President of Congress would be an entirely different office and trying to include something like that is simply arguing semantics. If you can show a reference where the POTCC describing the US as a democracy I will concede the point. Googlemeister (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any question that refers to President of the US necessarily must be from Washington onward. As noted by Lomn, the guys preceding Washington were not chief executives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed generally, but the question is looking for (generally) early attestations that the US is a democracy. That's not a Presidential function, and as such, a restriction to Chief Executives may be unnecessarily narrow -- any of the Founding Fathers (several of whom were POTCCs) might well be just as persuasive. As such, I largely object to the statement that "they could not impact this particular question". — Lomn 17:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be interesting information, it's just not what the OP asked. He asked who was the first American president to call us a democracy. And the point being that Washington was the first American president as the term is understood in the US. It would certainly be interesting if one or more of the "presidents" under the Articles of Confederation used the term, but it wouldn't count as "Who was the first president to use..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well lately there has been a controversy that the USA is a republic not a democracy and how none of the founders favored democracy. So I wanted to know when the USA began to be officially described as a democracy. --Gary123 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no controversy. I always used to hear us referred to as a "representative democracy". Obviously, you can't have a true democracy on a large scale, with the public voting on everything. It would be nuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC

It's not obvious to me that it wouldn't work. Since the average voter wouldn't vote for large number of laws so complex they can't understand them, I'd expect that we would end up with simpler laws which would rarely change, which would be a good thing. The closest thing the US has to direct democracy is binding referendums/propositions in some states, such as California, and those states haven't been destroyed by it yet. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't speak too soon. They turned down all the tax proposals, putting their selfish personal interests ahead of the larger interests of education. Regardless, those are secret ballots. The voting record of Congressmen is public. If the people were allowed to vote on every issue, their voting record would also need to be made public, to ensure some accountability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The reason for public votes by representatives is accountability to the voters, that is, to ensure that they vote the way they promised they would when we elected them. In direct democracy, who would the voters be accountable to, other than themselves ? StuRat (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's suppose the proposed legislation is to make possession of marijuana punishable by a mandatory life sentence. Such a law would never be proposed in Congress except maybe by someone who doesn't want to get re-elected next time. But if the vote were anonymous, it might get a lot more support. If you switch to a "pure democracy", the voters are accountable to the public just as Congress is - i.e. accountable to each other. If you're going to have pure democracy, you have to know where everyone stands, otherwise you'll quickly end up with anonymous majority tyranny. Which, by the way, is the reason pure democracy wouldn't work on a large scale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As admirably noted by CBM above, the US government under the present constitution has always been reasonably described as a representative democracy, which can be alternately phrased as a republican democracy. Suggesting that a state may be only one or the other is a false dichotomy and a bad rhetorical tactic, not a "controversy". As for the founders, US representatives have always been directly democratically elected, though it's true that the original methods of electing senators and the President reflect a wariness of direct democracy. That's not the same as claiming that all the founders opposed direct democracy -- rather they collectively compromised on a system that isn't entirely directly democratic (and living in a state that emphasizes too many stupid referendums, I agree with them). — Lomn 15:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC

The Senators represented the states, not the individual citizens as such, so it was appropriate for the state legislatures to elect them. Of course, that's really just filtering the process through an extra layer or two, as the people elected the state legislators. And the point of the electoral college is, again, that the states elect the President. Both of those situations are a result of the Great Compromise, without which the Constitution would not have been approved. The principle was then as it is now - to give the smaller states some leverage against the larger ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The closest find on wikiquote is 'Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow, but the people will be right at last. George Washington

Letter to Marquis de Lafayette (25 July 1785) Rmhermen (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That quote is four years before he became President (great find, though!). Wrad (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty interesting question. Most of the Founding Fathers of the US did not think that they were founding a democracy. (Men like John Adams would have been horrified at the idea.) To them, the word "democracy" had the negative connotations of "mob rule". (It's been said that Thomas Paine was the only Founder who was an advocate of democracy as we now define the term.) They were creating a republic, which had important democratic aspects but was not simply a democracy. But they unleashed forces that eventually produced a white male democracy by the age of Jackson. The work of historian Gordon S. Wood often refers to this process.

One would think that Andrew Jackson would have been the first to refer unambiguously to the US as a democracy, although the word had a peculiar usage in his time. His followers in fact usually called themselves "the Democracy" (not "the Democratic party") to rhetorically distinguish themselves from who they viewed as "the aristocracy"—the old New England elites like JQ Adams. After Jackson and creation of the popular party system by Van Buren, it probably became politically routine, even necessary, for presidents to call the US a democracy. I don't have references to support this impression, but I'd start my research with Jackson and Tocqueville. —Kevin Myers 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Racial comment

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The Hardball TV show on July 17, 2009 had a well known political analyst as a guest who commented that,"This is White mans Country,our fathers fought for it and we do not intend for anyone to take it away from us." I was dumbfounded viewing this but the TV host said absolutely nothing about this inciteful remark. Question:

Do you think an apology is in order to the nation?

A concerned voter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.228.22 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't place to ask that (petition the channel or go to the newspapers) but, FWIW, yes --Jubilee♫clipman 11:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the guy's parents owe him an apology, for having raised him to be an idiot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing about spouting some patently absurd piece of idiocy in a public forum is that people will rush to correct your errant thinking. It's an inadvertent cry for help. Vranak (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

"Do you think an apology is in order to the nation?" - Does it really matter what a bunch of strangers on the intertubes think? Do YOU want an apology? If so, go get one. Don't ask an encyclopedia. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sitting US Presidents as field commanders

Our article on George Washington notes with regard to the Whiskey Rebellion that Washington was one of two sitting US Presidents to command the military in the field. Who was the other (and under what circumstances)? — Lomn 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Whiskey Rebellion article says: "President James Madison was present at the Battle of Bladensburg during the War of 1812 and may have commanded some troops." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd perused Madison's article but didn't think to check the Whiskey Rebellion for details. — Lomn 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that both claims are bogus. Neither are cited to reliable sources. Washington would have commanded troops in the field during the Whiskey Rebellion had it been necessary, but resistance collapsed before the army marched west. He simply reviewed the troops and went back to the capitol. The idea of Madison directing troops in combat seems pretty far fetched. —Kevin Myers 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not far-fetched at all. Madison was on the field with a brace of pistols and Secretary of State Monroe was personally conducting his own reconnaisance and contermanded orders from the commanding general to the militia. Commodore Joshua Barney appears to say that he changed positions after getting a visit from the president and the cabinet [21], probably during the 'short turn' to the marine barracks that the President mentions [22]. Rmhermen (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Madison (and Monroe's) actions on those days (years ago, I think I was the first Wikipedian to write about Monroe's role in the battle), but it may be a stretch to claim that Madison "personally command[ed] the military in the field" on that occasion, as our George Washington article claims. Madison did, as Garry Wills's biography notes, make an effective choice in sending Barney to Bladensburg. Perhaps this does qualify as commanding troops in action. Certainly Madison was in a much more serious military situation than Washington was in the Whiskey Rebellion. I think it's possible that someone has overstated Madison's case by, perhaps, confusing his actions with that of Monroe, who did reposition troops, albeit incompetently.

No matter how we interpret these events, our real challenge is to find reliable citations for the claim these were the "only two times that a sitting President would personally command the military in the field." —Kevin Myers 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln came under fire at the Battle of Fort Stevens. See http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=901. Woogee (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a difference between didactics and pedagogy?

I noticed a college offering teacher training courses in didactics? Is there something specific that I should understand by that, or is it simply the study of teaching? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Didactics - a teaching method that follows a consistent scientific approach or educational style to engage the student’s mind
• Pedagogy - the study of being a teacher

Read into this what you may. Vranak (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If that unreferenced Wikipedia article is right, I guess the students should expect a scientific approach to teaching from those modules. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

'Unreferenced' as a pejorative really is a sticking point with me. I mean, I understand the desire for corroboration, but the mere fact that a Wikipedia article has been around for many years suggests that it's fairly sound. This does not apply to obscure topics that get few people looking at them, of course. Vranak (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedagogy is the discipline of study of teaching itself. Didactics is a specific kind of pedagogy; that is a specific method of teaching. The relationship between didactics and pedagogy is like the relationship between "biology" and "science" or between "18th century American Lit" and "English". --Jayron32 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is music from the Baroque period so good?

Whenever I hear a particularly engaging piece off the CBC Classical station and look up the composer, it invariably comes back as being a man from the so-called Baroque period. Can anyone offer some insight into the social and intellectual climate of that period, as to figure out why such poignant and lively music was the mainstay of regents' courts in that day? Vranak (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is really a matter of taste. I happen to share your taste, but not everyone does. Baroque music originated in Italy, largely under the patronage of the Catholic Church, in the context of the Counter-Reformation, an effort to enhance the appeal of the Catholic Church, aesthetically and otherwise, to counter the threat posed by Protestantism. Baroque music operated on a more emotional plane and had more ornamentation than earlier, more ascetic forms of music. It benefited from the wealth of the Church, swollen by Spain's collection of treasure from the New World, and from the wealth of Italy's merchant aristocracy, particularly that of Venice. Baroque music developed further at the time when nation-states were asserting their power over the regional nobility in Europe. This was the era of absolutism. France's Louis XIV and his court at Versailles became a model for other European courts. Louis centralized tax collection and required the French nobility to attend court at Versailles rather than threaten his power from their regional fiefs. Other monarchs followed suit. This concentration of money and people of status in royal courts led to a new sophistication and to higher status and income for court musicians. Freed from the need to govern feudal demi-states, the aristocracy may have had more time and inclination to cultivate aesthetic tastes that could enhance their status in the court milieu. With a more stable income and larger ensembles of musicians, composers may have been able to undertake more ambitious compositions. This process happened somewhat in parallel with the intellectual flowering we know as the Age of Enlightenment, which overlapped the second half of the baroque period of music. Marco polo (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

applause Brilliant answer, thank you. Vranak (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a good read [23] and see also this page[24] which tells the story of the rediscovery of Vivaldi who was almost forgotten until the Festival of Britain in 1951. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All the Baroque arts were designed to please, not shock, traumatize and enlighten. Baroque music exudes clear Major-Minor tonality, remaining clearly within its key signature, and is expressed in clear forms that are instinctively recognizable: when the theme returns, you recognize it: ha! And baroque instrumentation is clean: that's the oboe!. After a few mouthfuls of Bartok or Mahler, Baroque music clears the palate.--Wetman (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent answer – cheers! Vranak (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But the above answers don't explain the difference between the baroque and classical periods. If of any interest, David Cope has written computer programs that compose relatively convincing-surrounding Baroque-like music. There are midi files on his site for hundreds of these "compositions" (artificial Bach cantatas). I've listened to a few and IMO they sound nice, like someone doing a good job improvising in that style, but they don't really sound "composed". Also, some actual baroque music sounds quite violent, e.g. some works of Couperin and of Monteverdi (if the latter counts as baroque) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There were some other principles that contribute here. One aspect of the Baroque era, particularly within the arts, is the use of principles and rules. There were rules for all aspects of composition - if this, then that, so much so that one can start with a simple principle and extrapolate much of the rest of the piece. These principles led to the ability two write and improvise pretty music. But, one further principle is also important. A piece that followed all the rules would be considered uninspired and dull. An educated musician knew the rules, so they would recognise something like that and find it wanting. Instead, the beauty of a piece would be in its moments of breaking the rules. So a great Baroque piece would be one that follows the rules for the most part, but has occasional surprising moments where there are unexpected slight disharmony. Obviously it could be taken to the extreme (resulting, perhaps, in Modernism), but some simple rules broken within an otherwise well-composed piece keeps it interesting. Steewi (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the beauty of a piece would be in its moments of breaking the rules is a Romantic idea not a Baroque one: the Wikipedia article on decorum could use some help, but it's well started...--Wetman (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Da Pope

Would the Pope have diplomatic immunity, same as leaders of other countries? Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pope is considered a head of state when travelling outside the Vatican, and as such benefits from diplomatic immunity. --207.236.147.118 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Communism

My friend and I are having a debate and need something settled: is North Korea communist or not? Furthermore, are there any communist countries left in the world? TIA, Ζρς ιβ' ^¡hábleme! 21:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Communism in Korea says they're socialist. The leading part in China is the Communist Party of China...but just because they call themselves that, doesn't mean they are; I don't know. I'll do more searchery. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, Politics of the People's Republic of China says it's a "single-party socialist republic". I am assuming here that "socialist" means they can't be communist - I could be wrong - I know nothing about politics. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialism is a very broad term, it basically means that the government partakes in social intervention. Countries with stuff like universal health care are often called socialist, even though they're basically completely capitalist, while the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the first and most well-known communist country in the world. Heck every country in the world could be possibly considered socialist due to unemployment payments etc. In the case of North Korea I think socialist means communist.--92.251.164.176 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) This depends a bit on your definition of communism. North Korea has a somewhat peculiar form of socialist single-party rule: many of the institutions are socialist (in the old Soviet sense of the word), but the leadership is dynastic (handed down through a family line) rather than appointed (chosen from within the party), and there are certain elements (such as Juche) that derive more from Korean social/political history than mainstream socialist doctrine. It is certainly not communist, however, by any reasonable definition.

Cuba is probably the closest you will find to a communist nation in the modern world (there are NGO organizations and groups that run on more sincere communist principles, but nothing large). China is probably next, though communism in china is regional (rural regions are much more strongly organized around communist principles, urban regions have been developing strong capitalistic trends, and the government itself still carries imperial-bureaucratic tendencies). after that, you have a few nations that are more or less socialist republics (single-party republics or junta-type systems that organize the nation on socialist economic principles.

On the other hand, you could look at Sweden, which (despite being considered an industrialized democracy) has very, very strong socialist conventions built into the system. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuba, Laos, China, Vietnam, North Korea. (PS See Category:Communist_states.) BrainyBabe (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

North Korea is called a communist country by the Western world. Technically, The Communist Manifesto said that the USSR, Mao's People's Republic of China, and North Korea would all be called socialist states, because they had not ascended to true communism yet. All those communist countries adhered to the practice of calling themselves "socialist" countries, and aspired to one day be real communist states. (This has led to a lot of confusion, because lots of Western European democratic states consider themselves "socialist" as well; the word "socialist" obviously has a lot of meanings.) So, if you and your friend are using the definition of "communist" as defined by Marx and Engels, then no, North Korea isn't communist, and there are 0 communist states currently; but if you use the word "communist" as is commonly used by ~99% of people in the non-communist countries, then yes, it's a communist country. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you have some kind of world survey to back up your claim that almost everyone in the entire world uses the word in this way. Algebraist 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia pull an April Fools?

Today's featured article (April 1) was "wife selling" I'm reasonably well educated and I had never heard of it and the article sounds a little weird to me. Is this an April Fools? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.145.88 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling presumably has references that could be checked. The April 1 articles are about obscure facts that are all true (or so it's claimed), the appearance of being a hoax is the actual hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article has a ton of references and was begun in October of 2006. One perhaps unintentionally amusing fact is the last recorded such sale being in 1913 for one British pound. If you're dropping the price that low, you might as well just give her away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's about £85 in today's money. Enough to pay for the celebratory drinks after you get rid of your wife! ;) --Tango (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the practice came to an end with women's liberation, specifically with the discovery that a good portion of the wives would not only be willing to sell their husbands, but would even pay someone to take them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Although that probably cuts both ways. Maybe that's where Henny Youngman got his famous catchphrase, "Take my wife... Please!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This happens every April Fools Day. The main page gets changed to something that looks like a complete fabrication but is actually not. Dismas|^(talk) 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The sale of a wife is a significant plot event in Thomas Hardy's well-known novel The Mayor of Casterbridge. It seems not unlikely (though I haven't a reference) that Hardy based this on an actual incident known to him. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article notes, it was a fairly common practice. Sharpe's Waterloo is another literary example. Algebraist 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2

Virginity-Backed Security

Can a borrower put up their virginity as collateral for a loan, provided that the lender assesses the borrower's virginity to be equal in value to the loan, in the United States? Would such an agreement hold any stature in a United States court? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That might work if the woman was betrothed to the King of England. Otherwise, to give you a hint of how it might turn out, some young actress once tried to insure her virginity with Lloyd's of London for a million dollars or some such. They denied the application on the grounds that "the risk is too great". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In a word-or rather, an acronym-, LOL.

In a world where both parties assented to this ridiculous deal, would it even be legal under United States law? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I really don't think so. Generally the Supreme Court finds in favour of common decency. It wouldn't be very Supreme if it didn't. Vranak (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Whiteman, early 20th century bandleader, insured his signature mustache. Surely a hymen could be insured. If it could be insured, why couldn't it be collateralized? Edison (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The phrase moral repugnance springs to mind. Vranak (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a statutory or common-law precedent that prohibits pledging one's virginity as collateral? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Destroyed and rewritten manuscript?

Who was the author who labored a long time over writing a book, then lent his only copy to a friend. His friend's maid accidentally burned the manuscript. So the author rewrote the book from scratch, and it became really famous? -- noosphere 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hadley Hemingway lost a suitcase with all of Ernest Hemingway's early manuscripts. Could that be what you are thinking of? It is not that uncommon for some manuscript to be lost and rewritten. (Happens all the time to me while editing Wikipedia). Edison (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Wasn't him. Sorry. -- noosphere 04:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

John Stewart Mill’s housemaid accidentally burned the only manuscript of Thomas Carlyle’s history of the French Revolution.--Wetman (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's who I was thinking of. Thanks! -- noosphere 04:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

best health inssurance for preexistent nose trauma/need of reconstruction

hi guys, I'm just wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction, I'm searching for an inssurance that would cover a reconstructive rhinoplasty with a doctor of my choice...for example dr. Dean toriumi. (my current choice). I am aware that health inssurance policies exclude people with preexistent conditions but there must be at least one out there that takes this cases even if it is super expensive, I'd like to take a look at it since it might help.

The Reference desk can't make a recommendation like that.--Wetman (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)