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 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[1].

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: [2] 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 - [3]). Now, it is understood such love can only be provided with free will ([4]) and it is worth the risk ([5] - 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.[6] 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)

But "we" have not "found" his sonnets, nor has anybody else. They were published in 1609, but there is no record of anyone owning a handwritten copy (which obviously was the original form, but neither the plays nor the poems survived in handwritten form, nor are there historical references to anyone specifically possessing the originals). Contemporary sources indicate that Shakespeare distributed his sonnets to his friends, and scholars generally believe that he neither wanted them to be published nor approved of their publication (though of course, there's a minority view to the contrary); and it's almost undebatable that he definitely did not approve of the publication of the first two to appear, in a pirated book called "Passionate Pilgrim" and (in all other respects) falsely attributed to Shakespeare. Off-topic: above, it's claimed that some of the Folio was reconstructed by having the actors recite the parts; I have never read a reputable scholar who advances this theory. All of the scholars I've read (and there are many) believe that the previously unpublished Folio plays were reconstructed from the actors' scripts, held (with many other scripts by many other writers from the previous three-plus decades) by Shakespeare's company. 63.17.89.8 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the OP presumes that Shakespeare "kept" his manuscripts. In fact, once he wrote the plays, they became the property of his company, which would have kept numerous actors' copies of both his plays and many other writers'. There's evidence that he revised King Lear and Hamlet, meaning he obviously had access to copies of his plays; but there's no reason to suspect he "kept" any of them. No literary manuscripts were left to anyone in his will, at least not specifically. There is also no evidence that he had any interest in publishing his plays, except perhaps to prevent a pirate from obtaining unjust enrichment. He became a very, very rich man through sharing in the company's revenue (eventually making a very substantial investment in the company), but he never invested (for example) in a printer's shop or a bookseller, and would have profited very little from sale of his plays -- indeed, sale might diminish their value as live entertainment, though that's debatable, and sale also made it easier for other (especially "traveling") companies to perform the plays (thus diluting their value) without compensation. (I mention all this stuff about publishing as further evidence that Shakespeare would have no motivation to "keep" his plays. They were of no value to him as possessions.) 63.17.89.8 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all for the above input and feedback. I appreciate it. This was helpful and informative. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 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)

It's a continuation of the old Ottoman "millet" system, which governed "Personal status law" (marriage, inheritance, divorce etc.), but not criminal law... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 3 June 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') [7]. 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 [8] [9]. 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 [10].

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

India has a uniform penal code.--^Nilotpal42 18:02, 4 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)

In the United States, ordinary constitutional amendments have to be passed by a supermajority vote of Congress before being passed on to the states to approve or disapprove, and most proposed constitutional amendments are rather narrow and limited. However, a constitutional convention could freely propose a major radical overhaul of the U.S. constitution (such changes would still have to be approved by the states to go into effect, of course). Some want a U.S. constitutional convention exactly for that reason, while others are strongly opposed to the holding of such a convention (remembering that the last national constitutional convention that was held, in 1787, completely scrapped the existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 3 June 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[11]. 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)

The skirts used to be much longer, also. Pants and skirts both have crept up over time to facilitate freedom of movement as the game has gotten faster-paced. Which doesn't explain why the shorts worn by basketball players, and the knee-breeches worn by baseball players, have gotten longer over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the era of John McEnroe and co the the male tennis players wore them extremely short and tight. That's why McEnroe used to scream so often. It's true! Jack forbes (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You say that as if you believe it, fellow Jack. Citation, please. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you ever wear the tight shorts, fellow Jack? I look back at them with such fondness embarrasment. They were the height of fashion then of course. No citations, just painful memories. :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Female tennis players wear short skirts to get good ratings (heterosexual male fans). Also, have you noticed the mikes have been turned up to catch the womens yelps during the game (which can sound like orgasmic yelps). Sex sells. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And we, the consumers, buy it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 2 June 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 [12]. 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 [13]. 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 [14]. News Corp and others are also know for their teneous relationship with Google, e.g. [15] 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 [16]. 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)

How interesting. Thank you!--Aciram (talk) 13:14, 1 June 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 (metaphor for gaining qualifications without having knowledge)

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."[17] 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)

That's only true of a legitimate school. And regardless of credentials, once people get a job they are ultimately judged on performance. Undeserved grades and degrees will eventually catch up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Therein lies the dilemma. A person, regardless of the amount of cake they have, can not get their foot in the door without the icing and this may not be true if they have icing which is illegitimate. What this suggests is that because we do not have an educational system which has resolved this dilemma that even "legitimate" icing may be spoiled. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As a potential employer, if someone comes in and says, "I don't have a degree, but I know this stuff, just trust me", I'm likely to tell him that we might have an opening in the mail room. There's no education-system way around the need for that "icing". However, it's often said that the best jobs are obtained by "knowing someone". That can get your foot in the door either legitimately or illegitimately, i.e. you still have to know your stuff or you'll likely be dumped eventually. There is a way around this problem, though, which is to start your own business. The success or failure of your business will be performance-based one way or another, and then the "icing" won't matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Many people do just that whether forced by the system or not. The problem is for those who want even higher formal education. There is no system at the upper levels of education that can accommodate a situation which is easily handled at lower levels by a learning lab which upper levels should be able to handle even better. The school I went to used learning labs extensively to cover all sorts of situations from a course missed in high school to classes missed while on the road to film. Polychotomous keys are incredibly efficient in this situation and talk about creating one's own business a fortune could be made. Professors, however, for the most part are too lazy and their students too dumb. No offense Debra if you are following this thread. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand if someone comes in with a resume listing no formal education, but a really kick-ass portfolio of work ... well, that's another matter. I don't know how big companies work, but especially for a technical position, a small company would probably give it a good look. You might say that you don't have time to create work for a portfolio for no pay, especially as your field doesn't usually require one, but compared to four years in school it could be the easy way out,(if you're really as brilliant as all that.)

The worst possible case is a resume that's just a story. I hate those. They tell some sad story that's just a protracted excuse for having absolutely no credentials or other proof of ability. Those are people I wouldn't want to work with even if they were brilliant.

Also resume-death is the phrase "Many people find my work difficult to understand because of my unorthodox approaches and outside the box thinking." I don't even want to meet people who think that's a good thing to put on a resume. APL (talk) 01:48, 3 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)

Plus, it would be considered sinful within the Catholic church for him to put himself in danger for no good cause, both because of endangering his own life (2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.) and because of allowing someone else to commit murder (2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"). You can see the relevant part of the Catechism here, if you want to understand why a faithful Catholic is not supposed to invite their own death. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

75.28.54.40 -- First off, there's no injunction or requirement in Islam that Muslims simply kill off all non-Muslims. There are some rather "supremacist" passages of the Qur'an and traditional Muslim legal interpretations, but it's all quite a bit more complex and nuanced than just killing all non-Muslims. Second, you seem to be confusing and conflating the Ayatollocracy in Iran with extremist Sunni ideologies (adopted by a small minority of Sunnis). You may be unable to tell these groupings apart, but extremist Salafis/Wahhabis actually hate the Iranian power structure quite as much as they hate "infidels". Third, the leaders in Iran clearly remember the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and though Iran has adopted a foreign policy which is quite aggressive, provocateur, and adventurist in some ways, they're actually not at all eager to start a major war directly involving Iranian territory... AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out the chapter entitled "The Problem of Islam" in The End of Faith by Sam Harris. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:41, 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)

There have been quite a few newspaper/blog features recently about Facebook's privacy problems (basically, even the privacy settings aren't very private). Gizmodo notes 10 serious issues which you might find interesting. Reclaim Privacy offers a tool to test your privacy settings. (I cannot vouch for this in any way, and merely offer the link, which I came across. Like all internet tools, ensure this is safe and appropriate before using.)
It's worth noting, in answer to your original question, that there are many legal ways for people to access information set on "private". By signing up to facebook's terms & conditions, you have effectively condoned that. For example, applications are an easy way for companies to access your private data. Electronic Frontier Foundation note the things Facebook considers "public", which seems to be pretty much everything. If you link anything on your page, the page might remain 'private' but the links aren't. Gwinva (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the internet explosion really took the world by surprise. We simply have no precedent for the kinds of things happening on the internet. Law, policy and even etiquette are still lagging far behind. There are probably millions of things you can do on the internet which are illegal, immoral or just stupid, but the likelihood of being, reprimanded, arrested or even caught is disproportionably low. Just because you might not get caught does not mean it's not wrong. Vespine (talk) 06:26, 4 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)

Possibly not. On the website of the Ahmadiyya movement, you can read the members' pledge of faith; it doesn't mention vegetarianism and refers to injury in the context of injury to human beings: I will not inflict any injury on the people generally, and in particular on the Muslims, under any undue provocation by tongue or hand or in any other manner.

Also on that website, there is a FAQ question about whether meat-eating causes suffering to animals. It concludes: That objection may have looked worth considering before the scientific discoveries of the 20th century. It was no less a person than an outstanding Hindu scientist and a Nobel Prize winner, Sir J. C. Bose, who discovered that vegetables have, not only life, but sensibility particularly of pain. That finishes for all time the objection of cruelty to animals.... to put the animal kingdom to the uses for which it was created is no cruelty.

I haven't found any reference to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being personally a vegetarian. Perhaps the quickest way to get a definitive answer to that and to your original question would be to contact the Ahmadiyya mosque closest to you. The address for the one in Thailand is here. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:35, 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)

In the UK before telephones were common, a fireman was detailed to sit at the top of the fire station tower and keep a lookout for smoke or flames. Simple but effective. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article says the fire alarm in the Reichstag was pulled "shortly before 9 pm" after fire was discovered first in the restaurant. That doesn't tell you exactly how the firemen were notified - by hearing the alarm or by being telephoned or fetched in person by someone who heard the alarm - but it's almost certain that the seat of government (and probably fire stations too) was/were equipped with telephone service in 1933; again turning to the German Wikipedia, the History of the Telephone article says the first phones were available in Germany in 1877; main networks were laid in the 1880s, and by 1936 Germany had 6,647 exchanges with 26 million km of line. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pulling a fire alarm should have caused a bell to ring at a fire station, resulting in firemen rolling out the door in less than a minute. The alarm ringing at some office wherefrom someone phones the fire station or runs down to the station to knock on the doorseems like a bizarre arrangement. Edison (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"To the bitter end: an insider's account of the plot to kill Hitler, 1933-1944" By Hans Bernd Gisevius, pages 6-8 says that a "divinity student" walking at the west side of the building heard glass break "shortly after 9 o'clock," and saw a light start to flicker. He notified a policeman at 9:05.Witnesses saw a flame moving around inside the building, Two couples walking on the street saw the glow of the fire, approached the building, and saw flames coming out the windows. They ran to a fire alarm box at the porter's lodge in the Engineers' Building and pulled the alarm at 9:14 p.m. The fire brigade arrived within 4 minutes thereafter. Additional alarms were pulled and phone messages went out to government personnel. "The Night of the Long Knives" By Paul R. Maracin, page 93 says the alarm sounded at 9:14 at Firehouse Number 6 on Linienstraße. Shame on the Germans for not having automatic fire alarm reporting via high temperature sensors at the ceilings of the rooms. Such automatic alarms were in common use by 1919, as were automatic sprinklers. Edison (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Google books link you provided seems only to give access to the book for residents of the US, so I don't know exactly what the source says. But by "common", do you mean commonly used across the globe or only in US skyscrapers? --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

They were in common use in factories, warehouses, large stores, and similar buildings where prompt fire department response might decrease loss. The cost was probably offset by lower insurance premiums. As a "self-insurer" a government might just take a chance on the watchment spottong a fire. Another source, "Telephone magazine: an illustrated monthly magazine," Volumes 15-16 (1900) pages 172-173 said that by 1900 the Berlin Fire Department had fifteen engine companies, and each had its own fire alarm circuits. A Morse register at the station records which alarm box sent in a signal. In 1900, a portable phone was plugged in at the alarm to talk back to the station when the engine arrived. By the 1920's it was common to have a telephone at the fire alarm so the citizen could state the address of the fire and give an idea of how large the fire and structure were. Edison (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (by the way the new Google Book link you provided, only shows up as snippet view for me, which is unfortunately almost the same as not having the link as it barely show one full sentence of the book) --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:01, 3 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)

From the scientific standpoint, the fact that the utensil is there every time does not philosophically "prove" it exists, but the best evidence available is that it does exist. A humorous twist on this premise is a Far Side cartoon in which a group of cows are standing on their hind legs, like humans, out in the pasture near a road. One of them yells, "Car!" As the car drives by, the cows are on all fours as they normally would be expected to be. In the final panel, they are back standing on their hind feet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP should also consider this: What about something that exists only when you're not looking at it? Meanwhile, I'm curious, from the mathematical standpoint, what specific number is "close to" infinity. And from the scientific standpoint, you have to consider the possibility that someone picked up the spoon and put it somewhere else. The failure to apply rational thought to observations is where religions come from, don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The falsifiability article is very good, and I'd share Gabbe's recommendation that you check it out. More generally, the issue your professor was referring to was that of the ability to prove inductive theories - I'd recommend reading the problem of induction article to catch up on that. In this case, I'd suggest that the example would prove that at the point of time when the experimenters looked for the utensil and it was not there, the utensil had disappeared. That doesn't solve the problem of whether or not it existed when the experimenters were not looking, as it doesn't state anything about the utensil's status when they were out of the room. (Maybe it did exist when they weren't looking, but ceased to exist on that one occasion when they did). Bilby (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe someone picked it up and moved it, perhaps temporarily. And if they can't determine who moved it, it must have been something supernatural! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A corollary to this experiment, which is based on a similar conceit, is the comment of a sports fan, "They only win when I'm watching", or "They only lose when I'm watching." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ockham's razor strongly leans towards the "anything other than ceased to exist" approach. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if wikipedia has an article about socks disappearing from one's laundry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally a variation on the missing socks problem happened yesterday. My brother got his socks wet, and left them outside on a rock to dry. When he went to get them, they were gone. I think a chipmunk is currently shredding them and lining her nest with them. StuRat (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

God in the incarnation of a chipmunk? What'll He think of next? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at proof disambiguation page, you'll see that there are a lot of mathematics-related entries, and none that are related to science. Proof only happens in the context of some rules. To oversimplify (I love oversimplifying!), mathematics is about taking rules and proving their consequences, and science is about coming up with those rules in the first place. Sometimes, say, physicists will do a mathematical proof, but proof and experiment are two totally different things. You can "disprove" something with evidence, but that doesn't really have anything to do with proof; someone can come along later and do more experiments to "disdisprove" it. Paul (Stansifer) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

elimination of advanced culture

Is there a book which covers the degradation of culture, which virtually all historical literature or stage plays in England, or opera in Italy or ballet in Russia represent through perversion by the lower class who find such things unnecessary or a waste of time, aside from books about the Nazis? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to figure out what you mean. Could you expand a bit on what you mean but use shorter sentences please. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try. You are a member of a family unit. You have established routines, etc. Grandma comes to visit and really to stay due to her declining memory. You try to work her in. To do so means you have to stop using fowl language, no more porn on the telly. Forget rock and roll music. You can't skip church anymore. Your established home culture has gone completely a muck and you might as well get use to it because grandma is not ready to die. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"No more fowl language" = "no calling people chickens, or turkeys, or dumb clucks". As for going to church, if granny asks, just tell her you went and she forgot. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean dumbing-down of culture? If so, maybe this book will help? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dumbing-Down-Culture-Politics-Media/dp/0907845657 --TammyMoet (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Scanning very, very briefly I would have to read more. Possibly. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The example you gave above doesn't lead me to dumbing down. I see that as an example of a temporary modification of your culture in order to accommodate someone else's culture - maybe acculturation? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at it from grandma's point of view in the event her established culture was violated. A better example might be if the government began to acquire civil servants not far above the mental and social capacity of a computer. Sure they would get the bureaucratic job done but what if the perspective that this was all that had to be done began to effect the thinking and attitude and behavior of the higher ups who at one time liked to attend plays but now find it quite unacceptable to stay in line with and accommodate the new bureaucratic thinking in order to have any respect at all that would allow such beasts to be managed. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Puritan will be relevant. Your last paragraph sounds like a dystopia such as Orwell's 1984 or Fahrenheit 451. 92.15.16.132 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Puritans may be too idealistic and Fahrenheit 451 to inclusive to qualify since no deliberate distinction is made between practical media like repair manuals and stories or novels. 1984 is another possible but way extreme outcome. In other words literature might not be eliminated but only its depth and certainly the appreciation thereof. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, then I think you'd have to write your own book - critique, textbook, dystopian novel or whatever, as your narrow criteria are likely to exclude everyone elses. By the way, I think you should try using commas. 92.24.189.54 (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no question in the explanation. I compared the explanation with the original and was unable to find any correlation. There was a question mark at the end of the last contribution explaining more but there was no question words in the sentence. You might as well be speaking a different language as far as I'm concerned. You really do need to try harder to communicate if you want reasonable answers. I am pretty intelligent so you probably have drastically restricted the number of potential replies. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What obligation are you under to respond to the question that demands shorter sentences for your comprehension and corrections of an obvious typographical nature your mind can recognize but is unable to make for its self? Perhaps you should work on another question which does not present so many difficulties beyond your ability to resolve.. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read your "What obligation .." sentence a few times but it keeps on eluding me. We're not a bunch of dummos around here; maybe you should try a little harder to speak in simple sentences that contain one essential idea. Complexity requires more shorter sentences, not a longer single sentence. If you're not getting your message across, that's your problem and your responsibility to resolve, not ours.-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When children are in the room sometimes its necessary to talk over their heads. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading through your posts twice, I am still unsure if you think plays, operas and ballets represent good things which we are losing our ability to understand due to the indifference of the lower classes and general dumbing down, or if you consider them bad things, which the upper classes are forcing on the lower classes in order to subvert their culture and destroy their fun (like granny). Therefore I cannot answer your question. Since I feel under no obligation to answer any questions on this desk which I do not understand, this does not bother me in the slightest. I mention this confusion merely for your benefit: since you went to the effort of posting this question, I presume you would be keen for someone to answer it. If so, it would be to your advantage to clarify your question rather than abuse the intelligence and goodwill of the refdeskers (who are generally all intelligent and generous). Gwinva (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. You should answer according to both points of view.
2. You are taking this too personally. Go have a beer. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, 71.100, I disagree with the premise that you are starting from: that if many people dislike or turn away from opera or ballet or old literature, then it represents a "degradation" of culture. This is a very controversial stance, which our High culture article touches on (but unfortunately doesn't tackle as much as it should). There was a deliberate, decades-long effort in the Victorian era (more or less) to exalt opera, ballet, and the stage, for the specific purpose of creating a divide between the favored elite and the unwashed masses. We have all been taught for over a hundred years that these arts are pinnacles of human achievement, and the middle and lower classes (and many individuals in the upper classes) feel like idiots for not loving Italian operas from 200 years ago. I am with those who believe this stance is nonsense. There are magical pinnacles of artistic achievement in each of these fields, but so are there in film, cartoons, TV shows, and stand-up comedy. La bohème is not intrinsically, provably superior to Toy Story. (PS: I agree with those who have suggested you use shorter sentences; the run-on sentences make it difficult to follow your point.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What many people fail to comprehend is the nature of the past. Our momentary and present culture starts with the moment before that and that moment starts with the moment before it. A more or less contiguous path can thereby be constructed to the distant past. For some, however, the personal path excludes Egypt and the Cradle of Civilization, Europe, the British isles and about five thousand years of human history. However, because occurred in the past the present can not escape being influenced by it even if it does not lie in the direct path. Consequently the "...magical pinnacles of artistic achievement in... ...in film, cartoons, TV shows, and stand-up comedy." can probability be found in past rather than being original. Again, if a question is above your head then simply ignore it and move on. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't insult people on the Reference Desk, please. Personally, I'm not providing you any further answers on the Reference Desk until you apologize. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

Judging by the OP's sympathetic remarks about such supposedly lowbrow things as rock'n'roll, porn, and doing chicken imitations, I think the OP would agree with you. It seems to me the OP is looking for a good example of the historical literature which "represents this degredation through perversion (of the entire culture) by the lower class, who find such things (as art) unnecessary" - even though this is a flawed premise. The OP specifies a story like 1984, but less extreme. (The Time Machine springs to mind, but it's pretty extreme too.) 213.122.61.131 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! :-}

H.G. Wells seems to be exploring the topic in a very provocative, extreme and unsubtle way. I'm looking for coverage which is somewhat more camouflaged like the beasts of the jungle, oceans or deserts that wait for the opportunity to eliminate whatever happens by; in this case any form of culture that might take up a moment of their time. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Very provocative, extreme and unsubtle", was it? Hmmm ............ -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that the culture of your granny was the popular culture of her day. I know that I much prefer listening to the progressive rock music of my adolescence to the hip hop music of my kids, and the RnB (so-called) of today's kids. To me, my music is "better" simply because it's the stuff I grew up with, am familiar with, and fell in love with. That doesn't mean to say it actually is better. I was inspired to point this out by a forthcoming showing of Aida on the BBC, which led me to remember that my grandmother was in the chorus of a production of Aida in Birmingham in 1919, when she was 17. She used to play the Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves every day until the day she died. When I was a kid she explained to that this was her "pop music". --TammyMoet (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me when my parents criticised the Rolling Stones when they first appeared on American TV back in 1964; yet they had both been fans of Frank Sinatra who attracted loads of screaming girls in the 1940s. Every generation has its pop culture.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Never ask, 'Oh, why were things so much better in the old days?' It's not an intelligent question." Ecclesiastes 7:10. That is, even 2,200 years ago, this was considered a cliché. Unless everything has actually been constantly getting worse for thousands of years (unlikely), I think we can conclude that people who ask this question have no sense of history. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

THe OP may be interested in deskilling, prolefeed (also see its links), Proletarianization, vulgarity, and Poshlost. 92.15.21.134 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cold War histories

I'm interested in reading about Cold War history, but find the reading list at that article somewhat overwhelming. I'm looking for books about the politics, diplomacy, intelligence and military (infrastructure, not the actual equipment) of that time. I'm not so interested in personal histories/memoirs. I've read and enjoyed The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis and Cold War: For Forty-five Years the World Held Its Breath by Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing and probably a few others that have slipped my mind. I am probably going to get another Gaddis book (which one?) but was wondering if anyone could reccommend anything with a European, British or Russian slant? Thanks --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire, which is mostly about the period of the 1970s-early 1990s in Russia. It's pretty fascinating on all fronts, and well-written. It's journalism more than straight history, but I think you'll find it as rich as Gaddis. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For infrastructure in the UK, try Cold War: Building for Nuclear Confrontation, 1946-1989 by Wayne D. Cocroft. Amazon has it. It's an illustrated inventory of the physical infrastructure of Cold War installations in the UK, done in cooperation with the National Trust. You may also like Cold War Secret Nuclear Bunkers: The Passive Defence of the Western World During the Cold War by Nick Catford, a bit less scholarly. Catford's associated with Subterranea Britannica (SubBrit) [18], which has a section on Cold War relics [19]. Acroterion _(talk) 20:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr.98 and Acroterion for the recommendations - I'll have some interesting holiday reading! Lenin's Tomb sounds like just what I'm looking for, and I wouldn't have thought about Subterranea in the Cold War, but it fits in nicely with my Underground London fascination :-) --Kateshortforbob _talk 10:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell quote

This page[20] has a Georege Orwell quote

"Men are only as good as their technical development allows them to be. "

But when you look at the source[21],an essay on Charles Dickens, the full quote is

" When he speaks of human progress it is usually in terms of moral progress men growing better; probably he would never admit that men are only as good as their technical development allows them to be. "

He seems to be presenting it as a statement Charles Dickens wouldn't agree with. Does it imply that Georege Orwell agrees with the statement? Is the first quote a fair representation of Orwell's ideas? Diwakark86 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Orwell presents it as a true statement Charles Dickens wouldn't admit to (not "agree with"), so I think it's reasonable to assert that Orwell agrees with it. "...probably he would never admit that all real cows have three legs and fly" (or some other false statement) wouldn't make sense as a meaningful contrast. — Lomn 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rev 1

Hi,
what does "Rev 1" mean in "TK (Tamils, LP updated) Sri Lanka (Rev 1) CG [2009 UKAIT 00049 (11 December 2009)"] ?
Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision one, maybe? --Tango (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but revision of what? Of the country guidance? It should be explained in some legal citation guide, or on the tribunal website, but I didn't find anything. Apokrif (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Native Americans in US Politics

Are there currently any Native Americans holding a government seat? I mean like a senator, mayor, etc? Reticuli88 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There are all but certainly too many to list at local levels, probably many at state levels, and Daniel Akaka is a serving US Senator. Other Native American members of Congress have included Charles Curtis, Benjamin Reifel, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell. — Lomn 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia does not have either a list or a category for them. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(As a foreigner, )I don't usually consider Native Hawaiians to be Native Americans, because they're of Polynesian extraction. Rimush (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a category, Category:Native American politicians. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rimush, you're not the only one — the Census Bureau (see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census) counts them as "Pacific Islanders". Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. government uses multiple definitions of Native American, sometimes at the same time: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has "Native American" means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States".[22] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe

Which activities did Robert Mugabe do that people consider him a left-wing politician? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.184.114 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Two things spring to mind. One, he was one of the leaders of the liberation movement against white-minority rule in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Before South Africa's reforms, opposing white-minority rule was a somewhat left-wing position (although plenty of British and American conservatives, and possibly others, spoke out against Rhodesia.) Two, Mugabe has been enacting land reform, which is usually a left-wing thing. Having said that, it's probably more accurate to call Mugabe a far-right politician, using the European definition of "far-right" as a party with a governing ideology that its opponents think is racist and xenophobic. Also, Mugabe's most significant achievement that didn't involve racism was crushing the Marxist group ZAPU, so Mugabe's relationship with African leftists has always been contingent and shifting. See Robert Mugabe for more details. --M@rēino 21:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Any attempt to fit people (especially at the extremes) onto a single-dimensional political spectrum is doomed to failure. The Political Compass (which I don't really endorse from a quality analysis point of view, but it does include Mugabe in its famous politicians section so I'll go with it) put Mugabe as "Left/Authoritarian" [23] (the first bit being his economic position and the second his social position), which sounds about right. Somebody like Hitler was Right/Authoritarian, so people tend to equate authoritarianism with right-wing, but there is no reason to do so. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

British Petroleum

Is BP wholly a public corporation, or is part of it owned by the British government? Googlemeister (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's wholly public, to the best of my knowledge. Do you have any reason to believe it is partly state-owned? Incidentally, it isn't called British Petroleum any more, they officially renamed as BP in 2001. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can do better than that, actually. Our article (BP#1980s and 1990s) says: "The British government sold its entire holding in BP in several tranches between 1979 and 1987.". It was part of Thatcher privatising everything. --Tango (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, I am a little bit surprised since most petro companies with the name of a country in it are either partially or wholly state owned (Petrobras, Saudi Aramco, Sinopec) etc... Thanks Googlemeister (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It was party state owned when it was named, I believe. The UK, mainly under Thatcher's leadership, has largely moved away from state ownership. --Tango (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But it does not have the name of a country in, as Tango said above. --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It did between 1987, when the British government sold the last of its stake, and 2001 when it changed its name, though. --Tango (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for another name change. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And a name change that completely lacks any association. Who does not think Bitch Petroleum when they hear or see BP? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone? Seriously, this is another case of US whitewashing. Just because people in the US want to paint BP as a devil doesn't make it so. Exxon are now doing pretty well, despite the Valdez. The British have about gone to "uncomfortable" on the BP-liking scale over this (we've gone to the Hague to support BP before now, by comparison). <gets off soapbox/> - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing? It's quite the opposite, isn't it? --Tango (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is more like mudslinging. Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to mudslinging? :-) --Anon, 19:33 UTC, June 2, 2010.

My mistake. It seems like my definition differs from every other human being on the planet (seriously), for no apparent reason. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's "whitewashing", but more like "the subject is boring, but now it's scandalous, so the press is all over it at last". Here's a report where ABC noticed that over the past three years, BP's oil refineries committed 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm from USA and I'd always "known" that BP was short for "British Petroleum". (Though I see now that I'd been wrong for the last 9 years.) It never occurred to me that it might be state owned, I thought it was just a name, like "American Airlines" or "American Telephone & Telegraph". APL (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The more accurate statement may be most petroleum companies which are stated owned often have the name of the country in it (clearly not always, some e.g. PETRONAS, Pertamina have names with national in their respective languages rather then the country). Country names aren't generally trademarked, so there's nothing to stop a company naming themselves after their country although nowadays it perhaps risks alienating their international customer base. Royal Dutch Shell is arguably another example (and if I understood the article correctly this one was never really owned by the Netherlands government but was given a royal charter). From a quick look at the article I'm not sure if Nippon Oil Japanese government either. Nor Encana although not sure of its predecesors. Not sure about RWE Dea AG or Japan Energy. While not a country name, Texaco doesn't appear to have ever been owned by the US state of Texas. There are if course some similarites in other areas America Online (now AOL) was never owned by the US government. Of course in this particular case, it was state owned and it just took them a while to change their name. Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2

Two short stories

I've read two short fantasy/sci-fi stories in the '80s. Unfortunately I can neither remember their titles nor the authors. Perhaps someone can identify them?
One is about a woman who undergoes some eye surgery and starts to see other people with various animal heads. She becomes hysterical and is later operated a second time. At the end of the story everyone looks normal but now she has a doe's head.
The other story is about two men on a remote island, experimenting for the military. They bring a robot crab that feeds on metal and reproduces. Soon they overpopulate the island and the metal stocks run out. The crabs then fight and cannibalize each other, each generation evolving to be a more efficient fighting machine. Things get out of hand and the crabs kill one of the men for his dental fillings. --88.241.172.166 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The first one is "The Blue Lenses" by Daphne du Maurier. Deor (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And a bit of Googling identifies the second one as "Crabs on the Island" by Anatoly Dneprov. Deor (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That was really quick, thank you! How one's memory deceives himself, I always had a feeling that the crab story was written by Arthur C. Clarke. --88.241.172.166 (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Defending Macbeth

I'm lead defense for our class's trial of Macbeth. We're trying to get Macbeth to face lesser charges as mentally unsound. We have to call witnesses from the play and ask them questions to help get him off the hook. What mental illnesses could Macbeth possibly have, and how would you recommend me go about defending him? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 04:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First, figure out what test for diminished responsibility or "not guilty by reason of mental ilness" applies in your class or your legal jurisdiction. See Insanity defense, Mental disorder defence, M'Naghten Rules, Mental disorder defence. In the most absurd instance, someone got off by claiming he had been eating junk food. Once you have determined what standard applies in your situation, you can look for evidence the defendant exhibited behaviors or had beliefs which would get him off or allow a lower punishment. Edison (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, the Twinkie defense was nothing like the absurd claim that people repeat. "White's consumption of junk food was presented to the jury as one of many symptoms, not a cause, of White's depression". Let's try not to perpetuate inaccurate press-renderings of reality. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't neglect the pressure his murderous wife put him under - spousal abuse has also, I believe, been used as a defence. DuncanHill (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You could argue that the weird sisters are just voices in his head (I don't suppose the prosecution will say that witches are real, and the only other person to have met them is no longer around). Also, call the folks present at the banquet in Act 3 Scene 4 (during which Macbeth acts as if there is a ghost though nobody else can see it) as witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to get any of the characters qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry since none of them are practicing psychiatrists and none have seemed to have published anything in that field, so Macbeth might be screwed. As an addendum, what point in the play is the trial supposed to take place, since obviously it can not be after the conclusion since there is little point in trying a man who has lost his head. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Twinkie Defence won't fly; as a Scot Macbeth is already inured to the (short term) ill effects of a fried-cake diet - indeed salad is more likely to induce psychosis than any snack-cake. Given the relatively high latitude of Forres (it's at much the same latitude as Juneau, Alaska) one might like to argue the influence of seasonal affective disorder, induced by the short day length. I don't think the play clarifies the season, but the presence of a thunderstorm (which are rather more common in Scotland in summer than other seasons) and that of foliage in the Birnam Wood (it'd make for bad camouflage otherwise) would suggest it's probably summer or autumn, which nukes the SAD defence. But let's face it, Macbeth spends much of the play talking to three old ladies he imagines to be witches, and a homeless man he believes to be a ghost (ghosts are, after all, of "no fixed abode"). So he's suffering visual and auditory hallucinations, with supernatural voices urging him to commit acts of violence - you've got a very strong case for a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Indeed, if you presented yourself at Raigmore Hospital's casualty ward and declared that three witches and a ghost wanted you to kill the queen, that's exactly what they'd diagnose you with. A forensic examination of three kindly pensioners (who Beckett names Flo, Vi, and Ru) and a tramp called Mickey, who all attest the accused believed them to be supernatural, would make for an effective (and if you want, rather comic) defence. As an, at least theoretic, descendent of the real Macbeth, it's incumbent on me to observe that the real king was none of these things, and that his rule was one of wisdom and peace, with lower taxes and improved hospital waiting times. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a military veteran with recent and intense battle experience, Macbeth may be suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, also, you could paint his flicking between to kill the King or not as indicative of multiple personalities and/or high levels of stress. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since his crimes were predestined I would take a look at automatism as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's outwith the brief to argue that the whole evidence of the play is unreliable and defamatory hearsay and (as per Macbeth of Scotland) he killed Duncan in battle and ruled for seventeen years? --ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)}

So you're asking, "Was Macbeth thane, or inthane?" 63.17.89.8 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bugs?Edison (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it is the sort of thing he would say.

Well, thanks to everyone for the advice. We've gone for PTSD, as well as panic attacks. And conjured up a psychiatrist to testify. We've also got Sweno testifying that Duncan was an ineffectual ruler, Lennox about Macbeth's behaviour at the banquet, the Captain from Act 1 about Macbeth's bravery in battle, Lady Macbeth about any number of things, and the Witches. But the spin that the witches decided on, is that they're wise women who've been excluded from society because of their experimenting. The captain of the Tiger was one of their backfiring experiments at medication; the potion they brewed up made Macbeth hallucinate, on top of confirmation bias. The idea was that they would have someone in power who would be hallucinatory and dependent on them, so they could bring about an acceptance of science. Which obviously backfired. (I really like the "three elderly pensioners" idea, but considering that the prosecution is also calling the weird sisters, we have to at least stick that much to the text.) Our Macbeth himself wanted to try out being a repressed homosexual as well, but I'm not sure how well we could argue that denial of his sexuality could have affected anything. It's going to be a hard fight to get Macbeth off the hook, considering how much easier it's going to be to prosecute him, so anything that makes any sense whatsoever is appreciated (forming a coherent defense will be interesting...) . Thoughts? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

free speech mini forum

I remember KGO had this program called, "Speak Freely." It was a little forum in which San Francisco Bay Area citizens talk about important things on their minds. The opening and closing of, "Speak Freely," had a jazz music song. (Somewhere in San Francisco, I also heard the same song in a movie theater sometime before the featured movie started.) I'm interested in finding out what the song is and who does it. If anyone knows what I'm trying to say, please come forward. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An email to the television station might be able to clear this up for you rather quickly. Especially if it was a small local show which might not have any information about it on the internet. Dismas|^(talk) 07:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is China a manufacturing leader

00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashankgandhi3 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should give you a start. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tan authors of literature

Henry was, by all accounts, an attractive and charismatic man, educated and accomplished. And he wrote a book.

Fabrizio Corona would probably fit the bill as he's tan, good-looking and he also wrote a book

Can anyone think of any authors (novels, plays, poetry, etc) that were tan (or I guess notably good-looking, not that the two are necessarily related)? They can be from any time period. Thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 07:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you could clarify what precisely you mean by "tan". For example, there are about 30 slang definitions of the word "tan" here, including "attractive Asian" and "hated English person". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Tan" to me is just an Americanism for "tanned", and in this context means attractively suntanned. In this, as in most matters, I defer to Bruce Springsteen: "But I remember us riding in my brother's car/Her body tan and wet down at the reservoir". It's actually an interesting question: contemporary writers aren't usually thought of as dreamboats, although maybe some Romantic poets would be. Are you interested in men, or women, or both? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Would this then mean the authors have to be white with a suntan, as opposed to being more of a tan colour all the time? Or is the question really more about the authors being attractive? Or is it about authors who don't spend all their time shut away in dark rooms? Byron would fit the last two, being " renowned for his personal beauty, which he enhanced by wearing curl-papers in his hair at night", and got up to a lot of outdoor activity too. But he looks very pale in all pictures I've seen. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Italian television personality Fabrizio Corona has written a book. He's tan and good-looking. Then there's Albanian dancer Kledi Kadiu. He is also tan, good-looking and has written a book as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking mostly for males. Richard's understanding of what I meant by tan was good and insightful : ) So yes, whites with sun tans and people that are naturally tan are fine. Byron's a really good example, as are Jeanne's, two people I had never heard of. ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 01:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Steady customers

I'm writing a paper for a class. In the paper, I have to try to convince my employer to add a machine to mass produce parts in an otherwise custom fabrication shop. One of my arguments is that my employer can have more steady income/work/contracts/etc. if they can produce small parts for local factories. It will lesson the need to win bid after bid and keep a regular flow of money coming in. Is there a term or name for this concept?

Additionally, I have to cite some figures or some expert in the field as to how this would help the business. Maybe if I had a term for this it would help but could someone point me in the right direction to look for a reference about this? Online ref's would be preferred. The course is online and the nearest large library is some distance away. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 07:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Please don't tell me to review my text book for the term. This is a writing class and not economics. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 08:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you want them to diversify their income streams. DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a diversification, because this is a pretty major shift in how the company (or, at least, this new part of the company) will do business. I assume that the production of small parts for local factories is a lower margin business, in which case the company is expected to "make it up on volume", meaning each mass-produced part will make a lot less profit than a custom part, but the company is going to sell so many of the mass-produced parts that the profit from that "division" will be higher despite the lower margin. I googled high volume low margin, because that's what the new business entails, and found this article and this short article that seem pertinent. By the way, I don't think the ability to produce a lot more means that the company has a reduced need to win bid after bid. It's the nature of any business that you have to keep selling like crazy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more like a distraction. Diversification that draws capital away from the core business isn't taken lightly... usually. As they say on TV, if you have no idea how to waste someone else's money, then just start building something. East of Borschov (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of caution. This is just a writing course though and I don't have to actually make money at this, I just have to argue for the advantage here. I appreciate the help! Dismas|^(talk) 22:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Capital punishment

How many countries in the world keep the number of executions a secret? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear that this question is really answerable, as it requires us to prove a negative: specifically, "X has not committed a secret execution." But if it's secret, how would we know to distinguish that country from one that didn't have a secret execution? However, our article on capital punishment may be of interest, as we note that many statistics on executions cannot be accurately confirmed. — Lomn 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The question "How many countries which claim not to have the death penalty perform executions in secret anyway?" would indeed be a difficult question to answer with any certainty, although groups such as Amnesty International might have a "to the best of our knowledge"-type list. On the other hand "How many countries which freely admit to having captial punishment (try to) keep the execution numbers secret?" (e.g. "Yes, we execute criminals, but, no, we won't tell you who or how many") should be relatively straightforward to answer. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough to attempt it. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Amnesty report on capital punishment in 2009 does not answer this question specifically, but it lists Uganda, Tanzania, North Korea, Thailand, Libya, Kenya, Iran, DR Congo, Chad, and China as countries where "an unknown number of people were sentenced to death". In addition to these, Amnesty names at least Belarus, Mongolia and Vietnam as countries that do not officially publish (complete) information on their use of the death penalty. Saudi Arabia also is said by Amnesty to execute more people than the government officially acknowledges. For most countries, the Amnesty figures have the caveat that "it was not possible to specify a figure", but that includes the US, which must mean that there were cases where the sentence was possibly not final, or something like that.--Rallette (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Relationship between "France" and "Frog"

I have seen/heard many persons saying that eating frog is common in France or amongst French people; especially, in the film "Les Triplettes de Belleville," the Triplets cook their meals from frogs. Is that true or just a joke about the words "France" and "Frog" which are pronounced similarly?

124.121.183.170 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that frog's legs is a genuine meal... ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes folks, it's true, Frogs eat frogs. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So, why French people are called "Frogs"? The Wikitionary tells me that the word "frog" is a pejorative term used to mention to French person or France. Thank you, once again.

124.121.183.170 (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pejorative term, particularly when uttered by an English person. We have some information under List_of_ethnic_slurs#F. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Jean Crapaud. The Brewer Dictionary of Phrase and Fable says Nostradamus used this as a term for the French in the sixteenth century ... but it often lies. It's not a very good dictionary. Under frog, it says: "What with the frogs (people of Paris) say?" was in 1791 a common court phrase at Versailles. There was a point in the pleasantry [not sure what this means] when Paris was a quagmire, called Lutetia (mud-land) because, like frogs or toads, they lived in mud... 81.131.60.148 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "three toads erect, saltant" might be a confusion with the fleur_de_lis. 81.131.60.148 (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The "three toads erect, saltant" comes from John Guillim. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought french people were called frogs because in some old war with the french - possibly the Napoleonic wars - the soldiers wore a green uniform. 92.28.249.38 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary says that it has been a general term of abuse for people since the 14th century; that in the 17th century, it was used as a pejorative term for the Dutch; and has been used in reference to the French (or, alternatively, their language) since the 18th century. The term "froggy" has been used for the French since the 19th century, "a term of contempt for a Frenchman, from their reputed habit of eating frogs." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

About the crapauds de Paris: n the Garden of Versailles is the Pool of Latona (Bassin de Latone) because the theme of Versailles is the triumph of Apollo, Louis XIV of France being the "Sun King". For the myth of Latona and the frogs, see Latona.--Wetman (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should we french feel aggravated when rosbifs call us "frogs" ? A frog is beautiful & delicious, just as a rosbif, & was part of human diet even before Homo erectus, I believe. But unhappily, we don't enjoy frogs anymore, since like many fine fishes & crayfishes they have disappeared from our streams and ponds : chemical pollution. The frog-thighs you may find now, mainly deep-frozen & coming from Asia, taste like wood-saw mingled with urea, just as nowadays snails are like rubber bits in your mouth.

Fishing frogs is a grand remembrance of my youth, & I've fished a lot of fishes of all kinds & sizes. Look at Maurice Genevoix 's "La Boîte à Pêche" ("The fishing-tackles box") , 1926, if you want to know more about it (good article on Genevoix in WP:fr). And those tender fried muscles, with some garlic & parsley ... (as for nasty ethnic slurs, you may be interested in knowing that in France, when a woman is menstruated, she often uses à litote to speak about it : "Les Anglais ont débarqué" ("The englishmen have landed")...:-) ) T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly a number of Gilray cartoons using the term; however the French wore white uniforms before the revolution and blue afterwards. To be fair to the French, they often take the joke in good part. A French president, (Mitterand?) when asked how the Channel Tunnel rail link was built through the French countryside more quickly than in England replied that you don't ask the frogs before you drain the pond! Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look and found that while most of his troops wore blue, Napoleon's mounted troops did indeed wear dark green... which of course proves nothing, but I thought I'd mention it. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Because of redcoats, obviously. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Music

Hi. I've been playing music since I was very young, and now I'd like to learn how to recognize different types of music. First off, I need to be able to tell the key and time signature of a piece without looking at the sheet music. Any ida how I can do that? Thx --~``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.230.229 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Time sigs are relatively easy. Just count the number of beats in the bar, and you have the top line. The bottom line is a bit hit and miss, could be 4, 8 or even 16 but that one's rare. Key is a little harder. You should by now be able to tell major vs minor keys. Sometimes I amuse myself by guessing what key a piece of music I hear on the radio is in, and after 40 or so years I think I've managed to pin down all the "easy" keys. I do this by the way they sound - D major sounds particularly happy. Most rock music is in E. Music with brass instruments in is generally B flat or E flat because that's the key those instruments are in. What lets me down is where a rhythm guitar is being played with a capo on, which means I recognise the chords being played, but that fools me as to the key it's in. Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. No amount of listening to River Man has got me to understand how to count in 5/4 time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So try Take Five by Dave Brubeck! The first beat of every bar is emphasised, so that gives you your starting point. The fourth and fifth beat also have some emphasis. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That worked, and has helped with River Man, too. Very slow tempo. Could you say some more about the /4 part of the fraction? What exactly is its purpose, if the length of a beat is itself a moveable feast? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Its purpose is in the written music, since it tells you the beats are crotchets. But you're right, Take Five could as easily be in 5/8, with all the crotchets replaced with quavers, and so on. You can't really tell by listening, except that you can usually assume the most conventional time signature has been used. It has some bearing on how easy it is to read the music, but you can rewrite something in 5/4 to be in 5/8, 5/2, 5/16, and set the beat to be the same length. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to exercise your new skills, try listening to Money (Pink Floyd song), the majority of which is in 7/4 time and is relatively easy to count. Karenjc 19:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, they're working. I'm not sure I'll be able to count some of Frank Zappa's more wildly timed pieces, having an insufficiency of fingers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of musical works in unusual time signatures has some doozies - ⅗/4, for example. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! We truly do have an article on everything! I must check out my collection and see if I can add to that - think I've already spotted a 15 that's not there, for example. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh God! That gives me some flash-backs. The Scherzo from Borodin's Symphony No. 2, in 1/1. Great to listen to, a nightmare to play. Which probably sums up most of that list! 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why, or what aspect of 1/1, makes it difficult to play? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily difficult to play by ear, but difficult to play by eye, meaning it is difficult to conduct and also difficult to play when you're reading the score (which is what most orchestra musicians will be doing in this case). 1/1 lacks structure or partition within the time signature, sort of like r e a d i n g t h i s t e x t w h i c h d o e s n o t g r o u p l e t t e r s i n t o w o r d s a n d m a k e s i t h a r d t o r e a d, only harder. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddhists taking offense

Buddhists are known (or claim to be) indifferent to offenses (and apparently also to praise). However, how does that look like in real life? Can you insult the mother of one of them? How do Tibetan monks react to torture? Can you bully Buddhists at work?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish between Buddhist monks and regular Buddhists. Monks are very well trained and can probably ignore any insults and bullying. Regular Buddhists aren't really any different to anyone else. They may try and avoid taking offence at things but, just as with Christians trying not to judge others, say, they don't always manage. --Tango (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But some Buddhist monks were so offended by what was happening in war-time Vietnam that they self-immolated. It seemed to happen once a month for a few years back then (late 60s-ish, early 70s-ish). That's a pretty extreme form of protest about anything. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority of practicing Buddhists that I have met are in fact, more calm and disciplined than most other people. This is because practicing Buddhists meditate very often. I have also met Catholic monks who meditate, too (they call it "prayer," although it is very similar to meditation because they are concentrating in silence for long periods). They are also very peaceful. Anyone who meditates (including, for example, Christians) will be able to control their emotions and clear their mind of un-necessary (i.e., immature) thoughts.

Another factor is the Noble Eightfold Path: (1) knowledge of the truth; (2) the intention to resist evil; (3) saying nothing to hurt others; (4) respecting life, morality, and property; (5) holding a job that does not injure others; (6) striving to free one's mind of evil; (7) controlling one's feelings and thoughts; and (8) practicing proper forms of concentration. New converts to Buddhism usually join because they already agree with these principles. Violent and restless people don't gravitate toward Buddhism.

Having said these things, Buddhists are still human beings. They can never be perfect. The more devout and experienced the Buddhist, the greater their discipline. The most disciplined Buddhists, especially those who claim to have achieved enlightenment, have complete control over their bodies and minds. They can tolerate anything you throw at them, including torture.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The core teaching of buddhism is that all suffering stems from attachment to "unrealities". If you approach a Buddhist monk and insult his mother, try to bully him, or etc, the monk should (ideally) recognize that your actions are not "real": i.e., your statements about his mother are untrue and designed to inflame, your attempts at bullying are based in unreal conceptions of authority and social interactions, and both stem from your own misunderstanding of the true nature of reality. He should, in fact, feel compassion towards you because you are so thoroughly lost in your own suffering that you feel the need to try to inflict suffering on others. How it actually pans out is a function of his meditation practice, his current state of mind, and etc. - even those who are enlightened are not enlightened all the time. Torture is effectively the same, with the distinction that physical pain (like pleasure and other sensations) is real. Ideally a practicing monk would experience the pain of being tortured without being attached to the outcome. in fact, the real 'torture' part of torture has less to do with the physical pain than with the fears and hopes that people cling to while being tortured - torturers want to put their victims in a place where they believe their only escape (attachment of hope) from further torture (attachment of fear) lies in cooperating with the torturer. --Ludwigs2 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In medieval Japan, some Buddhist monasteries took an active military role during periods of political disintegration and breakdown of law and order. Currently, some Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka have the reputation of being aggressive and militant supporters of Sinhalese nationalism. AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Any sports/games where the player is drowned in vegetables/salad etc

I am looking for info on any sport (may be a 2 memebr team) where one of the players is lying on a table and vegetables/fruits/salads are thrown on her[[File:http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs652.snc3/32205_417461217968_150031197968_4156500_482065_n.jpg][24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.249.183 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

non-fiction books

Suppose, hypothetically, I had written a novel, or perhaps some novels, and gotten it published, and decided to branch out into non-fiction writing, about world history for example, and found that my publisher doesn't print such books. What would I do then, would I be allowed to find a publisher that does, and would doing so be much the same as for the first novel, writing to them and submitting manuscripts, or is there a different procedure outside of the world of fiction?

148.197.115.54 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That depends on the contract you signed, which depends in part on you having a decent literary agent who didn't let you sign an unduly restrictive contract. What is and isn't covered by such a contract, and what happens when parties don't agree about the trajectory of their joint undertaking, depends on the hypothetical contract. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes; and as to the original poster's last question, submitting nonfiction books is the same process as submitting fiction books, where you have an agent do it for you, or you send to all the slush piles and learn to relish total rejection. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from past professional non-fiction publishing experience, whereas people often write fiction first and search for a publisher when the work is finished, it's much more usual with non-fiction for a writer to first find a publisher who will agree to the project, and then write the work to mutually agreed specifications, or even for the publisher to actively seek out a writer to supply a particular work.

Part of the reason for this is that, whereas the market for fiction is essentially unbounded, there is often a limit to how many non-fictional works on a given subject are thought to be contemporarily viable. A given publisher may have a notional gap in its non-fiction inventory it's desirous of filling, or consider its inventory in a particular area complete and not wish to create self-competing works which might dilute its marketing strategies. To convince a publisher to take on a non-fiction work, you generally have to convince a commissioning editor that the new or proposed work is/will be substantially better in some market niche than anything already on the market. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you had got work published, then you would probably have a literary agent. They would probably handle your non-fiction also. 92.24.181.176 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitulation during WW2

If Britain had not fought during WW2, and had let the Nazis have their way in Europe, would the total mortality have been less than what it was, including further Nazi genocide? On balance, all things considered, would millions of lives have been saved? I'm not suggesting capitulation would have been the right decision, I'm just curious how great the sacrifice was. 92.24.181.176 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Without checking the figures, mortality on the Russian front was greatest. Capitulation on the western front and lack of British support for the Russians would arguably have had little impact on that. And we can presume the Nazis would have found more people to exterminate in their camps. ON balance, I'd plump for "more deaths" rather than less. The graph at World War II#Casualties and war crimes is probably useful. Russia and China lost an order of magnitude more people. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Germans still might not have defeated Russia, but they would have had more troops to throw at them (assuming that they did not have to send as many to western Europe and Africa). So, at least, many more Germans and Russians would have been killed. Based on sheer numbers Russia probably still would have pushed them back, and I imagine they would have been a lot more unhappy about the lack of western support. Would Britain have fought in Asia in this scenario, when the Japanese attacked their colonies? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of Lebensraum for one take on this. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Had it ever came to you that "if Britain had not fought" than Stalin would have his way and that Europe would cease to be at all? East of Borschov (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

From New Order (Nazism): ...Third, the neutralization or the conquest of the United Kingdom. Initially, Hitler wanted to make a deal with Great Britain in which the British Empire would be given a free hand over the oceans of the world and Germany would be given a free hand in Europe. The only way UK could have avoided prompt attempt of bombardment, strangulation and invasion was to come to terms with Hitler ensuring at least neutrality with regard to Nazi policies in Europe. Then, I think, Nazi Germany would have had the strenght and concentration to effectively invade and subjugate all the Soviet Union (at least to the Yenisei River...) maybe even without needing a very strict japanese alliance. The alliance of Germany and UK would have also prevented/retarded USA entering WWII, facilitating Nazi victory. With a total Nazi victory, UK would be eventually and inevitably asked for severe racial policies (extermination of the Jews and other Untermenschen and Mischlingen). Together with forced aryanization of continental Europe, Africa and at least half Asia, enslavement and gradual genocide of Slavic and other unwanted populations and a probable air war of conquest against North America (envisioned by Hitler in the Zweites Buch), the death toll would have been incommensurable high. --151.51.51.194 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cracked says that Hitler would have been flattened by Stalin before that happened. Of course, it's not reliable and doesn't provide a source (other than one of our own articles). But it's compelling... 90.193.232.165 (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm always amazed by people saying that the Soviet Union couldn't be defeated by Nazi Germany in WWII because it's so extremely huge. I think you have to consider that, once you have razed to the ground the european part of Russia, invading/annexing/subjugate the remains is, in comparison, like eating a piece of cake, expecially if Japan helps you on the other side (and Italy, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Vichy France... on the west part). Also, the Soviet Union was extremely sparsely populated ([25]). Look at this page's tables: World War II casualties. Looking at the population data of 1939:

• Third Reich (Germany + Austria + Others) = 84,045,000, Japan = 71,380,000, Italy = 44,394,000, Romania = 19,934,000, Hungary = 9,129,000, Finland = 3,700,000, TOT = 232,582,000
• Soviet Union = 168,500,000.

It wouldn't be too much unbalanced even with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia alone.--151.51.51.194 (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

June 3

Jamaica (W.I)

What is the Jamaica(W.I) Appliances and Electronics retails market value?? I would like detail analysis if possible with different parishes in Jamaica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinciblejz (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just a reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to answer. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If such information is available, the best place to find it would be the Statistical Institute of Jamaica. They do not publish the data that you want on their website; however, they do present data on the total value of retail and wholesale trade, which suggests that they may have more detailed figures on specific retail sectors, perhaps broken down by parish. This page has contact information for the Statistical Institute. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

French Revolution

Supposing a Parisian man were arrested during the Reign of Terror on suspicion of dissent or something like that. If his wife or family tried to visit him in jail, would they be let in? And were such prisoners kept alone in cells or in big chambers, as depicted in the painting "Calling the Last Victims of the Terror at the Prison Saint-Lazare"? 75.16.139.34 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the painting you are referring to?

Yes. 75.15.87.168 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

58.147.58.152 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, with a thought for Antoine Lavoisier & André Chénier , I'd say : yes, families were allowed to see their imprisoned relatives, provided of course that they had some money to "grease the paw" of the gaolers with, & were not afraid to be emprisoned too. & yes, for lack of storage prisoners were crammed up in big halls & cellars, which allowed them at least to converse civilly & play adapted parlour games, like "the guillotine" : a chair was used as a sham decapitating device. Humor of courage & fatalism...& thanks for the painting. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Derrick Bird

This cab driver allegedly went around shooting people at 30 locations in Cumbria, UK. Do the police on the beat or in police cars in that area carry firearms? How did he get to that many sites of mayhem without encountering armed law enforcement?Edison (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, police in Great Britain do not routinely carry firearms, and most are not trained and authorised to do so. Authorised Firearms Officers are a specially trained minority, and are only issued firearms for a specific purpose when responding to an incident involving armed suspects/perpetrators, occasionally during security alerts at airports and the like, or when on guard at certain MOD and other such sensitive establishments. Gun possession and crime is sufficiently rare in the UK that (I believe the reasoning to be) routinely arming police officers would likely result in more injuries and fatalities due to accidental or unnecessary discharges than the policy would discourage or counter on the part of actual armed malefactors. Note however that the policy in Northern Ireland (the part of the UK that is not GB) is different. Note also that the linked article has a See Also section of links to related topics that may well be of further interest. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria generally is a pretty sparsely populated rural area - Whitehaven itself has a population of 25,000 but the other places are much smaller - and, although gun crime is a problem in some of the UK's main cities, a scenario like the one yesterday is almost unprecedented in such a quiet country area. Cumbria Constabulary is "the fifth largest force in England and Wales in terms of geographic area (2,268 square miles) but one of the smallest in terms of officer numbers." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the incidents at Dunblane and Hungerford would have changed law enforcement in Britain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They certainly led to major changes in the law. There are several reasons why we have not gone down the "all police armed" route - not least because the police themselves do not want it. Our tradition of "policing by consent" does not sit easily with a paramilitary force. A routinely armed police force would lead to more criminals arming themselves in their day-to-day criminality. I suspect we also don't have any desire to see levels of gun-related violence anything like America enjoys. Incidents like this one are very rare - and to rush to arm all police just to deal with cases like this would be an idiotic over-reaction which would be very likely to lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. As we have seen far too often, most notably in the Menezes case, even well-trained specialist officers are perfectly capable of shooting unarmed innocent people and then lying to all and sundry about what happened. That's something most British people don't want to see any more of. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Information on the current law in the UK is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Cumbrian killings fails to mention how Bird acquired a firearm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He had a license for it. Given that Cumbria is a rural area with a significant agricultural economy shotgun ownership is quite high. It's not out of the question that he was a sport shottist, hence the .22 rifle.

ALR (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The case Duncan refers to is the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]}

A number of observations were made on Newsnight last night, one of the most pertinent being that these events are in the order of a decade apart. Kneejerk reactions do not lead to good policy, as has been demonstrated by the legislative responses to both of those events. The unintended consequences of both have been significant. Yet neither has reduced the number of illegal personal weapons available.

What both of those indicated to the rational analyst was that the legislation in place at the time should have been adequate, but that it hadn't been properly applied. Neither of the protagonists should have been in possession of a firearms license and failures in the issue and monitoring systems were a contributing factor.

ALR (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the original point, most UK police services operate Armed Response Vehicles to respond to incidents involving firearms. In a big city like London, they can be there very quickly, but in rural Cumbria it would probably be a different story. See also Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

2 questions about J.D. Salinger

Hello, I missed Salinger in the last 4 decades, & am trying now to make up for it. Can somebody answer about those 2 items :

• 1/ In the end of the '50, aged IO or about, I read a short story (translated in french , in the then somewhat well-read upper-middle class weekly "Paris-Match" ) written, I think, by Salinger . It depicted a young boy's angst in front of his baby brother, & a sentence ran (very approximately) like this : "I then suddenly saw that his milk & him were the same thing, that he was the milk , & the milk was him, & ..., & that we all belonged to the same being ...".

I have a confusing association of that short story plot ending with the fall of a younger brother in an empty swimming-pool, but I don't unravel it clearly from some individual longings I now know I myself half-consciously had at the time. So my question is : is that short story by Salinger ? & if yes what is its name ? & if no, does somebody know its whereabouts ?

• 2/ I am reading now "A Catcher in the Rye" (&, hush, I find it has not aged along so well...). My question is : who is that Ring Lardner, which is young Holden's next favorite author after his brother D.B. & who wrote a short story (which one ? ) about a cop in love with a very cute girl that's always speeding, & which gets killed because she is always speeding...

Is it Lardner the father or the son ? And do we have to understand that this proclaimed addiction of a 1950 teen-ager (who otherwise says "I am quite illiterate, but I read a lot ") for a 1920 short stories author is a purely derisive Salinger's private joke ?

Thanks a lot for your answers . T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

2. It was Ring Lardner (the father) who wrote the short stories. Our article notes that J.D. Salinger admired Lardner. The story in question is "There are Smiles", published in Round Up Gwinva (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How old may be that Penguin book ?

Hello, & out of sheer curiosity : does somebody know when could have been issued a Penguin book (JD Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye") I found in a swap-shop, absolutely brand new, ISBN O-14-023749-6, retail price on the sticker : £5.99 (now 0,20 euro !). On french books, printing year is usually found clearly on the last page, but on the lenghty Penguin 3rd page, I don't really find a printing date. If I compare this book withe some of the seldom-handled Penguins on my shelves, I'say : 25 to 35 years old ? Thanks a lot for your answers. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All we can say for sure is that it was after Decimal Day - 15 February 1971. Are you sure there's no date in the first few pages? --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked on AbeBooks and the only listing with that ISBN number and a date had it at 1994. This page also lists 1994 as the printing year and I see the same cited elsewhere in the web. While I haven't found a truely authoritative source to back this up I'm guessing this is the year. ThemFromSpace 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazon also lists this as 1994. ThemFromSpace 09:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)5.99 makes it sound like it is quite new, possible the 1990s. On the Penguin editions from the early 1970s that I own, the price is usually around 40-85p!. Anyway, unless someone has removed the title page, there should be a date in the colophon stating the year of printing. I have yet to see a Penguin edition without it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In almost every book I own the printing year is on the first page (or second, depending how you count them - these pages have no numbers). I'm not sure what to call this part of the book - it isn't really a colophon, it comes before the front matter and it's too plain to be a frontispiece. Anyway, have a look for the dates there - usually "first published" and then "this edition". Edit: alright then, it is a colophon. I should read articles to the end. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the colophon. In most modern books it is placed on the back of the titlepage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

how do I not talk so much?

I talk way the fuck too much, how do I condition myself not to talk so much? 82.113.119.244 (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you catch yourself saying "fuck", get out a stopwatch and say nothing at all for 5 minutes. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe focus on listening. Ask questions based on what the other person is interested in and let them talk. If you are listening well, you will be able to ask follow-up questions that will prompt them to talk some more. Then when you do talk, keep it brief and responsive to what the other person has said. Marco polo (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

another trick is to actively listen to yourself talk. most people who talk too much do it because they are unaware that they are talking too much. if you pay attention to what you say, you will quickly start to bore yourself, and that will lead you to become more selective in what you choose to say. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ludwigs2. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not usually the quantity of talk that's the problem, it's the content. Specifically, people talking, yet saying nothing, is annoying. Some people feel the need to talk whenever there's a silence, and this is bad if they have nothing to say. One cure is to have some things ready to say for just such a silence, like jokes, interesting stories, current events, or odd facts. You might want to rehearse prior to any get-together where the need might arise. On the other hand, if there's no silence that "needs to be filled with talk", then don't interrupt to speak.

Another important thing to keep in mind is "know your audience". Don't talk to grandpa about the latest music video, maybe talk to him about his opinion on General Douglas MacArthur, instead. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Accessory before or after the fact"

An "accessory" is a person who aids in the commission of an offence of another person. But, who is an accessory "before the fact" or "after the fact"? Thank you so much.

124.121.186.8 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone who helps the perpetrator plan the offence, or at least is aware of it and does nothing to stop it happening, could be an accessory before the fact. Someone who becomes aware, only after the event, who the perpetrator was, but still helps them evade the clutches of the law or at least does nothing to alert the authorities, could be an accessory after the fact. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Samuel Mudd is an historical example of someone who was imprisoned for being an accessory after the fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The important distinction is that helping someone "before the fact" is actually helping to commit the crime itself, while helping afterwords is only assisting the perp in getting away with it, not in committing the crime (although getting away with it may be helping them to commit future crimes). So, "before the fact" is often punished more severely.

There might also be different defenses used in each case. For "before the fact", you might argue that they "thought it was a joke", say when a friend asked for a lift to his g/f's house so he could kill her. For "after the fact", say after hearing gunshots and having the friend jump back in the car with a blood-spattered shirt, a better argument might be that you were afraid for your own life. StuRat (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What Was the First Gun Invented For?

I was wondering, who invented the first gun, and what did they invent it for? Was it for use in hunting? Or was is made as a weapon or for self-defense? When was the first gun invented, and where? Thanks for the help! Stripey the crab (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google and found a site called Important Dates in Gun History. It says the first known hand gun was in England in 1375, but does not say whether it was used for warfare, self-defence or hunting.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting fact is the first known person to be assassinated by a firearm was James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray in 1570. He was the regent of King James I of England/James VI of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Moray was Regent for James VI of Scotland only, Jeanne. James VI did not become James I of England till 33 years after Moray's death. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume that by gun you mean a personal weapon, rather than a gun?

those articles should answer the question.

ALR (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder was invented in the 800s in China. Our article History of firearms states that fire-lances, which were predecessors of true guns, were used for warfare in China as early as the 900s. The evidence indicates that the Chinese had invented primitive guns, likewise for use in warfare, by the 1100s. The technology later spread west via the Arabs to Europe. Marco polo (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Early guns were fairly useless for personal defense or personal use. They could not easily be carried around charged (the powder carried a risk of accidental discharge after being loaded, and was not sealed so quickly became damp and useless in the barrel), took a long time to load (muzzle-loaders), and were relatively inaccurate. They were mostly useful in massed barrage attacks in military contexts, though no doubt they seeped their way into the hunting world once they advanced enough to become more practical than bows and arrows. Cannon came first, and were invented for 'large target' operations - siege devices and inter-ship combat; long-barrelled guns (muskets and eventually rifles) came next, and were combat troop weapons (originally used en-masse from regimented lines (the massed guns offset the weapon's inaccuracy, and multiple lines offset the reload time - one line would fire, then deal with reloading while the second line took aim and fired). Handguns, I believe, were originally officer's weapons, used to keep troops in line - handguns are fairly useless for anything except close-combat situations with other humans. --Ludwigs2 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that the first handguns (hand cannons, really) weren't suitable for close-range use, since you needed to manually load the powder and ball, then hold something flaming to the opening in the back. Getting the enemy to stay still while you did this wouldn't be easy. The accuracy was also so low that they weren't very useful as long-range weapons, either. Until they improved the accuracy and firing mechanism, about the only places they would be useful is for executions or as a rich man's toy. StuRat (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See this article: James II of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a History of firearms article, but it is not very detailed on the "why" part of the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I say above, I think that the article clearly indicates that they were used for warfare. Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How many Bs make five?

I heard a British speaker say, with regard to his time in public school, "I learned how many Bs make five." What does this mean? A search on this, and variations such as "how many bees make five," returned answers such as "A bee, a bee and a half, two bees, and half a bee" but no explanation of the phrase. Is this a grammar or diction exercise, and was it a basis for the Eric the Half-a-Bee song? 58.147.58.152 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks like the British speaker failed to learn the saying correctly. Google has much more on how many beans make five. It seems to indicate that the person is good at maths / puzzles. The puzzle itself is, allegedly, a couple of hundred years old [26]. The Urban Dictionary alleges it's a shibboleth to determine what social class a person is from [27]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always understood it as a reference to understanding that interactions and transactions between people and within organisations in the real world often require a degree of unofficial give-and-take or mild bribery: e.g. "How many . . . ?" "Four for the company and one for my trouble." or ""How many would you like to make it?" 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tis far more likely that this non-British listener failed to hear the saying correctly. Thanks. 58.147.58.152 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Fiddle de dum, Fiddle de dean; Eric the half a bean.

On a related matter, how strong is a piece of ling? DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Might he be varying the saying for ironic effect, to imply that he never got A marks? 81.131.66.164 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

where did Fox argue the right to lie?

where did Fox News go to court to defend it's right to literally lie in it's news casts - specifically what is the brief / written document or oral argument in which this explicit right is argued. Best would be to link to the actual source material. Specifically, which sentence argues literally the right to (in Fox's words) lie/prevaricate/etc in news casts? Thank you. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a PDF of the legal appeal from the Fox affiliate. You might also want to take a look at our article on Jane Akre. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you do not want to read the whole article, here is a very brief synopsis: Two reporters for a local station owned by Fox wanted to do a huge whistle-blower story to get Monsanto into tons of trouble. The local station asked for documentation to back the story. The reporters and the station fought for a long time. The reporters were fired. The reporters sued the station for being fired and claimed that by now not airing their story the station was airing a lie (by omission of truth). The reporters used an FCC policy as the basis of claiming that the station was committing a lie. The station (actually the owners, Fox) stated that FCC policy is not Federal law. Therefore, it is not a Federal crime to break an FCC policy. Therefore, there was no point in wasting tons of money and court time arguing about omission of the story. The reporters claimed it a victory that Fox argued that it is legal to lie in the news. -- kainaw™ 18:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, OP here - thank you for the synopsis but I had some trouble following it, maybe because when you wrote "by now airing their story" did you mean to write "by not airing their story"?? If so, is the only "lie" refusing to air a report some of your reporters made? Also, your synopsis seemed to say that reporters fought with their own company to the point of getting fired. Why would any employee do that? I don't understand this part, I don't see Microsoft programmers fighting Microsoft to the point of getting fired, etc. Is it one of those "journalism" things? Thanks. 84.153.183.38 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The employees alleged that each of the 80+ times that the Fox station "asked for documentation", as Kainaw put it, the station was editing their report to make Monsanto look good, avoiding the truth of their findings. It's an "integrity" thing, the reporters allege, not just a "journalism" thing — to make up a cartoonish example, suppose you worked at the Washington Post and did a lot of work for a year on a story that showed that President Richard M. Nixon had illegally obstructed justice, but your editor rewrote your story so it said that Nixon was a really legal guy who was enthusiastic about tiny radios and locksmithing. The reporters would try to raise hell internally to try to get the real story published, to the point of getting fired, yes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose to be fair we could also paint it the other way, and compare the reporters to UFO cranks trying to get the paper to publish a story about aliens they have convinced themselves are concealed in Area 51. Which would still be a matter of integrity, if they are sincere. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to be neutral and not claim that their story was real truth or Michael Moore-style truth. I've never seen the story that they wanted to run and I don't know if it was ever published. However, the claim that Fox News argued that they have the right to tell complete lies on air is not entirely true. They claimed that an FCC policy is not a law and cannot be applied as a law. -- kainaw™ 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is not Fox News, the network, but a news program on a local Fox-affiliated television station. So hopefully the OP isn't trying to link this to the blustery infotainment of Fox News. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the OP is trying to link this to Fox News. It is much more likely that the OP read in a blog somewhere that Fox News is so evil that they went to court to get the right to lie about the news. Luckily, the OP came here validate that claim. -- kainaw™ 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

is there any way to "own more than 100%" of a company?

Would there be any way to "own more than 100%" of a company, for example such that if all of the outstanding shares are valued at $1 million dollars, then you have $1.1 million dollars, because you "own" 110% of the company (it is okay if it is not really "owning" but rather some kind of complex derivative), and if the outstanding shares double in value, putting the market cap of the company at $2 million, then you can monetize $2.2 million instead, with the same 110% ownership... ? I realize it is a long shot, but I know options can be quite leveraged, so I thought maybe there is some kind of financial leverage with this effect... naturally I am only talking metaphorically when I say "own". THank you. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See short selling. It involves selling borrowed shares, but the person you borrow them from still effectively owns them (and profits if the share price goes up). So, if you own 100% of the shares and then I borrow 10% of those shares from you and sell them to you, you will effectively own 110% of the shares. Your extra profit comes from my loss (since I effectively own -10% of the shares, so lose money if the share price goes up). --Tango (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For securities lending, I thought that you needed to borrow the shares from a third party though. Googlemeister (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the OP owns 100% of the company, you borrow 10% of them from him, sell them them to me and I then sell than back to the OP. It makes no difference. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It still strikes me as preposterous that you can own 110% of a company, any more then you can own 110% of an apple pie. Hypothetically, if you own an apple pie (100%) and you agree to let your brother short sell 10% of the pie so that you can buy it, you still do not have more then 100% of the pie. That would be like him borrowing $20 from you so that he can pay you the $20 he owes. It might make sense if he borrows the $20 from a third party, but from you? Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "owner". The person that the shares have been borrowed from still gains or loses money (either from share price changes or dividends) as if they owned the shares (since the borrower has to pay any dividends and they can make the borrower give back the shares if they want to sell them), so they do effectively still own that portion of the company. Here's a reference if you want one: [28]. The only difference is that the person the shares are borrowed from no longer has the voting rights of the shares. [29] --Tango (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter v. Lane [1900]

I'm looking for the actual detail of the case - original records of some sort as a reference for a project on which I am working. I can't find any transcripts or rulings online. Are there any online? If not, are there any direct references to printed copies I could simply copy (it's not that important, I don't need to have seen it myself). It's a landmark case in IP law in the UK, but I've had no luck. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the ref at Walter v Lane any good to you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict to show I'd read that article. It's a start, but more would be better. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some context might help. In my (limited) experience, references to case law is normally given in a fashion such as Walter v Lane 1900, A.C. 539 H.L., and lawyers &c will be able to use the AC539 index number to find the case in the Official Law Reports, published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (or in republications thereof). The AC539 reference is based on the Oxford Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities; It is not normal to give an academic reference pointing to this page in that book if one wants to cite the case or its results. Do you need a better reference than the ones the professionals use? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reply, but untended) OK, I see. What I've got is two issues. Firstly, the reference, for which your suggestion would be perfect, and some notion of the text of the ruling itself, to tie to it/quote from it. Since we've got the reference part, the question now becomes: is the text of the ruling online somewhere? Failing that, it is in a more mainstream book that I could request my county library? I could possibly lay my hands on the All-England or official Law Reports, but I'm trying to avoid that. Thanks again. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to LexusNexus Butterworths? Does your library? That'd surely be the easiest way to get it. All-England or official Law Reports paper volumes second choice. Finding it anything other than summarised in a few short sentences of the sort we have in our article in another publication is, I fear, most unlikely. Is the context of your use such that providing that sort of summary and referencing it with the AC539 reference will not work? A Walter v. Lane 1900 google search will give you a range of short descriptions of the case from which you can synthesise your own. Apologies if I'm going off beam. And it sucks that the case report is not online, since it's surely in the public domain by now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All good suggestions. Some LexisNexis stuff is available online using the computers in the library now I check (vaguely called "statutes, legal cases, law reports and more") which I think is a fair bet. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, if you can navigate through its interface, you'll likely get there. I had a look through Free Case Law Resources on the web and went into British and Irish Legal Information Institute but couldn't find it. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have any luck with the above methods you can try the resource request. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

handguns in the b.w.c.a.

May one carry a hand gun(concealed or not)in the boundry waters canoe area for protection. If so, what credentials must one possess to do so leagally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.13.60 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice, per Wikipedia Policy. Sorry. Ask the Law Enforcement authorities responsible for the boundry waters canoe area. Falconus^{p t c} 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Law enforcement authorities cannot give legal advice either. The question was a request for information, which we can give. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Guns are allowed. Fireworks are not. [http://www.boundarywatersoutfitters.com/bwca-rules.htm Rmhermen (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota state laws pertaining to guns apply in the BWCA. I believe that you need a "permit to carry" which allows handguns to be carried either openly or concealed. Buddy431 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

authoritarian and libertarian nations

which nations are authoritarian and which are libertarian? -- 19:50, 3 June 2010 74.14.118.149

Are you referring to widespread national attitudes or government structures? Any dictatorship is "authoritarian" in the second respect. New Hampshire is often considered to be rather libertarian within the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

China, North Korea and Iran would be considered authoritarian by many people. Perhaps Holland, Sweden, New Zealand might be considered somewhat more libertarian than others; if you want a few quick examples. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Really (re Sweden)? Some people remember news articles of past years about how Swedish parents are very restricted in the names they can give to their children, and sometimes are only allowed to paint their houses in one of a few pre-approved colors. The popular perception of Sweden in the U.S. is much more as being a socialist country than libertarian... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree there. Considering the examples, I'd say there is a bit of a mix-up between libertarian and liberal in the sense of far away from moral values based conservatism. That's possibly what those countries do have in common, but it is does not fit the common interpretation of libertarian./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all relative. What do you want to use as a central point? --Tango (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Political compass (the chart at right)...basically, there is no real "center", just the four quadrants. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is how I remember all this being described in my history classes. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a central region in those definitions, but there is still a point at the centre and it is pretty arbitrary where you put it. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I recommend checking out the article "List of indices of freedom". Gabbe (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Mongol tax

before Genghis Kahn, was there any? (I assume he needed tax to pay for his postal system and possibly the army, if they weren't forced into it; also I read that one of his laws exempted priests from tax.) 81.131.66.164 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Tibet had lots of taxes, and most monks were exempt. I also heard somewhere that Tibet and Mongolia used a similar social and political system at one time or another, but I don't know if Mongolia before Genghis Khan was much Buddhist. Rimush (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

One vote makes a difference?!

Last Sunday, Austrian Burgenland elected a new Landtag. This is not very interesting for the rest of the world, however one single vote made a subtantial difference there: Of 188,960 votes, all parties needed to win at least 4% or 7558.4 votes, and one managed exactly 7559, causing the strongest party to lose the absolute majority. Have there been other cases like this in history? --KnightMove (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just speculating, but in small rural towns I wouldn't be surprised if elections (relatively) frequently come down to 3 votes or less (imagine, for example, elections in Frederick, Kansas or Gross, Nebraska), but on a larger scale, I would assume this is much rarer. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall a short newspaper blurb about a sheriff's election in California from 15 years ago in which he won by one vote. "Fortunately, I voted for myself," he was quoted as having said. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that every November, there is a story in the U.S. about some local election somewhere that resulted in a tie and had to be settled by a coin flip or some other game of chance. Since the U.S. has elections for districts as small as a precinct, let alone towns with fewer than 100 people, tie or one-vote-margin elections likely happen all the time. When I was growing up, the local school levy (in a community of nearly 100,000 people) passed by a margin of one vote. One problem is that, as we learned from the Bush-Gore election, elections in the U.S. often have a "margin of error" that might be greater than the actual margin. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

History of the Identification Card

Hello I was just wondering when humans started using identification cards or photo IDs. I figure photo IDs came about after the camera was invented, obviously, so probably around the 1800's. What country started using them first? What sorts of information was on them? Who used them? Why are they the size they are? LorenLorenvf (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Our very long article Identity document doesn't have any information about its history, though the first link in "External Links" is to some sort of collective blog about the history of ID cards. I'll raise the point on the article's discussion page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)