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 19

Legal freedom in the US, UK

Is it true that in the US you only have a right to do those things listed in the American constitution and its amendments? Whereas in the UK by contrast, I recall a lawyer saying that you have a right to do anything you like, unless it was specifically unlawful. 92.26.56.233 (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the US Constitution (& amendments) is not a list of things you can legally do. Mostly, it describes what the government can and cannot do. Underlying the creation of the US system was the belief that you get all of your rights from God simply for being human (natural rights), and that government cannot infringe upon these rights without consent of the people. —Kevin Myers 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Although it was regarded as implicit in some ways, the 9th amendment was meant to address this concern. Implicit in due process is the notion that things that are not prohibited are permitted. Shadowjams (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious gross exception was the Prohibition amendment, whose chief benefit was the furthering of the Mafia and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A minor correction to Kevin's post. There are certain rights that even consent of the people can't take away. If that were the standard, gays wouldn't be able to marry--oh wait... — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Marriage is not defined or even referenced in the Constitution as such. That's generally been a state matter, with occasional "assistance" by the feds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition [...] chief benefit was the furthering of the Mafia and such. - that's why we've now legalised all the psychoactive substances that are less harmful than alcohol... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol was in widespread use before Prohibition. Taking away something the public is used to having can create a significant black market. Dope of various kinds were "headed off at the pass", or at least that was the intent. The feds use "regulation of interstate commerce" as the wedge for prohibition of dope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But it still creates a large black market that certain people profit from. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguably, it puts more money into circulation, since black market items generally cost more. At this point I'm trying to recall what the original question was. But I think it comes down to, "You can do anything you want unless prohibited by law", and the U.S. Constitution says very little about prohibiting things, beyond prohibiting the suppression of basic rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be thinking about is the difference between a common law system, as in the UK and US and a civil law system, as in France. In a common law system generally that which is not prohibited is permitted in a civil law system that which is not permitted, is prohibited.

In practice most legal frameworks are a balance of the two, predominantly Common in the UK and US, with some Civil elements, although frequently application of Civil or statute legislation is embodied in common law.

ALR (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around (sort of). The distinguishing feature of civil law systems (such as France) is that an act is illegal if and only if there is a statute making it illegal, whereas in a common law system (such as the UK and US) an act may be illegal even if there's no statute prohibiting it, as long as there's precedent in case law. In common law systems it is possible for acts (called "Common law offences") to be illegal solely by virtue of such precedent, which is not the case for civil law systems. See stare decisis and nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. Gabbe (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All the implementation of rule of law training that I've done considers precedent as part of the corpus of material that identifies prohibited, for exactly that reason. The challenge becomes recording and promulgating the decisions when establishing a legal system; such as Bosnia in the 90s.

ALR (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious case in the US where "anything is legal unless specifically prohibited" is in anti-discrimination laws. There they must keep adding to the list of protected classes and we get "there shall be no discrimination in employment based on race, gender, ethnic background,...". A more sensible way to do it might be to simple state "there shall be no discrimination in employment based on any factor which does not directly affect the ability to perform the job". StuRat (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that that could lead to arguments like this: "My customers don't like black people, therefore I won't hire any because their skin color directly affects their ability to make a sale." Marco polo (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You can racially discriminate if it's directly pertinent to the job. For example, you wouldn't hire Queen Latifah to star in the life story of Brooke Shields. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think if you could demonstrate that white employees earn you more money than black employees, simply by virtue of their skin colour, you could hire only white people. It would be difficult to prove it and it would be very bad PR (even those customers that won't buy from a black salesperson would protest against such a policy). --Tango (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"UK law" may not be a coherent concept in this discussion, as Scots law is significantly different from English law. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, you certainly cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their skin color except (maybe) when their skin color is an obvious disqualification, such as Queen Latifah playing the role of Brooke Shields. No US court would accept a store manager's argument that he is entitled to turn away all black applicants because his customers prefer white salespeople, even if he could prove that that was true. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No question it's a slippery slope. But looking at the flip side, if you were a white guy operating a store in Harlem, you might consider it to be in your best interest to hire black people to visibly operate the store. Whether any of that would stand up legally is questionable. Right now I'm trying to figure out how this relates to the OP's question? The "equal protection" amendment (14th, I think) covers most of this ground. So the Constitution implicitly forbids arbitrary discrimination. But it does come down to cases. There aren't that many men working in women's clothing stores, for example. And in the ag industry, where I work, there aren't all that many female or non-white salespersons. The ones who do, of course are really good, since they have had to overcome inherent skepticism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is actually fairly clear-cut in most cases. Taking your example of the store in Harlem. You are likely to have more black than white applicants, so most of your staff will probably be black anyway. But let's say you have an opening, and two applicants apply. One is a black woman whose past experience consists of a single part-time job as cashier in a different type of store. The other is a white woman with years of experience doing retail sales in stores very similar to your store. If you give the job to the black woman, the white woman would probably be able to win a discrimination lawsuit. Let's say the same relatively inexperienced black woman applies to work in a women's clothing store down the street, also in Harlem. A black man with years of retail experience selling women's clothes applies for the same job. If the woman is hired, the man could probably win a suit for sex discrimination. It is not clear-cut only when the employer has some grounds other than the protected category (race, age, sex, etc.) for preferring the applicant who is hired. For example, the employer could argue that the person hired was more articulate or more outgoing. But the decision can never be based on one of those protected categories, with the possible exception of the category clearly disqualifying the person. The Queen Latifah example comes to mind. Another would be a man applying to work as an attendant in a woman's locker room. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think refusing to hire a man as an attendant to clean women's locker rooms simply due to his sex would count as illegal discrimination in Sweden. Kronobergsbadet, for example, has signs on their entrances noting that "locker rooms might be cleaned by members of the opposite sex." Gabbe (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

UK law is quite a devil. You are allowed to do something unless it is specifically forbidden. On the other hand, under European law there are many things it is illegal to do unless it is specifically allowed. An example is wine labelling, where it is perfectly legal under UK law to list ingredients, but under EU law the labelling of ingredients is prohibited. Both instances must be applied, in which case UK producers tend to apply the EU legislation on the side of caution. Without knowing the specifics of your question it would be difficult to say and, therefore, you should check the legal requirements of the state / super-state you are in.

Sales tax on auto purchases?

As I'm preparing to buy my first car, I was surprised to learn that I'll be paying sales tax, even though I'm buying it from a private individual. I know that we don't normally pay sales tax on private transactions here in Ohio, so I was rather surprised. Is Ohio abnormal in requiring sales tax on private auto purchases, or is this a common practice? Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty common if not unanimous (in states that have sales tax). Here are some sources: [1] Sales taxes in the United States (one of the top google hits is on the spam blacklist apparently). Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, some states charge sales tax a second time if you move to the state and bring with you a car you purchased out of state. In cases of which I am aware, it doesn't matter that you can prove that you paid the sales tax already. The point is that you paid the tax to a different state. Wikiant (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically this wouldn't be a sales tax, it would be characterized as something else... I can't remember what it's called right now, but a state needs some nexus with the purchase to charge sales tax. There are of course taxes like this. Shadowjams (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about use tax here. --Anon, 06:00 UTC, May 20/10.

By the way, I don't think that it's true in most states that sales tax is not due on transactions between individuals. It's just that the state doesn't bother to collect it on most transactions other than car purchases because the cost of detecting the transaction would exceed the tax that could be collected. Marco polo (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In Michigan there's an exception for immediate relatives, who can sell cars to each other without sales tax. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

When I bought a truck from a private party in Tennessee, I had to pay sales tax. When you sign the title over, the amount that you pay is written on it and you're charged sales tax on whatever that number is. Whether that number accurately reflects what you actually paid is another matter entirely since nobody comes to check up on these things. Things work a bit differently here in VT though. When you buy a car from a private party and go to register it, that's when you pay the tax. At the DMV, they look up the blue book value and charge you sales tax based on that number and not what you actually paid the seller. And getting back to the "sales" tax when moving to another state, I did that as well when I moved here to Vermont. Let's say that I paid 5% sales tax on my Jeep in TN. I then moved to VT and registered it here. VT's sales tax is 6%. So they would have had me pay the extra 1% that I didn't pay before. Luckily, I didn't have to pay anything since TN's tax was the same or more than VT's. Dismas|^(talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Was a crime comitted here?

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/23591043/detail.html

I read this story on Yahoo, and I don't understand what he did that was illegal. It isn't illegal to lie on a resume or application for a job or admittance to a university, is it? The people who took out subprime mortagages or liar loans were not prosocuted, so why is this guy? Or is this just Harvard leaning on the police to take action, where no real crime has been comitted? Count Westfall (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This BBC article says he has been charged with, amongst other things, larceny and identity fraud. Dalliance (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Having only read part of the article, I think the major concern was obtaining "$45,000 in financial aid, grants and scholarships" to which he was not entitled. IANAL, but that sounds like fraud to me. Astronaut (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fraud, yes. But I think the plagiarism part was the lynchpin. Had he somehow proven himself worthy, strictly by his own skills, maybe he could have gotten away with it, or at least gotten forgiveness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not illegal (except as maybe a copyright violation). Fraud is illegal. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when is plagiarism not fraud? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on the details, I think. You would have to prove damages, for example. In some cases, that could certainly be done, but not in all cases. Who is damaged by me quoting Wikipedia too much in my university dissertation without attribution? Wikipedia might suffer a slightly reduced reputation due to its association with plagiarism and my university might suffer a slightly reduced reputation due to giving degrees to people that don't deserve them, but neither of those would be easy to prove in a court of law and would probably be dismissed as de minimis. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. The legal definition of fraud is much more specific. Some plagiarism could be fraud, to be sure, but there generally speaking needs to be a victim with damages. Plagiarizing your senior thesis is probably not within the legal definition of fraud. (Of course, as with all legal things, the legal definition is complicated.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it really not illegal to lie on a resume or application for a job in the US if you commit fraud in the process? This would be highly surprising to me, it definitely is here in NZ, see [2] [3] for two high profile cases.

Of course the likelihood of you being prosecuted (and the sentence may received) would probably depend on several things, including what sort of job you're applying for and how much a different the lie makes or is likely to have made to you getting the job, how big a lie it was and also whether you were successful or not. If you lie about having a Doctorate from Oxford when in reality you don't even have a undergraduate degree from any university nor have ever studied in one and didn't even receive your secondary school qualification yet your lie was persuasive enough that you were made the CEO of Apple you can expect a greater likelihood of being prosecuted then if while applying for a job flipping burgers at Burger King you claim you worked for 3 months at McDonalds when in reality it was only 2, something the manager realises since he/she was working at McDonalds at the time and hires you anyway after chastising you for lying.

I would also strongly suspect that if you commit major fraud in obtaining a loan there's a chance you will be prosecuted. Obviously if you take out a loan, provide the bank with full and honest details on your financial circumstances, they decide to offer you a loan anyway then you lose your job and can't afford to repay your loan there isn't likely to be fraud involved. But if you claim you are paid $100,000 a year and give a forged letter to the bank allegedly from your boss saying you are an excellent worker who is vital to the running of the company but in fact you are only paid $25,000 a year and the only thing your boss had provided you was 2 written warnings I wouldn't be surprised if the police get involved.

(Refined my comment on loans above 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is playgerism illegal? I remember a while back Jayson somebody was caught playgerizing at the NYT and wasn't procecuted ( I don't believe), and the CEO of radioshack who had obtained his job fraudelently was not prosecuted, so what did this guy do that was different? In both of the above cases the people profited from their lies as did the guy at Harvard. How could he be charged with idendity fraud if he didn't represent himself as someone else? I thought that only applied when you try to fraudently impersonate the identity of someone else? Count Westfall (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not illegal. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing I thinking of but neglected to mention is it probably depends a lot on whether the party you defrauded has any desire to see you prosecuted. While I think in many countries, you could still be prosecuted even if the party you defrauded doesn't want you to, unless perhaps you are continually defrauding people you'd probably get off if the party you defrauded doesn't complain to the police. For a civil service job, given the general expectation from the public you'd generally expect that in any major case of fraud you'd probably be prosecuted. For private companies, the company may prefer to avoid a trial because of the embarassing publicity and other things that may result Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line on every 'is it illegal?' question is this -- is it in the public interest to serve warning that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable? Plainly this holds true for the story you presented. It would be a disservice to the culprit himself not to put your foot down and say no, this will not do, you need to repent for your misconduct. Honesty is the best policy, and those who aren't quite clear on that need to be made well-aware, by hook or by crook. Vranak (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, that's the bottom line on questions of whether something should be illegal, not whether it is illegal. --Anon, 06:04 UTC, May 20/10.

And any honest judge will be asking just that question -- should this be illegal? Vranak (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a case in Scotland of a 32 year old man changing his name to Brandon Lee and enrolling in an academy. He fooled everyone into thinking he was 17. [4] The education authority weren't too pleased but there was no prosecution. Jack forbes (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Shame on the school for not insisting on transcripts sent directly from the registrar of the previous school, or for not getting SAT scores directly from the testing service. They sound like they were extremely lazy and irresponsible in taking an applicant's word for his grades and test scores, or in accepting copies he mailed in. The transcripts should at least have had to have the school's seal embossed. For all the application fees a college charges, they could damned well afford to have a clerk verify credentials and reference letters for those applicants who fall on the "accept" side of the scale, while ignoring those clearly in the "reject" slushpile. Many government loan forms have the warning, if I recall correctly, that it is perjury to make any false statements. I feel sorry for honest applicants whose places get taken by craven liars and cheats. Edison (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My experience with higher ed is that they rarely check credentials if they "seem" right. The idea that people might be lying or faking is not followed up on regularly. This guy had a pattern of systemic lying and plagiarism and it's amazing it took this long to catch, since some of that stuff would have been discovered with a simple Google search. But at places like Harvard they assume that the students really are that amazing and checking up is rare. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not generally illegal but it can get you kicked out of school. In some cases it does constitute copyright violation. Lying on your resume can probably be considered a form of fraud, though, if you are applying for something that will give you money. That's illegal. There are other laws that are probably more local that come into effect, like falsification of documents, identity theft, etc. What does and does not constitute these things probably varies a huge amount with jurisdiction.

Lying on a mortgage application or agreement is certainly illegal, but in cases where you are talking about legal contracts, the case of outright "fraud" in a legal sense is probably low. (The contracts probably made no agreements that would have constituted fraud, even if the intentions of one of the party were contrary to what was being insinuated. A smart lawyer can make very "safe" contracts.) But that's a more general legal question and not connected with this case at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question, several crimes were committed (or at least alleged). As a link within that article states, these offenses number 20. They include: identity fraud; larceny; falsifying documents from Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Phillips Academy, and other prestigious schools; and pretending to a hold a degree. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Citizenship

If someone is a US citizen and he or she wishes to leave and have citizenship somewhere else, what is the easiest nation to get citizenship from? Count Westfall (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Law of return might interest you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Law of return works only for US citizens who happen to be Jewish. For those who aren't Jewish but have parents born in some other country, their parents' country of birth may accept them readily as citizens, depending on the country. A few countries will even accept grandchildren of citizens. If you are a native-born non-Jewish US citizen with native-born grandparents, you face more restrictions. Depending on your education and skills, you may have an easy shot at permanent residence in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. See their immigration websites to see how many "points" your background gives you and if it is enough to qualify. I think that the United Kingdom also now uses a point system, but I think that they set the hurdle a bit higher than the former three countries. Other countries will admit people with exceptional qualifications or money to invest. Beyond that, I'm guessing that an envelope of crisp $100 bills handed discreetly to the right official in a poor and corrupt African or Latin American country could lead to naturalization in that country. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia is fairly easy to get citizenship from. According to the article linked,

“ People who became permanent residents on or after 1 July 2007 must have been lawfully resident in Australia for 4 years immediately before applying for naturalisation. In addition, they must:

• • have been in Australia for 12 months as a permanent resident
  • have had absences from Australia of no more than 12 months, including no more than three months in the 12 months before applying [5]
  • have not been unlawfully in Australia at any time in the 4 years preceding application
  • understand the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship (except for applicants aged 60 or over)
  • be able to speak and understand basic English (except for applicants aged 60 or over)
  • understand the nature of the application
  • intend to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.

”

--Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Once you have attained permanent resident status in many countries it is easy to go on to citizenship. Australia is not exceptional in that regard. What is often not so easy is attaining permanent resident status. In most countries, you can become a permanent resident in four main ways: 1) marriage to a citizen; 2) other close family relationship to a citizen; 3) ability to bring skills or investment funds in demand in that country; and 4) recognition of a claim of political asylum based on a fear of persecution in one's home country. Some countries make it easier than others to gain permanent residence through methods 2), 3), or 4), but almost always, a person seeking permanent residence must first pass one of these hurdles. (The exception, as I've pointed out but do not advise, could be to gain permanent residence through a bribe to a corrupt official.) As I've explained above, it can be relatively easy for Americans to pass hurdle 3) in Australia, but certainly not all Americans will be able to pass this hurdle. Hardly any Americans would be able to pass hurdle 4) in Australia. Marco polo (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to get citizenship in Canada or Australia if you have obtained permanent residence; but obtaining permanent resident status can be more tricky. Typically, it is small countries that are not particularly attractive that have been associated with citizenship scams in recent years. Small island states and the like, where a small "economic investment" is often all that is needed to qualify for citizenship. The ultimate value of such a citizenship is questionable however: as soon as it is known or suspected that country x gives citizenship to minimally-qualified individuals, most countries you would want to travel to will impose significant entry restrictions on bearers of its passport. --Xuxl (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish citizenship is available to anyone with an Irish grandparent. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

True, and up until fairly recently, it used to be available to those who had children born on Irish soil. The problem, however, with the Irish citizenship based on having had an Irish grandparent (s), is obtaining the proof, seeing as all the records for births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland prior to 1922 were destroyed when the Four Courts was blown up during the Irish Civil War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There would surely be church records, wouldn't there? And two generations ago it would be a very uncommon Irish couple who wouldn't be married in a church. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How many people know in which church their grandparents were married? There are many Irish-Americans who only know the county where their grandparents came from. Another thing, even if one found a parish record, one would need to prove that those were indeed his or her grandparents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to get citizenship in Switzerland with enough money. You could also check out Costa Rica.
Sleigh (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

100% inheritance tax, UK

How much money would a 100% inheritance tax raise compared to other kinds of taxation? Its big advantage would be that it would remove privelidges being passed down the generations (apart from public school educations and so on), and stimulate people to make their own money rather than waiting for pater and mater to snuff it. 92.26.59.240 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, if you had saved 1,000 pounds in your lifetime and wanted to leave it to your kids, you would be happy if the government took it all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the OP's question, Bugs. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, totally relevant, IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The amount of money raised would be enormous, but such a tax rise would never get past the commons or the lords. Astronaut (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a hypothetical question. At the moment, such a tax is at 40%, above a threshold (£325,000 for individuals), and raises a pittance (£3.5 billion) for the government each year, a tiny proportion of takings, since the tax is particularly inefficient to administer. Of course, upping it to 100% wouldn't increase costs much. However, your plan suggests no minimum threshold either, which would vastly increase the number of people paying inheritance tax (to everyone), and the associated costs. So it's not as much as you'd think. People would be more likely to dodge it, as well, and even if not successful, this adds further to costs. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The one thing such a crazy law might do is to encourage people to have 0 assets when they die, thus depriving the government of ALL income from such a tax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If they're all spending their money, then the government might make it back in increased VAT, that sort of thing. And the economy would benefit from all this, potentially reducing social welfare. I'm not for such a plan, but that's how you might argue it. The point remains, though: inheritance tax set at a universal 100% would not in itself bring in that much money. The deficit's at £160 billion, so it would have to raise over 45 times what it does now to offset that. A relatively small gain, I would say, for "fundamental" (you could argue not) civil liberties like that. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the first part of your comment is what I'm getting at. That would be the "libertarian" approach - that taxes should be "chosen" in some sense, by whether you buy something or not. And then the government's revenue would be a direct function of prosperity or buying power, so there would be an incentive to encourage prosperity. That's the theory, anyway. The alternative would be to put everything into a Swiss bank account or the Cayman Islands or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

First of, think of collection. Instead of waiting till all this folks join the Monty Python Parrot, collect the tax in advance. It's called nationalization. Of everything. Nobody, not even Lenin, went this far, but it's worth a try isn't it? East of Borschov (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In practice, very little. Hugely punitive financial oppression of the state would encourage people to find ways around it.

ALR (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All I can say, 92, is that you cannot be serious. You think that anyone would be ok with seeing the widely-reviled government get their paws on their entire life savings? It just ain't gonna happen, even if it turned out to be a genius idea. The public at large would be incensed. There would be a revolution. I have to wonder what sort of position you find yourself in life to suggest this sort of scheme. It smacks of... well suffice to say it is patently absurd and untenable. Vranak (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also add that even if the people kept their heads down and went along with this plan, they would also leave the country in droves. Mass exodus. If your idea was to raise public funds, that aim will be a little underwhelming once 80% of the nation flees to more tax-relaxed nations like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the US, and Communist China. Vranak (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Especially since the 20% you would have left would be those who had not funds anyways. Googlemeister (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The revenue a 100% inheritance tax would raise would be virtually zero. In fact, on the whole it would end up costing as people altered their behaviors in response to the tax. In the US, several studies indicate every $1 revenue raised via inheritance taxes is accompanied by a $3 reduction in sales, income, and property taxes plus as much as $7 spent on lawyers and accountants employed in helping people avoid the tax. Wikiant (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All the criticism must be by people who are expecting to inherit something. In fact it would be the best and most painless kind of tax, since it would only be paid after you were past caring. It would help with social inequality, meaning that everyone would get the same start in life as monetary privelidge was no longer passed down the generations (except by education). I cannot beieve that people would emmigrate to avoid a tax payable only after their death. 92.26.60.63 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are we talking about here? People with £30,000, £40,000 or more? Do we also include those with small savings who may want to leave a little to their children who are not well off themselves? Jack forbes (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Social inequality? What's that? Seriously, it's the most frequently trotted out, misunderstood, and mendacious phrase of our time. It's to this century what "Christ our Saviour" was to the fifth century. You know, the Dark Ages. Vranak (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unwise to assume the motivations of those responding to your question.

If one considers behavioural economics there are a number of motivations for people to invest over their life, one of which is the opportunity to pass the benefit of that on to others. Disincentivising that one element has the potential to change behaviours in the mid and late retirement phases on the assumption that the vast majority of legacies are passed at the end of a natural lifespan rather than through premature death.

If one has adequate assets then there are already a number of ways to avoid the existing 40% tax, passing title to property or financial assets, investing in trusts.

I'm afraid that vague fluffy concepts like social inequality aren't a particularly sound basis for policy making, the point has been made above that the only people affected would be those whose assets are small enough that it's not been worth finding ways around it.

Anyway, tax is never painless. It's the act of the state penalising the individual for the value of their efforts. From a personal perspective some form of sales tax is probably the most reasonable, forcing people to make choices about consumption, and to only pay tax that they choose to pay.

ALR (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would mean windfall profits for attorneys and financial planners, who would scour the tax codes for loopholes. The U.S. has "generation skipping trusts" and other tax dodges to move money away from the tax man. Would a person ever be allowed to give any money to his family? A gift tax would be needed to prevent a gift of 100% of the estate in anticipation of death. How about if an owner of a house and a small business sells them to his son? Would that be ok? How low can he set the price, since a low price would equal a gift and deprive the tax man. How about if he donated it to a charity? Moved the business ownership offshore (many U.S. large companies have fake "headquarters" at a maildrop on some small island outside the U.S.) How many dodges could a team of advisors dream up? Take out a loan, use the business as collateral, be "unable" to make the payment and have the ownership assumed by the lender (your relative)? If the 100% estate tax really worked, and a man owned a small business and a house, his widow and orphans would be thrown out on the street to beg or to go on the dole when he died. How much would that cost? And the government would become the landlord trying to find a renter for the home, and having to fix the roof and plumbing. The government would suddenly have to hire a manager for or find a buyer for the small business who could operate it at a profit, a dubious proposition in many cases. Large governments are just not efficient operators of small businesses, and hired help who are not owners are not good business operators in general. Shops or factories would be boarded up, and farms would sit idle with weeds growing and only the sound of crickets. It would soon resemble the aftermath of the Black Plague in the 1300s. Edison (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an additional issue. In taxing accumulated wealth, inheritance taxes are unfair in that they only look at one half of the transaction. For example, suppose that a person generates $10 million in wealth by inventing a product that people like so much that they willingly part with their money to have the product. The $10 million wealth is only one-half of the transaction. The other half is the benefit the people get from having the product they purchased for the $10 million. If we agree that the guy should give the $10 million to the government, why shouldn't the people who bought the products be forced to give the products to the government also? Wikiant (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As Astronaut pointed out near the top, such a law would never be passed, unless all the MP's and Lords were willing to have their money usurped as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to scold everyone who huffily puffed about how bad an idea this was, when the OP merely asked how much money it would raise. As to the answer, I agree with those who opined that many people would actually leave the country, and most everyone else would change their behavior in mid to later life so as to minimize the tax collection; which makes any estimate extremely speculative. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The final answer is that it would raise ZERO money, because everyone would figure out ways to keep it from being taxed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The same is true of any 100% tax rate. See Laffer curve. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Laffer curve applies exactly, here, Tango; the Laffer curve is about income tax; if the tax goes to 100% then there is no incentive to earn money anymore so revenue is at 0. Applying this logic to a death tax, I think you're saying a 100% death tax ensures there is no incentive to ... die? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it would mean there's no incentive to save. Since anyone can die at any time, a 100 percent tax would encourage people to spend everything they get rather than saving any of it - and then depend on welfare when they reach retirement age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not true — there is still an incentive to save if you think you're going to live until tomorrow. The incentive is to spend down to 0 exactly upon your date of death. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, people may well save for their retirement, but they would sell everything upon retirement and buy an annuity (and a lifetime lease on their house). Such financial products are available now, the only reason people don't use them to such an extreme is because they want to leave something for their children to inherit. --Tango (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Or find ways to keep the government's mitts out of it, by putting the money elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

True, tax avoidance and evasion also increase when tax rates do. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to apply that theory to the tobacco tax and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would make selling tobacco illegal, which would put it in the same position as other illegal drugs (well, those ones for which possession is either legal or at least has a blind eye turned to it). --Tango (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking more about raising the tax so high that no one could afford to buy it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Same effect. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought of another adaptation to a 100% inheritance tax. If I found I had a predicted 180 days to live and 180 thousand dollars, I would make the estate tax drop to the income tax rate, presumably lower, by hiring my child to care for me in my final illness, and paying 1 thousand dollars per day, or to paint 180 paintings which I would buy for 1 thousand dollars each, not outside observed prices for such work or commodities in either case. Or I would play high stakes poker with my family- and lose a lot. As fast as the government set price and wage controls for invalid care and paintings, and taxed gambling winnings, more legal dodges would be thought up. The price controls would drive legitimate businesses out of business, and drive the government batty hiring more and more watchers and accountants. Edison (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the UK at least, whilst "market rate" is considered, any deliberate/obvious attempt to dodge inheritance tax would be taxable. The point holds though, as we've established: people that want to dodge the tax would. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

One more dodge suggested by a lawyer: a man is told he has 6 months to live and doesn't want 100% of his estate going to the government, so he buys a life insurance policy at a ruinous premium (given his acknowledged illness) with his family as beneficiaries. And another: He makes a loan of all his money to his child at the lowest legal interest rate for the longest legal term. The government has to scramble to keep passing new restrictions to head off such dodges, without destroying the insurance or loan business in general. Edison (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The question was about inheritence tax in the UK, yet many people from across the Atlantic have joined in. Having 100% inheritance tax would promote social equality, be a big incentive for people to go out and make their own fortune rather than sitting on their backsides waiting for their parents to die, and give people more money to enjoy during their lifetimes due to reducing other taxes. 92.26.52.11 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the general points are entirely valid, regardless of whether the individual refers to UK or US environment. The behavioural trends are similar, if you penalise people then they'll find ways to avoid being penalised by the state.

ALR (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some people don't have to work means it's far easier for you to get rich yourself. Less competition for jobs. Also, introducing this for the sake of "fairness" is the same as claiming that it's not fair that some of the world is brutally opressed by violent dictators and warlords, and that we all should be.--92.251.177.211 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

literature:critical essays about Ernest Hemingway's short stories

Can i access the critical essays about Hemingway Ernest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.5.158 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Try this search, or read our Ernest Hemingway article and click on the links in the References section. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern Morality

Is it unchristian to go to a travel agency, hear their offers and then go online and book the same trip for less money? I did this recently with my wife and now I feel guilty I was dishonest with the saleswoman... TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To me it would just be a part of shopping for the best deal...comparing this to another situation, if you went to appliance store A to see their offer on a microwave, but you know that appliance store B's offer matches/beats appliance store A's offer, I really don't see how that's being dishonest to not tell store A that store B's offer is better and you intend to purchase from store B. Am I missing a point in your question? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

While ethics can be a personal decision, part of the agency's job is to sell you the trip, and good sales techniques involve much more than simply the best price. Perhaps something was missing in their presentation and they failed to obtain your business, and you have the right to make the best purchase.10draftsdeep (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You were only "dishonest" if you told them you would come back in order to book with them. If you told them you would go away to think about it, it's not dishonest - that's what you did, and acted on your thoughts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And if they're actually sitting there getting concerned that this particular OP hasn't come back yet, they're likely not doing enough business to be around much longer anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what you say at the end of the conversation is really relevant - they've already expended their resources by then. It's what you say at the beginning that matters. As long as you didn't tell them you were definitely going to buy from them, which I doubt you ever would, then you are fine. The agency knows that people that come in and talk to them may well not actually buy from them, it's part of the business. --Tango (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It would only maybe be "un-Christian" if you promised to buy from them and reneged. They're in a business. If they can't match the online price, that's their problem, not yours. However, if the online-bought cruise turns out to not be fun, you could think of it as divine retribution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually another albeit unlikely situation would be if upon entering the store, you had no intention of ever buying a trip from them, and they asked you whether you were interested in buying from them and you said yes. However no travel agent is ever likely to ask such a question Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The approach I usually take is that salesmen are inherently liars, so there's no morality issue to it at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You earned your money, it's your business how and where you spend it. Don't feel guilty; the agency's goal is to make money, it's the customer's goal to save as much as possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the other posters that there is nothing dishonest in what you did, and no reason for feeling guilty. However, if the contact with the travel agency gave you information that you would not easily have obtained otherwise, you may not be acting in your best interest by choosing not to pay for the assistance. If everyone choses to go to specialist shops to get as much information as possible about a product, and then proceeds with buying the product elsewhere, the next time around, the specialist shop may not be there to help you. Every time you spend money, you vote for the shop where you spend it, at the expence of its competitors. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, it's unethical to take someone's time if you're not sure you will be compensating them for it. You should be making every effort to make every exchange in your life fair and honest. As this comparative shopping was not. You can look at the advertised rates on their window outside, that's fine, but anything more than that is a little questionable. And it has nothing to do with Christianity -- it's simply about honesty and integrity. Vranak (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually about your money and how you spend it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

it's unethical to take someone's time if you're not sure you will be compensating them for it - that seems a rather extreme viewpoint, Vranak. You have to make all your decisions based on ads, signs and posters? The moment you take up 5 seconds of a salesperson's time with an enquiry about a product you're not sure you'll buy from them, you're somehow acting unethically? If those are your ethics, you're welcome to them. It's part of salespeople's job to field such questions all day long; consumers are perfectly entitled to informed consent about the products and services they ultimately buy, and that usually means acquiring more information than what's available in advertisements, and that always means asking questions. Do you buy houses straight from ads, without asking any questions, without inspecting the property, and just paying the price in the ad without any form of counter-offer? Or cars this way? I hardly think so. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm Cancer Goat. The two most sensitive signs. So I don't like to cause anyone the slightest bit of bother -- at least in person. For the other 143 combinations of Zodiac and Western sign, well you guys probably have different priorities. Vranak (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Vranak, I'm a Cancer with a Moon conjunct Saturn in Sagittarius (in the 10th House). Oh, and to add gas to the fire, I have an Aquarius ascendant (This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.....)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No but seriously, if you were interested in a house, you'd not just go on the look of it from the street and from the photos in the ads, right? You would inspect the inside, right? And if, after that inspection, you formed the view that you were not interested in buying the house, you wouldn't be troubled by even the slightest iota of remorse about wasting the owner's/agent's time. Would you? Seriously? (JackofOz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Or does my difficulty with your position betray my Scorpio Sun, Moon in Sagittarius, and Taurus ascendant? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, we went into the agency and talked with the woman for over a half hour about different vacation options, the best places to visit etc. My wife and I were originally planning the trip on our own and she thought "consulting" a travel agent would make things easier. We knew we weren't ever going to buy anything but to get all this information we did have to pretend we were really motivated. In retrospect I feel bad about the whole thing. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's up to you to decide whether your actions were unethical or not, but you should know that many, if not most, travel agents work strictly by commission - and they don't get a dime until and unless you actually go on the vacation. Many sales personnel also work on commission, of course; the difference (this is @Jack particularly) is that besides taking up their time (which they expect and is part of the job - like all sales) you're taking their knowledge and profiting by it directly. They're not selling you something concrete; the sale is not simply of the vacation, but of their knowledge about using the various systems to make the whole thing work. I can't think of a particularly apt analogy or metaphor to describe it succinctly... it's a bit like talking to a tutor and then simply not signing his cheque at the end of the lesson, though obviously that's not quite the same thing. Matt Deres (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where this guilt trip is coming from. You went to an agency, listened to their offers; however, you found a better deal online, which enabled you to save money, which can instead be used on your trip rather than to enrich the agency. You are perfectly entitled to spend your money where you choose. Stop feeling guilty, nobody at the agency is going to starve because you took your business elsewhere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

you're right, your actions are wrong. if you knew going in that you did not want the agency's prices, you should not have gotten their knowledge - it's not "free" at all; it's in their price. It would be very wrong for me to go into a watch boutique and learn everything from a salesperson working on commission, then turn around and order it online. if you want to go online, go online. if you want a salesman's information and experience, then buy it from him. 82.113.104.242 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not inherently wrong to do what's in your own best interests. The agency certainly is going to do what's in its own best interests. They will sell trips to someone. If they don't, then they need to review their business plan - or maybe create their own, competitive website. You are under no obligation to help enrich those whose prices are not competitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than focusing on self-defeating guilt, you might ask yourself some practical questions: What's the service level expectation from an agent vs. online? What if you get ripped off by the online agency - who do you see about that? Is the personal contact with an agent important, i.e. important enough to pay more for it? Keep in mind the P-Q-T triangle: Price, Quality, Time (or "convenience"). It's difficult to have all three of those go in your favor. At least one will suffer. So you have to decide which two (or even which one) is most important to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's use a hypothetical situation. If I were to go into a clothing shop, try on lots of clothes, yet nothing fit me; would I therefore, be expected to buy something just to smooth the assistant's ruffled feathers? I think not; nor would I feel guilty afterwards for not buying as I would despise myself for having been intimidated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. A more relevant hypothetical situation would be if you went into a clothing shop, tried on lots of clothes, made a note of the stuff you liked, including the size that fit best, and went home and ordered them online at half the price. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no qualms about doing that either. My money is mine to spend where and how I choose.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The clothing shop analogy is not appropriate. A better one would be going to a professional tailor, getting measured, and then ordering your suit online from a completely different source, using those measurements. What you need to understand is that airline tickets and hotel bookings and car rentals are all open to anybody who wants them; what you "get" from the travel agent is the knowledge of how to acquire them all in the best way. That knowledge must be worth something to you, or else you wouldn't have bothered going. I am specifically not talking about shopping around and picking the best deal or hearing the pitch and deciding it's not right for you - no harm there at all. However, their business is selling their expertise - if you take their expertise and use it - and don't pay for it, then, yeah, I'd consider it unethical. You've taken what they're selling without paying. Matt Deres (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree. It's the agency's job to provide information as well as sell tickets, cruises, etc. The fact that the OP obtained information and then purchased the trip online at a lesser price is what any normal person would do seeking to get the best deal. As I said before, the agency is not going to go under because he didn't buy from them. Indeed, the onus is on the agency to give their customers a better deal, making it unnecessary to go online in order to save money. The OP needs to get over his guilt trip and and only think about enjoying himself on his holiday. Matt, do you feel guilty if you go into a library, read a book for free instead of buying it from a bookseller, thus enabling the author to earn royalties. Or an even better analogy is to to think about how many people download music and films for free on their computers. Do they feel guilty about cheating the record company and artists? Probably not. One last thing, if you stop someone in the street and ask him or her for directions, do you feel you should pay the person for the information which you obtained? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if they tried to lay a guilt trip on you, you would be well-justified in not only never shopping there again, but telling them so, then and there. They are in business to serve you, not the other way around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the information provided is free. It is a loss leader. They know they aren't going to make money off that information but they hope that by providing that information they will get you to buy something they do make profit off. They know that sometimes the loss leader won't lead to a profitable sale. Also, just because you didn't buy a holiday off them on this visit and knew you weren't going to, if they were really helpful you may well remember that and go back in future and actually buy something off them. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jean Paul Sartre, would if he were to see these replies, be furious.

He would not accept: ..no one will starve, will they..?

He would not accept gazumping as moral, here in the UK.

Morality is not dictated by Civil Law.

I think he would require the OP to recompense the shop-seller in some way. With a return and a "thank you".

And, I haven't mentioned Jesus! He would talk of the Golden Rule here. If the OP were the shop-assistant would they like this to be done to them? Guilt is not in the equasion, that is a reminder if you know you did wrong!

Do remember everyone wants to sleep happily in their bed at night! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stop laying a guilt trip on the OP and allow him to go and enjoy his well-deserved holiday which he worked for! Didn't Sartre also say that "hell is other people"? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Go back to the travel agent, show her your deal and give her the opportunity to match or beat it!

Yes, we agree again, he, Sartre, did say that. The shopkeeper would agree, too, who has probably found out by now! A guilt-trip is good, for it reminds us of what we did wrong. The only way to get rid of it is to go "along with it", for it will never let you alone till you do! OP, do go back to the agent, (we agree again), and with a gift from your travels. You will find out exactly where you stand, but have the opportunity to correct the issue and the guilt-trip will end, and you can sleep easy, Amen. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

is there anyone who spends $100,000,000 a year on their lifestyle?

Is there anyone who spends $100,000,000 a year on their lifestyle - I don't mean in an exceptional year, when they buy a big yacht or their house, I mean year in, year out that their lifestyle budget is at least that much? Thanks. 82.113.119.240 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really that close to $100m a year but the Queen (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6602049.ece) cost around £40m a year in the Uk. Of course huuuuge amounts of that go towards up-keep and on staff, but when you've got properties on a scale (and of the age) the queen has it costs a fair bit. (I hope this doesn't descending into a pro/anti royalty debate now!) . Anyhoo I suspect it'll be difficult to say for certain on most but i'd expect it to be royal-families that spend the most in general - though I appreciate they're not a single-person so much as a family. Oh and i'd just add..if you've not seen Brewster's Millions then it's a great comedy with a big truth...losing huge amounts of wealth takes real hard work. ny156uk (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Roman Abramovich has been spending in that range on his hobby. He has been the owner of the club for about seven years and has put some 700 million pound in it since [6]. Of course this is thought of as an investment rather than a "lifestyle budget", but I don't think anybody seriously believes he will ever see that money back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way to make a small fortune out of a football club is to put a large fortune into it! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that money is spent more on the Crown than the Queen - it's largely expenses necessary for her to carry out her royal duties. You wouldn't consider an accountant's business expenses as funding their lifestyle, so you shouldn't do the same for the Queen. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful. While there are people that make or have enough money for that kind of spending, I don't think there is anything to spend it on. You could pay thousands of staff with that kind of money - even the Edwardian great houses only employed dozens of staff. I can't think of any way other than paying staff that you could routinely spend anywhere near that much money. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation article mentions how Warren Buffett, if I understand correctly, effectively gives more than this amount to the foundation every year. It's a stretch, but one might claim that's a lifestyle budget. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would interpret that more as evidence that you can't spend that kind of money on your own lifestyle. Almost everyone with that kind of money ends up giving large amounts of it to charity. Yes, there are altruistic (and PR) reasons, but the fact that they can't spend the money themselves is a big factor. --Tango (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Brewster's Millions comes to mind as an example of this kind of problem. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a very close analogy to this problem, yes. We're ruling out charity and capital spending in the same way the rich uncle does and requiring a large amount of money to be spent on consumables in a short space of time. --Tango (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pablo Escobar and his drug cartel cronies may have done so. According to this CNN money article, each made "about $6.4 million a day in income" and spent lavishly. 5% of that would do the trick. When he was on the run, Escobar supposedly once burned $1 million to cook and keep his daughter warm. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I could easily owning racehorses,it's an expensive hobby.hotclaws 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How many horses would you need to own to run up that kind of bill? --Tango (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)One horse's training fees could be £1,000 easily plus a lot of other extras,buying the horses,if you go for the top rated TBs they can cost you $600,000 easily plus the cost of going to see the horses, entry fees to the tracks,betting etc.Yeah,I could do it.hotclaws 08:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions waiting to be answered.

Barack Obama as his wife Michelle Obama declared during a speech she was giving, that they had visited Barack's hometown of Kenya, Africa. So what I want to know is why nothing has been done about it. I know that this is a hard question to answer but I would greatly appreciate it if I could possibly get an answer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.7.99 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well for me it's a hard question to answer because I don't know what the question is. 'why nothing has been done about' - about what exactly? BTW, Barack Obama was not born in and didn't grow up in Kenya and this visit you describe above may very well be have been the first time he ever went to Kenya so it isn't his hometown in normal use of the word even if his father was from there, and it's questionable if a large country can be called a hometown anyway. Edit: [7] says he's visited Kenya 3 times but doesn't mention when the first (or second) was. I presume your above question is about the last visit in 2006 although I still don't know what the question is. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP's hometown is South Carolina. Or maybe I should say CSA? :) It would be interesting if the IP (whose only edit was this one) could find us a source for that alleged statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The question doesn't make any sense to me, either; but I wonder if the original poster typed "had" instead of "had not", so the intended question is: Why hasn't Barack Obama visited his father's hometown in the time since he became President? I remember a news story a while ago in which some Kenyans expressed disappointment that Obama hadn't done so. (He did visit in 2006 before becoming President.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My immediate interpretation was that the OP is a "birther" who's questioning why nothing has been done about this presumed "confession" that Obama was born in Kenya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that's a totally valid interpretation. The Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article is what you want, original poster. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that too but couldn't find any evidence for it from a quick search and was also surprised he (or his wife) would say they're going to visit Kenya, it seems a bad thing for the President of the US to say because he should know there's a fair chance he won't be able to do it, even more so since having visited it in 2006 there's less urgency or justification. However it's possible they said they would like to visit Kenya or would try to visit Kenya or something less definitive. However BB's intepretation may be correct, see [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=136769] (perhaps some here were already aware of this). Or it could be related to [8]. We're not going to know if the OP doesn't come back and if BB is correct hopefully they don't. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an element of ostensible paranoia underlying the initial question. That someone from Kenya is inherently untrustworthy, or at least unsuited to the Presidency of the United States. Is this inference correct, 67? Vranak (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Banter between Bugs and Vranak
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe, but the real "issue" is the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a "natural born U.S. citizen", and hence is in office illegally. If that were true, the Republicans would have been all over it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC) If you're big on ruleslawyering, sure. But Bugs, surely you of all people know about the difference between the letter, and the spirit of the law? The idea of that commandment may have been quite evident whenever it was enacted, but in 2010, is some usurper going to rise to power and mess everybody's lives up, because he's from Japan or Kenya or Austria? I think not. Vranak (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC) This is a lot more than ruleslawyering. There were even questions raised, by people in government as opposed to these conspiracy theorists, about McCain's eligibility, because he wasn't born physically within the U.S. although both his parents were citizens. And most of us don't want the Presidency "outsourced". Someone who's a citizen has theoretically a larger stake in the country's future than someone who isn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Of course it's all a bunch of hooey. The bottom line is, can we trust the President? Heck, even when very few people trusted George W. towards the end of his time in office, well that didn't mean a thing did it? He was still the President, and the muckrakers and malingerers were just spouting hot air which amounted to two things: jack and *cough* excuse me. Vranak (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Natural born citizenship is a constitutional requirement, not "a bunch of hooey". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you can explain to me, an ignorant foreigner, why it's so crucial to the perception of integrity among America citizenry, that a potential President be born on domestic soil. Because it strikes me as positively superstitious. But what do I know -- perception is reality. And if it's simply because it's a Constitutional requirement, well why such reverence for a mere document. It didn't keep you out of Vietnam, it didn't stop the Enola Gay, and it didn't do much for the whole Iraq fiasco. Vranak (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe it is superstitious, but it's the law of the land, and I don't think there's ever been any serious attempt to amend the constitution to allow, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. The founding fathers had their reasons. Basically, they wanted Americans running America. Maybe it was an overreaction to matters like being run by a king who was across an ocean and/or the occasional king who didn't even speak English, but there has been little traction for changing that law. Regarding the other items you mention: Vietnam was approved by Congress; the A-bomb was a military strategy aimed at ending the war (and it worked); and likewise Iraq was approved by Congress. We do enough outsourcing as it is. The idea of a foreigner leading our military is scarier than any of the items you've mentioned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Excellent answer -- thanks! Vranak (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC) |} Our article Natural born citizen of the United States discusses the weird term "natural born citizen" in some detail; and unfortunately there's a tag saying the section needs expansion on the relevant portion of Article Two of the United States Constitution — the article ought to discuss why the provision exists. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) It can be both "a constitutional requirement" and "a bunch of hooey" at the same time. Notice how the very same constitution also had the three-fifths compromise in it. Madison was brilliant, but not perfect, and, of course, both a man of his time and constrained by his environment. The "naturally born" citizenship requirement is a relict from the founding time, when the new nation was somewhat unstable and still had a somewhat uncertain relationship with European powers. It's unlikely to be repealed now because it has little influence nowadays anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, these are exactly my conclusions as well. Although the gist of my point is, let's not have too much reverence for the Constitution. To quote Homer Simpson -- "If he's so smart, then how come he's dead?" Vranak (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

how much would it cost to buy all the music on iTunes?

How much would it cost to buy all the music on iTunes? How about all the movies and tv shows? How much would it cost to buy 1 of everything that amazon.com sells? THanks. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How must would it cost to buy one example of everything currently being manufactured? --Wetman (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The first question would be, about how many different items are there for sale? From that, you could estimate the average price and then estimate the total cost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How much would it cost to HAVE BOUGHT, at the time that it WAS being manufactured (but use 2010 dollars to denominate that cost) everything that HAS EVER been mass-produced? (I don't mean like one bespoke yacht). Everything that at least hundreds were made of. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're asking about "one of each", as with George Carlin's joke bit about a late night TV ad offering a collection of "Every record ever made!", you have to know how many unique things were made before you can even begin to estimate. Say the year is 1920. You could buy a Model T Ford. You could also buy one of each car model that was produced that year. But how many different car models were produced that year? Who would know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Digression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suffice to say, Steve Jobs would prefer that you not ask these sorts of questions. He wants to leech every dollar he can from you, but slowly, surely, so you hardly notice him getting obscenely rich off your taste for music. Thank god for torrents. Vranak (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for answering my question tartly and succinctly. However, I didn't catch your answer. How much would all that music etc cost? 84.153.236.197 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Does it really matter? I mean, really. I'm more interested in the social-psycho-egotistical aspect. It's almost dangerous to have Jobs doing his business. I don't trust that dude -- do you? His MO seems to be absorb people's money and turn it into pancreatic cancer. Vranak (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC) protip: if you had said "his MO seems to be absorb people's money and turn it into a wardrobe consisting of thousands of thousands of black turtlenecks" you wouldn't come off as a socioopath. (the difference, in case you really are a sociopath and cant see it even when someone points it out, is that your version is something someone didn't choose and can't change.) 84.153.236.197 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Hey, I'm keeping it real here. Does the man not having a chronic cancer problem? What does that suggest to you about his essential decency? I have my doubts. He just seems like a very clever little narcissist. Vranak (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Wow, aren't you a blast from the past. It's true, many hundreds of years ago, in the middle ages, people thought that if you were diseased, or handicapped in some way, you must be a bad person or a witch, etc. So I can see exactly where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not superstitious like that, and I don't know anyone who is. When I see a mole on a woman, I don't think she's a witch and can put a curse on me. But if you like living that way, hey go ahead. p.s. you're really grasping at straws here. just buy an iPad already - I know it's what's really on your mind :). I promise you won't regret it. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Kindly ignore Vranak. Trying to have a rational discussion with him is generally a waste of one's time, and he prides himself on giving nonsensical/useless answers. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Vranak, your answers so far in this thread have been a complete waste of space and time. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Well I'm terribly sorry to have offended you both so much. I'm just trying not to sugarcoat anything though. I don't like Steve Jobs or Apple at all and have little hesitancy to go into some detail on why. Have you guys read about how he cheated Woz out of thousands of bucks when they were first starting out? It's in his article. Vranak (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well to give you a ballpark figure... Lets assume all songs cost 99 cents (this of course isn't true any more, some are more and some are less and the price changes for albums and by location etc, but lets say 99 cents on average). According to this article there are "over 11 million songs" on iTunes worldwide, so by my not very complicated calculations I get $11 million for music. It says there are "over 3000 TV shows", which isn't clear if it's episodes or series, but at $1.99 an episode, it's either about $6000 or about $60000 (assuming 10 episodes per show on average, just a ballpark number). There are "2500+" movies, which at, say , $25 a movie calculates to $62500. So as you can see, it appears at first glance that buying the song catalog would greatly overshadow movie and TV content. Now the app store is more difficult, it says there are 100,000 apps, but who knows how many are free or what the average cost is. Still though, I don't think it would make much of an impact compared to the music cost. Amazon MP3 apparently has about 9 million songs, so I would guess around $9 million. If you mean 1 of everything Amazon sells (ie not just MP3s) I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess - you'd need the total number of items (which is sure to be controversial, do different colours count etc) and average price, and you'd need to know if you count things from third party sellers or not, and if you use Amazon's price or third party price for items offered by both and so on. TastyCakes (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea and Iran

Are North Korea and Iran allied? They're both communist and they both hate America. --75.6.4.191 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Iran – North Korea relations, probably a good place to start. ny156uk (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran isn't communist under any definition. It's an Islamic republic. The states do not share similar economic methods, legal systems, or belief systems (I'm not sure if Islam is even legal in North Korea). They are allied in the sense that they are both considered pariah states. On weapons-related issues they have some connections. But they are not extensively allied, to my knowledge, and it's unclear that either would be willing or able to go out of their way to help the other if it came under significant pressure (i.e., I don't think that North Korea would declare war on the USA if the USA declared war on Iran). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran is communist. They censor all forms of speech and imprison or execute anyone who speaks out against the government. --75.6.4.191 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You have confused communism with totalitarianism. (Your statements aren't totally accurate, either; see Censorship in Iran.) A very small part of Iran was a short-lived USSR republic in 1920-21, and there are at least three political parties who would like Iran to be communist, but, at present, Iran is indeed not a communist country. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Iran is not communist. If you don't understand why that is, then you don't understand what communism actually means (in which case, looking at the article might help clear that up, if you're actually interested in learning about it). (It is even debatable whether North Korea is really communist at all, but that's an entirely different question.) Under really no definition is Iran communist. They are not even totally totalitarian, though they are considerably less-free than many places in the world, to be sure. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How isn't North Korea communist? Unlike Iran, they outright admit it! --75.6.4.191 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If I "admit" that I am President of the United States, does that make it so? North Korea is not Communist by Marx's or even Lenin's conception of Communism. By the former definition there has never been a Communist state, which is an oxymoron as in full Marxian communism there is no "state". There is only an unstratified society in which all people are comrades and work without pay for the advancement of their society. Obviously, that will never happen because people are greedy. A communist state in the colloquial sense is one in which such a society is the goal. North Korea has stopped pursuing communism except in name, and has become more of an absolute monarchy passed down by blood. In fact, Marx's works are not even allowed to read by the common people. PS: Iran is not communist, period. 76.229.206.77 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I endorse 76 above, and Juche is the name North Korea is now calling their political ideology. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that Juche is "part of the series on Communism". --75.6.4.191 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be — as the article states, North Korea originally called Juche a "creative application of Marxism-Leninism". I'm not a big student of communism but I doubt that the "Juche" ideology has had much or any impact outside the borders of North Korea. By the way, some of the resistance you're getting here is because we are very pedantic on the Reference Desk, and Marx's idea of "communism" was this ideal goal that no country has ever come close to. Stateless communism was the ultimate goal, and although all the "Communist" countries claim their policies come from Marxism or Leninism or Maoism or whatever, there are many people who insist none of these countries is truly "Communist" — see Communist state, particularly the Objections to use of term section. Most of these countries have called themselves "Socialist republics" or similar, which is unfortunate because "Socialism" used to mean other things, and now the word has been poisoned forever for many Americans. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This IP user sounds familiar. It may be the same troll who was asking silly questions about socialism a few weeks ago. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there has been a shift in North Korea from the juche ideology to a "military first" or songun ideology. As others have said, North Korea has evolved into a hereditary monarchy with what amounts to a military aristocracy. This is really quite remote from the ideas of Marx or even Lenin and is hard to link to communism as it is usually defined. Marco polo (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As for an alliance between North Korea and Iran, the two countries' governments have helped each other out when it has been mutually convenient, but there is no true alliance. Marco polo (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A related question is why do so many Americans think that communism is the opposite of democracy? They aren't even measuring the same thing; one is an economic system and the other is a political system. Europeans and Canadians went through the same Cold War scare, but I never hear them make the same mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite simple. Because they are right. Depriving every person of their right to do their own business through expropriation of all business assets (hello Karl!) is possible only through a civil war, or through military occupation by a superior communist force - none of these scenarios are even close to democracy. East of Borschov (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They aren't right. Characteristic A being dependent on characteristic B in practice in country-wide scales does not imply that the oposite case of B being dependent on A, nor does it imply that A is a subset of B. Given that there are totalitarian countries that are not communist, and that there are small-scale communities that voluntarily run approximate communist economic systems with a democratic government, democracy and communism cannot be oposite ends of the same scale. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Some points on the political compass can not be reached in real life. A person can claim to be "a democrat and a communist", a party can, but a society cannot practice both. East of Borschov (talk)

Perhaps a society cannot be communist and practice representative democracy, but many forms of participatory democracy could work perfectly well within a communist society. This was the intended role of the soviet (council)s immediately after the revolution in Russia, although it soon evolved into a profoundly undemocratic system. Warofdreams talk 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Can we not make this a tired old debate about whether you could have democratic communism? It really has nothing to do with the question being asked, and there is zero chance of the people arguing actually resolving this to their satisfaction. The entire thing is caught up in hypotheticals about what one dreams would be possible under certain conditions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

May 20

Public school class size reduction advocacy organizations

Which organizations have been the most effective advocates for public school class size reduction over the past 20 years? I was able to find http://www.classsizematters.org/ for New York, but not much else. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that the teacher's unions play heavily in this issue ... possibly the National Education Association. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Why would you assume that? Teachers' unions' #1 priority is "more pay for the teachers". This is not a slam, just a fact of the reason for their existence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "assume" was the wrong word. Teachers and teacher unions have always advocated smaller class size. For one, it makes the teacher's job "easier". Two, it is more educationally sound to educate in smaller groups than larger. Why does your post make it seem so far-fetched that teacher unions would advocate smaller class size? That's actually exactly what they do ... along with better pay / working conditions for teachers. And, yes, one of those "working conditions" is smaller (as opposed to larger) class size. Why the surprise with my original comment above? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

How can individuals contribute specifically to their class-size reduction efforts, but not the unions' stance, for example, against merit pay? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't claim that teachers are against smaller classes; everyone is in favor of smaller classes, all other things being equal; but where I live, the teachers union recently agreed to larger class sizes, and the teachers got a raise. The priorities were clear. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In this particular instance, yes. But, I am sure that the larger class size was a concession on the part of the teachers and the union. You still did not answer my point above. Why did your prior post make it sound so surprising and unexpected that a teacher union would advocate smaller class size (which was the original question of the original poster)? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Also, smaller classes = more teachers = dues-paying more union members. --Nricardo (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare scripts

I am a little confused about some issues with William Shakespeare. I basically understand that his plays were published, after his death, by other editors -- in the Folios and the Quartos. But, whatever became of the actual (hard-copy) written scripts that the actors used during Shakespeare's lifetime? Did none of these scripts survive? Or did they (the actors) not use scripts the way that we would use them today? In other words, was the performance of a live play back in Shakespeare's day somehow executed differently than it would be today (i.e., without each actor receiving his own copy of a written script)? Thanks! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

No, the actors did not receive a complete copy of the script, since there was no cheap, quick, or easy way to reproduce the script. The actors got just their lines (and their cues) on cheap paper, copied from the prompt book owned by the acting company. Besides, the company did not want complete copies of their play laying around, since it might be stolen by a rival company. No copies of the actor's lines apparently survive, unsurprisingly. Shakespeare's plays were printed using the prompt copy or his foul papers. —Kevin Myers 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am sorry, but I don't quite understand. Are you saying that an actor got his lines only? If that is the case, how on earth would he know the context of what he himself is saying (without seeing the lines of the other actors, to which he must react)? After reading your post, this is the mental picture that I have. As an actor, I would get a copy of a regular normal-looking script (albeit on cheap paper) with everyone's lines excised except my own. Do I have that correct? Or am I mis-reading your post above? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, the actor would get his lines only, plus the line right before his (the cue). Often, the story would be a familiar one, so he'd know the gist of the plot without the whole script. He'd memorize his lines, and then learn the complete context in rehearsal, where he'd work out how he will deliver the lines. (This may seem odd, but even today there are films made where actors do not get the whole script, and rehearsals in film are a rare luxury.) For more info, see the "acting" entries in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. —Kevin Myers 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. So, let's say that you have a very main character (like Hamlet or Othello or Romeo or Juliet, etc.). This main character would speak virtually every other line of the play. And it would seem a great deal of trouble / aggravation to tailor his script to excise every other line -- when he virtually appears on every page in the entire play. For the minor roles, this process makes sense. But, for the major roles that appear on every page of the play, this process of "redacting" lines seems to make no sense. It would seem just as easy to give that main actor a copy of the whole play ... since they practically are the whole play. And even none of these pared-down scripts have survived? Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

It'd be more trouble to write it ALL out by hand,every word saved would make a difference.It's common even now for people to get scripts like this just because it's easier to handle.Also,why would these scripts survive? No-one knew at the time how important they would be.hotclaws 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this even happens today, much less that it is common. I can see, for example, that an actor might only get, say, pages 10 through 20 of the script. And he does not receive pages 1 through 9. But, I cannot imagine that he gets, say, pages 10 through 20, with all lines redacted/excised except for his own lines and the cue immediately preceding. That makes no sense whatsoever. What purpose would this serve? And why would this be commonly done (nowadays)? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Also, here is another point about these scripts "surviving". Since this was such a laborious process, wouldn't they save and recycle the scripts for the next performance of that play? Why would they "throw it out" at all? Especially considering what a labor it was to create and knowing that the play would need to be performed again at some point in the future. No? (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

There is a modern parallel, though in a slightly different medium. If you hire performing materials for an operetta or an older musical comedy you will normally get a vocal score with all the music (but the instrumental parts reduced to a piano accompaniment); and the libretto (the spoken dialogue) will either be in a separate booklet, or interspersed between the numbers of the score. But recent musical theatre scripts tend to have the full vocal music and the spoken script in one book - but the vocal music is printed without any accompaniment. As a singer I dislike this approach intensely, particularly for things like Sondheim's shows, where it can be difficult to pitch the notes even with the accompaniment visible. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The manuscript of Shakespeare's section of Sir Thomas More survived, in part because the play was never produced and therefore never published (after authorized publication, there would be no reason to keep handwritten scripts). The handwritten copies would not have been considered "valuable" at the time, except as sources for printed copies; thus, once copies were in print, the handwritten copies could be discarded unless the printed version was pirated and of low quality, or for sentimental reasons or convenience. Of course, handwritten copies were not necessarily just "thrown out"; rather, they simply didn't "survive" the subsequent decades and centuries. The first folio shows signs of being copied both from prior printed sources as well as handwritten copies, even if an apparently authorized version had already been published. Of course, for those plays that first appeared in the first folio, the presumption is that handwritten copies were the sole source. These issues are especially interesting for King Lear, whose different versions suggest different drafts by Shakespeare; a similar argument is made for Hamlet, though the argument is weaker than that for Lear. 63.17.51.102 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all for the above input. It was very helpful ... and is much appreciated. Thanks! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Correct way to ask permission from Author for making use of instrument

Hello good people. Can you tell me what is the right way to ask permission from an author of a scholarly work if I want to make use of a psychometric instrument devised by them and communicate the results to the people on whom it was used. This may seem like a silly question but I do not want to waste the author's time either by including too much information or by necessitating too many back and forth emails. Any other guidelines (style, convention) would also be much appreciated. (The instrument has been widely used previously, and I am using it in a commercial setting. ) --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask direct and to the point. Include information about how the author will be attributed, whether any money will be changing hands, and to whom the results will be available. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --202.45.7.162 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel losing a war question

I had a cultural anthropology professor who told us that there was a war between Israel and Egypt, and that at one point Egypt was winning until America intervened and sailed an aircraft carrier into the region. Then an Egyptian leader (can't remember who he said it was) said something along the lines of "I can fight a war against Israel, but I can't fight it against America". I believe Nixon was the president during this time. I'm not entirely sure what war this was, but since Nixon was president I'm thinking it's the Yom Kippur War. But no where in the article does it describe Israel losing until America intervened. Is my professor accurate in what he said? ScienceApe (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and he also said that Egypt captured Israeli territory. ScienceApe (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Our Yom Kippur War says that there were early Egyptian (and Syrian) successes, such as taking back some of the occupied territory lost in the Six Days War. US support for Israel, in both recon and resupply, was critical in their eventual victory, so your prof wasn't that far off. See Yom_Kippur_War#Aid_to_Israel and Operation Nickel Grass. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You probably misheard what the professor said. Either that, or he was just wrong. On October 6, 1973, President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt and President Hafez al-Assad of Syria both attacked Israel. It was Yom Kippur, and Prime Minister Golda Meir of Israel did not discover the impending offensive until the morning of October 6. (It takes Israel several days to mobilize its army.) Both Egypt and Syria captured a narrow sliver of territory at Israel's border. The Egyptians stopped right there to stay under their anti-aircraft defenses. Whenever Syrian and Egyptian forces tried to advance beyond their air-defense umbrella, they were annihilated.

Right after the war began, the Soviet Union began airlifting supplies to Egypt and Syria. The U.S. waited six days after the war began to airlift supplies to Israel. Golda Meir pleaded with Nixon for supplies because the Israelis were running short of ammunition.

Israel eventually advanced into Egyptian and Syrian territory. They actually cut off an army of Egyptians (the Third Army), stranding them on the Israeli side of the Suez Canal. Without water, they would have died. The U.S.S.R. then threatened to deploy its own ground troops in Egypt to enforce a cease fire on October 24th. Nixon then responded by putting U.S. forces on DEFCON alert. In the end, Israel lost 2,522 men; Egypt lost 12,000 men; Syria lost 3,500; and Egypt would have lost many more if the U.S.S.R. hadn't forced a cease fire. Sadat may have tried to explain his acceptance of a cease fire by blaming the Americans, but the fact remains that Egypt would have suffered dearly if he has not done so.

If you would like to learn more, I would recommend reading The Yom Kippur War published by Osprey. It's actually two books -- one on the Sinai campaign and another about the war with Syria. I read both books cover-to-cover. Very entertaining story, in my opinion.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC) --Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no way that the U.S. would have gotten itself involved militarily in that war, and I think everybody knew it. The country was still embroiled in Vietnam. I don't recall reading anything about an aircraft carrier ever being sent. What good would it have done? After getting over its initial shock, the Israeli Air Force wasn't in dire trouble. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he's really talking about the Soviets. They did sail some vessels toward Egypt with some Soviet marines on board. Nixon did little more than put U.S. forces on DEFCON alert.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The part about Egypt winning sounds like '73 but I think the Prof. was probably thinking of this episode from the '67 war. Perhaps mashing the two together. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In one of the wars, I forget which one at the moment, the arabs did claim that the American and British aircraft carriers had arrived and helped Israel out in the fighting, but there was never any proof of this. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the bare minimum to give a 2010 Census worker?

A census worker just left a message on my door 15 minutes ago and drove off. He left his phone number and name. I don't live here, I have an apartment elsewhere, but since I missed the census, I figured I may as well open the door to him tomorrow. However, I've heard tell that there are all sorts of questions they will ask me, and to be honest, I'm an extremely, extremely private person. I would like to tell him how many are in the household, and the address of my permanent residence, and refuse to answer anything else. Is this possible? Has anyone done this? Are these people rude?Reflectionsinglass (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

[9] addresses preparing for the visit, [10] shows the questions you will be asked, and [11] discusses privacy concerns. Since government representation is apportioned by the census, answering it is in your self interest to a similar extent as voting. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I worked for the Census in 2000. You are required by law to answer all questions they give you. If you do not co-operate, their supervisor will come back. Things will only get worse if you don't co-operate. Answer all of their questions. They will not share the information with anyone else. No other agency, besides the Census Bureau, will have access to your personal information. The questions are mostly harmless, like whether you're a veteran, etc. They aren't too personal.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the procedure this year? I think they switch to telephone calls if in-person visits aren't answered; up to three of each if I remember correctly. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently a census worker. Ref. 26 above contains all the questions you'll be asked. It's true that you're required by law to respond to the census questions, but the consequences cited above for failure to do so are wildly exaggerated. --Halcatalyst (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I worked for the 2010 census. I did the enumeration of group quarters (nursing homes, homeless shelters, etc) but am not working on the private residence followups. However, the form that we used for the group quarters had ten questions. Only three needed answers to consider the form "complete". The most basic of these were your name, birth date/age, and sex. Other questions included national origin, race, and address. Dismas|^(talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not so bad. Since some of you work/have worked for the census, is it ok if I give a different address? I mean, I am in a completely different zip code at the moment. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They would like your actual physical address. This is because the information is used in part to sort out congressional districts. Those districts are based on population figures, so by deceiving them about where you live, you're skewing the numbers. Granted, not by that much, but still the information has a purpose. Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to explain it to him without going too deeply into my private life. I live in another town and have an apartment there, but I only just got it; meanwhile, I'm staying here, and have been traveling to and from here and another state. I'm only here for a little while longer before going back to my apartment, where I've lived for the last four years. The timing is just... bad, really.Reflectionsinglass (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Given what you've just said, remember that a census is not a statement of what you normally do: rather it is a snapshot of a moment in time, similar to Google StreetView's pictures of streets with people in them. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your snapshot theory is really interesting, thanks for putting it that way. I read through the link above that gives the questions (read them thoroughly this time) and saw the use of "staying" instead of "living" as an option. This seems fair to me and now I'm actually not bothered by any of the questions. Well, except for one, which is, staying elsewhere "for another reason." If they were to call me regarding that little bit, then I would have to draw the line at privacy. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the questions asked are as of April 1st. So if you were living somewhere else, that's the address that you want to answer questions about. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Chill out. There are people far more interesting than you to spy on so you don't have to worry about your privacy. As long as you tell the census workers where you live, pay your taxes, and don't hang out with terrorists, the government will leave you alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you answer the questions, then they won't call you. They aren't going to read every one and then call certain people asking "What did you mean by this?" If they wanted explanations, it wouldn't be multiple choice alone, it would also include fields for short answers. As someone said, it's supposed to be a "snapshot" of America. So where you were living on April 1 is what they want. And finally, if the government was going to snoop on you, they'd do it a lot more quietly than by sending someone who admits to working for the government around to your house. Dismas|^(talk) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that many different countries conduct censuses, the laws probably vary between countries, and Wikipedia is used and editted by people in different countries. For questions like this, it might be useful to mention what country you're talking about. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Shakespearean actors

In Shakespeare's time period, all actors in his plays would have been male -- so that even female roles were performed by male actors -- is that correct? In Romeo and Juliet, for example, a male actor (as Romeo) would be acting opposite a male actor (as Juliet). This would also occur for other strong lead female roles (e.g., Portia in The Merchant of Venice). Wasn't this extremely implausible for the audience to swallow? I can't imagine watching a love story like Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet is played by a male. It would seem to "ruin" the whole point of the play, I would imagine. Did it not strain credulity and destroy any "realistic" features of the story line? How did this work? How did they get this to be effective? The casting of male actors in female roles would seem to turn any serious play into a farce. How did they prevent that from happening? I just don't get it ... so I may be missing something. Any insights? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

There is nothing particularly plausible about any of Shakespeare's plays in general, so I don't think that would have been the dealbreaker. If all the female roles were played by men, the audience would have expected it, so it wouldn't have been a problem. (And those roles were played by adolescents, if I remember correctly - not fat old men.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I figured we would have an article - boy player (and Elizabethan theatre for more background). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the first time women appeared on the stage in England was in the reign of Charles II, hence the wild popularity of actresses like Nell Gwynne, Moll Davis, Margaret Hughes and Beck Marshall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I should think that anyone with a cursory knowledge of Shakespeare would be aware that one does not attend one of The Bard's plays for plausibility. Vranak (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Suspension of disbelief comes to mind. Anyway, one doesn't go to the theatre for a plausible night out, one goes to be entertained. DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll enjoy Shakespeare in Love, which will give you a feeling for the theater of Shakespeare.--Wetman (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all. But, I don't understand all of the comments above about plausibility and implausibility. The general story of Romeo and Juliet is a love story between two teenagers, one male and one female. I would think that audiences expect plausibility from this general plot, yes. Granted, Shakespeare's plays have many twists and turns and plot devices that may be implausible. But, as to the general story-line and plot of two teens falling in love (against their parents' wishes), what is implausible about that? That issue was at the heart of my original question (of a male actor playing Juliet). I was referring to the plausibility of the basic story premise, not the implausible plot devices that the playwright may have used to execute the story. So, I am confused as to why several replies posted above are insinuating that the audience expects implausibility from the general plot line of, say, Romeo and Juliet. Any insights? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

To refer again to our Suspension of disbelief article, that term has been used to mean the "willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium". All-maleness was certainly the limitation of the medium at the time. The audiences must have decided that plays at the time were so good that the audience was willing to overlook the glaring problem you describe. I mean, it's not much of a stretch to make a similar complaint about a radio drama. "This isn't at all plausible! I can't even see anything!" Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Must have made As You Like It confusing - a boy pretending to be a girl, pretends to be a boy :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping things in perspective:

• Sarah Bernhardt (female) played Hamlet (male) only 110 years ago.
• Have you seen the Romeo and Juliet (1968 film) where the Nurse (claiming to have only four teeth) has 32 pearly whites shining in her mouth, where Juliet's mother (who is, at most, 26-27 years of age, according to the dialogue) appears to be in her late 30's or early 40's, and where the Prince loses "a brace of kinsmen" despite only really losing one on-screen?
• We have now accumulated several years' worth of so-called live-action films using computer-generated actors for difficult stunts and shots, and even now it is often glaringly obvious when a live human isn't being used.
• How many American-made films are there where the characters aren't supposed to be speaking English, but since the American actors are speaking English, they fake a British accent to communicate to the audience that they're not speaking English? Take Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film), for example...
• Don't even get me started on Jake Gyllenhaal playing the Prince of Persia. Really, are there no young, fit Iranian actors willing to take the role? Heck, I'm an American (and therefore not too discriminating); I'd take anyone of Middle-Eastern descent in that role.

The bottom line is, we're expected to overlook a lot of implausible actors and actresses, in Shakespeare and in other performances, no matter the era. Audiences back then were as willing to suspend their disbelief as we are today, and it apparently worked out as well for them as it does for us. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See also kabuki. Remember that even realism demands that the audience accept some fictions. The characters are on a stage. The sets are not overly realistic. Audiences always understand that theatre is a representation, not an accurate reproduction.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The boys were small, high-voiced, covered with make-up, and wearing women's clothes. It was a convention that had been around for the lifetimes of all the audience. What would have really jarred the audience would have been to see a girl or woman on stage. A boy whose voice has not "changed," if suitably made-up and dressed, resembles a woman strongly enough to permit dramatic realism. Shakespeare occasionally played with the conceit -- in one of the last comedies (I'm blanking on which one -- I'll remember as soon as I post), after the play ends the boy-woman comes on stage and jokes with the audience about the gender issue. According to "1599: a year in the life of Shakespeare" (title may be wrong), evidence suggests that an extremely gifted boy-actor joined the company midway through Shakespeare's career, allowing him to create, e.g., Desdemona, whereas previously he'd had to give somewhat less dramatic range to the tragedies' female characters due to the boys' lesser experience as actors. (Similarly, once Will Kempe left, the new "clown" actor was far subtler and less slapsticky and show-offy; hence, e.g., the Fool in King Lear became a possible character for Shakespeare to create.) Portia in Merchant of Venice is a wise-cracking clever gal, but it doesn't take as much skill to play that as to play, say, Cleopatra or Desdemona, both created a decade later. 63.17.51.102 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input and the above discussion. This was very helpful. Much appreciated. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Not legal advice, just curiosity

If a man serves a woman food containing his semen, without disclosing this to her, and then she eats it and later finds out, has the man committed a crime? What crime would it be? It can't be assault or rape or anything because nobody forced her to eat it, right? Would it be fraud? Is there a special category of crime for this kind of thing? Answers should ideally pertain to the state of California, but answers for any jurisdiction would be appreciated. 98.207.62.60 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

California Health and Safety code section 110560 states, "Any food is adulterated if it consists in whole or in part of any diseased, contaminated, filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food." (emphasis added.) Section 110625 makes adulteration illegal. I have no idea what the penalty would be, but this might be a sex offense too. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is still legal advice, regardless if you are asking just out of curiosity. I would not assume it isn't assault, "eating the sandwich willingly" is not a mitigating factor to the crime. Vespine (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you do something clearly stupid that isn't covered by a specific law, I think they can often get you with some general-purpose mischief law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this is not necessarily a request for legal advice; I think we're allowed to discuss this kind of question hypothetically, as in "I'm writing a novel and need to know what would likely happen". So I'll offer my modest contribution to this, again, entirely hypothetical discussion.

This kind of thing has certainly come up in U.S. courts, and the most delicious example I came across during my quick googling and skimming was a case from Florida. I simply cannot resist quoting from an amicus curiae brief filed by The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers:

The defendant’s argument that the item in the Coca-Cola really wasn’t a condom oozing semen after all, but a similarly sized piece of mold, does not effect the Academy’s impact rule analysis. A piece of mold, even when mixed with Coke, is foreseeably revolting to the reasonable consumer.

This has to do with the question of what constitutes an "impact" sufficient to merit compensation for emotional distress, and the Supreme Court of Florida has found that "ingestion of a food or beverage containing a foreign substance constitutes an ‘impact’"

So it would appear, and again I am not a lawyer, that just because there is no (physical) harm done, it's not OK to feed someone a sandwich laced with semen. Any more than it's OK to spit in an obnoxious customer's hamburger. As to what kind of crime it would be, I'm not sure. Might be more of a tort.--Rallette (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Or a torte? Karenjc 09:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Traditionally made with ground nuts" - whether that makes for a tort or a torte would depend on your cuisine as well as your jurisdiction, I think.--Rallette (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In any restaurant there are going to be food safety laws that would prohibit this type of thing. In a private setting, I imaging that it depends on the situation and jurisdiction. Buddy431 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article about an Illinois high school student who in 2006 was accused of "putting" his semen into the school cafeteria's salad dressing. The police are quoted as saying they were going to arrest him for "attempted aggravated battery". This page also mentions a Denny's Restaurant manager in Missouri who in 2004 was accused of semenizing some dressing, and he was charged with "aggravated battery". Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of the man serving the food at a restaurant where he works, but just at his house or something, so restaurant health codes don't apply. Should have made that clear I guess. 98.207.62.60 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I read our article on battery as a tort, I noticed the following: "...a person who mixes something offensive in food that he knows another will eat, has committed a battery against that other when the other ... eats the offensive matter." So battery it is, either a crime or a tort.--Rallette (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancient music

What is the oldest music tune that we know toady, whether written in ancient musical notation or reliably passed down through the generations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried googling [oldest song] and some things came up that might be worth checking. The Psalms are many hundreds of years old, and I think were originally sung, or at least chanted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We have remnants of music from the Greeks as well as the Romans, in notation. In India, they have hyms or Samaveda which are very ancient as well, but I don't know how much they may have changed over the centuries.--Rallette (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the most recent articles on Cracked.com (I can't link to the website directly from this network; it's blocked) might be of interest to you. It claims that we know virtually nothing of ancient music when compared to, say, ancient literature, as almost nothing has survived. As has been pointed out to me before, it's not a particularly reliable source, but it does usually reference other sources. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on Prehistoric music, Ancient music, Early music and Medieval music which may help or be of interest, though they don't give a definite answer to the question. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the history of classical music traditions claims that "the "oldest known song" was written in cuneiform, dating to 4,000 years ago from Ur". Warofdreams talk 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For tunes that have survived independently of printed scores, Greensleeves is often said to be the oldest known. 63.17.51.102 (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The oldest complete notated musical composition from anywhere in the world is the Seikilos epitaph. It was engraved on a burial marker near Ephesus, and variously dated between about 200 BC and 100 AD. It's beautiful and poignant, by the way; probably a lament by a man for his deceased wife, buried near there. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

lonely hearts club

What is lonely hearts club?174.3.123.220 (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the false link. I'm sure you know that a lonely hearts club is a place for single people to meet others. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

?? If the OP knew that, why would they have asked? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the link to lonely hearts killer (as it was when first posted) because the OP seems to be using it to create context for their question. Plus, removing it makes the response confusing. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Learning artificial languages

I do not understand the draw of learning artificial languages like Klingon, Sindarin, and Na'vi. There are plenty of living languages that have more practical uses in the real world. I realize it has to do with Escapism, but it just seems like a waste of time and energy to learn a language that you will never be able to use on a regular basis. Do the people who learn these think they are special just because they can say a few words or, at most, broken sentences of a language that no one else knows? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Many skills that are involved in a pastime are useless. When will my ability to headshot a sniper using a rocket launcher come in handy? Some people (not necessarily all) will do it just because they find it fun. This can be expanded too...what's the point of being at the top of Everest? And even if there is a point, I imagine most of the people who go there don't go for that reason. It's just what they enjoy. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can think of it as a hobby. Hobbies don't have to be practical. And believe it or not, a lot of what people choose to do is not based on whether it will make them look cool or special.--Cam (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It also has to do with inclusion. People don't learn these languages on their own. They do it with others who share a similar interest. Then, they have something that their group shares that others outside their group does not share. It is no different than the goth kids I saw at the zoo last weekend who want to be unique by ensuring that they all dress the same, walk the same, talk the same, and listen to the same music. They are not unique from one another, but their group is unique from those outside the group. -- kainaw™ 13:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the liberation from a sense of duty which makes impractical activities appealing. Similarly, computer games often mimic tasks which people might be paid to do - and as soon as the player moved the tasks into the real world, and was doing the tasks for money, and was invested in them and had a sense of obligation, the tasks would become substantially less fun. There is a common anxiety over achievement, since attempting to achieve things raises moral issues - it makes us vulnerable to opinions about what we should be doing. (I was going to link to performance anxiety, but that is in fact completely the wrong article for what I am trying to express.) A friend of mine is interested in learning Old English; she has mentioned feeling lame for being interested in learning a language of limited usefulness, but also confessed that the uselessness makes the ambition less daunting, increasing the feeling that the subject is within her personal domain. Come to think of it, answering questions on the ref desks also mimics a task people might be paid to do. Idle pleasures, eh. 81.131.0.25 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Klingon speakers can interact with other Klingon speakers (or writers, for that matter) is the crux of the issue, near as I can tell. Vranak (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it? The can interact with those "others" just as easily in their native tongue. What leads you to that conclusion? I've never heard of anyone learning to speak Klingon in order to actually use the thing, I'd be interested to hear otherwise. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's a social thing, plainly. Also, if that doesn't satisfy you, we can talk about the dignity and poise of Klingon culture. It's less childlike and neurotic than contemporary Western culture, although it's rather more dramatic, violent, and capricious as well. It lets people explore themes of confident, uninhibited self-expression, I think. Vranak (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This from the guy who thinks Shakespeare was a hack! Such a sense of aesthetic taste! 63.17.51.222 (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

...What are you talking about? Sounds more like you're exploring a Star Trek convention or a cosplay event...Does learning a language mean people are exploring the culture? (Not a language man, I wouldn't know) And why is it "plainly" a social thing? You can learn a language from your bedroom easily. In fact, stereotypically, the Star Trek fandom would be the ones most likely to do something like that. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget it Vimes. If you don't understand the points that I'm making, I will just facepalm and leave it at that. Vranak (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See Sense of community. Some people get a warm glow from speaking Klingon to each other, others get a similar glow from belonging to the warm and supportive community of Wikipedians. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be that most people who study languages are motivated by a desire to communicate, or be part of a community. I can tell you that for me neither of those are particularly high on the list. I study languages (both natural and artificial) for their own sake: to understand how they are put together, how they are like and unlike each other, what interesting new features can I find in this or that language. I have been involved in Loglan/Lojban on and off since the late 70's, and for most of that time I have not had other people to talk the language to. Equally, when I have studied Georgian or Amharic I have not looked for other people to speak them to, or even books to read. --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some people find learning natural languages unappealing in that native speakers will always be better at it than you. It's virtually impossible to pass as a native speaker.

The artificial language Esperanto does have several practical applications: with a single language you can travel around the world and communicate with people from a wide variety of places. When doing so, you are on equal footing with other Esperanto speakers in that you're both speaking a second language. Esperanto has a small but not insignificant body of original literature. As with other artificial languages, Esperanto has its own unique culture that many find appealing. Using Esperanto emphasizes your "world citizenship" and rejection of nationalism and ethnic chauvinism.

Other artificial languages are constructed not to facilitate communication but to test a linguistic hypothesis. I'm thinking specifically of Lojban, a notoriously difficult if not impossible artificial language, that some claim helps them think in a more logical way. Toki Pona is at the other extreme in that it is aggressively minimal. —D. Monack ^talk 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Double Cross double agents

The Double Cross System article claims that "all the agents Germany sent to Britain had given themselves up or been captured". Why would an agent give himself up? Also, 100% seems like a high number...how does it compare with other, similar circumstances? I know nothing about espionage. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Because (s)he can't stand the stress. Because (s)he recognises the Nazis were evil assholes. Because the British offered privileges and/or money. Because they only worked for the axis under duress to begin with. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Because (s)he realised Germany wasn't going to win the war, or at least wasn't going to invade Britain (making those enticements Stephan mentions seem like a good deal). Because the very danger-seeking, duplicitous personality that makes someone an effective agent also makes them an unreliable one (read: they did it for fun, because they're the kind of people who do stuff like that for fun). Or maybe they just discovered they liked Britain - I heard an interview with Bert Trautmann (not a spy, but a German POW who wouldn't go back to Germany after the war) - he said his upbringing in Nazi Germany had been unremittingly harsh and brutal, and contrasted that to how nice everyone was to him in England, even while the war continued. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to look at the reference to establish the analysis process that led to that conclusion, but I don't see it as that extreme. Once the system has turned a small handful it becomes very easy to then interdict any follow on.

The issue around why anyone would turn themselves in is a whole different issue and it's difficult to determine in an impartial and rational way. The example above makes value judgements and imposes a contemporary value framework on someone from another era and culture. There has been a fair amount of academic work done on agents and agent handling and the characteristics desired for recruitment do tend to reduce reliability, as discussed by Finlay. Kings College London and Warwick University are places to look at.

The other aspect from the source might be at what point in an operation did the agent give themselves up. There were examples where that happened straightaway, but others where the agent in question operated for some time.

ALR (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There are reasons to be suspicious of any explanation which relies specifically on how the agents knew the Nazis were bad and the British were great (or that the Nazis would necessarily lose the war, which wasn't at all clear in 1941-42). It's an awfully convenient explanation and one that really doesn't take into account the fact that 1. the British weren't all that great from many points of view, and 2. the Nazis weren't all that bad from certain points of view, and 3. anybody sent over to be a spy against Britain would presumably have been screened a bit first, and presumably they had family members in Germany that they might have been a bit worried about, should the Nazis have ever found out about their duplicity. Plus we know that there were plenty of successful espionage networks for awful countries (think of the great success the Soviet Union had in the West, even after it became pretty well known how awful Stalin et al were). I am much more convinced by the argument that the British might have used a few successful catches as a means of detecting who all the others might be, and once they know who the spies were, either arrest and execute them, or turn them. Not all German agents sent to Britain became double-agents—some were simply imprisoned. It may be the case that all were caught. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The story of one rather useless Irish spy, who was sent over by the Germans but gave himself up is here[12]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And another useless spy (to the enemy), this time a German, who was captured[13]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! 212.219.39.146 (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis vs. Saint Louis

Here's a question I asked in 2008 at Talk:Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra but have yet to receive any response whatsoever.

• If the name of the city is always spelt St. Louis and never 'Saint Louis', why is the name of the orchestra 'Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra' and not 'St. Louis Symphony Orchestra'. Unless it's named directly after St. Louis IX of France or some other saint named Louis, rather than after the city per se.

Maybe a wider audience here can shed some light on this.

Are there other examples of eponyms being spelt differently than the thing after which they were named? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that at the time it got its present name, there were still some people spelling out the word "Saint" when referring to the city. An example of odd eponym spelling is the name of the New-York Historical Society (they insist on the hyphen).--Cam (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well they are a historical society Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the article on St. Louis, the city's institutions follow both spellings. Saint Louis University, e.g., is also always spelled out according to their own site [14]. Some sports teams abbreviate it (St. Louis Blues or the St. Louis Cardinals) while the Saint Louis Billikens don't (because they are part of SLU, I guess). This doesn't answer your question, but it looks like the orchestra is not alone. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to other eponyms, a number of things named after the Royal Institute of Technology (Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan) in Stockholm have omitted the word "Royal" (Kungliga). For example, there's the Tekniska högskolan metro station and the Student Union (Tekniska Högskolans Studentkår). Gabbe (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not "always spelt St. Louis"; it's just that the "Saint" is usually abbreviated. Indeed, the official name of the city would seem to be "The City of Saint Louis". Deor (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what it seems to be saying, Deor. But I've looked all over the city's official site in vain for any confirmation of this. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the orchestra's history page,[15] they refer to their organization as "Saint Louis ..." and the city itself as "St. Louis". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise with the university:[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And likewise with the zoo:[17] There is sort of a pattern emerging here - that the city itself is "St." and the invidual institutions are "Saint". An exception is the professional sports world, in which "St. Louis" was on the ballplayers' shirts starting at least in the 1880s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Since St. is an abbreviation for Saint, there's nothing stopping anyone from spelling it out if they want to. Same goes for Saint/St. Petersburg and all the rest. There are some contexts where a word is spelt out even though it's normally abbreviated: They Call Me MISTER Tibbs! would not be They Call Me MR. Tibbs!. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It seems like it's mostly just how someone felt like doing it. It's kind of like "Mount" vs. "Mt.", as with Mount Hood. The oddity about "St." is that it also means "Street" in English, so a "Saint Louis Street" could be "St. Louis St." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As a St. Louisan, "Saint Louis" comes off much more formal (*too* formal) in comparison to "St. Louis." When one refers to the city and *just* the city, it would come off odd to use "Saint Louis" and not "St. Louis." But because "St." is, of course merely short for "Saint," you see "Saint Louis" every so often, such as the examples mentioned above. The idea that "the name of the city is always spelt St. Louis and never 'Saint Louis'" is a little strong. I would advise against trying to draw a fixed rule with regard to institutions being the ones to use "Saint," however; it's all idiosyncratic. (See, for example St. Louis Shakespeare, any of St. Louis's newspapers, etc.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

when was the pop-up box (of tissues) invented?

when was the pop-up box of kleenex invented? 82.113.104.242 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the external link I followed from this article: Facial tissue, it appears it was invented in 1929.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How timely; perfect for those suffering from Depression to wipe their tears. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember Lily Tomlin's pop-up box of lace handkerchiefs in All of Me?--Wetman (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jasmine Macdonnell

Is Jasmine MacDonnell the only press secretary to one of the Cabinet Ministers of Canada who is a woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.13 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there are currently several female press secretaries to Canadian cabinet ministers and there have been others in the past. --Cam (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric Illsley

What happens if he is imprisoned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.63.242 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking about the actual process of imprisonment and what that entails or are you asking us to speculate on what that would do to the country? If the former, then you may want to look at our article on Imprisonment. If the latter, however, then you have come to the wrong place - this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum, so we do not speculate. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Horatio Bottomley was expelled from Parliament. But it may well be that Illsley has a good defence, such as that he regarded his allegedly excessive claims as money to which he was properly entitled. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking "can he remain an MP even if he's convicted", I'm not aware of any law that would force a by-election. John Stonehouse continued to be an MP (at least in theory; in practice all MPs do is vote and you have to do that in person); Stonehouse was eventually persuaded to resign. There certainly isn't such a rule for members of the house of lords - convictions of peers such as Jeffrey Archer have led to calls for such a law. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there is something. Following the 1981 election of Bobby Sands as MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, parliament passed the Representation of the People Act 1981. That reads (in part) "A person ... sentenced ... for more than one year, shall be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons" and "If a member of the House of Commons becomes disqualified by this Act for membership of that House his seat shall be vacated." -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of an MP's job involves sitting on committees. The actual votes are just a formality mostly - the government's bills get passed, everything else is rejected (there are exceptions, but they are very rare). --Tango (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Parliament can vote to expel a member, as happened with Horatio Bottomley and, most recently, with Peter Baker. Arthur Alfred Lynch is another case. If an MP was sentenced to less than one year's imprisonment, the House could choose to use the same procedure but, as suggested above, my guess is that various people would attempt to convince them to resign before that could happen. Warofdreams talk 09:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, British MPs don't resign, they apply for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that and the Manor of Northstead are the current legal fictions used to enable resignation from the British House of Commons. Warofdreams talk 14:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Citable Charlottetown Accord

Are there any government, university, or other citable websites that have the full text of the Charlottetown Accord or are the only copies of it on some random dude's website? 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on it, which has a link to "The Canadian Encyclopedia" with the full text. Google Books [[18]] has some books which cover it. Perhaps the text is in some of them. Any college library in Canada is likely to have the text in some resource. Edison (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I found that one, but the whole site looks suspect. The article should use something else for the full text. 142.104.139.242 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want a governement site, the Government of Quebec has the text in both languages on the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat's website. Here's the English text: [19] --Xuxl (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! 142.104.139.242 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with The Canadian Encyclopedia? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the OP didn't find The Canadian Encyclopedia when searching before posting this thread? Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arahabaki

Apparently, Arahabaki should be an ancient Japanese deity. I've seen pictures of it (expecially in sites about archaeoastronomy) and it should be somehow reminiscent of dogū figurines. The strange thing is: I can't find any serious information about it in the omniscient Wikipedia. How is it possible? Do I spell it right? Is there a place where I can find something about it? Using Google only led me to some strange sites about manga/videogames/... --151.51.20.38 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this is http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A9%E3%83%8F%E3%83%90%E3%82%AD no english interwiki link I can see.77.86.115.45 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010

Blog about arahbaki shrine [20] apologies if I'm completely wrong , another shrine [21] apparently common for shrines - no idea if my translate tool is producing false results/// also [22] has limited info on 2 shrines if the same.77.86.115.45 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the clay figures are actually known to represent this deity (I though shinto deitys were in general not represented sculpturally - though it does vaguely look like this particular deity is from a slightly different scheme.) - is it possible that the association of dogu figures and arahabaki is a conceit which video game developers are responsible for??77.86.115.45 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia? Omniscient? Ha! It's good, but for Japanese deities, one should not be so surprised at a marked deficit of information. Vranak (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Attorney in the United States.

Hi, my question is, if I am a graduated attorney in Argentina and I want to go to America to study American laws and graduate as an attorney in American law just because I always wanted to be a lawyer in American laws. Do I need to study 5 another years? or with my college degree in law here in Argentina is enough to study less years... Well, thanks all. --190.178.167.201 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone may practice in a US jurisdiction if he has passed the bar exam for that jurisdiction; one must meet basic requirements before they can take that exam. Jurisdictions vary in the requirements they impose; in general they require that a person be a graduate of a law school that is compatible with the US legal system. By way of example (which I don't claim to be representative) the rules for the California bar are here; they do admit foreign law-school graduates, but they say "Law study completed in a foreign state or country where the common law of England is not the basis of jurisprudence can only be recognized towards the general education requirement and will not be considered as credit toward satisfying the legal education requirements". If Argentinian law is derived from Roman law (which I'd guess it is) then that would not be an adequate qualification. I do seem to recall (I'll go looking in a second) that US law schools offer a fast-track conversion course intended to prepare legal graduates such as yourself for an English system (which I think is a year). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: Bachelor of Laws#Eligibility to practice law in the U.S. with foreign credentials says "American law schools typically offer one-year LL.M. programs for foreign attorneys", after which you'd study for the bar exam. I should note that being qualified to practice law doesn't mean you can work as a lawyer in the US - you're still subject to the same working visa restrictions as any other non-citizen. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course! thank you Finlay... I don't expect to work there as an attorney I just want to graduate as an attorney in American law. And it seems to be 1 year more. That's nice, thank you very much. And Argentine law is Westernized. --190.178.167.201 (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of Westernization. It's about civil law vs. common law. See List of country legal systems. --Nricardo (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

LLM would be what you want to look at. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Which British Prime Ministers belonged to Dissenting Non-Conformist Churches?

Which British Prime Ministers belonged to Dissenting Non-Conformist Churches?--Gary123 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you mean those denominations listed at English Dissenters#Present-day Dissenting groups, David Lloyd George is listed as "nonconformist" and seems to have mostly attended Baptist churches. Ramsay MacDonald, Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and Gordon Brown are / were Presbyterian. Arthur Balfour is listed as attending both the Presbyterian CofS and the Anglican CofE. Curiously I don't think any Prime Ministers have been Muggletonians. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are Scotsmen who attend the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland still considered "dissenting" or "nonconformist" in the UK? Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No (insofar as "nonconformist" is a category used any more) because the CoS is the established church. Marnanel (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that these issues are of minimal interest to the overwhelming majority of residents of the UK, which is now a predominantly secular society. Politicians' religious views are only of interest when they become more overt, or change, as they did with Tony Blair. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Who was the 1st non-Anglican PM, and what sect did he belong to? --Gary123 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who was Church of Scotland. However, the Church of Scotland is also an established Church; the first PM who didn't belong to the established Church was John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, who was a Scottish Episcopalian, but of course this is a kind of Anglican. I believe the first PM who was neither an Anglican nor a member of the established Church was David Lloyd George, who was apparently Church of Christ. Marnanel (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he was a Particular Baptist, a British sect similar to the American Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli is an interesting case; he was Anglican, but from a Jewish background and, until the age of 13 had been raised within the Jewish religion. Warofdreams talk 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is not, and never was, an established church and guarded its independence from state fiercely. That it is not to say that the Scottish government didn't try to impose its will on the Scottish Church after the Scottish Reformation but the Church refused to accept this. The UK government recognised this state of affairs with the passing of the Church of Scotland Act 1921. However the Church of Scotland is regarded as the National Church of Scotland but without Establishment. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707 [23] describes the Church of Scotland as being "by law established", and the special constitutional protection afforded to it suggest to me that it is proper to call it an established church. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

During the Reformation period and immediately afterward, the Kirk most definitely was established. In later years, the majority of the Kirk definitely didn't fight fiercely for independence from the state; that's why the Free Church of Scotland was founded. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bubba

Where can I learn more about "Tom Varn" and his character "Bubba," who was supposedly an inspiration for the character Yosemite Sam, as mentioned in that article? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you may have uncovered a piece of ancient vandalism, in this edit from 2006. According to this, Tom "Bubba" Varn was a teacher at a Florida school - he could have got his nickname from an earlier personality of the same name, but I can't find anything to support it. I'll delete it from the article and raise it on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Beaten to it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I found the same info you did! All of that IP's edits appear to have been vandalistic. Deor (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

May 21

Painting of a woman with butterflies on her eyes and mouth

I'm trying to identify a painting I once saw of a woman (possibly blue skinned)with long dark hair and butterflies obscuring her eyes and mouth. I saw the painting about ten years ago in a book about surrealism. The painting was coupled with a short paragraph describing the painting as a portrait of the artist's wife, who was a poet or writer. Can anyone tell me the name of this painting, or suggest a possible artist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little radiolarian (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Winged Domino by Roland Penrose? Seen here. It's of his wife, Valentine Boué. Gwinva (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes! That's it. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little radiolarian (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Upper class

I want to know about the composition of upper class. I have read wikipedia article. We know wealthy industrialists belong to the uppper class. My question is do university professors belong to upper class? or wealth is the only factor to determine upper class? --Amateur soiologist (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on whose definition you use. "Upper class" is a pretty vague term. Gabbe (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Upper class in the USA is largely based on several generations of wealth, whereas in Europe and Asia it is a privileged class, deriving from ancestry and landed holdings; money alone does not permit entry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Education and occupation may also be a factor. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, I would not agree that either occupation or level of education are factors - type of education, for example if someone went to Eton College or Oxbridge, may be a factor to some extent, but as Jeanne Boleyn says the term really now relates to ancestry and family land holdings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An example of how education alone does not determine class in the UK is provided by David Bowie, who sent his son to Gordonstoun. While that is undoubtedly a school for the upper and wealthy classes, his attendance does not automatically make Joe Bowie a member of the British upper class.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That example probably draws out the fact that it's a largely undefined characterisation now. Upper class and wealthy are not synonymous, although we'd generally see those that we'd perceive as upper class being educated at the upper echelon of public schools and certain colleges at the universities with the best reputations; Oxbridge, London.

Upper class is probably more easily identifiable by exclusion, although describing oneself a middle class has become fashionable in the last few years. Most of it is really by inference; employment, social capital, use of language (although that's not a great indicator) I would agree with KittyBrewster that education is a factor although predominantly university. It's probably more a question of looking at the whole package.

ALR (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This character - also here and here - would fit most criteria of being "upper class", but is (or at least claims to be) impoverished rather than rich. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a scenario that is reasonably common in what we'd traditionally view as upper class or landed gentry, whilst they might be reasonably high net worth individuals their cash flow is quite poor. An interesting illustration of the 100% inheritance tax idea up the page.

ALR (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the latter half of the 19th century many impoverished aristocratic British families sought to replenish their dwindling fortunes by marrying wealthy American heiresses such as Jennie Jerome and Frances Work (great-grandmother of Princess Diana]]. I cannot help thinking of one of the New York Astor millionaires paying a genealogist to invent a noble pedigree for his antecendants, when the first Astor was in fact a poor German immigrant without a trace of blue blood. Then there was Joe Kennedy boasting of his daughter-in-law's (Jacqueline Bouvier) noble French ancestry, when her great-grandfather was really a cabinet-maker from Orlèans. Joe completely ignored the fact that his own wife was a Fitzgerald, one of the most prestigious Norman families in Ireland! Class distinctions are bizarre in the USA; however, as in the UK, a good university (especially one of the Ivy League schools) or finishing school raises the tone somewhat.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, I think you're mixing up your antecedents (who precede you) with your descendants (who follow you). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, but I was/am aware of the difference. While my high school certainly was not the best Los Angeles had to offer, I learned enough to know that ante means before! I'd made a mistake in saying for instead of of, hence the confusion. Indeed, it would be a rare optimist (or mayhap clairvoyant) who would do a pedigree on his future descendants!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In the American south, you have impoverished families descended from old Virginian landed dynasties such as the Byrds, Lees, Rolfes, etc.; these would be regarded as upper class. Also let us not forget the French and Spanish families of Louisiana such as the Beauregards, Almonsters, de la Rondes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Who regards them as upper class, and in what way? I think, if they have no money, most regard their connection to a glorious American past, generations back, as a minor curiosity, even as somewhat shameful, because of an implication, however misplaced, that there was some personal shortcoming that led to the loss of wealth. But I could be mistaken. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Class is an important factor in the south. Have you ever read any of Tennessee Williams' plays or novels by Frances Parkinson Keyes? Remember many early Virginians were younger sons of English landed gentry. I had a mother who was a southerner. Oh, the personal shortcoming that led to their loss of wealth was a wee event known as the American Civil War or War of Northern Aggression as it's known down home.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not well-read. But I'm a "northerner," I think. I like Jimmy Dale Gilmore. I'm sure you're right. I just wasn't familiar with that phenomenon. I will have to try to read some of these things. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A Tennessee Williams play was made into a memorable film in 1966 starring Robert Redford and Natalie Wood. It's called This Property is Condemned. I highly recommend it. Charles Bronson is also in it. Then there is the classic A Streetcar Named Desire which is set in New Orleans. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I like Shelby Foote a lot too, but I only know him from narrating some TV documentaries. I understand he is a very important historian. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know "A Streetcar Named Desire." Stella! Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

[Class distinctions are not always observed. (http://multilingualbible.com/james/2-1.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/james/2-2.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/james/2-3.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/james/2-4.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)]

I concur with Gabbe's assessment. The most facile determinant is economic clout, but as a humanist, I for one am more interested in moral, ethical, intellectual, emotional elevation. It means more in the end, than how many summer homes in New Hampshire you own. Vranak (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the end, class is how you are perceived by others. A definition of "upper class" that doesn't include Bill Clinton is hollow. Perhaps, like political "left" and "right" it's a category whose usefulness has run out.--Wetman (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's right, about the perceptions of others. In Australia, the class system has never really applied. Sure, there are rich families and poor families, but there's no such thing as any kind of automatically better service just because you're rich. There are some people who congregate around the Double Bay (Sydney), Toorak (Melbourne) and similar areas of the other metropolises, who would no doubt see themselves as "upper class", but we ordinary people just see them as a bunch of tossers, and they regularly get brought down a few notches on TV (Kath and Kim, etc.). Many of them are very down to earth anyway: Lindsay Fox is a billionaire who regularly hobnobs with the privileged classes in his work with government committees and the like, but his background was a truck driver and he still refuses to wear a business coat and tie, preferring an open necked shirt and his trademark jumper. Just call him Lindsay, none of this "Mr Fox" stuff. Same goes for prime ministers - journos often address them by their first name. Anyone who assumes aristocratic airs and requires such respect from others, is given very short shrift here. We the people decide who gets respect, and in what form that respect is given. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article Professors in the United States says the average salary of a full professor is $99,000. According to our article Household income in the United States, you needed $88,030 in annual household income to be in the top 20% and $157,176 to be in the top 5% in 2004. Most people would probably classify most university professors as "upper middle class" rather than "rich." A term like "upper class" or "middle class" has no official definition, at least in the U.S., and so is really in the eye of the beholder. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the UK a person's accent is often a clear indication of which social strata he or she occupies. Then, there are also many sub-classes. In America, accents are not necessarily indicators; however, somehow I don't think you'd find many girls in exclusive New England finishing schools who talk like Lynddie England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Two comments (in different directions, to make it interesting ;-): First, relatively few professors in the US are full professors - when I worked there, the head of the department was an associate professor. Secondly, you are comparing single-earner income to household incomes. I would expect many academic households to have two decent incomes. I'll have to admit the original question has me stumped a bit. I don't think there is a single answer. Class perception not very strong among most academics, so there is no strong self-identification. From the income and life-style, I would classify most tenured professors as middle class, though - they have less income than many other professionals, but better job security. Untenured assistant professors are about as close to slaves as you can come in modern society ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Did the Western Allies ever consider sending ground troops to fight on the Eastern Front during WW2

Did the Western Allies ever consider sending ground troops to fight on the Eastern Front during WW2?--Gary123 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia standpoint, our articles Eastern Front (World War II) and Operation Barbarossa are silent on this, and are even silent about the repeated Soviet demands of England and the US that they invade German-occupied territory from the west in order to try to force Germany to detach some forces from the Eastern Front. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Free French did because de Gaulle wanted participation in every theatre. But from a western Allied point of view, they had their own priorities, which didn't include helping the Soviets over-run almost the whole of Europe. The British were involved in various campaigns in North Africa, Greece, Italy. As usual, the Americans turned up late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.40.58 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC) — 86.143.40.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nice soapboxing attack. Edison (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Americans "turned up late" because many Americans thought it wasn't their war. Just as many Europeans now think the War on Terror is not their war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't reply to a soapboxing reply with another soapboxing reply. Two wrongs and all that ... --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fond of soap. I use it every day. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't tell by the smell! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, British Imperial forces were already heavily committed and the experience of the Arctic convoys was that the Russians were quite hostile to Imperial forces being on Russian territory uncontrolled, with heavily restricted movement.

It's also worth considering the tensions resulting from the treatment of British forces following the First World War.

ALR (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a handful of brave souls halted the Japanese advance in China by Gorilla Warfare. Some got the highest honour (American). The history of Singapore. Much of this is not in the public sector yet. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No wonder.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal tried elephants with questionable success. Gorillas apparently worked out better. Especially if they were also guerillas. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If their lengthy story were ever told, it could turn into a guerilla megillah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Soviet Union was ever short of personel - it was materiel they needed. Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Russian Civil War (1917-1923) British, U.S. and French troops fought against the Soviets within the former Russian Empire, as well as supporting the anticommunist White Army. See American Expeditionary Force Siberia, Entente intervention in the Russian Civil War, North Russia Campaign, and Siberian Intervention. Stalin had probably seem quite enough "Allied" troops on Soviet soil. Edison (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not what you would consider "Eastern Front", but Churchill at various times suggested an invasion of the Balkans as an alternative to Anvil and possibly an alternative to Overlord. Such an invasion was never officially proposed, and it's unclear what exactly Churchill's thinking was beyond forestalling Soviet post-war influence in central and eastern Europe.—eric 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've located a reference stating that the reverse was suggested. Memoirs of the Second World War, by Winston Churchill (it's an abridgement of The Second World War), p. 477 in my edition. (There is a nice index; look up Second Front.) Churchill complains about Stalin relentlessly insisting on a quick invasion and establishment of a western front, in the face of insurmountable obstacles; and writes, "Stalin even suggested to me on one occasion later on that if the British were afraid he would be willing to send round three or four Russian Army Corps to do the job. It was not in my power, through lack of shipping and other physical facts, to take him at his word." He goes on to mention Stalin's suggestion for an invasion through the north, and also mentions that Britain sent two Hurricane squadrons to Murmansk to cooperate with Russian forces and help defend the naval base. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

13th century feminist writer?

Is there any? I found a reference in a stupid essay by an idiot. Since it is written in a phonetic language there is no getting the spelling. It could be Zhan Demunga or Jean Demunga or Jeanne Demunga or something else. No nationality, no work named etc. Anybody knows? --117.204.80.35 (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Joan de Munchensi perhaps? The article doesn't mention any of her own writings, but she does seem to have been a woman of letters. I couldn't find anything similar sounding under Category:13th-century women writers. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Would any literate woman whose writings survive be a feminist, then?--Wetman (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Was there any other information in the essay? Any works? How was the name spelled in the essay? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It need not be 13th century, necessarily. The guy mentions Christine de Pizan as a 14th century writer while her literary career mostly belonged to 15th. He can easily mix up centuries. Being written in a phonetic language it is impossible to guess the actual spelling in Roman alphabet. No work is named no other detail available. --117.204.81.141 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"...in a stupid essay by an idiot"? Can you point us to the link for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Weeeeell ... if the guy was an idiot, I guess anything is possible, and it could also be the male author Jean de Meung whose depiction of corporal amour was attacked by Christine de Pizan (who is often categorized as feminist . :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some confusion about Jean de Meung seems the most likely explanation. For what it's worth, I can find no (other) entry in the index of Peter Dronke's Women Writers of the Middle Ages that could correspond to anything like this name. Deor (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The scary part is that despite the insult, the OP is treating it like a reliable source. That's something that never happens on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think she is treating it like a reliable source (I assume your next comment was meant ironically). I think she simply wants to know who the hell the essayist is referring to. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sluzzelin. You have put your finger on the party. The guy, I am sure, confused him for a female feminist author. Anything is possible with him. Somebody wanted the link? Here it is but it is no use. I am not going to take it as reliable source but going to take it to pieces in my blog. To give you just one example, the guy says that Mary Wollstonecraft was pregnant with her first child from her lover when she married Godwin. He also gives the name of the child: Fanny Mary Wollstone Craft! He apparently mixed up the names of her two daughters. --117.204.80.206 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would still like to know what essay the OP is referring to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseball_Bugs, I linked it above. Since it is written in an Indian local language it is unfortunately of no use to any of you. The 'essay' actually appeared in a periodical and it has been reproduced on that blog I linked above.--117.204.80.206 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what's the "stupid essay by an idiot" all about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's about the history of feminism. The guy talks all sorts of atrocious nonsense like asserting that Jean de Meung along with Christine de Pisan were advocates of early feminist ideas.--117.204.80.206 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound so absurd to me...but then I am a useless academic. It's not my field but I'm sure people have made that argument before. (It involves lots and lots of strange magic called Theory, about which I know nothing!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so, Adam Bishop. This guy was talking about Jean de Meun as if he were a woman.--117.207.147.208 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

May 22

net debt vs. accumulated deficit

What is the difference between net debt and accumulated deficit? Government financial reports give each of them separate sections in reports, but according to definitions I can find, they are both total liabilities minus total assets. 142.104.139.242 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Government foreign net debt is money owed by the government and its agencies to non-residents less money non-residents owe to the government and its agencies. Accumulated deficits are the sum total over a period of time (which may vary) of the federal budget balance. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War Question

Is it possible to know who he is? Here --SouthAmerican (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can make out the beginning of his name "R. C. Cog..", which may be of help. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More information on the photo here. Seems even the photographer's name is unknown.--Cam (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No "R. C. Coo.." Kittybrewster ☎ 12:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't know the fate of that particular soldier, but here's a list of the "C" entries at the Vietnam memorial in D.C.: [24] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The surname could very well be Cook. The photo is of exceptionally good quality for that era; therefore bearing that in mind, I would guess it to have been taken in the early 1970s rather than late 1960s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The third letter is clearly a "G". DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The link given by Cam contains a suggestion that it is by Larry Burrows, which does seem likely to me. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That would place the photo's date before 1971. The soldier is so young-he couldn't have been more than 18 or 19. I hope he survived the war.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The date was August 3, 1965; see my "here" link above.--Cam (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Blowing it up and lightening it up a bit, it's "R.C.COO"-something, not "COG" (there's a little discoloration in the middle of the second "O" that might make it look like a "G" at normal scale.) The fourth letter is a roundish blob, so probably not a "K". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Was it standard practise for the uniforms to have the first name initials along with the surname? I have a photo of my cousins which was taken in Vietnam in 1967 and their uniforms just show their surname, no first name initials. However, they were Army and this is a Marine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could the name be McCoo?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Download the large version and expand it. It's definitely R-period C-period, and there seems to be at least one letter after the COO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it's R.C. I also blew up my cousins' picture and I was mistaken as they have a lot of writing on their uniforms besides just their surnames. Could R.C stand for something other than first name initials? There is also writing on the side of his helmet. There's PET.. C0...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they had ranks on the uniform name tag. In any case, I ran across this site[25] which doesn't answer the question, but it does have an even larger print, clear at the bottom, and farther up the page some well-known and not-as-well-known images from the war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

They look like scenes from Platoon; in fact the guy leading the old bearded man reminds me of Bunny. If the guy survived the war he'd be about 63 0r 64 years old today. The writing on his helmet seems to be PE something.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a book online called The Marines in Vietnam 1965: The Landing and the Buildup. In the Chronology of Significant Events section it says that on 3 August 1965 (the date of the photo) Company D, 1/9 had conducted a one day operation (Operation Blastout 1) at Cam Ne, south of Da Nang, and a CBS crew did some filming. Perhaps our mysterious Marine was part of that company as the dates and places match!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Italianate or Stick-Eastlake?

Leftwich House in Greenville, Ohio

Is the pictured house really Italianate? The National Register of Historic Places database, which is quite reliable in these matters, says that it's Italianate, and this is reflected in this Ohio Historical Society webpage; the picture proves that I didn't accidentally get a picture of the wrong house. To me, it seems much more of an example of Stick-Eastlake architecture, especially with its wooden walls and ornaments; it seems to be far from buildings such as this house. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

At this level of vernacular carpentry, the Italianate details (National Register of Historic Places's ambitious descriptions notwithstanding) are so rudimentary and elided, and so thoroughly converted to joinery and turnery and jigsawn outlines, that high-style designations are derisory. Is the projection of the front parlor to be read as a truncated tower, even though it doesn't rise above the cornice band? Is the projection of the cornice an Italianate feature? or simply carpentry? Is the paneled cornice band an implied statement of architrave, frieze and cornice in some fashion? Are those brackets substituting for architectural consoles or modilions? Is that an oriel at the side? or just a bay window? If the Jacobean antecedents of the spindles and carpentry of the porch are pointed out, are we bizarrely inflating the picture? The National Register of Historic Places' paperwork has blanks to be filled in with stylistic designations, and they do always fill them in. --Wetman (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not all blanks are always filled in — the Hugh T. Rinehart House, also in Ohio, is listed because of its architecture, but no architectural style is given. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I overstated. More typically, vernacular houses of c 1810-40 are categorized "Greek Revival" when such design features are limited to doorcase surrounds.--Wetman (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would interpret this one as Italianate on the larger-scale elements and stick/Eastlake on the smaller scale elements. It's entirely possible to work at two differing scales in disparate styles. Acroterion _(talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Heavy breathing

I've heard that World War I aircraft had pretty high ceilings (c. 20,000 ft.). Did they have air tanks (or recruit Tibetans)? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Many WW1 aircraft had a service ceiling below 20,000 feet, but the 1917 SPAD S.XII article says it had a service ceiling of 6,850 m (22,470 ft), so you may be onto something. Nothing said they had to routinely go that high, and the endurance (fuel supply) was only 1 3/4 hours, so they might have spent some time patrolling at altitudes where they could observe or attack things on the ground, rather than just going as high as the plane would go, for no particular reason other than to swoop down and surprise the enemy aviators, or to get above antiaircraft battery range, not a big problem in WW1. See Aviation in World War I. There is no mention of oxygen masks. Wiley Post experimented with a steel helmet and pressure suit looking like something like a deep sea diver might use, but long after the war, in 1934. He flew up to 50,000 feet and attempted stratospheric cross country flights. Edison (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

When British fighters became proficient at finding and destroying German Zeppelin airships, the Zeppelin company developed a new design called the 'height-climber' which could go up much higher than the service ceiling of the fighters. The Germans knew that the crew would need Oxygen so supplied the crew with breathing apparatus, but they found that the crews didn't actually use them. When they asked the crews, it turned out that they knew the first man to put on the mask and use the Oxygen would be labelled as the wimp, so none of the crewmembers dared to begin. There was also a problem with the Oxygen which was full of impurities and gave the crew nausea when they did use them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel and Mossad

Israel: I read an article stating that the "Mossad Men" (Institute of Intelligence and Special Operations) have killed American and British soldiers if it suited their purpose, specifically to keep the war going. Is there any evidence that this is a fact and is this organization presently in operation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.196.151 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(Moved question erroneously posted in previous thread to new thread.Edison (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC) )

Response: Please clarify: Which war are you referring to? Mossad seems to be still in business, and its predecessor organization started operations in 1938, per the article. Zionist forces did kill British soldiers at times during the 1940's while the British had a mandate over Palestine . The killings may have been by other Zionist organizations (see Irgun, The Sergeants affair, and Lehi (group). The article Mossad does not attribute any killings of U.S. or British soldiers to Mossad. Edison (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the Mossad is generally recognised as one of the more competent services. So we wouldn't necessarily know. Let the paranoia flow! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

They do make occasional mistakes:[26] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The typical Wikipedian

This question has probably been asked before, but who is the typical Wikipedia editor based on sex, age, nationality, occupation, etc?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's been a survey taken, it would be unknown, since none of that info is required in the user profile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucky there's this one then, isn't it Bugs? No seriously, it makes interesting reading. An overview of the whole report's findings (also covering usage/non-usage of Wikipedia, for example, is also available. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. I don't recall being surveyed, though. :'( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I remember that survey as I took part in it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Model Wikipedian 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Germany, post 1945

Who paid for the reconstruction of West Germany after WW II? Was it a loan or a gift or what? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Plan would probably be a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, also try Reconstruction of Germany and Wirtschaftswunder. DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Euro vs. US dollar and UK sterling

I have just read this article [27] and found it interesting but very pessismistic & a bit scarey (I live in the eurozone). And then there is an interesting first comment from a reader: "And the dollar?" attacking the article & writer and saying the dollar is just as theoretically vulnerable, next poster writes "excellent post", and then someone else writes under that: "And sterling?" too, and others say it is "alarmist nonsense". So with all this talk of the euro breaking up in the press that I keep reading, could anyone with economics knowledge please explain: Why is everyone so pessismistic at the moment about the euro - as the comments suggest, don't the US dollar or British sterling have just as huge problems and huge deficits and could default on their debts too? Please help understand, thanks, --AlexSuricata (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that the Euro is used by multiple countries, each with their own fiscal policy. The lack of a coherent fiscal policy means it is very difficult to take any control over the Euro. Britain has a high deficit and lots of debts, but it almost certainly won't default on that debt since it can just inflate away the debt (and there are less drastic steps too involving manipulating exchange rates in order to change trade balances). A country like Greece can't do that without the help of the rest of the Eurozone, but what's good for Greece isn't the same as what is good for, say, Germany, so it isn't going happen (Germany has a strict policy of keeping inflation below 2% and it isn't likely to relax that since it is a good policy for Germany). The Eurozone is at risk of being pulled apart by the differing interests of its member states (personally, I don't think that will happen, but it may well take something big to avoid it and I don't know what that will be). --Tango (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More press piling on is a Newsweek article entitled, "The End of the Euro". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Tango's absolutely right about the problems/advantages of a unified currency. It's hard to inflate away your debt worries when you can't control the currency, then again you receive the monetary benefits that come with that (in the form of better borrowing terms) not to mention the political benefits. Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, a declining euro isn't necessarily a bad thing for euro economies. Debt costs less (in terms of other value) and exports become more attractive to other countries. For a long time the dollar declines helped U.S. exports; the roles have switched somewhat, but a declining currency, especially if controlled, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically the risk to the Euro is pretty similar to the situation with the old ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism), one of the precursors to the Euro, in that various countries were forced out of it by speculators exploiting differences in fiscal policy between member states or economic shocks to individual currencies. 93.109.243.13 (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Tango got the essence right, but Shadowjams missed the knock-effect to prices that deflating the Euro vis-à-vis the dollar would generate: inflation. As we discovered here in Hong Kong, giving up monetary policy (in our case, by pegging to the US dollar; in Greece’s case by being part of the EuroZone) means that the adjustment cannot be made via external prices (devaluing), and so has to be via domestic prices. That’s deflation, and it really, really hurts. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a column by Paul Krugman arguing "We're Not Greece," "We" being the U.S. Similar articles have appeared regarding the UK. It's worth remembering that despite their wide budget deficits, there is comparatively little fear that either the U.S. or UK will default on its debts. Both countries still have an AAA credit rating from S&P, at least for now. Greece's credit rating is BB+, the same as Azerbaijan's. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unknown oil painting artist

I found this painting in the attic of the house I used to rent. I was wondering if anyone know who the artist is. The name on the painting looks to be "Harlt". It is an island scene.--76.22.134.203 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you upload an image to somewhere like Flickr and link to it, so we can take a look at your painting? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a pic of the signature at the bottom. http://www.seehere.com/frogmaster/paintingsig --76.22.134.203 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks mostly to be a souvenir type of painting that are usually produced in great quantities and, at least here, can be found on the walls of cheap pizza parlours and other such places. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what about the picture of the painting suggest that is it is a cheap mass produced souvenir painting? I am not delusional enough to think that it is a valuable painting, and I do not know much about art, but the painting is rather intricate and looks to be done by a professional with a fair amount of skill that spent a decent amount of time on it.--76.22.134.203 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting money for US Healthcare

Seems to me that Healthcare is more important than libraries. Lets say we close down all the libraries in the US. About how much money would that free up to pay for Heatlhcare? ScienceApe (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Might that shut down wikipedia in the process? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume ScienceApe is referring to publicly funded libraries. Wikipedia is not publicly funded and shutting it down would not contribute anything towards healthcare. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would finally stop people from asking and responding to medical advice questions... Matt Deres (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you see the fallacy of the either/or approach to these particular two issues. (I think Healthcare is more important than your house—let's sell off your house!) I'm not sure how easy it is to figure out total public library expenses. The American Library Association says that "Public libraries in the U.S. are set up under a local governance model, as the majority of funding for most public libraries comes from local taxes. On average, nationwide, local taxes are responsible for over 80% of public library funds, with 10% coming from state sources; federal interests contribute less than 1%." So most of the funding is local taxation, not federal. Federal funding is something like $170 million. So one could estimate, given those percentages, that total is probably something like $10 billion (combined state, local, and federal). Which is pretty much peanuts. Note that in 2007, the US spent $2.26 trillion on health care. Even with a healthy guess of how much one might save under more ideal systems, $10 billion isn't going to make up the difference, and it would probably not be the best trade-off anyway. One could much more easily trim $10 billion off of the military, for example, with little obvious effect to the whole of society (they'd be out a few planes and a couple tanks, but they'd still exist in pretty much the same form). Trimming all library budgets—which isn't possible anyway, considering how the taxes are allocated—would have probably a larger effect on people's daily lives than you probably guess (I assume you are not a library user), and have an entirely negligible effect on health care services. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the net effect on the health of the nation would be negative. You would have a less intelligent population, which means less competent doctors (or more spending on training doctors, cancelling out the savings). There is also a correlation between education and health - poorly educated people tend to lead less healthy lifestyles. That means more people needing healthcare, increasing the required spending. --Tango (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that argument is really convincing. I don't think education at libraries probably amounts to a significant change in health care costs. I think you could argue, though, that removing libraries would reduce the quality of life for a significant number of people, would negatively impact the poor, the young, and the elderly disproportionately, would reduce literacy by a real amount (libraries are chief sites of adult literacy programs), and would probably involve other unexpected costs (e.g. ending after school programs). You'd also be slashing a good number of jobs. None of these costs are really justified by what you would gain from the cost cutting, which would be a very small drop in a very large bucket of funds. To me, that's enough of an argument to make the idea seem rather silly. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the increase in costs wouldn't be very significant, but the change in health care costs only needs to be very small to cancel out the benefit, since libraries only constitute a very small portion of US public spending. Imagine the closure of each library results in one more case of type-2 diabetes a year (which is plausible). The cost of treating just that (for the remaining life of the sufferer) would probably match the cost of running the library (I haven't actually looked up the costs of either treating diabetes or running libraries, so this is just a guess, but you get the idea). --Tango (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I buy that. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that the money could be redirected - I don't think it would make a dot of difference - consider a library's cost - a few staff, the upkeep of the building, plus the books. this [28] gives some figures for UK and US - only higher education librarys - compare the figure £430 million pa (uk) with the NHS budget of £65,000 million that year. Note that higher educational library costs are higher than public librarys due to high costs of books/periodicals. Maybe someone else can find the figures for the USA.87.102.18.191 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Going with the 10 billion estimate, that's US$30 per inhabitant. Or, in other words, about one full-strength Aspirin per day. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find... ScienceApe... that a great number of philosophers and writers have placed learning and education (an ideal supported by public libraries) at the center of human improvement, while palliative care is just that -- palliative. And remember the old admonition -- "Physician, heal thyself". It questions the whole notion that doctors are really all that effective at preventing incontinence of this organ or that, in the end. Vranak (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Who mentioned palliative care? --Tango (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

May 23

Term for calendar-related structure?

I'm writing an article about a house that some people have seen as an "astronomical calendar" and compared to Stonehenge because it has "four west doors [that] indicate the seasons of the year", because the sun shines directly onto a different door at noon at four specific times of the year. Do we have a term for "a structure that is built to focus on the angle of the sun at specific times of the year", whether Stonehenge or this house or Isambard Kingdom Brunel's Box Tunnel? Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article. I just can't recall the title now. F (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't offhand think of (or find) a specific name for this kind of structure, but if you haven't already seen it you might be interested in our article on Archaeoastronomy which mentions many such buildings, erections and other constructions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We also have an article about modern buildings which align with astronomical objects. F (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Manhattanhenge being one such event. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical Elected positions in Imperial China

Were there any Elected positions in the history of Imperial China before 1911? --Gary123 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Six degrees of separation

Hi. I wasn't sure whether to ask this in the humanities, science, mathematics, language or miscellaneous desk, so I'll ask it here. How long on a statistically viable average time would it take for an individual person to communicate with every person that he or she knows, so that these people communicate with all the people they know or can contact, up to a point where ≥75% of the world population has been communicated to? In this case, communication can consist of verbal communication, a phone call, online chat, participation in an online community, email, news broadcasting, public speaking, public displays of something, intercom, playing an instrument, or simply making eye contact. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Today, I guess, not that long for the internet-viewing world. But to get to over 75% of the world's population would be very hard. I was thinking upload a video on YouTube that then goes viral. That's pretty fast. Or chain spam emails. Or via a virus that streams a video of you. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course this isn't a random network though--not all people are connected to the same extent; I'm sure there have been studies done on this issue generally, although you can ask it dozens of different ways and get that many answers. As for the research that's actually been done on it, Six degrees of separation has some. The original idea comes from a Stanley Milgram article, and there's plenty of research that addresses it. Try a google scholar search for "six degrees of separation milgram". I found a lot. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

China pegs the dollar. Can America peg the yuan? What would happen?

So China is dragging its feet on floating the yuan, which they've pegged to the dollar and tightly control. Could America decide to simultaneously peg the dollar to the yuan at a different rate? What would happen? Has this ever happened before in history where two countries control currencies and demand different mutual rates? 61.189.63.157 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Think about it. China says it will give you 10 yuan for every dollar. The US says it will give you a dollar for a yuan. An enormous amount of dollars is flowing to China. A much more modest amount of Yuan flow to the US. I get rich. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The world would implode.

Pegging two currencies together recursively is absurd, someone would try to game the other. That said, as a monetary experiment, it's an interesting question.

Stephan is right: that sort of imbalance is absurd and would never persist for long. That's what arbitrage is about. However, assuming a more nuanced question, here are some very very basic thoughts.

The yaun is pegged because China sets an exchange rate. Exchange rates are dictated by market forces, however monetary policy is set by nation states. For the Dollar it's the U.S., for the Pound it's the U.K., and for the Euro it's the E.U. (I think). Pegged currencies are classical; fiat currency is a modern development.

Two currencies that moved exactly in sync would be indistinguishable. However, if the question is about the interim, or what would happen with a Chinese central bank, I can't answer. I'll leave it up to those with advanced economics degrees. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

@Stephan -- my unstated assumption was that if our hypothetical US chose to take this extreme measure, they would also surely announce mechanisms to strongly deter other parties from honoring China's version of the exchange rate. 61.189.63.157 (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How would they do that? China is not propping its currency up by artificially restricting exchange (as eastern block countries tried to do during the cold war era), they are keeping it artificially low by selling Yuan for dollars (or Euros) at a better rate than we would expect in a free market. For me to become rich, it's enough that the exchange rates offered by both countries differ. I can exchange dollars for Yuan in China, and Yuan for dollars wherever the US mandated exchange rate is honoured, i.e. at least in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the perversity described above (someone would just cycle money endlessly through the two countries for extreme profits), in pegging a major exchange rate in this way the US would lose some ability to control its own money supply (and therefore combat inflation and stabilise the economy with monetary policy). See impossible trinity.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way that this could ever work is if the two countries pegged currencies in concert — if the USA agreed to give $1 for 10 yuan, and the PRC agreed to give 10 yuan for $1. That's vaguely how the euro works, if I understand rightly; each country pegged its currency to the euro before transitioning to it, so effectively each eurozone currency was pegged to all others for a short time. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so short a time. Fist the European Monetary System defined certain target exchange rate bands, and cooperated on interventions to maintain those rates. Then the European Currency Unit was introduced. Later, this became the Euro, which first was used for banking transactions and eventually also replaced the individual cash supplies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

are there any aspie politicians?

who held national level office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.12 (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

None are mentioned on our list of people on the autism spectrum. The article on Historical figures sometimes considered autistic mentions a few, such as Éamon de Valera, Adolf Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, or Enoch Powell, but this looks highly speculative. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Charismatic and manipulative are not typical aspie traits, so I doubt Hitler qualifies. Edison (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that alot of people have been jumping on theband wagon lately, eith pegging themselves, their children or famous people as eith Autistic, dislexsic (lol) or gay, I have nothing against these famous people, or other groups, but come on people, Hitler, Autistic, WTF?

Looking for a Russian poem

A while back I heard a short Russian poem which I now cannot find, despite various keyword searches. Here is what I remember:

• It was written by a Soviet poet. I'm quite sure the poet was male, and I'm quite sure he was Russian.
• It was written during or shortly after World War II.
• It is a rather short patriotic poem.
• It is about burying a simple soldier, without fancy fanfare.
• The image still lingering in my memory is that of the entire globe being the soldier's mausoleum.

Does this ring any bells? Thanks in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sergey Orlov, (1921-1977) - Его зарыли в шар земной (1944) more (in Russian) russian wikipedia. The guy was a real tank soldier and just recovered after burns when he wrote it. His beard hides thes burns. East of Borschov (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"The entire globe being the soldier's mausoleum" rings a bell: Pericles' speech in Thucydides: "For the whole earth is the tomb of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men". Tinfoilcat (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Spot on, dear East of Borschov, this is the exact poet (no article on en:wikipedia, yet) and poem. Thank you so much! And thank you too, Tinfoilcat, for referring the image all the way back to antiquity. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

architects

Technically not homework, I need help with my coursework, which is completely different. Well, actually it's not the work itself I'm finding difficult, I am sure I can do that quite easily, instead I am having trouble choosing what work to do. Basically I have to write an essay on almost any topic of architecture, about how a building, or an architect, or a style addresses a particular issue, any issue, equality, different senses, freedom, sustainability, the representation of power or trust or democracy, whatever I want, and I simply have no idea. Having only been studying the subject for a little while, it isn't something I know much about, and I find it difficult to conduct research into a subject i don't know, so what would be really nice would be if someone could suggest a particular building or architect that I could research and write about, narrowing down slightly the area I would have to study. In particular I would like to write about a famous architect that has attempted to design buildings for ordinary people without trying to follow any particular ideals, or trying to be dramatic and modern and show off their new designs, if such a person exists. Could someone possibly help, I only have a few days to do this, and I promise next time I will spend a lot longer doing my own research.

148.197.114.158 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Samuel Mockbee, who made a name for working with the vernacular architecture of the rural southern United States, dealing with issues of social responsibility. For broader applications, the field of urban design is much richer with discussions concerning power, trust, democracy and such, since the way towns and cities are planned has a much more evident influence on, and is influenced by, the political environment. The Bauhaus and the entire Modernist movement of the time would be a fertile area, as would the work of Le Corbusier and specifically his Voisin plan, as well as the Unité d'Habitation. Frank Lloyd Wright had similar leanings, at times. I have a book on his Marin County Civic Center whose title is The Architecture of Democracy, discussing how Wright incorporated his ideas of governance into the work. Acroterion _(talk) 11:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest Wright myself, particuarly his Usonian work. In the United Kingdom, you could go for the "love-it-or-hate-it" Brutalist work seen in so many council estates and other urban residences, which eschewed "showy" and "frilly" in an attempt to push towards a more socialist ideal. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mockbee would be the most modest of the bunch - Wright, Corb or Gropius could hardly be described as modest - visionary or socially active design usually isn't compatible with self effacement. A counter-example might be Pruitt-Igoe, a prototype of high-rise low-income housing, designed, ironically, by Minoru Yamasaki. The work of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in the UK might be worth a look as well, since you appear to be in that part of the world. As GeeJo observes, they were in the forefront of Brutalism. The whole New Towns movement in the UK is relevant. Acroterion _(talk) 11:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Buckminster Fuller could be worth a look too. Acroterion _(talk) 11:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a Model village as built by philathropist or socially responsible industrialists is an easy one to quickly get info on. (You could practically just copy the wikipedia page word for word :) )87.102.18.191 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

From a less sociological/more technological point of view "bridge design" is an easy one to quickly get info on.. How different types and styles of bridge are used for different lengths of span, as well as the history of it. Google books etc should give plent via a search for "bridge engineering" etc.87.102.18.191 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

An alternative would be to browse Category:Architecture until you see something you like and write about that, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Architecture has images to browse which might be quicker.87.102.18.191 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

what do you call political views

that merge green ideology with centre-right conservatism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.12 (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few Google hits for "Conservative Conservationist". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on this: Green conservatism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is the Ecological Democratic Party in Germany, that would fit that description. --Soman (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Name this unhappy fellow...

Heard it on the radio a few days ago. He was French. A writer or an artist. He was so obsessed with suicide that he carried a noose with him all the time. And he did, in fact, hanged himself on a lamppost in Paris. My first googlehit would be Gerard de Nerval (born May 22), but wikipedia article differs a bit with the radio story. Could anyone else fit the description? East of Borschov (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out Category:Writers who committed suicide. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris Burden, an American, comes to mind. I don't think he is considered suicidal, but some of his artwork seems to involve danger. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My theory on the meaning of life

Sorry to bring up such a "full on" topic. I was wondering if there are any philosophers who agree with my theory on the convoluted topic that is the meaning of life. I believe that God did indeed create the world and and humanity and all life on the planet. However, his master plan of an all pervading harmony on earth was cut short by Adam and Eve taking a bite from that pesky apple and of course the events after that which revealed humanity's "wickedness" to each other. Over a course of time and after observing man's inhumanity and disregard for God's work, I think God realised that he'd made a mistake by creating everything, granted humanity free will and made it our destiny to destroy ourselves and the earth and thereby rectify his mistake. Sorry to sound so morbid but I just wondered if there are others who share this theory and if, in your opinions, it stands up to objective scrutiny. --Thanks, Hadseys 18:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you add a distinction between the creator god and the "real" god behind it all, you got something akin to certain variations of gnosticism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe in God as a Supreme Being and Creator, but that He is indifferent to mankind and our collective plight.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A God who "made it our destiny to destroy ourselves" would be a rather Olympian kind of God. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic for discussion is the raw material for a novel, to be crafted in accordance with a writer's skills and inclination. What all of us are doing is writing that novel. It is a multi-input literary work that will probably be either awesome or awful whenever it is considered to be a finished product. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes it sound like we're attempting to rewrite the Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there are not others who agree with this, in part, or in whole. It seems as if there are more interpretations of scripture than there are followers of it (if you even based your assumptions from scripture). Does it stand up to objective scrutiny? Well, religion is very subjective. I don't think that there is any way that one person can determine that your views are more or less valid than another (though people try all the time). All they can determine is that they don't agree with your views, and that you don't agree with theirs. Falconus^{p t c} 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You will lose a rather large proportion of classical and contemporary philosophers, myself included, with the phrase "God did indeed create the world". Anything that follows from that would be deemed specious and unsatisfactory in any worldview that does not a priori grant the existence of a Creator God.Vranak (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deism is, roughly put, the notion that God created the world but doesn't intervene in its current state of affairs. Gabbe (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people believe(d) that the present world is actually Hell, which seems similar to the OPs idea. Perhaps there is a word and an article that describes this notion. As someone who does not believe in the supernatural, then this is at best amusing nonsense. 92.28.255.202 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is Hell is other people. Vranak (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The more standard belief is that earth is wicked and that heaven is perfect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Countered by Nietzsche's idea of a perfectly 'boring' heaven. Vranak (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So is the Star Wars saga. :) The OP raises an interesting idea. When God destroyed humanity by flooding the earth, afterwards He promised Noah that He would never again destroy humanity. (Let's not even get into the issue of how the omniscient God didn't see all this coming.) Ah, but He didn't say He wouldn't give man the means to figure out how to destroy himself. Ya gotta hand it to God for craftiness: He wasn't born yesterday. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what he promised. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/8-21.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Millionaires in the UK cabinet

How many members of the current UK cabinet are millionaires? Artie&Wanda (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to today's Mail on Sunday, 23. (Of course, you have to remember many of them live in homes around London, of the 4-5 bedroom type that sell for £500-£750,000, and this contributes to their "millionaire" status, but doesn't necessarily mean they all live like people we think of as "millionaires".) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that the number of Cabinet ministers is limited by statute to 22, that seems highly unlikely. Given that it was published in the Mail on Sunday, it also seems highly unlikely! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 09:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - language hasn't quite kept up with inflation. Being a millionaire doesn't make you that rich these days. Lots of people reach retirement with a nice house, a big pension pot and maybe a holiday home and flashy car. It isn't hard for the values of those to add up to more than a million pounds. That certainly makes you one of the wealthy, but not exceptionally rich. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The houses do not have to be 4-5 bedrooms. According to rightmove dot co dot uk, in London there are 281 houses with three bedrooms for sale at over a million pounds, 71 with two bedrooms, and nine with only one bedroom. Its depressing to see the ugly terraced tatt that even a million buys you in London. And these millionaires - is that net or gross?

I recall some study from a few years back which said you need at least £3.5million to live a millionaire lifestyle. 92.28.255.202 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

They are definitely net. It is completely meaningless to talk about gross millionaires. Property prices are determined largely by the location rather than the quality of the property. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not meaningless at all. The ability to raise finance (resulting to high gross and lower net assets) itself is a status symbol. Surely, the subprime craze made housing loans available even to people of modest means, but those days seem to be gone, and anyway it was limited to the U.S. market. In less sophisticated places a person can be well past the million-dollar mark, net and gross, and don't qualify even for a car loan. East of Borschov (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable estimate based on the MoS figures as to lifestyle (and not a particularly flash one) would be around 12, which brings you down to Nick Clegg. By comparison #13 is David Willetts, who owns a £300,000 house in Hampshire, a £1.3 million London home and a buy-to-let property. Th is gives him a "wealth" of £1.9 million, but based on that I don't think it's champagne dinners, caviar and house-staff. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Adulterous princess imprisoned

I have read the article here about the unfatiful Crown Princess of Prussia, Duchess Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and I wonder about something. She was divorced because of her adultary. Then she was put in prison for the rest of her life as a prisoner of state. But why was she imprisoned? She was divorced, so she should have no further importance for the state. It should have made no difference if they let her free and let her continue to have lovers. Why was it considered necessary to put her in prison? What was the reason for it? --85.226.40.118 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If the wife of the king (or heir to the throne) is unfaithful, it is usually considered treason. It's a betrayal of and an insult to the monarchy. They couldn't let something like that go unpunished or it would make the monarchy look weak. --Tango (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And there is a school of thought that suggests that punishment is for the 'good of the punished'. A little hard to swallow I know, but there is a great history of personal abnegation (self-imposed or otherwise), penance, and severe restrictions on personal freedom before... shall we say, the 20th century? Vranak (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Adultery in a queen consort or heir to the throne was legally an act of High Treason as it jeopardised the legitimate succession. In 16th century England it was punishable by execution. See Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying Isaac Asimov short story

I wonder if anyone can help me identify a short story, which I am almost positive is by Isaac Asimov (though maybe, maybe, maybe it could be by Robert Heinlein or Kurt Vonnegut). It is a marooned-in-space type story. The main characters (about three) are near Mars and are quickly losing oxygen (or something else essential). Because of orbits and so on, even though Earth and Mars are close planets, at the wrong time they could be on opposite sides of the solar system, so they have to get to a specific orbital point at a specific time. The story goes into some depth about the details of Earth and Mars orbits. The result is that one of the characters must sacrifice himself so there is enough oxygen for the rest to survive.

It is NOT "Marooned off Vesta." Someone without a doubt dies to save the others. Any ideas? zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The end result sounds a lot like The Cold Equations, though the rest of the setup doesn't. That article notes a couple of similar predecessor stories, one of which features three characters. I'll note, for what it's worth, that a detailed discussion of Earth/Mars orbital mechanics doesn't sound much like Vonnegut or Asimov's fiction to me (and I'm not familiar enough with Heinlein's to judge that). — Lomn 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, not *that* detailed. Asimov can just be a little dry to me at times, and it struck me like that. Probably just a couple lines. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind: it wasn't Asimov (or Vonnegut or Heinlein), and it wasn't even Mars. The story I was thinking of is Breaking Strain by Arthur C. Clarke. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Church attire

Does anyone know the name of the clothing that these choristers are wearing: [29] (the young men singing in red and white)? Thanks, Blurpeace 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I consulted a reliable Church Lady, who advised me that the innermost visible white garment, with the lace collar is likely an alb. The red garment is probably a cassock. The white "angel" garment is a cotta. Edison (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's time for me to come out as a former choirboy. I once wore the exact same choir uniform that you see in the video. The lace collar is not an alb, and it's not really made of lace. More like cotton. We called it a "ruffle". I guess you could call it a "ruffled collar". That's the first thing that goes on. Over that goes the long red robe, known as a cassock. On top of the cassock, the white frock-like thing is called a surplice. At least one of the choirboys is wearing a ribbon and a medal. The color of the ribbon and the type of the medal are indications of the choirboys' rank. This is all more or less standardized for Anglican churches by the Royal School of Church Music. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And six little Singing-boys, - dear little souls! In nice clean faces, and nice white stoles... DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who holds that costume near and dear is better off not having seen Paranoiac (1963 film). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any one all encompassing name for the garbs, or does one have to refer to the attire generally (e.g., chorister clothing)? Amendment: also, could you please explain choir "rank"? Do the ranks lead to some form of graduation, or higher position? What is the purpose of ranking in Anglican choirs? Blurpeace 01:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would they fall under the category of vestments, or perhaps that term is limited to the garb of ordained clergy. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

May 24

Anthony Hayward BP CEO

Hello, I inquire as to Tony Hayward's actual birth date. I see that Wikipedia has only recently added his date of birth as 21st May 1957. As the media is full of stories re it being his 54th birth day, I am seeking the actual date if possible and if it can be verified as the 20th or 21st; 1957 or 1956? Is it also possible to know if he has a middle Christian name? a. Anthony Hayward born 21st May 1957 b. Anthony (*) Hayward born 21st May 1957 c. Anthony Hayward born 21st May 1956 d. Anthony (*) Hayward born 21st May 1956

Thanking you so much in advance.

Warm regards Peter Vaughan - New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.88.123 (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agnate of the Stewart line

Is there anymore legitimate male-line descendant of Robert II of Scotland or, if not, any legitimate male-line descendant of his ancestors, the High Stewards of Scotland? Basically if Scotland had practice the Salic law of succesion, who would the King of Scotland be now (excluding the fact about England)? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a tenant who claimed to be descended from the House of Stewart but he worked as a janitor and had been married to a black women in NYC and had a daughter and was then divorced according to him. 71.100.3.228 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

...and what if Salic Law had been applied in China?--Wetman (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

QEIILS, see Wars of Scottish independence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Schools of law

By schools of law I mean concept of law one relates to or references. For instance, I know a judge who rejects all notions and concepts of law later than about 200 AD. Other judges have a complete modernistic view which means they uphold laws and legal principles passed or formulated within the last week. What time periods demarcate each period of legal thinking a judge might subscribe to? 71.100.3.228 (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated than just "years of demarcation". Perhaps you could start with the articles in Category:Theories of law? Gabbe (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not be more complicated since many humanities topics such as politics are demarcated by time periods. In fact I recall a number of books on Philosophy by I think Will Durant entitled Age of Reason and Age of Faith and the Story of Philosophy. Certainly if their are ages in philosophy there must be ages in law. 71.100.3.228 (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe start reading at jurisprudence? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

necklace for men

An Italian teenage boy wearing a thin gold chain with zodiac pendant

what is the popularity of necklace among men in urban areas in the us and in europe? --Jobopok (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see (Germany, also lived in Italy, Austria, UK), rare, but not very rare. Nobody would think it "weird" or notice it in particular. Most of the ones I see are simple affairs, though - a small pendant or cross on a thin chain or even leather string. I got one or two as gifts over my lifetime, but rarely if ever wore them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been living in Italy for years, and most men as well as teenage boys wear them. While the traditional necklace is as Stephan Schulz correctly describes: a gold chain with a crucifix, many are now funkier and clunkier. Silver, leather and plastic are now preferred to gold.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is anywhere that you could find evidence of it, but in my experience silver and fairly simple are not unusual in the UK, when I've been in the US on business it's probably been a little less but not distinctively so.

It's difficult to tell in a business environment though when most men wear ties so the collar is closed.

More bling is lot more common amongst the more chav segments though.

ALR (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Offshore accounts

How does the US know if you have offshore accounts and how do they know if you earn money that is outside of the US? Are earnings from offshore accounts reported to the IRS? Also, if you don't pay taxes on income earned from offshore accounts, what can the IRS do to recover those taxes since the account is outside of their jurisdiction? Also, if I am a resident of a foreign nation, what can the country I am a citizen of do? Count Westfall (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The US, and other nations, have bilateral agreements on taxation and, to some degrees, on the exchange of banking information. I don't think they get actively informed if you open an account, but if the IRS notices a discrepancy between your income, wealth, and lifestyle, they may become suspicious and inquire. If they find out that you transfer a million a month to Grand Cayman, they will become very suspicious. If the IRS determines that you owe them, it can recover assets from wherever the US has jurisdiction. So if they cannot touch your offshore account, they can grab your house in Palo Alto instead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Rain musical contraption

Hello all,

I was wondering about the contraption shown here : http://www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/others/rain.htm Is it really, as I assume it is, a contraption/musical instrument that makes sound when rain falls on it ? If yes, how is it named ?

Thanks in advance, --Alþykkr (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)