Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 11

late 1950's embossed images on paper

I am helping organize a new collection at my local historical society, and i have come across a group of things so strange i need help identifying them. I have roughly ten green cards, made out of heavy paper, about the size of baseball cards, but they all vary in size slightly. They were most likely made at the end of the 1950s. Each card is embossed with an image of a baseball player from a traveling team called the Indianapolis Clowns, but the embossing is kind of in the style of Ben-Day dots or halftone. From other papers attached to these and in the same file, it seems like these cards were sent to newspapers to go along with press releases for the baseball game, but i can not find anything resembling them online. Can anyone help me figure out what these are? --Found5dollar (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, incase it helps, it says "Please return mat" on the reverse of some.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A stereotype mat is what that is. See "The Papier Mache Matrix" section on this page, for example. Such mats were easy to send through the mail, so advertisers, news services, and such would have them made up for distribution to local newspapers. The newspapers would then have already-composed text (or, in your case, already-halftoned images) that they could drop into their pages. Deor (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! thanks! i have never heard of this type of printing. thank you for informing me of what it is!--Found5dollar (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Electoral reform in UK

The 2010 election is thought by many to have produced a result which has been unfair to the Conservatives. Indeed, Michael Heseltine has been saying for a long time that the Conservatives had a colossal mountain to climb. Is this a consequence of the figures in the 2001 census being used? Or of the decisions made by the Boundary Commission? Or of the "first past the post" system? And what should be changed to make it as fair as possible, consistent with strong and stable government? This last question includes the question as to which possible other system would be fairest. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to maintain that the general election result is unfair to the Conservatives - with 36.1% of the vote, they took 47.0% of the seats, almost securing a majority. This is a consequence, principally, of the first-past-the-post system, which greatly benefits the two largest parties (and, to a lesser extent, small parties with highly concentrated support). That said, in 2005, Labour took only 35.3% of the vote and secured a majority, suggesting the system is even more beneficial to them. This is a result of two main factors: Labour's more concentrated support, mainly in larger cities, and the tendency of supporters of several smaller parties to vote tactically against the Conservatives. The more concentrated support means fewer votes for Labour which don't help to elect someone. The tactical voting has a similar effect, although it seems to have been less of a factor in 2010. The concentration of much of Labour's vote in large cities, which typically have declining populations, versus the Conservative's tendency to do better in areas with growing populations, combines with the use of 2001 census figures to ensure that Labour-held seats tend to have smaller electorates than Conservative ones, again disadvantaging the Conservatives. Given that the Boundary Commission are compelled by law to only consider population figures from the last census and not any later changes, I haven't heard any serious accusations that their decisions disadvantaged the Conservatives. Overall, the differences are not vast, the Conservatives have often secured large majorities, and had they come close to taking a majority of votes, they would have a large majority in the Commons. Warofdreams talk 12:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The fairest system is certainly some form of proportional representation, probably the single transferable vote. Because it is fairer, it will almost certainly give more representation to smaller parties. It can be consistent with strong and stable government, but it is more likely to be reliant on coalitions (not necessarily weak and unstable, although they have that reputation in the UK). Warofdreams talk 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If the election results were "unfair" to anyone, it was surely the Lib Dems - 23% of the votes, under 9% of the seats. Their support is quite widely spread, so that they more often come second to either Conservative or Labour, rather than winning seats themselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

STV (or Preferential Voting as we call it here in Australia) isn't a proportional system, and it doesn't typically give more representation to smaller parties - only 3 of 150 seats in the Australian House of Representatives are not held by the two-and-a-half major parties. However, it is rather fairer than FPTP, as it means no-one's vote is wasted. FiggyBee (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

STV certainly is a system of proportional representation, as listed in our article on the subject. The House of Representative system (sometimes described as single-member STV) is known as the Alternative Vote in the UK, and is less proportional, but generally still classed as PR. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that STV. Yep yep. Personally I fail to see how proportional voting gels with having "local" MPs; I think sacrificing one for the other would be a poor trade. FiggyBee (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The two don't gel. The system the Lib Dems and others want for the UK is "STV-in-multi-member-constituencies". The UK will have to decide whether it wants to keep the local MP-constituency link or go for a closer reflection of the popular vote. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it would mean much larger constituencies, with each one having several representatives. Three members is probably the minimum workable number for multiple-member STV, and perhaps ten the maximum - so, in Westminster terms, one constituency might be a small county or a fairly large city. Incidentally, the Conservatives are proposing keeping FPTP and having fewer MPs, which would also mean larger constituencies - although not so large as STV. Warofdreams talk 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoke with someone who had been in the Boundary Commission recently. Essentially you could merge two adjacent constituencies, so not increase the number of MPs and inject some more interesting results in parliamet.

ALR (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be the obvious approach (although, if it was thought beneficial to reduce the overall number of MPs, it would be a good chance to do it, while still increasing the range of views represented in Parliament). The problem with two-member constituencies is that they are rather likely to be safe seats - where only two parties have a realistic chance of winning a seat in most years. Better to have four- or five-member constituencies, which would make the final results more proportional. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It does depend how it's implemented, personally speaking for a long period I've felt unable to consult my MP because we are diametrically opposed on a number of issues; civil liberties and state intervention so nothing significant ;)

If we had multi-member STV with two members per constituency then at least I'd have choice. I'd be uncomfortable about any more than two members for the commons although potentially for an elected upper house I would see less of an issue.

ALR (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And you don't see the problem here? Instead of having a local MP whose job it is to represent the community, You have a Conservative MP who represents conservatives, a Liberal MP who represents liberals, and, I don't know, maybe a BNP MP who represents honest hard-working Englishmen. Politicians don't get the reality check of having to work for people who don't agree with them, and politics just becomes more and more polarised and off the wall. FiggyBee (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You end up with two local MPs who between them represent their electorate in a way that actually reflects their voting opinions more than it does now. So in a two member constituency there may be two from one party, or one from one and a second from another. No system is perfect but in recent elections there has been extremely low turnout, a growing number of ostensibly safe seats and a professionalisation of politics. Again reflecting back to my own constituencies, in three of four I've been represented by someone with no real world working experience. My current MP has been a party apparatchik since he left University and has done nothing credible.

There are very clear risks with any political reform, as you point out there is an increased likelihood of small, single issue parties being involved in parliament, but if that's a reflection of what the electorate want then that indicates that the system is improved. As you point out, many parliamentarians are detached from reality, FPTP is a significant cause of that.

ALR (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We could have a long, loooong discussion about whether parliament reflecting what the electorate wants would be an improvement to the system. :) We have 95% turnout in elections here (because you get fined $20 if you don't vote). I've worked at a polling station and met the electorate, and I'm afraid that if we got the politicians we wanted, we'd end up with the politicians we deserve. FiggyBee (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Under AV or STV, politicians need to attract transfers from constituents for whom they are not the first choice. They actually have an increased incentive to work for the whole community, or at least most of it, rather than under FPTP where many seats are safe and some MPs get away with do very little in the way of representation. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm a fan of the benevolent dictatorship :) Democracy stinks.

ALR (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Define strong and stable there are significant risks with having large majorities, as we saw from the Blair regime where parliament was effectively marginalised and there was insufficient scrutiny in the house.

What we're seeing is a consequence of FPFT in a multi-party environment. I'm not a big fan of arguments around fairness in politics, what we need is a system that means that the representation in parliament is representative of the people. As an example my own MP managed to win somewhat less than 50% support in this constituency. What we have seen this time has been an increase in turnout and that may have had a significant effect. There was discussion of engaging younger voters and increasing turnout even in safe seats where it's always been a problem getting people to vote against an incumbent.

A different system would change the dynamics in the house, personally I feel that some form of proportional system would help increase turnout. From what I understand from electoral geeks the most representative system is multi-member constituencies using STV. Delivering that would involve a significant boundary review.

ALR (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw Colin Hay speak about this; his view was that introducing PR would have little effect on political engagement or turnout, but would generally be of benefit in that Parliament would be more representative. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

True. I've seen arguments in both directions and my own view is that wider reform is really needed to assure engagement. I have a passing interest in this, not as passionate about it as some I know, so I'm not an expert.

ALR (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unrepresentative government? Overprofesionalisation of politics? Don't wan't a despotism? Easy, take the last census, make a list of people of appropriate age (what is currently voting age) in each electorate, randomly select a number of people in each electorate. They're your representatives. No votes, unlikely to get a professional politician, perfectly representative (at a particular resolution of "representative") --203.22.236.14 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

tourism statistics

Hello everyone. I'm searching for statistics on the number of tourist visitors per country (or attraction) - I'm not looking for the big/top places, but for places that get between 400,000 to 500,000 visitors per year. Can anyone help by pointing to an attraction/country in that range? Thank you very much, WikiJedits (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I just noticed the other day that the US Space & Rocket Center gets right in that range (470,000 visitors per year). — Lomn 13:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Lomn, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. Much appreciated. (More are welcome, everyone!). I found one myself here [1] – the entire country of Paraguay had 428,000 visitors in 2008. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Searching for "500000 visitors per year" turns up quite a few: Tombstone, the Minh Mang Tomb and the Mercedes-Benz Museum are just three examples. Related searches will doubtless find many more. Warofdreams talk 15:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also. I needed something really fast and you guys were great, many thanks. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Genocide

Where did the first genocide take place? Who were the victims and who were the culprits? B-Machine (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article: Genocides in history. FiggyBee (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) The term was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe largely to address the actions of the leaders of Nazi Germany before and during World War Two, specifically what is now known as "the Holocaust", and was used in prosecuting some Nazi leaders at the Nuremburg Trials. It was first defined as an international crime by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was passed in 1948. The first time this law was enforced was in 1998, in relation to the killings in Rwanda in 1994. People have retroactively applied the definition to past conflicts, sometimes with considerable controversy. See Genocides in history. For example, Ben Kiernan has evidently called the destruction of Carthage during the Third Punic War "The first genocide". Buddy431 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If your question is when the first recorded genocide took place, the answer might be the destruction of Carthage, or the extermination of the Amalekites. However, if your question is when the very first genocide took place, the answer is that it almost certainly occurred in prehistoric times, so we don't know when or where it happened. In fact, genocide probably predates Homo sapiens, according to this article, among others. Marco polo (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to a TV show I saw a few months back, Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal Man may have co-existed in Europe. And you know which of those two is not around anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither chimpanzee wars nor the disappearance of Neanderthal man fit the description of Genocide. FiggyBee (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Having read the description you linked, Figgy, I think that those two situations do fit the description. Can you say why you think they don't? Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I also saw something recently saying that scientists think there was some interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. If so, then they were close enough genetically that they could be considered humans. However, we don't know why the Neanderthals disappeared. Genocide is only one of the possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apes aren't killing other apes because of their "national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Nor do we have any evidence that Neanderthals were so targeted. Genocide is a 20th century political concept and what constitutes genocide (or doesn't constitute genocide, in the case of suppressing dissidents) should be seen through that filter. FiggyBee (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how narrowly you want to define national, ethnic, and racial. If you want to say that genocide can only exist when those categories take their modern form in the context of nation-states, then by definition, there could not have been a premodern genocide. However, at its root, ethnicity is really about "us" versus "them", with the distinction being made on cultural grounds. As such, the distinction almost certainly predates Homo sapiens. Chimpanzees have a sense of "our band" and "that alien band". Chimpanzee bands have distinct cultures and traditions, and individuals identify strongly with their bands. When one band annihilates another, it can be seen as a kind of genocide. I don't see how this is qualitatively different from one prehistoric tribe trying to annihilate another or the Nazis trying to annihilate the Jews. Of course the latter was at a vastly larger scale than either of the former, and it made use of a more sophisticated range of technology, but I don't see why these are necessary for genocide. Marco polo (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Kechemeche

What does KECHEMECHE mean in the Algonquin/lenape language? they were the indigenous people of cape may county along with the tuckahoe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You probably should ask this at the Language Ref Desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

He or she has already asked there, and I have responded there. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman empire vs Chinese three kingdoms

Lets pretendthat in the 1st century AD, The Roman Empire and Three Kingdoms China went to war for some reason in Afghanistan/Iran. Who would be likely to win, and why?--92.251.166.171 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the impossible logistics of the situation, I'd say the Afghans would kick both "superpowers" out of there like they have done ever since... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Parthian Empire might have had something to say about it... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What is "Three Kingdoms China"? By it's very name they were three separate regimes, fighting each other. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean the Han Dynasty, which didn't break apart into the Three Kingdoms until 220. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese economy

Why is Portugal in seeming never-ending economic stagnation whereas neighboring Spain (until 2008 or so) has experienced continuous and rapid growth during the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st? --Belchman (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Portugal is relatively small and isolated in comparison to its neighbor Spain. Vranak (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your perception is accurate. Like Spain, Portugal experienced solid economic growth during the 1980s and 1990s. This growth occurred in both countries after they joined the European Community as firms from other parts of the EC set up operations in the two Iberian countries to take advantage of their relatively low labor costs. Both countries experienced the global recession of 2001. In the years that followed, both countries' manufacturing sectors suffered from the effects of expanded European trade with China, whose labor costs were much lower than Spain's or Portugal's. However, a real-estate bubble in Spain helped to compensate for weakness in manufacturing as thousands of Spaniards took jobs in construction and real estate. As we have seen, Spain's real-estate bubble was not sustainable, and it is arguable whether Spain improved its position relative to Portugal over the full course of the last decade. Spain's unemployment rate is now twice as large as Portugal's. See Economy of Portugal. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't Portugal been rather poorer than Spain for generations? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Salazar more opposed to accepting foreign aid than Franco as well, I think I read that somewhere around here.148.197.114.158 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Constitution law

Is there a law in the US Constitution that mandates people take part in the 2010 Census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.94.214 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution merely requires that a census take place. The actual law that requires participation is in the United States Code, specifically 13 USC §221. That particular law assigns a maximum fine of $100 for point-blank refusal to answer, and $500 for deliberately providing false answers. There is a specific exemption for questions dealing with religion. Xenon54 (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution, Laurence Tribe says:

"there are two ways, and only two ways, in which an ordinary private citizen ... can violate the United States Constitution. One is to enslave someone, a suitably hellish act. The other is to bring a bottle of beer, wine, or bourbon into a State in violation of its beverage control laws—an act that might have been thought juvenile, and perhaps even lawless, but unconstitutional?"

So almost nothing is unconstitutional for a private citizen. Paul (Stansifer) 20:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Treason is also specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. This may be splitting hairs (and not being a lawyer, I don't have a hair-splitting license in this area), but I think that the Constitution doesn't forbid citizens from committing treason, it defines treason and permits congress to forbid that. I seem to remember hearing that the reason for this was that the authors were worried about a despotic administration using the charge of treason to silence opposition. Paul (Stansifer) 02:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, treason is defined in the Constitution [2] and Congress is authorized to determine the punishment, except they are forbidden from "attainder" or "corruption of blood", i.e. making the descendants of the treasonous person also somehow guilty ("tainted"), which I assume was to address things that might have happened under British rule. In theory, Congress could make treason punishable anywhere from, say, a 50 dollar fine, all the way up to hanging. As a practical matter, very few Americans have been convicted of treason, as such. John Brown was one of them, except it was treason against the state of Virginia rather than the US, as indicated in the article. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for espionage, which is pretty much the same thing as treason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenon54 has a very good point, although I wouldn't advise anyone to follow any advice on here without consulting a lawyer first. As for the constitutional question, that sounds exactly right. The American constitution's discussion of treason has been practically irrelevant as far as I know, largely because there are plenty of capital crimes an individual may be convicted of regardless constitutional limitations. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the law:[3] Besides there really no reason NOT to answer the questions. For most people the questions are very benign, but the info gathered is very important. It started by effecting the count of our House of Representatives. Plenty of others use this data, so it is very much in your best interest to be counted and counted accurately. There is a small percentage that is asked more detailed personal questions by mail. However these questions are only handled by a select group of Census employees and NOT by your local area. If you are randomly selected to receive the more detailed questionnaire. There is no way this personal information could be liked back to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderley (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought they had abandoned the "long form" this time around. In any case, everyone should participate in the census. It's a civic duty, and it's harmless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The more people in a town/county/state, etc., the more grants they get from higher levels of government and the more representation they have in legislatures. So answering the census form makes sense unless you hate your city. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Heaven

About what percent of Jews today believe in an afterlife for the good (excluding reincarnation)? —C Teng^(talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is a Jew? If you mean people that believe in the tenets of the Jewish religion, then by definition it is 100%, since an afterlife is one the Jewish principles of faith. --Tango (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

With the current wording, the answer to your question would be a very small percentage. As it happens, it is only the minority of Jews who observe the laws of Judaism, and as such, either choose to disagree with religious teachings or are completely oblivious to them. As such, although all observant Jews by definition (as in Tango's post above) believe in an afterlife, observant Jews are but a tiny minority of Jews alive today. And it's not entirely clear what you mean by "for the good" and "excluding reincarnation." Do you mean, by the former, to exclude those who believe only in a Hell, and by the latter, to exclude those who believe only in a physical afterlife (in the sense that the dead will return to life on planet Earth) but not to exclude those who believe in some sort of metaphysical existence? Perhaps you could clarify. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You do have a few ethnic Jews who practice other religions; most of my relatives and I are conservative Christians from a historically Jewish family that converted a few generations ago. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question on Henry VIII

Resolved

(Copied over from Wikipedia:Helpdesk#Question on Henry VIII  Chzz  ►  22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

To whom it may concern,

Hello my name is Angela.. I have been catching up on some history of KingHenry VIII. I was just reading some footnotes from your on-line wikimedia. I don't study this, but what I have found on the site for King Henry VIII,, and the actual death of Catherine Of Aragon to the election of Pope Paul III has got me confused. I'm sure I may be able to go to the nearest library to find out more, but thought you would like to know.. As follows

Catherine of Aragon was Queen of England from: 11 June 1509 – 23 May 1533

It also says she died 7 January 1536

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon

Next to be known as Queen after Catherine of Aragons' anullment to King HenryVIII, Is Anne Boleyn.

From 28 May 1533 – 17 May 1536 (Beheaded 19 May 1536)

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn

Now what I am confused about are: Of the actual year of Catherine of Aragonsdeath and Pope Paul III election to time.

Paul III (*)13 October 1534 10 November 1549 Henry VIII between ages of 42 and death. Final break from pope

It is said on the Bio of King Henry VIII, that Catherine of Aragon died 15 months after Pope Paul III was elected. But according to the bio of King Henry VIII (at bottom of page) This is what it says: Catherine of Aragon died 15 months after his election. On (*)17-Dec-1538, four years into his pontificate, Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

Too, I am confused about the actual time of the Popes election and excommunication to Henry VIII

I am sorry if I have it wrong. I have never looked any of these history facts up in my time of school, only now.. Cause I am more aware about the importance of history. Also that it is, in those times, I have always had a very deep inner-connection too. Maybe it's just facination or mere intuition. Either way, please, If I am wrong, fill me in if you'd like. Otherwise I hope I may havehelped the next reader.

Sincere thanks,

Angela Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyPlavwell (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The dates seem to be correct...Paul III became pope 13 October 1534 and Catherine died 7 January 1536. The problem is that no one (at least according to our article) is really sure when Henry was excommunicated. It may have been by Paul III on 17 December 1538, or it may have been in 1533 by Clement VII. I don't like the sources in the Henry VIII article though...footnote 35 is extremely vague. Churchill's very broad history is not a very good source for this. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just did a Google search. Spartucus and others say 17 DEcember 1538, one says 11 July 1533. I will go through some books I have on Henry later to see if we can pin down a definite date, although I'd put my money on 1538.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's what J. J. Scarisbrick says on pp.317-18 in his bio Henry VIII: In Consistory on 11 July 1533, Pope Clement solemnly condemned Henry's separation from Catherine of Aragon and marriage to Anne Boleyn and gave him until September to return to Catherine-under pain of Excommunication; however, it was suspended for another two months and was never promulgated. On 30 August 1535, a second excommunication was drawn up (page 334) after Henry's execution of Bishop Fisher. On 17 December 1538 Pope Paul finally prepared to promulgate the Bull of Excommunication against Henry. This comes from page 361.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have since added this as footnote number 36 to the Henry VIII article, which I must say is poorly written in parts, and would greatly benefit from some heavy-duty editing to bring it up to par with the excellent Anne Boleyn article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been established that Henry was excommunicated on 17 December 1538, can we mark this as resolved?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Air ambulance costs

How can I find out how much air ambulances can charge for a flight? Anyone know of any cases in which the price was lowered? References will be greatly appreciated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.1.178 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about can charge, but they do charge anything from $0 upwards. You'll have to give us more specifics. I removed "legal question" from your subject line because we're not allowed to answer those, so I hope it isn't one! :) BTW, do you think our article on air ambulances has quite enough photos? Sheesh. FiggyBee (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We can answer legal questions. What we can't do is give legal advice. They are different things. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your IP address seems to come from the US, so are you asking about air ambulances in the US? Like any emergency care, they won't ask about money until afterwards, so I'm sure there have been many times when they haven't charged since the person carried has no insurance or money of their own. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

They charge, definitely. They occasionally sue too. They collect at a lesser degree though. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick look on Google produced this article, which quotes a price of $17,000. One of the commenters says that this was the price quoted to the insurance company, but that air ambulance providers may also quote a lower "non-insurance cash price". I leave it to you to google >air ambulance cost< and >air ambulance "cash price"< to see what else turns up. Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler

If someone went back in time and killed Hitler, history wouldn't change dramatically, because another Nazi leader would take his place. But how would history change if someone went back in time and prevented Hitler from being born? That way, the Nazi party wouldn't have risen to power at all. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only is your premise almost certainly incorrect (that history wouldn't change dramatically) but your questions is, although perhaps unintentionally, completely ridiculous. Just as a very vivid example, have you ever seen Back to the Future? Obviously the purpose of the film is to embellish on minor changes in the past for the sake of the plot, but as you can probably extrapolate in a more real manner, even minor changes can have tremendous effects on the sequence of history. So let's end this now. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone killed Hitler after the Nazis had already risen to power, his second-in-command would have taken his place. However, if Hitler had never been born, the Nazis would never have risen to power, preventing the Holocaust. What effects would this have? --75.33.219.230 (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler filled a "need" felt by the populace after they had been crushed by Britain and France. Here's something to consider: What if someone actually went back in time and killed someone who was ten times worse than Hitler, leaving Hitler as the much lesser of two evils? Forgetting that, someone else likely would have come along to capitalize on the anguish of the German people. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Try Making History (novel) for one imagining. FiggyBee (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If Hitler had never been born, then some other loser named, say, Schicklgruber, would have likely emerged to espouse the complaints of suffering Germans after WW1, to tell them they were a great people, that they were not really defeated in WW1, and that they should step forward and take charge of the world. Maybe the next Fearless Leader would not have blamed the Jews for Germany's ills, would have formed an alliance with Britain or the U.S. instead of Russia, or would have delayed WW2 until 1952, with vastly different results. Edison (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why couldn't the Nazi Party have risen? It was created without Hitler, they could have found another Fuhrer. There is a book, I can't remember the title. about a woman going back in time and killing Hitler's mother, therefore preventing him from being born. But she takes a copy of the Time-Life History of World War II with her, it's discovered in the 1970s, and Germany, still led by unreconstructed Prussians, decides that they can do a better job than Hitler did and start a World War. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What if someone went even further back in time and prevented the birth of Jesus? Now that's something we can ponder upon!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They might have, how ever could you tell? --203.22.236.14 (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The title of the book came to me this morning. It's Elleander Morning by Jerry Yulsman. The plot is slightly different from how I remembered it, too. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see this talk page on a sister project for examples of why killing Hitler (or preventing him being born) is a bad idea. --Daduzi ^talk 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite following that story, but I can see various problems with it. There were great technological advancements connected with WWII, which helped spur technological growth in the 1950s. WWII and its aftermath also ended the Great Depression. The war may have been bad for many individuals, but from the materialistic standpoint, it worked out well. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

. This is the most ignorant thing that has been posted on the Humanities desk in my memory. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. War does result in accelerated technological development and it does help end recessions (it gives the government an excuse to spend lots of money, which kick starts the economy - without that excuse you risk rebellion at the tax rises necessary to pay for it). That said, the Great Depression was showing signs of ending before the outbreak of war, so it probably was only shortened by a little. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no quibble with those two theoretical points; my problem is with the spectacularly stupid claim that "from the materialistic standpoint, [World War II] worked out well", for which Bugs has to provide a citation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It ended the Great Depression, spurred technology, and the USA emerged from it a superpower. Those items are material gains. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be contentious Bugs, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the USA emerge as a superpower following World War I? After all, it was the USA who was largely responsible for the Roaring Twenties.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost. But we didn't have the mojo to prevent Britain and France from crushing Germany and setting the stage for WWII. After that one ended, we said, "OK, Europe, this time we're going to do it our way." As a result, Germany is a strong and peaceful nation. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 09:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

These are common idiotic American tropes you are repeating, and you have still not provided a citation. For starters, every single person of the 70 million dead had been both a producer and a consumer. The economic toll on the world was staggering. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember NATO was set up after the Second World War, so that pretty much put the brakes on Europe and its overlong history of strife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Great Man Theory. Vranak (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Betting to lose

I've heard over and over again lately about big finance betting on certain investments to lose. How is this supposed to work? It seems odd that one would buy an investment in order for it to lose.198.161.203.6 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Goldman Sachs incident, they didn't buy the investments, they sold the investments, allegedly without telling investors that the creators of the portfolio stood to make a lot of money if it failed and, indeed, were going to short it to death. FiggyBee (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

More generally, see Short (finance). The basic economics of shorting is simple to understand (you sell what you have with the intention of buying it back later when it is cheaper), but I admit to not totally getting how it applies to derivatives, which is what the recent news is? about, I believe. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Markets generally are people "betting" that their predictions about the world (crops are good, crops are bad; oil production is good, oil production is bad; IBM does well, IBM doesn't do well... etc.) are right. For everyone that thinks company XYZ will do well, another group of people will think that XYZ won't do well. An efficient market allows people to place their money both on the upside and the downside. Shorting allows people to place their bets on the downside. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you sell short what your broker has access to, not what you own (the latter would just be market timing). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Short selling, as our article indicates, involves borrowing the security and then returning it as collateral at the appropriate date. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Spread betting is a related topic that may be of interest. Spread bettors can make large gains by gambling on price changes - up or down - in all manner of commodities, and financial spread betting is a large and growing market because (in the UK at least) winnings from gambling receive more favourable treatment for tax purposes than gains made by dealing in financial assets. Karenjc 09:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also in some markets you can sell shares that you don't have, as long as you buy them back on the same day, since the settlement is done based on the end of day situation, no one looks if you have bought them in the morning and sold them in the afternoon, or if you have done the reverse. --Lgriot (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Borrowing = you don't own it, but Lqriot has an interesting point. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Magnetar podcast from This American Life that talks all about it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

May 12

Maastricht Pact

This article in The Baltimore Sun makes a reference to the "Maastricht Pact". Since there is no article by that title, I have concluded that it either refers to the Maastricht Treaty or the Stability and Growth Pact (or both). I know nothing about EU politics so I don't really know exactly what that term means and was hoping for clarification. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the reviewer means the Maastricht Treaty: the article is from 1993, while the Stupidity Pact was adopted in 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Greek word for doorstep poem

This word is on the tip of my tongue, but I can't seem to find the right combination of keywords to get it to turn up in a search. It starts with "peri-" or "para-", and it means a particular genre of poem in which the speaker is waiting interminably outside his love's door and trying to win her over with his persistence or serenading (but hasn't been allowed to enter yet). —Keenan Pepper 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Paraklausithyron. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about the concept of the "soul"

Basically I'm confused about this thing called the "soul". It seems to be a pretty common idea people have that there is this theoretical object called a soul that has a number of properties. What I'm confused about is why there are such differing interpretations of what properties this "soul" thing is supposed to have, and specifically what the reasoning (if any) is behind some of these interpretations.

Just to make clear: I don't believe in souls, in any form. I am, however, curious about the concept.

As I understand it there are three main ways of describing this object:

1) It is the thing that makes living things living, rather than dead or not alive. A single-celled organism, plant, and animal all have souls. A rock does not, and a dead single-celled organism, plant or animal does not.

This definition makes the most sense to me, and is something I find very easy to understand even if I don't personally believe it. The difference between non-life and life is monumental, so it makes sense to invoke a hypothetical object to explain it.

2) It is the thing that creates consciousness. A conscious human being is the only thing that has a soul. All other things do not have a soul. An animal does not have a soul. A human fetus does not (yet) have a soul. A human corpse does not have a soul. A human with certain kinds of brain injuries or other disorders does not have a soul (e.g., Terri Schiavo).

This definition is much more problematic. Why would someone be content with a mechanistic explanation for the vast difference between non-life and life, but not be content with a mechanistic explanation for the still significant but much smaller gap between consciousness and non-consciousness? The difference between me and a rock seems huge. The difference between a bacterium and a rock seems just as large. But the only real difference between me and, say, a chimpanzee is that I have a different way of thinking. Why do we need to invent a theoretical object to explain that, but not one to explain life itself?

3) It is the thing that makes humans human. All humans have it, including fetuses and victims of brain injuries and other disorders that are not conscious. All other living and non-living things do not have it.

This definition is completely nonsensical to me. If we ignore consciousness, then there is nothing significant at all that separates us from other living things. This idea of the soul doesn't explain anything meaningful or interesting.

What is odd to me is how widespread the second two ideas of the soul are, especially the third one. Why is this? What are the justifications people come up with for believing in them?

I know that the third definition is probably so popular because it's a belief of widespread religions such as Christianity and Islam, but how did these religions arrive at these definitions in the first place? If part of what religions do is explaining the questions people have about the world around them, why did they care so much about answering the irrelevant human vs. non-human question while ignoring the much bigger question of life vs. non-life that earlier religious systems (Animism) explained very well? Did this obvious gap in their philosophy not trouble Christian and Muslim thinkers in the past? How did they explain the difference between life and non-life, especially in the pre-modern period before understanding of how biological systems function?

Hope this makes sense, and that someone here can answer these questions satisfactorily. --Laryaghat (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Soul article has a lot of information. And let me give it to you as I understand it: The soul, or more accurately the immortal soul, is a central feature of most religions. It's the concept, or belief, or faith, or hope, that there's something more than just this life. If there's no belief in an afterlife, religion pretty much has no meaning. As far as whether non-humans have immortal souls (assuming humans do), that's subject to conjecture, as for example the Bible doesn't have much to say about it, perhaps considered to be unimportant. I know people who think everything has a soul, ranging to those who think the concept is hogwash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

From a Jewish perspective, Bugs is right on target by equating the concept of a soul with the premise of a religion. Because non-humans don't practice or observe religion, in what sense would they have a soul? The soul, as proposed by Judaism and copied by Christianity and Islam, is the essence within the vessel known as the body, and it both predates and outlives the body, so your references to fetuses and corpses is somewhat off from a religious perspective, and since it would be largely agreed upon that religion has a monopoly on souls, that's really the only perspective there is, other than a negative or apathetic one. Because souls are spiritual, they cannot be fathomed completely by the physical mind, and so much of religious literature that discusses the concept speak in allegories and metaphors, much like they do about God himself, any proposed afterlife, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Athiests have no souls? Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 10:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. It's just that atheists in general don't believe in the concept of an immortal soul, while religionists generally do. An atheist would consider the "soul" to exist only while the person is alive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To address just the first question, "why there are such differing interpretations of what properties this "soul" thing is supposed to have," the simple answer is a comprehensive lack of data. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's some actual data? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there are several kinds of souls. That thing that resides behind your eyes that goes away when you die may be another kind of soul. That thing that makes certain artists great may be another kind. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 10:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the intangible spark that inspires geniuses such as Michaelangelo and Bach, and spiritual giants of the human race such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Helen Keller.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also the concept of Astral projection, in which the soul leaves the physical body and travels to the astral plane--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

"He lay relaxed, eyes still closed, for a few mments and let his soul snuggle back into his body." quoted from By His Bootstraps ny R. A. Heinlein.

The difference between life and non-life is not so "monumental." Life distinguishes itself from non-life in the simplest organisms in unimpressive ways. Bus stop (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When a persson or thing dies, the physical body ceases to exist; that in itself is a monumental difference. Energy, however, does not die, it is tranformed. That in itself means that death is not final, whether we believe in a soul or not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The body does not cease to exist. It is transformed into worm food. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not if it's embalmed or cremated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it the soul, the life principal, of all human beings is unique. This is something I found myself explaining to a Doctor/Consultant who wished his son to follow him into Medicine and not go down the road of being a Journalist. Even though his son may have an aptitude for Medicine he is unique and has an independant spirit to his father. This unique spirit is what is often referred to as the soul. Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to it as such. Most Philosophers agree and took great steps to guard the free-thinking spirit from all inteference. C.G. Jung I would identify here. I cannot think of a Philosopher who denied the existance of the human spirit. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

question about "Ford T model" being an essential item in US citizen life

Hello ! I have been recently so kindly listened to , & profusely answered to, that I dare "put a new question on the rug" . A question keeps "trotting around my head" (as we say here in France) : where did I read that "most US babies were" (at that time) "conceived in a Ford T model", a car which had become such a symbol of community that "anybody could use & carry away a pair of pliers if it were found in a Ford T" (sorry for the approximate quote) . At night I wake up & think that it might be in Babbit : ?? .

Thanks a lot beforehand ( & once more I hope to be able to find my way back to your learned areop...). BTW : If the kind colleague who answered here some days ago my question "what is a snake fence ? " (& displayed somewhere a photo of a bleached "snake fence") falls upon those lines, may he know that I was unable to locate the image (I wanted to use it in Arthur Fremantle, § "Gettisburg" : Gal Longstreet was sitting on a snake fence)...Sorry I'm such a "broken-arm"... T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Model T Ford was certainly a liberating product, as most anyone with a decent job could afford one. As to whether "most US babies were conceived in Model T Ford", I don't see how anyone would be in a position to know that with any reasonable degree of certainty. It sounds kind of facetious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

John Steinbeck, Cannery Row (page 65). East of Borschov (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha. OK, the OP needs to know that's a fictional work, and I would guess Steinbeck was just being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course he was funny, he himself could afford something better (16 cylinders?! perhaps it was his employer's roundabout?). East of Borschov (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "runabout"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. Freudian slip. East of Borschov (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In a roundabout way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The OP may be interested in E. B. White's classic essay, Farewell, My Lovely. Appearing in The New Yorker in 1936, this piece is White's love letter to the Model T, for which "the great days have faded, and the end is in sight." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot folks !!. Actually, the question came to my mind while I was writing about our little Citroën car, the "2CV" , on the DP of the "word of the day : couple-close" , in Wiktionary. Indeed it does not reach EB White's lyricism , but for those who want to know what was the french equivalent of the Ford T model...T.y. Arapaima (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Drusus Julius Caesar, son of Tiberius

It says in the Tiberius article that Drusus Julius Caesar was the only child of Tiberius and Vipsania Agrippina. However in the information box for Tiberius it says that Drusus Julius Caesar as a miscarriage. Perhaps someone can fix this as this can not be correct. Could it be said that Drusus Julius Caesar was the bitter step-brother of Germanicus because the latter was forced by Augustus to be adopted by Tiberius?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Drusus Julius Caesar was the only child to survive. The miscarried child was a different pregnancy. Note that the two are separated by a semi-colon in the infobox. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

does every voice type sing the same?

If someone is of one voice type, say Tenor, and can easily "hear" (i.e. in his 'mind's ear') a Soprano, say, transposed into his own register as she sings, is it as well for this person to listen to this transposed production for technique, as opposed to the production of a genuine Tenor singing a genuine Tenor part, in consequence of the fact that the vocal production of each ought to be exactly the same, with the only difference being in frequency; or, on the contrary, should one voice type under no circumstances attempt to sing the transposed voice part of another in imitation of the other's technique, the means of vocal production in the two being entirely incomparable? Thank you kindly. 84.153.231.138 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I question whether your premise

"the vocal production of each ought to be exactly the same, with the only difference being in frequency"

is correct. For a start, tenors are usually male and sopranos female, and the two sexes surely have somewhat differently configured and proportioned vocal tracts, suggesting that neither their vocal spectra nor the physical techniques they need to use are necessarily congruent. I would also expect there to be different fashions in male and female voice production. However, I Am Not A Singer (let alone a vocal coach), so we must both await more informed input. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

87.81 is correct. Male and female vocal tracts are sufficiently different that there will be a difference in tonality, such that someone who is used to hearing tonality difference would easily know the difference. But this is also true just between individual voices, even within the same voice type. That said, I see no reason why this should exclude a tenor from singing a transposed soprano tune, and vice versa. The result will be quite different; that is certain. However, a well-trained tenor will be able to put an equally viable interpretation to the music. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The OP may also want to read up on timbre, which is the quality of musical sound which is distinct from the note itself. Pure sine-wave notes are very harsh on the ear, all music is produced by placing perterbations into the basic frequency. Its these perterbations that are called "timbre" which is what makes every instrument unique; which is why you can distinguish the exact same note as played on a flute from a violin from an electric guitar. Two different singers, even two sopranos, singing the exact same note, will likely sound distinguishable from each other. --Jayron32 02:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

monarchy form of government

Is there a political jurisdiction within the United States, such as a town or county, whose government is based on a monarchy form of government either officially or unofficially? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If there were, then it would be in violation of the U.S. constitution. According to Article IV, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

clever sideways answer: Machias Seal Island -- according to the US, it's American, but in reality it's controlled by the Canadians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.32.83 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What does "a monarchy form of government" mean to you?

Does it mean that a single person is effectively in charge much of the time? There are places with very strong executive branches and very limited legislative branches (sometimes called citizen legislatures).

Does it mean that you are appointed for life? There are places (usually very small towns) in which re-election is effectively guaranteed (because nobody else in town is ever willing to run for the office, or because the vast majority of voters like the incumbent). However, unlike a monarch, they still have to run for office periodically, and it is possible for them to lose future elections.

Does it mean that you inherit the office from a parent? Voters might freely choose to elect a child to an office that his or her parent previously held. However, there are no hereditary offices: Merely being born to an elected official never entitles anyone to hold any office. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Inherited" office". That is, an office where have the knowledge of how one got there is 95% of the battle. I know campaign managers who were completely forgotten at the moment the wife or son or other family member decided to seize the opportunity presented by an upcoming mandatory vacancy for themselves, even though policy wise everyone would have been better off had the campaign manager been supported. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly cities and probably counties in the U.S. where in a political dynasty some powerful person exercised strong rule, and whose son and grandson had every expectation of ruling after them. They were considered economic and political bosses rather than Kings as such. In Chicago, Boss Richard Daley I ruled as Mayor and Political Boss from 1955-1976, considered a "kingmaker" regarding the 1960 election of John Kennedy(see also for another old political dynasty), and the most powerful machine politician in the U.S. followed by an interregnum (Bilandic, Sawyer,Washington, Byrne), then his son Richard Daley II rules (1989-present). That is 41 years out of the last 55. Richard II has a fine son, Patrick, who enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2004, and who has not announced any political aspirations to date. Richard I has 20 living grandchildren, many involved in public service or businesses related to the city. Edison (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it said the "Daley Dynasty" is a front for the Catholic church rather than being a true dynasty unto itself and that it was only through the Catholic Church by way of the Chicago Catholic Church Mafia that either Kennedy or Obama got elected. What I'm looking for, however, is a town or county that has stayed in the same family for more than three generations or 50 years. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

List of United States political families and its 25 subarticles might help.John Z (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think people are confusing monarchy with dynasty. The Daleys, Kennedys, Rockefellers, Roosevelts were political dynasties, not royal dynasties.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you characterize the difference other than perhaps by the number of generations? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Monarchs are not elected. Richie Daley first ran in 1983 and was defeated. Monarchies are taken out by the sword, not by the voting public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As described in dictionaries, a monarchy is characterised by the single rule of a king, queen or emperor. This precludes any of the above families from being classified as monarchs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the etymology of the word, but the key characteristic is that it is hereditary. Plenty of people have been considered monarchs while not having even de jure absolute power. However, all the dynasties mentioned are certainly not monarchies since the child inheriting is far from guaranteed, they just have a big advantage. Some fairly big businesses could be considered monarchies - it is common for the founder to be president for life and then pass that on to their children for several generations. --Tango (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While the control of big corporations usually remain in the same family for generations, one couldn't for example say members of the Agnelli family have replaced the House of Savoy as monarchs in Italy!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As I posted the Daley comment above, this crossed my mind: Is it possible, or even legal, for some future king (say King Charles or King William of the UK) to decide to end the monarchy and/or to convert it to an elective office? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the monarch can only abdicate but he or she does not have the power to turn the United Kingdom into a republic. Remember the UK is not an absolute monarchy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The UK monarch cannot abdicate, not in the sense of "I'm sick of all this crap. I'm outta here" and just leave without notice. The monarch can, through the Prime Minister, ask the parliament to pass a law that deems them to have abdicated, and all 15 other Commonwealth realms have to concur; it's only happened once, and they all agreed, but theoretically the parliaments could decline, in which case the monarch stays put. In a very real sense, constitutionally speaking, the monarch is born into the role and is a prisoner of it from the moment of their accession, for the rest of their life. They have less say about their lives than any of their subjects have about theirs. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

By "say about" you obviously mean in terms of career choice but certainly not in terms of vacation or travel or other advantages of wealth. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure about some of those. The monarch couldn't, for example, decide to go on a private tour around continental Europe, the way you or I could, because the diplomatic and security ramifications would be enormous. They cannot decide to just not be available for official duties for whole months or weeks at a time while they write their memoirs or just chill out, because the machinery of government would grind to a halt. They get a few small blocs of time for private holidays, that's all. Sure, they have access to colossal wealth, but the chances of spending it are limited, and they can't pop down to their favourite gift shop or library or museum and browse unmolested the way you or I would take for granted. They can't say "Oh, that new Cate Blanchett movie looks good; I think I'll go to the cinema this arvo, then have a cappuccino in the coffee shop next door while I do my sudoku and cryptic crossword before catching the bus back home". They can never go to the pub and just have a few quiet cold ales. No, in many ways they have no life at all, poor things. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

All very true; Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson didn't realise the score until they were already part of the Firm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Emperor Norton? :) Gabbe (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He was Emperor of the United States in the same sense that Garfield Goose was King of the United States. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyril of Alexandria image

Want to upload this medieval-like image of Cyril of Alexandria, but am uncertain of its origin. Maybe somebody knows? Brandmeister[t] 18:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked TinEye, which said the only other copy of this image on the Web is this web page, which doesn't point to a source. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is one of the paintings from the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe as can be seen at the photographer's website here, you will have to get his permission to use it here, possibly easier to get a local to photograph it instead. Oh and the wider image shows that it is Cyril of Jerusalem. meltBanana 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask about that - he's got the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem on his hat, that's kind of weird. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, Adam, as the charges appear to be Azure rather than Or as for Jerusalem. Could be an artistic error, or a change of pigment colour over time (unlikely, as the painting looks otherwise well preserved), or maybe Alexandria's arms (which I've not been able to corroborate elsewhere yet) were modelled on and differenced by tincture from Jerusalem's. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but I thought the specific arrangement of the crosses was a crusader invention...maybe not though. Maybe they are the arms for the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Alexandria, which was founded during the crusades. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That could also be true with no contradiction, Adam. Remember that the Crusades started in the 1090s, but European Heraldry only seems to have emerged around half a century later, primarily as a means of identification on the battlefield (or mock battlefield, i.e. tournament). The (civic) Arms of Jerusalem, Alexandria and everywhere else would therefore have been devised in a short period in the context of a pan-European militaristic 'establishment' represented and/or maintained in the Eastern Mediterranean regions by the crusading armies, and it seems to me quite natural that Alexandria's arms would be designed to 'pay homage' to the 'holiest city's'. It would be nice to turn up definitive evidence, of course. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Capital gains tax, UK

What is the coalition government intending to do regarding CGT? Higher CGT tax rates will put people off from investing in buy-to-let, and result in a shortage of rented accommodation and increased homelessness. 89.242.232.220 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they are planning on increasing CGT rates. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the housing market - there are a lot of different factors to consider. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you just wait and see, then it will be too late. 89.242.232.220 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already too late - we've had the election now. --Tango (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See the full text of the coalition deal, CGT gets two mentions but there isn't much substance yet. Nanonic (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities. " - Isn't buy to let a business activity? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it's more of an investment activity. --Tango (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends. It's a business activity for the property services company that does the letting. Or the property investment company that does buying and letting for its investors. And buy-to-let isn't the only business activity subject to CGT. Also, are you sure they're going to increase the CGT rates? My understanding is that CGT rates are typically higher than income tax rates so according to Kittybrewster's quote, one would expect the CGT rates to decline. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read and heard that the CGT rate for non-business activities (ie on second homes, share deals and the like) will rise from the current year's 18% flat rate to 40% (some are even guessing 50%). I can't find a reference to give you yet, but it appears to be a LibDem policy that the Conservatives have accepted as part of the coalition deal. If true, this will have an interesting effect on private investors in the UK, who are currently encouraged to take income from activities like share trading and property development by the relatively generous CGT regime. It could have an effect on future purchases of buy-to-let properties, but only if the buyer is planning to sell the property again and realise gains in the not-too-distant future; it won't have an effect in terms of any rental income, which is unaffected by CGT. Before 2008 CGT rates were variable, with bands of 10, 20 and 40% depending on the individual's other income and gains. Should the CGT rate rise above the lower income tax rate of 20%, some investors may concentrate on maximising dividends, which are taxed as income, rather than capital gains. It may also make it more attractive to concentrate exclusively on property development and share dealing. At present, someone who supports themselves through capital gains with little or no other income may be deemed a trader by HMRC, and their gains reclassified as income and taxed accordingly, so it pays to have a "regular job" too. If CGT concessions are to be given to entrepreneurs, it may be in their interests to declare themselves as full-time traders, property developers or whatever. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with, and trust that it will not be retrospective. Karenjc 12:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If CGT on BTL does increase, then you are bound to have increased homelessness. Its bad enough already. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bylaws

When a bylaw is consolidated what does this mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.13.106 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the context. Could you tell us the complete sentence, and where you read it? "Bylaw" might mean a local ordinance, or a regulation of a homeowner's association, or a rule that a corporation uses to run itself. "Consolidated" normally means "joined together into a single whole". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Laws and by-laws are made, then amendments are made, then more amendments etc etc. Prior to consolidation, those interested in the particular law have to work with the original version and apply all the relevant amendments separately, to work out what the law is currently saying. At some point in time, it becomes desirable for the government to publish the most up-to-date version of the law, with all the amendments incorporated and the law annotated to show what parts of it were amended when. Then more amendments are made and the consolidation process is repeated when necessary. If only laws worked on a Wiki principle: they'd all be online, ordinary people could just edit them at will, and they'd stay that way till anyone objected and changed them again. That would truly be the people's justice. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you apply a three revert rule? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There'd have to be special rules, such as a limit of one edit a day/week to any law, to give people a fighting chance of breaking the current law and the police a fighting chance of refocusssing their attention on people whose actions were quite legal yesterday but have suddenly become illegal. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct Usage of a title

What is the correct usage for a persons title.

We would like it to read - President & Chief Executive Officer. Is this correct usage of a person's title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.233.24 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Giving us a little more context would be nice — what is the situation? If you're starting a company and deciding what to call the person in charge, yes, you could do this, and it would be understood. "President" and "Chief Executive Officer" are two separate positions in large corporations, and if it matters, small companies normally wouldn't do this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, the President would often be someone who is (either nominally, or in reality) responsible for the overall functioning of an organisation, such as chairing ("presiding" over) a governing board - whereas the Chief Executive would be the person in charge of how its day-to-day operations are carried out ("executed"), including such things as staffing, and in many cases would report to the President. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be one usage, but it does not seem to agree with Wikipedia's article on CEOs. Ghmyrtle's description of the CEO sounds to me more like the COO: Chief Operating Officer. The combined title "President and CEO", as mentioned by the original poster, is quite common in North America, even though Wikipedia neither mentions it in the CEO article nor gives it an article of its own. --Anonymous, 04:16 UTC, May 13, 2010.

Fair point. I'm in the UK, so there may be slightly differnt usages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your usage was correct for most countries that use those terms. President is chair of the board and CEO is the day-to-day head of the company's management. In large companies, they will be different people. In smaller companies, they are sometimes merged, although you might use a title like "managing director" rather than "president and CEO". --Tango (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So the President is really the chairman, and the CEO is really the managing director, they've just decided to give themselves grand-sounding titles. DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The chairman is the chairman of the board of directors, which theoretically is in charge of the company but in reality only meets every month or two, or even less. The CEO is the top boss. "President" in most U.S. corporations seems to be a title given either to the CEO or another high-ranking executive, perhaps the second-in-command. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "president" and CEO may be the same but "chairman (of the board)" is different. --Anon, 05:02 UTC, May 14, 2010.

So the president is the managing director, or one of his assistants. DuncanHill (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

safety mirrors

I would like to install a convex safety mirror outside a property in order that those exiting the property vehicularly are able to avoid, by means of viewing other traffic in said mirror, any attempt at occupation the same part of the space-time continuum by those two vehicles.

This mirror would be on the opposite side of a public road from the property, in front of a hedgerow and farmer's field. It would be an extremely minor infringement on the general countryside but would be seen within the context of the road and its furniture.

This is in England, and so in doing this, do I need planning permission to establish such an erection?

ta very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.32.83 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't overlink: most of the links in the question were not necessary. -ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Going on information from the Suffolk council website, most probably. See the last section on that page. Nanonic (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Same result from Bucks and Somerset county councils. Nanonic (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet such mirrors do exist and stay put for years. There's been one across the road from the shop in my sister's village for as long as she's lived there. Talk to the highways department at your local council.Astronaut (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If they were in place before the regulations came into force, they would not necessarily be removed. I agree that the questioner should speak to their council officers, but it's likely that it would only be approved if there were clear road safety benefits, and no risk of causing a distraction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Stationary safety mirrors (as opposed to those mounted on the car, like your rear-view) are typically not suited for use with vehicles - they exist for the safety of pedestrians. Trying to interpret a curved reflection while moving is a losing proposition - the driver will have to stop to see it properly and if he's doing that, he might as well check the roadway manually - the way he's supposed to. Matt Deres (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For coming out of a drive (which is done at very low speed) they are extremely useful, you can see cars coming from both directions at once. The mirror isn't for the cars on the road, it's for cars coming onto the road. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes; DuncanH is correct. The exit is blind; one simply cannot see around a corner when exiting, and it's a 60mph limit, but the road is fast enough that some will be doing 80. The vehicle using the mirror would be stationery, waiting to exit the drive. If the driver sees anything in the mirror he shouldn't pull out until it passes and there is further traffic, so judging the distance of traffic is irrelevant; you don't want to be trying to judge pulling out in front of fast moving traffic. that would defeat the object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.151 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Musica notturna delle strade di Madrid, movements

Hello, dear Wikipedians. I am an avid fan of this fantastic piece by Boccherini. Please consult http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RjKmTVFJSo for a quick listen to this delightful music; note, if you will, that this is the youtube link provided in the article.

My question is as follows: How are the movements separated? According to the article, the piece is approximately 13 minutes long, whereas this youtube link is 9:24. I will refer to it when I say where I assume the movements are divided: Le campane starts at 0:00; il Tamburo dei Soldati 0:30; Minuetto 1:41; Il Rosario ?:?? - Passa Calle 4:40, Il Tamburo 6:39, La Ritirata: 6:50-end. Am I right in this so far? The drums blended in very well, and I didn't know if honestly they were just a few seconds long, and if that qualified as a movement at all... Obviously I am having problems finding Il Rosari's beginning. Any help would be greatly appreciated! 88.90.16.185 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a track listing, with samples, from an approximately 13-minute-long version here. It sounds like Le campane is not part of the Youtube clip. Thus Il tamburo dei soldati starts at 0:00, the Minuetto at 0:30, Il Rosario at 1:41, and the rest as you have it. It seems that the Youtube version abridges the Rosario to half of the length of the 13-minute version. --Cam (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After poking around some more I think Passa calle starts earlier, around 4:14.--Cam (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cam! This was most helpful =) 88.90.16.114 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Choice of musical genre

Which companies offer a telephone keypad choice of music genre to callers who are put on hold? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

May 13

real or fake newspaper?

During the latter half of the 1980s, on buses in San Francisco, California, I used to see these pictures. They looked like advertisements. But they were for a newspaper called the "Street Fare Journal". Does such a newspaper really exist?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a newspaper but an organization that published those bus cards to provide brief snippets of literature and art for riders; the cards were the "journal". (You can get a complete set of them for the low, low price of $11,500, apparently.) Deor (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

...now, see Streetfare Journal.--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Shia rituals

Do you know any thing about the ritual called "Shama Gul" in shia's.i would like to know what is shama Gul.Please let me know urgently —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaiyajawad (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

during sham e gul they all fuck each other in a dark room, if you were to get pregnant via this orgy you would be considered blessed.

buildings

Does anyone know what this roof is made of and how it is held up? The big white one in the background of this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Butlins_Bognor_2.JPG

148.197.114.158 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the Butlins Skyline Pavilion. Guy ropes and the big metal towers sticking through it hold it up, and it's made of some sort of cloth presumably similar to the "PTFE-coated glass fibre fabric" of the Millennium Dome. It is an example of a tensile structure. FiggyBee (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Daguerreotype Union Cases

How many Littlefield, Parsons & Co. Union cases were made with the Constitution and the Laws Design? I have researched and found that there were over 350 case designs made, but I cannot determine how may patriotic designs there were and approximately how many of each design were made.Tooelusv4u (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The number of "union cases", as the hinged tintype cases were called, that were produced in any particular design could never be determined unless a fairly complete business archive has survived for Littlefield, Parsons & Co. of Florence, Massachusetts, near Northampton. "From 1856 to 1865, the business of Littlefield, Parson & Co. gave employment to from 75 to 199 hands. Very great success attended the business after the first two or three years, particularly the manufacture of the union cases. The demand for these goods was so great that during a considerable part of the time the factory was run to its utmost capacity, night and day, producing daily 89 to 150 dozen cases", reported the writer of a history of Florence published in The Hampshire Gazette 2 April 1867. The successors to Littlefield, Parsons & Co. in 1866 were the Florence Manufacturing Company; any Littlefield, Parsons archives will have passed to them. --Wetman (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

UK constituencies

I was looking at File:2010UKElectionMap.svg which I got to from United Kingdom general election, 2010.

I saw a light blue constituency in the vicinity of Oxford and was curious as to which one it was. There is nothing on the map to track it down. I guessed it was Oxford and went to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 which is great for getting from a constituency name to a map of where it is. I tried Oxford East (UK Parliament constituency) which shows the one of interest to be just to the east of oxfordshire. But then I got stuck.

How do I look up a constituency name from a (the above) map? My question is NOT 'what is the constituency', although I'd like to know that. My question is HOW do I find out the name? -- SGBailey (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a very easy way to do this. The constituency names are present in the sourcecode of the image, so code for extracting them could be written, but I don't know if this has actually been done. What you want is a more interactive map, such as the one the BBC news website seems to have just taken down hidden behind a terrible search engine. The constituency in question is Buckingham, by the by. Algebraist 16:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This interactive map should be the one. Click each time to narrow down of area, then you can pull all the important information. On Buckingham, it won't help: the BBC, wrongly, colours Buckingham as a Conservative seat (click on it, and it becomes "Speaker hold". It's the speaker's (though on a further technicality, he's not speaker until parliament sits); he is impartial (although John Bercow was a Conservative MP). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK and thanks. I presume it is far too much effort to go through 650 articles and add "neighbouring constituencies are ...". -- SGBailey (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few of the seats do name the neighbouring constituencies; for the remainder, the link at the bottom to the list of Parliamentary constituencies in that county should help identify most of the neighbouring seats. Warofdreams talk 14:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

is there any more leveraged "long selling" (betting stock will rise) than options?

I thought I was clever in realizing that a certain middling stock ought to about more than double in 2 years' time, but I checked out call options for that time, and lo and behold - the market agreed with me! Instead of having to pay something cheap for the option to sell buy at double price two years from now, I would have had to pay about half of what I would gain!! Too expensive, that's very low leverage. Moreover, at that price, I can just buy the stock! In fact, why should I even buy the option in this case? If I buy the stock itself, then at least it can't become WORTHLESS, even if it goes down to half its value, unlike the stock option! That's half my question: the other half is: okay, so the stock option wasn't leveraged enough for me. Is there anything thhat is MORE LEVERAGED than a stock option, ie something I would gain more from by than with a stock option? Thanks. 84.153.186.157 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Two comments. 1) You talk about "the option to sell at double price..." yet you think that the price will go up - this doesn't make sense because you would go for a call in this case: if the price doubles, you buy at the strike which is presumably lower than double and you've made a profit equal to the difference minus the premium you paid at the start (ignoring time-value). 2) You said you "would have had to pay about half of what [you] would gain" in 2 years - that's a pretty decent return. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! When I said "sell at double price" what I really meant was buy at my strike price and sell at double price, ie I was thinking of the actual process of exercising the option, and I was thinking in terms of the actual selling when the option is in the money. But you are right, the option itself consists of a right to buy, not a right to sell, and in fact most options don't actually get exercised. As for your second comment: What I don't understand is why anyone would buy an option in my position, if they were banking on the stock about doubling, and the PREMIUM on the stock options they are looking at makes it equivalent to buy $5000 of options, which due to massive premium will only mean being $5,000 in the money when the stock doubles, or buy $5000 of the stock outright, which would also go to $10,000. But in the second scenario, if it goes down from $5000 to $4500, you've lost $500 and opportunity costs, whereas in the first scenario you lose 100% of your investment. When the market prices options (for a strike price close to double the current trading value!!!) with such an insane premium, why would anyone in my position buy that option?

Are you absolutely sure you have calculated the premium correctly ? Stock options are typically sold in lots of 1000 underlying shares, and the premium is quoted per lot, not per underlying share. So an option selling at a premium of $1 per lot is equivalent to a premium of 0.1c per underlying share. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to Gandalf, in your last sentence you mention that the strike price is close to double the current price but from your comments further up, it sounds like the strike is close to the current price. I think you need to tell us the current price of the stock and the option strike price and the current premium. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Perhaps you're right and I am mistaken. Further, I was trying to simplify the numbers. Without simplification here is my actual original analysis with annotation:

• here is my actual analysis made a couple of days ago (on the twelfth).
• Note: all of the listed options are for options expiring the same date, January of 2012 (20 months from now), therefore the rows are just different strike prices. However, note that my position is to sell these options after holding them for one year, when, in my estimation, the underlying stock will trade close to $400. (It trades at $260 now).

Here are the column headings:

• Column 1: the strike price.
• Column 2: premium - The price of that option if I buy it at this moment (aka the premium). Gandalf: did I make a mistake here?
• Columns 3-7: more trading information (volume etc) of the given option
• Column 8: intrinsic value. My estimation of the intrinsic value of the given option on May 12, 2011. (ie one year out, well before the option expires). My position would involve selling the options on this day, and my estimation is that the underlying stock will trade at close to $400 on this date.
• Column 9: profit - the intrinsic value (how much it is in the money) minus the cost (what it took to get it).
• Column 10: ROI - the profit column divided by the premium column (column 2).

• Note: my analysis is that the stock will trade near 400 on May 12, 2011.

Now, here's the thing. When this analysis was made, the underlying stock was trading at $260, and the position is that it will trade at $400 one year from now. Now let's look at my analysis of buying options, then we can compare it with buying the stock outright:

• If you skim the ROI column, you can see that the biggest one is for a strike price of $280 -- and this option commands a huge premium (cost) of $48.24!
• At this point my analysis says that $400 - $280 = $120 in the money, minus the cost of the premium is - $48.24 = $71.76 in profit.
• $71.76 of profit from $48.24 investment means the return is a factor 71.76 / 48.24 = 1.48. ie if I invest $1000, then it becomes $1480.
• But here's my problem: We said that the stock currently trades at $260.
• Which means that if instead of buying the option for my 1.48 factor return, I buy the stock at $260, then I will get a return of 400 / 280 = 1.42 factor. which is nearly as high!.
• This means two things:

1. the options route includes almost NO leveraging, despite the fact that I am predicting a rise from $260 to $400 - a bold prediction!
2. The option gives almost exactly the same return as buying the underlying the stock - but if I buy the option, I risk losing it all, whereas that simply will not happen for the stock itself!

So what gives? Why is the option being priced so high, and why would anyone in my position buy the option instead of the underlying stock? Further is there any other, better leveraged way for me to make my bold position, betting the underlying stock will go from $280 to $400 in a year? Thank you.

Note: the reason I am looking at options for 20-months out despite having a position in a price one year out is because there are no options for one year out, only 8 months out, which may not be enough time for the stock to make its move. Therefore my position is to buy the 20 months out option and trade it after a year when it is well in the money. I don't care what happens to the option between when I sell it and it expires. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Return = profit / investment. A profit of $71.76 on an investment of $48.24 is, as you say, a return of 148%. But a profit of $140 on an investment of $260 is a return of only 54%. You are not comparing like with like. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right. In this case I see that the leverage is much higher than I had thought as compared with buying the stock, however it is still much lower than I expected. In looking at my chart, can you see whether, as you suggested, I could have made a mistake and not divided out the "lot" of options? Or is my chart right as-is? Thanks. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also one more question, Gandalf and others: why is the $400, which still has respectable bids and asks of $15 the HIGHEST one not only in my chart, but in the sources I looked at for the chart? Shouldn't there be more options, if not 500, 600, 800, 1000, strike price, then at least continuing on to $410, $420, $430, etc - whatever it takes for there not to be any buyers for that market, as the price of that options peters out from $15, to $5, to $1, to $0.50. I don't see why $400 is the cutoff point, when it still has strong demand and supply. Why aren't there these higher strike price options? Thank you. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

May 14

Sport Spectation

Why do people like to watch sports so much, in some cases watch them more than play them?

Take NHL for example. There are people who list the schedule of the whole season, take down every game, list the teams playing in those games, then they mark who won and who lost. And then for these people, it is such a focal conversation topic, for example: "Oh, Carolina's going to win.". And the sports commentators comment on people who have injuries, and newspapers have a whole REGULAR devoted section to sports, and statistics, which I don't understand.

Football is the same way.

Does this help explain this phenomenon?174.3.123.220 ([[User t--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)alk:174.3.123.220|talk]]) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's entertainment. It's watching highly skilled athletes doing things that you and I couldn't possibly do at that kind of level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a film Woody Allen was in (I can't for the life of me remember which one) where his character was explaining why he, being more brainy than brawny, could possibly be interested in watching sports. He quipped something that whereas academics, philosophers and other intellectuals can spend their entire lives arguing with each other about who understands the world better, in the realm of sports the answer to the question "who is best?" becomes much more definite when one team beats another. Gabbe (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For the layperson, playing a full hockey game would be positively exhausting. Plus assembling twenty or thirty guys to play is no mean feat. Plus the equipment, the rink... same goes for many others sports. It's just much easier to flick on the tube and have your interest satisfied that way. Sure you can play hockey with as little as one person, but then it's just not the same is it? Vranak (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And as the question says, it is a focus of conversation. You can talk for hours with fellow fans about games that you are all equally incapable of playing yourselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

News, Weather, Sports - all mostly-harmless topics. And this, from A League of Their Own: (Tom Hanks) "What's this? Crying? There's no crying in baseball!" (player) "It's hard!" (Hanks) "Of course it's hard! It's supposed to be hard! If it were easy, everyone would do it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well consider past empires (Greek, Roman, etc). Everything they did has long since been over so clearly whatever miniscule effect on real life a sports game in progres might have, it is still more than the effect on the present that a historical account of a past kingdom in progress can have. Yet people still read about past kingdoms. Why? Well, for one thing, to learn more about the present. Is there anything from sports to be learned regarding real life? Why, of course, from sportsmanship to rivalry. So, in sum, not only do I understand sports fandom, but I consider it having at least as great claim to serious following and study as ancient history does, on the grounds that it has at least some (if only economic) connction with present day real life. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but sports fandom was just as insane in ancient Rome an Greece as it is today. Chariot racing is the ancient soccer (or NASCAR or Formula One or whatever). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this make gladiators the ancestors of hockey players? (I went to a fight and a ludus broke out.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. They had their own groupies and everything. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We can also compare boxing to the medieval joust. The latter was far more dangerous, however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Short story, poem, picture, etc. about teamwork

I'm looking for some great short story, poem, picture, etc. about teamwork. I've googled it but I couldn't find a good one. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Graham Greene's The Destructors is very good. Zoonoses (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Five Run Away Together.--Wetman (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Charge of the Light Brigade? --- OtherDave (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

English and British Duchesses of Normandy in the Channel Islands

Resolved

Eleanor, by the Grace of God, Queen of the English, Duchess of the Normans.

Were all English queens and British queens technically titular Duchesses of Normandy in the Channel Islands? Is there any reference in their time to that title after the year 1204?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the "Duke of Normandy" article? Gabbe (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have. But I wonder if there are any claims by the female consorts of British monarch on the title Duchess of Normandy. Like was the title ever used to apply to them.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never read anywhere that the title Duchess of Normandy was ever used by an English or British consort or applied to them; however, you might want to ask User:Kittybrewster or User:Surtsicna as they both know a lot about titles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All English queens from Matilda of Flanders until Isabella of Angoulême were also Duchesses of Normandy (though most of them used the title Duchess of the Normans). Eleanor of Aquitaine is known to have styled herself "by the Grace of God, Queen of the English, Duchess of the Normans, Duchess of the Aquitanians and Countess of the Angevins". All these titles but the Aquitanian one were acquired by her second marriage. Her daughter-in-law, Berengaria of Navarre, signed herself ""Queen of the English, duchess of the Normans and Aquitanians, Countess of the Angevins".[4] So they definitively used the titles Duchess of Normandy and Duchess of the Normans. Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Surtsicna, you answered this question beautifully. I shall therefoe mark it as resolved. I was curious as well about the title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

United States geography

My question is why are some of the states that make up the USA absolutely massive in central to western areas whereas the ones on the east coast in particular are tiny, for example Rhode Island. It just seems a bit disproportionate that you have huge and tiny sections of a country like that. Thanks, Hadseys 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the United States would be a good read, especially the "westward expansion" section. The USA started as relatively densely populated areas on the east coast, and the states were all small and manageable by 18th century standards. The western areas, generally more sparsely populated, needed to encompass a much larger area in order to have the minimum needed for becoming states. And by then, we had a network of railroads, so managing much larger entities became feasible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and a lot of vast territory in the west was acquired by treaty or purchase, such as Louisiana Purchase and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hence the need to manage on a much larger scale. Even now, much of the great plains remains sparsely populated, particularly areas like Wyoming and the Dakotas. Some of those western states have counties that are considerably larger than some of the smaller eastern states. But they are also much less densely populated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another factor would be disproportionate representation. No matter how few citizens a state has, it's entitled to at least 1 representative and 2 senators, thus giving them a proportional edge already, as we see at Presidential election time sometimes. If you cut Wyoming into pieces the size of, say, Connecticut, not only would that area have a disproportionate voice in Congress, you might have some "states" with virtually no residents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hadseys, I note you're from the UK, which had its rotten boroughs, in their way even more disproportionate. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pocket boroughs". Now I've got a Gilbert & Sullivan song in my head. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and a lot of vast territory in the west was acquired by treaty or purchase, such as Louisiana Purchase - I always wonder if this is a fair assessment. It's clear that Jefferson's government bought whatever claim France had on Louisiana from Napoleon. But certainly France's claim to the area was spurious at least by Natural Law, Jefferson's favorite justification for the Declaration of Independence. Large parts of the territory sold had never seen a Frenchmen or any European, and it certainly already was occupied by people who had every expectation of assuming it was theirs. So, generously speaking, what the US bought was the right to steal the land from the indigenous people without intervention from France... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is probably more accurate to say the US bought the right to tell the other European powers to stay out of that bit of land. We had to do our own "treaties" with the natives. Googlemeister (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it sad (and tedious) that European editors glibly remind us Americans of how we stole the land from the indigenous peoples, while forgetting that this was an occurance in all the Americas, Africa, Australia, the Phillipines, etc. with various European nations claiming land for their sovereign and displacing the indigenous without so much as a by your leave. Oh, and while we are at it, let us not forget about Europe with the Normans invading England, then centuries later English and Scottish planters displacing the Irish in their own land; then we have Napoleon and his dreams of conquest, the Austrian Habsburgs and the Balkans crisis which catapulted the world (including the USA-ahem) into one of the most bloody, unnecessary wars ever fought on this weary planet of ours. Last but not least we have the Anchluss, the first step on the march of Hitler's Wagnerian lebensraum fantasy. It's convenient, not to mention cool to lay every bloody act, genocide, and atrocity on the big, bad Americans' doorstep while nonchalantly ignoring one's own nation's past, bloody misdeeds. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! Godwin's law already! Edison (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

while forgetting - who forgets? We should not bowdlerise history on either side of the Atlantic - or anywhere. Tu quoque is as good as "an eye for an eye" - it makes the whole world blind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Stephan. Let's close this thread as it just generates hostility and we have really drifted far away from the OP's question. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In the establishment of the United States, some little states got disproportionately large representation (2 Senators regardless of population) as an inducement to ratify the Constitution, giving up their sovereignty and entering a union which they could not subsequently leave voluntarily (see also American Civil War: you can choose whether to join, but once in you can't leave, like the Mob). Edison (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they can choose to ask for statehood, and Congress has the final say in the matter. As far as secession is concerned, unfortunately the Civil War kind of decided that question by force rather than by court ruling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What the h..l is Godwin's Law? And why should I care about it? Whenever a European begins his or her self-righteous attacks against Americans (for committing what Europeans have been doing for centuries), it's obvious that Hitler has to be brought into the equation. For starters, Hitler was European, and he committed one of the worst acts of genocide in mankind's living memory, and if that wasn't enough, he launches a war against a continent that was still healing from the last war (again started by Europeans). So..... when a European has the temerity to rub the genocide of the Native Americans into my face along with Vietnam, Bush, Iraq, etc., I will pull him or her up and ask (with all due politesse), to please judge their own nation and its history before flogging the knackered horse of anti-Americanism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You should care about it because invoking Hitler is taken as a sign of weakness in one's argument. True, Godwin's Law is usually invoked in discussions about current government policy rather than European history. This cartoon is relevant. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are asking me to accept that challenging someone about Hitler is a weakness in my argument. Who says it's a weakness??!!!! I could just as easily have brought up Slobodan Milosovic, Oliver Cromwell, Vlad Tepes, Torquemada, Cortes, Caligula, Elizabeth Bathory, Catherine de Medici... there is no shortage to European names I could match to every George Dubya Bush or Armstrong Custer (or whichever American George it's trendy to hate at the moment). I chose Hitler because of the sheer magnitude of his crimes and the fact those same heinous events are now being given the Cavalier treatment by some Europeans who prefer to cast Americans in the same role as Hitler and his followers. I am not saying all Germans supported Hitler, nor is this meant to be an anti-German tirade; rather it is anti-Europeans-who-hate-Americans. As an American I am fed up with every bl..dy thread or question being twisted into a cat-o-nine-tail's whip with which to flog Americans and their history! Have I made myself clear that I have not accepted defeat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You ask who says it's a weakness? Godwin's Law says it's a weakness. I am not quarreling with you about anything, just trying to explain Godwin's Law, a widespread, well-known, and amusing point of argument. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So it's a violation of Godwin's Law to compare Hitler to Hitler? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I once had one of these exchanges with a hip young German—clad in black with the obligatory blond dreadlocks—who asked me "How does it feel to live in a country built on the graves of millions of murdered Amerindians?" I responded "How does it feel to live in a country that carried out the industrial murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, leftists, and gay people?" He stormed off in a huff. How is it that some Europeans think that they can get away with this kind of historical sanctimony? Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The only people in Europe who aren't anti-American are the Albanians. Also, the Russians, Romanians, and Moldavans I've met are more interested in how we live than berating us for daring to live.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I don't want to generalize about Europeans any more than I want them to generalize about Americans. I've found plenty of Europeans in every country who are not reflexively anti-American. And certainly, I wouldn't deny Europeans the right to criticize U.S. government policies. I criticize them myself. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We all criticise government policy. The problem I find with many (not all) Europeans (remember I live in Europe and I experience anti-Americanism on a daily basis) is that, while I may criticise a nation's government, I don't by extension blame the citizens for the actions of their elected rulers; whereas many Italians I know here blame me for US foreign policy!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I take European hostility towards America as underlying resentment for having bailed them out at least twice in the last century (three times if you count Kosovo) - a living example of the old saying that "no good deed goes unpunished." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This phenomenon is a product of history. In fact, each state has its own unique history. The reasons why each one was created and then admitted to the union as they were have to do with the arcane details of the politics of the day. The smallest states are in the northeast. This is so because they, like all other states on the eastern seaboard (apart from Florida) started as English colonies. Each of the little states was settled by a group of people who, for one religious and/or political reason or another, did not want to be part of a neighboring colony and so founded their own little colony. Some of these split off relatively late, such as Delaware, which did not completely separate from Pennsylvania until 1776, and Maine, which did not separate from Massachusetts until 1820, after the United States was already independent. The larger eastern seaboard states other than Florida—New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia—all began as areas granted to an individual proprietor or to a company of proprietors by the English crown. Actually, all of these areas were originally granted by the Charter of 1606 to Virginia, but the other colonies were set aside for other proprietors by subsequent charters. In each case, negotiations resulted in relatively large areas being granted. To the people in London making the grants, the borders probably looked like arbitrary lines on a chart. With the exception of odd leftover bits of territory such as Vermont and West Virginia, which broke away from Virginia in the 1860s for political reasons, the remaining states were created from territories that had not been occupied by English colonists before the United States gained independence. Florida became a part of the United States when the United States acquired the previously Spanish territory through a treaty. It was not broken up before statehood. Like Florida, almost every post-independence state began its existence as a U.S. territory before being granted statehood. Territorial boundaries were drawn mostly based on administrative convenience. Because most future states east of the Mississippi River (and a few to the west, such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri) began as territories before railroads existed or linked them to other U.S. territories, their size was somewhat limited by the slowness of travel. Texas and California are somewhat special cases, and you really need to read their histories to understand why they are as they are. Also, before 1860, admitting states to the union always involved compromises between proponents and opponents of the spread of slavery. Typically, for every new free (non-slave) state, a slave state had to be admitted. Each side had some interest in limiting the size of states admitted so as to maximize the potential for the admission of future states on each side. After the 1860s, railroads began to spread west of the Mississippi, and vast areas became thinly settled rather quickly. As a result, relatively large areas were marked off as territories and later admitted as states. This is a generalization, but to understand the details, you need to read the history of each state. Marco polo (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You expressed this beautifully, Marco. Yes, one has to read the history of each state to understand how and why it came into being. Another thing is that various states attracted different classes of people. For instance, Virginia and Maryland had many younger sons of English gentry amongst thier settlers, whereas Puritan New England had mainly yeoman farmers. The English Civil War divided many of the colonists, as the South tended to be Royalist, while the North was obviously Roundhead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jeanne - see Godwin's Law if you haven't already. As for why people (not necessarily Europeans) are talking about Americans stealing from the Indians is... because the question is about the creation and expansion of the US states, particularly the western ones. Not talking about US treatment of the native population there would be a hopeless bowdlerization. When we get a question about Spain's history, we can talk about all the Moors and Jews and various other folks that got burned or beheaded or worse. You are the one who got on the soapbox first. Matt Deres (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a book out now called How the States Got Their Shapes -- it's not the most scholarly of works, but it does explain to some degree why each state is the size it is. The coast of the country got settled first, so the big thing in the charters each colony received was the extent of their coastline. No one gave much thought to the interior, which is why several of the original 13 states are so elongated. Most of the other states were created by the federal government as territories before becoming states. Obviously, the original states didn't want to be overwhelmed by new states in the Senate, so they didn't want to turn the Northwest Territory, for instance, into 100 new states. Also, the Western areas (the area known as the "West" moving closer to the Pacific as time went on) started out being thinly populated, so it made sense to give them a lot of territory. Furthermore, Congress felt that a territory should have at least 60,000 people before becoming a state (as stated in the Northwest Ordinance), and the only way to get 60,000 people out of a frontier area was to have generous borders. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a decent book, but a better one on the subject is American Boundaries by Bill Hubbard Jr. I've noted some serious errors in How the States Got Their Shapes, for what that is worth. As others have said, the basic answer is that the eastern states evolved out of often vague definitions during the colonial era. The US federal government had power over state creation, including boundaries, from the creation of Ohio. While there was some attempt to keep new states relatively small (Iowa being a good example), in general a larger size prevailed, for various reasons (read that book). One key reason was that the West was mostly arid, making agricultural development risky or impossible. If you've ever driven across Wyoming, it should be obvious why it is a big state, relative to eastern states.````

British India - Army and Navy chiefs

This is a photo taken in 1948 in the Dominion of India. From the left are C. Rajagopalachari (Governor General), Baldev Singh (Defense Minister) along with the three service chiefs of the Indian Armed Forces. Of the three service chiefs, i can identify the one in centre as Air Marshall Thomas Elmhirst from his shoulder tabs (striped ones used for both Royal and Indian Air Forces). But i cannot identify the other two - which one is the Navy Admiral and which one is the Army General. Can someone id them from the uniforms? (their peaked caps are distinct and should help) --Sodabottle (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The one on the left is recognisable as General Sir Roy Butcher from a photograph on this http://www.normanby.info/bucher.htm site (the top google hit found under that form of his name). Further googling the other two officers' names similarly finds sites with photographs of them. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!. I had guessed from the pictures. But needed a second confirmation from the uniforms.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Certainly the General is recognisably wearing an Army-style cap with a downward-inclined peak, while the Admiral, though not well seen, is clearly wearing a Navy-style cap with upward-inclined peak. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Asha Rose Migiro

Resolved

Hallow,

May you please assist me with the full address of Asha Rose Migiro,

It will be highly appreciated,

Thanks and best regards,

Tracy

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggrecious2010 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

United Nations Headquarters‎, New York, NY 10017, USA.

--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cases of Judgment notwithstanding verdict

I just recently stumbled upon the Judgment notwithstanding verdict article. How rare or common is this judgment? Does anyone know of any actual cases where a judge had to apply this? Because to me it seems very unlikely that this kind of situation would ever happen: a "judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict" and so "the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings"; one would think that only if they were bribed or under duress that a jury would give such an unreasonable verdict as to invoke this judgment; othe--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)rwise everyone on the jury could, by some freak chance, really be that mentally incompetent. So any actual precedent cases of this happening would definitely be interesting to read about... I'm probably not making any sense. -- œ^™ 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Books Advanced Search is your friend: [5] shows the appeals record for several such verdicts. Some general info is at [6], [7], [8], [9]. Sometimes the judge is the only voice of justice in a deranged world, and finds himself having to take an unpopular stand. In the landmark civil rights case of the Scottsboro Boys, Judge James Edwin Horton committed career suicide in the racist south of the 1930's by setting aside an Alabama white jury's verdict of "Guilty" in the case of Haywood Patterson , a black man, accused of raping a white woman. Edison (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Louise Woodward case is a famous recent case.John Z (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Had Lee Harvey Oswald lived long enough to be tried and convicted, the presiding judge might very well have applied this judgement.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of the time factor in which Oswald is claimed to have performed so many feats: 8 seconds to fire off at least three shots at a moving target, using an 1890-vintage rifle with a rusted scope, from the 6th floor of the TSBD; then in 90 seconds time climb over the stacks of boxes placed around his sniper's nest, sprint across the warehouse floor, carefully hide the rifle between books, walk quickly down the open staircase and be seen breathing normally by Officer Baker; 45 minutes later he is in Oak Cliff where he allegedly shot Officer JD Tippit, yet didn't rob him (a man on the run would surely have needed cash). A good lawyer would have pointed all these improbabilities out to the jury, and it's possible that had the jury gone ahead and found him guilty, the judge could have applied the judgement. I say could as he might have supported the jury's decision.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually he only needed 8 seconds to fire TWO shots. The first shot was the 0 point of that time scale. Also, from the way he talked to the reporters in the police station, he certainly came across as a guy with a rehearsed answer when asked if he kill JFK. However, had he actually gone to trial, lots more evidence might have come out, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

His response to the reporters sounded like he'd been programmed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

At the time it sounded like a rehearsed answer. But a trial would have been interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It would have been the trial of the century!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, we've already had at least 2 of those. How many "trials of the century" can there be! -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently at least one per generation. Somehow, I suspect that the trial of a President's assassin might trump those other two. Even now, I can see Oswald's tell-almost-all autobiography appearing on bookshelves: IF I Did It, I Must Have Been Programmed by the CIA/FBI/KGB/Mafia/IBM. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and can you see all Oswald's former girlfriends with their tell-all autobiographies describing his prowess between the sheets?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

JNOV or Judgment as a matter of law, as it's widely called now under the federal rules, is sometimes requested by the losing party. There are specific rules that govern the timing and preconditions to requesting a JMOL, most importantly that one asked for a directed verdict at closing. But as the standard would suggest, it's rarely granted. I'm talking about federal rules in the U.S., and I don't know how it works in state court, nor have I actually studied any statistics in federal court about it, but that's just my instinct about how it works. Shadowjams (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

SDLP & British Labour

I'm fascinated by the links between the SDLP and the UK & Irish Labour Parties. I'm especially interested in the SDLP's taking of the Labour whip in the House of Commons. I don't understand the significance and mechanics of this. I've read what I could find on WP, but I'd appreciate any refs to other sources (or WP articles I may have missed). Thanks

Is mise, Stanstaple (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In 1913 the British Labour Party decided to give the Irish Labour Party exclusive 'rights' to organize in all of Ireland, a move resented by protestant Labour politicians in Northern Ireland at the time. There have been several unfruitful attempts convince Labour to became an all-UK party by opening a branch in Northern Ireland (see Northern Ireland Labour Party, Labour Party of Northern Ireland). SDLP and British Labour are fraternal parties and the implication of your comment is that SDLP MPs sit in the same group as British Labour MPs. --Soman (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did European colonists want to go to India so badly?

I know they have spices and such, but lots of countries had spices. Plus it seemed like a REALLY long way to go just to get some spice. Some insight into this would be helpful. Were their assumptions to what India had, exaggerated? ScienceApe (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

History of India, especially the redirect to Colonial India, may provide some clues. You could also check out the India article and see where it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also British Raj and John Company. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll also want to look at Spice trade and Silk route. India was a very 'strategic' country for nations in those days. It's not like today where things can pretty much by-pass countries (what with planes) and 100s of major international ports, back in the day the key Trade routes were much more important, and having 'control' of them could be hugely beneficial. ny156uk (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Spices brought the first Portuguese traders to India in the 16th century. Once they saw the richness of the country, they realized how much more it had to offer. Until at least the 18th century, India was a rich part of the world, at least as rich as western Europe. It had been at the center of long-distance trade in Eurasia for centuries and had amassed great wealth in precious metals. It produced a large agricultural surplus as well as expensive tropical woods, cotton (not produced in Europe until the late 18th century), and lots of luxury goods. Europeans were eager for access to the lucrative trade possibilities. After the mid-18th century, the British also began to see the potential for revenue extraction and industrial profits (by making India a market for British manufactures). Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe most of the British who lived in India were posted there by the government, as India never attracted the type of permanent European settlement such as the USA, Canada, South Africa, etc. India required a large number of military personnel as well as government officials and civil servants to enable Britain to administer and maintain British rule. Most of the British eventually returned to the United Kingdom, apart from many of the railway workers and soldiers, who married Indian women; hence the sizeable Anglo-Indian community. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, kind of. See the East India Company and Company rule in India. The British conquest of India was mostly a commercial undertaking until 1858. Most white settlers and Anglo-Indians left for the UK in 1947 out of fear of reprisals. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, re: spices—spices are a pretty good commodity for these guys because they don't go bad and they can be shipped in very high volumes without too much trouble (they don't break, they are consumed in relatively small amounts, they are widely popular). Pound for pound many of them were probably far more valuable than gold. Each ship of spices you brought back would be pretty valuable. I think discounting the idea that the spices would have been a monetary incentive by themselves is incorrect. Many of the spices in question could not be easily grown in quantity in other countries with the agricultural technology of the time—they depended on very specific weather and soil conditions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Indian climate was not suitable for settlement on a vast scale such as the US was in the 16th and 17th centuries. India was far more populated than the American continent as well. As Alan says, India was mostly a commercial enterprise for the British as it previously was for the Portuguese. I must read the linked articles before I comment further though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that India seemed to have a real psychological pull for the British as well, for reasons not directly related to spices. Something about Vedic mysticism perhaps. Vranak (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, a real psychological pull for profit which develops from a large market on account of a large population. Add to that extremely valuable spices, gems, gold, tea, and last but not least, huge amounts of opium for the Chinese empire whose emperor had forbidden to buy any kind of British/European goods whatsoever (and Chinese tea, porcelan, etc were being paid in gold and silver). "Vedic mysticism" at its finest indeed. Flamarande (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The pull of profit was there certainly, but there was something beyond that for many. I'm reminded of M. M. Kaye's characterization of India as "that beautiful, bewitching, often maddening and sometimes terrifying land". DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I scoff at the notion, Flamarande, that the only reason anyone would spend time in India (in this century or any other) would be for rank mercantile profiteering. I mean, come on. England is England -- not everyone wants to spend their whole existence there, regardless of how many gold doubloons they may or may not have. Vranak (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was all about the money. I'm just pointing out that profits and power were without any doubt whatsover the main reasons for the overwhelming majority of the British/Europeans of the 17th, 18th, and even 19th century. And yes, some British colonizers eventually fell in love with India, its people and culture but only after they got there in the first place (and most traveled to India to gain something). I somehow doubt that Vedic mysticism produced any kind of "real psychological pull for the [majority of] British [colonizers]".

Let me also point out that most British returned to the UK. We can also be certain that the stockholders of the East India Company were interrested in profits and little else. I vaguely remeber that they even attempted to remove some gems from the Taj Mahal and were considering to dismantle it. Flamarande (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See Imperialism, Colonialism and White Man's Burden. Edison (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

May 15

Henry Corbin essay

I am having trouble finding an essay by Henry Corbin called “Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire: the Science of Gnosis.” According to the Wikipedia article on him it was "presented" in June of 1978, but no mention is made as to where it was presented or where (or even if) it was published. -- noosphere 01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look here [10]. It was an address to the Université Saint Jean de Jérusalem, whatever that may be. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's perfect. -- noosphere 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Out"

I've been reading Mansfield Park, and there's a peculiar use of a word that I didn't get. Phrases like "his sister was not out", "She was then out", and "Miss Price is not out" [emphasis in original] use the word "out" as in a girl being out. What does "out" mean in this context? The only guess I came up with is that the girl has hadher first menstrual period and is thus a woman and ready to marry, but that doesn't make much sense since Miss Price is 18 years old! Sorry if I'm not familiar with the British social customs and terminology of the 18th siecle. Best, 76.230.146.50 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Could be to do with coming out, or it could be to do with being "in" or "out" to callers - one might ask the footman to tell callers that one was "out" in order to avoid having to see them. I've never got on with Jane Austen though, hopefully a Janeite will be along soon to help further. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a very good explanation of the ins and outs of the word's meaning. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It means she hadn't yet made her debut in society. See the links DuncanHill and Clarityfiend have provided above. The word out is often used in Jane Austen and Victoria Holt novels.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jeanne Boleyn; you can read "out" as a short form of "out in society." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Government/executive boycott election?

Chief Executive of Hong Kong Donald Tsang said that he and his politically appointed team will boycott the Hong Kong by-election, 2010.[11] Are there any cases in history where the head of government/ the executive would boycott a legitimate election held by that government? F (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so much a "boycott" as such, but in Australia, not all the major parties always contest by-elections. Elections of all kinds, at the federal level, are conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, a government-created and -funded body but one that operates independent of government and is answerable more directly to the Parliament of Australia. In a broad sense, however, one could say that all elections are conducted by the "government", but there have certainly been occasions when the government of the day has chosen to let the other parties slug it out. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The boycott in this case is by not voting. Traditionally, the Chief Executive and major officials would stage photo-ops such as inserting the ballot into the ballot box and by opening the ballot boxes at close of poll. They are refusing to do it this time. F (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked out all the elections listed in the article "Election boycott"? Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Regnal number of future Spanish monarchs

Regnal number seems to me to follow the Asturian-Leonese-Castilian monarchs in Spanish history. Is this true? I know that the Crown of Aragon was technically abolished in the aftermath of the Spanish War of Succession. So would a future heir to the Spanish throne named James or Peter follow the Castilian regnal number and be James I of Spain and Peter II of Spain or the Aragonese regnal number and be James III of Spain and Peter V of Spain?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been a precedent, so we won't know until a James or a Peter ascends the Spanish throne. I don't think there's a rule saying who is counted and who's not. I'd like to know whether the Navarrese monarchs will be counted from now on. If they were going to count the Navarrese monarchs, Charles III of Spain would've been Charles IV. But they might be more concerned about Navarre now than they were three centuries years ago, so Infanta Leonor of Spain might reign as Leonor II. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Navarrese Crown merged with that of France and not Spain. See Henry IV of France. Spanish Navarre was conquered early in the time of the united crowns of Castille and Aragon; it was a bit of a side-conflict during the War of the League of Cambrai. See Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre. There remained a "rump" Kingdom of Navarre (known as Lower Navarre) until Henry III of Navarre became Henry IV of France in 1589 (Paris being well worth a Mass, apparently also worth a LOT more than the puny Kingdom of Navarre). Navarre continued on in name in personal union with France until Louis XIII of France officially abolished it as a seperate kingdom in 1620. Numbering of Navarrese monarchs would therefor have little bearing on regnal numbers in Spain. --Jayron32 23:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Islamic or Sufi quote

I am trying to find a quote by an Islamic philosopher (or maybe a Sufi mystic), who said something like "when you put a match to cotton, it is not the flame that burns, but God." Does anyone know what the original quote was and who its author was? -- noosphere 19:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It was al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Philosophers, which actually has the passage about cotton quoted in the article, although it is uncited. Averroes criticized al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Incoherence, and quoted long passages so he could refute them, so the bit about cotton burning is also in there (see this translation of Averroes for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sugarloaf Mountain, New Brunswick memorial crosses

An IP editor just asked on the Help Desk about two white crosses on the side of Sugarloaf Mountain, New Brunswick. I was able to provide them with this link to a short account of their origin [12], but was wondering if anyone had any further information. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp and his idea of the "indigenous peoples" of the British Isles

This guy, Arthur Kemp, who has his own Wikipedia article and everything... he is asserting that the white Western native British people even if their ancestors have lived in Britain for centuries if not millennia... (that may be true sometimes but...) constitute an "indigenous people". Whilst his genetic findings may have some truth in that the British people may not have much admixture, that does not make the British an "indigenous people", regardless of their genetic heritage. Do the white British live in huts, caves, or so on? Do they hunt fish with spears? No. Do they obtain their food from Tesco and Asda... yes.--Lightsin (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they left an actual question in those caves? --- OtherDave (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheddar Man lived in Britain 9150 years ago, give or take a few, and people related genetically to him live in the same spot now. The Romans found Britons to be little natives who smeared their skin with blue clay and fought like hell. They lived much as you describe, and did not get their food from Tesco at the time. Edison (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably there are some people who were the first people to settle a land; even someplace like Britain, and they would therefore be "indigenous". The decendants of those people don't have to be living in caves to be indigenous, just that they are decended from those people. Indigenousness has nothing to do with economic status. That being said, I make no statement about the validity of his ideas; just that ones objection shouldn't be based on the use of the term indigenous to describe a population of people. --Jayron32 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary on the meaning of "indigenous". It doesn't mean "hunt fish with spears". FiggyBee (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

May 16

sunglass removal and the police

This is not a request for legal advice. This is just me watching K-PAX and getting curious. If an officer asks you to take off your sunglasses, are you required to do so? If someone refuses to take them off and the officer takes them off without permission, is that legal? What about a hat? A coat? Gloves? How far does it go if it goes anywhere? Wrad (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me pose it to you in the opposite way. What constitutional right would protect you from that request? Shadowjams (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(So if a police officer told you to hum the theme-tune from Doctor Who you would be required to obey that instruction in the absence of a specific constitutional right to the contrary? Come off it.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've basically assumed this question has applied to the U.S. law because it's reference a scene in a movie that occurs in the U.S., and I don't know U.K. law, but yes, if a sovereign nation passes a law that says if you don't hum that tune you can be imprisoned, there's little "law" to dispute that. As a practical matter, in the U.S., state constitutions, as well as the federal constitution, will imply a rational basis test, and humming a tune may be one of the very few instances that fail that test. I can't comment on the U.K. But we should be very aware that sovereign nations are largely free to do what they please, as a practical matter. Free societies should always remember this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the matter with you? "Free societies should always remember this." If you want to lecture about state theory, the Reference Desk is very much the wrong place. Your assertion that removal of glasses would be required unless there was a right to the contrary is clear nonsense, as illustrated by my example. Issues of sovereignty don't enter into it. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not the response I expected from you, but you feel strongly about this.

I stand by my point. Police power means what it is. And sovereign nations are free to exercise whatever control they want, with practical concern from what other nations may impose on them (i.e., war). In the U.S. the police power is relegated to the states generally, and in enumerated cases delegated to the federal government. There are restrictions on this, the most obvious of which are based in the U.S. Constitution, but perhaps controversially are also based in English common law. I would never support such an arbitrary law, nor would I ever believe a sane court could view humming a particular tune as a rational basis for a law, but if you want to understand how the rule of law works, that's it. Rational basis is a product of a legal system, it's not an a prior truth, and it certainly doesn't enforce itself on its own. Shadowjams (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a defective argument in the US, where all the government's rights are granted it by the people, as is made explicit by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The government (and therefore the police) don't have, by default, the right to do anything they want unless a constitutional right circumscribes their power; it's the other way around. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not. The federal government's powers are limited to its enumerated powers, the 10th amendment is an express description of that; the States, however, have plenary police power. That power is only limited by the Constitution, or any subordinate law (such as a state Constitution). Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right the rights of all U.S. governments, whether at the federal level, or at the State level, are granted by democratic process, but there are wide ranging statues giving law enforcement officers wide discretion to investigate suspected crimes, at both levels. Notwithstanding the constitution, namely due process considerations, these rules would be relatively unrestricted. Let's say state X passed a law that said any resident had to comply with any and all orders issued by a law enforcement officer. If that were a law, on what basis might one object? Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

On the grounds that some of what they might order you to do might be unconstitutional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to elucidate what the premise of this objection is. This isn't necessarily the world I'd design, but it's the world that is. Let's be clear about what the law actually is.

So, which Constitutional provision? Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What if the policeman ordered the subject to confess or he would be shot? Obviously, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about being pulled over, there are certain things the cops can do and certain things they can't, but one thing they can certainly do is to verify that you are licensed to drive. As part of that, they have to verify it's you, and in so doing, they would likely tell you to take off your sunglasses or anything else that's hiding your face sufficiently that they can't make a positive ID. Driving a car on a public thoroughfare is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege granted by the state, and in getting that license you agree to abide by the driving laws. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Although the latter is correct, the original poster didn't mention driving. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

They also never say that they're US American. Dismas|^(talk) 07:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As a practical matter, see Terry stop. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the UK, specially-authorised police can require anyone to remove anything which it appears is worn solely for the purpose of disguising themselves. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bengali surnames

Is there a website where it shows the surnames in Bengali language in terms of which religious community uses which surnames? So far I know that all surnames that are Arabic are used by Muslim community. So far, I know that Mazumdar, Sarkar, Chowdhury, and biswas are both Muslim and Hindu surnames. So far, I know that Sen, Thakur, Bose, Ghose, Basu, bannerjee are hindus. Barua IS A BUDDHIST surname. anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.170 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

US spending a lot on military aid

Why is the US spending $2.55bn a year on military aid to Isreal, according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8681919.stm ? A surprisingly large amount of money. Why so much money, and why Israel and not some other country? 78.149.199.79 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)