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 27

Jew gold

In one of the South Park episodes Cartman asks Kyle to hand out his "jew gold". Kyle denies it at first, then he gives him a decoy bag filled with rocks, but finally gives him a bag filled with gold which hung around his neck. Now I know South Park is a satirical show, but once I asked, semi-seriously, a friend of mine, who is a Jew, about it, and he changed the subject rather quickly, without answering the question. Also I remember that an old neighbor of mine, who spent some time in the concentration camp, told me once that he was surprise when some of his friends, who were Jews, came to the camp, they had huge amounts of gold hidden on their body. Since I don’t know any other Jews, could you tell me if its true that all Jews (or most of them) have such bags on them at all times? And don’t worry, I’m not planning to rob any Jews, I just find it interesting, that not many people know about it, if it’s true. Thanks. 92.244.144.224 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the Hanukkah gelt? --Jayron32 00:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is probably a reference to many Jews being rich bankers. --Tango (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No. There's no such thing as "Jew gold." (I am Jewish and I assure you that I have no gold on me right now.) It's an anti-Semitic trope that Jews hoard wealth. It's not that surprising that Jews arriving at concentration camps would bring gold with them. It would make sense to take any gold you have, usually in jewelry form, because it may be useful to buy things when you don't know where you're going or to bribe officials or guards as part of an escape plan. It didn't help most Holocaust victims because they were stripped of their possessions upon arriving at the camps.

Jews throughout history have often had to flee their homes on a moment's notice and having gold as a backup plan makes sense in such situations. I knew a Holocaust survivor who from his traumatic experience learned to keep several hundred dollars in cash on him at all times just in case he had to buy a plane ticket in a hurry. —D. Monack ^talk 01:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was about to say. Carrying gold around today?... What for? A few grand make sense, but could you picture a Jew (for additional comical effect we are going to assume this is an orthodox Jew, complete with hat and beard) going to the airport and saying "I need to leave the country quick, a ticket please, here are 100 ducats"? No, the only place where all Jews have gold with them is antisemitic stories and stories using such stereotypes, such as Walter Scott's Ivanhoe.--Alþykkr (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if Jewish people (or anyone) realy did carry around large amounts of gold regularly, you can be assured that even if you don't want to, there would be plenty of people who would want to rob them who would know about it, so it wouldn't be such a secret. And anyway most of them wouldn't be carrying it unless they somehow had unlimited supplies because they likely would have already had it stolen. So it's sort of a self defeating thing. Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

From my brief search of the internet (type "Jew Gold" into your favorite search engine), it appears that the South Park episode started the idea. Urban dictionary has 6(!) definitions, all essentially the same, and all appearing to originate from the South Park episode. The South Park reference undoubtedly comes from the stereotype that Jews are rich and greedy (and indeed, there are many prominent, wealthy Jews. It would be interesting to compare the percentage of rich Jews vs. rich others in the west to see how accurate the stereotype is). Buddy431 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that, for once, WikiAnswers has a response far superior to anything posted here. See this link. Buddy431 (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Awesome. Full disclosure: I must admit that, on the advice of Decision Moose, I own a substantial stake in the GLD exchange-traded fund in an IRA. I guess that could count as my "Jew gold" but I can't spend it until I'm 59½ without a substantial penalty. Those damn, anti-Semitic IRA withdrawal rules. —D. Monack ^talk 07:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Indeed a search on usenet finds most references from before the episode [1] are about gold that belonged to Jewish people that was stolen during WW2 and the holocaust Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A possible origin for the myth might be diamonds. As this site claims, "During the Inquisition, diamonds proved to be an invaluable asset for the Jews. Unlike almost any other asset, they were small enough to be concealed on the body; and they were also instantly redeemable for money in any country in Europe." TastyCakes (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also in many parts of medieval Europe, Jews were prohibited by law from many trades, so finance and trading in precious metals were some of the few ways that they could make a living. See Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages)#Restrictions to marginal occupations (tax collecting, moneylending, etc.). Alansplodge (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your friend probably changed the subject quickly because he was insulted but didn't want to show it. APL (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a myth. Diamonds sewn into the hems of clothing on the other hand are a transportable and hard-to-detect form of wealth.Edison (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

From Marathon Man (film), quote: Szell is in America to sell off his large cache of diamonds, which he had taken from Jews he had exterminated at Auschwitz . 195.35.160.133 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Martin.

3D movie impact?

Would 3D movies become as common as talkies and color film? F (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think studios would like that to happen because 3D movies are not so easily pirated, but I doubt it. The technology has been around for ages, but it never really took off. Why would that happen now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

-Why would it happen now? Actually, it is happening now to some degree. High profile releases such as Avatar (2009 film) and Alice in Wonderland (2010 film), among others are presented in 3D. There seems to a current trend for more movies to be this way. 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

An article I read recently claimed that the old 3D films were so awful it turned people off 3D. The advent of 3D films that are actually good might revive it. I'm reminded of the video game crash of 1983 - ask people around that time and they'd have said video games were a passing fad that wouldn't take off. And now... Vimescarrot (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland wasn't true 3d. Well, at least the live action portions were not. It's the modern equivalent of colorizing a black and white film. There were lots of noticeable artifacts. I hope that these "fake 3d" films that are advertised as real 3d don't sour public opinion of 3d. Frankly I'm surprised that the studios aren't concerned about this. APL (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

How should we know? Anything could happen.APL (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

These days, a large amount of the income for the movie industry comes from DVD (and Blu-ray) sales, so 3D films may not truly take off until we have good quality, affordable 3D TVs in homes (of course, there is a catch-22 there, but the current 3D films might be just enough to kickstart the 3D TV industry). --Tango (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming discussionary, I'd suggest that one obstacle to 3D films becoming ubiquitous is that most if not all systems require the wearing of special spectacles: this is often (depending on the designs) impractical for the sizeable proportion of the potential audience (such as myself) who already have to wear sight-correcting spectacles and cannot or prefer not to undergo corrective surgery or use contact lenses. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The 3D glasses are usually designed to fit over other glasses - do they not do so? --Tango (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

They do; the new 3D glasses fit perfectly well over even my coke-bottle lenses. The new glasses are are not only large enough to fit over prescription eyewear, they're also sturdy enough to sit there without constantly requiring adjustment/support. Much better than those horrid blue/red dealies. Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides looking goofy, most modern 3d glasses, (both passive ones for the the RealD theaters, and the active ones for TVs.) work fine with prescription glasses.

red/blue glasses are also available in that format, but I've never heard of anyone actually bothering to use them. (I've got a pair of red/blue clip-ons, but mostly for their comedy effect, I rarely use them to actually see 3d.) APL (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that very few homes have 3D televisions is a major factor in why theaters are adopting 3D. Home video has emerged as the major competitor to the cineplexes and they need to differentiate themselves to compete. Why pay $10 to see a movie in the theaters when you can wait a few months and watch the Netflix rental at home on your Bluray disc player and your big, 1080p TV without the overpriced popcorn or some yahoo talking through the movie? One reason Avatar was such a huge success is that moviegoers knew that if they wanted to see all the technical wizardry, they'd have to go see it in 3D at the theater. The theaters not only get the increased audience, but can also charge a premium for the 3D tickets. —D. Monack ^talk 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The main reason for Avatar's success, though, was that it was the first of its kind. I doubt any other films made with the same technology will do as well. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

??? I mean, it was first of its kind for certain production effects (which matters if you are a director), but it was certainly not even close to being the first 3D CGI film or anything like that. People didn't go to Avatar because it was first, they went because it was pretty and hyped and was carefully engineered (by a great master of such engineering) to appeal to a wide variety of audiences fairly effectively. It was well-hyped and well-executed, but in terms of its technology, I don't think the average viewer really could appreciate the novelty other than the fact that it was pretty. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What other films have used a combination of live action and CGI, combining the two with motion capture? --Tango (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other side, Roger Ebert has a lot to say about why 3D movies suck. —D. Monack ^talk 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm biased because I use 3D displays every day, I still maintain that that article is very sloppily written. He claims that 'depth of field' effects are impossible in 3d, even though he's seen Avatar. Throughout the article he confuses real in-camera 3d with fake post-production 3d even though he knows the difference. His discussion on ticket prices seems to have no relation to reality. And he relies far too heavily on the sentimental "we didn't have this in the olden days" arguments that would work just as well if he were ranting against color or sound. APL (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other things, where I live, the surcharges he talks about are indeed real and indeed that ridiculously expensive. I actually won't be bothered to see things in 3D anytime soon unless it is immensely important to the movie presentation itself, because I don't find the effect terribly compelling (I get used to it pretty quickly) and I can't afford to up my total ticket prices just for that. The difference between two 3D tickets and two 2D tickets is the price of a third ticket, at my local megaplex. A lot of money to spend in a tight economy, especially if the effects are subtle. (And if they aren't subtle—like the ones that whack you in the face—then I'm not happy either.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Really. This must vary quite a bit by region. The couple of places around here where I go the surcharge is invariably one dollar per ticket.

I'll cheerfully admit that I was using only personal experience and not hard data in that part of my criticism of Ebert's article. APL (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This episode of NPR's Science Friday goes into a lot of detail about 3D movies, including the technical and artistic aspects, the pros and cons of different technologies, the significant number of people who find it unpleasant, different home (disk and broadcast) 3d technologies, and talks about whether it's a fad or whether it's here to stay. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

3D movies also carry the risk of directly causing pregnancy which much have some of an impact [2] Nil Einne (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Best Party (Iceland) joke party?

Would Besti flokkurinn be classified as a joke party? F (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be a matter of opinion, but the editors of List of frivolous political parties have classified it so. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Then again, perhaps not. Gabbe (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Coroners Court of Victoria and changes to law

Someone told me that in the past, certain findings from the Coroners Court of Victoria have driven change in the law. I was unable to find any specific examples. Could someone hint me in the right direction? I can understand mainstream courts (Magistrates, County, Supreme) are able to 'change' law by setting Precedent, but how can a court that can't actually make rulings change law? — Deon^talk 09:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a pure guess, Deon. The Prime Minister of Australia, Harold Holt, disappeared while swimming on 17 December 1967. A massive but fruitless search of the sea was conducted for two days. On 19 December he was declared presumed dead, a necessary step before his commission as PM could be withdrawn by the Governor-General and a replacement PM sworn in. His term as Prime Minister officially continued until 19 December, even though it was widely considered most likely he had actually died on the 17th (hence, the office of Prime Minister was for two days occupied by a dead man, who was most likely shark food by that stage.) There was no mechanism in Victorian law at the time for reporting presumed or suspected deaths to the Victorian Coroner, hence Holt’s status remained “presumed dead”, with effect from 19 December 1967. This remained the case until 2005, when the law was changed. At that late stage, the Coroner was finally able to re-examine some old cases of presumed and suspected deaths, and returned a finding that Holt had indeed drowned on the day he disappeared, 17 December. See Harold Holt#Enquiries into Holt's disappearance for full details. I’m guessing that the Coroner had some role to play in having the law changed so that these sorts of cases could be investigated by the Coroner and brought to closure. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As a minor correction, although JackofOz probably knows this, our article says the law was changed in 1985. However it wasn't until 2003 that all pre 1985 cases were reopened and 2005 when he was declared dead (I presume because of the workload for the large number/161 of pre 1985 cases it took so long, perhaps one of the reasons no one did anything until 2003) Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "episcopal list"

A book on medieval history refres to "episcopal lists." These are also refered to in some articles on the WEB. What are these lists and what they enumerate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.218.162 (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

An episcopal list is a list of bishops, usually a chronological record of those who have occupied a particular see. Deor (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

They were very important for establishing orders of precedence, which could get very tricky when hundreds of bishops got together at a council. They were often also the only historical information about a particular place, and the only thing giving a sense of continuity between late antiquity and the later middle ages. And we have an article! See Notitiae Episcopatuum. 00:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Impregnable fortresses

Hello everyone, are there castles or fortresses that have been besieged but never been conquered by enemy armies ? I can't seem to find the information by searching. 130.79.160.112 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome is one notable fortress that comes immediately to mind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to answer Mont Saint-Michel, but it seems it was indeed conquered in the 6th or 7th century. However, one could argue that the Armorican stronghold was not the same fortress as the one that later appeared in connection with the monastery during the Middle Ages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

+besieged +"never conquered" brought up quite a few for me. The first hits are Runneburg Castle in Germany (claim here) and Sparrenberg Castle in Germany (claim here). Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Krak des Chevaliers was known as an impenetrable fortress. It was beseiged and not defeated though ultimately it was turned over to a group of attackers because the defenders were given a fake letter from their commander ordering them to do so. The fortified city of Carcassonne also comes to mind. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Constantinople was impregnable, and although it was conquered twice, it was not through brute force against the walls, but by accident or trickery. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It had thousand year old walls which offered no defense against artillery, and it was conquered by superior force. In the face of inevitable doom, defections and "trickery" are common. Claiming "The other side cheated!" does not lessen a defeat. It is not a game of football. Edison (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it was the 11th century part that fell down; see Fall of Constantinople. As to whether a gate was left open, opinion is divided. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all folks ! Have a nice day. 130.79.160.112 (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jaikie Galt real-life antecedent in John Buchan book

I just found the article James Galt, about the Scottish football player (active 1906-1914). Was the character Jaikie Galt in John Buchan's novel Castle Gay (published in 1930 but set earlier, around 1923) named after him, or are the names and professions just a coincidence? This question applies to Scotland and literature in English. It's not homework. Thanks. 70.24.113.45 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but the novel Martin Eden, by Jack London, has a story within a story which has a character named Wiki-Wiki. Our article about the novel has a quotation about the character, which concludes: "It is real. It is true. And I must write life as I see it." So the character may have been part of the inspiration of Wikipedia ;-). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of you to take the time to write something, but what you wrote has nothing to do with Galt, Buchan or Castle Gay. Can anyone answer my question? 70.24.113.45 (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not read Castle Gay yet, but I do like Buchan. I would suspect that he may have drawn on real characters for inspiration - indeed, much of The 39 Steps and Greenmantle was drawn from his intelligence work. I too would appreciate a good answer to your very good question.

That the real-life Association Football player's name and/or character inspired those of the fictional Rugby Football player in Castle Gay (free text available here) seems quite plausible, but might well be impossible to prove or disprove unless Buchan himself made written reference to the fact: if he did it might not be contained in a published work by himself or by a biographer or critic, but might be found in his papers which appear to be held here.

It might be worthwhile (and more interesting for you than if one of us does it for you) if you were to pursue the question with The John Buchan Society whose website is here. Another possible avenue of investigation might be reviews of the book in Scottish newspapers and literary magazines of the period, which might be more likely to comment on the coincidence than those from outwith Scotland. Large Scottish public libraries should have bound or microfilmed archives of such publications.

Note that Castle Gay (1930) is the second of the three 'Dickson McCunn' books, which commenced with Huntingtower (1922) and concluded with The House of the Four Winds (1935): the character Jaikie Galt was apparently introduced in Huntingtower. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive answer. It's very good of you. I'm not in Scotland, so those archives are out, but the one in Kingston and the website are definite leads. Thank you again. I'm very happy to receive an answer. P.S. You are right that the character appears in all three books; it was in Castle Gay that his surname was mentioned for the first time, as well as his (rugby) football playing. 70.31.38.176 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Petersburg

I remember seeing a documentary a number of years ago concerning how St. Petersburg was build on swamp land and so was interested to day to read more about this and the processes involved, however the above mentioned article does not mention this at all, can some one please illuminate this for me, is it true, and what were the prosseses involved. Further to this, the article mentions that no bridges were allowed to be build over the river Neva until 1850, but does not mention why, please help with this. Finally, the article also mentions that there was a prohibition on the spacing of buildings, please can this too be expanded upon for me, I have never been to Russia (though I would sorely love to) but it would appear in pictures I have seen that the buildings are generally very well spaced and far from each other, is this the case in reality? What was this prohibition the article mentions, are how was it enforced, what were the regulation and when, why and was it stopped. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I visited St. Petersburg a few years ago. I don't remember why they didn't build bridges over the Neva (possibly for aesthetic reasons, though practical ones are possible). Canals were dug by hand (many serfs died in the process) and the structural layout of the city was, if I recall correctly, designed to minimize the amount of unseen back alley space where subversive activities could be planned. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall that Peter the Great hired Dutch engineers to help plan the drainage of the wetlands on which the city was built. Building canals helps to lower the water table, so that was obviously part of the plan. (The pattern of concentric canals on the left bank of the Neva is reminiscent of Amsterdam.) See this article. As for why bridges were not built over the Neva, this is speculative, but the Neva is a major navigable waterway connecting the Baltic Sea with Lake Ladoga. It seems plausible that before 1850 it was more important to allow passage upriver to (tall-masted) sailing ships than to bridge the river for foot and wagon traffic. Marco polo (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of the swampy location, all of the large buildings in St. Petersburg were constructed on timber piles. Deor (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yami no Waru

This is a question about Japanese mythology. I'm seeking informations about Yami no Waru. It should be something like a Shinto Kami, but that's everything I was able to find about it. --151.51.5.254 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did you hear about it? The name seems to simply translate into The Bad Guy of the Dark, in what appears to be decisively modern Japanese. Are you sure this is not just an invention for a modern story-telling medium? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could request a translation in to kanji (?) on the language desk - then use search to look for pages in japanese (maybe add an additional term like 'shrine' or 'shinto' to get more relevant results) - and then use google translate or babelfish to convert the pages into english - (I've assumed that there will be pages on this in japanese) 77.86.47.199 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A city in Iraq

A friend of my was recently shipped out to "poogie" Iraq. I've tried to find this place on a map but have been unsuccessful. I'm sure the spelling in wrong; I did try variations. Do you know of it? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.142.96 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that Arabic even has a 'p' sound in their alphabet, so I would guess it is a nickname of a military base or such? What branch of the military is your friend in? Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no place with a name remotely like this in this list of military facilities in Iraq. On the other hand, this site provides a number of slang definitions for poogie suggesting that the questioner or his friend may be playing an adolescent prank. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe military slang. In the Royal Navy, Portsmouth is known as "Pompey" and Devonport is "Oggie" ("oggie" also being naval slang for a Cornish pasty). Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk

In the first episode of The Tudors, the Duke of Buckingham calls Charles Brandon "son of a whore", which Brandon agrees with. Is there any historical truth concerning his mother's proclivities? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, our article has his mother as Elizabeth Bruyn, who is, according to here, daughter of Sir Henry Bruyn. So the official story is one of a noblewoman, but I can't comment on whether that's true or not. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really asking as to whether she was really a prostitute, but whether she might have had affairs. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance that in the episode (which I haven't seen), Buckingham intends the "whore" to refer to Brandon's father (who, as our article on him states, fathered several illegitimate children Oops, no, it was Brandon himself, not his father)? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tudors is not to be taken seriously as the events and people are sadly, shockingly lacking in historical accuracy. Did you notice Henry VIII was slim with black hair, and Brandon's wife was the widowed Queen of Portugal?!!!! I'm afraid that series was little more than a 16th century soap opera with writers too lazy to pick up a history book.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Henry VIII only gained that famous weight later in his life though. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In his youth, he had an athletic build, but in no way was he slim like Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. The entire series contained more historical inaccuracies than even Braveheart, which is saying alot!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

World War III

Is this a likely sequence of events for World War III?

1. North Korea declares war on South Korea.
2. America and Japan declare war on North Korea.
3. China declares war on South Korea, America, and Japan.
4. Iran declares war on Israel.
5. America declares war on Iran.
6. England, France, and Germany declare war on Iran and North Korea.

Allies: America, England, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, and South Korea

Axis: China, Iran, and North Korea

--207.160.233.153 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a World War III article; beyond that it's speculation, which isn't the business of the Wikipedia reference desk. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that article is locked, but it contains the verbless sentence "On 12–26 June 1999, Pristina International Airport over the Pristina Airport in Kosovo." Should be "Russian and NATO forces had a standoff over the Pristina International Airport in Kosovo." 81.131.39.118 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say - I fixed it. Someone had removed the section from a link, since the section no longer existed, and had accidentally removed the link text as well! --Tango (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job! Except now it links to the same Pristina Airport article twice in a row. I know, nobody's ever satisfied, etc. 213.122.35.20 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

People seem to forget that North and South Korea area already at war, since the Korean War never officially ended. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Text removed; discussion on the talk page. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

shared revenue

Many wiki type sites have found that user contributions have attracted a large number of viewers and for this reason have solicited and obtained advertising dollars. Hurrah's for capitalism! But most of these sites do not share revenue with contributors in evidence of the Communist claim that capitalism takes unfair advantage of contributors. Are there any such wiki type sites that do share advertising and/or other revenue with contributors? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If contributors want revenue, they'll vacate the sites that don't share revenue in favor of those that do. This will force sites that want to keep contributors to share revenue. If this flight does not happen, it is because contributors' desire to share the revenue is less strong than their desire to contribute. The great thing about capitalism is that it generates the right solution without the need for omnipotence and omniscience. If we had these powers, communism would work perfectly well. Wikiant (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you realize the extreme gap between the rich and the poor. Poor people who can get online and make a free contribution may not be able to start a meager wiki site of their own even as a group that would attract advertisers because they do not have the resources to get started as do the rich who can hire college trained and high priced artists and designers, etc. to provide a fancy dancy web site. Consequently the discrepancy in wealth favors the rich, as in the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. To quel the communist claim and evidence then that the rich live off the backs of the poor I don't think revenue sharing is too much to ask. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that the problem you just described has nothing to do with a gap between the rich and the poor. It has to do with a gap between those who are entrepreneurial and those who aren't. The point of financial markets is to bring together those who have ideas but no capital with those who have capital but no ideas. You might say that the poor don't have access to formal business training and so, again, the issue is a poor-rich gap. That, however, contradicts your statement that the poor "can get online." You don't need formal business training -- just inquisitiveness, intelligence, and a penchant for hard work. Wikiant (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The public library offers a way for anyone to get online but with such limited time and access they could never hope to develop a wiki of their own but only make contributions. These then are the people your entrepreneurs are living on like some companies that build employee turnover into their workforce model. They get enough turnover to keep then in caviar but share none with those doing the job. It is a common business technique that gives motive for such things as 9/11. Wonder if any of your entrepreneurs enjoyed being inside the World Trade Center when it came tumbling down which a little revenue sharing may not have supported? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe MyWikiBiz [3] which was founded by User:MyWikiBiz who was banned from wikipedia does something like this. It hasn't been particularly successful. The founder also runs for the wikimedia foundation board regularly, so far never winning. I would add that distributing 'revenue' could potentially be problematic from the viewpoint of WMFs non profit status, but I don't really know. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"So far never winning" is a very generous description of Gregory Koh's success (or lack thereof) in WMF board elections! --Tango (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about the MyWikiBiz or Koh. However, the type of revenue sharing I am suggesting applies only to for-profit wiki sites such as the Wikia site via advertizing. Non-profit entities like the Wikipedia are naturally excluded by virtue of Jimmy Wale's "antithetical" declaration. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

May 28

Nuclear Bombs

What are the good for anyways? Please think positive and say nothing. If you have good primar sources that would be great too. I am counting on you wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkspartan4121 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction --Nricardo (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thinking "positively": they can be very destructive weapons, they can dig big holes, can potentially power spaceships, could serve as nifty paperweights, can potentially affect whether or not people want to go to war in the first place, or, conversely, serve as a great casus belli. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not a plan was proposed and researched to determine whether power could be generated or an artillery shell launched by boring into the bedrock under a mountain, opening up a large cavity by nuclear bomb explosion and thereafter dropping bombs down the shaft to propel artillery shells or to use the escaping gasses to run gas piston or turbine generators. I saw one of the shaft doors that was closed from both sides by explosives after the artillery shell passed. The problem was that contamination could not be contained. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to PACER? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget their potential role in asteroid impact avoidance. Warofdreams talk 10:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, most Americans would say that they ended a rather large war with a certain island nation about 65 years ago with fewer casualties on the winning side then one might have anticipated without their use. Googlemeister (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And, quite possibly, fewer casualties on the losing side as well. Killing in the event of an invasion would have been spread around liberally. — Lomn 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably A LOT fewer casualties: estimated 400,000 to 800,000 US killed in an invasion against 5 to 10 million Japanese. See Operation Downfall#Estimated casualties. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Their invention was a Big Science project which had a number of positive side effects. APL (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it estimated that a million Americans would have likely been killed in an invasion of Japan? They were also considering drafting men over 35 years old as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Herbert Hoover estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 US fatalities. There were a number of estimates using different criterea; I gave the only one that compared US to Japanese. Follow the link on my last post for details. Part of the manpower issue was that troops who had fought in Europe were expecting to be demoblised. Alansplodge (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article. It does not mention that they had considered drafting in older men. My dad, who was born in 1904, always told me that had it not been for Hiroshima abrubtly ending the war, it is possible that he (along with others older than 35) might have been drafted in to replace the high casualty rate that the US Forces would have doubtlessly incurred had the invasion gone ahead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Hoover involved in the Pacific war? I thought that his role was relegated to the western front, and by August of 1945, why would he be making estimates about Operation Downfall? I don't know the answer, I just find that kind of questionable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to wade into this too much, but it's worth noting that historians are very divided as to the actual casualty estimates, towards the question of whether the Japanese would have surrendered without the bombs, whether an invasion would have been necessary, whether two bombs were specifically necessary, etc. It's all counterfactual, so who really knows, but accepting as gospel the Army/Navy estimates, especially when we know a lot more about the point of view of the Japanese leadership than they did then, is a bit too simple (and buying into a deliberately constructed narrative created by the U.S. military that was meant to justify the use of the bombs to an increasingly uneasy world). For a rather strong argument against the conventional/military wisdom, check out Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan (2005). (This is not the place for a debate, and I am not encouraging one to take one side or the other, but I am trying to make clear, in a way that the discussion above does not, that there are numerous sides one can take, and that people who have spent their lives researching this topic are no where near any kind of consensus.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

home or self schooling

Some universities grant doctorate degrees in recognition of work an individual has done which merits such a distinction at that level despite the jealous rage of students who claim the doctorate was not earned. Are there institutions which grant lesser degrees when an individual demonstrates and equal level of achievement even though their source of education may be partly or entirely from home or self schooling? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In earlier times, like the 19th century and earlier, an autodidact, a home schooled person, or someone educated only by a tutor might have written a brilliant dissertation, submitted it to a university or to a scholar at a university and been granted a doctorate, but today only diploma mills (unaccredited institutions which accept money for degrees) would consider such an action. It would likely anger the faculty and graduate students, and would deprive the school of tuition needed for expenses and to pay faculty, staff and administrators. Universities I am familiar with have minimum standards for time and credit hours as a student for an earned Masters or Doctorate to be awarded. Honorary degrees are a different matter, and are commonly given to rich or important people or celebrities of no particular academic attainment. Scholarship or brilliant writings by a self educated person, along with some recommendations and perhaps good scores on standardized tests might gain acceptance in a graduate school, perhaps on a provisional basis, without an undergraduate degree. There are "nontraditional" schools which might be less doctrinaire about requiring a bachelor's degree for admission to graduate school. The above is based on observation of the U.S. system only. Edison (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is also possible to gain entrance to graduate school based on work experience or credit hours or the like. My wife had a professor in graduate school who himself had a PhD and that was his only degree. He didn't graduate high school even; he'd been in law enforcement for like 20 years, and accrued enough credit hours by taking classes at night over the years to gain admittance into a criminal justice PhD program. There is, of course, a "standard track" that most students are expected to go through, but there will always be exceptions, and its ultimately up to the admissions officers at the school in question. --Jayron32 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like academagarchy to me. Suppose for instance that during the course of study major discoveries are taking place which do not find their way to the classroom. A student under this system is limited by time slots. This actually happened with the "new math" and can be seen today in the difference between researchers and new graduates in a field, especially some areas of electronics and computer science. Yet I know students who have the basic classroom knowledge but spend all of their time updating it and building on what they know with the advantage of not having fallen into the trap of relying on only what they have been taught and made to learn. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are also higher doctorates in some countries. E.g. [4] These are usually earned by contributions to one's field. However the title should give a clue, these are unlikely to be given to someone who doesn't already have a Ph.D or similar research doctorate. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of universities will award a "doctorate by publication" to someone that has published work equivalent to a doctoral thesis while not actually on a doctoral programme. It is quite rare, but it definitely happens. --Tango (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation of Prior Learning is reasonably common for part time or distance learning first and Masters degrees in the UK, but I've not seen any doctoral programmes that offer similar. There are quite a lot of part time doctorate programmes, essentially taking ones day job and writing it up in the thesis for the award of the doctorate. This thesis still needs to meet the same standard, and the workload is high as frequently the day job is application so one needs to study the theoretical basis in the margins.

On the other hand I have meet a couple of academics who were uncomfortable that the academic awards were sullied by being based in the real world rather than the purist environment of academia :)

ALR (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On further examination it occurs to me that the practical basis for awarding a degree of any kind is that it reflects the record as in the case of the criminologist mentioned above. What I am alluding to is that what if an academically trained student whose work is recorded forgets everything because hey just memorized everything short term to get through each course, compared to a self-taught student whose work is unrecorded except for letters etc. and comes from reading and the real world. What happens in terms of the validity of having a degree if the latter student is superior? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Degree programmes tend to start with the fundamentals of a subject, and move towards the more specific. If a student quickly forgets everything they learnt in the first year soon, they are unlikely to do well in the later years, which assume that they have remembered much of what they were taught. But, like any examination, it's best seen as a certification of achievement up to that point in time; if it is not used, it is entirely possible that some or much will be forgotten, but the student has shown the potential to learn whatever knowledge and skills are taught, and the ability to demonstrate them in some form of test. Warofdreams talk 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All a degree represents is a certification by an institution that the individual holding the degree met the institution's requirements for granting that degree at the time that it was awarded. In the same way, having an Olympic gold medal means that you were the fastest in one particular race, not that you'll always remain the fastest. For that matter, getting a parking ticket doesn't mean that your car will for the rest of its life be considered illegally parked.

As far as I know, there is no way for a university to certify that a person won't forget anything after he has graduated, and no obligation – implicit or explicit – for them to try to do so. If you have a PhD in biochemistry but suffer a traumatic car accident and forget everything you knew about science, your degree won't be withdrawn — you did earn it. In making hiring decisions, a degree is one qualification that an employer may consider, but the track record since graduation is often equally (or more) important. In fields where retention and maintenance of specific knowledge and skills are particularly important (medicine is a big one here), there are often specific accreditation bodies which are responsible for ongoing testing, education, and certification.

Of course, what you're really asking is, "If it's possible for a self-taught individual to be 'smarter' or 'better' than a person with a formal degree, what's the point of the degree?" I'll leave that to others here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I think I see what you are saying. A degree signifies that a person is prepared and trained to do a necessary job. Knowledge apart or beyond than which the job requires may be a disadvantage. Those who want to pursue knowledge instead of a job may find such job prep and training to be a good resource but not the entire means to their end and will therefore resort to being self-taught beyond or apart from job prep and training at some point. An example of someone who has commercial artist prep and training but decides to pursue a fine art instead. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be what you're hearing, but that isn't what I'm saying. While some diplomas or certifications may be aimed at specific job skills or careers, this isn't universally true — and it becomes less true as you move into higher levels of education. Indeed, many universities firmly resist the notion that their responsibility ought to be some sort of job training. It's the difference between computer science (in which you might earn a university degree) and computer programming (which might be the focus of a training program). A good university education isn't about cramming students full of facts; it should also guide its students in how to answer – and even more important, how to ask – questions on their own. It aims to provide a firm foundation for further work or study in a given area; it isn't meant to be job prep.

I find your statement "Those who want to pursue knowledge instead of a job may find such job prep and training to be a good resource but not the entire means to their end and will therefore resort to being self-taught beyond or apart from job prep..." somewhat curious. I know of no educational institution which does not expect its participants to leave at some point to go on to new things, nor can I think of any respectable school that would presume that it has taught its students everything that they need to know and discourage them from further, independent study before or after graduation. I get the impression that you won't go away happy unless someone tells you that self-teaching (and individuals who are self-taught) are inherently superior to formal education and those who have gone that route, or that university education stultifies and blinkers its participants, so that they confine and suppress their creativity and curiosity to conform to the educational widget factory's demands — and I'm afraid you aren't going to hear that here. There are people with university degrees who are creative, who are lazy, who are curious, who are hardworking, who are slackers, who are procrastinators, who are personable, who are obnoxious, who are down-to-earth, who do the minimum necessary to get by, who are naive...just as there are without. A degree says that a person has at least been exposed to a thorough grounding in the fundamentals of a field, and it says the person carrying it cared enough and was dedicated enough to stick to it for three to five years (remember, that's longer than many people — especially those in their twenties and thirties have stayed with a single employer). Drawing further conclusions is fraught with risk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No not at all. What I am saying is that institutions may grant an honorary doctorate not because the recipient has earned a doctorate degree but because the person or their work represents the person or goal the university wants its students to be like or to have and that by the same token a self-taught person even at a lower level may be equally or even more accomplished than a person with a degree. If a teaching institution were completely separated from the acknowledgment institution then this might be what would satisfy me, along with some creative and acceptable means of obtaining credit hours or their equivalent. . 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorary doctorates are a completely different matter. They have nothing to do with academic achievement. They are mostly about publicity. --Tango (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You may differ as much as you like, but an honorary doctorate is not the same as a doctorate. It's not going to get one a job where a doctorate is a prerequisite.

ALR (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a different matter. Jesus Christ can not apply for a job with an honorary doctorate but what the institution that grants Jesus Christ an honorary doctorate is saying is that Jesus Christ is a role model which the institution desires the student body to emulate, i.e., be like or do like or follow. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As Tango notes, an honorary degree is generally issued to someone famous or important in order to get them to deliver an address at a school's graduation ceremonies. The degree is often just a quid pro quo. Note, for instance, George W. Bush's Doctor of Laws from the University of Notre Dame[5] and from Yale University[6] in 2001, as well as a Doctor of Public Administration from Ohio State[7] in 2002. These are not universities acknowledging the cream of the crop; they're just giving George a robe to dress up in while he speaks.

On those occasions where an honorary degree is awarded to recognize accomplishment, it is usually well after the point where acquiring any new credentials would be of interest or necessity to the awardee. One receives an honorary award only after everyone outside of the university has noted one's decades of talent and achievement; the award is the icing on the cake and a pat on the back, not a license to go out and do things. In any event, as Tango again notes, an honorary degree won't get you any job or qualify you to conduct any task. It's a lifetime achievement award, not a skills certificate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I dare not think then what this says about the people who are awarded degrees because they have supposedly "earned" them. Every class I have every had the professor has expected me to follow him or her or at least to emulate their thinking and i know expert imitators that have been able to fool everyone. An example is a person who goes to church and people see as believing in God. Yet privately such a person will confide in you that you have to be careful of who you tell that there is a God as if they are invisible when attending church. Yes, I know plenty of expert imitators who supposedly hold a degree they have earned. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The value of degrees is another debate entirely, but for now I'll just say that it varies enormously depending on the subject and university. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the value of a degree would not be an issue for anyone if subject matter was required to be published in the form of a polychotomous key, although that opinion may or may not be sponsored by someone with or without a degree. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article on polychotomous keys is completely opaque. Can you explain what you mean by it and how it would work? --Tango (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

When was my house built?

Supposing I wanted to know when (and perhaps, by whom) my house was built, where could I look for the answer? Are there also publicly available schematics of current utilities locations, underground? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.105.95 (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your jurisdiction likely has a Recorder of deeds or "Register of Deeds" or some other sort of office similarly named. You'd ask there; they probably have a chain of ownership for your home back to the original owner; as well as any significant changes made to your house etc. --Jayron32 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You local library or history society may have a collection of old maps of the area, which will give you some idea when it was built. Unless it's a significant building, tracking down the architect or builder may be more difficult.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It will vary depending on which country you're living in, so it always helps to let us know that information. From your IP address it looks like you come from Manchester, in the UK. To help answer the question, could you give a rough guess of when it was built? 1960s? Victorian? Medieval? 1930s? --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As you are in the UK, the Land Registry will know this information. For a fee (which used to be £12 but that was a few years ago), if you tell them the address they will let you know when it was built and who owns the house and the land. If you are the owner, you will find the information you seek on the deeds to the house, which you will have stored safely (unless you have a mortgage in which case the mortgage lender will have the deeds). For part 2 of the question, try your local council's Planning department. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Land Registry's own site, 30% of land in England & Wales is unregistered. My house is unregistered, for example. It is impossible for anyone to find out who owns it or its history of ownership from publicly available records. The Land Registry doesn't have that information. Of course, I know I own it and have copies of the deeds showing chain of ownership. The building society with whom I have a mortgage have the original title deeds which I will receive when I pay off the mortgage.

If your house is old, and you are in a large town or city, then your address is probably listed in the annual Kelly's Directory, although it ceased publication many years ago. Your local library should be able to point you to an archive library. Look back through the Kelly's directories until your address disapears - that suggests it was built then. You can also look at old maps in the same way. If your house is registered with the Land Registry, then the title deed (or whatever they call them now) often mention covenants which give clues as to when the land was first sold as a building plot. You should also be able to estimate the age by the style of the building. For your second question, I believe the Ordnance Survey does sell very large scale maps that include utility pipes etc. 92.15.30.36 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To amplify 92's point, my local library (in Hampshire) has many old large-scale maps from frequently updated series which often explicitly show when a particular terrace of houses (the predominant design in my part of town) was built and by whom. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

One quick way of identifying the age of your house in the UK is to look at the pattern of the brickwork. If you can see any short ends of the bricks in the wall, then its almost certainly got solid walls. If you only see the long sides of the bricks, and no short ends, then its got cavity walls. Houses with cavity walls were built after about 1930, and solid walls before about 1930. Sidenote - the houses on the set of Coronation Street are obviously fake as the brickwork is not that of a solid wall. 92.28.242.45 (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a very hard-and-fast indication. The Cavity wall article states "The cavity wall method of construction was introduced into the United Kingdom during the 19th century and gained widespread use from the 1920s." My own house dates from very close to 1900 and has cavity walls. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Difference between debt and deficit

What is the difference, as used here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10150007.stm hanks 92.15.30.36 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deficit is how much we have to borrow this year. Debt is the total of all those borrowings (year after year), plus interest, minus repayments. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Deficit is the difference between income and expenses. If expenses exceed income, you run a deficit. Debt is money you owe someone else. It is possible, if you have extant savings, to run a deficit without incurring debt (by paying for the deficit out of savings). Likewise, you can incur debt and never run a deficit (for example, you can take out loans to make investments; if your return on investment exceeds your interest paid on your debt, you will run a surplus). From the grafics the OP provided, the term "national debt" refers to money that the national governments owe to others, usually in the form of outstanding bonds. The term "government deficit" refers to the difference between how much money the government spends on providing services and how much they take in in taxes. --Jayron32 03:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Internet and television advertisement

Is there a way to measure how much time people have spent watching a particular televison advertisement? (I mean a direct measurment not a statistical estimate)

Can Set Meters mentioned in this article do this?

This is easy to measure on the Internet, as the site is paied acording to the number of clicks on the ad link. If we are able to measure the television ad viewing time just as accurately wold the cost of television ads go down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwakark86 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to avoid an estimate in any mass-deployed device.

• You can only say whether people are actually watching the ad if you can measure what they're paying attention to. There may be research in this area, but Nielsen ratings aren't using it (nor are ad clicks on the net). So you're left estimating.
• You can't, as a practical matter, give every person a Nielsen box. Ad clicks are better in this regard, but not all ads require clicks. So you're left estimating.

Anyway, statistical estimates are really pretty good. And more accurate info would, in many cases, drive the cost of ads up, not down. Advertisers pay a premium for things that can target an intended narrow audience. Quite obviously, this is the primary reason that Nielsen surveys, and demographic info collection on the internet, exist -- to enhance someone's (that is, the ad seller's) bottom line. — Lomn 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg v. UK

According to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10150118.stm , the per capita GDP of Luxembourg is about twice that of the UK. Yet the average amount earnt is more in the UK than Luxembourg. How is that explained? Where does the missing Luxembourg GDP money go to? Thanks 92.15.30.36 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Where have you seen that average earnings in the UK are greater than in Luxembourg? According to this source, Luxembourg has the highest median household income in the world. The source states that the median household income in Luxembourg is $79,500 PPP ($103,000 nominal), whereas it is only $35,100 PPP ($45,400 nominal) in the UK. These numbers are line with your figures showing GDP per capita in Luxembourg to be twice that in the UK. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See the Jobs section, the Average Full-time Earnings chart on the right, in the link above. 92.15.30.36 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It does seem odd. Perhaps Luxembourg has a much larger proportion of its population working - that's the only thing I can think of (other than the BBC making a mistake, which is entirely possible). --Tango (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If Luxembourgians worked jobs in Belgium or France, perhaps they could boost their median household income while not boosting their per capita GDP? Googlemeister (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as they repatriated their wages, they would contribute to GDP. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is explained by the Luxembourgers having a lot of investment income. 92.15.30.36 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe investment income is included in GDP. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that the newspaper's full-time earnings number for the UK is right (and it seems surprisingly high considering relative living standards), this could be explained by a combination of a higher work force participation rate and higher investment income in Luxembourg. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that figure is correct, but it is massively skewed by a few people earning millions. The median earnings are about £20k. --Tango (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am more convinced than before that something is wrong with the earnings figure given by the BBC. Here are my sources: According to Eurostat, gross wages and salaries for the UK in 2009 were about €725.5 billion. According to the same source (different page), the population of the UK in 2009 was about 61.6 million. Now, according to the CIA World Factbook, the working age population (ages 15–64) of the UK is 67.1% of the total, or about 41.4 million. (This is a 2010 figure, but these things change slowly.) According to the OECD, the employment/working-age-population ratio for the UK was 72.7%, for an employed population of just over 30 million. (This is a 2008 figure, so this number is higher than it would have been during the 2009 recession, but the same methodological error should affect Luxembourg similarly.) Dividing total UK employment of just over 30 million into gross wages and salaries of €725.5 billion, I get a mean wage or salary for the UK of €24,131, which is about what I would have expected. This mean includes the multi-million earners in the City of London, so the median would be a bit lower. Using the exact same sources and method for Luxembourg, I get a mean wage or salary of €71,995. While GDP per capita in Luxembourg is about double that in the UK, this wage and salary figure is even higher, as best I can tell, partly because the UK's population is slightly younger and its working-age population has a higher employment rate, so a larger share of the UK population is employed. I don't think that this accounts for all of the difference. Something other than wages and salaries seems to be pushing up the UK's GDP relative to Luxembourg's. Perhaps (just guessing) it is repatriated profits for the UK's many multinational corporations. Or, possibly, the lower cost of living in the UK (compared to Luxembourg) pushes up the UK's numbers on a PPP basis. Marco polo (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people in the UK only work part-time, and I recall the average income is about £25000. The BBC webpage about says that the full-time UK income is over twice this. Perhaps part-time work in Luxembourg is less common, and more people have investment income. I'm not entirely clear why a little country like Luxembourg should be so rich - I will have to read its article. 92.15.1.82 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization in legal documents

Why do lawyers capitalize (e.g., "THIS IS CAPITALIZATION") certain parts of contracts? I see it in indemnification parts mostly. I would be interested in knowing not only the rationale but also whether any cases made it so. Thank you. 143.166.226.64 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this really unfortunate standard is that some laws require that some provisions of contracts have to be "conspicuous" — see the bottom of this page — and unfortunately going to hard-to-read all-caps is the most common way that lawyers draft this language in a way that is allegedly "conspicuous" and therefore abides by that particular law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Positive thinking: given technical situations (such as a simple text box) where other font sizes, bold, or any other way to make text conspicuous are NOT available you should be HAPPY they chose capital letters, as it is a plain and simple fact that t     h     e     s     e          w     o     r     d     s          a     r     e          f     a     r          m     o     r     e          "     c     o     n     s     p     i     c     u     o     u     s     "          THAN THESE ONES. 82.113.121.38 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Negative thinking: I'm sure there are lawyers who make certain things conspicuous in the deliberate hope that the individual won't read the bits which they chose not to highlight... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization is often used for definitions because it delineates that it's being used as a definition, as opposed to as some normal usage. As far as I know, there's no particular law or principle that requires this, but capitalization has the advantage (over bolding or italics) of surviving copy-paste jobs, transfers between formats (the legal world is notorious for using, how should I say, esoteric, standards, like WordPerfect) and being conspicuous. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Having gone through deeds myself, the capitalisation becomes a life-saver. It's easier to read than the surrounding lower case, but more importantly, I was trying to find key details from it. Reading only the capitalised words meant I didn't have to wade through all the text, but included most of what I was looking for. Even if that's not directly relevant to legal texts today, it could be a hangover. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation in songs

A similar question in a different field: when the sheet music for a song is published, they often capitalise the title of the song anywhere it happens to occur in the lyrics. I've never seen the point of this, and wonder if anybody knows why? --ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

These days, it could be interpreted as that's where the singer SHOUTS rather than sings the lyrics (assuming it's a song where there is in fact some discernible difference between shouting and singing, which is not a claim all popular songs can make), but that's probably not why the practice started. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

What institutions have awarded Jesus Christ and honorary degree? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

None, as far as I know. Degrees (almost as we know them) started being issued in around the 1100's, I think. Honorary degrees were much later than that. While honorary degrees may sometimes be granted posthumously, they aren't granted that posthumously. You need someone to accept the degree. That can be the family of a deceased person, but that only works for a few generations before it becomes meaningless or impossible. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Would Jesus even accept an honorary degree? Note, the previous link is provided for humor only. I neither endorse nor oppose any views or beliefs expressed in that discussion. Buddy431 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a different Jesus who has an honorary degree. Buddy431 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are lots of people called Jesus with honorary degrees - it is a very common name (although not in the English-speaking world). --Tango (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

May 29

Restriction imposed on Jewish population of Nazi Germany

Hi is there a place online where I can find a comprehensive list of the restrictions imposed on the Jewish population of Nazi Germany. I dont just mean the famous laws like the Nuremberg Laws or the April boycott I mean the measures that included making jews walk in the gutters, enabled them not to own cars or to have a telephone connection. Thanks, Hadseys 01:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This web page and this list from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum seem pretty comprehensive. That second page states that "government at every level -- Reich, state and municipal -- adopted hundreds of laws, decrees, directives, guidelines, and regulations that increasingly restricted the civil and human rights of the Jews in Germany." I'm not sure every last anti-Jewish regulation has been catalogued in one place. —D. Monack ^talk 01:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of Italian governments?

I have often heard that Italy has had some large number of governments since World War II (more than 60), as indicated in Politics of Italy. However, I don't understand when an Italian government turnover is deemed to occur. List of Prime Ministers of Italy sheds some light on this; it appears that a government is considered to turnover when (a) there is a legislative election, (b) a party goes into or comes out of the government coalition, or (c) the prime minister changes. But that still doesn't explain all the government changes; I see that on 23 August 1982, there was a change between Giovanni Spadolini's 1st and 2nd governments, yet both governments had a DC-PSI-PSDI-PRI-PLI coalition. So how is an Italian government turnover defined? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If it follows the British model, then the "government" in Italy would be the collection of executive departments and ministers which executes policy within the bounds set before them by the legislature. Under that model, considering that Giovanni Spadolini led a coalition of 5 parties, there may have been pressures internal to his coalition which demanded that he reoganize his government departments and ministers; that sort of reorganization may count as a new government. Several Italian Prime Ministers appear to have done this. The en.Wikipedia article Giovanni Spadolini is rather stubby, and does not explain his career in any meaningful detail, but the italian article at is very detailed; if anyone reads Italian (or is willing to use an internet translator), you could probably work out the details. --Jayron32 04:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the Italian article about Spadolini, and the key sentence appears to say, In August of that year he reconstituted a government perfectly identical to the previous one (the "Spadolini-bis", renamed by the radicals "the reheated soup") .... This doesn't clarify much for me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been living in Italy for years and nobody really understands the mechanism of Italian politics. Here governments change quicker than models on a Milanese catwalk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if you can have a change of government with the same prime minister and featuring the same coalition of parties as you had before, how can you tell the difference? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A ministerial shuffle? You could have different parties take different ministerial positions, making it in effect a very different government, even with the same coalition. TomorrowTime (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Legitimate" descendants Peter I of Portugal

Ok I was looking at the Line of succession to the Portuguese throne and notice the different alternative claims on the throne. It seem to fail to list another one. When King Ferdinand I of Portugal died and his daughter Beatrice of Portugal succeeded and was later deposed by the Portuguese nobility who didn't want an union with Castile, there were two canidate for the throne Infante John, Duke of Valencia de Campos and John, Grand Master of the Order of Aviz. One was a son whose legitimacy can be debated but was recognize by his father and the other was plainly illegitimate. In the end the latter won but Infante John had descendants. I was wondering if anyone knows if he still has any direct descendants left and who would be Kings of Portugal (minus the fact Portugal is no longer a monarchy) now if the first John had won out instead of the second one?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Infante John's grandson, Infante Fernando, Lord of Eça, apparently had 42 children, but the marriages and descents seem a little muddled, according to that article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War responsibility

I know this is a sweeping question, but which American president was actually responsible for the heavy US involvement in the Vietnam War? In other words, who has to take the rap for the 58,000 American dead? Kennedy or Johnson?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There were US troops in Vietnam long before Kennedy...maybe Eisenhower is to blame? Maybe it's Truman? I just don't think it makes any sense to assign all the responsibility to one president/presidency. Role_of_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War might be interesting to you. Tinfoilcat (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to point to Kennedy and MacNamara as the main culprits. It fails to mention that in October 1963, Kennedy wanted to reduce the level of troops realising that thw war was "unwinnable".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While each individual's death is a tragedy for their friends and relatives, 58,000 rather pales into insignificance when compared to the 1.4m Vietnamese soldiers and over 4.3m Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian civilians. I'm guessing that no US president took the rap for them. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not trying to minimise the vastly higher Vietnamese death toll (which will likely never truly be known), I'm asking the question from an American perspective. My point in asking this question pertains to the fact that an American president has a moral duty to protect the lives of his citizens, not send the teenage sons of the very people who voted him into office (the average soldier was too young to vote) to fight a war in a foreign land with both hands tied behind their backs. This is why I want to know who is responsible for this? IMO, it was Johnson, as he was the president who escalated the war and augmented the US troops in 1965. In his re-election campaign in 1964, LBJ used scare tactics against his opponent Barry Goldwater. I am not attempting to soapbox here, I just want some input from other editors. Thanks Tinfoilcat and Daiaregos for replying.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

LBJ tends to get the rap. It was he who escalated the troop involvement, against growing opposition. He was the Prez who payed the political price. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

He also used scare tactics against Goldwater in his 1964 campaign by basically lying to the American people by saying that Goldwater would use nuclear bombs in Vietnam, ultimately leading to World War III. Have you ever seen those television ads?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The little girl with the flower commerical & there's the "In your gut, you know he's nuts" response to the Goldwater slogan "In your heart, you know he's right". GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You can see that ad at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on that -- Daisy (advertisement)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What appears to have happened was that Kennedy got the ball rolling in 1962, which Johnson happily picked up in 1963, then took it onto the playing field in 1965.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no evidence, just my memories of those times, but weren't the "defense" lobby culpable? Daicaregos (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely; as well as chemical companies. Remember all the anti-war slogans?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And the music? Edwin Star for one. Daicaregos (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Country Joe and the Fish, The Doors (Unknown Soldier), Barry McGuire, John Lennon, Joan Baez.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Country Joe and the Fish do: and it's 1, 2, 3 what are we fighting for? Don't ask me 'cause I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam, and it's 5, 6, 7, open up the Pearly Gates. Don't give us the chance to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die? Daicaregos (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's Country Joe! I believe the song is on the soundtrack of Full Metal Jacket.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm fixin' to die rag should really redirect to The "Fish" Cheer/I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag, although I Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag works. 86.164.65.106 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Added redirect for un-capitalised version. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

JFK started the US involvement, of course, but it was a relatively small affair (like so many US involvements during the Cold War). But it was LBJ who really "committed" to it and made it the war that it became—large scale, wide-ranging, high-cost to all sides. I would say "both" are obviously responsible, but LBJ definitely gets the rap for the horror that the war became. And of course by LBJ I really mean, "LBJ, McNamara, the various generals, etc."—no single man can be responsible for all it alone. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mr98, I agree with your assessment. Besides LBJ, McNamara also has to take the rap. He was the person who encouraged and staunchly supported the sending of troops. In 1965 LBJ, after winning the '64 election, really got the show on the road with the escalation of US troops deployed, bombings, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a sweeping question, and it's difficult – and probably inappropriate – to stick any one person with the blame. For a thorough and accessible treatment of the mistakes made by the United States in Vietnam, I would strongly recommend that you locate a copy of Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. The entire book deals with how and why governments and leaders choose to take actions that are against their own self interest; its final and by far largest section is titled America betrays herself in Vietnam, and spans a period of bad decisions and ignored advice running from the end of World War II all the way to 1973. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, this is a reference desk. We can come up with all manner of references about who made what decisions when, and what the immeediate and long-term effects of those decisions were. But as for deciding "who gets the blame" or "who takes the rap", that's not a matter we can decide or should be discussing. There are many candidates for ultimate responsibility (or credit) for any war, and there's no final arbiter, so it's down to personal opinion. This whole thread is way too close to soapbox territory for my liking. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the title of the Tuchman book, TenOfAllTrades. I shall try to get a copy of it as Tuchman was one of my favourite historians. JackofOz, as I had pointed out before, I only wanted answers to a specific question, I was Not trying to soapbox. I'm sorry that you view it in this light; however, in this case your lighting is erroneous.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your original question is: "who has to take the rap for the 58,000 American dead? Kennedy or Johnson?". That is a specific question, to be sure, but it calls for opinion. Whether sending troops to war is a great thing because it defends the people back home, or a bad thing because it necessarily involves the death of some of the troops, or any other kind of thing, is not something you'll ever get universal agreement on. Choosing just one of those positions, and then seeking evidence to back it up, is putting the cart before the horse. Better to get all the information, and then decide whether it was a good, bad or other kind of thing; and if you conclude it was a bad thing, you'll already have all the knowledge you need to decide who is or are to blame, if that's what you want to do with the information. But having blamed someone, what then? Are you any better off? Is the world any better off? Finger pointing for its own sake is the most unproductive action there is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the least understood aspects of America’s involvement in Vietnam, probably best classified as “what if” history, is the impact an American withdrawal during the mid- to late-1960s might have had on China’s strategy of aiding liberation movements. Imagine the impact of a South Vietnamese defeat on the already radicalized Chinese political and social milieu, and then consider which other South-East Asian nations might have also faced better supported and led insurgencies. Under such a scenario, South-east Asia might today resemble the formerly communist East European economies. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt refused to get the U.S involved when the Japanese invaded Indochina, saying "The U.S. will not go to war over a place called "Ding Dong (probably "Dinh Donh.") OSS forces were in Vietnam by the wars end, and advocated independence, but the US back the re-colonization by the French. Truman and Eisenhower kept the US in shadowy involvement through the 1950s. Eisenhower refused French pleas to aid them in the Dien Bien Phu debacle. After the "temporary" partition into the artificial "North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam" Eisenhower refused to allow nationwide elections because Ho Chi Minh would have been elected as national leader. Kennedy saw Vietnam as a more winnable battle in the "domino theory" than Laos, and sent advisors. The US became disillusioned with the South 's dictator Diem and colluded in his assassination in 1963 (before Kennedy's own assassination). Johnson did not want to be the one to "lose another country to communism" so he sent large number of combat troops for the first time, and alluded to "secret treaties or agreement" requiring it, which did not exist. Johnson did not have any "exit strategy" to get the U.S. out if the affair did not go well. Any withdrawal would mean that the thousands of dead "had died in vain" and would anger their families more than if the conflict led to a surrender by the other side like in WW2. Nixon also did not want to be the one to "lose Vietnam to communism," and continued the slaughter, as the military claimed that the war could be "won" if only larger and larger number of troops were sent. Eventually Nixon basically did what Senator George Aiken had suggested back in 1966: just declare we had won and leave. So Johnson escalated a small involvement to a massive slaughter, then Nixon continued it , and eventually ended it. Edison (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the responses. Seeing as I asked a sweeping question, I shall now go on and make a sweeping judgement in saying that Vietnam was basically Lyndon Baines Johnson's show, therefore he has to take the rap for it. I appreciate the well-formulated and detailed answers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambitious oldies

Whereas in the past it was compulsory slippers and armchairs for anyone over sixty, in recent years a number of golden oldies have been active. Not just doing a job, but being ambitious go-getters. Ridley Scott and Vince Cable, both seventy something. Alan Greenspan, held a demanding job in his eighties. What other examples of ambitious oldies are there please? 92.28.242.45 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out this old guy from the past: John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk. How many old-age pensioners can you imagine today going into battle, heavily-armoured and swinging a battle-axe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Esther Rantzen springs immediately to mind. And of course our own dear Queen Elizabeth II ... not to mention the old wild men like David Gilmour, Roger Waters, all of the Rolling Stones, The Faces, Rod Stewart, Andy Williams, Neil Diamond, Tony Bennett ...

And there was Bob Hope who made it to 100, before he died in 2003.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

John Howard, approaching 71, is about to become the Supremo of World Cricket. Most cardinals were traditionally considered unelectable as popes unless they'd reached 70; something about not being experienced enough yet. Now, they become unelectable when they reach that age. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Pope Benedict XVI became pope when he was 78. John Paul II was 65, and considered young. He also ended up as one of the longest serving popes. One of the reasons to elect an older pope, apart from experience, is that it makes sure they won't be pope for too long: if you elect someone pope when they're 35, and they live to be 90, that could cause problems. 86.164.65.106 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, struck out now. I was getting confused with the mandatory retirement age for priests (70) and bishops (75). I've sought clarity on this issue @ Talk:Cardinal (Catholicism)#Retirement age and eligibility for papacy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No probs, it's just that I'd reread it about 5 times looking for a joke or humorous link! It's like when someone uses the phrase 'no pun intended' and there is no pun... 86.163.2.99 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One of my grandfathers used to beat all-comers at the local fair at the Hammer throw. My golden oldie hero is Bruce Forsythe. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW Vince Cable is 67, not "seventy something". --86.136.242.235 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Manoel de Oliveira just made a new film, and Elliott Carter (who was born on the same day) is still composing. They are 101. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was still attending official ceremonies at the age of 101[8].

Let's not forget Tina Turner! She turned 71 last November.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

..Chuck Berry is still going at 83. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, these people may well not be "ambitious" in any personal sense - they may simply feel that the world would benefit in some way from their experience and expertise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to mention Betty White!--Wetman (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sophia Loren recently starred in an Italian television film.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And Giulio Andreotti is still running Italy (from behind the scenes) at 91. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the man who travelled pole to pole and sawed his own frost-bitten fingers off? 92.24.184.45 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Polish-American pianist Mieczysław Horszowski died a month before his 101st birthday. He gave his final concert at age 99, and was still giving lessons up to a week before he died.
• After a long international career, the Swiss tenor Hugues Cuénod finally made his Metropolitan Opera debut in 1987, aged 84. At age 104 he married his partner after Swiss law was changed to permit same-sex marriage. He’s still alive and kicking at the age of 107 (he'll turn 108 on 26 June if anyone's interested in sending him a cake).
• George Abbott was Mr Everyman in American musical theatre, and he died in his 108th year. According to his widow, “a week and a half before his death he was dictating revisions to the second act of Pajama Game with a revival in mind”.
• And I've just noticed the birthdates of these 3 gentlemen were 23 June, 26 June and 25 June respectively. Must be something about the last week of June. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hazel McCallion was elected mayor of Mississauga, Ontario, in 1978 when she was 57, and has been there (in office) ever since. She's now 89.

Martin Gardner just died aged 95. A book of his writing was published as recently as last year, although I don't know how much of the content was new.

--Anonymous, 05:04 UTC, May 30, 2010. (Edited for clarity 05:02, May 31.)

Los Angeles Dodgers announcer Vin Scully is 82 and still works without a color commentator. U.S. Senator Robert Byrd is 92. Strom Thurmond won re-election to the Senate at age 93 and served until age 100. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood of course! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's turning 80 tomorrow. Happy birthday, Clint. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The prolific Science Fiction author Jack Williamson, whose first professionally published SF story appeared in 1928 (when he was 21), died in 2006 aged 98. To quote selectively from our article: "He continued to write as a nonagenarian and won both the Hugo and Nebula Awards during the last decade of his life, by far the oldest writer to win those awards." and "Despite his age, he had made an appearance at the Spring 2006 Jack Williamson Lectureship and published a 320-page novel, The Stonehenge Gate, in 2005 [aged 96 or -7]." Amongst other things, he invented the terms 'Genetic engineering' and 'Terraforming'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! At least another half century of fun and frolics for me then. 92.15.12.12 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Niemeyer is apparently still designing (or reworking) buildings at the age of 102. Same with I. M. Pei, who is currently 93. Graham87 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations in a Catholic litany

At the end of the Litany of the Most Precious Blood, seen in the Blood of Christ article, there appear lines beginning with "V/." and "R/." without explanation. The passage originated in the now-merged-in Precious Blood article, and they were originally "V." and "R." until changed in this edit. Any idea what these abbreviations would signify? Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They stand for versicle and response. I'm not sure that the revised punctuation has any significance beyond a desire to separate the abbreviations from the following text. Karenjc 12:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguated my link. Karenjc 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen "versicle & response" abbreviated the same way (with a "forward slash") in Anglican liturgical texts. Not the Book of Common Prayer which uses "Minister" and "Answer" instead. Maybe the Oxford Psalter or the English Hymnal? Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added links to versicle and response. I had previously wondered if perhaps they were typos for P and C, priest and congregation, or something like that. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden Fruit

Can someone explain to me the point behind the forbidden fruit/tree of knowledge story in Genesis? If man wasn't supposed to touch it then why did god put it there in the first place? What was the alternative, would adam and eve just have wandered around the garden for eternity? It just seems like putting something right in someone's reach and telling them to ignore it forever is a huge con. Not to mention the huge punishment (farming for food, pain in childbirth) for eating a piece of fruit. Oh and please no interpretation I want a literalist understanding. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this falls under interpretation or literalist, but I always understood the fruit to be a test of faith - god put it there and made it off limits to see if Adam and Eve would obey him in not touching it. So eating the fruit is basically a betrayal of god by man. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no answer to your question that's not interpretation. A literalist understanding of the passage is simply the text itself. The subject is a very interesting area for theological discussion, but theology is inherently about interpretation. The text answers none of your questions directly (but your questions do seem to assume that it was just an ordinary piece of fruit, when in fact it granted knowledge of good and evil), so literalism has nothing to say.

Anyways, thanks for sparing me the temptation to provide my own thoughts about this story, as that would probably fall outside the purview of the reference desk. Paul (Stansifer) 21:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if it granted them knowledge of good and evil then how could they know it was evil to eat it in the first place? That's not an interpretive questions; it's in the text. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, quite. You may be interested in this blog: [9] which remarks "There is always the distinct possibility that YHWH is an evil deity." (Though you should probably start on the previous chapter, An Introduction to Source Study.) 81.131.4.89 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's interpretive because what you are looking for is not in the text. You are looking for information beyond the literal text itself. (Even true "Biblical literalists" do a great deal of interpretation as well, they just don't own up to it.) Anyway, they wouldn't have had to know it was evil to eat it—they were told not to eat it. The serpent says, "oh, go ahead, eat it," and so Eve does. That's pretty much what the text says. If you want to ask, "why would God have put it in there in first place if he didn't want it eaten?" and "why is God so uptight about a single tree?" and maybe even "if God knows everything, wouldn't he know that they were going to eat from the tree anyway, so did he set them up to fail?" and so on and so on, you're going to need a heaping serving of interpretation. All of that is without even asking if the story is supposed to be a larger allegory and not meant to be taken as some kind of literal story that explains why women have pains in childbirth and why life is kind of rotten most of the time. Taking religion seriously is hard work and probably should be if you believe it to be true. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The image has been adapted from neighboring Near East traditions, as Joseph Campbell will explain to you. The tree is the tree of the knowledge of distinguishing good and evil, that is, of enlightenment, and the Serpent that protects the tree from harm as its guardian spirit is a god not a snake. It's all downhill from there... --Wetman (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

TheFutureAwaits, do you want a Jewish perspective or a Christian perspective? The account isn't much interpreted in the Hebrew Bible — aside from the Genesis narrative and a genealogical account at the beginning of 1 Chronicles, the name Adam only appears twice: as the name of a city in Joshua, and in Hosea chapter 6, where the text notes that Adam broke his covenant with God. Christianity also includes an interpretation in 1 Timothy chapter 2, which notes that Eve was deceived by the serpent, and in Romans chapter 5, which states that the sin of Adam in eating the fruit is ultimately responsible for causing everyone's sin (see original sin) and bringing about death. By the way, note that there's no prohibition of touching the fruit or the tree; God prohibits picking it and eating it, but not touching it. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The traditional Catholic answer is summed up in the Exsultet: "Oh Happy fault, oh necessary sin of Adam, that gained for us so great a Redeemer." Personally, I don't think that goes far enough in terms of what the story is saying, but seems along the right lines. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

From a mathematical point of view, this is a action of a (mathematically) stupid god. Consider that God knew that there is a non-zero chance that man/woman will eat the fruit. Consider that Adam and Eve will be in the garden FOREVER. Therefore the probability of man/woman eating the fruit (at some point in time) is ONE (mathematically speaking). If this story shows anything, it shows that God is a lousy mathematician. 122.107.207.98 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But since mathematics is a human construct, that says nothing about God. Apparently he's also a lousy dice player, since he never practises, and after all, practice makes perfect. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldnt the true literal interpretation be that its just a fictional story? Good point that 81.131... makes that YHWH is an "evil deity" - even just the Forbidden Fruit story shows the deity setting up a situation for Adam & Eve to fail in, and the subsequent psychological and other torture they (and we) suffer. Consider the evidence, even from just reading the bible let alone the real world, and it points to God being a bad deity rather than a good deity. 92.15.12.12 (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But you and 122 are starting from the assumption that the consequences of eating the fruit are undesirable, and an overall negative outcome for both the individuals and mankind. It says, right there in the Bible, Isaiah 55:8-9 "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.'" So, you can't just assume that what looks like a negative outcome to you is a negative outcome to the god of the Bible. I mean, the story of the Garden of Eden seems pretty clearly to be describing the end of a childish state and the difficult start of adult life living with the knowledge of good and evil, achieved through experience of the consequences of doing wrong. I'm sure some people would consider it better to live in childish innocence forever, but apparently the god of the Bible disagrees. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If He was omnipotent, then He could make everyone blisfully happy all the time, but either He chooses not to do so and is a bad deity, or He is not omipotent. Or He's just fiction. Problem of evil. 92.15.12.12 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Or he has better plans than simply making everyone happy all the time; it wouldn't exactly work very well for everyone to be happy all the time, since we often desire contradictory things. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. See Bruce Almighty for an interesting (and sometimes humorous) illustration of exactly that point. Kingsfold (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If He's omnipotent then he can make everyone happy all the time and make it work very well, and make 1+1=3. Truth is, he's fiction. 92.24.182.209 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how him being fictional would be at all relevant here: we're talking about the in-book logic. After all, you don't get to answer "Why did Dumbledore give Harry the invisibility cloak?" with "He's fictional", when what is being discussed is the Harry Potter books. Or, you do, but then people will tend to ignore you. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) The tree of the knowledge of good and bad was the tree representing God's right to decide what is good and what is bad. The serpent lied when it said that it was a tree imparting knowledge of good and bad. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/3-5.htm)

(2) Why does disobedience by perfect creatures have to be inevitable? Have you ever experienced perfection (spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical perfection)?

(3) Satan the Devil used ventriloquism to make the serpent "speak", and earned himself the epithet "ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος" ("the old serpent" or "the original serpent") (wikt:ἀρχαῖος). (http://multilingualbible.com/revelation/12-9.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, the verse you quoted under (1) doesn't seem to quite say what you said, it says:"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.". Where exactly does the serpent's lying about gaining knowledge of good and bad and God's right to decide come into it? In fact, the verse makes it pretty clear that God knew that the day Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they would gain knowledge of good and evil and be like God. Isn't it true then that what God knew (rather than "the serpent lied about this") was that the tree would be imparting knowledge of good and bad? Or am I missing something here? Are you being interpretative rather than literalist? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the context because I got to the point quickly. Verses 1 through 4 of the same chapter indicate that those words were spoken by the serpent. (The linked page has menu buttons for selecting book, chapter, and verse.) He also said that they would not die, in contradiction of what God had previously said. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/2-17.htm) History shows that humans have not gained knowledge making them competent to set standards about what is good and what is bad. (http://multilingualbible.com/jeremiah/10-23.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

God knew the outcome ahead of time

I God knows all, wouldn't He have known what Eve would do? In which case, He'd have created sentient beings with full knowledge that they would ultimately be tortured? --78.148.133.46 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is understood that He did know. Actually, a related question was already discussed here recently (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 18#God and free will). In short, humans are considered to have been created so that they would be loved by God and love Him (for example, the Catechism says so - [10]). Now, it is understood such love can only be provided with free will ([11]) and it is worth the risk ([12] - fourth question). It's just like Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that anyone can vandalise. And yet it is arguably more successful than some encyclopedias that are much harder to vandalise... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more than even that. God created sentient beings with full knowledge that they would one day torture him. Wrad (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

God knows. He just doesn't care.--Wetman (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that God knows everything? -- Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This article may interest you: Akashic records.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he forgot, or thought he could change the future. Or maybe he knows every possible thing that might happen, not just the ones that actually will. Or perhaps, if he knew it was going to happen, he had to do his bit toward making sure it did, regardless of what he wanted. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

He asked for evidence, and you gave him an article lacking it, but since none seems to care about evidence here, I'll give my opinion too, I would say that someone who knows something bad is going to happen yet either does nothing or work pro it is a manipulator, now which one is a theme for another discussion. 200.144.37.3 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 200...., had you read the article you would have seen where it talks about the universal computer and Mind of God.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

God and religion causes a lot of unnecessary human suffering as they result in people believing the Just-world hypothesis, but thankfully the more responsible media has been slowly chipping away at this idea in recent times. 92.28.254.179 (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a forum? A debate can be held in many other more suitable places - for example, Catholic Answers seem to have a forum specialising in such questions. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the Problem of evil which touches on this, especially Plantinga's free will defense. Short version: God might know that people will commit evil acts (eg defying him), and that they will suffer, but it might be necessary for this to happen as part of a greater good. You may also wish to read the article on omniscience, which raises the question of how omniscience (or, more specifically, foreknowledge) can be compatible with free will, and offers explanations as to how God can be omniscient but still not know how people will act. On the other hand, if you don't take the description literally it becomes somewhat easier. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

recognition of Palestine

Did the murder of Bob Kennedy and 9/11 backfire and end any chance of Palestine being recognized by the US? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The door to such recognition is never permanently closed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(After EC) ::Are you saying that there is absolutely nothing that the Palestinians could do to close the door permanently? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that a civilised society will always keep the door to peace and good relations open, no matter how bad the relations may be now or have been in the past. Things were pretty nasty between the US and Germans, Japanese, Russians and Chinese for a while there, but bygones have become bygones. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As to September 11 attacks, I don't think they can be described as "backfiring" because, as far as I know, they were not intended specifically to force the U.S. to recognize Palestine. See Planning of the September 11 attacks, as well as Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for background to both incidents. Certainly, Bin Laden didn't, and presumably doesn't, like the U.S. policy towards Israel, but I don't think the attacks can be as clearly linked to the Israel/Palestine conflict as they can in the RFK case. Buddy431 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And such fact exposes the weakness in our ability to decipher the facts. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Buddy, you're talking as if bin Laden had some connection with 9/11, which afaik was not the case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay now cowboy, just take of your spurs, have another beer and watch a little bit more TV. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had lots of evidence that bin Laden was in charge of the 9/11 attacks. Didn't he claim responsibility? Falconus^{p t c} 00:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bin Laden apparently wasn't directly in charge (that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), but did give the specific OK for the plan. At least, that's what's in the Planning of the September 11 attacks article. Buddy431 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Bin Laden doesn't support the idea of a Palestinian state anyway but prefers the reestablishment of a pan-Islamic one. Though he presumably prefers it as an interim solution to Israeli occupation. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody but total nuts would hold all of Palestine responsible for Sirhan Sirhan (who was, incidentally, a total nut). It would be perhaps different if Sirhan Sirhan was some sort of sponsored agent of a Palestinian government, part of a giant shadowy plot, etc. etc. But as far as we can tell, he was a brain-damaged, paranoid schizophrenic anti-Semite. He was not in any way a representative of Palestinian cause, even under the most harshly anti-Palestinian interpretation. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to blame Israel for Kennedy's death by driving Sirhan Sirhan crazy? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously he is not. Stop trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So you prefer that clarification not be requested because it might imply that Isreal did something wrong? What if I question whether Ozwald's claim that the USMC and President Kennedy drove him kill crazy instead of Russia that would qualify from your perspective as trolling too. Forgive me though, I should not feed the anti-Christ. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Sirhan B. Sirhan Jordanian?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. DuncanHill (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Sirhan lived in the West Bank or East Jerusalem -- both of which were under Jordanian occupation before 1967 -- before his family moved to America. The notion of a "Palestinian" nationality wasn't that widespread at the time. Thus, news reports at the time may have referred to Sirhan as being of Jordanian origin. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times newspaper at the time of Robert Kennedy's assassination always referred to Sirhan as Jordanian, never Palestinian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That was certainly my recollection too, but I can see why they may have used this description back then of someone we would today refer to as a Palestinian. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Back then someone from Prague would have been called Czechoslovakian, whereas now, he or she would be referred to as Czech.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Czechoslovakian" was always a solipsism, even when the country was Czechoslovakia. People from that country were correctly referred to as Czechs, whether they were from the Czech part or the Slovak part. The desire of the Slovaks for their separate national identity was what led the country to split into two countries in the 1990s. "Czech" now means someone specifically from the Czech Republic alone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall them being referred to as Czechs and Czechoslovakians. I normally referred to them as Czechoslovakian. Czechoslovakian was as correct as Czech.[13] Jack forbes (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the USA during the 1960s and 1970s, they were referred to as Czechoslovakian. We had a landlord who was an immigrant from Czechoslovakia and that's how he called himself; although judging by his surname, my Czech friend here thinks he was likely a Slovak. I also recall having met an elderly man in Los Angeles who referred to himself as Bohemian!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

May 30

Shakespeare's Sonnets

I understand that all (or most) of Shakespeare's plays were published after his death (and not during his actual lifetime). And I understand that these plays were reconstructed from scripts/lines of the live performances, etc. Thus, we do not have any of Shakespeare's plays that were actually written in Shakespeare's own hand. If my understanding is correct about all of that, this made me wonder. What about Shakespeare's sonnets? Do we have those written in his own hand? If not, how were they reconstructed? If yes, then wouldn't Shakespeare have kept all his written works "stored" in more or less the same place (that is, wouldn't we have found his play scripts right there alongside of wherever we found his sonnet writings)? Any insight? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

Shakespeare's sonnets doth say "All but two of the poems were first published in a 1609 quarto..." (the other two in 1599); the old guy was still alive and kicking. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Old? I doth protest! Will was 45 in 1609. No spring chicken, but not quite dead yet. —Kevin Myers 15:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, he wasn't all that old (though he did shuffle off this mortal coil seven years later). Clarityfiend (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So, why have we not found his play writings alongside his sonnet writings? Wouldn't it stand to reason that he'd keep all his writings/work together ... in more or less the same place? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

One of the most dangerous places for a manuscript in the 15th to 18th centuries was a printer's shop. Even when several manuscripts of a Latin classic have survived, often the manuscript from which early editions were printed is gone. Some of Shakespeare's plays were "recreated" for the First folio by the actors getting together and reciting their parts. --Wetman (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hie thee hence to English Renaissance theatre#Printed texts. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I am not really asking about the printing (or publishing) of his works. I am asking about the original (handwritten) works penned by Shakespeare. How is it that we have "found" his original sonnets, but not his original plays? Wouldn't it stand to reason that he'd keep all his writings/works together ... in more or less the same place? Why is it that would we would have found one body of work (his sonnets), but not the other body (his plays)? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

As a non-expert, my guess is that sonnets were held in much higher regard than plays. Much of the Shakespeare authorship question revolves around it being beneath noblemen to write the latter, but not the former. Some of that attitude may have rubbed off on Will. An analogous sort of thing happened with early films; many classics are lost forever because nobody thought they were worth saving. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Penal Code by/for Religion

Which countries in the world have different penal codes based on religion?

As far as I know, India is the only country in the world where there are different penal codes by religion. More specifically, there is one penal code for followers of Islam and another for EVERYONE ELSE. I could be wrong in both counts. But that's why I'm asking.

TIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnananihsoj (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly part of the penal code, but an example of a similar thing nevertheless: In Israel matrimonial law is devotional – it differs significantly depending on which religious affiliation the married couple has. See "Marriage in Israel". Gabbe (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In Dubai (and I think in other parts of the UAE) non-muslims may drink alcohol (in licenced premises), buy alcohol for home consumption (with a licence), and sell alcohol (with a licence); muslims (whether UAE citizens, UAE residents, or not) may not. Pakistan requires muslim passport applicants to make a further declaration about religion (see Passport#National conditions on passport issuance for complicated details) which non-muslims are not required to make. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know the specifics, but Women of the Wall#Recent Conflicts outlines how a female Progressive Jew was arrested in Israel for wearing a tallit at the Western Wall. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 13:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find anything about differences in criminal law in India based on religion, but Law in India does have a whole section on differences in family law which subject is introduced in the lede by:

Indian family law is complex, with each religion having its own specific laws which they adhere to. In most states, registering of marriages and divorces is not compulsory. There are separate laws governing Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and followers of other religions. The exception to this rule is in the state of Goa, where a Portuguese uniform civil code is in place, in which all religions have a common law regarding marriages, divorces and adoption. Bielle (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia#Religion states "Muslims are obliged to follow the decisions of Syariah courts when it comes to matters concerning their religion. ... The jurisdiction of Shariah court is limited only to Muslims over matters such as marriage, inheritance, apostasy, religious conversion, and custody among others." The Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno case (a woman who was sentenced to caning for drinking a beer, but whose sentence was eventually commuted to community service) raised a fair bit of controversy. The (Malaysian) Star's story on the commutation links to another story about 3 women who were caned (and served time in prison) after being convicted of having "illicit sex" by the Federal Territory Syariah High Court. An official was quoted saying "They have all repented. They are also hoping that others will not go against the teachings of the religion." and "I hope there will be no more issues arising from the caning sentence which can be imposed by the Syariah Court on Muslim women to protect the sanctity of Islam. The punishment is aimed at getting the offenders to repent and seek Allah’s forgiveness. It is also meant to educate Muslims to follow the teachings of Islam.” 58.147.58.152 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Judiciary of Malaysia may also be of interest. There are numerous other less serious offences that come under Syariah law (and therefore only apply to Muslims) in Malaysia like khalwat ('close contact') [14]. There are of course conflicts when a husband or wife converts to Islam and the other spouse does not, or it's claimed someone converted but is disputed and the person's family does not wish a Muslim burial; leading to a number of controversial cases given the conflict between civil law and Syariah law.

There is also a Islam in Singapore#Syariah Court in Singapore although their scope is far less and I'm pretty sure are clearly subordinate to the civil court.

Someone mentioned marriages in Israel above, I believe one of the consequences is that although the Supreme Court has ruled same sex marriages should be recognised, only those performed abroad can be because none of the recognised religions are willing to perform them.

There are also entirely voluntary 'courts' in the UK and I would guess elsewhere [15] [16]. While there is (or should be) no compulsion, if people do voluntary agree to participate in such courts they can be binding similar to the way arbitary can work. And of course, the reaction of the community can also have an effect [17].

Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Herbs And Spices

Does anyone know of historical herbs and spices, and with citations? I am attempting to compile a list. TIA174.3.121.27 (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "historical"? Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme is from at least 1670. Hyssop was named in the Christian bible. All herbs and spices that still exist are, in some sense, historical. Or are you looking for herbs and spices known about but that no longer exist? Bielle (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. And that is a problem when calling something "historical", isn't it?174.3.121.27 (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You could just look up every herb and spice there is, and see what's in the history section of the article, for instance black pepper#History. 81.131.17.60 (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Silphium (also known as "laser") was frequently mentioned in the Roman era book of recipes ascribed by tradition to a Apicius. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Henbane, deadly nightshade, and mandrake were all used in the Middle Ages and allegedly had magical properties.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a couple of interesting articles on historical cuisines. For starters, the featured article on medieval cuisine has its own section on herbs, spices and condiments with a number of references. Widening your scope, you then might be interested in looking at Ancient Egyptian cuisine · Ancient Greek cuisine · Ancient Roman cuisine · Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies · Maya cuisine · Andean cuisine · Aztec cuisine · Byzantine cuisine · Ottoman cuisine · Early modern European cuisine  · History of Chinese cuisine  · History of French cuisine  · History of Hawaiian cuisine  · History of Indian cuisine  · History of Italian cuisine  · History of Japanese cuisine  · History of Jewish cuisine  · History of Polish cuisine  · History of Scottish cuisine. (List copied from Template:CuisineHistory) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You might like to get hold of a copy of Culpeper's Herbal. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Which led me to this, potentially useful, page. List of plants in The English Physitian (1652 book). 86.163.2.99 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And even better, from the external links in Nicholas Culpeper, this complete free copy of his herbal, online. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

constitutional convention

Is there any purpose a constitutional convention would serve? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See Constitutional convention. Any more specific answer will likely require a more specific question. Dismas|^(talk) 05:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

why do tennis players wear such short skirts?

wy do tennis players wear such short skirts? 82.113.121.167 (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think? It makes it easier for them to move quickly. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 09:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And it also helps if they are looking to earn a few pounds/bucks from a modeling career. Jack forbes (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another question would be: Why don't they wear shorts like many other female athletes do nowadays? Eliza Truitt offered some thoughts on this in Slate, but came to no definite conclusion (See "Athletes in Skirts"). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, historically tennis skirts and netball skirts were quite freeing things, giving greater freedom of movement to the legs while remaining (just about) 'proper' for a woman to wear in public. A bit of Wimbledon-specific history here. Nowadays, women make a decision what to wear based on practical concerns, what they think looks good, and the expected clothes of the event. Why such short skirts? Well, how long are the shorts the men wear? 86.163.2.99 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget, Martina Navratilova wore shorts in her later career. Jack forbes (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some tournaments have a dress code - maybe this includes skirts for ladies? Certainly they have have to wear mainly white at Wimbledon[18]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just read my own link (above) "Daisy Dukes was the first woman to follow suit (wearing shorts) a year later (1933), but sexier skirts and dresses remain the favourite for female tennis players seeking lucrative sponsorship deals." Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Daisy Dukes? Really? As in Dukes of Hazzard? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to put in an internal link. but it led straight to the 70s TV character. If it was the same person, she'd have been a bit past wearing those skinny jeans! Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems that Helen Hull Jacobs was the first woman to wear shorts at Wimbledon in 1933, the same year as Bunny Austin although he wore shorts in 1932 at Forest Hills. Someone's mind was perhaps wandering when they wrote that BBC article. meltBanana 01:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I was beginning to smell a rat - and I thought the BBC were such reliable chaps! Alansplodge (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a time when even men wore long pants to play tennis. For example, see the photo of Bill Tilden. — Michael J 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A trademark/logo with four hearts

There is a town in Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu, India named NalattinPudur. Local historians claim the name means "Four Hearts New Town" in Tamil and it was named so because of the trade mark/logo of a particular brand of cotton traded by the British East India Company. There was supposedly a huge cotton warehouse in the area, with the four Hearts painted over and the name stuck to the settlement that developed around it. I have not been able to verify this. Can anyone shed some light on whether such a brand of cotton did exist? (This should be during late 18th and early 19th centuries) --Sodabottle (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The best I can find is a quartered heart, as a symbol of the British East India Company, but not directly cotton related. You can see it here. Right time period, namely Napoleonic. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!. This makes the story more plausible. The word Nalattin can be translated either as "four hearts" or "four of hearts". After seeing this image, i think it could have been the later case. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Following up using your input i found that same logo was used a "bale mark to stamp its goods". I think this settles it. Thanks again!--Sodabottle (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment rate by Cities in Russia

I am looking for the Unemployment rate for all Cities in the Russian Federation.

If it is not possible by Cities, then I wouldn't mind getting the Unemployment rate for all the Provinces/States in the Russian Federation.

I would appreciate any assistance. --33rogers (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I found data for October 2009 on the Federal State Statistics Service website (all in Russian). The table at the bottom of the page shows breakdown by federal subjects; the column on the right-hand side is the unemployment rate. And here's a map. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that site. From that site, I was able to find the latest data available which is data for April 2010. And using that information I made a list Regions in Russia by Unemployment Rate. Thanks. --33rogers (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Politicians writing novels

How do well-known British politicians including ministers so often find the time to write novels when elected? Wouldnt these jobs take up all their time and energies? Examples are John Buchan, Douglas Hurd, Disraeli, and several others. 92.15.12.12 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Many MPs manage to hold down a second job of some description. Being a minister is a full-time job, but it seems that being an MP isn't. There have been proposals to ban MPs from having second jobs as part of the planned political reforms, which might impact on book writing as well (depending on how it is worded). --Tango (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the names listed above were all not just MPs but had important jobs as well. 92.24.182.209 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Archer is also a novelist. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Disraeli's literary career was largely before his political one and the other politicians you mention seem to have little direct overlap between their publishing history and government roles. That said, they might still write but avoid publishing while in office because of the political effects their works might have, or simply so as not to appear to be shirking their duties. meltBanana 15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) John Buchan doesn't seem to have had any political jobs other than as an MP and Governor-General of Canada, neither of which are full-time. Douglas Hurd seems to have only written one book, and that was a collaboration, while in government. The rest were written before or after. Disraeli may have written one or two books while in government, but the vast majority were written before and a few after. --Tango (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that being both an MP and Governor General of Canada could be considered a part-time job, combined or singly. 92.15.0.255 (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of MPs manage to hold down second jobs, so it must be possible. Governor-General is an almost entirely ceremonial job, so I doubt it takes up much time. He certainly didn't hold the two positions at once - they were in different countries. --Tango (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Buchan, maybe it was an easier job back then, but the last few GGs of Canada have been all around the country and the world pretty much constantly (so much so, anyway, that people like to complain about how much taxpayers' money they waste). It's all ceremonial, sure, but there's a lot of ceremony to do. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, published several books while he was Vice President (the supposedly salacious supposely lesbian book she wrote was published earlier). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Being wife of the Vice President certainly isn't a full-time job! --Tango (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth being clear that being an MP can be a full time job, but it needn't be. If one has a strong local team then the casework can be done by others leaving the MP to focus on parliamentary scrutiny and the gladhanding that needs to be done to get re-elected. Many back benchers maintain another job, and there are benefits, say as a GP, solicitor, accountant. All government ministers manage to hold down being both a constituency MP and a government minister.

I'd also say that it's worth looking at when an politician became an author. In many cases it's after their time in the house.

ALR (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As well, working for a few hours each week can produce a few books, many people find time to write once they've finished work for the evening, or on their days off, some even do it for fun, whilst normal people are watching TV or playing scrabble. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In terms of MPs vs ministers, don't they generally get more funding etc so it's easier to have a strong local tem? Well the funds may be intended to support their work as a minister but I don't know if there's any limitation on how they spend them and it seems easy to argue they need to use them on their electorate office to make it easier for them to perform their job as a minister. I believe it's the case here in NZ. And of course constituents may be more tolerant of having to rely on the team and not being able contact or see the MP much if they are a minister. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they rarely watch TV - if the time most people spend watching TV was used for more constructive things, they could get a lot done. 92.24.178.172 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pay-Per -View

Whilst searching google news archive I've noticed that many of the newspapers in the UK have pay-per-view articles [19]. Do other countries newspapers charge for this? Jack forbes (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although it depends on the publication. For example, the New York Times allows limited free access to articles before 1981 (100 articles per month, I think) to current and former subscribers who have a "Times Select" account, while all others have to pay something like $5 per article from the same time period. Similarly, the Washington Post gives free access back to 1987, with previous articles costing $3.95 to view. Both have expansive archives stretching back into the mid-1800s. However, when doing research for WWV (radio station), I've found that Time allows free access to articles for a much longer time period -- at least back to the 1950's. I assume the pay barrier is to help partially recoup the losses sustained by making current content available for free. Xenon54 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from my link, the Sunday Herald is charging for a story from 2007. Kind of frustrating if you think you have a good source for Wikipedia and can't access it. Jack forbes (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're having that problem, try the WP resource request. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Recently, some newspapers (eg. the Times) are making their websites of current articles pay-per-view [20]. I think I've heard about this happening in the US as well. The business model of free commercial news websites just doesn't seem to be working. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ad revenue dropped during the economic downturn, and so more US newspapers are considering going to some pay scheme. The Wall Street Journal has long been pay-to-view online, the "largest paid-subscription news site on the Web", according to our article. As of next year, The New York Times will let you read a certain number of recent articles for free, but will charge frequent online users. —Kevin Myers 16:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah as both above said, it's generally accepted that traditional news media are still struggling to find a system that works in the modern internet arena. News Corp announced last year they would start charging for news articles [21]. News Corp and others are also know for their teneous relationship with Google, e.g. [22] Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

British noble the father of Swedish 19th-century actress

The father of the Swedish 19th-century actress Georgina Wilson, née Widerberg (1821-1858), daughter of the opera singer Henriette Widerberg, is listed as the secretary of the British Embassy in Stockholm, Charles Manners St George. I have tried to find him, but he does not seem to be mentioned here on wikipedia. Does her perhaps have an article under a different name form than the above? Who was he? I became a little intrigued!--Aciram (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't get a listing in the Dictionary of National Biography, which sadly makes him somewhat obscure. We have a biog of his mother - Melesina Trench. There's some info about the family property holdings here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit more about him here [23]. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentry, not noble.--Wetman (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I found another paragraph about him here.--74.106.199.207 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

I noticed that while Germany were the runaway winners in last night's Eurovision Song Contest, they received nul points from Israel. Has Israel ever given points to Germany in previous Eurovisions? 87.112.151.196 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel and Germany swapped twelve points in the Eurovision_Song_Contest_1982, if I'm reading the score sheet right. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

According to this site, Israel gave a total of 66 points to Germany between 1975 and 2008. This would make Germany the 8th most popular country of 50 for Israeli votes in Eurovision. Karenjc 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these replies. I was worried that there might be some political enmity, which would be against the spirit of Eurovision, so good to see that's not the case! 87.112.151.196 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Balkan countries regularly swap the big points, which might surprise people given the great enmity between their countries which resulted in four years of war in the early 1990s. The UK and Ireland also like to award each other points regardless of the merits of the song - which might surprise some people in, say, Boston. There used to be an example of cultural and political enmity blocking points in that Greece and Turkey, when present in the same contest on and off since 1978, awarded each other no points until 1988 (when Turkey gave the Greek entry 3 points). It took until 1997 for the Greek jury to award Turkey any points. Cyprus was similarly wary of any Turkish entry from its entry in 1981 until 2003. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall in 1984 when Ireland, represented by Linda Martin, lost out by 8 points. Yugoslavia voted against her. Everyone had been surprised because Terminal 3 was the best song in the contest and assumed to win.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to forget that, while (for example) the Balkan countries may have a history of warfare, they also have massive minorities of each other's ethnic groups. It's not hard to understand the points Bosnia gives Serbia when you remember that 37% of Bosnians are ethnic Serbs. Algebraist 09:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If political enmity is against the spirit of Eurovision, how do you explain the consistent atrocious performance of the UK? Here in the UK we explain it by our leading the European effort in the war on terror, and hence being grossly unpopular with everyone else in Europe. It can't be anything to do with the quality of the songs!--TammyMoet (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's exactly what it's to do with. Josh Dubovie being the latest in a long line of useless UK entries. Crap singer, crap song, was lucky to get the ten points it did. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly serious. I didn't actually watch it but followed it on Twitter, and the concensus of opinion was that this year's entry wasn't as bad as some of them, and certainly not deserving of last place. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem is that we don't publicise our songs at all. We choose an act a few months before the contest and then nobody hears it until the final. Other acts are released all around Europe as soon as they can be (October the year before the contest) and are massively publicised, get lots of radio play, etc.. The audience in the Eurovision studio were singing along to the German entry, they had heard it so much. I only heard the UK entry twice and I'm in the UK! --Tango (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My Irish husband (at the time), was so furious Ireland lost, that he put Yugoslavia's rejection of Martin's song down to the fact that the lyrics mentioned the USA!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, your husband must have been under the false impression that Yugoslavia, as a communist nation, hated the USA :) Now, I was just a wee 'un at the time you talk about, but hatred of the USA was not a thing that would describe any important facet of our mindset at the time. Or at least, so I remember. 89.142.179.179 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, had not heard or seen our entry before the night, and watched the whole event under protest (thanks, teenage daughters ...) Ours was certainly a dreary, bland and unmemorable offering, but what really stood out for me was how amateurish it looked in comparison to some of the carefully choreographed ones. Our Josh warbled sweetly enough, while two guys did awkward contortions behind him in what looked like a couple of Ikea storage boxes, on top of which two women in odd shiny cloaks swayed and sang a bit. It looked cheap, nasty and last-minute, and lacked the outrageous over-the-top campness or the big emotional sparkly Euroballad feel of many of the other entries. Britain neither sends Eurovision up nor takes it deadly seriously; it just trickles along under the radar as Tango says, to another damp squib of an entry, easily forgotten. Makes you nostalgic for the glory days of Bucks Fizz ... I think. Karenjc 17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that each nation only awards points to their top ten (I think) contestants. So, a mediocre song that everyone placed about 15th would score zero points and a song which was loved by some and hated by others would score plenty of points. So, the fact that the UK entry came last doesn't mean that everyone (or anyone) thought it was the worst song. They may just have found it uninteresting. --Frumpo (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

May 31

icing but not the cake

Is there some underlying factor like race or wealth or sex that would allow someone to go through the education and political system and have the icing but not the cake? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What would be the icing and the cake, respectively, in this scenario? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I might hazard at a guess at what the cake might be, but I'd have a tougher job coming up with what the icing is. Far better if you just tell us what you're talking about and then we can address your question. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 202. The original question makes no sense. There is no need to be ambiguous and/or coy. Just ask directly what you want to know. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Icing=credentials or records, cake=knowledge without icing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.8.229 (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine what references we could give you on this question. --Lgriot (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there would be any possibility in the USA or the UK, but maybe in some countries without a free press to discover the deception? Dbfirs 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the reason for lack or cake or lack of icing? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the question makes more sense if you consider the cake to be physical work, and the icing to be wealth. In which case, social class has everything to do with it. There is, however, a way for someone to have qualifications, and for someone else to have knowledge but no qualifications: indeed it was quite common in the UK until relatively recently. In people born before the advent of universal free education until age 16 (which came in in the UK in 1974), it would have been possible to leave school without any qualifications, and to work their way up through, say, an engineering firm until they reach the highest level available. In fact, I'm reminded of an old neighbour of mine who did just that, and who now owns the business without a single qualification to his name. -TammyMoet (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about those dates? From at least the sixties or earlier you could stay at school for free until 18, then do higher education at universities or their equivalent, where not only was the education free but you got your living costs paid for free also. On the other hand only about 20% of students stayed at school until 18 in the seventies, much lower than the participation rates now. In the noughties a backward step was made, and since then you have to pay for university education. At a guess the minimum school leaving age may have been raised from 15 to 16 in 1974. 92.28.254.179 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16 in 1972, according to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm . It used to be possible for people achieving the age of 16 before the Easter term to leave and not take exams - this did happen in the year I was 16, when one of my friends did just this. It was possible to stay on at school past 15 and take exams before that date, but not everyone had to - hence my phrase "universal free education until age 16". --TammyMoet (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"1971 - The decision to raise the age to 16 to take effect from 1 September 1972 confirmed."[24] Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Its misleading to write "the advent of universal free education until age 16 (which came in in the UK in 1974)" as free education started a very long time before that - I'm not sure if it was the early 20th. century or in the 19th. century. Perhaps you meant "the advent of compulsory education until age 16 (which was raised in the UK from age 15 in 1972)". 92.15.1.82 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Even in recent times in the UK for example, wealthy succesful parents can still fix their unqualified child up with a good well-paid job, particularly if they own a family business. And give them money to buy a house. 92.28.254.179 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To return the the OP's original question as explained by him/her: Is it possible to go through the education/political system and have records/credentials without have the knowledge on which those records and credentials depend? Of course it is, as many have proven, from institutional support for what are called "social passes" (age-based rather than ability-based) through bullying others to write papers and do homework, to paying others to sit exams, to counterfeiting documents or just lying about having them. Only the first is legal and I am not sure how race could be the principal means, but money and sex can be powerful motivators of persuasion to manipulate others into helping someone on such a sleazy crusade. Bielle (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How could I have forgotten such diploma mills as Sequoia University where the likes of L. Ron Hubbard obtained some of his credentials? And that's quite legal in that you pays your money and you takes your piece of paper. Many have been fooled. Bielle (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking, Bielle. There are three factors that I would cite. (1) Those "diploma-by-mail factories" allow an individual to obtain the "icing" (the credential of having a college degree) without the "cake" (the actual work and learning involved to earn a credible college degree). (2) In addition, as you indicate, there is the contemporary notion of social promotion (where kids just get "passed through" the system, whether they learn the material or not). (3) In addition, nowadays there is rampant grade inflation, whereby on paper (in the official records), it is attested that the student has excelled in the knowledge of the content, but in reality the student has not learned the material. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

There is also a concept known as "the gentleman's C". I thought that Wikipedia had an article, but I cannot seem to find it. This is the concept in which a professor allows a failing or a "D" (below average) student to more or less "save face" by giving that student the semi-decent (average) grade of "C". For example, if a student is the son of a university's notable alumnus who has contributed millions of dollars to the college, a professor will not want to give that below-average student a "D" or "F" grade. The professor also, in his integrity, would not feel comfortable giving that sub-par student an "A" or "B" grade. So, the "gentleman's C" is an unwritten compromise that allows the professor and student to save face and walk away from an awkward and unpleasant dilemma. George Bush (Junior) was said to have earned many a "gentleman's C" grade in his Yale days. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

See Origins of the Gentleman's C and George W's Love-Hate Affair with Yale. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Is there any evidence of many people with degrees from diploma-mills actually being able to get good jobs with them? (I really don't know - we don't have such diploma-mills in the UK, all universities have to be accredited. There are some further education colleges (just below uni) that have fake courses, but they are more to get student visas as a means of illegal immigration, they often don't even give out the qualifications. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. A person (the job candidate) simply lists the "degree" on his resume. Whether the potential employer actually digs deeper and checks into the matter is anyone's guess. Some employers may determine that the candidate has passed the threshold requirement of holding a degree, period, and be satisfied. Also, some employers may not be aware of the sub-standard nature of the degree. What any individual employer does with this information is up to that individual employer. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Also, to add another wrinkle to this issue. Nowadays, the line is getting very blurry between on-line (distance learning) colleges/degrees and diploma mills. In an on-line degree program, the student never attends any classes ... and simply submits all of his academic work on-line. Whether the student completed the work himself or had his best friend/wife/girlfriend/etc. actually do all the work is anyone's guess. Thus, it is impossible to ascertain the integrity and value of an on-line degree. This factor simply blurries the lines between a legitimate on-line program (if, philosophically, one could even exist) and the completely bogus degree of a diploma mill. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

If it's anyone's guess, then the answer to my question is "no, there is no evidence". What I'm asking is whether employers fool for it. In the UK, everyone knows which universities are good and which aren't and if you saw a CV with a uni mentioned that you didn't recognise you would look it up (well, there are probably some lazy people doing recruiting, but that's why I said "good job" not "job" - good jobs usually have good recruitment). --Tango (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer your specific question directly ... some employers fool for it ... and some do not. Of course, there is "evidence". But I am sure that no one has done an exhaustive research study that was published in a national journal. (That's probably what you mean by the term "evidence".) Evidence may be simply one employee (or employer) attesting to that fact that this has happened to him. So, yes, that is "evidence". And I am certain that there exists in this country at least one person (employee or employer) who can provide such evidence. Basically, yes, it happens all the time. Otherwise, those diploma mills would not exist at all. Granted, the "better jobs" have "better recruiting methods" and it happens less -- if at all -- in that arena. And the "worse jobs" have "worse recruiting methods" and it happens more in that arena. As a further point ... there may be a job that does not require a college degree. But, perhaps a candidate with a "fake degree" (from a diploma mill) might get hired over a non-degree-holder. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Diploma-mills will exist as long as people think employers fool for them. The target audience are, by definition, not the brightest of people. Your last point is a good one, though - while jobs that require a degree will probably make some basic checks that the degree is real, jobs that don't require a degree but might be swayed by you having one anyway, might fool for it. I wouldn't be surprised if some studies have been done into this, even if it is just an investigative journalist applying for lots of jobs using a degree from a diploma-mill and seeing how many places offer him the job (or at least an interview). --Tango (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor usage note relating to the immediately preceding posts: the more usual phrase is "fall for it", not "fool for it." I suspect the latter may be a new eggcorn. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The worse bit is, I knew that... Thanks for the reminder! --Tango (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor note to the above minor note. User Tango indicated that he/she is from the U.K. in a post above. I had assumed that the phrase "fool for it" was merely the British version for the American phrase "fall for it". As in, "making a fool of the employer who believes this nonsense". Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

The OP is essentially revisiting the question s/he asked above here, from another angle. Perhaps we could be more helpful if it was a little clearer what was wanted. An easy way to get unearned paper qualifications? A consensus that such qualifications don't reflect the holder's true knowledge and achievements? Karenjc 17:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A school can not issue a diploma for acquisition by anyone of knowledge it has not taught or does not have, yet such knowledge may be acquired. It is the opposite dilemma of icing without cake. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Iran

As fundamentalist Muslim extremists, Iran thinks that the Qur'an orders them to kill all "infidels" and that if they die accomplishing this task, Allah will favor them and send them to Heaven. For example, this is why there are suicide bombers; they think that dieing killing "infidels" will get them into Heaven. So why is Iran deterred by mutually assured destruction, and why hasn't it just nuked as much of the world as it can? --75.28.54.40 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you go to church how many people sitting in the pues are siting there to be seen rather than becasue they have a life or death devotion to the entitiy they are supposedly there to worship? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Iran to be made up of "fundamentalist Muslim extremists". Yes, they are an Islamic Republic, with a government that holds a relatively hard Islamic line, but they don't have the problems with suicide bombers and such that are seen in, say, Israel. Additionally, they currently don't have the capability to nuke any of the world, and the world is trying to keep it that way. See Nuclear program of Iran. Finally, Mr. 71's point is a good one. It only takes one person willing to die to carry out a suicide bombing. It takes many, many people in government all willing to die to drop a nuke on someone else. Buddy431 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran also doesn't have nuclear weapons. (By the way, surely this guy is just trolling? He's asked similar ridiculous questions.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nothing like crass generalisations, broad-brush ill informed assumptions and ridiculous comparisons to stimulate sensible debate...

The rationale for developing nuclear weapons is pretty complex. Iran see themselves threatened by one nuclear state to their South East and another nuclear armed state to the west acting as a proxy for the US.

Those interpretation os Islam that see suicide bombing as an acceptable form of Jihad are actually pretty limited, and they're not mainstream in a Shia dominated Islamic republic.

ALR (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also of note that generally speaking, being willing to suicidally die is not compatible with seeking high political office. Whatever a small minority might be agreeable with at the bottom, you can generally be sure that those at the top are interested in preserving their power/wealth/etc. that they've worked so hard to get. They might be willing to send others to die, but they're generally not willing to do it themselves. Anyway, on the larger question of whether nuclear weapons can deter those with exceptionally strong beliefs in the afterlife, see, for example, Noah Feldman, "Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age", NY Times, linked to in our nuclear weapons article. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As the direct political descendant of St. Paul and the infallible representative of God on the Earth, why does the pope need his bullet-proof papa-mobile? Surely an assassination on him would only speed up the process of him getting to sit on the right hand of the heavenly throne? Or is he just a regular person, afraid for his life and willing to do what it takes to prolong it? Or to rephrase an old saying: There are no believers in foxholes. 89.142.179.179 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the Pope feels he can do his job better if he's alive than if he's dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeees, that usually works best.  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

African folktales

Where can I go online to read some African folktales? The stuff online is mostly webpages about books of African folktales, but I want to read the actual stories. Subliminable (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten Books has a collection of collections in full view. For example: Faffir (Xhosa) Folk-Lore, Folk Stories from Southern Nigeria, Hausa Folk-Lore, Myths and Legends of the Bantu,Yoruba Legends, and quite a few more listed on their folklore/mythology page. Should you have trouble viewing or downloading the "Low Quality PDF" free e-book, Google books has the same collections in full view as well. (Probably easiest if you copy the exact title into the search box of Google books). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it legal to circumvent privacy settings on facebook?

ExitRight (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "circumvent" in this case? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

just any successful attempt by one user to get into another user's profile where settings are private.ExitRight (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It would depend. If there's a bug in the Facebook system which lets you view material that should be private, then it's not your fault. On the other hand, if you hack or do anything naughty to get around the privacy software, then it would be against Facebook's terms of service (so breach of contract) and likely against your country's equivalent of Britain's Computer Misuse Act 1990. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 11:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. That pretty much answers my question. I guess I ask because I've just never heard of anyone being arrested for snooping around in someone else's profile.ExitRight (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be a jerky thing to do even if it wasn't illegal. Aaronite (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Recently one of the weekly news mags had a cover story about facebook. Basically, abandon all hope of privacy if you're on facebook. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Translating an author's original text into another language, without the author's permission

Dear Editors, In your text, you refer to "Canada's copyright laws and translation. May I ask if translating an author's text (say, by Google), without the author's consent, constitutes a contravention of Canada's laws on copyrights and trademarks? Respectfully submitted, Dr. Adalbert Lallier, author of the term/conceot/idea "sexonomics" (on which I hold a trademark) and of the treatise "The Golden Triangle: Sexuality, Money, Power" (on which I hold the copyright, and which has been published on my website "www.sexonomics.com). {email removed – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.187.174 (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We are sorry, but Wikipedia does not provide legal opinions (see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer). Please consult a lawyer instead. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 April 10#Traduttore, traditore! -- Wavelength (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Details of the burning of the Jaffna library

Burning of Jaffna library says that nearly 100,000 unique books and manuscripts were destroyed. Why would a public library house so many unique documents? I think of public libraries as owning copies of books that are also owned by many other places, and unique books as belonging in university archives or other specialised libraries. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New York Public Library conserves many irreplaceable unique materials. so did the Sarajevo Library.--Wetman (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As does the British Library. Of course, if my own local library was burnt down I don't think there would be many irreplaceable manuscripts lost. Jack forbes (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on the library and the meaning of "irreplaceable". In some towns, the library also holds the archives - for example, documents relating to the politics and history of the city, local newspapers, original works donated by local authors, etc. None of them might seem as important as losing most of Avicenna's works or anything, but they'd be unique, original, documents, in some cases without extant copies. Matt Deres (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you set up "universities archives or other specialised libraries" as a special category. For all intents and purposes, Jaffna library was a specialized library/archive. The fact of it being public had nothing to do with it having books or getting burnt down. There would be a comparable problem if the main Harvard or Yale libraries were burnt to the ground, or the US National Archives. Whether they are open to the public has nothing to do with whether they provide security to the books contained. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood; I thought this was a simple city library, nowhere near the calibre of the NYPL or the British Library, let alone being comparable to the Ivy League libraries. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's nowhere near the calibre of the British Library, which has 14 million books, and 150 million items in total. I wouldn't rank that below the Ivy League libraries, though. Gwinva (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Even small libraries do have special collections, depending on whether someone famous (say a big local author who got world famous) or some famous event happened. The small library could hold historically important documents in that case. Aaronite (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, as the article says, "at the time of its destruction, the library was one of the biggest in Asia..." --Mr.98 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend was right to be suspicious. This looks like a WP:V problem. The apparent source says "the barbarous burning, by a security unit, of the Jaffna Library, with its 97000 books and unique manuscripts." The editor moved the word "unique" to make it sound like there were 100,000 unique items but it appears that the author only said there were 100,000 books of all types, and and an unspecified, though presumably small, number of unique manuscripts. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Per JGGardiner's finding, I've changed "unique" to "different". I understand that small libraries would have special collections — when in college, I helped to archive the Macartney Collection of unique manuscripts, but (1) it's nowhere near 100,000 documents, and (2) it's a college library, not a large public library. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

While not all of 100,000 books were unique, a large number of them were unique Tamil manuscripts. Jaffna in late 19th and early 20th centuries was a centre of Tamil scholarship/ Print industry and the library housed a lot of unexamined manuscript collections. It was during this period, Tamil literary works were being published as books sourced from decaying palm-leaf manuscripts. Jaffna library housed several of these manuscript collections and first edition prints. Some of the manuscripts/books lost in the burning incident are now lost forever. -Sodabottle (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

architecture of Domitian

What were the most important buildings Domitian worked on or constructed and why? (not a school question, just curious).--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As it says in the Domitian article, he built the odeon of Domitian, the stadium of Domitian, and the Flavian Palace. He restored the Temple of Jupiter, and completed the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, the Arch of Titus, and the Colosseum. He also had a master architect named Rabirius. Why did he do that? Well Rome was still being rebuilt after the Great Fire, and apparently he had bucketloads of money, so why not? Apparently the people loved it, but the Senate didn't like him very much. But that happens when you name too many buildings after yourself... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I attach my curtains to my curtain rings?

How do I attach my curtains to my curtain rings? Here's a picture that shows both. There is a sort of clip on the ring. Do I need to buy something in addition to this or is what I have sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.137.80 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you also need some of these (curtain hooks), which you thread through those loops you have in the stitching at the top of the curtain. You then attach the hooks to those clips you have on the rings. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a guide on hanging curtains like yours, with useful pictures. Note that for use with rods & rings (rather than tracks) it is generally best to feed the hook through the pockets on the top row. Curtain hooks come in a variety of materials, depending on the weight of your curtains: this site offers some advice. Gwinva (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Or maybe more like these, which are a bit longer. Same idea, though. Matt Deres (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Name of prominent anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy theorist

I'm trying to remember the name of a Jewish man who, sometime around the '50s and '60s, gave speeches railing against Jewish people, accusing them of all being communists, of conspiring to cause Germany to lose WWI, and of possessing great global power. He may have been a Bircher. Cheers. --superioridad ^(discusión) 23:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

William Guy Carr? This particular conspiracy nut seemed to have a serious hard-on for Communists and went as far as completely fabricating things they were supposed to have said. He also believed WWI, WWII and the yet to come WWIII were a conspiracy to bring about world-wide totalitarian communism. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the guy I'm thinking of was Jewish himself. If it helps anyone, there's a common-ish piece of spam that gets posted on Usenet groups that talks about how the British were facing defeat in WWI in 1916, until Germany's Jews turned traitor, and, in exchange for the Balfour Declaration, lost the war for the Central Powers. It cites a speech by the guy I'm thinking of as evidence. I'm reasonably certain that I read the Wikipedia article on him sometime in the last month. --superioridad ^(discusión) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That does help. Sounds like Benjamin H. Freedman. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks. --superioridad ^(discusión) 09:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

June 1

Was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad vegetarian?

The Mirza Ghulam Ahmad article links to a reference listing the "Ten Conditions of Baiat" which includes "That he shall not inflict injury on any of Allah’s creatures." Does this imply vegetarianism? 58.147.58.152 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

when did the reichstag fire start?

And also, how were the firemen notified? it says in the article (Reichstag fire) that the berlin fire station recieved a call saying the reichstag was on fire at 2125/10p (two different times are offered...) but when did the actual fire start? I would understand if it's not known, but given that there was a trial and everything you'd think a source would exist that said at least aproximately what time it started... if not what time it is/was claimed to have started.

As for the follow up question, how were the firemen notified? did they get a call, ie, was someone on the street walking and was like OH MAN THE REICHSTAG IS TOTALLY ON FIRE (except in German...)? or what, and how did they tell the firemen, it says they recieved and an alarm call/message, was this a phone call? how ubiquitous were phones in 1933 Germany?

thanks. flagitious (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical philosophical question

This is a fun one : ) A professor of mine said that an experiment cannot prove something, it can only not disprove something. My thought experiment was a group of experimenters who would leave a kitchen utensil on a table, leave the room, come back in the room, and see if the utensil still existed. This is based on the idea that physical objects do not exist when a person is not looking at them. Well, after close to an infinite amount of experiments, one discovers that the utensil stopped existing when no one was looking at it (they go back in the room, and it's gone).

What does this prove? I believe it's specifically a Descartes thing, but could you point me in the right direction? Thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 07:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could start with the article on falsifiability, which is the notion your professor was talking about. Gabbe (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in "If a tree falls in a forest" and where that article links to. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)